Jimquisition: Tomodachi Strife

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

10BIT:

grimner:

10BIT:

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.

Except it did:

"Nintendo never intended to make any form of social commentary with the launch of 'Tomodachi Life'. The relationship options in the game represent a playful alternate world rather than a real-life simulation. We hope that all of our fans will see that 'Tomodachi Life' was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary."

And this statement was in reply to a petition asking for same sex relationships to be included. The best response they gave about that issue was,

"The ability for same-sex relationships to occur in the game was not part of the original game that launched in Japan, and that game is made up of the same code that was used to localize it for other regions outside of Japan,"

Source: AP

So, they did adress the bug and the way the original content was supposed to perform and, separately, addressed the petition for inclusion, dismissing it as social commentary. What we saw Jim taking exception to (and whose view I am suscribing having read said statement) is the notion that including said options would have been some sort of "social commentary". Which was quite clearly what Nintendo said, again, and to be clear:

We hope that all of our fans will see that 'Tomodachi Life' was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary.

There's no mention of the restrictiveness of japanese culture regarding homossexuality (though I am legitimately curious if such restrictiveness affected games like Skyrim, Fable or Bioware's IPs), and the bug is discussed elsewhere in the statement, so yes, one could be forgiven for assuming that, though they coould have said "the original code did not contemplate same sex relationships and those who were present in the bug were not part of the design and could have caused file corruption, and we'll look into the issue on future iterations", Nintendo of AMERICA (note it was not japan who issued it, but American PR, replying to western sensibilities), chose instead to word the inclusion of same sex relationships as "social commentary". When in actuality it is its exclusion that is making a statement (much like the Sims mature rating in Russia is a statement of that country's views on homossexuality), and the choice of words from Nintendo of AMERICA was, at the very least quite poor.

And to their credit, they're the first ones to admit it by backtracking on previous statements and opening up the possibility. which is good, though it does not erase the nature and tone of the first statement, no matter how much its defenders or crusaders of the anti SJW try to deny it.

10BIT:

grimner:

10BIT:

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.

This.
Thank you.
When I first read the quote my reaction was " Well it's obvious they're talking about the bug and how it's removal was not based on gay marriage it was just them fixing a broken product."
But you know it's sad.
This game probably won't get a sequel, which means any chance of the game actually getting gay marriage added to it is also up in the air.
This also might put a stop to Nintendo releasing more Japan exclusives globally.

( Also I played fire emblem and while you could take it as playing another character you could also play it as an embodiment of yourself. )

grimner:

Except it did:

"Nintendo never intended to make any form of social commentary with the launch of 'Tomodachi Life'. The relationship options in the game represent a playful alternate world rather than a real-life simulation. We hope that all of our fans will see that 'Tomodachi Life' was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary."

And this statement was in reply to a petition asking for same sex relationships to be included. The best response they gave about that issue was,

"The ability for same-sex relationships to occur in the game was not part of the original game that launched in Japan, and that game is made up of the same code that was used to localize it for other regions outside of Japan,"

Source: AP

Really did they address the petition like that or the social justice blob screaming Nintendo is a bunch of bigots for patching out gay marriage? See that your source is AP not #miiquailty there.

For frig sake do people really expect NINTENDO of all people to get same sex marriage right? I get what people want but it's not fair to expect throwing everyone into the mine field that is controversy willing and set off more because things like someone couldn't figure out if one should wear a dress or not. The "default" marriage since people want to throw what should be default around here, is till hetero, it's easy to paint a picture of a hetero and marriage and life style that is at very least, accepting to people. It's not easy for the other way, and especially when a feature is "have a child and send it to other's games" can get pretty good damn shakey pretty damn fast. They need a lot more time and effort AND MONEY to do more then the default, and whatever life this game is doesn't get the AAA budget and timeline the other games like the sims, dragon age and mass effect had while the last two it was more a minor point, when it would be a more major point here.

lionday:

10BIT:

grimner:

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.

This.
Thank you.
When I first read the quote my reaction was " Well it's obvious they're talking about the bug and how it's removal was not based on gay marriage it was just them fixing a broken product."
But you know it's sad.
This game probably won't get a sequel, which means any chance of the game actually getting gay marriage added to it is also up in the air.
This also might put a stop to Nintendo releasing more Japan exclusives globally.

( Also I played fire emblem and while you could take it as playing another character you could also play it as an embodiment of yourself. )

The game was a big hit in Japan. There WILL be a sequel. Localization's a different matter (and probably why Tye told everyone not to boycott the game in the first place).

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).

Edit: since some people are incapable of detecting sarcasm even if I use "quotes" to make sure it is obvious: this is sarcasm.

Sarcasm or no, comparing marrying children to marrying adults of the same sex is reprehensible. Whether or not Nintendo was being homophobic, justifications like this are.

10BIT:
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.

Rewatch the video, this time starting at 1:15. Then come back and try to honestly tell me that this bug was relevant to his argument. The Nintendo claim did very much exist, and it wasn't in response to the bug from a year ago, it was made a few days ago directly in response to Miiquality. Even if the gay marriage/bug mishap didn't happen, Miiquality still likely would've happened, and Nintendo likely would've still given a similarly stupid press response. Jim isn't making a strawman, he's arguing against the notion that the very inclusion of same-sex relations would be "social commentary", whereas somehow Nintendo has the idea that deliberately excluding them isn't social commentary.

The Miiquality mission statement video didn't even take note of the original bug mishap.

http://vimeo.com/93044318

Eve Charm:
See that your source is AP not #miiquailty there.

Thats because Nintendo's response was to the Associated Press, not directly to Miiquality. Check out the Miiquality tumblr and twitter feeds if you don't believe thats true.

http://miiquality.tumblr.com/
https://twitter.com/Miiquality

For frig sake do people really expect NINTENDO of all people to get same sex marriage right?

...yes? That kind of was a lot of the basis of Jim's video - that at this point in time to exclude homosexuality is making a bigger statement than it isto include it, that it should be the standard by now. This game is being localized for North America, which includes Canada, a country that is well ahead of the United States when it comes to gay rights, and the United States itself, which the majority of the population is in favour same-sex marriage, and within the next few years it will be legal nationwide due to the Prop 8 ruling being applied in Supreme Courts of other states as we speak, and it'll become legal that way if it isn't used in the federal Supreme Court first.

I get what people want but it's not fair to expect throwing everyone into the mine field that is controversy willing and set off more because things like someone couldn't figure out if one should wear a dress or not.

That still wouldn't actually be same-sex marriage though. Thats like saying to somebody who wants their character in Animal Crossing to not be white "Hey, you can kinda sorta not be white if you leave your game on for five hours during the summer months". Its the facade of it, but not the actual thing.

The "default" marriage since people want to throw what should be default around here, is still hetero, it's easy to paint a picture of a hetero and marriage and life style that is at very least, accepting to people.

Accepting of heterosexual people. Exclusive of gay people. I don't see how somebody can't understand that. Its like if somebody gave the option to have a religion in the game, but there's only one religion they can be associated with.

It's not easy for the other way, and especially when a feature is "have a child and send it to other's games" can get pretty good damn shakey pretty damn fast.

[quote]They need a lot more time and effort AND MONEY to do more then the default,

So does creating a second gender for Miis. So does creating different skin tones for Miis. So does creating clothes. So does creating a relationship function in the game in the first place. So does creating a night and day cycle. So does creating multiple locales. Costs go into making the game, period, and something like this should be considered part of the acceptable costs of making the game. Otherwise, we'd all be playing a come-to-life version of DLC Quest.

I'm not even going to try reading this thread. It will either disappoint me or it won't, and I'd rather err on the side of feeling happy today.

I do want to say one thing, though.

Thank you, Jim, for once again saying what needed to be said, and for saying it extremely well. Including same-sex options is not catering or inclusion for inclusion sake - at this point, it should be the default.

