#Gamergate - Anita was on Colbert

A SONG for GamerGate

No, that is for the most part what is going on currently, but not the ultimate goal. There really isn't one. Gamergate is a leaderless group pushing back against people who level bile and hatred at the industry and it's fans, particularly when doing so is a profit strategy. It will bubble up and die down as people push against the gaming industry and end up falling flat on their face when years of effort accomplishes nothing, and others take their place.

This has been going on since Mortal Kombat. The only difference is that now there is a twitter hashtag, and instead of "Won't someone please think of the children!" the pearl cluters are screaming "Won't someone please think of the women!"

As for your claim about Gamergate and harassment, you got like any kind of evidence at all? I mean like any, even some that says idiotic comments are more prevalent in the gaming related corners of the internet then the likes of political websites, youtube, twitter in general, and so forth? That there has been any kind of uptake since gamergate? The closest I have seen is someone pointing out that a small percentage of tweets are negative, and a roughly similar percentage is positive. That actually seems pretty good by internet standards.

Even any that says pro-gamer gate types are leveling more bile and hatred then anti-gamer gate types? Only evidence I have seen on that one actually points the other way.

Harassment taking place elsewhere on the internet doesn't discredit the fact that Gamergate has fostered another environment for harassment to take place, especially a more organized and consorted effort to harrass than previously seen. Do I have proof? Yes, all of the individuals who have come forth and said they've been doxxed, death threats, etc. have been prevalent for many who have been only remotely associated with gamergate/targeted by gamergate, and while there is no proof of who made the attacks, the attacks were provoked by the mere mentioning gamergate which is the problem because it gives harassers, no matter what their stance is, a place to congregate.

http://digg.com/2014/when-gamergate-hits-the-wrong-target

I don't think giving in to harassers is the right approach. Any group forming on the internet attracts harassers. Youtube video's and comments would not exist if we were to avoid harassment.

If you want to talk about organized harassment, that would almost be a suitable definition of feminism today. At least in gamergate there are those who condemn it. I have yet to see anybody bring forth examples of feminist communities or groupings condemning feminist harassment.

So no, just some cherry picked statements used to justify selective outrage. I mean it isn't hard to dig up similar stuff from the other side of the table. Watch: http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/

You can scroll pretty endlessly, and a lot of it is pretty gross. You can find threats and doxings and so forth from both sides. I can swing by a rad fem site and pull up dozens of examples of hate and bile and disgusting nonsense. It isn't hard to dig up filth on the internet. Anyone can match you post for post for days. Heck, I just typed rad fem tumblr into Google and pulled up:

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/radical-feminism

This one is icky:

That was the second result, it took like five seconds to find. Took longer to figure out how to post it here. The first result was icky to, but I figured for the point going with the gamer specific one was wise. If you want to argue that Gamergate needs to some how figure out a way to moderate it's morons, anyone who invests a couple of moments into trying can dig up monstrous ick spouted by people who identify with any group linked to anti-gamergate statements and tar it with the exact same brush.

Or in short: Selective outrage over cherry picked statements isn't evidence of anything other then bias.

@kittennose said:

@Minishdriveby said:

Harassment taking place elsewhere on the internet doesn't discredit the fact that Gamergate has fostered another environment for harassment to take place, especially a more organized and consorted effort to harrass than previously seen. Do I have proof? Yes, all of the individuals who have come forth and said they've been doxxed, death threats, etc. have been prevalent for many who have been only remotely associated with gamergate/targeted by gamergate, and while there is no proof of who made the attacks, the attacks were provoked by the mere mentioning gamergate which is the problem because it gives harassers, no matter what their stance is, a place to congregate.

http://digg.com/2014/when-gamergate-hits-the-wrong-target

So no, just some cherry picked statements used to justify selective outrage. I mean it isn't hard to dig up similar stuff from the other side of the table. Watch: http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/

You can scroll pretty endlessly, and a lot of it is pretty gross. You can find threats and doxings and so forth from both sides. I can swing by a rad fem site and pull up dozens of examples of hate and bile and disgusting nonsense. It isn't hard to dig up filth on the internet. Anyone can match you post for post for days. Heck, I just typed rad fem tumblr into Google and pulled up:

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/radical-feminism

This one is icky:

That was the second result, it took like five seconds to find. Took longer to figure out how to post it here. The first result was icky to, but I figured for the point going with the gamer specific one was wise. If you want to argue that Gamergate needs to some how figure out a way to moderate it's morons, anyone who invests a couple of moments into trying can dig up monstrous ick spouted by people who identify with any group linked to anti-gamergate statements and tar it with the exact same brush.

Or in short: Selective outrage over cherry picked statements isn't evidence of anything other then bias.

The f*ck!!!!! we play games to suppress rape urges?!! God save us all Tumblr feminist will be the death of us all

What I don't understand is that gamergate claims to be against corruption in the industry, yet all they seem to do is fight in favour of corruption. I've seen many say that feminist reviewers should be black listed. Silencing voices of people you don't like is corruption, how do you people not see that? How is this any better than the firing of Jeff Gerstmann?

Can anyone give a single example of something the group has done to fight corruption rather than encourage it?

@toast_burner:

First thing off the top of my head, an ethics policy and an apology from the Escapist.

Now a request for you, how about some evidence, rather than "I've seen".

