Review: "'Batman: Arkham Knight' May Be Game Of The Year -- But There's One Big Problem" by Damon Beres, Huffington Post

Original article found here.

I have no problem with the Huffington Post. Politically, I like a lot of their content, but this review highlights a serious problem in video game reviews: modern prudishness. This is by far one of the worst articles I've read online. It's supposed to be a game review but amounts to an undergraduate gender studies pop culture critique.

Let's begin with the first line of the piece, which is by far the most pandering, click-baity attempts to drive traffic I've ever seen:

Months after GamerGate first set video game culture ablaze with unbelievable resistance to the idea of feminist perspectives in the gaming industry, we have a new title that features some of the most compelling female characters in pop culture.

Yes, he mentions GamerGate. In a review of Arkham Knight. Why is this relevant? It has nothing to do with the rest of the article, and he links it by hand-waving and saying "feminist perspectives", which is not even something opponents of GamerGate attribute it as being about, and obviously supporters of GamerGate don't see themselves as being about any of that.

But I digress. The real issue here is the next section and then his complete breakdown in the middle of an article:

"Batman: Arkham Knight," which came out Tuesday, spotlights Poison Ivy, Catwoman, Oracle and Harley Quinn in major roles. But while these women are often represented as strong, independent and able in other media, their featured roles here often tell a different story: They are damsels in distress.

Right, because damsels in distress always kick the bad guys' faces in. No, I'm sorry. This is misrepresenting what the characters are about. Oh, but it gets worse. He adds this tid-bit below a picture of Poison Ivy:

Poison Ivy appears in "Arkham Knight" with a barely-there shirt and a mossy crotch.

What!? Are you trying to lecture everyone on sexuality in games? There's nothing wrong with a seductive character like Ivy being comfortable with her sexuality! It's madness to think that you'd actually complain about this.

It's really no big secret that gaming and tech are male-dominated industries, even if consumers are split basically down the middle in terms of gender. 

No, no, no. You're clearly misrepresenting everything in any of those statistics. The over all consumers are split between male and female, which includes the mobile gaming and casual markets. Arkham Knight is not a game designed for the mobile market or casual gamers, where overwhelmingly women are represented in those numbers.

Plenty of people will play "Arkham Knight" and probably ignore its oftentimes troubling presentation of women -- perhaps that's simply because the game is exciting, and as soon as you settle into a moment, something explodes and you're off to something else.

What is he talking about? You can't just say something is "troubling" without explaining why! What's wrong with the presentation of women? Because so far he's simply complained about the strong female characters being "damsels in distress" (which isn't true) and Poison Ivy's skirt being too short.

But others will play the game and feel offended. Or disgusted. Or threatened. Or simply unwelcome. Even if those people were outnumbered 100 to 1 in a population of 5 million customers, it would be worthwhile to examine why and do better next time. Because here's the trouble with "Arkham Knight": It is a great game tarnished by its dreadful depictions of certain characters and situations.

Once again: saying something does not make it true. He needs to provide evidence, and he still haven't done that. He hasn't linked to people being offended or offered evidence of "dreadful depictions of certain characters or situations" in Arkham Knight. Neither of those things are proven in the article itself.

The most he does is show a picture of one time in the game where Poison Ivy is held hostage. Because that makes her a damsel in distress now. Forget that Robin is constantly captured and held hostage, he's a man so it doesn't matter. Forget that many storyline show Batman as being held hostage, and someone else having to help him. Forget that the game literally has Batman's colleagues supporting him because he can't do it all alone.

Catwoman, often portrayed as Batman's equal, fares no better. Like Ivy, her storyline begins in custody. Her outfit is unzipped enough to show a massive slice of cleavage. Why? Because Catwoman is "sexy" and it's apparently hard to portray sexiness without showing boob?

There's nothing here! He is literally spouting puritanical nonsense about breasts being bad and "sexy" being troubling. Is he going to put a ruler up to Supergirl's skirt from the TV show to determine if it's appropriate or not?

The gameplay sometimes has Batman and Catwoman working together -- you can switch between them at points -- but the pattern almost invariably requires Batman to complete some feat of cunning, force and reflexes while Catwoman bums around in a locked chamber. Her liberation is essentially a prize for you, the player.

