Jimquisition: Stupid Sexy Bayonetta

[Toadfish1]

The "Bayonetta has agency over her sexuality...that her creator is making her do" stuff seems incredibly weak when you consider that it also covers roughly 90% of actions of female leads in "MILF" porno - the proud woman who knows what she wants (hint - the poolboys cock) and takes her own actions towards getting it. Its just another form of male wish fulfillment, the nympho older woman, but it undermines her because ultimately, she is still ruled and defined entirely by her sexuality. Her sexuality is channelled in this case, but its all her sexuality nonetheless.

But that's what gives Bayonetta and the MILF their respective characters. They're the ones driving their motivations and controlling them, and it seems relevant to their characters. Also, you're making an assumption there that these ideas are driven by male wish-fulfillment. Is it not possible that a woman watches MILF porn, as in your example, because they want to see a female intiating and leading? Your statement seems to be falling on the side of "open sexuality is bad".... in which case, I have to refer you back to Kuro Serpentina's youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbSL2wvlq0Q

Did you just try to argue that MILF porno is pro-woman?

Open sexuality is not the problem, being defined and given agency solely by your sexuality is the problem.

 

[ajr209]

As I assume someone has pointed out already, the problem with the Polygon review is when you actually read it. The critic was a hypocrit about it, and even admitted such. He loved the game, he loved the action, and then smashed the score down just because he felt it was sexist. That is zero journalistic or critical integrity.

Mention that it makes you uncomfortable, mention that you are worried about it's potential sexist nature, but grade it on a completely critical level. He clearly didn't do this, as reading the review he makes it apparent he really enjoyed the game, then slashed the score down a few knocks for his social and moral beliefs. At that point you are soap boxing, and not critiquing.

Which then brings up the other issue, the reviewer in question is Polygon's reviews editor, and has a history of annoyance with the series. Being the editor, he CHOOSE to review a game he had a problem with instead of assigning it to someone else. If that doesn't scream agenda, I don't know what does.

actually it would have been zero integrity if the reviewer had given it the better score just to pander to people who don't want to see the issues with the way the industry portrays women, and all minorities in general. It was something that made the game less enjoyable for the reviewer and that the reviewer knew might be a deal breaker for some consumers. Would you trust a reviewer who left things out of their reviews or didn't adjust their scores for things that made an otherwise great experience less enjoyable?

 

[Kohen Keesing]

Did you just try to argue that MILF porno is pro-woman?
Open sexuality is not the problem, being defined and given agency solely by your sexuality is the problem.

In response to both of those sentences, It can be if you choose to perceive it that way.

Are you one of those people who argues that pornography is degrading and exploitative to women? Because I personally know people involved in 'the industry' who do, actually, view their jobs as a source of power or leverage over males - if you want the sinister side - and as a source of personal esteem and emotional strength if you want the less sinister. What I'm saying is being given agency by sexuality is no different to being given agency by physical strength, or military rank, or any other concept. They are a means to the same end.

In gaming too, there are only so many times you can see the brave hero like Commander Shepard or the worn-weary characters like BJ Blazkowicz before those characters get old and 'meh'.
Eventually we want to see something else, and once you've done characters with intelligence, physical prowess, luck, and emotion as their driving character traits, there are very few other options for a main character trait, powerful sexuality being one of them.

Also, of course I think ANY (non-homosexual) porn is pro-woman. It provides them with employment, a source of self-acceptance and -esteem in many cases as I mentioned before, they enjoy it - I'm not seeing the downside here.

 

[Ipsen]

As social parallel, there are occasions, say, with racism, where the "However..." and "But..." are necessary.

For example:

"I'm not racist, but keep an eye out for Rick, he likes stealing people's Bic Lighters"

Now, if Rick is black, and you didn't use the "I'm not racist, but...." line, there are people who would immediately assume you were being racist.

No, you don't need the "I'm not racist" portion at all.

Assuming this is a conversation/scenario vacuum sealed from racial identity so far, the teller brings race into the receiver's mind then and there.

