I really love both Bayonetta games. I love their combat, style, and the character Bayonetta. Arthur Gies of Polygon liked the gameplay for Bayonetta 2, but felt the character was sexist. He knocked the game down a few points because it was sexist. Now, some of you know my opinions on Gies, but these are neither here nor there. If he differs on my opinion, I really don't care. Even if he gives a game I love a good, but not great score, then it's just his opinion.
Other people see things differently. These people do need to get over that someone likes a game less than they do and realize that it is just video games. However, one thing I have realized in life is that crazy people are always going to exist and the best thing we can do is realize how to deal with them and why they exist. So I have to ask, why do people get so upset over the opinion of Arthur Gies?
After all, it's pretty clear that most of these people did not like him in the first place. We have over two months of Gamergate controversy as evidence that Polygon is not popular with many gamers. So why get upset? Well, most seem to focus on the score, which would bring down its Metacritic score. Gamers seem to really care about Metacritic, but why?
Well, because reviewers made scores so important. I remember all those EGM reviews where a three 8's or higher meant a game was worth buying, three 9's meant a game was a must buy, and 3 10's meant it was worth getting a system over. Their scores gave an easy picture of the quality of a game without needing to read the review. Not only this, but often they would have a good and bad list for a game, making the content of the actual review less important.
This became more common, where IGN would give a paragraph at the end outlining the review along with a score card which would outline the basics of a game, giving a few thoughts on presentation, graphics, sound gameplay, and replay value. Gamespot meanwhile had a small list of pointers about the game, such as a bad first impression or having a remarkably memorable moment. Even Pixlbit has something like this with its "Recommended for," though I do think that theirs complements the review more than substituting this.
Can these reviewers really complain that people are only complaining about the score when they were the ones who made a score more important than the review? They might not have meant to, they might have needed to so they could attract impatient viewers rather than actual readers, but this still enabled an obsession over review scores. Yet I have never seen anyone who complains about how readers react to scores and not the review acknowledge this.
But wait, Arthur Gies gave Bayonetta 2 a 7.5/10. That score indicates this is a good game, does it not? Well, yes and no. See, there is something called the 7-10 review scale. Where 9's and 10's are given like candy, 8's are met with caution, 7's are okay and anything else you should stay far away from. I'm not exactly sure when this started, but I feel it is safe to say it really popularized around 2007 and really blown out of proportion in 2011.
IGN was especially guilty of this, throwing 10's at games with significant flaws like Grant Theft Auto 4 and Metal Gear Solid 4, however, they were not alone. Remember how Batman Arkham City got a 6/5 from a site? Good scores were redefined throughout the seventh generation, leaving this mess where good does not mean what it once did.
Reviewers, most notably Jim Sterling, love to cry fowl at people getting upset when Uncharted 3 got an 8 or Skyward Sword got a 9, but the fact of the matter is that 8's and 9's were not the stand outs they once were. Videos game review scores have become inflated without a glass ceiling, to the point where 9.5 and 10 will only make fans happy. Compare that to how Pixlbit's own Julian Titus respects those scores. He'll score a game he deems as a must play an 8 or 7.
See, these people may be ignorant and lash out in entirely the wrong way, but deep down, all they want is for their game to succeed. And reviewers created a system where people pay way too much attention to scores over content while sending another message that 8 and above are the only ones worth playing. To the people lashing out at Gies, they fear he may have cost the game a sale or two. A misplaced fear, but one this industry created.
Then there's the other beef people have with Gies' review. That he knocked down points because he felt the game was sexist in certain regards. Why would that in particular get so many people riled up? Well, maybe because for years reviewers went by a very strict principle: Gameplay matters most. It is a very recent thing that a story or character can elevate or lower a game's quality to the degree we allow it.
Spec Ops: The Line, for instance, is nothing without its story. But said story uses its mediocre gameplay mechanics as a way to help illustrate the message that everything you do is wrong. This is territory that reviewers of the 5th and 6th gen could never imagine. A good story was a nice perk to them, like a New Game Plus. And the industry is still figuring out how to approach this.
There is also the fact that both Bayonetta games have bad stories. They're games that people buy and love just because of their combat, with Bayonetta as a character being a nice perk. So for points to get taken off because of sexism makes some people feel like he could be overthinking it. Not saying I agree, but many may feel that saying the story matters in Bayonetta may be misinforming people.
See, many reviewers are trying to break this mold. They're thinking more about a game's themes in an effort to mimic film critics. Many are also trying to give a wider variety of scores so the 8's and 9's can have the bite they once did, while also placing less emphasis on the score. Whether the first change is a positive one is certainly debatable, but the second I feel is possible. Now not all of the industry is doing this, but some are. Arthur Gies being one of them.
However, they should acknowledge that reviewers created the climate they are currently in where fans react the way they do over reviews. Gamers have been conditioned for the earlier review climates and now that a few have a different review philosophy they're just going to be shamed for thinking this way?
I'm not justifying their actions. Getting upset over a review baffles me. But some people are just nuts. They will always be nuts. And if you're going to tell them they're wrong, tell them they're wrong for being nuts. Don't tell them they're wrong for expecting something this industry conditioned them to expect. Accept what has happened before, take some accountability as a reviewer, and explain how you want to change it. Otherwise you're just pissing off your readers until they lash back at you. And we get things like Gamergate.
Comments