@thatpinguino: could it be that the people currently having this conversation aren't necessarily the same people who were having this conversation a decade ago? Does it even matter if they are, because its subjective and no consensus was ever reached? Is there an expiration date on art criticism?

@theht: Though I think the parallels I drew are valid I was being lazy with my language and not that different from what he did. You're right to point it out.

@planetfunksquad: I literally did a podcast on Bayonetta 2 weeks ago so I'm not the person who thinks every argument that's valid about a piece of art needs to happen as soon as the piece is produced. I am, however, someone who pays close attention to these forums and I can say with some confidence that, yes these are the same people who were having this same discussion over the last few years. It isn't the circular arguments that bug me so much as it is the circular arguments by the same people to the same people with nary a change to be seen.

It's a fun and silly game that has some aging mechanics indeed.

Every single sequence in every Platinum/Clover game where it becomes a top down shooter/after burner clone/whatever the fuck minigame is the worst shit imaginable. Wonderful 101 is the biggest offender of it, which is such a shame because it's my favourite Platinum game. I hate every single one with a fiery fury.

Why is talking about how a character is being depicted being sociopolitical? Am i being sociopolitical if I question why Marios clothes are red? Or comment on how fluffy I think his mustache is? No, the only time it becomes that is if you chose to see it that way. Which is exactly my point with the Bayonetta discussion, you are choosing to see it as sociopolitical when it's not and in no way was depicted as being that.

And no, when someone uses the word "offended" they are measuring the thing they are criticizing against their personal morals, politics, or way of seeing the world and coming to a conclusion based on that. You can criticize something without those things ever coming into question. If you cant recognize the difference between "I think Bayonetta's sexiness feels out of place, overdone and gets in the way of the cooler parts of the game" and "I think Bayonetta's sexiness assists the patriarchy by depicting women as objects and things to be ogled at" then I don't think I can help you.

So I find Wendy's fries to be disagreeable with my taste therefore I'm offended by them?

@sarnecki: Lame. My girlfriend likes the series more than I do haha.

I watched my wife play both games and she loved them. We rolled are eyes bit by the horniness but otherwise, we enjoyed it for its combat and absurd story.

@slasktotten: Is the game horny? Yes. The question is, is that a bad thing? Are we saying that game's can or can't be certain things? There's plenty of room for horny/sexual games in the world. If that's not your speed that's fine, but recognize that your distaste for titillation in games is not a universal thing.

As for me, I don't actually find the game that titillating because I don't find Bayonetta's character design attractive(small head and weirdly long limbs make her look not human, which is on point I guess). So I'm obviously not the demographic they're targeting with the horny camera angles

Regardless, it doesn't bother me because the horniness of the game makes sense for the character. Bayonetta owns her sexuality and uses it to bludgeon enemies to death. She is not some prissy, prudish, demure female stereotype that is appalled at the merest hint of sex(the typical japanese female character). Instead she is unashamed and empowered by her sexuality. Its actually a huge step for female representation in Japan, where gender roles are stuck 20 years in the past.

You might want to never, ever touch Nier Automata then. I enjoy quite a lot myself.

@casepb: I finished Nier Automata. Let's just say I may have not enjoyed route B.

If we want to deplore the objectification of females in games then we better also discuss in the same breath the glorification of violence in games and not just the cartoony violence of Bayonetta but the more realistic stuff in games such as Call of Duty and their ilk. I don't have a problem with either but it irks me when someone attacks one aspect of computer gaming while at the same time defending and participating in the other. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

I just finished the game for the first time on the Xbox One.

The QTE stuff and vehicle sections are indeed pretty annoying, outside of the very last motorcycle bit which I thought was fine. I had a hard time following any of the story stuff, but it felt like I wasn't really meant to follow it all that closely.

Like a lot of people have said, it's a very silly game with some fun combat. The sexual stuff is so comedic that it fits in with the tone of the game perfectly. Back in the day I would probably have liked it way more, before all that bad QTE and added vehicle section stuff was more normal in those times. It's still a good game now and I'd totally recommend anyone at least try it out for a bit.

Are they worth getting on the Switch, or whenever I plan on going through them, if I plan on it, should I just play through the Wii U versions? I already have them. Another choice, at least for one is also on Xbox One. Should I play the first on the One, then play two on the Wii U? How would you go about it between those choices?

@ntm: if you have a Switch, then play them there. Mainly because 2 is only on the Switch.

