Jimquisition: Tomopology Life

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

atavax:

Or maybe if consumers want companies to speak to candidly consumers can't immediately interpret what they say in the worst way possible.

You understand that's a non-sequiter, right?

Like when someone says they aren't trying to make social commentary interpreting it as them saying that the inclusion of same sex marriages can only be done through social commentary.

Your alternative interpretation?

Reps typically say stupid things, so you're going to need to be more specific in terms of the Xbone. I defended the mandatory inclusion of the kinect but not the original DRM policy. I am almost exclusively a PC gamer and don't have strong loyalties to any console developer, i don't own a wii, xbone, ps4, or any handheld gaming console.

Actually, I was talking about the way Microsoft said stupid things to its fanbase in response to their dislike of these things. So it doesn't matter if you liked Kinect and hated DRM, it was their responses. Just like it doesn't matter if you wanted gay marriage in a Nintendo game or not.

Pogilrup:

Now remember GTA V's criticisms of lack of even a single female protagonists? There where three opportunities to include a female player character in the campaign, but all three were passed in favor of making three male player characters.

A hefty opportunity cost in total.

So are they...losing out? I'm unclear as this seems to be the exact opposite of your previous point.

Bravo Jim. Refusing to apologise when you're WRONG doesn't make you strong, it makes you a stupid douchebag. Too many people fail to understand that.

ExtraDebit:
Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

By making homosexuals inclusive it does offend homophobics and a lot religious people. Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism......sometimes you just can't include one without offending the other.

While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me, I must admit that I do not enjoy watching two men kiss and hearing another man say "my husband" makes my skin crawl. This isn't something I choose consciously , it's an reaction I have no control of, I was born this way....much like gay people were born gay.

And if I do have to watch two men kiss in my games it WILL affect my enjoyment of the game. So do not be so quick to say it doesn't affect others.

Yes, maybe inclusivity will offend some bigots and homophobes and racists and those opposed to whichever group we're talking about at the time.

But you know what?

Fuck 'em.

Seriously, fuck 'em. You can't please fucking everybody and given the choice between pleasing people who just want to live their life their way and pleasing people who want to control how other people live their lives, the bigots can go and eat shit.

And saying you cheer for gay people because "the more they want men the more women are left for me" is like saying "I'm not racist I have black friends" because there's a black guy who works in the same office as you who you only tell black jokes about when his back is turned. And claiming you being unable to accept gays is the same as gays being unable to choose their sexuality is just another example of false equivalence. "Sexual orientation" and "opinion" are NOT the same thing. You WEREN'T "born that way", you were RAISED that way and that IS something you can change if you made an effort to not be so judgemental. But you won't, because it's easier to just insist that gays should just stay out of your way all the time.

Zachary Amaranth:

Pogilrup:

Now remember GTA V's criticisms of lack of even a single female protagonists? There where three opportunities to include a female player character in the campaign, but all three were passed in favor of making three male player characters.

A hefty opportunity cost in total.

So are they...losing out? I'm unclear as this seems to be the exact opposite of your previous point.

There those who argue against a sequel contain a female protagonist when the series featured male protagonists in past, a non-Caucasian in a series that feature mainly variations of Caucasians, or an openly gay player character in a series that never had a gay player character before.

My hypothesis on why those people argue is because they don't want to be the ones to be incurring the opportunity cost.

And unfortunately they know exactly what they would be missing on due to the fact that what they fear to lose in the new work already exists in past works.

EDIT: An apology or statement of commitment to change in the future means the company is willing to discontinue some of what is currently found in the existing work when they create a new work. To discontinue would be to incur an opportunity cost.

Oh wow didn't even realize this was anew one. Titles way too similar. Good to have another dose of Jim though.

On topic: I am one of those awful bigoted people who thinks the whole "Social Justice warrior" thing is a very real and irritating problem. Even then i didn't see Nintendo's apology as anything but positive. Even putting the issues aside they handled the whole affair very gracelessly and a great deal of confusion reigned. Nintendo's lack of communication and bad communication is what allowed this issue to become so hot. They could have defused this months ago or at the latest when it started to break. Instead they did a stupid, said a stupid and didn't really clear things up.