Sure there have been plenty of comments sent to news outlets who have now revised and published their ethics policies. What else can you do but complain about it? There has been an ethical hack that unearthed a rather nasty mailing list between several reviewers and such. They keep bringing it up and a lot of sites have covered the topic now making people aware. But yeah, if they keep being presented as misogynists or worse by feminist sexists and corrupt journalists it isn't that weird if most comments you find will be about feminism/ists, in a badly behaved way. I bet there are quite a few very pissed off gamergaters at the moment with all this slander.

Again, not so much a reply to you, but I hope we will all find the time to take a step back and clear our minds so that we all behave ourselves, because most of us want the same thing and it will leave the corrupt journalists, harassers and extremists to look like the idiots that they are. We should all wash our hands from their filth and find a more effective way to deal with them in the future.

I'm still of the opinion that all of this has been a positive experience. I have seen dozens of incredible interviews and conversations and blogs and discussions in comment sections about the corruption and sexism that all made great points. I feel like the criticism of tropes and women/men being portrayed in ways that we should not accept as real or normal have all been given a place. I think most of us now know where we stand on all those things. It's very sad that the only positive things aside from some of Aneeta Sarkeesians vids, to my knowledge, came from the gaming community. I am disappointed how the gaming journalists are ignoring the unprofessional behavior of their colleagues against gamers. I am disappointed that I don't see feminists communities embracing gamergate or gamers. I suppose gamers will have to lead by example.

So what did the escapist do that they need to apologize for?

Peoples reaction to Polygons review for Bayonetta 2 comes to mind. Images like this were posted around quite a bit.

Telling reviewers that they can only talk about what you want them to talk about is blatant corruption. It's a way of censoring any negative press about your game.

@kittennose said:

Holy shit!! that is the most stupidest tweet Ive ever seen Hahahahaha!!!

*sips coffee* wait a min what if i am drinking this stuff to suppress my rape urges? Aaaaaaaahhh

I finally visited the /r/GamerGhazi board today. Saw someone trying to say some anti Anita folk and radical Islamists have much in common, so I stopped reading. Is that board the SRS version of KiA or are they just pretending to be dumb?

^And that Polygon review, people were mad because Polygon was criticizing Bayonetta for being....Bayonetta. IMO what the writer of the review did wrong was all they did was slam it and failed to suggest why it was wrong or how it could be improved. Some people believe she's controlled by the sexual designs and others (including the creator) believes she instead owns it. That image is wrong saying that they focused on it over gameplay since whoever did the review wrote enough about the gameplay after they critiqued the sexual aspects, but I do understand how some could feel like that since Bayonetta 2 shaped up to be one of the greatest actions games of all time yet a minor issue harmed the game so much in Polygon's eyes. That and we know they docked points because it says so at the end of the article. Also when I went back and looked it over, a large chunk of the review seems to be talking about the unappealing (in their opinion) sexual themes. I personally do not like Bayonetta's design but I wouldn't have let that influence the score. There are two other scores that are lower than Polygon's but only one has the review posted online. They gave it a lower score because of the visuals, something that people will understand and probably even agree. I think it's just some were upset with Polygon's actions because they've been following that trend for a while now.

Rape has never been the same since pong came out...

Makes sense, since the computer literally rapes me in score.

what is unimportant? I ask because I bet my left nut you don't even know what is it about.

@kittennose said:

@Minishdriveby said:

Harassment taking place elsewhere on the internet doesn't discredit the fact that Gamergate has fostered another environment for harassment to take place, especially a more organized and consorted effort to harrass than previously seen. Do I have proof? Yes, all of the individuals who have come forth and said they've been doxxed, death threats, etc. have been prevalent for many who have been only remotely associated with gamergate/targeted by gamergate, and while there is no proof of who made the attacks, the attacks were provoked by the mere mentioning gamergate which is the problem because it gives harassers, no matter what their stance is, a place to congregate.

http://digg.com/2014/when-gamergate-hits-the-wrong-target

So no, just some cherry picked statements used to justify selective outrage. I mean it isn't hard to dig up similar stuff from the other side of the table. Watch: http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/

You can scroll pretty endlessly, and a lot of it is pretty gross. You can find threats and doxings and so forth from both sides. I can swing by a rad fem site and pull up dozens of examples of hate and bile and disgusting nonsense. It isn't hard to dig up filth on the internet. Anyone can match you post for post for days. Heck, I just typed rad fem tumblr into Google and pulled up:

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/radical-feminism

This one is icky:

That was the second result, it took like five seconds to find. Took longer to figure out how to post it here. The first result was icky to, but I figured for the point going with the gamer specific one was wise. If you want to argue that Gamergate needs to some how figure out a way to moderate it's morons, anyone who invests a couple of moments into trying can dig up monstrous ick spouted by people who identify with any group linked to anti-gamergate statements and tar it with the exact same brush.

Or in short: Selective outrage over cherry picked statements isn't evidence of anything other then bias.

Cool. I'm glad you read what I wrote because I was talking about both sides being harassed.

@toast_burner said:

@GarGx1 said:

@toast_burner:

First thing off the top of my head, an ethics policy and an apology from the Escapist.

Now a request for you, how about some evidence, rather than "I've seen".

So what did the escapist do that they need to apologize for?