So, once again, I thank the gods for you and your video. Well said.

Jasper van Heycop:

uanime5:
Given that in many countries gay marriage isn't legal it's no surprise that Nintendo didn't want to include it in a game that they wanted to sell all over the world.

And EA wasn't trying to sell the Sims to everyone in the world and their mom? Yet it still has gay marriage. They sometimes get censored for including it (like Ridiculous Russia giving it an A/O rating), but they show some backbone and just continue making money off non-bigots.

Are these games targeted at the same audience? While adults may be prepared to buy a game containing gay marriage for themselves they may be more reluctant to buy a game containing gay marriage for their children.

10BIT:

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.

Hilarious. How far are you willing to bend their words to make an excuse for them? I guess you'd even defend them if they outright said: "Homosexuals are gross. That's why."

Matthewmagic:
As a gay man.

I don't find the failure to include homosexuals in Tomodachi Life that big of deal....

As a gay man, I find your opinion simple minded. There, I cancelled out your gay influence.

Darmani:

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.

I agree that activism is necessary. But the way it's been gone about in this scenario is- in my opinion- really destructive behavior.

Nothing shoots down a movement for anything faster than the realization that your entire campaign against a company/person/entity is based upon misinformation that nobody bothered to fact check.

(I have a feeling that I already replied to this? Did I?)

hazydawn:

No country? You talk about it like it's a fucking unit that has it's own mind.

Isn't that basically what a country is? A collective of people within a continent/region with distinct boundaries in that land that have a primarily uniform type of government. The individuals themselves might have different opinions. What is a country to you exactly?

Many people genuinely believed that black people were subhuman and felt justyfied by their law, religion and community.

I'm black myself and you think I didn't know that? The first people to enslave black people knew fucking well it was immoral. The same can't be said for their offspring whom they've taken great care to brainwash them with that crap to keep up their multi million dollar business of slave labor. Which is half the reason why slavery in Britain ended a lot earlier than it did in America.

Doesn't fucking matter how many people or what authority believes something is moral or immoral though.

But that does matter because morality is not something that is objective. It is entirely subjective to the society and culture within it. It was not immoral 300 years ago to burn women at the stakes for the flimsy claim of Witchery.

It was not immoral back in the Roman days to use slaves and prisoners of war as human fighting animals in mega arenas for their own enjoyment.

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?

You were the one who stated that countries where there is zero tolerance for homosexuality would never have people in it who thought that maybe gay people aren't disgusting others that need to be purged. To which that I replied that's pretty hypocritical to state such considering how not even a generation ago we literally had that same mindset. I even brought up that a lot of killing happened to gay people here before they finally had a leg to stand on.

As for what this has to do with Japan, they are close minded on the aspect of marriage of gay couples. They aren't any more close minded about the issue as we are. But we just like to take the moral high ground because a few states in our entire country has legalized gay marriage. That's really about it.

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

Yes they are simply reinforcing the norm. But again you can't get that upset about it when you consider that the environment they are in when making this game in a Japanese only audience where gay marriage is illegal. If you guys and the people of Japan manage to make gay marriage illegal then you would have something to get really mad about in this instance.

However the way I see it- getting mad that Nintendo refuses to be your political crusader machine for Western based ideals in a game for an Eastern country only isn't going to get you anywhere and you might as well be wasting your breath.

Dragonbums:
I agree that activism is necessary. But the way it's been gone about in this scenario is- in my opinion- really destructive behavior.

Nothing shoots down a movement for anything faster than the realization that your entire campaign against a company/person/entity is based upon misinformation that nobody bothered to fact check.

Its based on Nintendo's response to Miiquality, so not really. People were upset over the statement, not what happened over a year ago. Miiquality didn't even bring that bug thing up, and Jim quickly glossed over it, incorrectly, but never actually made a point of using it in his argument. He was arguing over the response to Miiquality, not to the response from a patch from a year ago.

MarsAtlas:

Dragonbums:
I agree that activism is necessary. But the way it's been gone about in this scenario is- in my opinion- really destructive behavior.

Nothing shoots down a movement for anything faster than the realization that your entire campaign against a company/person/entity is based upon misinformation that nobody bothered to fact check.

Its based on Nintendo's response to Miiquality, so not really. People were upset over the statement, not what happened over a year ago. Miiquality didn't even bring that bug thing up, and Jim quickly glossed over it, incorrectly, but never actually made a point of using it in his argument. He was arguing over the response to Miiquality, not to the response from a patch from a year ago.

The misinformation of the patch was 90% of the reason why it blew up in the first place. There was nothing controversial about the statement. It was the same thing Nintendo stated in their "apology" only with less confusion.

The majority of the headliners in regards to this issue revolved around claiming that "Nintendo says no to gay marriage" "Nintendo's exclusion of homosexuality is Erasure" blah blah blah.

All of that came about due to the mistranslation and misunderstanding of the bug and the subsequent patching out of said bug which people claimed was to get rid of gay marriage when the option itself was two unrelated things.

So yes, the bug misunderstanding played a humongous role in the shitstorm that came about. Not Nintendo's response to Miiquality.

Dragonbums:
The misinformation of the patch was 90% of the reason why it blew up in the first place. There was nothing controversial about the statement. It was the same thing Nintendo stated in their "apology" only with less confusion.

I know you won't learn why it was, in fact, a controversial statement since you don't understand how bivalent logic functions, but I do recommend you do re-watch the video to understand why its irrelevant to it, this time starting at 1:15.

And no, the reaction was less about the patch from last year and more about the statement from a few days ago. WE already actually went through the reaction from last year, when it actually happened last year. Certainly didn't blow up as big as this.

The majority of the headliners in regards to this issue revolved around claiming that "Nintendo says no to gay marriage" "Nintendo's exclusion of homosexuality is Erasure" blah blah blah.

Yes, because all of those are accurate. Rewatch the Miiquality mission statement. Didn't mention the bug mishap or anything, just asked Nintendo to take notice and consider adding it to the game in a patch or in future installments. Nintendo's statement did say no to gay marriage, because they're not looking to "provide social commentary", and same-sex relationships are "social commentary".

All of that came about due to the mistranslation and misunderstanding of the bug and the subsequent patching out of said bug which people claimed was to get rid of gay marriage when the option itself was two unrelated things.

That was a year ago and none of the articles mentioning Nintendo's response to Miiquality dredged it up. Its "erasure" not because of the patch, but because they're were deliberately and blatantly saying no to same-sex relations when a group of people came up to them and asked them for it.

So yes, the bug misunderstanding played a humongous role in the shitstorm that came about. Not Nintendo's response to Miiquality.

I know that I certainly never used the basis of the bug for my arguments against Nintendo, just their incredibly dumb statement. Additionally, when erring people were corrected, they still found a lot wrong with Nintendo's statement.

MarsAtlas:

I know you won't learn why it was, in fact, a controversial statement since you don't understand how bivalent logic functions,

Or maybe it's because different people interpret messages different and in this case I didn't see the message as an affront to gay people as many others have deemed to translate it as.

And no, the reaction was less about the patch from last year and more about the statement from a few days ago.

That would hold water if it were not for the fact that half the articles regarding this issue still talk about how the bug was patched out because it had gay marriage in it.

Yes, because all of those are accurate. Rewatch the Miiquality mission statement.

I've watched and linked the video several times in this on this topic.

Didn't mention the bug mishap or anything,

Because unlike the rest of the people who went with his campaign he had fucking common sense and fact checking to top it off and knew that Nintendo never had gay marriage in the first place.

just asked Nintendo to take notice and consider adding it to the game in a patch or in future installments.

Which is exactly what they said in response to Tye.

Nintendo's statement did say no to gay marriage, because they're not looking to "provide social commentary", and same-sex relationships are "social commentary".