If you just say 'Keep an eye out for Rick....', then that's targeting specifically that person for the actions they habitually. The teller is not responsible for any racial discrimination the receiver makes from that point forward, even if just learning of Rick's race, and especially when Rick is apparently more likely to perform some more harmful and immediate action than most likely any of the receiver's racial preconceptions are. But this is all in trust that the teller isn't racially biased himself (knows Rick and his race already).

As of our current culture's outlook, sure, the second statement would likely hold up. But just because it's our culture now, doesn't make it clear or right.

 

[Thanatos2k]

A bad review is a personal opinion. A professional review attempts to be objective criticism.

What almost every single professional game reviewer out there fails to realize is their purpose.

A professional review is not supposed to tell me whether the reviewer liked the game. A professional review is supposed to tell me whether *I* will like the game. You do this by objectively analyzing the technical merits of the game, comparing and contrasting the game with others like it, and then perhaps going into what does or does not work about the story/characters/etc from a structural level. NOT injecting your own personal ideology, because your ideology is probably not my ideology and thus serves no purpose in informing me properly about the reviewed game. If you want to mention what elements of the game may be of interest or disinterest to me then so be it (ex: feminists may not like the themes in this game = ok. This game has sexist themes = not ok) but keep your politics in your pocket.

Game reviewers almost never understand this, and most go with a "This is what I liked and didn't like" review which is of limited use to anyone. That's why people in large consider game reviews to be a joke.

Escapists, PLEASE. No more objective > subjective talk.... It just...doesn't....work....

You're suggesting that 'objective review's' work by:

analyzing the technical merits of the game, comparing and contrasting the game with others like it, and then perhaps going into what does or does not work about the story/characters/etc from a structural level.

....and we're NOT going to, with 'subjective' matters cut, argue over the meaning of these 'objective' facets? If we can agree that this is at least a possibility, then at least your facets of objective review are not as objective/more subjective than you think.

I think what you want is clear-cut areas with no room for argument as the core focus of reviews. I think you want this if just only to silence the ideological babble that happens so often now. However, even eschewing the notion that this would never happen, that review won't tell us much, if the reviewer is truly dedicated to objectivity. For as soon as the reviewer starts injecting his or her own ideas....It's subjective. They subject us to their ideas, at that point, and from there, we have to agree or disagree (hell, for semantics sake, they subject us to their idea of objective reviews in that case, even).

Moral of the story? Objects/concepts strictly existing is objectivity. Subjecting shit is what we, as people, do. It's how we understand the things around us. We don't get away from this.

At no point did I state that eliminating subjectivity is possible. I said that you should be as objective *as possible* and that's the important point.

Some of these reviews the reviewer doesn't even try. Those are the worst.

 

[F.Dubois]

Of course people can dislike Bayonetta and of course one could have a discussion with these people but they are objectively wrong a discussion about the games could only serve to make them angry, because they are wrong.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Snip

First, you still contract the statement you made, in that reviewers give Metacritic their scores. And it's Metacritic who asks.

And I take issue with what you think are "bad reviewers." It sounds to me, all this time, is you have issues with reviews that go against your own opinions. That's fine, but saying that they should be removed is irresponsible. By who's criteria should we go about in saying what reviews should go? Should we remove reviews that give what someone considers a bad game a good score? Should we remove reviews that give what one considers a great game a very low score? Your solution causes a new mess of problems, and solves nothing.

I explained what makes a professional review. Those who don't do that are bad reviewers, in my opinion.

And who is to say that your view is the standard that everyone should hold to? What makes you such a trusted authority?

As you said, its your opinion. That's fine. And it is also fine to criticize reviews that don't hold to your standards. I disagree with what you think makes a professional review. And we can agree to disagree.

But, once again, just because some people think a review is bad doesn't qualify for it not being used, especially in Metacritic. Otherwise, there would be no reviews, scores or not.

25+ years experience playing video games. Basic logic. Riddle me this - what is the point of a professional review? To inform the consumer on whether the game is worth purchasing or not. That is its only purpose. I repeat - only purpose.

A review that does not attempt to inform me whether I will like the game and whether it's worth my money is worthless. It's just someone's opinion at that point. I can find that in some forum post somewhere. Thousands of such opinions if I wanted to look for them. A professional review must have a higher standard, or what are they even there for?

