Jimquisition: Tomodachi Strife

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Typical thread involving people congratulating themselves on how anti-X they are. Nice touch having most of them ignore the posters who have laid the actual situation out.

Dni0:

3. Finally, and most disturbingly, people seem to think it's ok to compare gay relationships to paedophillia.
I'm genuinely worried. Paedophillia is illegal - it hurts people and ruins lives. It's either full on or statutory rape.
Gay relationships, however, are consensual and legal. That's why we draw the line at gay relationships. Did you guys really just ask that question!?

And its illegal in Japan, and isn't it also a felony in many American states...so...yeah. Is homosexuality as bad as peaedophillia? To me no as I have nothing against homosexuality, but the fact of the matter is you can't get away with your logic when it is in fact illegal in a lot of places, including your own in certain areas.

As a gay man.

I don't find the failure to include homosexuals in Tomodachi Life that big of deal. If you want to make a fun cute game taking a whimsical approach on life, make that approach take place around the traditional nuclear family makes sense to me. I find just not including it far less condescending than the "oh and the one other gay man in the whole universe" option you find in Mass Effect 3 or dragon age (though Zevran was a pimp). Make the game you want to make, and lets not artificially take offense if it is not "inclusive" enough. I think it would be a much farther step forward for the gay community as a whole if we could just let shit like this slide and realize that not every game is going to have a gay character, or a black character, or a muslim character.

This is kinda like being upset that the game does not include a apartment complex. Many people would rather live in one, the option of having one isn't the end of the world, but it just seems silly that people would get so upset. The game isn't being anti-gay it is just being the game it set out to be, and I respect that.

Rozalia1:
Typical thread involving people congratulating themselves on how anti-X they are. Nice touch having most of them ignore the posters who have laid the actual situation out.

Dni0:

3. Finally, and most disturbingly, people seem to think it's ok to compare gay relationships to paedophillia.
I'm genuinely worried. Paedophillia is illegal - it hurts people and ruins lives. It's either full on or statutory rape.
Gay relationships, however, are consensual and legal. That's why we draw the line at gay relationships. Did you guys really just ask that question!?

And its illegal in Japan, and isn't it also a felony in many American states...so...yeah. Is homosexuality as bad as peaedophillia? To me no as I have nothing against homosexuality, but the fact of the matter is you can't get away with your logic when it is in fact illegal in a lot of places, including your own in certain areas.

Japan has no laws against homosexual activity, nor does America.

I don't live in America. Gay marriage is legal EVERYWHERE in my country.

BreakfastMan:

Right, so software devs don't have tests in place to ensure what is currently working is still working before they push their changes out... (hint, they do actually. Or some do, at least)

You'd be surprised.

BreakfastMan:

And you obviously don't use automated testing on new features before you push them, to ensure you aren't pushing something broken. That would just be silly, right? I mean, who uses test driven development, amirite?

Automated testing in games development only goes so far. Automated functional testing would be a nightmare to code, and unit testing is only really useful for testing a single bit of functionality, it doesn't ensure it will work correctly when live.

More towards your conversation. I agree that it's not as much work as Sticky suggests, but it's hardly "a couple of lines here or there". Plus you have to factor in design, implementation, testing and deployment, and that's assuming Nintendo doesn't have any bureaucratic red-tape to go through.

But I think what's driving Nintendo in this decision isn't the difficulty to change, but the snowball effects that change would have.

Say for example, nintendo patched the game so that the marriage/relationship check didn't filter out same sex mii's. If the "random-relationship" information I've heard is true, they've now created a situation in which the sexuality of the mii is not up to the player.

"What's the problem" I here you say, and to rational people there really isn't one, however the majority of the world is not rational. Just imagine the shit-storm that would ensue about how the game "Forces children into same-sex marriages" and all the talk about brainwashing. Thinking about it makes my head hurt, and it would put the current "controversy" to shame.

Now of course they could add in a "sexuality" option during character creation, much like the gender option, again more design,dev etc. and even then I'd still expect to see a significant backlash from parents raging about how their 3 year old was asking what sexuality they are, which would then spiral out of control, when the anti-gaming groups get their hands on it.

A simple change can have far reaching consequences. The difficulty of the change doesn't lie with the code itself.

