Personal social views as a central part of a game critique

If she says a game is shamelessly sexist and only exists for the sexual gratification of straight males, while simultaneously ignoring the mechanics and gameplay that many are finding fun, is she not demeaning those who have said they enjoy the game? I mean, it's not exactly a great start for meaningful dialogue.

@excast: I don't really see those tweets as "lecturing" or even attempting to shame people as much as pointing out that she (Sarsikeen) disagrees with the idea that Bayonetta's sexuality is being presented as empowering--for reference, something that other notable feminists disagreed with her upon. There was a debate about it on the ol' internet yesterday, and in the end everyone involved (well, the few examples I saw--Cara Ellison had a back and forth about it yesterday as well, for instance) managed to articulate their views and disagree peacefully. Nobody even got a death threat over it!

I don't particularly think Bayonetta's characterization as being empowered and sex positive is a wrong take on the issue, but it's also a game made and designed by dudes (and marketed to dudes, let's not kid ourselves), so there's certainly an argument to be made that a positive read on Bayonetta is perhaps... reaching a little? I dunno where her comments are "demeaning" or "belittling;" I mean she's saying "this game uses the male gaze and was created for a straight male audience," and that's her take on it, and that's okay. Nowhere in that tweet do I see "also straight males are the enemy and must die," or even anything remotely like that. Nor does it say "nobody would ever play this because the mechanics are good, they are clearly just masturbating."

It's just some criticism of the way the game portrays its protagonist, dude. Move on, nothing to see here.

Maybe I'm wrong about what makes people look at reviews. It's certainly possible there are a bunch of people who go out there reading reviews like an academic reads papers, to see what it is that people think. But that's not explicitly the purpose of reviews, is it? I assume most people use them for their designed purpose, which is to advise people on purchasing. So maybe I chose my words poorly when I said that a reviewer has to reflect the views of a sufficiently large audience, but you can't really argue that his views have to be acknowledged as useful and/or interesting to that audience, and I maintain that I don't think the demand is out there for this kind of social commentary as a commercial product. That's not saying anything about its correctness or quality, mind you.

No, he's a known contrarian. He's still well respected for a lot of his writing, such as the whole crapload of essays he's made for Criterion, ranging from praising Rohmer to discussing Kurosawa. Even when he's doing something as seemingly insane as defending Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill, it's a very interesting read.

She specifically calls the game shameless. That word is usually only reserved for things perceived as shameful. Like, you wouldn't say someone shamelessly cooked dinner for their children. She then says that the mechanics of Bayonetta 2 are "specifically for the sexual pleasure of straight male gamers." In her eyes the mechanics are masturbating.

I'm really not sure what tweets you read.

EDIT: In regards to the OP, I don't see anything wrong with Gies's decision to make the Bayo2 review all about the sex. If it really bothered him that much, then that's fine. It's also OK for me to think he's a pretentious jerk and not trust his opinion of the game. But it is my responsibility as the reader to look beyond the score, to the actual content of the review, in order to determine whether I feel this is advice worth taking or not.

This might be pretty off base, but I feel like Polygon is trying to emulate Giantbomb in this aspect. The same could be said for Jeff loving Syndicate when it was getting middling reviews across the board - it only makes sense when we look at it in the context of Jeff's personal tastes. What I feel Polygon is trying to push for is the same individualism coming from the staff as we see here at GB, especially with stuff like their new podcast where Justin McElroy talks to the reviewers about their reviews (they even have their own Quick Looks for crying out loud).

So, respectfully, I just think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. I can tell a Jeff Gerstmann review apart from a Brad Shoemaker review due to the fact that they are different people with different values, just as I can tell an Arthur Gies review apart from a Phil Kollar review. Social opinions are part of those values, and while the camera in Beyonetta 2 may not have mattered to Jeff, Brad or Phil, it clearly matters to Arthur, and I think it's more of a disservice to his readers for him to stifle those opinions.