That's now what it meant. And we argued about this already. When they made the game and didn't include same sex marriage they didn't do that with any intention of stating that they- as a corporate entity- do not support gay marriage. Their game wasn't made for the sole purpose of making a political statement.

That was a year ago and none of the articles mentioning Nintendo's response to Miiquality dredged it up. Its "erasure" not because of the patch, but because they're were deliberately and blatantly saying no to same-sex relations when a group of people came up to them and asked them for it.

Yes. The patch had a fucking lot to do with the whole issue. I'm amazed that you say this when half the articles you see right now directly talk about the patch.

You might as well call 90% of games in existence and the studios behind them anti homosexual because they include straight relationships and not gay ones. That would mean GTA 5 and to extension Rock* games are against homosexuality because in the game you can fuck women but you can't fuck men.

You honestly need to take a step back from this whole discussion. Because these are the kinds of reactions that got us in this mess in the first place.

I know that I certainly never used the basis of the bug for my arguments against Nintendo,

Your argument is not the entire representation for the larger argument as a whole.

when erring people were corrected, they still found a lot wrong with Nintendo's statement.

The worst people called it was a PR blunder. Only the more extreme individuals went out of their way to state that it was an ultimatum that Nintendo are bigots and anti homosexual rights.

MarsAtlas:

Eve Charm:
See that your source is AP not #miiquailty there.

Thats because Nintendo's response was to the Associated Press, not directly to Miiquality. Check out the Miiquality tumblr and twitter feeds if you don't believe thats true.

http://miiquality.tumblr.com/
https://twitter.com/Miiquality

did nintendo themselves get on twitter or tumblr to reply? cause all I see is links to nintendo's site about the news.

For frig sake do people really expect NINTENDO of all people to get same sex marriage right?

...yes? That kind of was a lot of the basis of Jim's video - that at this point in time to exclude homosexuality is making a bigger statement than it isto include it, that it should be the standard by now. This game is being localized for North America, which includes Canada, a country that is well ahead of the United States when it comes to gay rights, and the United States itself, which the majority of the population is in favour same-sex marriage, and within the next few years it will be legal nationwide due to the Prop 8 ruling being applied in Supreme Courts of other states as we speak, and it'll become legal that way if it isn't used in the federal Supreme Court first.

Something that is entirely subjective to where you live and who you are, this game was made a year ago not within the next few years. I don't disagree that in time things won't bet better, hell even nintendo said they were going to in future releases.

I get what people want but it's not fair to expect throwing everyone into the mine field that is controversy willing and set off more because things like someone couldn't figure out if one should wear a dress or not.

That still wouldn't actually be same-sex marriage though. Thats like saying to somebody who wants their character in Animal Crossing to not be white "Hey, you can kinda sorta not be white if you leave your game on for five hours during the summer months". Its the facade of it, but not the actual thing.

The "default" marriage since people want to throw what should be default around here, is still hetero, it's easy to paint a picture of a hetero and marriage and life style that is at very least, accepting to people.

Accepting of heterosexual people. Exclusive of gay people. I don't see how somebody can't understand that. Its like if somebody gave the option to have a religion in the game, but there's only one religion they can be associated with.

It's not easy for the other way, and especially when a feature is "have a child and send it to other's games" can get pretty good damn shakey pretty damn fast.

They need a lot more time and effort AND MONEY to do more then the default,

So does creating a second gender for Miis. So does creating different skin tones for Miis. So does creating clothes. So does creating a relationship function in the game in the first place. So does creating a night and day cycle. So does creating multiple locales. Costs go into making the game, period, and something like this should be considered part of the acceptable costs of making the game. Otherwise, we'd all be playing a come-to-life version of DLC Quest.

Well I don't even believe this game even has a day or night cycle for starters. it's just a bunch of stuff thrown together. Also they are using mii's something that already existed and different skin tones already existed for mii's, so did genders. The only thing they really added on it's own is clothing that they didn't limit to either gender at all. On the subject of religion isn't not believing in including gods or deities atheism that is a religion basically in it's own right? So don't feel like the only one not included in their barebones game.

hazydawn:

Yes, that's what it is (your second sentence). Yes, the individuals have different opinions. Which is exactly the reason why a country does not have a unitary opinion on something as you made it out to be.

When did I ever make it out to be like that? You said that countries where homosexuality is banned have people in there who never once thought that such an act was bad due to their upbringing. Which I replied stating that there are people within those countries who think so- they just don't have a leg to stand on at the current moment.

How the fuck was I supposed to know that you are black? So what's with the style of this question? And if you knew that what the fuck was your last argument on this supposed to be where you tried to make a distinction because "Many people genuinely believe (homosexuality) [is] immoral and deviant behavior."

Are you honestly reading my posts or are you just making reactionary replies?

The whole point of that post was that a lot more people were very aware of the fact that slavery was a shitty thing to do period. The same can not be said for homosexuality. Where most people see it as deviant behavior on par of bestiality.

Congratulations you're living in a world of utter moral relativity.

That's how it's always been dude. You think I don't know what moral relativity is?

Or maybe what currently is considered to be lawful? Either way your going with the trend and don't think for yourself. Let's say you were a slave back in the day and wanted to flee from your master to archieve freedom.

Why, then you'd have acted immoral because by the law you were his property and forbidden to do so. Probably not happy with that example either because everyone secretly knew that slavery was wrong, correct?

Yes. According to law what I'm doing is indeed illegal. However the other wonderful thing about moral relativism is that the people within it do and have changed their perceptions on what they once thought was morally sound. Then again you are also ignoring the fact that the Founding Fathers have long since acknowledged how hypocrtical they were in doing such a thing in the first place.

You are a joke.

Oh my good sir. You not need to compliment me.

Oh, please show me where I made such a claim.

Sure thing.

You say I come to this moral judgement because I'm from a Western Culture. Which is true in the way that it allowed me to get in contact with certain ideas and arguments I wouldn't have been able to if I came from other places.

I'm taking the moral high ground because of my opinion which isn't exactly in keeping with the law, not because of what my country is currently doing.

But you also stated as quoted above that those opinions would never come to you have you of been brought up in a country where certain thoughts aren't allowed. So it's clear that although the laws themselves in the legal sense inhibit certain actions, the environment in which you were raised in would mean that the country as a whole has become so lenient that they had no issues wit you or other people to develop this idea to the point of a full fledged opinion.

Getting mad at them, creating controversy and voting with your wallet is the only language companies understand.

Not like it would do anything to Nintendo in this instance. They make more than enough money on this game in Japan. If it fails in the West then they lose little money over it. They simply keep it in Japan like it's always been.

You're starting to really disgust me and I'm getting the impression that you are not able to employ logic, so this will be my last response to you.

Sorry that differing opinions that don't simply revolve yourself and actually takes into account the global context disgusts you.

Would it help if I said you don't disgust me in the slightest? No? Oh well.

Then again you seem to talk down to me like I don't really know what I'm talking about.
If you can't respect the person your arguing with then you honestly are better off making rant blogs on Tumblr than having a "discussion" on a thread. Where it's expected to have people with dissenting views from you.

EDIT: Actually to clarify on the whole slavery bit, it's important not to confuse something that is unlawful with something that is immoral. They are two separate things. There is certainly an overlap between the two. Slaves running away from their owners and plantations was considered unlawful. But for those whose bottom dollar wasn't on the line, or were horrid racists they wouldn't see it as immoral.

But now you have other cases where bestiality is unlawful (well for the most part I guess) because it is considered immoral.

That's why homosexuality is in a tough spot. For a lot of the Western world we have shown for the most part that there is nothing immoral about being gay. The next step is to take down the laws that also make homosexuality unlawful. However it's not easy to do that when countries that have banned homosexuality entirely have a large populace of people that want it that way because they think it's immoral to back them up.