Peoples reaction to Polygons review for Bayonetta 2 comes to mind. Images like this were posted around quite a bit.

Telling reviewers that they can only talk about what you want them to talk about is blatant corruption. It's a way of censoring any negative press about your game.

You have a strange idea of corruption and unethical behaviour. Polygon removed points from a game because the developers don't follow the same political views as they do. A political view formed to support a movement that has nothing to do with gaming in any way shape or form. What has a political viewpoint got to do with a game being good or not? Sure Polygon are as entitled to their opinion as anyone else but those opinions should not be given a megaphone to push their toxic misandrist views, outside of their own website anyway.

If the game was crap, I'm sure it would have received a universal slating for it. However, apparently (I don't know, I haven't played it), Bayonetta 2 is an excellent game and therefore received a massive majority of favourable reviews from reviewers with no political agenda to push on readers.

First off their is a lot. Going after Kotaku for having continued faith in reporters who cultivate loved triangles with sources. Backing employees who openly and publicly call to use violence and degradation to silence their target demographic. Openly paying the people they not only report on but critique. Media outlet owners proclaiming they are paying people to enter the discussion and manipulate it in an effort to silence dissent. Being anti click-bait in general.

That said, going after a reviewer who knocks of several points because a game doesn't cater to what can at best be described as a political ideology and at worst be described as a petty bias isn't an example of corruption. Particularly when the review knocked it down below the level of other games that had sever technical issues at launch. The claim that it was an effort "silence negative press about (their) game) is just silly." One of Playstation's own wrote up a nice peace about how the review of a Nintendo exclusive game was BS. That is about as far as protecting your own game from criticism as you can get, it was literally defending the competition. With Wii sales the way they are, it is hard to claim that Gamergate is in the pocket of Nintendo.

Had nothing to do with defending a game in particular, and everything to do with defending games, the people who make them, and the people who enjoy them. If Polygon puts out an article saying the next big shooter objectifies men and perpetuates anti-male stereotypes because the game is all about gunning down a male shaped collection of pixels every ten seconds or so the gaming community isn't going to be less outraged. It will not matter who made the game, what platforms it is or isn't for, the countries or peoples represented in the game, or anything so silly.

What will matter is that the claim is freaking doofy, and in no way informs people on the game's actual quality, and instead mostly makes an effort to distract from the discussion of that game's quality. It can be the best game ever or total shovelware, and the distraction will still be the focus of dissenters.

@GarGx1 said:

@toast_burner said:

@GarGx1 said:

@toast_burner:

First thing off the top of my head, an ethics policy and an apology from the Escapist.

Now a request for you, how about some evidence, rather than "I've seen".

So what did the escapist do that they need to apologize for?

Peoples reaction to Polygons review for Bayonetta 2 comes to mind. Images like this were posted around quite a bit.

Telling reviewers that they can only talk about what you want them to talk about is blatant corruption. It's a way of censoring any negative press about your game.

You have a strange idea of corruption and unethical behaviour. Polygon removed points from a game because the developers don't follow the same political views as they do. A political view formed to support a movement that has nothing to do with gaming in any way shape or form. What has a political viewpoint got to do with a game being good or not? Sure Polygon are as entitled to their opinion as anyone else but those opinions should not be given a megaphone to push their toxic misandrist views, outside of their own website anyway.

If the game was crap, I'm sure it would have received a universal slating for it. However, apparently (I don't know, I haven't played it), Bayonetta 2 is an excellent game and therefore received a massive majority of favourable reviews from reviewers with no political agenda to push on readers.

Exactly my point. Because they have a view you disagree with, they must be silenced.

If you don't like them just don't read their reviews. It's really that simple.

@toast_burner:

Show me in my post where is stated that Polygon should be silenced, pretty sure I said they are as entitled to their opinion as anyone else, they just shouldn't be given a megaphone to spew toxic views with. That has nothing to do with me agreeing with them or not, Their political opinions and views are not compatible with the review of a game.

They are perfectly welcome to do as many opinion pieces as they want but a review should cover the facts of the game not whether they like the clothing of the protagonist.

See heres the problem with this train of thought. They designed Bayonetta to be Bayonetta, yes, which is why I'm allowed to critique the design because it's an intentional--unintentional aspects should also be critiqued--aspect of the game. They designed her to be hypersexualized that was the designer's choice; this isn't even a case of the reviewer projecting, misrepresenting, warping what the authors intentions were. The reviewer and the developers both understand that the design is hypersexualized; the reviewer disagrees that it culminates in the empowering of women. Now in the last part you're suggesting that the reviewer shouldn't mark the game down for what he thinks are negatives. Did he mark the score down too much? Who knows when the review scale is subjective. My 5 doesn't mean the same thing as your 5. You may think a 5 is terrible and disregard any game that gets a 5 where as I might think a 5 shows a flawed game that I might enjoy and still buy it anyway.

So what's the problem with Bayonetta 2 receiving a 7.5? When there are other outlets that can be read to find differing opinions?

What utter nonsense. Reviews never have been simply to cover facts. Do book reviews only comment on the spelling? Do film reviews only comment on whether the camera was steady or not?

Reviews are meant to explain why the reviewer liked or disliked the game. So if the reviewer disliked a game because they felt the game was sexist, racist or homophobic, then they should mention that in their review. Are you really saying that if a game comes out where you play as the KKK preventing the evil black people from raping white women, that no reviewer should be allowed to comment on the subject matter and instead focus 100% of the review on the controls instead?