@ungodly: Two is on Wii U as well. I have a Switch, but I already have two on the Wii U.

@ntm: Right on. I would say that if you have two on the WiiU, then you should have Bayonetta 1 too. I liked both games enough to get it for the Switch, they play better too.

People complaining about female sexualisation but no problems when its male, always make me chuckle.

That's a criticism on aesthetic grounds. If you said Bayonetta was unpleasant to look at from a purely visual standpoint, that would be more in line with your analogy. If you said you didn't like Mario being red because red is representative of communism, then you're making a criticism on ideological grounds, which I would indeed call being offended.

Ah, but let's examine this - are they so different? Saying it "feels out of place" isn't a very useful criticism in an of itself. That's akin to saying "the gameplay feels bad". That's far too nebulous; it's an end result, not a cause. The question is why does it feel out of place to you? Does it feel "out of place" because you register some level of discomfort with it that you don't with other elements of the game's presentation? Ok, let's peel that onion a little more, what's motivating that discomfort? Is it discomfort with the idea that this sexualized depictions of a woman is being used to pander to base sexual urges of a man? If so, once you boil away the obfuscating lack of specificity or provided basis for the first criticism, could it actually be quite similar to the second at a core level?

Once you cut through the chaff and get to the core basis for criticisms against sexual pandering in media, I think it's all ultimately driven by the same 2 or 3 basic ideological beliefs/factors, but I have no qualifications to make such a claim apart from rumination on the matter and I probably won't convince anyone that I know a damn thing. I would just say don't accept incredibly generalized, feelings-based platitudes like "it's out of place" as a valid criticism, at least not among writers who fancy themselves professional critics; you need to get at those core motives to actually understand the criticism.

never makes sense to me to call it "owning" sexuality if the character and game is made by men. same leering, just a different kind of female personality that they made, unconventional as it may be, sadly

good read: "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" http://www.composingdigitalmedia.org/f15_mca/mca_reads/mulvey.pdf

@sweetz: Boy, it's been a long time since my eyes have rolled this hard... agree to disagree.

@gooni: an essay not a book!!:p but ok some of the defenses of the game mention that bayonetta takes ownership of her sexuality. that makes more sense to me in other creative situations. as an animated character in a game made by guys she obviously doesn't really have that autonomy and it seems to me that she is just "drawn that way". it is not as bad as the stereotypical fantasy girl objects but that's what that essay is about when it points out the predominance of male directors and that we take their perspective, the way movies work. you're still always seeing her through the eyes of the guy behind the camera so to speak. so with a game (not live-action) that would apply to the animators too. what i mean is that issues with sexualization of her are not necessarily cleared by her behavior. i don't think they are. hope that makes sense lol

I genuinely appreciate all of the hard work the modding crew does here but sometimes it makes figuring out what some people are talking about are real headache (I'm sure you, the modding crew, are giving me the finger just for saying that).

I have no solution, it's just frustrating that I can't read what @gooni said that @kiptok responded.

Also, apologies in advance if one of the posters just decided to remove the content. I feel like that's an added mystery that maybe could be helped with a little more disclosure? I dunno. Really isn't meant to be a critique just seems like sometimes you step into a thread to late and it can quite literally read like nonsense sometimes.

@slasktotten: if dodge move makes you dizzy -- don't do it. If you just move around -- bullets won't hit you (at least on Normal).

As to insta-death QTEs...

Here are two ways how people play Bayonetta games:

1. Just play once to see the story/enjoy spectacle.

In that case -- instea death QTE not only don't matter but are beneficial because they are basically free life refills. You lose absolutely nothing for dying -- game puts you back where you anyways.

Rankings? You are going to play the game only once -- rankings in your case don't matter one bit. Getting platinum/pure platinum on your first try is impossible unless you do research.

2. Actively (re-)playing for higher ranks -- platinum/pure platinums.

You are doing research, looking up where the secret alfheims are, what are combo/time requirements. Then QTEs -- again -- don't matter because you will know in advance when they are coming up.

No matter how you play the game -- QTEs don't matter.

@azeke: Was I mistaken in that you get more currency for how well you are graded throughout the sections of the game? The way it's presented it seemed that way to me but I never looked that hard at it to be honest.

@fatalbanana: difference between getting stone award and pure platinum award at the end of a chapter is something like 1000 points.

For comparison -- a move costs 15 000 points and other things are significantly more expensive.

