Jimquisition: Stupid Sexy Bayonetta

[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.

 

[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.

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.

I personally don't trust reviews in the least. Not because they're of "Low Quality" - which by the way is the kind of subjectivity you seem to be shunning, coughdetectinghypocrisycough - but simply because they're someone else's opinion about a very subjective and personalized medium like games. The only time I refer to a review is when I honestly don't know what to think about a game or am "unable to acquire some play time" in order to make my own assessments of a game.

It seems, though, that what you're looking for in a videogame review is some inhuman and bias-free collation of game concepts like controls, story flow, or AI complexity that can objectively tell you whether you're going to like a game before you even play it yourself.

This is something I would suggest is, actually, not possible: the fact there is a human doing the reviewing makes it impossible. Reviews are inherently subjective things: bugs and glitches may be found by one reviewer and not another and will likely colour their review; One person's definition of 'sticky' or 'clunky' controls might be another reviewer's definition of 'intuitive' or 'smooth'; where one person finds a combat or interface system like E.Y.E's to be tedious and hard to navigate, someone else might find it to be presented perfectly for them.

The same reason I take next-to-no stock in game reviews is the same reason I don't listen to people judging, say, Films or Music, because I can't form a 'review' of it myself until I've experienced it myself.

 

[Aikayai]

Remember the days when people didn't care about what other people said on the internet? I miss those days.

I also miss those days before the internet when people talked to each other in person and got smacked in the teeth for being a dick so maybe my opinion is pretty lacklustre.

 

[Don Incognito]

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.

Oh goodness me. A reviewer is trying to FORCE PEOPLE to not play a game, are they? Barging into their homes and snapping the disc in half, is he?

 

[Baresark]

No matter how much I hate sites like RPS and Polygon, when they give their opinion on a game, they are more than welcome to their opinion and more than welcome to write it how they want. They do far more disturbing things than say Bayonetta is so sexy it's uncomfortable. They do things like character assassinate developers that don't agree with them or they do not agree with (see the followups on comments about the game Hatred).

It's not a bad mark against the game to get a good score of 7.5. Also, I find it strange that people are OK with scores all over the place on some games, but in a game like Bayonetta it's not acceptable that it got a less than perfect score. And at least they were transparent and openly admitted why the game had points taken away. They didn't try to hide it from the public and sell the game as less fun than anyone else thought it was.

 

[Kohen Keesing]

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

Umm.... I'm just going to point out that that sentence sound REALLY DODGY if you say it out loud, around other people

 

[jthwilliams]

We don't see Bayonetta renting movies and having a relaxing night at home with some popcorn. We don't see Bayonetta filing up her car with gas, or doing her taxes or washing her clothes.

I agree with your point, but I wanted to say that the above would make a horrible game. Well potentially, I guess the Sims gets away with it and I have even played and enjoyed the sims, but ... "Bayonetta does Chores" probably wouldn't sell.

 

[Grampy_bone]

I love Bayonetta. The controls are perfect. So fast, responsive, tight; easy to pull off with loads of depth. Building the combat around the dodging mechanic is Hideki Kamiya's brilliance at its finest. So many cool weapons, the enemies are always fun to fight and the level design is quite creative. Plus, the over-the-top epic moments, like riding a motorcyle up a series of rockets into space in order to punch a giant god into the sun... how can anyone not absolutely love that? Bayonetta 2 has persuaded me to buy a Wii U.

...oh, wait, what, you're not talking about the gameplay, you're all just obsessed with what she's wearing?! What are you all, sexist???

 

[Erttheking]

I cant be the only one thinking that lowering game score for something that is quite obvious and subjective is stupid.

Quite stupid.

Oh you mean subjective like whether the game is bad or good? Because that's kind subjective. And it's what reviews are talking about.

Yes, luckily there are also things that are objective, like, for example performance, amount of bugs, fluidity of controls. In fact, every game genre has a set of their own genre-specific qualities.

If you think that professional reviews are 100% subjective opinions, then you haven't really been paying attention.... or you've been reading low-quality reviews.

Yeah and how well the mechanics handle take up, what, 10% of the review? Because let me tell you that there are plenty of mechanically sounds bug free games out there that are still boring as sin and just bad games.(Gears of War, Kane and Lynch, Dead Space 3, the Mountain, Gone Home) If you just focus on mechanics, you miss the soul of a game. Destiny's shooting mechanics work just fine. That doesn't make it any less repetitive.

Oh yeah, because I totally said that.

 

[Kohen Keesing]

I love Bayonetta. The controls are perfect. So fast, responsive, tight; easy to pull off with loads of depth. Building the combat around the dodging mechanic is Hideki Kamiya's brilliance at its finest. So many cool weapons, the enemies are always fun to fight and the level design is quite creative. Plus, the over-the-top epic moments, like riding a motorcyle up a series of rockets into space in order to punch a giant god into the sun... how can anyone not absolutely love that? Bayonetta 2 has persuaded me to buy a Wii U.

...oh, wait, what, you're not talking about the gameplay, you're all just obsessed with what she's wearing?! What are you all, sexist???

SOMEONE SAID IT
OH MY STERLING

 

[doomrider7]

I'll just give my two cents. A reviewer can give it ANYTHING they review whatever score they good goddamn well please as it's their review and use whatever metric they want as long as they make it clear. If the guy at Polygon docked some points of the game because of personal reasons that made him uncomfortable in his case, the rather gratuitous sexuality of the game, then that's fine as along as he says so in the review since it's a perfectly valid argument and metric. The INSTANT you start holding back on your criticism because you're worried about the devs not meeting some quite frankly shady as all fuck quota or criteria about scores in order to win bonuses, then you need to work on your profession choices better. If certain parts of the game, a scene, a gameplay feature, ANYTHING at any point made your enjoyment of the game less in any way then it's very much review worthy and should be included. On top of this, it's ONE average review people and reviews are always to some level subjective and based on personal taste and that's fine. That's why we have MULTIPLE reviews from MULTIPLE SOURCES so that we can evaluate if the games is right for us.