If I had the urge to buy it and I really just wanted a quick overview of how good Beyonetta 2 is, I'm going to make the effort to check out what a variety of critics thought of it. If I want a more in-depth look at how I may or may not enjoy it, I'm going to look to a critic whose values reflect my own. I respect Arthur Gies, so if his review is the lone detractor I want to find out why.

@starvinggamer: I'm legitimately pretty curious what part of the mechanics she consider designed for our sexual pleasure. I mean the obvious answer is that the mechanics are so good that performing a combo might as well be sex, but please. That is a side-effect of making an awesome game.

Though seriously, is it just the undressing during wicked weaves? Is it the obvious sexual innuendo in the torture attacks? Maybe 2 does something more blatant than 1 did, but most of us wouldn't know yet.

@ford_dent:

Not completely, though. I really don't want to start a whole conversation about one tweet, as no one alive can fully express an idea in under 140 characters, but that blurb is different than the kind of criticism we're talking about. She says:

Disappointed to see most major Bayonetta 2 reviews completely ignore or even praise its shameless sexism and flagrant use of the male gaze.

Note the underline. She's not evaluating the game. She's not even really offering her own opinion. She's dismissing other people's reviews for being incorrect based on her own values.

The consensus of this thread (which I agree with) seems to be that reviews are and should be personal. And anything that affected a reviewer when they played the game should be mentioned when they write about it, positive or negative. If a writer found a game to be sexist, they should write about it. If they didn't, then that should be in there too.

But here, ironically, Anita is taking the exact same stance of so many gamers who get upset when reviewers who are bothered by certain depictions of women add that to their review. She's not saying what so many here are; that every reviewer's POV is valid and should be respected as a subjective experience. She's saying that those writers are wrong because they don't agree with her.

A prominent role of moral judgments in a review (of a game, or a movie, or a book etc.) is a sure sign that the critic is incapable of proper aesthetic judgments. "Bayonetta sucks because sexualizing women is wrong" is about as valuable a criticism as "Bayonetta sucks because it blasphemes against the church and our lord" or "Bayonetta sucks because it is fun, and worldly pleasures must be avoided" -- none of these have any place in quality criticism, and all of them should produce the same response in a sensible reader: namely laughter and ridicule.

I want differing views and reviews. I want there to be well reasoned and well explained opinions about games.

I want to read something that makes me think differently about a game even if that makes me dislike a game.

GTA V's torture scene wasn't particularly graphic for me. I've seen Saw and Hostel and that scene was just as gross. But hearing and reading differing viewpoints did make me wonder why the scene was in there at all. What did it add to the game and the narrative?

If we're unable to step back and appreciate different viewpoints, yes even ones we dislike, then this isn't criticism is it?

Personally I've never believed that reviews are objective at all outside some simple statements of facts - the values of those facts are different for everybody, if they can even agree on the facts in the first place.

To answer your question, I think it's the publication that matters most (social views as central part of game review). Today you have a weird situation in games writings where every reviewer is their own voice, but they speak on behalf of the publication. It's not xyz person's review - it's IGN's review, or Polygon's, Giant Bomb's, etc so on.

I feel it is becoming clearer what each publication stands for. Simply put, Polygon is into social commentary. If you aren't looking for that, I wouldn't recommend going there very much. Oh the flip side, if you are, that's a great place for you. IGN and GameSpot seem to be continuing to play with the idea of Partial Objectivity. As if the reviewers feelings can only slant the game so much. If you read Polgyon's rubric you will see they have some Objectivity tied to scores as well (I think if a game is "broken" it has to be 4 or under, for example). So while yes, Mr. McElroy =/ Alexa Ray, they are tied to the same system, and more importantly they exist under an umbrella which does have agency. You just do not find reviews at IGN or GameSpot that are like the reviews at Polygon, and that's controlled top-down, not bottom up, though surely one heavily affects the other (hiring). Polygon absolutely has reviews that are not Social Commentary First and Foremost, but if you are looking for that, you are far more likely to find it there. Doesn't make it a bad website. Just maybe not for you.