 

[Kohen Keesing]

As social parallel, there are occasions, say, with racism, where the "However..." and "But..." are necessary.

For example:

"I'm not racist, but keep an eye out for Rick, he likes stealing people's Bic Lighters"

Now, if Rick is black, and you didn't use the "I'm not racist, but...." line, there are people who would immediately assume you were being racist.

No, you don't need the "I'm not racist" portion at all.

Assuming this is a conversation/scenario vacuum sealed from racial identity so far, the teller brings race into the receiver's mind then and there.

If you just say 'Keep an eye out for Rick....', then that's targeting specifically that person for the actions they habitually. The teller is not responsible for any racial discrimination the receiver makes from that point forward, even if just learning of Rick's race, and especially when Rick is apparently more likely to perform some more harmful and immediate action than most likely any of the receiver's racial preconceptions are. But this is all in trust that the teller isn't racially biased himself (knows Rick and his race already).

As of our current culture's outlook, sure, the second statement would likely hold up. But just because it's our culture now, doesn't make it clear or right.

You're right, there shouldn't be a need for the "I'm not racist..." portion. There shouldn't, but sadly we live in a world where the idea of 'political correctness' exists, and someone simply being a certain colour, gender orientation, or anything else, can be picked up on by certain people as being your real intention, even when it isn't. Even though you're specifying Rick, it can still be overlooked. It's the same as when phrases like "those people" or similar are somehow, I really don't understand how but somehow, are perceived as racist.

The fact is, as you said, their racial identity or whatever else SHOULD be in a vacuum - it shouldn't even be a factor at all - but some people, in their own minds as they perceive what they've heard, cannot prevent themselves from making it a factor, and impressing that factor on the original speaker.

 

[I.Muir]

Personally my favorite reaction to not liking a game is to not buy it and let the wallet do the talking.

Bayonetta indeed has agency and doesn't that mean that touted claims of objectification are wrong? I think too many fall into the trap of thinking sexy is inherently sexist. Being offensive to some is not a reason for something to not exist.

 

[The Goat Tsar]

I agree with Jim that Bayonetta is not a sexist character. And Bayonetta 2 looks like a very good game. However, I will never play it because I live with people and I feel like if someone sees me playing Bayonetta 2 I'd have to explain myself to them. It's really pervy out of context and it's at best really weird even when in context. It'd make me too uncomfortable.

 

[Tono Makt]

Look, we people who disagree with the feminists feel like we have to put in "I don't condone violence, but" because if we don't people are going to assume we are condoning violence, because that's the broad stroke we've all been painted under. If we don't agree with your views then we are the hate spewing trolls that send out death threats to people we don't like on the internet.

So it's either we say our dislike of violence and death threats upfront (in which case you say you won't listen to us, because we really are condoning violence, just under the banner of not condoning it [how does that make sense again?]) or we don't, in which case we get accused of condoning violence simply because we don't think this whole "sexism in video games" is as big a problem as people are making it out to be, or because we want more ethical journalistic coverage. It's a lose lose.

Add to this the seeming fact that very few people want to actually discuss sexism/racism/etc. in video games and video game culture - we have our opinions on the matter, and anyone who disagrees with your position is wrong. This is something that is to be expected from we, the unwashed masses of the internet, posting on message board and destroying the English language on Twitter. It's stupid and self-defeating, but sadly to be expected.

This is where the Media comes into play - the Media can control, to a degree, the way an issue is discussed. The media can lead the way with discussion articles, information articles or general articles which make the attempt to remove as much bias as possible from the article, thereby setting a tone for the discussion afterward. And they can participate. That's one of the main legitimate criticisms of Anita Sarkessian - she doesn't participate in any discussions. She doesn't even allow discussions. Many of us will grant that it's not going to be easy for her to participate now, this late into the FemFreq life, but for people who will follow in her footsteps I hope they learn from her mistakes.