 

[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.

I personally don't trust reviews in the least. Not because they're of "Low Quality" - which by the way is the kind of subjectivity you seem to be shunning, coughdetectinghypocrisycough - but simply because they're someone else's opinion about a very subjective and personalized medium like games. The only time I refer to a review is when I honestly don't know what to think about a game or am "unable to acquire some play time" in order to make my own assessments of a game.

It seems, though, that what you're looking for in a videogame review is some inhuman and bias-free collation of game concepts like controls, story flow, or AI complexity that can objectively tell you whether you're going to like a game before you even play it yourself.

This is something I would suggest is, actually, not possible: the fact there is a human doing the reviewing makes it impossible. Reviews are inherently subjective things: bugs and glitches may be found by one reviewer and not another and will likely colour their review; One person's definition of 'sticky' or 'clunky' controls might be another reviewer's definition of 'intuitive' or 'smooth'; where one person finds a combat or interface system like E.Y.E's to be tedious and hard to navigate, someone else might find it to be presented perfectly for them.

The same reason I take next-to-no stock in game reviews is the same reason I don't listen to people judging, say, Films or Music, because I can't form a 'review' of it myself until I've experienced it myself.

You dislike them because almost every professional review is of the "This is what I liked and didn't like" format. So naturally they're not valuable to you.

Exactly as I said. Professional reviews need to be better.

By the way, the best way you can tell me if I'm going to like a game or not is compare and contrast it to other games in the same genre I know I like or don't like. That would require some actual experience in gaming, and doing some extra work with research. Which is beyond your average reviewer's abilities.

 

[Erttheking]

And no there isn't any implication that there's something wrong with you, because the man just has a different opinion, that's all. You shouldn't feel threatened by that.

I was just saying that's how it could very well be received, and from discussions i've seen where the Polygon review has been mentioned that seems to have been the general interpretation. Either that or people have just joked about how immature or unsure someone has to be of their own sexuality to feel uncomfortable or disgusted by the sexual elements of the game. In any case there's always some who will argue that the intention of a message isn't as important as its interpretation and that a good message misunderstood as a bad one can be highly detrimental to that message as a result. Whether you agree with that or not? Well i imagine that's not something that needs to be discussed here.

And to be perfectly honest i don't care what reviewers have said. As i stated in my original post; it's a character action game from Platinum. I'll buy it, play it, enjoy it, and i couldn't care less what other people think (EDIT: About the ethics of it).

As for review formats: I don't feel like derailing this, and also i have a feeling my opinion won't do much to sway anyone else's opinion. That's kinda the thing about internet opinions. Nobody ever fucking changes their opinion.

To be honest, anyone who thinks that way over one review needs to take a step back and relax. Not every review is a grand political statement, heck I'm half sure the guy from Polygon didn't even think his review was that big of a deal, I imagine it was just him giving his opinion. Personally I would feel rather insulted if anyone insisted feeling uncomfortable around an overabundance of boobs was a sign of immaturity. Some people are uncomfortable with sex. nothing wrong with that.

And that's what I'm saying. One person giving it a review that basically says "Good but could be better" shouldn't even be a blip on everyone's radar. It's inconsequential. It's like how everyone freaked out when Gamespot gave Twilight Princess an 8.8.

No offense man but...I doubt you're above the influence here. I'm not, I'll admit it.

 

[Biran53]

I just hope this isn't a repeat of when some particularly vocal individuals were getting worked up over a critic (I believe at Gamespot?) had the "gall" to bestow GTA5 with the INSULTING score of 9 / 10. All because she felt slightly uncomfortable with the game's persistent lack of concern with any form of potentially offensive subtext.

That whole ordeal had me laughing and sighing. Lighing? Saughing?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Obviously, if giving a game a lower score than other sites, thus reducing the Holy Metacritic score persuades Publishers to harm Developers, the only logical and moral thing for reviewers to do is give every game a 10/10.

It would be a shame if anything happened to these developers if you give a game a bad score right? You wouldn't want to hurt other people right?

#protectionracket

 

[Cronenberg1]

There is a difference between saying "I have personal problems with Bayonetta as a character" and "Everyone should have personal problems with Bayonetta as a character, I'm docking the score to show this to you and to punish the developers, and if you think otherwise I'm deleting your comments."

And this is why game journalism needs to be reformed.

Reviews aren't journalism, they are the reviewers personal opinions. 100% objective criticism is boring and impossible. If a reviewer has a problem with the depiction of a character in a piece of media then they should be able to include it in the review without fear of ridicule.

Agreed, and if a person wants to indulge in the pipe dream of 'objective criticism', they should stop begging to be nannied by the system and instead go over to Amazon, Gamespot, Bestbuy, every single gaming site, etc... and start tabulating and averaging every single user review and, after the 2-3 years it takes to produce a cogent 'x/10'-format score within a reasonable range of statistical uncertainty, then they'll have something that...well, still isn't objective, but might be close enough to have kept them safe from all of that dangerous SJW/Illuminati bias. Meanwhile, the rest of the consumer world will be blissfully enjoying Bayonetta 5, but those people are all just being used by corrupt game journalism, so their spending power counts for nothing in a real 'gamers' market.

Just tabulating reviews? what about all the people who didn't write reviews but still have opinions? Obviously the only REAL way to review a game would be to poll the entire population of the human race(unless they're feminists) and then average it out. As long as critics follow you're corrupt model of criticism games journalism will continue to be a hive of SJWs and political correctness.