Jimquisition: Stupid Sexy Bayonetta

Wisq

New member
Mar 24, 2011
16
0
0
VectorSlip said:
I just have a quick question. I've seen a lot of arguments for subjectivity vs objectivity in reviews ITT and I wanted to ask something. If a reviewers piece is just 100% subjective and opinion
... which they actually always are (even so-called "objective" judgements are based on the reviewer's notion of what "objective" means) ...

then where does its value lie? Im not asking this to disparage any reviews in particular, I'm just genuinely curious.

If its just another person's opinion about a game then whats the point?
Well, for starters, they can detail what they liked and what they didn't like, and from their description, they can decide whether you would like those things or not.

But also: Really, unless something is a very very niche title and you're not part of that niche audience, most people are going to have fairly broadly similar opinions about a lot of things. Even the Polygon review in question was 7.5, not (say) 3, and said it was an "otherwise great game". If you look beyond just the score and read the article, I think you can come to a similar conclusion.

There are, of course, exceptions. I don't like MOBAs and MMOs as a rule. If I read good reviews of a new (traditional-style) MOBA or MMO, I'm still going to be skeptical. If I see bad reviews, no chance I'll be touching that. On the other hand, if I found a critic who disliked MOBAs/MMOs as much as I do, and they said they actually liked it, I might pay more attention.

It's all about context, and how much you agree with the principles and tastes upon which a reviewer judges a game.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
grassgremlin said:
Silentpony said:
Rellik San said:
Silentpony said:
SNIP
SNIP
Bayonetta's creator is female.
http://www.destructoid.com/platinum-only-a-woman-could-design-bayonetta-148258.phtml

There's an interview of her talking about the character on youtube.
Actually the reason why Hideki Kamiya is such a asshole is because people keep asking him a question about Bayonetta when he wasn't responsible for the game's creative decisions only responsible for directing the game.

In fact he didn't even work on Bayonetta 2.

Edit: He's only credited because he was part of the creation of the first game.
Yes I understand that, but does that mean Bayonetta isn't sexist? That she isn't pure fap material?
Are we to just assume women can't objectify other women, or indeed write a character that strips naked to kill monsters and it's all on the up and up?
Forgive me, but that sounds an awful lot like the whole "I have a black friend" argument. And wasn't it Jim who said in the Earth year 2066 episode that you can't claim to have done something 'ironically' while still selling it for full price and whatnot. Is Bayonetta supposed to be an ironic parody of the over sexualization of women in games, or is she the personification of it?
How deep does the irony REALLY go? If it's a selling point, and the game needs to make a profit, my guess would be not that deep.

Also I'll let you in on a dirty secret. Dominatrix power fantasies? Yeah, the dominatrix has no power what so ever. That's what the safe word is for. She, the dominatrix, dances entirely to her 'victims' tune. She stops when the victim says so, otherwise she's just a torturer.
It's the same logic when porn scenes involves a women pretending to be a teacher. Yes, we pretend and what not, but everyone knows she's not really a teacher and that her 'strong female character' isn't why any of us are here.
if Bayonetta whips monsters because we press buttons, if she does splits in front of the camera because we hit the QTEs, if she dances around in fetish outfits because we bought the DLC,if she strips naked and dances around because her writer, a female, wrote that was her character...
how much power does Bayonetta REALLY have?
 

grassgremlin

New member
Aug 30, 2014
456
0
0
Silentpony said:
Yes I understand that, but does that mean Bayonetta isn't sexist? That she isn't pure fap material?
Are we to just assume women can't objectify other women, or indeed write a character that strips naked to kill monsters and it's all on the up and up?
Forgive me, but that sounds an awful lot like the whole "I have a black friend" argument. And wasn't it Jim who said in the Earth year 2066 episode that you can't claim to have done something 'ironically' while still selling it for full price and whatnot. Is Bayonetta supposed to be an ironic parody of the over sexualization of women in games, or is she the personification of it?
How deep does the irony REALLY go? If it's a selling point, and the game needs to make a profit, my guess would be not that deep.