This delusion about game reviews needs to end. There are no objective reviews. You only complain about a review having to much of the reviewers personal bias showing when the reviewer has views different to yours.

Because it is an example of getting distracted by silly bias instead of actually talking about the quality of the game.

As an example, your critique of the gamergate movement as providing a place for and cultivating harassment isn't in and of it's self evidence of extreme bias and an effort to derail discussion. It is the selective application of this tactic that is the evidence. The fact that you do not apply the standard universally, but only in rare cases. If you applied the standard universally it would only be evidence that we disagree on what we think matters. Similarly: If Polygon, or it's reviewer, generally approached game design from the perspective of how it empowers the gender of it's protagonist no one would care. They wouldn't be factored into metacritic, they would be a little niche blog few people knew anything about.

That however isn't what Polygon, or the reviewer, generally focuses on. They focus on the overall quality of the game. Specifically focusing on gender empowerment to the point that they drop the score lower then games that had major technical issues that made them difficult to play becomes evidence of extreme bias when it is only brought up in extremely rare cases. When such a strong focus on this one aspect not only wildly deviates from the standard set by others, but the standard set by themselves and the organization they are paid to represent.

@toast_burner:

Ok so now you're accusing me of supporting the KKK, why? Because I don't agree that a game review is the place for political doctrine to be pushed to the fore.

Not including the fact that the Bayonetta,herself, was designed by a woman whose intentions were to empower her through hyper-sexualisation. Of course that does not meet the Polygone/SJW narrative so it has to be ripped apart, just like TFYC (you know the people the Escapist apologised to for only taking the word of Miss Quinn before attacking them in the press).

Where did I accuse you of supporting the KKK? My point was that if a reviewer is not allowed to question anything political in a game then that means you must also think that a reviewer must not be allowed to question a game about the KKK. Or are they only not allowed to question something political when it's something you agree with?

I like the character of Bayonetta, but if someone didn't like her and felt that it detracted from their enjoyment of the game, why shouldn't they mention that in their review?

Like I said, you have no understanding on how reviews are written or what they are even supposed to be. Why don't you try reading some? None of them are simply a statement of facts, all of them are the reviewer giving their own subjective views on why they enjoyed or didn't enjoy the game.

First off, there are two reasons for this.

A) I loathe Nazi's and slavers. Freaking loathe them. Most sane people do. There however can, and have been, great games that tell stories from the perspective of both groups, even going so far as to have the player character achieve victory in their name. Heck, New Vegas didn't just let you become a slaver, it had an entire slaver faction you could champion.

Or, you know, butcher gleefully, the way the great feline in the sky intended.

So yeah, the idea that a video game should be criticized for not advancing or glorifying a specific political agenda, or placing someone in the shoes of an individual who is advancing an extremely revolting agenda, isn't just wildly outside the norm, it is downright odd. There are dozens of games where you play as horrible revolting monsters commuting atrocities. Heck, the biggest game of last year is basically a theme park for committing atrocities, and it lets you slaughter the national guard when they show up to stop it. I can not think of any major review that took GTA to task for making killing cops and innocent civilians fun and interesting despite the fact that I can comfortably say that every last one of them thinks butchering cops and innocents by the thousands is at the very least bad,

B) No one is coming to a major game review sites to see if a game agrees, disagrees, glorifies, or denigrates their political philosophy. This is because there is no major review site that considers this a primary or highly important factor in game review. If they did, they wouldn't be major game review sites because most people just don't care. Games are virtual consequence free worlds were you can explore things outside of the bounds of reality. Why in the name of fluff would anyone care how a video game lines up with the morals and ethics developed to prevent or deal with the consequences reality?

So, once again, has nothing to do with saying "This is an important issue!" and everything to do with ignoring the issue for years and years until focusing on it becomes a good opportunity to bait some clicks. If video games had any kind of responsibility to portray realistic and commonly accepted ethical guidelines, the review scores for just about any game featuring violence would be wildly different.

@toast_burner: I know you weren't saying I support the KKK but the insinuation was in your post.

I think I've read my fair share of reviews in the 39 years I've been gaming. I still don't believe that a game review is the place to push a political point of view or any other pre-programmed narrative. A game review does carry an element of opinion and that is allowed but to use the medium to push an agenda is completely wrong. I saw the first reviews for Bayonetta 2 come out and lot of 10's were appearing, I thought "wait for the Polygon review, it'll be lucky to get a 5". I wasn't far off either. Political narrative is not opinion it is doctrine in exactly the same way as religious doctrine is not opinion.

This argument has come about because of a non gaming related group strong arming their agenda on gamers by claiming we are all "woman hating neckbeards" and yet this couldn't be any further from the truth. From your 21500+ post count, it must be fairly safe to say that you are a gamer, as in your hobby is playing video games. Being such, means that you too are a "woman hating neckbeard nerd" (I'm guessing that is completely false), if you go by the SJW narrative and yet you appear to be defending the people who are attacking you (as a gamer) and your hobby, not to mention people who believe you should be bullied and assaulted for enjoying video games.

Their classification of a gamer is no more true for me than it is for you and I find their assault on me and my hobby unwarranted, offensive and reprehensible.