That argument doesn't really change when it's a woman behind the game. That wouldn't magically give Bayonetta autonomy, so I don't see the usefulness in bringing it up.

If the portrayal of Bayonetta is of a female protagonist unabashed in her sexuality as she usurps heaven (or whatever), that understanding is not reliant upon an unmasking of the gender/orientation of the creator to find some sort of gender alignment/sexual disinterest (since the supposed issue here really is the presumed scopophilia of the developer who is/would theoretically be sexually attracted to her, rather than a mere "problem" of gender). Nevermind the problems with assuming it's always gonna be this one-dimensional lewd 'tude with regards to sexualizing a character that you've created and would theoretically be (or actually are) attracted to, and the ever-present question of why that would/should even be an issue.

Which is to say issues with her sexualization are not necessarily saved from criticism and rejection by looking to the gender/orientation of the developer(s), let alone raising questions of autonomy as it relates to the nature of being a creation.

@theht: i didn't say that the same exact game would be better from female creators (the game would not be the exact same though) or that anyone can give a game character real autonomy but i made that obvious point for my counter to the defenses that "she owns her sexuality" in the way actors/musicians/performers etc. might. the game developers make her act for their game however they want. what i meant

@sethmode: he just asked me to clarify what i said lol

I may be wrong but I thought that the character designs of Bayonetta were created by a woman. Not that it changes a ton of the discourse but If it is true than it is worth mentioning at the very least.

@bongchilla: she was, but many people kind of lose interest, somewhat justifiably, in that point, because everything she's doing throughout the game is largely programmed by dude's. And that's the stuff people take issue with moreso than her look, at least as I take it.

@kiptok: hah, maybe he just deleted it then and my post on it in this thread was silly (I still stand by the sentiment however).

@gooni: totally understandable. When I referenced my post, I meant more the times the stuff gets removed by mods but references to it still exist, and it just makes things super confusing.

People can absolutely criticize Bayonetta's sexuality or clothing as something they personally feel is out of place in the game. However, when doing so from a position of conflict with their personal social values rather than other equally subjective reasons--they think her clothing looks dumb, they find the sexual tone to be silly, etc--I feel that opens up the whole can of worms described below.

Regarding the lack of agency and criticism of female characters, here's my view on the subject, which I've posted before:

The question for me is what is the difference between shaming a woman for her attire, and shaming a character for theirs? I think the answer to that question is agency. A woman chooses how to dress, and a character does not. However, I would argue that agency alone is not a good enough reason to shame a character, because inevitably by shaming a character without agency you will shame women who do have agency.

I do not see how someone can question the appearance of a game or movie character without implicitly attacking women--and men, for that matter--who see nothing wrong with that character. If you say "this is sexist, this is inappropriate, this is offensive, this should not be" how can you do so without criticizing the social values and opinions of those who disagree? From female cosplayers who choose to dress as that character, to women who are artists and love to draw that character, and even just women who often choose to dress in clothing as revealing as those worn by a criticized game character. You're telling them all that they're wrong for their opinion, and that this isn't the proper way for a woman to be represented. And either you have no business doing that, or it's acceptable to decide how women should be presented.

You can't say "As a woman, you're not wrong for any way you choose to dress," and then say "as a woman, you are wrong if you do not agree that this character is dressed inappropriately," and that's the problem. You don't get to decide when a woman is inappropriately dressed. The belief that anyone can judge characters for their attire while somehow not implicitly being judgmental of women who choose to dress the same way or otherwise identify with that character is misguided at best.

@gooni: i am basically just criticizing this game. i just don't consider such a thing 'sexual ownership' even if she acts like it. just saying it doesn't turn me on her in this case. but i didn't mean to attack all male portrayals of women, as many of them might be bad (sometimes for similar reasons I don't like this) doesn't mean all of them are bad, yes. depends on the respect imo

@spaceinsomniac: point appreciated but i'm not saying all of that because i don't like this particular game; i find that i just don't think it's such a big deal to dislike something others like. i don't know everything that they might feel about whatever thing it is. it's not a personal fan-to-fan thing. a girl can like it! i can't judge everyone. and i don't find that it necessarily has to be an identity thing idk! 2 each ur own. just do ur. but thanks for the thoughts

my main thing was w/ the game makers. they can do better, or other ppl can. more representation

how y'all feel abt nier? i know 2b isn't bayonetta2

@kiptok: that is a whole ‘nother 10 page thread waiting to happen and I think there is in fact such a thread already present on the Nier board.