Also I'll let you in on a dirty secret. Dominatrix power fantasies? Yeah, the dominatrix has no power what so ever. That's what the safe word is for. She, the dominatrix, dances entirely to her 'victims' tune. She stops when the victim says so, otherwise she's just a torturer.
It's the same logic when porn scenes involves a women pretending to be a teacher. Yes, we pretend and what not, but everyone knows she's not really a teacher and that her 'strong female character' isn't why any of us are here.
if Bayonetta whips monsters because we press buttons, if she does splits in front of the camera because we hit the QTEs, if she dances around in fetish outfits because we bought the DLC,if she strips naked and dances around because her writer, a female, wrote that was her character...
how much power does Bayonetta REALLY have?
I get it . . . none.
I'm not making much a argument, I think you make a good point. You're right.
In that sense, yes, Bayonetta is sexist.

The problem lies in the fact the game itself is ridiculously campy.
It has refuge in audacity in of itself and her pandering attitude seems to be fueled from certain aspects of her development . . .


. . . but I can't defend. I think you've convinced me that I like a really sexist character archetype.
 

FFMaster

New member
May 13, 2009
88
0
0
Ok, with regards to the reviews and why marking games down for reasons of progressiveness or not being socially acceptable is bad, mainly because otherwise Jim loses his age old argument that people are not coming for the games you like and trying to remove them from the market. Bear with me while I explain.

Metacritic is generally hated for what it is, but its a necessary evil in the current world and is used by publishers with regards to bonuses. We also know that some companies rely on said bonuses to stay afloat as the devs get only a small part of the money pie and so tend to run on lowish margins. Because they need the margins they need the scores in some case.

This is why a lower scores for reasons of "i don't like the content because its not progressive" CAN have the effect of removing the games some people like from the industry. It directly threatens said bonuses, so people won't make the games and so they don't happen. Ones that do make the games don't get the publisher bonuses and so fold etc etc

Classic case of "I'm not saying you can't have it, but if you do get it I'm not being your friend any more" (a very specific kind of emotional abuse)

When people found a christian review site that seemed to handle it better than polygon it at first made me laugh, but then i was unhappy cause at lest they scored the game separately on the game and its christian values, whereas polygon seem to shoehorn the game and its "social value" together into one score.

Now before someone strawmans this (as i know someone will due to the tendency of some people to read the first line and then go keyboard warrior) and go "well you would be with a rape simulator by that argument", no of course I sodding wouldn't. Thats an extreme where maybe mentioning it and hitting the score would be appropriate.
 

theruraljuror

New member
Sep 2, 2014
2
0
0
Steve2911 said:
Reviews are personal opinions. Neither you, the developers or the world at large are under any obligation to care what someone at Polygon thinks, if you don't align yourself with their views.

To suggest that someone shouldn't be allowed to post a review because you disagree with their reasoning is the most thoughtless, backwards nonsense imaginable. Even if people are put off by the game, they are people who take that reviewer's opinions into account when making a purchasing decision. It's their choice to buy or not to buy. If you want that sort of influence, write reviews yourself and maybe someone will pay you for them one day. If not, fuck off.

neonit said:
But doing it on a fairly generic and "appeal to everyone" website?
This isn't a thing that exists. No reviewer (and by reviewer I mean person, not publication) sets out to create a blanket view for everyone to follow. That's ludicrous.
People can post reviews about whatever they want. As soon as they expect monetary compensation they need to provide some form of (in this cas informational) value. The Bayonetta 2 review was unhelpful for me as a potential customer, and in my opinion possibly detrimental to the game developing industry as a whole. The effect is probably infitesimally small but if it isn't opposed it could grow. My critical view towards the review also has a very small effect for the publisher. Only in case enough people agree an adjustment becomes economically sensible.

But let's be honest, negative repercussions for a publication like Polygon are far away. Critical objections can however be useful for them to adjust their content to be more valuable (which shouldn't be mistaken with agreeable) for their potential audience.

Of course there is the argument that criticism should be laveled in comments sections and not via advertisers and developers. Doing so would however have the exact undesired effect for the consumer. Disagreement still leads to clicks and therefore to revenue, writers would be encouraged to write controversial articles which hold little actual value, but garner (negative) attention, aka clickbait.