Dragonbums:
Or maybe it's because different people interpret messages different and in this case I didn't see the message as an affront to gay people as many others have deemed to translate it as.

Because those people don't understand bivalent logic, don't understand the press release, or both.

That would hold water if it were not for the fact that half the articles regarding this issue still talk about how the bug was patched out because it had gay marriage in it.

Really, then? That sounds like a testable claim. Lets look at the two ones just here on The Escapist that actually mention it; "Nintendo says no to same sex relationships for Tamodachi Miis" and "Nintendo's Omission of Same-sex relationships is erasure"

The first one, got it wrong, slightly, but is irrelevant to the overall point. Here's what is says:

"Tomodachi Life - "your friends, your drama, your life" - suffered from a bug back in 2013 that effectively enabled same sex marriage between miis, or at least the closest facsimile of it. Nintendo patched that out; "human relations become strange," as Nintendo described it, wasn't supposed to be on the menu, and besides it broke the game. The Western Tomodachi is due in June, and some fans have been calling for same sex mii marriage to be included. Nintendo has refused, saying it never intended to make any form of social commentary with its 3DS title."

And here's how it can be changed to keep the same meaning:

"The Western Tomodachi is due in June, and some fans have been calling for same sex mii marriage to be included. Nintendo has refused, saying it never intended to make any form of social commentary with its 3DS title."

So its irrelevant to the overall meaning of the article, and quite frankly, I assume it to be one of the very common methods that news sites like The Escapist use to garner revenue - a simple technique where whenever something or somebody comes up, you link articles from the same site that seem to have the slightest tangential relevance. Just look at the News Room right now. Six of the first eight do it, so lets say roughly 75% do it. Chance tells us that its more likely due to trying to gather ad revenue.

Now lets check out the "Erasure" editorial.

Hmm... after reading the article, there is absolutely no mention of it. In fact, if you do a word search for "bug", "glitch", or "fix", they only appear in the comments of the article. "Patch" does appear one time, and in the following sentence:

"Marini kindly suggested that the developers add it in a patch rather than implement it at release, or if that was also impossible, to promise to add it into a sequel or future release of the game."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/11432-Nintendos-Omission-of-Same-Sex-Relationships-is-Erasure

Lets check out the stories posted to the Miiquality tumblr.

None of these have any mention of it at all:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nintendo-says-no-virtual-equality-life-game
http://ds.mmgn.com/Articles/how-one-gamer-demanded-nintendo-take-not

This article glosses over it in one sentence and never brings it up again.
http://www.cgmagonline.com/articles/interviews/fight-miiquality/

And this one gets it half right, stating:

"In the Japanese version of Tomodachi Life, which was released last year, male characters could briefly appear to be married thanks to a bizarre bug. A few weeks after release, Nintendo patched Tomodachi Life and got rid of the bug, taking that marriage away with it."

Notably, this was added in the last paragraph.

http://kotaku.com/fighting-for-gay-marriage-in-a-nintendo-game-1572026032

And this article, linked from the tumblr to GayGamer.net gets it completely correct and still manages to have subtle jabs at videogame developers/publishers in general for excluding non-heterosexuals from such games.
http://gaygamer.net/2014/04/the-fight-for-miiquality/

I've watched and linked the video several times in this on this topic.

Then I think you would've noticed by now that the Miiquality mission statement paid no attention to the patch from a year ago.

Because unlike the rest some of the people who went with his campaign he had fucking common sense and fact checking to top it off and knew that Nintendo never had gay marriage in the first place.

Fixed.

Which is exactly what they said in response to Tye.

No they didn't.

This was Nintendo's official response:

"Nintendo never intended to make any form of social commentary with the launch of 'Tomodachi Life'. The relationship options in the game represent a playful alternate world rather than a real-life simulation. We hope that all of our fans will see that 'Tomodachi Life' was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary."

We have heard and thoughtfully considered all the responses. We will continue to listen and think about the feedback. We're using this as an opportunity to better understand our consumers and their expectations of us at all levels of the organization.

They said no, they said that they "have heard and thoughtfully considered all the responses." Their "thoughtful consideration" resulted in that first paragraph that says inclusion would be social commentary, and that they're not going to represent it because of that.

That's now what it meant. And we argued about this already. When they made the game and didn't include same sex marriage they didn't do that with any intention of stating that they- as a corporate entity- do not support gay marriage. Their game wasn't made for the sole purpose of making a political statement.

Yes, but they made a political statement when somebody figuratively walked up to them, asked them a question with a yes or no answer, and they answered "no". I feel no sympathy for Nintendo, because they meant every word they said. They could have just as easily ignored this and experience no fallout, or at least nothing as severe as that comment created. Even Jim acknowledged that in the video. But no, they walked themselves right into a Catch 22 scenario that could have easily been avoided by anybody who isn't blind.

Yes. The patch had a fucking lot to do with the whole issue. I'm amazed that you say this when half the articles you see right now directly talk about the patch.

Huh, thats that very testable claim again that I saw earlier. Fifty percent this time, right? Well let me scroll up to earlier in this post.

Stretching it the most, its 50%, on the nose, but thats if you count the articles where the bug was irrelevant to the overall point of the article as well as articles that went out of their way to explain the previous misunderstanding regarding that patch, which was, hmm... all of the articles that mentioned the bug. Go figure. So I guess really that 0% of those articles are upset about the patch.

You might as well call 90% of games in existence and the studios behind them anti homosexual because they include straight relationships and not gay ones.

> The Point

> Your Head

Its not about all games that don't have a same-sex relationship, and not a single person has ever claimed otherwise. Its about a game with the tagline "your life", a game where your avatar is supposed to be you... unless you're gay. I don't see anybody claiming that a game with a linear narrative is homophobic because the cliched romantic interest subplot is a heterosexual one. Similarly, nobody is calling the original Star Wars trilogy homophobic because the original trilogy had a heterosexual romantic subplot.

That would mean GTA 5 and to extension Rock* games are against homosexuality because in the game you can fuck women but you can't fuck men.

There's plenty of claims of homophobia and transphobia that get thrown at Rockstar, but this is definitely one of the lower ones. And, while yes, that exclusion would be, well, exclusion, its not necessarily driven by homophobia. I've seen one person claim Nintendo is homophobic - one. And they retracted their statement before Nintendo even their apology because they realized that they had fallen into a fallacious train of thought.

You honestly need to take a step back from this whole discussion. Because these are the kinds of reactions that got us in this mess in the first place.

I have. I've been in every one of these threads here on The Escapist, and honestly, I was going to sit this one out until I saw that people started accusing Jim of lying and deliberately misrepresenting the point about something that was entirely irrelevant to the video.

And do tell me, what "kind of reaction" am I having? I've never claimed that anybody at Nintendo is homophobic. I said that they generally avoid anything remotely controversial, and that their PR department walked them straight into the line of fire, but I never said that the company's intentions were malicious.

Your argument is not the entire representation for the larger argument as a whole.

Except, you know, the same one in the video that you watched and called a guy a liar in. You must've stopped watching less than halfway through if you missed the point of the video. Additionally, I've been reading all of these threads. All. I can tell you what people on both sides are saying. Nobody is claiming malice on the side of Nintendo - just general fuckwittery. Nobody is continuing to bring up the bug, especially after they erroneuously mentioned it. Meanwhile, most of the people who are upset by the movement are the ones who cannot understand that many people on my side were upset by the press release, not whatever happened a year ago.

Only the more extreme individuals went out of their way to state that it was an ultimatum that Nintendo are bigots and anti homosexual rights.

Citations please. Line them up so I can see them. I've not seen this claimed once except by somebody who shortly thereafter corrected themselves and said Nintendo is just being an incompetent buffoon instead of deliberately homophobic.

Something probably worth mentioning about the game... it's not a life sim, nor is it a thing of self expression ala Animal Crossing or Sims. In fact, you lack control or agency outside of the minigames. It's a stream of japanese daytime television sight gags with your miis injected into it.

