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.