For more Bayonetta 2 reviews and comments on gender see this article "So let's talk about Bayonetta 2 and Gender"

http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/2014/10/so-lets-talk-about-bayonetta-2-and.html

and this video by Inside Gaming Daily asking "Is Bayonetta 2 too sexy?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBCCh3E8O8U
 

theruraljuror

New member
Sep 2, 2014
2
0
0
FFMaster said:
Ok, with regards to the reviews and why marking games down for reasons of progressiveness or not being socially acceptable is bad, mainly because otherwise Jim loses his age old argument that people are not coming for the games you like and trying to remove them from the market. Bear with me while I explain.

Metacritic is generally hated for what it is, but its a necessary evil in the current world and is used by publishers with regards to bonuses. We also know that some companies rely on said bonuses to stay afloat as the devs get only a small part of the money pie and so tend to run on lowish margins. Because they need the margins they need the scores in some case.

This is why a lower scores for reasons of "i don't like the content because its not progressive" CAN have the effect of removing the games some people like from the industry. It directly threatens said bonuses, so people won't make the games and so they don't happen. Ones that do make the games don't get the publisher bonuses and so fold etc etc

Classic case of "I'm not saying you can't have it, but if you do get it I'm not being your friend any more" (a very specific kind of emotional abuse)

When people found a christian review site that seemed to handle it better than polygon it at first made me laugh, but then i was unhappy cause at lest they scored the game separately on the game and its christian values, whereas polygon seem to shoehorn the game and its "social value" together into one score.

Now before someone strawmans this (as i know someone will due to the tendency of some people to read the first line and then go keyboard warrior) and go "well you would be with a rape simulator by that argument", no of course I sodding wouldn't. Thats an extreme where maybe mentioning it and hitting the score would be appropriate.
I agree about the christian review site. I think it's pretty ingenious to be honest. They do have a very specific clientel and are doing well to cater to their sensibilities. They also wear their ideology on their sleeve and seem to be able seperate the ideological concerns from the overall game focused critique.


About "the strawmanning": Actually there is a game called "Consensual Torture Simulator" which seems to be some sort of text based adventure. I know about it because Leigh Alexander likes to talk about it at Gamasutra, at Jezebel and in her Facebook feed. She also likes to sing the praises of it's creator Merrit Koppas. As far as I know the game is available for 2$.
How about the reviewers disclose their ideological tent and don't implictly condemn games and gamers who disagree with their point. Let the market decide what is valuable and don't try to subvert it by punishing games (like Tropico 5) that don't reflect the authors or publications agenda.
 

OldNewNewOld

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,494
0
0
Could anyone tell me why sexualization and objectification of a fictional character is bad and sexist? I have yet to read a reasonable argument for that.

And to anyone saying she isn't sexy because she wants but is written that way by a male writer, why not go one step further? She is a bunch of polygons, nothing but a virtual object. She can't be objectified since she was nothing more than an object to begin with?
Also why do you always put such emphasis on male writer/developer? Would it be any different if it was done by a female developer/writer? Some shit, different source.
 

Rellik San

New member
Feb 3, 2011
609
0
0
Silentpony said:
Yes I understand that, but does that mean Bayonetta isn't sexist? That she isn't pure fap material?
Are we to just assume women can't objectify other women, or indeed write a character that strips naked to kill monsters and it's all on the up and up?
Forgive me, but that sounds an awful lot like the whole "I have a black friend" argument. And wasn't it Jim who said in the Earth year 2066 episode that you can't claim to have done something 'ironically' while still selling it for full price and whatnot. Is Bayonetta supposed to be an ironic parody of the over sexualization of women in games, or is she the personification of it?
How deep does the irony REALLY go? If it's a selling point, and the game needs to make a profit, my guess would be not that deep.

Also I'll let you in on a dirty secret. Dominatrix power fantasies? Yeah, the dominatrix has no power what so ever. That's what the safe word is for. She, the dominatrix, dances entirely to her 'victims' tune. She stops when the victim says so, otherwise she's just a torturer.
It's the same logic when porn scenes involves a women pretending to be a teacher. Yes, we pretend and what not, but everyone knows she's not really a teacher and that her 'strong female character' isn't why any of us are here.
if Bayonetta whips monsters because we press buttons, if she does splits in front of the camera because we hit the QTEs, if she dances around in fetish outfits because we bought the DLC,if she strips naked and dances around because her writer, a female, wrote that was her character...
how much power does Bayonetta REALLY have?
Yes... yes it does, because in my response to you, not everyone will find Bayonetta as fap material. Your argument here is removing the personal subjective view of art with the objective absolutist, didactic view... and even then you're basing that entire assumption that your view is "correct" (as correct as any statement about art can be).