Caramel Frappe:
*Comes back to check out how the thread's doing*

Hey guys, what's- OH GOD.

image

In all seriousness, I am speechless right now. I'm not sure how to properly respond ...
When this video came out and I watched it while having breakfast. Jim did his job and made a good point about Nintendo.
He didn't say they were evil or nothing like that ... just the fact they shouldn't make bad excuses when they remove something that makes a minority (or majority) feel shunned.

Didn't think nothing of what the thread would become. When I was given the link to it's former state... I was truly shocked. This hasn't turned into a flame war- it turned into the basement. That's right.

You guys made it look like we've stumbled into THAT PLACE.

That's not to say everyone was uncivil. Some still commented and gave their opinions on the video. But honestly? I have no idea how this video sparked debates about gays being inhuman, how religion (my religion) is against gays, I mean come on guys. Totally took the small context and turned it into something crazy. Then when people disagree with you- some of yah have to get super aggressive and start yelling which won't convince anyone about your points. Debates aren't about who's right or wrong, but to get your ideals across while understanding how the others feel/think. You both gain when you're open minded you know?

It's even sad when debates turn into insults. I mean commenting about how their logic is 'hilarious'? Guys... please ... don't do that.
I usually stay out of this stuff, but it's leaking outside the thread. When half of the users in User Groups and in PMs start saying how crap hits the fan in a thread... you know it's truly burning out of control.

We give others like churches and politicians a hard time for denying gays their rights... yet, here most of the comments are totally going against gays while things like the NFL or the Military are open to homosexuals. We're suppose to represent our community with open arms, not shun others. Even if you're not openly okay with it, why belittle and discriminate gamers who're for the gay rights?

I'm just saying... this is a sad day man. Well, it's 2:13 AM but I stayed up 30 minutes reading all these comments and it's just... wow...

Oh you mean that huh?

I said that partly because its the sort of thing you see in screen caps on reddit. The kind you were meant to laugh at. I didn't think I would actually run into those types of arguments in real life, especially not on the Escapist.

The point I was making is that he is injecting his view to be the only view ever. He stating that his god is the only right one when there is nothing special about his religion in the sea of other religions.

There is no guarantee of that. There is no guarantee of anything. The universe is a vast and chaotic place, and beyond taking the full blown nihilistic approach of seeing only whats there is the the only thing you can grasp on.

Its also hilarious because it reminded me of a nihilistic philosophical standpoint I was forced to study. If you haven't read the book, you wouldn't get it. I realized I was meursalt and that guy was the judge trying to attach meaning to everything. It was hilarious because I hate meursalt.

Its not so much an assault on religion, but on the authority of it. He doesn't know any more about the universe than any other religion out there.

He didn't get it. He assumed he was 100% right and everyone else was 100% wrong. No matter what.

Am I the only one who clapped when Jim said "You've heard of Jim Sterling now"?

Because I thought all that was missing was Jim dropping the mic and walking away.

wulf3n:

More towards your conversation. I agree that it's not as much work as Sticky suggests, but it's hardly "a couple of lines here or there". Plus you have to factor in design, implementation, testing and deployment, and that's assuming Nintendo doesn't have any bureaucratic red-tape to go through.

I disagree about it not being as much work as it seems on the surface (the devil is always the details) but humbly accept that as your opinion that you are more than entitled to have.

wulf3n:

Say for example, nintendo patched the game so that the marriage/relationship check didn't filter out same sex mii's. If the "random-relationship" information I've heard is true, they've now created a situation in which the sexuality of the mii is not up to the player.

This is another interesting point I didn't touch upon. The solution to this would be to let the player choose their sexuality upon creation, but once again that's more functionality that would have be added and tested on a game that has already gone gold in several parts of the world.

Sticky:

wulf3n:

More towards your conversation. I agree that it's not as much work as Sticky suggests, but it's hardly "a couple of lines here or there". Plus you have to factor in design, implementation, testing and deployment, and that's assuming Nintendo doesn't have any bureaucratic red-tape to go through.

I disagree about it not being as much work as it seems on the surface (the devil is always the details) but humbly accept that as your opinion that you are more than entitled to have.

It's all kind of moot really, given that we haven't really defined what constitutes a large/small amount of work. What we need is a baseline. i.e. Less/More than ME3's extended cut? I would say less.

Oh great Jimquisitor,

You spoke out directly what's on my mind these days... And it needs to be spoken out, often, everywhere. In my country there is a book selling like crazy right now, haunting all the best-seller lists. Its name is: "Germany out of its mind - The insane cult about women, homosexuals and immigrants" Yes, it is exactly what it sounds like.