No one has lost their job here and i don't think the 'pressure' has done anything except make Nintendo think very hard about how it communicates. After all they were never deliberately trying to "make a statement" as they said, but ended up making a poor one anyway through their woeful handling of the whole thing.

Arcane Azmadi:
Bravo Jim. Refusing to apologise when you're WRONG doesn't make you strong, it makes you a stupid douchebag. Too many people fail to understand that.

ExtraDebit:
Sometimes inclusivity does bother other people, for example what if psychopaths were complaining that the game doesn't allow them to kill other people and they felt they were excluded and in turn murdering people were included in future games?

By making homosexuals inclusive it does offend homophobics and a lot religious people. Somethings in the world are just mutually exclusive, like gays and homophobics, republicans and democrats, religion and atheism......sometimes you just can't include one without offending the other.

While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me, I must admit that I do not enjoy watching two men kiss and hearing another man say "my husband" makes my skin crawl. This isn't something I choose consciously , it's an reaction I have no control of, I was born this way....much like gay people were born gay.

And if I do have to watch two men kiss in my games it WILL affect my enjoyment of the game. So do not be so quick to say it doesn't affect others.

Yes, maybe inclusivity will offend some bigots and homophobes and racists and those opposed to whichever group we're talking about at the time.

But you know what?

Fuck 'em.

Seriously, fuck 'em. You can't please fucking everybody and given the choice between pleasing people who just want to live their life their way and pleasing people who want to control how other people live their lives, the bigots can go and eat shit.

And saying you cheer for gay people because "the more they want men the more women are left for me" is like saying "I'm not racist I have black friends" because there's a black guy who works in the same office as you who you only tell black jokes about when his back is turned. And claiming you being unable to accept gays is the same as gays being unable to choose their sexuality is just another example of false equivalence. "Sexual orientation" and "opinion" are NOT the same thing. You WEREN'T "born that way", you were RAISED that way and that IS something you can change if you made an effort to not be so judgemental. But you won't, because it's easier to just insist that gays should just stay out of your way all the time.

This is probably going to come off very convoluted but anyway. Your answer is "Fuck 'em" ? That is just as bigoted as someone who is homophobic regardless of how you spin it. The suppression of any opinion whether you agree or disagree with it, is still oppressing someones beliefs which in my eyes is the greatest crime any person can commit (Belief and acting on your thoughts are different). Everyone should be entitled to believe what they want wrong or right in each others eyes as no one is better than one another so what right do we have to judge the people around us? Sexual Orientation and opinion to me are the same (but please read on before you shot me down) as they all stem from our feelings and life experience.

People are not born murderers, public speakers, singers or artists? All our personal traits change as we grow either expanding or changing completely as we mature. You will probably go with well I guess you accept nazi's killing Jews is ok, no i don't the sooner everyone excepts that other people are different and have different opinions even gays excepting homo-phobics.

Pogilrup:

And unfortunately they know exactly what they would be missing on due to the fact that what they fear to lose in the new work already exists in past works.

That may well be a basis, but it still becomes inane in a majority of instances. People complain about Call of Duty or GTA like they're going to be missing out by mere inclusion.

An apology or statement of commitment to change in the future means the company is willing to discontinue some of what is currently found in the existing work when they create a new work. To discontinue would be to incur an opportunity cost.

Except it's not necessarily an opportunity cost, because the additions or changes don't automatically mean they are at the expense of existing content. If a company believes there's a significant gain (and apparently, Nintendo felt there was a significant enough loss), additional resources can readily be employed to add content. More development time can be added, as need be.

IT also doesn't change the fact that such antipathy manifests even down to the indie level, when we're talking about single content producers or small teams who wouldn't even be making games were it not for their intent to make a specific game that involves or includes minorities or women.