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/ChristianNutt/20140508/217351/Understanding_Nintendos_Tomodachi_Life_problem.php

Pretty good article explaining it, and discussing the issue at hand.

MarsAtlas:

Because those people don't understand bivalent logic, don't understand the press release, or both.

Or maybe most people are into looking at different ways to interpret a message. As not everything, but the most bold statements only have one meaning.

-snip-

Alright so you bring up some articles that didn't really mention the bug. However just as many articles got the nature of the bug wrong. Which was half the reason they made articles in the first place.

As for the Miiquality blog I already addressed that Tye didn't mention the bug because he knew the bug had nothing to do with gay relationships.

But it's clear that the bug played a major role in the controversy explosion because now you have this particular Jimquisition episode (which he later addressed) getting info on the bug wrong stating that it patched out gay marriage specifically and had some credence to his next argument. Although it focused more on PR and public statements.

Then I think you would've noticed by now that the Miiquality mission statement paid no attention to the patch from a year ago.

Yeah. I said that a bazillion times to you know. I was talking about the people who bandwagoned on the campaign, misrepresented what Tye was going for and continued to spread misinformation about the bug in question.

No they didn't.

This was Nintendo's official response:

"Nintendo never intended to make any form of social commentary with the launch of 'Tomodachi Life'. The relationship options in the game represent a playful alternate world rather than a real-life simulation. We hope that all of our fans will see that 'Tomodachi Life' was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary."

We have heard and thoughtfully considered all the responses. We will continue to listen and think about the feedback. We're using this as an opportunity to better understand our consumers and their expectations of us at all levels of the organization.

They said no, they said that they "have heard and thoughtfully considered all the responses." Their "thoughtful consideration" resulted in that first paragraph that says inclusion would be social commentary, and that they're not going to represent it because of that.

They said no for this installment and in relation to the social commentary part that was a direct response to people accusing them of being bigots and anti gay marriage on the misinformation about the patch getting rid of gay marriage.

[quote

Yes, but they made a political statement when somebody figuratively walked up to them, asked them a question with a yes or no answer, and they answered "no".[/quote]

And they said no to this installment because it's a one year old game with the dev team doing other shit. They did not say no as an ultimatum because they went on to say that they will consider it for later editions if the feedback is positive enough.

Huh, thats that very testable claim again that I saw earlier. Fifty percent this time, right? Well let me scroll up to earlier in this post.

Stretching it the most, its 50%, on the nose, but thats if you count the articles where the bug was irrelevant to the overall point of the article as well as articles that went out of their way to explain the previous misunderstanding regarding that patch, which was, hmm... all of the articles that mentioned the bug. Go figure. So I guess really that 0% of those articles are upset about the patch.

Headliners and opening sentences matter. A lot of people do not read the full articles for anything. They look at the headliner, the first two sentences, cement their judgement on the matter and make a rant about it. That's why this went as horribly as it did.

> The Point

> Your Head

Its not about all games that don't have a same-sex relationship, and not a single person has ever claimed otherwise. Its about a game with the tagline "your life", a game where your avatar is supposed to be you... unless you're gay. I don't see anybody claiming that a game with a linear narrative is homophobic because the cliched romantic interest subplot is a heterosexual one. Similarly, nobody is calling the original Star Wars trilogy homophobic because the original trilogy had a heterosexual romantic subplot.

As someone already linked at the bottom it's not exactly "your life" because in the game itself you have no control over what your Mii's do anyway. Last time I checked I had control over my life and the actions I project in it.

, that exclusion would be, well, exclusion, its not necessarily driven by homophobia.

And Nintendo's was driven by homophobia?

I've seen one person claim Nintendo is homophobic - one. And they retracted their statement before Nintendo even their apology because they realized that they had fallen into a fallacious train of thought.

Except that the Escapist is not the only thing on the web. Look at tumblr, look at the comments section of places like IGN, and Youtube. You will see no end in sight of this accusation and they fucking meant it.

I've never claimed that anybody at Nintendo is homophobic.

But you did state their their original statement meant exclusion of gays and no on gay marriage. You might not of directly said they were homophobic, but when you make statements like that, don't be surprised that people might come to that conclusion with those words.

I said that they generally avoid anything remotely controversial, and that their PR department walked them straight into the line of fire, but I never said that the company's intentions were malicious.

Except that accusing them of exclusion of gays, erasure, so on and so forth is malicious activity.

Except, you know, the same one in the video that you watched and called a guy a liar in. You must've stopped watching less than halfway through if you missed the point of the video. Additionally, I've been reading all of these threads. All. I can tell you what people on both sides are saying. Nobody is claiming malice on the side of Nintendo - just general fuckwittery. Nobody is continuing to bring up the bug, especially after they erroneuously mentioned it. Meanwhile, most of the people who are upset by the movement are the ones who cannot understand that many people on my side were upset by the press release, not whatever happened a year ago.

Citations please. Line them up so I can see them.

Citations? You yourself just said that Nintendo made a clear stance against homosexuality in regards to gay marriage. That in and of itself is against homosexual rights so there one in the camp right there.

[quote]I've not seen this claimed once except by somebody who shortly thereafter corrected themselves and said Nintendo is just being an incompetent buffoon instead of deliberately homophobic.

You only need to go as far as not the Escapist to see those claims on numerous occasions.

Silvanus:

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?

?

Actually that's exactly what your getting at. This entire debate revolves around how if something like a life sim features heterosexual content as being normal, it must also present homosexual content as being normal. Something which has springboarded into articles claiming Nintendo's attitude amounts to "erasure" and so on. The bottom line is homosexuals are a tiny minority, and represent an abnormal, fringe behavior. Being gay is not normal, it represents a tiny portion of society. Thus there is no fair basis for saying it should be presented as normal and represented when relationships come up. If someone chooses to do so, that's fine, but it's not an entitlement, "erasure", or some kind of social attack to not include a fringe behavior.

The point about Polygamy, which can also be made about mixed race marriages, is that they are both far more common behaviors than homosexuality. They could both make a far stronger case to the claim of representation on moral grounds. They do not do so however, it's gays, who are even more abnormal proportionatly, who are demanding to be inserted into things like video games, and acting like excluding them is some kind of attack. Conversely if someone wants to show a mixed race relationship, or say present Polygamy in a TV show without being judgemental, that is their right, but the groups who practice those things are not demanding that for every monogamous relationship, or mono-ethnic pairing that they be represented as well as some kind of right, and that it's both an attack and a moral outrage to do so. Both could in theory make far stronger claims to a moral high ground through numbers than gays can.

Remember the entire topic here is moral outrage over gays not being in a life simulator, and the way Nintendo handled it and treated an abnormal minority like well... an abnormal minority, while admittedly being pretty polite about it. This entire discussion revolves around how gays are entitled to be in a game like this, and Nintendo is committing some kind of moral outrage by not representing that fringe in a life sim where heterosexual behavior and relationships are not only allowed, but a focus of the game.

Another focus of this is the argument as to whether it's political or not. It's quite political. In a world that is largely anti-gay, where even the first world is divided 50% and needs to "cheat" to pass ant-gay legislation and have it stick even in the most socially liberal states in the most permissive nation on earth (California waffles back and forth here, being a huge battleground for example). The whole point of arguments like this is to saturate the media with portrayals of this being normal, mainstream, behavior in order to sell it and hope that by convincing people that it's true it will affect legislation, that is the very definition of political.