Please, Jim... Please, learn German and spread your wisdom here as well... Please...

Caramel Frappe:
Hey guys, what's- OH GOD.

image

I just wanted to say you made me day with this. That's the funniest damn thing I've seen in a long while.

You do know what this means right Jim?

We now need an episode that will feature the Dumb Comment of the Year Awards.

Matthewmagic:
This is kinda like being upset that the game does not include a apartment complex.

No, it isn't. This game is supposed to be a representation of a player but Nintendo is telling you that who you are and what you are is wrong.
I wouldn't have cared if it weren't for their reply which was pretty much "This is a whimsical world and we do not approve of any of that sin and sodomy you want to bring to it!"

At least the FireFox CEO had the balls to admit he is a biggot.

Dni0:

3. Finally, and most disturbingly, people seem to think it's ok to compare gay relationships to paedophillia.
I'm genuinely worried. Paedophillia is illegal

Nope, Pedophilia in itself is not illegal. However child molestation is, yes, there is a huge difference.
Pedophilia is a state of being, if it was illegal, it would essentially be a thought crime.

As for the comparison itself, it's simply insane to suggest that sex between consenting adults is in
anyway comparable to sex with children who do not even comprehend whats going on.

OT: Well, this episode was some grand scale shit. Not only did Jim apparently lie about how the incident played out. He then proceeds to intentionally misinterpet Nintendos quote to make them look like vile horrible people.

"You can only be making a statement wheter you intend to or not"
So every game should include these options by law or something? What the actual fuck Jim?
You're telling me, that if I make for example a dating sim,
and don't include gay options, I'm automatically a bigot?

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to say no on that. This is the same thing as the racism thing over games, just because a game dosen't include character of every single race and nationality, does not mean that the developers hate everyone who is not included.
And get this, by blowing off steam (and no less lying while doing it) like this,
only gives more ammo to REAL bigots.
So thank you for not only making a fool of yourself, but also for feeding biggotry for your own monetary gain.

I wanted to say some stuff on the issue, but two other people have it covered and in better ways than I could, so...

Well it's always weird, because people have such passionate connections to video games that I think they sometimes let themselves forget that businesses are businesses, and they're playing the numbers game like anyone else. Nintendo will put out whatever socially acceptable or unacceptable content gets them the most sales. They'll change when it feels like putting in gay marriage will be worth more money. It sucks that art gets run by a business, but video games are so large and so expensive that they're probably more vulnerable to this than anything else, even movies.

I can totally understand the reaction to Tomodachi Life, even more than Animal Crossing, because you are playing as literal a representation of you in Tomodachi Life as you can pretty much get in a video game. So it's probably a huge bummer when a game not only doesn't let you get married to someone of your preferred gender, but effectively pairs you off as a straight couple without asking you. It's probably a huge bummer to hear "you're going to get married to a woman" when you're a gay man playing a game that has a cartoon version of yourself in it. That's a little different than even Bioware games not having same-sex relationships. More on that here: http://gamasutra.com/blogs/ChristianNutt/20140508/217351/Understanding_Nintendos_Tomodachi_Life_problem.php

Really they were never going to change this stuff, even if there weren't a bunch of cartridges already printed and sitting on a shelf. Changing code isn't as easy as flipping a switch. People should probably be happy that Nintendo responded to its gaffe as generously as it did, while also keeping their hearts close and recognize that even a company that makes whacky fun-loving games is still a company. You should treat them as a company, not your pal, and the disappointment that you levy at them (which is genuine and reasonable) should be in that context.

Zachary Amaranth:

Of course, that doesn't mean that they will ever discover that there is any genetic or mental marker signifying their cucumberness.

Exactly, so as Tumblr says, "check your privilege".

The "privilege" here being that science knows what you are.

On the other hand, it's technically true that homosexuality was alien to heterosexuals, but it still is. I mean, monosexuality is alien to me.

There you go.

Can you cite any studies on the matter?

Studies about what? "conversion therapy camps"? I would think that everybody would know about their existence by now.

I mean, part of the problem with the comparison is that the efficacy of these "treatments" for homosexuality have never been demonstrated.

Of course they haven't.

But that's irrelevant to my point.