It's the mixture of "Objectivity" and "Subjectivity" that causes so much of the fighting in comments I think. And while I believe all Objectivity is largely a sham (for the sake of scoring) I think basically you need to weigh the two in your mind, weigh how that particular publication deals with the two, and what their general tone/stance is. There is no 1 rule for what reviews should be like I think, but certainly some more clarity could go a long way at many of these websites. If you don't enjoy a certain style or perspective of games writing, just ignore it. Don't try to destroy it.

@joshwent: I generally agree with you, but saying she is calling them out as wrong isn't fair. You can be disappointed that someone isn't agreeing with you without invalidating their opinion. Maybe she just hoped for more support on the issue and didn't get any. Rightfully I might think, but that won't make her less disappointed.

@starvinggamer said:

I think you're reading way too much into the use of that word. Like, I think Call of Duty is a pretty shameless fetishisation of war, but I still enjoy playing those games, and certainly don't feel ashamed for it.

My thoughts pretty much echo much of what Ive read in this thread. I dont like to see personal social views as a "central" part in a review and as such avoid sites such as Polygon and so on.

The real problem I have with these reviews isn't the review themselves quite frankly if Arthur Gies couldn't enjoy Bayonneta 2 as much he would have liked because of perceived sexism in the game then thats what he should say, I dont get annoyed by that, frankly I feel a little saddened for him that he was unable to overcome that (genuinly not trying to be patronizing). My problem is the value put upon these reviews and the scores associated with them by games publishers. At no point should a metacritic score determine someones bonus, you are taking the power and influence away from the free market and placing it with a small group of reviewers. I think this is wrong.

This is an issue discussed in college Literature classes. The way I was taught, a writer can't remove themselves from their writing and so writing will inevitably be subjective no matter how hard the writer tries not to be. The writer then has to work from that being considered a given.

My professors would tell the students that any critique is not inherently right or wrong. The only way a critique can be 'wrong' is if it isn't supported by references from the source being critiqued. So a review of a game is more valid if the critiques represented are backed up by examples from the game. If they aren't, the audience reading the critique have no way of judging the quality of the critique.

I think most people get this. Where people seem to get the most tripped up is either in processing the critique or in being offended by the very presence of the critique. For the former, not all critiques are of the same quality. It's up to the audience to determine if they agree with the writer's rationale. That's how a discourse works. The discourse fails when people forget what they are even talking about and fight for the sake of fighting. Which seems to happen a lot online.

On whether the critique should exis at all I find that pretty silly. So many people want to have video games taken seriously. But then when they are the same people get upset. You can't have it both ways. Criticism is a part of a medium's growth. It'll happen no matter what. So to fight so strongly against it seems silly to me.

Are you honestly trying to argue that when Anita Sarkeesian uses the phrase "shameless sexism" she is not of the opinion that sexism is shameful?

Your personal social views/agendas don't belong in a damn review. Stop pushing your agenda all the time. I always say just write a damn editorial about it. Lowering a games score because "oh noes they haz the cleavage" is fucking stupid.

Here is where I feel you're dangerously editorializing more than a little bit.

The words "Sexual Pleasure" can be interpreted in many different ways, and where you seem to have interpreted them as "Masturbatory", I interpreted them as "Titillating". Both are similar, but only one has an emotional charge behind it.

You can make hyperbolic statements about Sarkeesian's offhand remarks on twitter all you want, but it just seems like you're looking for offense where there is none.

@tobbrobb: As I said above, discussing one tiny tweet in depth is a fool's errand lacking so much context, so I'd say your interpretation is totally valid. She could mean any number of things by saying she's "disappointed", so I'm surely not difinitively trying to fault her or anything.

I just think there is some inherent quality judgement there. I was "disappointed" when most reviews said that James Cameron's Avatar was like the second coming of Jesus Christ, but that was really just another way of saying that I was right and they were wrong.