My personal opinions aside, the bottom line is the battle over gay rights ended long ago. Being gay has been decriminalized. Gays can be presented in the media without there being a problem with it if someone chooses to do so, along with other fringe behaviors. It's all about politics now and an argument that gsys have to be represented alongside normal human relationships. Nobody is entitled to that, and if one makes that argument, as I pointed out, you are also basically argueing for every other fringe behavior and sexual orientation to be required to be represented as well, and by the numbers gays wind up pretty far back in that priority queue.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care if Nintendo did put gays into their game, it's their right, but they didn't. Gays have no right to be outraged simply by not being included. Now if the game was say having you hunt down and brutalize homosexuals and presenting this as normal behavior that society should encourage, that would be different, but it's not doing that, it's just not including a gay option.

Scars Unseen:

Possibly yes, but probably no. Do you have any idea how much work what you might consider a "minor" feature can take to implement? How much coding is involved, how many bugs could result?

Oh, Boo-hoo! This is possibly one of the weakest arguments in this thread next to "if they allow gay marriage, then they have to allow fox marriage!"

These people are game developers. It's their job to develop games.

Why is "oh, it's hard work" an excuse? Customers are paying them to do this hard work. I really don;t understand this argument that we should allow developers to be lazy, and not do their damn jobs. It's a competitive business, and they damn well better be working hard to make their games as good as possible if they want our business.

Screw lazy developers, and screw this cop-out of an excuse. "Oh no, they might have to add some game content." Other companies have done a lot more work and added a lot more content for less marketplace benefit. If this is really something that's so difficult to do that it's almost impossible - than that's proof that the developers are either incompetent or lazy.

Therumancer:

Actually that's exactly what your getting at. This entire debate revolves around how if something like a life sim features heterosexual content as being normal, it must also present homosexual content as being normal. Something which has springboarded into articles claiming Nintendo's attitude amounts to "erasure" and so on. The bottom line is homosexuals are a tiny minority, and represent an abnormal, fringe behavior. Being gay is not normal, it represents a tiny portion of society. Thus there is no fair basis for saying it should be presented as normal and represented when relationships come up. If someone chooses to do so, that's fine, but it's not an entitlement, "erasure", or some kind of social attack to not include a fringe behavior.

Therumancer:
My personal opinions aside, the bottom line is the battle over gay rights ended long ago. Being gay has been decriminalized.

You moved the goalposts; presenting something as normal is not the same thing as presenting it in the same proportion as you present everything else.

The rest of the post is a string of rehashed arguments from before, and various provocative slurs. If you think decriminalisation was the end of the gay-rights issue, that's truly delusional. People are still murdered because they are gay; people still lose their homes and families because they are gay; people are still brutally attacked and bullied because they are gay. It's quite sickening to suggest gay people have already won, when they face incredible violence and adversity.

You didn't address my point about how the exact same arguments as those you use now were trotted out about mixed-race relationships.

Therumancer:
Another focus of this is the argument as to whether it's political or not. It's quite political. In a world that is largely anti-gay, where even the first world is divided 50% and needs to "cheat" to pass ant-gay legislation and have it stick even in the most socially liberal states in the most permissive nation on earth (California waffles back and forth here, being a huge battleground for example). The whole point of arguments like this is to saturate the media with portrayals of this being normal, mainstream, behavior in order to sell it and hope that by convincing people that it's true it will affect legislation, that is the very definition of political.

Oh, for...

If gay people were treated equally, then everybody would be happy to just live their lives. I am not making a political statement when I go out with somebody of the same sex. It becomes political when rights get denied.

Just like mixed-race relationships. The people who tried to deny them rights and treatment forced them to argue back, and try to attain equal treatment-- and then you have the audacity, and shortsightedness, and pure prejudice, to blame the victims for doing so?!

Houseman:
You're saying that you can't be a toaster? But the folks at tumblr say otherwise... Who are you to dismiss how they feel they are born to be?

Look, if you want to argue with the people on Tumblr, then why don't you go to Tumblr and do it?

We are not the people on Tumblr, and nobody here has put forth any of the straw man arguments you are debating. Furthermore, if you love Tumblr so much, then why don't you marry it? You seem somewhat obsessed with it.

Dragonbums:
Alright so you bring up some articles that didn't really mention the bug. However just as many articles got the nature of the bug wrong. Which was half the reason they made articles in the first place.

Citations?

Because I went out of my way to defeat your point. Here, I'll even add some more.

Destructoid, two articles, no mention:

http://www.destructoid.com/here-s-nintendo-s-stance-on-the-lack-of-gay-marriage-in-tomodachi-life-274478.phtml
http://www.destructoid.com/nintendo-issues-statement-on-tomodochi-life-controversy-274622.phtml

Eurogamer, one article, no mention:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-05-07-nintendo-refuses-to-allow-same-sex-relationships-in-tomodachi-life

Gamespot, two articles, no mention:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-explains-why-it-won-t-allow-same-sex-relationships-in-tomodachi-life/1100-6419489/
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-responds-to-criticism-regarding-same-sex-relationships-in-tomodachi-life-update/1100-6419530/

I've more or less exhausted my Gaming News bookmarks so far, so I'd be interested in seeing what other sites I'm aware about may have reported on it about.

As for the Miiquality blog I already addressed that Tye didn't mention the bug because he knew the bug had nothing to do with gay relationships.

Yeah, so nobody who read it would've gotten that impression. Additionally, anybody who followed their twitter or tumblr would've noticed the article from GayGamer.net that addressed the patch misconception from last year, so I doubt that too many people involved are misinformed.

But it's clear that the bug played a major role in the controversy explosion

because now you have this particular Jimquisition episode (which he later addressed) getting info on the bug wrong stating that it patched out gay marriage specifically[/quote]

So you're saying its clear that it had played a major role because... somebody somewhere got it wrong? Airtight logic you've got. Its not like somebody who did some research into the subject might've found the incorrect articles from last year as well as the factual articles from this year and conflate some accidental similarity with the two, right? Right?

That, itself, isn't good journalism, but most articles haven't mentioned it, and every one that has skipped over it very quickly, often times just linking it to another article on the same site to increase traffic and revenue.

and had some credence to his next argument.

Not really. You can start the video at 1:15 and the only thing you'll really miss is "Well, you've heard of Jim Sterling now." The bug patch was never once again mentioned in the video, and the same logic is as applicable with or without omission of it. Here's the quote, and followed by the omission.

"You can have relationships in the game, and until Nintendo edited it out, these relationships could be same-sex. Citing bugs that affected the larger game - it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place - Nintendo patched gay marriage out of the Japanese version of Tomodachi Life. Nintendo [of] America made it quite clear that it had no intention of putting it back in for the game's western release. Since, shockingly, some gamers are actually gay and actually like being represented in games that put personalization first, a Miiquality petition was enacted to try to get Nintendo to change its mind. So far, so mildly controversial. And then Nintendo, itself, made things stupidly controversial."

"Nintendo [of] America made it quite clear that it had no intention of putting it in for the game's western release. Since, shockingly, some gamers are actually gay and actually like being represented in games that put personalization first, a Miiquality petition was enacted to try to get Nintendo to change its mind. So far, so mildly controversial. And then Nintendo, itself, made things stupidly controversial."

The meaning hasn't really changed. Either way, Nintendo of America announced no plans that it was going to be in the western release, and as Jim Sterling himself said, in the video, in the following sentences where that quote leaves off:

"When it could've just stuck to its guns and said that the stuff wasn't in the original version, or it could've just kept its whole mouth fucking shut, someone over their parted their lips and did a stupid."

Yeah. I said that a bazillion times to you know. I was talking about the people who bandwagoned on the campaign, misrepresented what Tye was going for and continued to spread misinformation about the bug in question.

I'm not seeing much misinformation from news sites. I can't speak for other forums, but everybody here who has said such a thing has been quickly corrected and they didn't fall back into that argument again.

They said no for this installment and in relation to the social commentary part that was a direct response to people accusing them of being bigots and anti gay marriage on the misinformation about the patch getting rid of gay marriage.

Okay, you must not understand the timeline.

April - Miiquality campaign is created.