Why don't you read what I said? No where did I mention games having social responsibility of any kind.

My point was that a review is simply a person explaining why they liked or didn't like a game. There is no right or wrong reason to like or dislike a game, it's entirely subjective. So if a reviewer disliked a game because it's sexist portrayal of women made them feel uncomfortable, how is that any worse than them not liking the game because the camera controls weren't very good?

I admit that I haven't really been following this whole ordeal closely, nor had any desire to closely monitor it with a microscope but the idea of making games more politically correct is mindbogglingly dumb. I can't condone any harassment or threats made against these individuals pushing this agenda, but I will stand by with the ones who think this is pretty silly. Let me know if I'm off my rocker.

Ummmm... Okay... so because a woman designed the character (which doesn't really mean much when designs have to be green lit by higher ups), it's immune to critique? The thing I don't understand is why reviewers shouldn't be allowed to talk about sexism, hypersexualization, etc. when the game is the one that brings this topic to the forefront.

It's like avoiding talking about Objectivism/Collectivism/Jingoism/Racism in a BioShock review; those are all political subjects that are at the core of the game's narrative, just like sexualization is at the core of Bayonetta's design philosophy.

EDIT: If you don't agree that a game review isn't the place for political doctrine then don't read Polygon's review. It's one review out of the multitude of reviews out there. That's the reason for having multiple review sites with differing opinions. They don't all have to conform to your perception of the game.

New news. IGF judge claims on Twitter she will knock down the score of any game featuring a male protagonist. The person and her Twitter friends are butthurt that people don't understand that it was just a "joke." She later leaves the 1st round voting group.

IIRC, the creator said she designed what made her feel empowered. Maybe some feel it's an attack on the designer's choices? It doesn't make it immune to critique. They're free to talk whatever they want but when readers feel like a certain agenda is being pushed, you know they're gonna start getting vocal.

The only reason one would avoid talking about those narrative philosophies is to prevent possible spoilers. Not every game or story depicts racism or other elements like Bioshock does, but that has to do with the story of Bioshock and its setting. Levine didn't use racism to push an agenda against or for anybody. I don't think any reviewer thought it was something more than just a storytelling device. Bayonetta's style should be mentioned because it's an essential part of the game's visual design. Platinum nailed what they set out to do visually, which is creating something flashy and attention-grabbing to fit the fast-paced action of the game. Criticism needs to be constructive, otherwise it's no different than the shit that's spouted on /v/ or other message boards including our own. IMO, the writer's critique of Bayonetta 2's character design was not constructive. I saw no suggestions on how Platinum could've improved it or offered alternatives like adding an option to keep Bayonetta clothed during normal gameplay, or something else along those lines.

That's what many people already stopped doing. I stopped going there because of their Sim City review shenanigans. Why should Polygon be immune to critique?

Yes the character is sexualized, but how is her portrayal sexist? Just because something has sexual themes does not mean it's making a harmful statement towards that gender does it? That's what they fail to address is the why and I believe that many are upset over the review. Reviewers can explain why certain gameplay elements are good or bad, but when it comes to stylistic choices this one suddenly clammed up. That person never further explained himself in an edited note or separate article.

It's not about the 7.5. It's about what Polygon thought was an issue and included (poorly) in their review. Polygon has readers and some of those readers were upset. How can they improve themselves if their reader aren't telling them why they're upset?

From what I heard made Mattice made a joke. People took it seriously and started to harass her(which is not okay) and they also notified the IGF and she quit.The IGF did not respond that well from what I heard to the joke and I can see why and a few other people decided to stop judging the IGF in support of Mattice. Some else also made a joke, but they did not get harassed.

A lot of people just don't know how to use social media like Twitter. Treating it as a personal diary when everyone can see it is never a good idea. Reading through her Twitter I honestly can't tell if she was joking or not because of how she posts.

Sure, become vocal, say Polygon is wrong. I think they're wrong too, but being vocal over the matter and trying to silence Polygon, like that "Operation Bayonetta 2" graphic was rallying, are two different things.

If Bayonetta's style is an essential part of the game's visual design, then shouldn't that style be critiqued and not just mentioned in passing? I felt Polygon did explain why they thought the game was objectifying women (and they do praise the over-the-top, flashy, attention-grabbing, action-sequences):

"Less positive is the same exaggerated sexualization that hung heavy around the last game's neck. I'll forgive the high heels and the exaggerated proportions, if only because there's so many other things to criticize. Bayonetta's new outfit delivers bold new developments in revealing clothing with the introduction of diamond cutouts on the ass of her jumpsuit, creating what I can only refer to as "under-butt" cleavage. When standing in place her shoulders are bent back to point her chest at ... whatever.

But even this is minor compared to the game's camera, which zooms in on Bayonetta's parts like they're products being sold in a commercial. There are enough gratuitous ass-shots, cleavage jokes and spread legs to fill an hours long super cut. The camera doesn't look at Bayonetta — it leers at her.

This is frequently provided as an implicit reward for doing well. For anyone who didn't play the first game, here's a bit of premise: Much of Bayonetta's supernatural power is tied into her hair. Her clothing is actually composed of this hair magic, and as she performs more powerful attacks, more of this hair magic is diverted from covering her to compensate. Put simply, Bayonetta's strongest attacks result in her clothes flying off. For more intense quicktime sequences, she'll even do a sexy pose as it flies off, with the absolute barest minimum covered.