This argument is the seashells over Egyptian statues' tits of our day isn't it? Unless you want to discount that games can ever be academic I guess.

I really preferred Bayonetta 1's combat and enemy design over 2. The Lumen Sage and final boss in 2 straight up just reads inputs - try using Crow Within's feather attacks - and makes styling on them basically impossible by design. Enemies also have a weird amount of armor and instant counters that again, go completely against the design of a combat sandbox. It's the same bad practices that made DmC such a terrible action game - but Bayo 2 has bosses that are better than Zelda bosses where you just have to wait for the boss to fall down in some form, which can't be said about DmC. It's really weird because the enemies from Bayonetta 1 in Bayonetta 2 act like those from the previous game.

Route 666 is a bad level though like oh man it's not fun to play. That is the only vehicle section aside from a very very short section later and the Space Harrier level before one of the best bosses in the game.

I'd encourage anyone playing the game to think about how the game may be sexually celebratory of its female protagonist and how that could be an important and enlightened approach to such a character, but at the same time, if you feel uncomfortable with the game's overt sexualisation of this woman I think that's a valid reaction that we tend to needlessly shun in the gaming community. As for the vehicle sections, if you don't like the feel of them then that's going to be a hard barrier to enjoyment but if you want to understand why other people do like them, I'd recommend looking at the older games they're paying homage to.

Hmm, but if hypothetically the game were the exact same in all regards save for being accredited entirely to heterosexual women, would the exact same creation and presentation have the same issues to you? Would it be the same kind of leering? If so, what's the basis for considering it so, and if not, why?

The character being confident in their sexuality and flaunting it (in a manner) within the context of the game is what's characterized as "owning it," and that she's a creation doesn't really hinder or help that reading. It's like saying Aragorn didn't accomplish anything, or isn't an all-around good person, because he isn't real, he was written to act that way. And yes, of course he isn't real, but it's an inconsequential observation, and one that doesn't take away from his actions and personality when we engage with the fiction.

And I'm not suggesting things like camera angles don't matter, or aren't necessarily a poor reflection on a creator, but when I look at, say, Altered Carbon, and think of some parts of it as being trashy, I'm not getting there by looking at who made it, I'm getting there by looking at the work. Using Bayonetta being made by men as a sort of justification seems like a kind of putting the horse before the cart.

See, the irony ("irony") in this kind of language is you're kinda implicitly suggesting that "better" doesn't include Bayonetta. That "more representation" doesn't include this kinda character and style, and that sounds like another kind of homogeneity, just one that's arbitrated by someone else.

I'm not trying to give you grief or anything! You seem like a nice person. I'm only interested in better understanding where you're coming from, and what might logically follow from your methods of criticism. I mean, I'm hoping I'm off in my reading of that line, and that you're stuff about "to each your own" is what you're about, but I don't wanna just assume. 'Cause sometimes folks be all "ya, like what you like, no problem, let's talk about it," and then turn around and say "this shit's harmful to society; we must do better." And then I'm standing here like "wait, are we being liberal with art, or puritanical, 'cause if it's the latter, then yeah, I gotta go; got a thing, you know how it is."

It doesn't matter who the creator was it matters what the creation is taken at it's face value.

@frodobaggins: I’d argue that it’s usually advisable to not judge anything based on face value.

@humanity: mate, these are video games. I take every single one of them at face value.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's saying you should judge a book by its cover. I think he's saying you should judge a book by the book itself, rather than things you might infer about the person who wrote the book.

@spaceinsomniac: correct. Take the product for what it is, not who made it. I'm not saying that there isn't occasionally some merit in that discussion but I believe this isn't one such case.

@spaceinsomniac: I think judging things at face value literally implies the “book by its cover” definition.

@frodobaggins: hey that’s your right mate but I think plenty of games can be appreciated on a grander level once you dig a bit deeper. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been an advocate of the “it’s just a game” mentality for a number of years (cause they are just games), but at the same time there are some titles out there where appearances don’t them justice.

@humanity: you're right, I think I used the phrase incorrectly. I do myself occassionaly like to dig deeper into games, but no the politics of game development (of which I know absolutely nothing about and have an even lower interest in)

@frodobaggins: On that I fully agree. I’d go even a step further where as much as I like to have a conversation about game story and such from time to time I often roll my eyes at the new trend of game journalism that engages in writing very detailed articles on the morality of game characters and such. Trying to find an ocean inside of a puddle.