May 7th - Nintendo makes that press release before any controversy existed. People are offended by the statement, and this is when negative statements about Nintendo are made.[1]

May 9th - Nintendo apologizes and says they'll consider it for future installments.

And again, this whole "misinformation" schtick you're using doesn't appear to have any creedence. Even the editorials I've found condemning Nintendo don't mention it.

And they said no to this installment because it's a one year old game with the dev team doing other shit. They did not say no as an ultimatum because they went on to say that they will consider it for later editions if the feedback is positive enough.

They did say no as an ultimatum. I'll just repost what I already did in the hopes you understand it this time.

MarsAtlas:
This was Nintendo's official response:

"Nintendo never intended to make any form of social commentary with the launch of 'Tomodachi Life'. The relationship options in the game represent a playful alternate world rather than a real-life simulation. We hope that all of our fans will see that 'Tomodachi Life' was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary."

We have heard and thoughtfully considered all the responses. We will continue to listen and think about the feedback. We're using this as an opportunity to better understand our consumers and their expectations of us at all levels of the organization.

They said no, they said that they "have heard and thoughtfully considered all the responses." Their "thoughtful consideration" resulted in that first paragraph that says inclusion would be social commentary, and that they're not going to represent it because of that.

-

Headliners and opening sentences matter. A lot of people do not read the full articles for anything.

Apparently you're one of them, since most of them aren't mentioning it.

They look at the headliner, the first two sentences, cement their judgement on the matter and make a rant about it. That's why this went as horribly as it did.

Obviously not true, since the controversial part of Nintendo's statement wasn't in the first two sentences.

As someone already linked at the bottom it's not exactly "your life" because in the game itself you have no control over what your Mii's do anyway. Last time I checked I had control over my life and the actions I project in it.

Funny, that totally goes against their entire advertising efforts for the game. And if it weren't "your life", why have relationships in the first place then? Why interject your personification into the game then? Why isn't the game played with a bunch of stock preset characters like Gears of War or Mario Party?

And Nintendo's was driven by homophobia?

Nope. Its mere appeasement to homophobes instead.

Except that the Escapist is not the only thing on the web. Look at tumblr, look at the comments section of places like IGN, and Youtube. You will see no end in sight of this accusation and they fucking meant it.

Citations?

I googled "Nintendo Homophobic", all I came up with in the first two pages were forum posts mostly saying that the news sources are lying - of course without actually citing these news sources.

But you did state their their original statement meant exclusion of gays and no on gay marriage.

Yes. Thats all anybody has been saying.

You might not of directly said they were homophobic, but when you make statements like that, don't be surprised that people might come to that conclusion with those words.

I'm not responsible for somebody else's illiteracy. All I've been saying myself is that they're complicit with homophobes for the sake of money, and have been for years. Its business for them.

Except that accusing them of exclusion of gays, erasure, so on and so forth is malicious activity.

The definition of "malice" via Dictionary.com.

mal·ice [mal-is] Show IPA
noun
1.
desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy.
2.
Law. evil intent on the part of a person who commits a wrongful act injurious to others.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malice

Merriam-Webster

mal·ice noun \ˈma-ləs\
: a desire to cause harm to another person

Full Definition of MALICE

1: desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
2: intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse

Oxford Dictionary

malice
Syllabification: mal·ice
Pronunciation: /ˈmaləs /
NOUN

1The intention or desire to do evil; ill will:
I bear no malice toward anybody
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
1.1 Law Wrongful intention, especially as increasing the guilt of certain offenses.

The Free Dictionary

mal·ice (măl′ĭs)
n.
1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
2. Law The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

Stop misusing the word "malice", please. Nobody's making that accusation anyways.

Except, you know, the same one in the video that you watched and called a guy a liar in. You must've stopped watching less than halfway through if you missed the point of the video. Additionally, I've been reading all of these threads. All. I can tell you what people on both sides are saying. Nobody is claiming malice on the side of Nintendo - just general fuckwittery. Nobody is continuing to bring up the bug, especially after they erroneuously mentioned it. Meanwhile, most of the people who are upset by the movement are the ones who cannot understand that many people on my side were upset by the press release, not whatever happened a year ago.

Citations? You yourself just said that Nintendo made a clear stance against homosexuality in regards to gay marriage.

Yeah. They're not being inclusive, for the sake of not trying to be controversial and not harm profits.

That in and of itself is against homosexual rights so there one in the camp right there.

"Against" and "complicit" are two different things. Is a civilian in France circa 1941 "against" Jews; right to exist because they didn't shelter them from the occupying Nazi forces? No, not really. They're putting themselves at due risk by doing so. Being "against" Jews in this situation, however, would be snitching on their hiding places because you think they should be round up.

And yes, yes, Godwin's Law and blah blah blah. Its a good example though. Similarly, many people in Nazi Germany weren't necessarily on board with the laws that were oppressive to certain groups, but they didn't oppose them either. Many citizens of Germany were complicit with such policies because the very same politicians who had created such disgusting policies regarding certain people groups were also responsible for economic prosperity. They were complicit during that period, and it was a time prior to when Brownshirts were rounding up political opponents, so they weren't putting themselves at risk.

[quote]You only need to go as far as not the Escapist to see those claims on numerous occasions.

I've checked out forums on IGN, GameFAQs, Gamespot, Youtube comments, Twitter feeds with the hashtag "Miiquality", and just now I checked "Miiquality" on tumblr, closest I could find after searching for a few minutes (shouldn't like long if its so common, right?) is the following:

"if anything i was thinking they'd just release a statement along the lines of "thank you for your feedback, we're very sorry that tomodachi life does not include the option for gay couples, but we will consider including gay couples in some of our future games" and that would've been a cop out, but i probably would've been okay with that because at least they'd ACKNOWLEDGE that they did something lame
but now they're like "tomodachi life is just this whimsical little game! it's not social commentary! if we acknowledged that queer people exist then it would be social commentary and that just doesn't fit the tone of the game!!" and i'm fucking FURIOUS. it's just another sign that straight people have made it so that people like me literally cannot exist without being seen as abnormal and as some kind of walking political statement"

If anything, it seems to be condemning western (presumable American?) culture, rather than Nintendo itself. I saw a lot more of people saying "ITS JUST A BUG STOP BEING MAD I DONT UNDERSTAND THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVERYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING" than people actually doing anything that seems like any kind of attack on Nintendo, whether its calling them cowardly or homophobic.

[1] Most of these statements are that Nintendo is spineless, rather than bigoted. I assume you'll accept that as true since I'm not seeing any links to anything that explicitly is calling Nintendo bigoted.

Dragonbums:
But for it to be immoral it would have to of been done with intended malice.

Immorality does not require malice.

Dragonbums:

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.

That's absolutely not true. Many slave owners saw blacks and other races as not-human, and property.They absolutely saw it as their right to own and preside over the lives of the inferior races.

This still persists today - even in 2014, we have Cliven Bundy making public statements about how much better off black people were under the stewardship of slaveholders.

Aardvaarkman:

Scars Unseen:

Possibly yes, but probably no. Do you have any idea how much work what you might consider a "minor" feature can take to implement? How much coding is involved, how many bugs could result?

Oh, Boo-hoo! This is possibly one of the weakest arguments in this thread next to "if they allow gay marriage, then they have to allow fox marriage!"

These people are game developers. It's their job to develop games.

Why is "oh, it's hard work" an excuse? Customers are paying them to do this hard work. I really don;t understand this argument that we should allow developers to be lazy, and not do their damn jobs. It's a competitive business, and they damn well better be working hard to make their games as good as possible if they want our business.

Screw lazy developers, and screw this cop-out of an excuse. "Oh no, they might have to add some game content." Other companies have done a lot more work and added a lot more content for less marketplace benefit. If this is really something that's so difficult to do that it's almost impossible - than that's proof that the developers are either incompetent or lazy.