Of course women can objectify women... and men can objectify men... and maybe just maybe, both men and women ALL objectify men or women to some degree, we all partake in dehumanising view points, but rather then being busy shouting down those that do, most of us just try to improve ourselves. Also your internal logic here seems faulty, you were arguing at one point that Boynetta is a literal object (she has no agency beyond that she is ascribed, effectively a toy) and saying treating the character as one is a negative viewpoint... even though by your own definition she is an object and it's impossible for her to have agency. It's a logic loop effectively (don't treat her like an object... she's an object... don't treat her like one).

Next you argue that the game, because of Jim's own opinions here which I feel you're misrepresenting and maybe Jim would like to jump in if he's still reading, that the ironic nature (even though honestly, the game isn't an ironic deconstruction, it's actually a campy send up along the lines of RHPS) he's talking specifically about non-games or games selling for full price with a lack of content being ironic statements of the games industry because of "fer teh kekz ayyy lmao"... not fully shipped and feature complete action adventure game. So again I'd say your argument there doesn't ring true either.

Next: What do dominatrix or teacher fantasies have to do with we're playing a game? In this situation the sexuality is so much window dressing over a mechanically engaging system, let's be realistic the action in the game is framed in such a way that you don't really have time to whip it out and start fapping during the unrepentant cheesecake shots, they are contextually more akin to a "Oo er missus" than an all out porn scene, you're comparing a few seconds of "that's a bit naughty" to hardcore sexual conduct in the players mind... it's an escalation of the debate that takes it WAY out of scale. Rocky Horror as I've said previously would be a better comparator in regards to the sexual content and the way it's presented in this game.

Finally if a female writes it, no I've not said nor have I ever said that it's a free pass (I know you weren't addressing me with that statement, but I feel strongly here, so I'll weigh in), however authorial intent, player interpretation and historical evidence will decide where this stands, is it a misogyny laden spank fest with gratuitous shots of clothed naughty parts? Is it an ultra camp sex comedy with combat mechanics? (which is where I stand on the series) or is it just another example of the objectification of women in video games and another talking point for a wider platform?

Interpretations a ***** ain't it? :)
 

minnull

New member
Feb 10, 2010
57
0
0
I try to avoid social media jerks as much as possible and this is one that I've done a good job avoiding so far. I guess my only input on this is that the outlined outrage for this game is absurdly blown out of proportion. Bored people filling their free time with online avocation about something as trivial as sexualization in games when violence and gamble-esque in-purchases in games aren't even a topic of discussion. It feels more like a 'bait and hook' job than anything else, rallying against all-the-things until one gathers enough of a following to be deemed newsworthy enough to matter at all. This has that same patina about it, discussing this any further than the mock premise it's riding is a complete waste of time. Well done, whomever coughed up enough outrage about this game to awaken the hive.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
BiH-Kira said:
Could anyone tell me why sexualization and objectification of a fictional character is bad and sexist? I have yet to read a reasonable argument for that.
There really isn't one. The typical assertion I see is "Media's portrayal of X has an effect on your perception of X in reality." A claim so vague and generalized that it's meaningless.

Fantasy and "junk food caricatures" have their place in media.

I don't condemn the existence of Bayonnetta or her presentation for the same reasons I don't condemn the existence of romance novels. (But just because I don't condemn them doesn't mean I like them, nor that I'm going to act on their material.
Then again, I'm capable of discerning between fantasy and reality.)

It actually takes a concerted effort on the part of a creator to make me genuinely wish their work never actually existed (condescending, hateful, pseudo-intellectual propaganda).

But apparently, none of that matters in the face of "THE MORAL IMPERATIVE". Ugh..
 

Deadcyde

New member
Jan 11, 2011
187
0
0
Funny, when i see something using the moniker "gaming" i expect it to be about gaming.. Not social commentary that is relative as fuck. Guess that's too much to ask?

Also, Bayonettas creator is a woman. But why does that even matter. She is a fictional character. Not an analogy for a real person.