It's sexist, gross pandering, and it's totally unnecessary. Bayonetta 2 needs prurient rewards even less than the original Bayonetta did, because the on-screen chaos you can wreak through skilled play is infinitely more satisfying."

So as you can see one of the biggest reasons they thought it was 'sexist' is because the camera actively zooms up Bayonetta's asshole every chance it has. I don't really see how that review isn't constructive. It gives positives; It states negatives. It doesn't tell the developer explicitly how to fix your game, "we'll give you a better score if you do X,Y, and Z," nor should it. It's up to the developer, the one with actual development experience, to make these decisions.

Using Twitter to have a debate over an extremely nuanced and complex issue is really stupid. It's too easy to misconstrue someones argument if it only consists of 140 characters per.

Also, the GamerGate movement needs to organise itself and actually have leaders with a face that speak for the movement as a whole. Right now it consists of many disparate factions with differing agendas all utilizing the GamerGate hashtag and claiming they speak for the movement.

Once GG has sorted out exactly what it stands for and has an actual spokeman who is willing to speak in public to the media then a true discussion can take place. ATM, it's a bunch of ugly skirmishes all across the internet which isn't gonna solve sh*t.

Not every aspect of a game needs to be thoroughly explained or critiqued though. In Bayonetta's case, it's quite a unique style that we are unaccustomed to seeing. It should be mentioned for those who are unaware of what Bayonetta is.

Yes, too may ass shots is fair feedback. I haven't played 2 yet but knowing the nature of the game, I can understand that someone would feel that there's too much focus shots. Good criticism is always constructive. When used effectively, it sounds like a solution. It's basically teaching. No matter how many times I read it, what they covered in their review regarding sexualization is not constructive. Polygon is known for covering more politically and socially correct issues these days (and that's ok,) but that doesn't give them an excuse to have a negative tone towards anything they disagree with. The angle and tone of that part of the review is all wrong so no one should be surprised that readers got angry over it. Just because the developer is the one making the decisions doesn't mean we have nothing useful to suggest to them.

It's even worse when they have like 10 replies in that character limit, and thanks to Twitter's brilliant formatting we have to read it bottom to top.

Agreed. There's no way this movement can survive without some sort of leadership. They have meeting grounds but no one to tell them what to do, which leads to a lot of wild mob behavior that helped lead to them being branded as vile misogynists.

"Reviewers can explain why certain gameplay elements are good or bad, but when it comes to stylistic choices this one suddenly clammed up. That person never further explained himself in an edited note or separate article."

You're changing your argument. First it was the author didn't provide enough evidence/explain his point; now it's not every aspect of the game needs to be explained/criticized. The point of the review is to critique. If it's in the game, then it's fair game for criticism, especially if the aspect under critique is a central theme of the game.

Actually the movement was somewhat organized like a couple of weeks ago. They were able to plan stuff from certain sites like reddit and certain other sites I don't want to mention and they succeeded a bit in their goals at times even though they failed at achieving what they wanted to do at times.They are pretty disorganized now because the media and other people were finally able to show the outside world who this group was and the group got a lot of attention for some of the horrible things they did. This lead to advertisers ignoring the group's email campaigns and any goal they set out to complete pretty much started to fail instantly now.Almost everyone's laughing at the group now or getting rid of the gamergate threads they post in on certain sites that use to allow gamergate discussion and no one is barely giving the group any positive coverage anymore.As a result people start to rethink their decision of joining gamergate and they leave. Gamergate members are starting to fight with each other because the movement is struggling to survive now since they do not have that much power anymore. The only site or organization they can mess with now is Gawker.

With "Not every aspect..." I am talking about importance of Bayonetta's risque elements, not the review it was criticized in. People may not know that the game contains that, and should be mentioned when describing the game in the review so people know what they're getting into. Same thing with religious oriented review websites making their readers aware that the game may have certain messages or themes. "then shouldn't that style be critiqued and not just mentioned in passing?" It's just another element of a character's design, not unique to Bayonetta but unique in the flashy visuals and over-the-top action, with the only significance is that we really don't see anywhere else. I do not believe the sexual themes present are important enough to warrant a thorough examination for a general review like this, especially when you dedicate a large chunk of the review to that one minor thing.

My point is that that Polygon writer's negative opinion of sexualization in Bayonetta 2 was bad criticism and it lacks sufficient explanation with no constructive ideas. That reviewer really could've summed up his issues in two or three sentences and put the rest in a separate article that further analyzed it and perhaps other games like it, as well as saying what they would like to see instead. If the reviewer really felt this way about the stylistic choice for Bayonetta, then they should've explained themselves further.

Oh, this argument. Weird that you brought up the KKK but okay, this one is way simpler so cool. Less interesting, as it is self defeating, but cool.

Yeah, look, this is a debate about how work should be critiqued by others. Game companies make games, and reviewers critique them. If you want to go with the whole "It is subjective, there is no wrong answer, if you don't like it don't read it' you can't really jump up and down getting all upset when the general public, the individuals for whom the reviews are published, critique the work of game reviewers.