Regarding Agency and Bayonetta and Fictional Characters in general, I don't agree that both sides of that debate have some valid points. If I write a character who is female and highly sexual, and I make it clear in her stories that it is entirely her choice to be sexual, it is not a legitimate criticism to say that she has only as much Agency as I give her. In every story, for every character, the argument can be made that they have no Agency. Did Romeo have Agency in his life? King Lear? Ebeneezer Scrooge? Mr. Darcy? John Gault? Helen of Troy? Ron Weasly? The exact same Agency vs Non-Agency argument can be made for and against every character ever written. Because they are fictional characters they literally have no Agency over their lives - they don't exist in any way unless we write them! We literally dictate their every action, their every motivation, their every thought. So on one hand no fictional character can ever truly have Agency over their own lives.

This means that the illusion of Agency is paramount. Once we accept that no character ever written can ever have true Agency over their lives, the amount of Agency the writer gives the character in the story is the all-important discussion point. And far too often in games characters - particularly female characters - have little to no Agency in their own lives. That's one of the problems Video Games have had since their inception; you need to tell a story with the game (for the most part) and that story requires specific actions to be taken by specific characters. This limits the amount of agency that can be given to any character. Zelda can never free herself because that's what Link, aka The Player, is there to do. Link, aka the Player, cannot simply ignore Zelda and take over the world for himself because that is not an option in the game. He cannot decide to marry an NPC, nor can he create anything that is not in the game. He cannot take any actions that are not literally programmed into the game.

So the idea of Bayonetta having Agency over her sexuality is important. In this case it may be just an excuse to deflect some of the "Guys Just Want To Wank To Something Pretty" criticism that comes to any attractive and sexualized female character, but it's an important step to take for games. It contributes to precedent; future game developers can point to Bayonetta's sexual Agency as a reason for the agency of their own female character, which has a different Authorial Intent behind it but the end result is similar - a female character with agency over their sexuality.

 

[Homey C-Dawg]

Pro tip Jim; If people stopped accusing non-harassers of harassment, then people wouldn't have to say things like "I don't support harassment, but" when attempting to make the conversation about integrity.

 

[VoidOfOne]

Snip

First, you still contract the statement you made, in that reviewers give Metacritic their scores. And it's Metacritic who asks.

And I take issue with what you think are "bad reviewers." It sounds to me, all this time, is you have issues with reviews that go against your own opinions. That's fine, but saying that they should be removed is irresponsible. By who's criteria should we go about in saying what reviews should go? Should we remove reviews that give what someone considers a bad game a good score? Should we remove reviews that give what one considers a great game a very low score? Your solution causes a new mess of problems, and solves nothing.

I explained what makes a professional review. Those who don't do that are bad reviewers, in my opinion.

And who is to say that your view is the standard that everyone should hold to? What makes you such a trusted authority?

As you said, its your opinion. That's fine. And it is also fine to criticize reviews that don't hold to your standards. I disagree with what you think makes a professional review. And we can agree to disagree.

But, once again, just because some people think a review is bad doesn't qualify for it not being used, especially in Metacritic. Otherwise, there would be no reviews, scores or not.

25+ years experience playing video games. Basic logic. Riddle me this - what is the point of a professional review? To inform the consumer on whether the game is worth purchasing or not. That is its only purpose. I repeat - only purpose.

A review that does not attempt to inform me whether I will like the game and whether it's worth my money is worthless. It's just someone's opinion at that point. I can find that in some forum post somewhere. Thousands of such opinions if I wanted to look for them. A professional review must have a higher standard, or what are they even there for?

30+ years experience playing video games. I can play this game as well. And I don't see how any of these reviews don't meet YOUR purpose. You may want to consider that not everyone has the same standards, and not everyone should. That's why there are multiple reviews. Every review I've read always goes great lengths to tell you whether the game they're reviewing is worth getting or not, and addresses the many points they believe is of note. So I'm not sure where you find contention in these gaming reviews.

 

[Nurb]

She has sexuality oozing from her, and some men might like that... SO?

There's a wide variety of games now, and even more coming out to appeal to all moods and tastes, and people get angry when something so blantantly targeted to a male demographic (though bisexual women and lesbians most likely enjoy it too) gets made. That is not so horrible.

Sexualization is not a bad thing, it doesn't take away from the character, and some people like looking at pretty fictional characters.

It's not like books/movies don't use sex appeal as part of marketability when it comes to female demographics... Remember this?