I think very specifically regarding Bayonetta it was cringe-inducing to see the criticism of the character influence the review because the whole game is that character, just as the hyper-sexualized older Laura Croft was a part of what that series was since its inception. I guess I just give a pass to the odd game that makes it blatant. I may roll my eyes at the likes of such games and never play them, but the reason is mostly because the game itself doesn't intrigue me and not because I'm personally offended.

I really appreciate Arthur and he's one of my favorite persons, but it's one bizarre soapbox to stand on to call out that aspect of Bayonetta. But then, I've played neither the first nor second game, and part of the criticism was that it feels worse in the sequel, so I guess there's no way I can quite condemn the sentiment.

@joshwent: I don't read it as straight up saying they're wrong, I think she's just disappointed (the word she used) they aren't even acknowledging that it could be a problem for some people. Granted, you can absolutely say the same about Polygon's review--Gies doesn't exactly acknowledge that some feminists feel the exact opposite about Bayonetta (Leigh Alexander was, if memory serves, pretty positive about the first game though I've not seen her say anything about the second)--which is a problem I have with Gies' writing in general.

I mean, all reviewers are going to bring their own viewpoints into their reviews. In the case of Bayonetta, who is something of a polarizing character, it would help to have at least some acknowledgement of that in a review. I'm not saying someone who thinks Bayonetta avoids the misogyny others see is wrong (I mean it's an opinion-based thing) should admit they're wrong, but part of critical writing is placing your work in the middle of a conversation and using that to set the stage for whatever you're going to say. If, as sites like Kotaku and Polygon seem to want to do, more critical looks at games are what they're looking to do, it would help to take that approach.

Bottom line, I still don't read Sarsikeen's tweets as anything beyond disappointed that once again few outlets seem to be talking about that content that she, in particular, is interested in seeing.

@starvinggamer said:

I'm saying she's probably talking about "shameless" in the sense that the developers designed Bayonetta without shame. Of course, I'm sure she thinks — like most people — that overt sexist is shameful behaviour, but the use of that word in this context isn't reserved for things than are shameful. In other words, you can do something shamelessly, without that thing being shameful.

In any case, I really don't think she's passing judgement on people who play and enjoy Bayonetta.

I think you're missing my point for the reflexive hyperbole. I was merely playing off of @ford_dent's use of the word to create a parallel contrast. She had specifically dismissed the mechanics as anything but another source of, as you so put it, "titillation" for the straight male gamer.

@joshwent: Fair enough.

Though seriously, anyone guess any specific examples of what she considers "titillating" mechanics in the game? It's not like I'm drawing a complete blank what with the undressing midcombo and mash X to spank. But it's hardly Killer Is Dead's leveling system or anything. I'd say it's fairly obvious that they intended to make the mechanics good with the addition of sexuality and not trying to create sexuality under the disguise of being good mechanics. Though what do I know?

@conmulligan said:

Yes, it is. Your own example was "shameless fetishization of war". The word fits because we understand that war is widely regarded as a bad thing and that there are those who would have a negative opinion of the fetishization of a bad thing. Like I said, you would never say someone shamelessly cooked dinner for their children (ok maybe in some extreme circumstances but you get my gist) because there would never be any shame involved in such an act.

The one mixed review on metacritic wasn't even saying the game sucked. I went and read it just to see what the big deal is, and it seems he liked the gameplay a lot.

I'm capable of reading, so I obviously don't care about the score or how much it was docked for the boob shots or whatever, but not all people are lucky enough to be literate, I guess. At least it seems that way from reading some of the comments on the polygon piece.

Also, only 10 days to go, can't wait. Only thing that sucks is I timed my vacation all wrong, it comes out the day I go back to work :/

@starvinggamer said:

Cooking is a weird example, but the word can absolutely used in similar contexts. "Dancing shamelessly" is a pretty common idiom, and I don't think there are many people who think of dancing as particularly shameful. Anyway, we're arguing over semantics, and I don't want to derail this topic and further.

Also, correcting the British English spelling of a word will never stop being hilarious. Fucking Americans and their z's!