You seriously can't win with this guy. If Batman was the only playable character, he'd complain about sexism and a lack of a female protagonist. Give him a female protagonist and he's complaining about how Batman is the star of the Batman game.

Things are absolutely worst for Oracle, a hero in a wheelchair who assists Batman remotely. To detail her storyline would reveal much about the largest plot points in "Arkham Knight," but things do not go well for her. An incredibly problematic storyline from the comic books is retread in vivid detail: She is abducted and maimed and exists almost entirely in this context to stir angst in the featured male characters.

Are you kidding me!? Is this guy for real!? I can't... I can't even begin to dismantle how bad this is. How convoluted and backwards this reasoning is. This person has no idea what he's talking about. In the story from the comics, Barbara Gordon is paralyzed as a result of The Joker. But she is able to overcome it and still use her mind for good even if she can't fight crime the same as before. The fact that the author's focusing so much on gender is telling. The characters like the Oracle, whose gender is not as important as her drive and intelligence, is a great character who in his mind is marginalized into a male-focused event of emotional impact. This is a huge misunderstanding of the character, and I think it was intentional.

This game does not exist in a vacuum. It arrives at a moment when women are still being shut out of the gaming and tech industries to the point where many are even looking for work elsewhere. It is bizarre that "Arkham Knight" both includes many women and diminishes them so plainly.

Oh dear God. Explain it one more time: what does this have to do with a game review? This is incredible. It's obvious that the point of this review wasn't the game itself, but making a political statement. Which is not how a game review should be. I say this as someone who has reviewed games in the past. If you want to talk about your politics, do it in the latter part of the review, don't put it all throughout, and ignore the game itself in favor of the political message you want to teach.

All of that said, there are some important caveats. First: Harley Quinn -- Joker's deranged on-again, off-again girlfriend -- is actually kind of cool this time around. Her character design in "Arkham City" (NSFW) was incredibly sexualized and seemingly intended purely for the male gaze.

I knew it. I knew he would use "male gaze" at least once. Look, I've read through feminist perspectives on movies and film, and I get the idea of male gaze. I understand it. It used to be more relevant in times when men made all the decisions, but that's not the case anymore.

But he still hasn't proven that it is geared towards the male gaze anyways. He only showed some sexy women and said "ew, men like this." There was no connection made to Rocksteady's intentions or goals at all.

This is ridiculous from any perspective, because on the other side of this, nothing about it fitting the male gaze makes it wrong. Is it because it excludes women? Friend, that's marketing. Women don't generally play the Arkham series, so Rocksteady is targeting the demographic who does: men. And they're fully within their rights to do so.

Oh, also I want to point out that he puts a NSFW warning on that link, but it's just Harley wearing tight clothing. It's not NSFW at all. He's just putting that because he doesn't like it for some misguided reason.

Here, Harley Quinn's decked out in a pretty serious tutu and barks orders at a bunch of armed dudes. She's more covered than not. The whole thing struck me as fairly whimsical and a step in the right direction, even if it's not a perfect representation.

No, she's as covered up as Catwoman is, maybe even less. This is cherry-picking at its finest. Because he likes what Harley does as a character, he overlooks her outfit, which is almost exactly as tight and cleavage revealing as Catwoman's. But because Catwoman need Batman's help at times, her outfit is "problematic".

And here's the last bit:

But there's a major difference between this comic and something like "Arkham Knight" -- something that maybe isn't so obvious. This Poison Ivy could be appealing to men and women alike. The entire miniseries is devoted to Harley and Ivy wreaking havoc on their own terms -- it's "sexy" more than "sexist." They actively and successfully strike back against the forces that oppress them. They aren't seeking the approval of men, and they certainly don't need a player to rescue them.

I'm sure if Rocksteady had made the game all about Poison Ivy and Harley wreaking havoc he wouldn't possibly complain about the male gaze sexualizing perceived lesbian interactions between the two.

I'm kidding. Of course he would.

To summarize this article:

The author's measurement system for Catwoman and Poison Ivy.