After all, there is no wrong way to critique the work of others. It is all subjective. There is no wrong answer. If you don't like the way readers critique reviews, don't read them. If you honestly believe the stuff you are saying, why are you even in the conversation? Game reviews are products designed to get readers to a site so that the site can package those readers and sell them to advertizes. Critiquing a review on a for profit website is quite literally a consumer product review.

Umm, this is just flat misrepresentation and commits a double standard similar to the one outlined above.

First: Operation Bayonetta 2 is nothing more then an effort to get people to inform Nintendo of their displeasure. That is the definition of becoming vocal, as the only thing they are doing is calling attention to the object of their displeasure, and letting a company know who they side with. Equating it and censorship is just silly. You can not censor a for profit company by informing another for profit company that you think the first is failing to actually inform the customer when they can instead invest in an effort to bait clicks by manufacturing scandal.

Even if Operation Bayonetta 2 accomplished everything they hoped, the only result is that Polygon would no longer find a cooperative partner in Nintendo. They would still have the right to say whatever they wanted, it is just that others would stop going out of their way and sending them free stuff in order to help them say what they wanted to say.

So yeah, you can not jump up and down about how the right to critique is sacrosanct and it is perfectly okay to let everyone know your views on any given product, and then become outraged when people critique a game review and inform a publisher of their opinion. A company can not force another to stop stating opinions, but they can choose to stop assisting with the expression of those opinions anytime they want.

Where did I say that you can't critique a review? There's a difference between saying why you don't like a reviewer and trying to get that reviewer black listed.

You're still firmly on your rocker ;)

Personally, I think our media reflect our culture and not the other way around, so I find it an incredibly weird choice of battleground. I also don't think gaming/the internet is full of sexists as much as it's full of regular old assholes.

Does gaming need reform? I honestly don't know, but I certainly don't think any reform should be managed/influenced by current "high profile" feminists like Anita Sarkeesian; because she does'nt seem to understand the medium in the first place.

So you are claiming it is alright to review a product, as long as you don't convince anyone not to buy it? How comical.

Unless you are arguing that no one should consider negative statements highlighted in a review when deciding if they should do business with a company, you seem to be spouting a wildly biased double standard. The entire point of critiquing a consumer product is to tell other people about the positive and negative aspects of it so they can make an informed decision. Informing Nintendo about a negative aspect of a review of their product offered by a company they do business with is no different then Polygon informing people about negative aspects of a game.

Telling people you dislike something and attempting to persuade them that your opinion has value is what reviews are all about. Doing so is either censorship of expression or it is not. It isn't only censorship when it runs counter to your preconception.

Why don't you read my posts before you reply? It seems like you are just replying to what you want me to say rather than what I actually said. No where did I say or imply any of that.

Why do you want reviewers and publishers to have a closer connection? I thought Gamergate was against that type of stuff. If a reviewer can be blacklisted for writing a negative review, than reviewers will only ever write positive reviews out of fear for their jobs. What you're saying should be done is no better than Jeff Gerstmann being fired for giving a low score to game game that was heavily advertised on the site.

Think about it. If you were a publisher wouldn't you like the ability to crush out all negative press about their games? Why do you want them to have that power?

You are the one arguing that when the general population, the people the product known as reviews are created to inform, make an effort to inform Nintendo what the sites they do business with are actually doing with the free products they get are crossing the line, not me.

You don't get to give it both ways. Either informing people about your views on a product in an effort to inform their future decisions is censorship, or it isn't. The whole "It is only censorship when it disagrees with me!" nonsense is just silly. You might have an argument if they threatened to boycott Nintendo if they refused to blacklist Polygon, but that isn't what happened. They just made an effort to let their views be known to the publisher in question.

I'm glad that you think "cut[ting] Polygon out of Nintendo Press material" wouldn't be a form of censorship by causing a delay in coverage over Nintendo.

What makes you think reviews are aimed at the general population? No reviewer writes what they think the average person will think, they write what they think. You as the viewer can relates the reviewers opinions to your own and based on your similarities or differences, understand by what they said whether you will enjoy the game or not.

Lets Use Polygon's Bayonetta 2 review as an example. They felt that it's over the top sexual imagery and the camera constantly zooming in on the characters boobs and arse put them off the game and lessened their enjoyment of it but apart from that it was mostly positive. However I personally don't have much of a problem with that stuff so even though the review wasn't very positive (although still mostly positive) I can still tell just by that review alone that the game will probably be one I will enjoy. No where did they say anything that will mislead the viewer. Why do you care what score they gave at the end? The review did a good job explaining what they liked and disliked. Just because you disagree with it that doesn't mean they did a bad job.

Like I said publishers shouldn't silence their critics for not giving a game a score as high as they wanted. How is black listing Polygon for giving Bayonetta a 7.5 any better than firing Jeff for giving Kane and Lynch a 6? If you want publishers have that amount of power over the media then you are against journalistic integrity. What next giving games a high score because you slept with the developer? Because that's just as bad as what you're suggesting.

I think a lot of people are overgeneralising these statements. "Gamers are this", "feminists are that", "videogames contain this", etc. If you start taking such ridiculously broad statements by mostly irrelevant people so seriously, nothing will ever change. If the claims made are indeed as extreme as you present them to be, then there's absolutely no reason for me to feel attacked or even care. Such claims are simply ridiculous and unfounded and deserve nothing more than to be ignored. You make it appear as if the entire anti-gamergate group thinks all gamers are 'women hating neckbeards', but that's most likely a comment coming from someone supporting that side; a comment you then project onto the entire group. The same is happening the other way around. One person comments women should just stay away from videogames and someone projects that onto the entire gamergate community.