Some people tried to "cure" homosexuality, and I'm pretty sure it can verifiably be said to have been a dismal failure.

But my point isn't whether they succeeded or failed, it was that they tried, and that they treated it as if it were something to be cured.

Loki saying "These people need counseling" is the exact same thing as saying that homsexuals "need counseling", with the implication that it's a disease that can be cured.

Loki_The_Good:

Yes homosexuals were inundated by counselors helping them be happy with who they are and accepting themselves.

Was that before or after they were given electroshock therapy and being forced to watch straight pornogroaphy and even be raped to cure them of their homosexuality?

The two situations are exactly the same. People with schizophrenia see people who aren't there but maybe they're just gifted honestly people who walk through their "visions" are just insensitive. You really need to read some books on biology and psychology if your having difficulty understanding the difference between what is and what you wish things could be

And you should take your own advice Mr.Otherkin-are-just-deluding-themselves-but-not-homosexuals.

But you understand my point, right? I came here to post that "If X is part of the "default" devs need to include in their "life sim" games, then why not include "Y" as the default?"

I'm not saying that "If you include X, then you NEED to also include Y", I'm just asking where the boundary is, because the boundary is what keeps "otherkin" out, and what gives a developer a feasible amount of assets to make, as opposed to the infinite amounts of assets if he wants to be as "open" as "Second Life"

eatenbyagrue:
Am I the only one who clapped when Jim said "You've heard of Jim Sterling now"?

Because I thought all that was missing was Jim dropping the mic and walking away.

Frankly he should have considering he misunderstood what Nintendo said. They said didn't intend to make social commentary by _not_ including same sex relationships rather than other way around.

The gay movement isn't going to be thrown back by some game, all really needs to happen now time. Only demographic against are old people and those people don't play games and won't change their opinion through persuasion, we'll just have to wait for them to die off. I completely tuned out and went to write this comment after Jim started ranting on about this game.

This is just one of those issues where no one is gonna come out looking good. On one side you have Nintendo is full of idiots making a complicated situation worse and on the other you have social justice crusaders ignoring facts so they can have another bad guy to go after.

themilo504:

erbkaiser:
Oh yes Nintendo is horrible because as a Japanese company, it applies Japanese cultural norms to a game.

Nintendo is of course also "racist" against Muslims, since this game does not allow marriages with little children (as the Prophet with Aisha), or plural marriages (a basic islamic right).

The western release could have easily included gay marriage as a feature.

Sigh no it couldn't. Its unlikely it could be DLC'ed in.

Gay marriage happened as a glitch. Literally. due to a transfer gender was misassigned and same sex marriages with pregnant men happened. This would eventually lead to system damaging glitches. That's it.

BTW in the current game aside from pregnancy that's like one of the few restrictions your mii's sex entails. You can dress like a man and have a beard and be female.

As to Nintendo's first statement. I can see it being offensive but I'll take them at face value. They weren't weighing in on gay rights or marriage equality with the bug fix. Moreover its fun to lie to ourselves but gay rights still seen serious. Wanna know how to alleviate that

"I'm a Nintendo fan for x years and so is my husband/partner. We'd LOVE to buy your product and be a part of your whimsical world of fun. It doesn't have to be exactly like real life but we feel excluded as faithful customers..."

Some of the better people did do this. But there is STILL a lot of misinformation. TBF Jim is more about the initial response and the frustration that there even IS a struggle. I on the otherhand feel that's a social justice problem. I get exhaustion and frustration. I get being sick of having to prove yourself again and again. But if you want someone else to change their outlook or their actions for you, you can't look down on them and expect positive response unless you acknowledge your position as superior. And if so you can't react like a victim in need.

I am not sure what to send Nintendo now. I appreciate their final statement and promise. But I still want to incentivise the action so they don't forget it so its not a sout note of complaints and badgering but revelation and oppurtunities to the future.

Deadagent:
"You can only be making a statement wheter you intend to or not"
So every game should include these options by law or something? What the actual fuck Jim?
You're telling me, that if I make for example a dating sim,
and don't include gay options, I'm automatically a bigot?

... Sigh. Again, people taking offense at something anyone with less hysterical thought process would understand.

This is a game in which you are supposed to create an avatar of yourself and let that avatar be an extension of you in a virtual world.
This isn't the same as a dating sim nor is it the same as a plot-based RPG.
No one objects to Final Fantasy games having (mostly, Cloud is a special case) straight protagonists and no one cares that your "Doki-Doki Tentacalu RayPoo 3" is for straight people only.

