Jimquisition: Stupid Sexy Bayonetta

[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?

 

[Kohen Keesing]

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

Makes me wonder why you brought it up then, unless you were implying some point about everyone else's opinions, though.

 

[Fiairflair]

Most definitely agree about not sticking the "however..." on, though I think the cliche is "but...".

It's funny you mention that. It is that distinction that leads me to disagree with Jim. "However" says that the argument to follow is not diminished by an aforementioned belief or principle. At the same time, it doesn?t necessarily mean that the latter argument diminishes the former one. "But" is used when the argument to follow conflicts with the aforementioned principle, as a rebuttal.

I think it's great if people can express multifaceted arguments, even when one facet is very important. However, I haven't read the comments Jim was referring to and, chances are, he is right to criticise them.

The far worse sin, however, is not using commas around the word "however" when you ought to

 

[Thanatos2k]

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

Makes me wonder why you brought it up then, unless you were implying some point about everyone else's opinions, though.

I'd like to hope people are demanding better from their games journalism, and aren't satisfied with the low quality that we have now.

 

[DragonDai]

Don't think I've ever disagreed more strongly with Jim before. Actually, at least as far as this show goes, I don't think I've EVER disagreed with Jim before. We have some differences when it comes to a certain online debate currently, but up until this point I've still found his input and insights valuable, even if I didn't agree with them. This video was not insightful or valuable, for the most part.

There was some good stuff. Encouraging discussions/dialog is good. That's something everyone should try to do more of. Saying it's okay to enjoy a game while still being able to understand it's flaws/the flaws other people see in it is also a good point. But anything in this video that was good he's said before, and better.

There are also all sorts of problems in this video. And one comes hot and heavy right at the front. On the one had, I agree. There should NEVER be a qualifier to denouncing harassment. Harassment is ALWAYS bad, no one EVER deserves it, END OF STORY, PERIOD. However (see what I did there?) there are plenty of ways to attach the word "however" to that line of reasoning that in NO WAY invalidate the first point. For instance, statements like:

"No one should ever harass people who like banana flavored ice cream, however I find it to be gross."
"No one should ever harass this reviewer for giving a lower numerical score and hurting this game's Metacritic score just because the reviewer had a moral qualm with the lead character being named Ian, however I think Ian is a fine name."
"No one should ever harass this personality for saying X, Y, Z, however, the vast majority of what that person said is half-truths, at best, and outright lies more often than not, and here's evidence proving this."

All of these statements are 100% okay to say. There is nothing wrong with any of this. Harassment is bad, 100% of the time, however, criticism of one's work is not harassment of the person doing the work, and harassment does not, under any circumstances, shield a person from criticism.

Just like I don't have to start eating banana ice cream by the gallon full because some dude who loves banana ice cream (or maybe produces banana ice cream) got harassed, neither do I have to like certain peoples work just because they got harassed. And just like I can continue to announce to the world that I think banana ice cream is icky despite the fact that the banana ice cream loving/making dude got harassed, I can continue to announce to the world that certain peoples work is pure fabrication and lies despite that person getting harassed.

And, despite attempting to critically examine said persons work, I can still support them as a person, I can still denounce their harassers, and I can still be a part of a culture that does not promote harassment.

Moving on, Jim's main point in this video is what really bothers me, and I feel like it can be summed up thusly: "It's okay to like Bayonetta 2, it's okay to not like Bayonetta 2, it's okay to think it's not sexist/misogynistic, and it's okay to think it is. It's okay to review this game objectively, and it's also okay to hurt this game's Metacritic score based solely on the fact that you think boobies are bad (and if Polygon subracted 2.5 points for ANY reason OTHER than their social agenda, there was no indication of it anywhere in the review...from reading the review, it seems that Polygon gave Bayoneta a 10/10 for all of the stuff that matters and than decided to take off 2.5 points "cause boobies").

There are two problems with the statement above. The first is that it is NOT okay to dock a game's Metacritic score because you personally have a moral or societal concern with a video game. It's simply not okay to do that. A LARGE # of people aren't going to bother to read your review. They aren't even going to bother to go to their site. They are gana load up Metacritic and check the number score and nothing else and decided to purchase the game based on that. They won't know you're nuanced reason for marking the game down. They won't realize that you think it is the pinnacle of action gaming, but boobies make it not get all the points. And this isn't a small group of people. This is a LARGE group of people, and a group that is growing pretty rapidly.