Noone ever attacked me personally, noone ever claimed I am a 'women hating neckbeard', just because I enjoy videogames. These opinions are meaningless and empty. I'm not going to waste my energy on or care about people who make such claims. I do however care about people who are apparently concerned about the way women are potrayed in videogames. Not because I agree with them, but because I think some of these concerns are fair enough to seriously consider. You seem to be creating extremely black and white scenarios here. When I agree with someone who's concerned about certain questionable depictions in videogames I do not automatically agree with the addition of 'and therefore all gamers are misogynistic pigs'. Things are never that black and white.

Because it's interesting? Because videogames are cultural products that rely on reality to be understood? Because some people might be put off by certain fantasy worlds that contain aspects or ideas they find uncomfortable, weird or unappealing? The created worlds may exist outside of the bounds of reality, but their design, their principles, their depicted values are firmly anchored in ideas and desires from reality. Videogames exist by virtue of their social context, otherwise they'd be incomprehensible. Some parts of this context may be very fundamental; so fundamental that some of us take them for granted and see them as standards that some majority adheres to. And it is part of criticism to discuss the representation of that social context in certain videogames, no matter how unimportant or irrelevant that might seem to you.

Also, I don't think most people just don't care. In fact, they care so passionately in the oppposite direction that they simply can't manage to ignore what they dislike. But I don't think that group is the majority. The majority who really doesn't care is not bringing about change. They just hop from site to site and pick what they like, without caring too much about all the questionable things that might be going on below the surface. Being vocal about what you dislike might yield certain positive results, but clinging to and criticising everything you dislike will only enable others. For many this whole gamergate thing is simple entertainment and they'll click on juicy articles from both sides filled with ridiculous claims and hilarious comments by outraged people. They're great reads.

Reviews don't have that much value as a consumer guide anyway, even if all the bias was left out (and frankly, any level of bias or politics has never stopped me from getting valuable information from reviews). We can watch gameplay videos, extensive previews, we can play alphas and betas, etc. There are so many reviews anyway that three or five deviant ones really don't make any difference. And apparently people can't stay away from the controversial ones, so the websites must be doing something right in that regard, since it's all about clicks anyway...

If you ask me, that bias is absolutely harmless, not only within the context of the countless other reviews that are out there, but also within the context of the review itself. When I read that Polygon review I see that strong opinions are coupled with clear examples, which gives me enough tools to make a valuable personal assessment. I might disagree with the reviewer's conclusion, but the examples are valuable nonetheless. If a review enables me to construct a balanced assessment, then it's valuable to me. I think it's a misconception that biased reviews aren't capable of doing that. In fact, bias can be extremely informative, as long as an account is detailed enough to put things in perspective. But this whole issue becomes even more irrelevant when all the other reviews are taken into account, because to the potential value of bias is then added the ease with which any biased argument can be tossed aside for numerous other arguments about the same or different aspects.

Also, talking about the quality of a videogame is not the primary task of a review, in my opinion. It should be aimed at providing the reasons for a particular gaming experience. It should be about clearly describing how you interpreted the game. The conclusion about its overall quality is wholly irrelevant. Quality is something that is discussed, not stated. Reviews are about the examples given to explain a certain claim and about you adapting those contextual examples to your own preferences. That's something the majority of big reviews allows for, in my opinion. In the end, that score or recommendation is the most meaningless part of the review. I don't care about general, universal or objective quality, I care about whether or not I might like the game in question.

They didn't have the power to do such a thing, they only had the power to tell Nintendo how they feel. Sort of, you know, how a feminist reviewer can only tell the masses that a game is misogynistic, but they can't stop people from buying the game. Or how a blogger can tell the game industry they shouldn't do business with gamers, because they are misogynistic hateful so and sos.

Once again, it isn't only censorship when it fails to match your preconceptions. Nintendo can not silence anyone. Nintendo can not infringe on the free speech of people around the world. The only thing they can do is fail to provide those people with free stuff, and early access to information. You are quite literally proclaiming that failing to assist someone in their financial endeavors or refusing to give them free stuff is censorship. The sad thing is this isn't even what happened.

The post only asks people to fill out a survey if they agree with the stated position. If that is an attack, what the heck do you call telling the gaming industry that gamers are dead, should not cater to them, leveling a bunch of vile insults, and so forth?

They can't silence anyone. They can merely refuse to continue giving them free stuff and early access to information. Censorship is a first amendment issue in the US. Free speech is a human right. Refusing to give people free stuff and early access to private information when the people asking for that swag and info don't consider informing customers their primary responsibility falls under neither category.

*edit* For the record, I am not claiming that people should rush Nintendo and tell them what to do with their early access bundles. You two are the ones proclaiming that a random unknown individual asking folks who agree with their perspective to fill out a survey have crossed the line, while maintaining that for-profit press organizations expressing negative views specifically designed to influence the purchasing behaviors of thousands to millions of people should somehow be above having their product (the readers) stick their nose into their financial interests.

The difference between my position and the one you two are advancing is that I think both sides have the right to wield this power should they decide to do so, and that neither qualifies as censorship.