But in a game where you create an extension of yourself and you are informed that being anything but straight is impossible it is problematic.

Let me try and type is down slowly... If a game like Fire Emblem restricts gay relationships it is disappointing, but not something objectionable, it is possible that a cast of 40 characters will all be canonically straight and no one will protest. (they might ask for more gay representation but you know, people can ask for whatever they want.)

But if you are asked to create an extension of yourself and are then told that that extension cannot be anything but straight you are sending the players a message. You are telling them "Anything but straight is not acceptable."
If Nintendo wants to send that message, they are allowed, it's their game, but they shouldn't be telling us they "never intended to make social commentary" because TELLING ME IT ISN'T OK TO BE GAY IN THEIR WORLD IS SOCIAL COMMENTARY.

Dragonbums:

Imp Emissary:

Dragonbums:

The gist of what I removed from Dragonbums post: Jim got the details of the bug wrong and some other stuff. Link below.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.849789.20988250

Nature of the full bug at IGN (of all fucking places to get things right.) http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/05/nintendo-on-gay-marriage-and-tomodachi-life

The gay coupling players saw in screenshots were not a result of the bug. It was a result of Japanese players dressing up their "female" characters as male character and having them romance each other.

Wait.
Did they have the female Miis romance each other, or did they have the female Miis dressed as guys romance male Miis?

Anyway.

Yeah, I heard about that too. Glad Jim made the rest of it more about what Nintendo said to calm people and about how it's still so "risky" to just include gay people in games.

Still a shame about the misinformation, though I think you may be letting it get to you a bit too much.

They had female Mii's look and sound like Male Mii's and had them marry each other that way (I also think they were able to eliminate the default dresses as well to make it a lot more real)

I know it's getting to me, but man, look at the most commented section of this site. Most of them are directly related to the misinformation spreading of this entire issue. With people calling Nintendo bigots. I'm getting tired of it.

TBF you're getting a sample of what its like for the gay fans and people having to repeatedly assert or deal with myths, misinformation, or discrimination for a society that doesn't as actively disdain them.(2nd and 3rd points especially) Which is kind of why this blew up. In something so trivial activism is necessary to express themselves and be acknowledged as normal. and that can make you feel excluded for something private even in your own life or enjoyment.

Ultratwinkie:

I am saying its hilarious because you are quoting a book I haven't believed in since I was 12. It doesn't take much to completely and utterly disprove religion. There is an entire forum dedicated to it on this very site. That's why any sources tied to fundamentalists don't work.

a) If it takes so little, why would there be an entire forum for it?
b) I'm still here, so that disproving of religion hasn't really worked out all that well.

tstorm823:

Ultratwinkie:

I am saying its hilarious because you are quoting a book I haven't believed in since I was 12. It doesn't take much to completely and utterly disprove religion. There is an entire forum dedicated to it on this very site. That's why any sources tied to fundamentalists don't work.

a) If it takes so little, why would there be an entire forum for it?
b) I'm still here, so that disproving of religion hasn't really worked out all that well.

Its the R&P section. All the theists left or turned atheist. So now its a forum of atheists. Since there are no arguments anymore, its now liberals vs conservatives. But now the conservatives are leaving too. So now its a liberal atheist board.

Besides, I am mostly addressing his need to use fundamentalist propaganda when its flawed on a basic level. The issue here is that religion is not provable in any sense of the word, and is full of problems and contradictions. So his claim to knowing the truth is almost impossible in a sea of other religions.

What i was referencing, the nihilistic and materialistic worldview, relies on just the universe being there with no provable god. He didn't want to see a world without god, or specifically, his god.

A god not everyone believes in. That's why its an emotional argument. Everyone thinks their gods are special and how they have the right one.

Ultratwinkie:

Its the R&P section. All the theists left or turned atheist. So now its a forum of atheists. Since there are no arguments anymore, its now liberals vs conservatives. But now the conservatives are leaving too. So now its a liberal atheist board.

Besides, I am mostly addressing his need to use fundamentalist propaganda when its flawed on a basic level. The issue here is that religion is not provable in any sense of the word, and is full of problems and contradictions. So his claim to knowing the truth is almost impossible in a sea of other religions.