Why would you need to read a more than two or three reviews to begin with. Also what's wrong when something is seen as positive all around? Why does there need to be a review that goes out of its way to be negative if there really isn't a negative?

Why is such a strong voice for equality engaging in heterosexism? Straight men are not the only gender or orientation that find or could find Bayonetta sexually appealing. Save the stereotypes.

If there was a similar game that featured a man with chiseled abs, gorgeous cheekbones, perfect skin, cool hair, who back flips naked across the screen while the camera zooms in on his penis (conveniently hidden by a piece of pizza), would that also be bad? Is it the inclusion of sexual content of any kind that she perceives as bad (at very least, one could be consistent), or is it only when women are being sexualized? How is the latter not intrinsically sexist, how is the former not intrinsically sex-negative?

Seriously though. You are never going to get equality if you cannot apply equality to procedure.

It's almost impossible to separate a person from their personal views, since those views are what informs the person throughout their whole life. A person is going to feel and think one way simply because of how they were raised and lived in the past. And it's because of this variable that their are some reviewers that I know I don't want to follow. I don't want to read reviews from people such as Arthur Gies, or Ben Kuchera, because I don't find value in their articles or reviews based on my own personal views.

But not every reviewer needs to cater to me.

In fact few to no reviewer caters to me because the majority of reviewers are-and let's be frank here- young Liberals. The majority of them reside in California and specifically, San Fransisco. I am a Conservative living in California, and I don't see many or if any Right-leaning reviewers or writers in games media. Which is fine, that's not really something you can force to change, unless you start asking for political leanings in applications, which is highly illegal. So seeing as how I'm a Conservative, there is a distinct division in personal views between me and other games writers. But I don't view that too much as a negative, as I often find some middle ground where I stand among the liberal writers. I love that a game like Gone Home exists, I didn't really care for it as a story or game, but I'm happy that someone made it.

@everettescott said:

I don't need to read more than two or three reviews, but I enjoy getting different perspectives and impressions.

Nothing, in theory, but in practice there is almost never complete consensus.

I dunno. It does seem a bit strange that some of the more vocal names calling for equality for women in the industry routinely seem to make blanket, derogatory statements stereotyping men. I'm not sure if they think that is a great way to start a dialogue, but maybe they should try another method.

My view is that Arthur Gies is a joke. I've never liked him.

Yeah, we all want good criticism in games. But we aren't getting GOOD criticism from most game reviewers. They only talk about the things that are skin deep, and they don't seem to have the passion or the experience to really delve deep into breaking down specific games. They're just... completely out of their league. Saying "Bayonetta is sexy and this is bad" is about as shallow and uninteresting as it gets.

Ironically, the ones doing great video game criticism are not professionals at all--they're amateur youtubers. Guys like Action Points, SuperBunnyHop, Errant Signal, Matthewmatosis, etc. These guys bring up great arguments about games, and even when I find myself disagreeing, it's always interesting to hear what they have to say.

@yinstarrunner: Just reiterating how amazing Matthewmatosis' videos are. All other professional reviewers are put to shame by how amazingly well thought out his videos are. This is the guy people should look to for TRUE game criticisms.

I sometimes feel like an ever increasing number of people writing about the industry are folks that would probably rather be writing about politics, yet couldn't get a job doing that.

Docking points off Bayonetta 2 for it's "sexiness" is a joke. Nothing wrong with how Bayonetta is depicted because that's how Platinum Games chose to depict her. Let the artists make the art they want.

@nefarious_al said:

That's an alarmingly broad argument you're making. It's like saying there's nothing wrong with this because it's just how the artist chose to depict black people:

This is a very silly statement. By this logic no one can criticize any game ever because at some point a developer chose to make it the way it is. Criticizing Bayonetta 2 use of sex appeal is not preventing Platinum from making the "art" they want to make. It obviously cannot do that as Bayonetta 2 already exists. If artists are free to make whatever art they want then everyone else should be free to criticize said art however they want.