Now Bayonetta isn't going to get hurt because of this. Bayonetta is a large game, and the VAST majority of review sites are doing the right thing and not letting their moral or societal compunctions stand in the way of giving Bayonetta the score it deserves based on it's merits as a game and not as social commentary. But this won't always be the case. A smaller game won't have this sort of overwhelming coverage. There will be far less reviews on it, and therefore each reviews # grade will affect it far more. And that means that a review or two that take 1/4th of the total points off for reasons completely unrelated to if the game is actually a good game or not could tank a smaller title.

I get that, as a critic or video game reviewer, you can't keep bias 100% out of your review. I get that maybe your opinion of Bayonetta is tainted because you're very uncomfortable with boobies or whatever. But it's really simple. When assigning a number grade (and ONLY when assigning a number grade) ask yourself this simple question: "Did I take off points because I feel this game does something morally or societally wrong?" If the answer is yes, fix your score.

And it's important to point out this ONLY comes into play if/when you give a numerical score. If in the body of the review you want to rail on against the evil of boobies for 12 paragraphs, fucking go for it man! Do that! If that's important to you, and you have a podium from which to speak about that, do it! You might get ridiculed a bit, and your review might get mocked, but at the end of the day, anyone with strong opinions about anything is going to receive a little ridicule if they make those opinions public. That's just how life works. But you're 100% welcome to discuss any and all moral/societal issues you have with a game, so long as it doesn't affect the # score at the end.

As for the second issue with the video, Jim seems to be saying that "All opinions are valid." I hear this a lot, but there's something that many people just don't understand about opinions. OPINIONS CAN BE WRONG!!!! Your opinion isn't sacrosanct. It's not immune to criticism. And it can be factually incorrect. You are welcome to hold the opinion that the Earth is flat or the center of the universe. You are WELCOME to hold those opinions. They are 100% factually incorrect opinions and you are a moron for holding them, but you can hold them.

Likewise, just because your opinion relates to a societal issue does not mean it can't be factually wrong. I could hold the opinion that "The Xbox 360 controller is inherently sexist." I'd be wrong, but I could hold that opinion. And this is the thing that Jim misses. You could say there are problems with Bayonetta, because boobies or crotch shots or butt shots. You could say those things...you'd be wrong, but you could say those things. You could hold those opinions. You could hold the opinion that even though your penalized for doing so and you have to go out of your way and possibly jeopardize the successful completion of your mission, because Hitman lets you kill a stripper in exactly 1 of the many levels of the game, it's sexist and awful. You'd be wrong, but you could hold that opinion.

It's important to realize that you wouldn't just be subjectively wrong. You'd be OBJECTIVELY, FACTUALLY wrong. Words have meanings. Sexist and Misogynistic have meanings. They have meanings that are written down and agreed upon. Meanings that can't be changed willy nilly so that a person can use them as a weapon against anything they don't like. You may dislike the crotch shots and ass shots in Bayonetta. You may dislike her costume. You may dislike the way she talks or acts. No one is going to force you to buy the game (this is a really important point). But the minute you, falsely, apply the label of sexist or misogynistic to that game, you are trying to force people to NOT buy the game. See how that works? If you don't like it, if you think it's morally or societally flawed, NO ONE is going to even try to force you to buy it! NOT A SINGLE PERSON. But the moment you apply a label like sexist or misogynistic to the game, you are trying to force EVERYONE to not buy it. You are attempting to guilt and shame EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE ENTIRE PLANET into not buying that game. If that isn't your intent, than don't apply a label like sexist, misogynistic, racist, or other labels that imply HATRED of a group of people. Implying that something is misogynistic implies that it hates women, and, by extension, anyone who uses or associates with that something is also misogynistic and also hates women. HATES. When you say misogyny, you say HATE. Hate is a REALLY strong word.

So I think the point of this overlong rambling is that, Jim, you need to realize that not all opinions are equal, some opinions are wrong, and it's not okay for a reviewer to try to force people to not play a game because they have a moral or societal objection to the game. Not ever.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't particularly care for Bayonetta. I don't care for that kind of "sexy" behavior. However if she is indeed a well rounded character that has agency in her sexuality then I applaud that.