What i was referencing, the nihilistic and materialistic worldview, relies on just the universe being there with no provable god. He didn't want to see a world without god, or specifically, his god.

A god not everyone believes in. That's why its an emotional argument. Everyone thinks their gods are special and how they have the right one.

Yeah, I'm not even disagreeing with your assessment of his comments.

I just wanted to point at myself and say "There are definitely some theists in the R&P section. 3 years of that subforum haven't de-Catholicized me."

Therumancer:

I trimmed a lot of this down to the basics. Right here your basically trying to claim "well, wait we aren't demanding equal representation" but then trying to turn around and make arguments about "intrusive heterosexual content". That's pretty much contradictory. After all if your acknowledging that your not an equal portion of the population, you can't very well make arguments based around there being content directed at the majority. Your more or less making my point for me, your saying "we represent a tiny percentage of the population, yet we demand equal representation in media to the overwhelming majority".

Uhrm... they're not contradictory. We don't demand to be shown in equal numbers, which was what your claim was. My entire point was that that simply doesn't happen. That's just a baseless smear tactic.

My other point, that you don't see heterosexual content as "intrusive", is entirely separate, and perfectly valid. You haven't explained why you immediately object to the sexuality of the situation when it's gay, but that it doesn't even come into it when it's straight.

My point that gay people do not ask to be shown in equal numbers in no way contradicts my point that you hold a double-standard as to whether to focus on the sexuality of a situation. Why should it be that, simply by nature of being a minority, gay representation should be the focus of a double-standard? How does that follow?

Therumancer:

You might not like the comparison to Polygamy, and find it "hurtful" but you know, I honestly don't care much if people get upset with me not being politically correct. I generally don't suffer much guilt from pretty much telling people when they are going too far as a group.

I wasn't talking about "political correctness"; I was attempting to appeal to your empathy. Clearly, it failed.

If you feel no guilt about generalising entire groups of people, and assigning blame to them for something they have no control over, then I can only appeal to the intellectual laziness of such an argument. There's no evidence that one thing leads to another, and no moral basis on which to deny equal treatment to people who are completely unconnected with polygamy anyway. It just shows complacency with unequal treatment.

There were identical arguments when mixed-race marriages were being discussed, you know. People talked about how it was a "slippery slope". Would you say those people should be treated unequally, as well?

Zachary Amaranth:

Unless morality is objective, and I would have trouble arguing it was, then it's hard to argue it wasn't immoral without bringing ethnocentrism back into the mix. I mean, it does look like you're going the objectivity route, but if you acknowledge that slave owners have leeway because they were told it was correct you're getting into iffy territory.

Morality is largely a social construct we agree upon. That's why it was considered moral to own slaves, to treat women like property, and why it's still considered moral to kill gays in parts of the world.

I admit I still have some research and thinking to do on the matter but If we agree on certain ideals like freedom, equality, justice, the increase of happiness and decrease of pain, etc. there's a number of possible realities for any situation or issue were some of them would be the moral pinnacle. Granted, those ideals can come into conlfict. So there would still be some debate on how highly to regard each of them but in the end I think that there's a level of objectivity in morality that can be archieved.
I'm not saying that this morality would be encompassing everything or that we'd even have access to such an objective morality (which for religious people would be a god they also have no access to) but I think we can come (depending on the issue) close to it with logic and scientific methods, insights of psychology, anthropology etc. There are good reasons and bad reason to do something. You gave nice examples in response to another post where I think we can say with objectivity that they are wrong. Genital mutilation of women to please some deity is imo bad reasoning and I think this can be said with objectivity.
And in this specific case I'd say that Nintendo is contributing to a societal problem by reiterating and thereby reinforcing heteronormativity. Why and how could be the topic of a cultural studies paper. With the implied premise that heteronormativity is bad of course. But I think you already agree on that so I don't need to explain. That was my brief attempt to explain it. I didn't want to write too much. And sorry for the messy structure :p

Leaving aside objective morality, why do you think that it is "hard to argue it wasn't immoral without bringing ethnocentrism back into the mix"? I think we're starting to misuse the term here a bit. Otherwise how can anyone make a moral judgement of another group without somebody making the accusation of being ethnocentric?

Dragonbums:

But for it to be immoral it would have to of been done with intended malice. In this case it is a lot more than an oversight. I would call it stupidity first than claim that Nintendo acted morally wrong.