It also doesn't particularly help that a lot of these cries come from people who express specific antipathy towards these groups. It's that I haven't considered this; rather, I've argued it before. However, it's not the full picture.

I think there could be just as big of an outcry from bigoted christians if they had gone the other way with this game from the beginning. They might have ended up having to make an apology to try to appease them.

Probably not, though. There wasn't an outcry about The Sims, it's true, but I still can't help but feel like Nintendo was between a rock and a hard place. Either way can be seen as social commentary by powerful special interests, and I think Nintendo is rightfully scared of both sides. I think the way it turned out was just Nintendo changing its mind about which group it's more scared of.

Personally I don't care. If there was a game out there that only allowed you to marry the type of person I'm not interested in, or only let me play as a woman or something, I'd just go with it, or maybe I wouldn't, and I'd just go find another game, so it's hard for me to empathize with people who freak out.

The whole issue of whether to allow gay relationships is so boring to me I probably wouldn't comment on it, but this issue of whether to capitulate to complainers is much more interesting. Normally I'd just say we should have more respect for the creative vision of the creators. Like it or don't, but don't demand that they change it. However, I don't know if Nintendo actually has a creative vision with this product. They seemed to just crank out some shovelware centered around their corporate image of 'quirky family friendly fun time' rather than actually produce something with artistic value.

Squeaky:

This is probably going to come off very convoluted but anyway. Your answer is "Fuck 'em" ? That is just as bigoted as someone who is homophobic regardless of how you spin it. The suppression of any opinion whether you agree or disagree with it, is still oppressing someones beliefs which in my eyes is the greatest crime any person can commit (Belief and acting on your thoughts are different). Everyone should be entitled to believe what they want wrong or right in each others eyes as no one is better than one another so what right do we have to judge the people around us? Sexual Orientation and opinion to me are the same (but please read on before you shot me down) as they all stem from our feelings and life experience.

Nobody is infringing on the ability of someone to hold an opinion. Arcane was, as far as I understand, saying we shouldn't exclude gay people from games in order to cater to bigots. That's not "suppression of opinion".

dbenoy:

Personally I don't care. If there was a game out there that only allowed you to marry the type of person I'm not interested in, or only let me play as a woman or something, I'd just go with it, or maybe I wouldn't, and I'd just go find another game, so it's hard for me to empathize with people who freak out.

Well, if you're straight, then you have the vast majority of other games (or books, or films) to choose from. If you're gay, you don't. You have a very small number. If you find it hard to empathise, it's because you're not experiencing an equivalent situation.

None contraversial. Genius ending, Jim, much hilarity. Good message, too, not just for video games but for a general approach to life....maybe you should join Stephen Fry on the What is Humanism videos?

Silvanus:
Well, if you're straight, then you have the vast majority of other games (or books, or films) to choose from. If you're gay, you don't. You have a very small number. If you find it hard to empathise, it's because you're not experiencing an equivalent situation.

I suppose that makes sense, like in an "arg! I wish there was something out there for me!" kind of way, but even from that perspective I have trouble empathizing. I just don't know what it's like to have my identity so tightly wrapped up in my sexual orientation that I actually start rejecting media because the characters I'm playing as don't want to love the same things I want to love. It seems like such a trivial thing to hate a game over.

Maybe I'd have to experience it to know. Maybe I'd have to live in a world where every character has relationship interests that I wouldn't share, and then I'd understand and I'd get all grumpy about it.

Tomodachi Life must be one of the dumbest games to come out since Animal Crossing and whatnot :\ don't see why people care so much about it. Why people love these tedious things is beyond me, but oh well.

Also, Jim, CNN isn't the opposite to Fox News lol. Nor is MSNBC really,all corporate media sucks and adheres to corporatist ideals.

I heard if you say "Anita Sarkeesian" three times while facing a mirror, she appears and takes all your games away.

ExtraDebit:

While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me...

Hey. I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but I've got some bad news. It isn't just men that date each other. Sometimes two women will fall in love, and then you don't get either of them. Homosexuality is kind of a wash from a standpoint of increasing your eligibility as a bachelor.