I don't mind the personal politics in reviews/articles at all, that's kinda the point of writing about stuff. What I do care about is when the person writing is hypocritical or sensationalist. I don't want to be told I'm a piece of shit misogynist just because I'm not offended to my core by something, or my opinion being irrelevant because I'm one of these straight, white males - as if that's a bad thing? For these reasons I've never taken Arthur Gies or Anita Sarkeesian seriously.

Another reason I don't take the latter seriously.

flagrant use of the male gaze.

Wtf does that mean? Is she implying a male's gaze is inherently sexual? Is that not a sexist thing to say?

The artist is free to make what they want always. The consumer is free to not consume that art if they don't like it. That cartoon is racist as shit, I wouldn't watch it. I'm not gonna tell Warner Bros to not make it just because I find it a horrible depiction of black people.

As far as critics go they are free to criticize all they want. Just as artists are free to ignore them. It really is as simple as don't like what I'm making, don't buy/consume it.

@bones8677: Colin Moriarty at ign is the only self proclaimed conservative game reviewer from a bigger website based in SF that I can think of.

I embrace it in the critical world, in a roundabout sort of way:

Let's say I see someone air their opinions, especially about social issues, and their position grossly disagrees with mine; I can safely (and quickly) disregard whatever they've said and move on. As a political right-winger, I guess this does end up happening more often than it should... but I find the majority of the press (which tends to lean left) tow the line well enough. I simply see no point in wasting effort to engage with a view I find fundamentally wrong, at least when it comes to games.

The Polygon Bayonetta 2 review is a great example of the misplaced activism I seek to avoid

this right here is correct.

@kishinfoulux said:

I´m the other way around I rather hear the idle thumbs guys discussing the meanings of an interesting video game, than watch an hour of TotalBiscuit objectively whining about lack of options in a menu because it is anti-consumer or whatever, it just bores me to death.

I do however think both have place, different people seek different things in reviews and that its totally fine, something the GG lunatics should learn a bit about: tolerance.

A review comes from the reviewer. If something in the game bothers the reviewer, then he or she should speak out about it. It's as simple as that in my eyes.

Neither I nor anyone else has to agree or disagree with the reviewer's assessment. The reviewer just has to be as honest as possible.

What this topic is going to become (has become?) is what I anticipated about the release of Bayonetta 2.

I am disappointed that Anita Sarkeesian thinks what she has to say has to influence game critics at large- especially about a game she hasn't played yet. If it doesn't they're bad people... hypocrisy much? It seems more and more like she's a liar to me. I don't get that from her detractors, I get that just from what she does. I'll leave that alone, though, every time she speaks about games it upsets me because all I see is unfounded bile.

Anyway, as to the OP, if you don't like how someone writes critique then don't read/listen/view their work. I know this may seem dismissive, but I am really just saying it's that simple. I don't read Armond White anymore because I felt it became clear he was pandering to controversy above all else. In short I don't trust what he writes is true.

I feel the same about Anita Sarkeesian, Polygon, or any other website that panders to political slandering of games for perceived injustices. I think it's gross, so I don't go to those places, or listen to what they have to say anymore.

It's a common term mainly used in Film critique. From Wikipedia: the male gaze occurs when the camera puts the audience into the perspective of a heterosexual man. It may linger over the curves of a woman's body, for instance.

A review will be informed by the critic's personal social and political views if they find problematic content in the game is having a negative effect on their enjoyment of the game.

This is what you should expect. The fact that different critics have different perspectives and tastes is why they bother to write reviews rather than just post a numberical score that gets submitted to Metacritic and leave it at that.

You will only ever question whether a person's personal beliefs about the world should factor into their video game reviews if you disagree with their personal beliefs about the world so don't worry it's not that bad.

Ever read Roger Ebert's review of I Spit on Your Grave?

@bones8677: Let's take the honesty a step further: most game reviewers are young, white liberals. Naturally many people's views are not being currently represented. But it doesn't bother me too much because I find even most "good" game criticism misses the mark more often than not.