So you're saying that the people at Nintendo have the mind of a child or simply didn't think about this at all and therefore aren't immoral? You know what? Fine. People at Nintendo are stupid. So what they did was just wrong in they way that it has a negative impact on society.

Of course it doesn't. When slavery began to happen not a single country that participated in it were under any illusions what so ever that it was a shitty thing to do. Not one. Britain started it, and even they knew it was morally bankrupt. The same however can not be said for homosexuality. Many people genuinely believe it's immoral and deviant behavior.

Maybe you wanted to say "was not a shitty thing to do"? I don't believe that premise but do you want me to dig out some heinous example where peopel genuinely believe some stupid shit that maybe you can agree on? No country? You talk about it like it's a fucking unit that has it's own mind. Many people genuinely believed that black people were subhuman and felt justyfied by their law, religion and community.
Doesn't fucking matter how many people or what authority believes something is moral or immoral though.

I'm fairly certain those ideas have come into play in all of the countries that disallow it. However they have absolutely no groundwork to work on. To assume such isn't fair. Considering that was also the same mindset we had not even 60 years ago. It took a lot of killing and murder on their part before they finally got a leg to stand on and people actually listened to what they had to say. In the case of Japan it's basically a universally adopted don't show don't tell policy. They don't necessarily care that your gay or in a gay relationship. They just don't want you to publicize it. And gay marriage is as public as it gets. Hence it's illegal there.

I'm not sure what your argument here is supposed to be or what you want to express. Because Japan's culture isn't as open minded towards homosexuality as ours it is not fair to judge them or hold them to our standards?

My main issue just comes from the fact that people are calling Nintendo bigots and anti homosexuality. I can understand why you disagree with their decision. I do. What I DON'T agree with is saying they are against homosexuality because they didn't include them in a game that was only released in a country where gay marriage is illegal. That's my biggest beef with the whole argument.

I wouldn't call them bigots and they're unlikely anti-homosexuality in the way that they actively seek to harm.
Yet they are contributing to a societal problem by reiterating and thereby reinforcing heteronormativity. (Yeah, I just used that again. I'm too lazy to paraphrase.)
Also Ophenix's answer to your comment is pretty good at explaining why in this instance it is bad :p

Transdude1996:

http://gbatemp.net/threads/russia-gives-the-sims-4-an-adults-only-rating.365855/

I'd say that when it comes to content like this, people have become more intolerant rather than actually being tolerant about stuff like this.

You pointed out about how there's an issue in a state in the US about turning away customers due to the owner having a religuous belief against homosexuality. Well, that's their own fucking right. Owners should have the right to turn away whoever the hell they want. It may not cause their business to do well, but that's the point. America is supposed to be a place where people can say, do, or believe whatever they want and not get attacked for it. We can't force people to believe something because we disagree with them, all we can do is not support the company or the person. The minute we start telling people how their supposed to think, we become no better than Germany and the Nazis in WW2.

EDIT: The original reason gay marriage was patched was because it was part of a game breaking bug.

When has the US ever been about being completely libertarian? Homosexuality used to be a crime punishable by jail sentences not that long ago. It's a bit hard to turn around and say "hey, we have the freedom to deny you access to our establishment based on nothing more than your sexuality", when homosexuality and the trans* community are still wholly oppressed to begin with.

Freedom depends on people protecting the rights of others MORE than their own. Because, let's face it, there are greedy motherfuckers out there that will take way more than they will ever give back. You cannot correctly argue 'It's my right to deny services to people because of how I feel about their lifestyle' because you are imposing on another and you're abusing what it is to actually have rights to begin with.

Rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES, people ... you have rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES. The responsibilities part is MORE IMPORTANT than the rights part, because society will always have greed, descriminatory beliefs and criminality. Thus necessitating everyone else has to work a little harder to maintain a common standard and duty of care APPLICABLE TO ALL.

If you decide to open a store, you are morally (even if not lawfully) bound to serve everyone equally. So long as the customer responds in kind (has money, doesn't damage or destroy your store in the process of shopping etc). IT is your role to service the specific needs of the community. Your rights attributeable to this service is an expectation of fair treatment of your establishment and that your clientele pay the full due of the use of your materials and services. That's it. That is the extent of moral rights.

There can be no 'freedom', if there is no collective will to provide said 'freedom' to all others within the realm.