Oh and Jim. Ease up on the Male gaze nonsense. It implies females aren't capable of enjoying said gaze and reinforces that they shouldn't. It also implies that males are incapable of a different point of view, which in turn paints them as sex crazed. It's a weak social construct made to genderize an otherwise neutral point of view. Is it sexual? yes. But whether it's for men or women is solely up to the viewer and anyone who says otherwise is full of shit.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
Yes, reviews are subjective opinion. That being said, there is a reason professional writers who review products leave their agenda out of it. I'm not interested in a reviewer's worldview and in an industry where review scores matter to developers you like, you'll find many people who prefer reviewers who leave their baggage at the door when sitting down at the computer. This review was not professional work and it's too bad others in his profession can't even see that.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Ikaruga33 said:
I have an issue with the first part.
Why can't I say, "I don't agree with people who send death threats to Anitas house, but I disagree with her arguments against Hitman" It's just a way of making sure people don't get the wrong idea, that I'm some sort of sociopath because I disagreed with her.

Also, whether or not a characters sexuality is designed for the males gaze, doesn't determine whether or not it's sexist. If I want to make a game about a titty ninjas, it doesn't mean I hate women, it just means that I like tits in my video games. What I do in my own free time isn't the business of feminism.
It's just the way that people say "However," it sounds like it directly undermines what you just said. Kind of like "With all due respect" pretty much always means "Kiss my ass"

Just do this. If you want to criticize, say, American actions in the middle east and how they led to the rise of ISIS say this.

"What ISIS is doing is wrong."

"On an unrelated note, America-"

Comes off as a lot less creepy.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,238
0
0
So... completely preoccupied by the sexualisation aspect? The first mention of gameplay comes approximately 4.5 minutes into a 5.5 minute video?

Actually, I'm completely unsurprised.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,238
0
0
Johnisback said:
The first part of this video is absolute bull.
Condemnation is all well and good if you just want to feel all high and mighty but it does fuck all in the way of solving the problem.
For example "I condemn ISIS for all the terrible things they're doing" probably feels quite good to say but it achieves nothing. You need the "but their existence is the direct result of western foreign and military policy" if you actually want things to change in the future.
Nun-uh! Acknowledging a situation isn't black and white is now implicitly condoning, or whatever the phrase was.

Absolutism rocks!
 

Spearmaster

New member
Mar 10, 2010
378
0
0
What I gathered from this video was when a reviewer says "I really liked this game, However..." They should just cut out the however and just say "I really liked this game." So to subscribe to the Jim Sterling online etiquette format.

Or are we just making rules for "others" to follow?

OT: Developers are free to create whatever game they wish and people are free to play or not play said game. If someone gives a game a lesser score or a poorer review due to personal political views, as long as those views are disclosed in the review, I really don't have a problem with it.

Weather I agree or disagree with their views its just more information to factor into my decision whether or not to buy the game. More information is always a good thing.

I have actually bought and thoroughly enjoyed games where the review that influenced my decision was a poor one because I used what I liked vs what the reviewers views were and calculated that I would enjoy the game.

Sometimes reviews from reviewers that you never agree with are more valuable than those you do agree with.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Ikaruga33 said:
I have an issue with the first part.
Why can't I say, "I don't agree with people who send death threats to Anitas house, but I disagree with her arguments against Hitman"
Why can't you issue these as separate thoughts, rather than lumping them together? If people think you're a sociopath for putting it that way, they'll probably think no better of you for putting it this way.

And if they know what Anita said on Hitman, they'll probably assume you're uninformed anyway.
 

beddo

New member
Dec 12, 2007
1,589
0
0
Let's evaluating the idea that you can't condemn what others have done but still talk about a related subject.

Basically this is simply a call for silencing voices, for example;

Person A: "I don't like that Polygon rated Bayonetta because I think they misinterpreted the character."
Person B: "Isn't that what those trolls that made death threats say?"

Person A: "I think death threats are awful and should never be made, however back to the the Polygon..."
Person B: "wait... I think you should leave out the 'however' and stop talking."

Person A: "But I wanted to talk about how I disagree with the way Polygon considered the central character's portrayal in Bayonetta 2"
Person B: "You can't, you either accept what Polygon say without question or you're one of those that threatens women with death."


Absurd.