Spoiler

Of course there's all the covers of those trashy gratuitous romance novels...

Spoiler

Though it spreads to real life and internet media in rather hypocritical ways...

Spoiler

.
.
.
So really, just let people like their guilty pleasures and get off their back for a while huh?

 

[xGrimReaperzZ]

"Misogyny" is probably the funniest of our society's imaginary problems.

You have definitely not seen misogynistic people, then, as a guy who lives in Saudi Arabia, i know how bad it can get when it comes to mysogyny, ofc it may be over-exaggerated how mysogynistic a character/game/movie/show (and even a person) really is in western cultures, but they're over-exaggerated for many reasons, one of them being that art is what a person interprets, not what an artist really meant.

I'll be enjoying Bay2 in a week thankyouverymuch.

And on a side note, i really enjoyed that comment about Dynasty Warriors, Jim!

 

[Thanatos2k]

Snip

First, you still contract the statement you made, in that reviewers give Metacritic their scores. And it's Metacritic who asks.

And I take issue with what you think are "bad reviewers." It sounds to me, all this time, is you have issues with reviews that go against your own opinions. That's fine, but saying that they should be removed is irresponsible. By who's criteria should we go about in saying what reviews should go? Should we remove reviews that give what someone considers a bad game a good score? Should we remove reviews that give what one considers a great game a very low score? Your solution causes a new mess of problems, and solves nothing.

I explained what makes a professional review. Those who don't do that are bad reviewers, in my opinion.

And who is to say that your view is the standard that everyone should hold to? What makes you such a trusted authority?

As you said, its your opinion. That's fine. And it is also fine to criticize reviews that don't hold to your standards. I disagree with what you think makes a professional review. And we can agree to disagree.

But, once again, just because some people think a review is bad doesn't qualify for it not being used, especially in Metacritic. Otherwise, there would be no reviews, scores or not.

25+ years experience playing video games. Basic logic. Riddle me this - what is the point of a professional review? To inform the consumer on whether the game is worth purchasing or not. That is its only purpose. I repeat - only purpose.

A review that does not attempt to inform me whether I will like the game and whether it's worth my money is worthless. It's just someone's opinion at that point. I can find that in some forum post somewhere. Thousands of such opinions if I wanted to look for them. A professional review must have a higher standard, or what are they even there for?

30+ years experience playing video games. I can play this game as well. And I don't see how any of these reviews don't meet YOUR purpose. You may want to consider that not everyone has the same standards, and not everyone should. That's why there are multiple reviews. Every review I've read always goes great lengths to tell you whether the game they're reviewing is worth getting or not, and addresses the many points they believe is of note. So I'm not sure where you find contention in these gaming reviews.

Well sure, some people have low standards. That's neither here nor there though.

 

[doomrider7]

I agree 100%.
I find Bayonetta to be a "strong female character" according to her actions and the plot and the story and all that...
But I find the presentation to be........................... too stripper.

Sort of how I find District 1 in the Hunger Games movies to be extremely homophobic...
Like I realize that rich opulence isn't inherently gay. (gay man anyways)
But the way the movies present rich opulence is.... just to make everyone look like drag queens and act like the stereotypical gay man or "poof".

Which, much like Bayonetta's presentation, has some intrinsic and problematic social ramifications.

Same. I like Bayonetta the character, but her overt sexuality is kind of off putting with how in your face it is sometimes.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm really glad this was made, and I say it as someone who sits in the opposite camp. Well, opposite on the end of Bayo's sexualisation. To be honest, I do often times give "refuge in audacity" to media, and I dare say I find this a more compelling argument for Bayonetta than the idea that she owns her sexuality.

However, more to the point, I'm glad someone is arguing that it's okay to disagree. And that someone is arguing that its okay to be critical and still enjoy something. Though I must say, Anita Sarkeesian said the same thing, and look where it got her.

But anyway, I'm a staunch believer of criticising the things I enjoy. And don't enjoy. We really shouldn't think things we like are above criticism, because nothing is. Except maybe the gloriousness of Jim Sterling.

I'm almost afraid to read the rest of the comments, though.

Also, are people seriously trying to get magazines blacklisted for not reviewing things the way they want them?