This is why anti-descrimination laws are important. This is why they should be fortified, not grow impotent in the face of the many people who would systematically abuse and hinder the social mobility of specific individuals of society.

Houseman:

Loki_The_Good:

Yes homosexuals were inundated by counselors helping them be happy with who they are and accepting themselves.

Was that before or after they were given electroshock therapy and being forced to watch straight pornogroaphy and even be raped to cure them of their homosexuality?

The two situations are exactly the same. People with schizophrenia see people who aren't there but maybe they're just gifted honestly people who walk through their "visions" are just insensitive. You really need to read some books on biology and psychology if your having difficulty understanding the difference between what is and what you wish things could be

And you should take your own advice Mr.Otherkin-are-just-deluding-themselves-but-not-homosexuals.

But you understand my point, right? I came here to post that "If X is part of the "default" devs need to include in their "life sim" games, then why not include "Y" as the default?"

I'm not saying that "If you include X, then you NEED to also include Y", I'm just asking where the boundary is, because the boundary is what keeps "otherkin" out, and what gives a developer a feasible amount of assets to make, as opposed to the infinite amounts of assets if he wants to be as "open" as "Second Life"

Yeah the part about the counselors was sarcastic pointing out the flaw of your comparison between the two. As in a message of personal acceptance of who they are of who one is is exactly the opposite of what homosexuals had to deal with making your comparison rather silly. That would be par for the course here though. The comparison between the two in the first place is what is flawed race, gender, sexuality are all biological traits right down to the genome. It's a false equivalency and a straw man to compare it people wanting to be goats. In the end it just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter. Do a little research next time. Might as well come on here saying black people want to be represented? Well what about people who want to be superhero's? It's just silly.

tstorm823:
Would you like to contest my double sourced information?

I stand corrected. I was being informed off of a friend of mine who owns the Japanese version of the game. Turns out they were quite less-than-correct, despite their insistence, so I'll have to smack him around with a big stick.

Regardless, that is still irrelevant to Jim's overall point in the video, so these accusations are still wrong-headed. The argument would've been the same regardless of whether Jim got that detail right or not, because his response is to the press release from Miiquality, not any of the 2013 ones, and not the second 2014 one that was the apology after they realized they started stirring some shit around.

This thread has turned less about the subject matter and more about how much of a terrible thread this is. None of the other threads got anywhere close to this bad what the hell happened? :s

For the record i think Nintendo is mostly just guilty of not thinking this whole thing through enough. The ugliness came out of how they dealt with it.

This video is just factually wrong, I don't care about whether Nintendo is right or wrong, but I do care that a person with thousands of views every week misconstruing "fixing a game-breaking bug that by allowing gay relationships broke the game" as "NINTENDO PATCHED OUT GAY MARRIAGE!"

You guys constantly piss on Fox News (for right reasons, I add), but when you and a lot of other gaming sites stoop to their level it's just sad.

Matthewmagic:
As a gay man.

I don't find the failure to include homosexuals in Tomodachi Life that big of deal. If you want to make a fun cute game taking a whimsical approach on life, make that approach take place around the traditional nuclear family makes sense to me. I find just not including it far less condescending than the "oh and the one other gay man in the whole universe" option you find in Mass Effect 3 or dragon age (though Zevran was a pimp). Make the game you want to make, and lets not artificially take offense if it is not "inclusive" enough. I think it would be a much farther step forward for the gay community as a whole if we could just let shit like this slide and realize that not every game is going to have a gay character, or a black character, or a muslim character.

Thank you. Thank you for inserting logic and reason into a place where clearly it has all left.

grimner:

10BIT:

Dragonbums:
Goddammit Jim. You got the info of the bug wrong, you got the nature of the statement wrong, you got everything fucking wrong...

GODDAMN THIS!

Except he spent the bulk of the video tearing down the statement Nintendo made, which was did not say that the bug was potentially game and console breaking, it said that including same sex options would have been "social commentary".

The strawman is actually on Nintendo on this one.

Except Nintendo never made the statement Jim spent the bulk of the video tearing down. When they said "We did not want to provide social commentary" they meant "The game was patched to remove game breaking bugs and has no basis on our views about homosexual lifestyles", not, as Jim insinuated, "The game was patched because we were unwilling to depict homosexuals as normal".

The strawman is actually on Jim - and the vast majority of games "journalists" - on this one.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here