Talk:Bayonetta 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do we know if it is not Wii-U exclusive Bayonetta 2.[edit]

No plans for Bayonetta 2 for PS3 and PS4 in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.18.209.5 (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo is funding the game from top to bottom. There's a slim chance it'll end up on another system, it wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for Nintendo's support. --Anddo (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The game will probably not end up on another system. Nintendo picked the pitch up and made the game happen when sony and microsoft supposedly rejected it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.73.113.130 (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies about sexism should be separated from the reception section[edit]

The personal ideas about sexism from some reviewers should not be on the reception section, there should be a new section with this controversies and use more sources, Im pretty sure other reviewers have different ideas on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier2005 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what's being said is getting caught up in the furor over GamerGate. If the portrayal of women in video games wasn't such a hot button issue right now, would these have been mentioned? Was there much discussion of Bayonetta's appearance and mannerisms at the time the first game was released? If so, that could be a good basis of where this section of the article should go. --McDoobAU93 13:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section includes a wide variety of views about different parts of the game. We don't say the game is sexist, we note that some reviewers have expressed discomfort with some portrayals of women in the game, while other reviewers have said they don't think it's problematic. We quote from both, so I'm not sure what your issue is here. The opinions are clearly notable and are directly related to the game. We don't shuffle off parts of reviews into a "controversies" section merely because someone disagrees with them.
I note that your repeated reverts may constitute edit-warring, and I suggest that you refrain from that disruptive behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually NorthBySouthBaranof, your restore of the content despite two different editors removing it could also be construed as edit warring. I've requested full protection of the article until this discussion is settled here on the talk page, where it belongs. --McDoobAU93 13:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. Multiple editors have also restored it, and reverting what are effectively-unexplained reverts by anon/SPA accounts (which the above account, and the only other account removing the material, are) are generally exempt from 3RR.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North, you are absolutely wrong. It is not blatant vandalism, it's a good faithed edit and you are not exempt from 3RR. However, do keep thinking that you are, and I'll be the one to drag you to 3RRN where you attempt to explain why you reverted 6 times. Tutelary (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I didn't. Reverting anonymous IP edits which remove content with no explanation is the very definition of a vandalism revert, which is exempt from 3RR. You'll note that the IP in question was blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I actually do, and I commend you for that as I do it most of the time on Huggle. But the 3RR exemption stops the moment they in good faith assert reasoning for the edit, per WP:VAND (illegitimate blanking). It's also further filthied by the fact of there was a good faithed user removing this information as well, as well as the vandalizing IP. It may be needed to be further discussed, as a simple vandal taking a good faithed edit too far doesn't invalidate it. Tutelary (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which means we have a full-blown content dispute, which is a perfect reason for full protection and discussion on the talk page. --McDoobAU93 14:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original posters claim about pushing particular content into a "controversy section" runs contrary to policy and creates some sort of artificial distinction between "real reviews" and "reviews that include cultural critiques". The claim that "its only because of gamergate that people are addressing sexism with this game" is irrelevant. The reliable sources ARE addressing issues of sexism in the game, and we follow the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the section "Criticism of character design" and made it a subhead to Reception. This neutralizes the description of the section ("Controversy" has a negative implication) and sets it up as a subsection of the overall critical commentary of the game. I'm wondering if this will solve the problem. --McDoobAU93 14:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than fine with that. I took out "criticism of," though, because it's not just criticism — there's positive analysis as well. So just a subsection on "Character design." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Criticism" can be both positive and negative, as it is critical analysis of the subject. Still, this works well, too, so I don't think it should be changed beyond this. --McDoobAU93 19:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but unfortunately the word's other meaning has more or less taken it over... which is why separate "criticism" sections are deprecated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Response to..." or "Critique of ..." would be appropriate as well, but I am fine with blank or "Critical analysis" as well. Thanks for the change. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be called "character design" as the section includes things like Polygon's comments about character development and camera angles, which I'd say are more about her portrayal than her design. --Nick RTalk 19:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanna comment on the part that says "Several Reviewers" , but the only source from all of then that criticizes it is Polygon and Edge ,i believe it should have the "Several Reviewers" part removed to only Polygon or find more sources that support that part otherwise i do not think it is accurate. --GoodFreak (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind McDoob's comment above, that "'Criticism' can be both positive and negative, as it is critical analysis of the subject"... maybe a better wording would be: "Several reviewers addressed the issue of sexualisation..."? That would help clarify that the subsequent paragraph covers not just reviewers who criticised the game for it, but also reviewers who mentioned the subject to point out that they did not find it bothersome. --Nick RTalk 21:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Character design" should not only be separated but also completely moved from here to the article Bayonetta (character) unless it's about also some other characters. And what's much more important for this article - I came here to learn the game's story, but there's practically nothing in the "Plot" section. --88.220.77.190 (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The game isn't in wide release yet, so finding people who know the plot who'll edit this page is difficult. DonQuixote (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, that's not a bad thing. Plot summaries for video games are expected to be very short unless the game's story is notable in and of itself. For details, see #5 in this section. --McDoobAU93 13:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but plot summaries are susspose to be a concise version of the overall work not the teaser we have now. If you look at Cave Story (a feature article) you will notice that while the summary is not excessive it does not only cover the opening part of the game. That is true for most film articles too. In other words the summary should not be excessive but should cover the main aspects of the plot.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bayonetta 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bayonetta 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bayonetta_2&oldid=1206202143"