It is not their job to develop this game. That was their job. They finished it. Over a year ago. People(not the Miiquality people, but less reasonable ones) are asking them to re-make the game. What I'm saying is that this isn't as simple an issue that they can just patch it in without putting more man hours into it than they are likely to be willing to for a game that has already been out for a year. This is more the sort of thing that they would have to sell as DLC(which would bring on an even bigger uproar and have legitimately unfortunate implications) or put into a paid expansion in order to justify the cost of.

MarsAtlas:

This was Nintendo's official response:

"Nintendo never intended to make any form of social commentary with the launch of 'Tomodachi Life'. The relationship options in the game represent a playful alternate world rather than a real-life simulation. We hope that all of our fans will see that 'Tomodachi Life' was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary."

We have heard and thoughtfully considered all the responses. We will continue to listen and think about the feedback. We're using this as an opportunity to better understand our consumers and their expectations of us at all levels of the organization.

They said no, they said that they "have heard and thoughtfully considered all the responses." Their "thoughtful consideration" resulted in that first paragraph that says inclusion would be social commentary, and that they're not going to represent it because of that.

I don't see how you can continue to interpret that press release this way. If the "not social commentary line" was in a vacuum, I might see the ambiguity, but when they tell you directly after that it isn't meant to be a real world simulation, there's no way this means anything other than "if we were trying to simulate real life, we would have included homosexuality." The not making social commentary line did not even remotely mean that including gay relationships would be social commentary (whether they include or exclude, it's the same level of social commentary, which I'm about to explain is zero), what they were saying is that the game isn't in any way meant to represent society, so anything in it is not intended social commentary. When they say "we were not trying to make social commentary" they're saying "we didn't mean to suggest that gay people are nonexistant or unimportant." That wasn't their explanation for why they didn't have gay relationships, it was their olive branch to anyone who felt insulted or excluded.

They made a public statement saying "we didn't mean to insult anyone, we weren't trying to make any statement about homosexuality, but now we've heard your feedback, and we'll keep it in mind for future games" and people apparently couldn't understand that. Fault is absolutely on Jim.

tstorm823:
I don't see how you can continue to interpret that press release this way. If the "not social commentary line" was in a vacuum, I might see the ambiguity, but when they tell you directly after that it isn't meant to be a real world simulation, there's no way this means anything other than "if we were trying to simulate real life, we would have included homosexuality."

Why include heterosexual romance in the first place then? You have to proviide a rationale for why one exists, but not the other. I can easily say "its not a real world simulation, so there's no romantic situations in the game" by that litmus.

The not making social commentary line did not even remotely mean that including gay relationships would be social commentary (whether they include or exclude, it's the same level of social commentary, which I'm about to explain is zero), what they were saying is that the game isn't in any way meant to represent society, so anything in it is not intended social commentary.

Really? "Anything in it"? You're honestly going to say that, even though the statement from Nintendo says:

"The relationship options in the game represent a playful alternate world rather than a real-life simulation."

Its quite clear that they're not talking about The Regginator looking creepy in the trailer.

When they say "we were not trying to make social commentary" they're saying "we didn't mean to suggest that gay people are nonexistant or unimportant." That wasn't their explanation for why they didn't have gay relationships, it was their olive branch to anyone who felt insulted or excluded.

So why didn't they provide and explanation then? Because that "social commentary" comment was the explanation. Nintendo's actual apology gives a reason for not including it, as well as an actual apology.

"We apologize for disappointing many people by failing to include same-sex relationships in Tomodachi Life. Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game's design, and such a significant development change can't be accomplished with a post-ship patch. At Nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy. We are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone. We pledge that if we create a next installment in the Tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game-play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.

-- Nintendo of America"

That wasn't so difficult for them to admit, seeing as it came in just two days, so why couldn't they do that in the first place, when they only had Miiquality as a small movement with nobody really pressuring them? Because that wasn't their intention with the original statement.

They made a public statement saying "we didn't mean to insult anyone, we weren't trying to make any statement about homosexuality, but now we've heard your feedback, and we'll keep it in mind for future games" and people apparently couldn't understand that. Fault is absolutely on Jim.

Thats what their actual apology says. I cannot see where you're deciphering this "apology" to non-heterosexual people in the "social commentary" statement they made except for the "relationship" sentence they had, and even that was rather offensive.

jaateloauto:
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.

How was anybody supposed to understand what Nintendo was saying? It was not obvious by their statement exactly what the "social commentary" remark was referring to. It could have referred to either including or not including same-sex relationships.

Nintendo's statement was bordering on incoherence. Which is a huge problem if you are making a PR statement. It should be as clear as day what you are trying to say. The fact the Nintendo's statement was "misunderstood" does not bode well for Nintendo. Do they not employ PR people who understand English and Western cultures? Why did they allow this garbled statement of mixed messages to be released?

10BIT:
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",

If that is what they meant, then maybe that is what they should have said? It is their job to make their meaning clear, not the job of others to deduce it from vague statement.

10BIT:
The strawman is actually on Jim - and the vast majority of games "journalists" - on this one.

No, it's actually Nintendo's fault for not making a clear statement. Saying that they supposedly meant to say something other than what they said is just apologia for Nintendo. Jim was simply commenting on what Nintendo did actually say.

In fact, it would be journalistically irresponsible to interpret Nintendo's comments in the way that you have.

Aardvaarkman:

Immorality does not require malice.

But does it not also require intent? Because I do not see that being an intent from Nintendo as well.

Dragonbums:

That's absolutely not true. Many slave owners saw blacks and other races as not-human, and property.They absolutely saw it as their right to own and preside over the lives of the inferior races.

A view that started during the rise of colonialism and Social Darwinism. Perputrated by racists who thought they were superior to all. That line of thinking passed down so on and so forth. But the Founding Fathers and many others were acutely aware of the hypocrisy that they call themselves a free nation and yet their nation was built on slavery. The American side of it were just a whole lot more worse about it. Britain pretty much had that inkling from the start. Why else would they be the first ones to stop it right then and there? (yeah America had the cotton industry, but you can't tell me there weren't much easier alternatives than enslaving people...but hey, that bottom dollar I suppose)

we have Cliven Bundy making public statements about how much better off black people were under the stewardship of slaveholders.

That incident makes me chuckle. It was quite amusing to see Fox and Friends put him on a pedestal as a national hero only to quickly forget he ever existed after that ultimatum. (Although I think someone gave really good insight about how the government is just as greedy and corrupt about the whole pasture situation which makes me kind of understand where Bundy was coming from in relation to refusing to pay the government for his cows.)

uanime5:

Jasper van Heycop:

uanime5:
Given that in many countries gay marriage isn't legal it's no surprise that Nintendo didn't want to include it in a game that they wanted to sell all over the world.

And EA wasn't trying to sell the Sims to everyone in the world and their mom? Yet it still has gay marriage. They sometimes get censored for including it (like Ridiculous Russia giving it an A/O rating), but they show some backbone and just continue making money off non-bigots.

Are these games targeted at the same audience? While adults may be prepared to buy a game containing gay marriage for themselves they may be more reluctant to buy a game containing gay marriage for their children.

What? Are you saying the Sims isn't a game suitable for children? I thought it had an "E" rating.

Scars Unseen:

It is not their job to develop this game. That was their job. They finished it. Over a year ago.

Except, they didn't. The Japanese version of the game was released over a year ago. This is not the same game, otherwise, why didn't they release it to the other countries then?

Also, it's the job of game developers to continue to support and fix bugs in games. Once again, you're not exactly making the case that they are competent developers. Professionals would not just release a game and then completely ignore it after that. Especially in the case of a major world-wide re-release.

You really think it's acceptable for them just to release this to a much larger audience, and not make any effort in developing it for that audience, or fixing any problems that might come with that release?

 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