Aaarrggghhh !! Not 10 minutes ago i praised you for getting your shirt and tie right in mondays video. And now THIS. Are you deliberately try to piss me off?

dbenoy:

I suppose that makes sense, like in an "arg! I wish there was something out there for me!" kind of way, but even from that perspective I have trouble empathizing. I just don't know what it's like to have my identity so tightly wrapped up in my sexual orientation that I actually start rejecting media because the characters I'm playing as don't want to love the same things I want to love. It seems like such a trivial thing to hate a game over.

Maybe I'd have to experience it to know. Maybe I'd have to live in a world where every character has relationship interests that I wouldn't share, and then I'd understand and I'd get all grumpy about it.

It's not that my identity is wrapped up in my sexuality; it's really not. I don't think about my sexuality often. Most gay people don't reject media with straight characters (I've never met any that do).

But it starts to become hard to miss when there's so very much depicting the other side, and the (few) examples that cater to me, even when they do it optionally, get received with prejudice and condemnation.

I appreciate your willingness to see it from the other perspective, by the way :)

1.) Western media reported that Nintendo removed/patched gay relationships, but, on May 5th 2014, Nintendo issued a statement that they did not:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/05/nintendo-on-gay-marriage-and-tomodachi-life

Think about it.

2.) The japanese version of Tomodachi Life had two bugs. The first bug was a data transfer bug that could result in save file corruption. The second bug allowed males to look like females and vice versa. The japanese developers patched the first out. They did not remove the second. They COULD have removed the second. They had every right to remove the second, but they chose not to. Think about it.

3.) You don't directly control your Mii in Tomodachi Life. You have the same limited control over it as you do with all the other residents of the island. Your Mii will do whatever it wants. Its sort of like that old game of the 90s, except instead of handling(not controlling) a single character, you're handling a multitude of them. (what was that 90s game called? Oh right, "Tomodachi".) Does that sound like the Sims to any of you? Think about it.

4.) Despite the fact that western media outlets have been misinforming the public, not a single one has apologized for this act. See, Jim Sterling apologized for being vague. He didn't apologize because he was spreading misinformation. Think about it.

Abnaxis:
Alright, hear me out on this one for a sec, not completely sure what I think yet.

Whenever I run across the "homosexual option" in a game like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, much eye-rolling is usually had. The thought that immediately comes to mind is "token gay relationship ahoy!"

That's my instinctive problem with the issue: not the inclusive-ness, but the token-ness. The gay relationships aren't included because it makes sense with the narrative or the setting or the characters, but rather because the developers have a check-box to mark off, to stave off controversy.

Which to be perfectly fair, is a criticism that applies for most romance options offered in any recent title. Romance isn't included in any way that makes sense, it's just there because fans expect it (at least the vocal ones do). However, for some reason the shallowness always seems worse in the gay options--probably because the romance is already awkward and lacking in any nuance when it's written and developed by heteros, for heteros.

I think a lot of times, people just instinctively pick up on the shallow corporate cynicism involved in including a gay option for PR's sake, and it gets misconstrued as bigotry when they balk at it.

But that is a problem of inherently bad writing, or writing that, though not necessarily "bad", is at the very least done haphazardly. Bioware do have some extremely inorganic notions of romance, but to be fair, they're boring regardless of gender, for the most part.

Inclusiveness is a step in the right direction with regards to correcting this, though. Look at other media, like television, for example: afroamericans were incredibly token in the 80's and 90s (Fresh Prince, Cosby show et al), as well as gays and gay culture ( Will & Grace). It took a bit of a leap going from these shows to shows like say The Wire or Six Feet Under, where such topics and people are treated with a degree of depth. It's work in progress, so to speak.

Zachary Amaranth:

Abnaxis:

My point isn't that the gay option is more shallow, but that the shallowness is exacerbated by the fact that it was tacked on with a minimum amount of token effort, by people who don't have any artistic desire to add a homosexual option but included it because the corporate guys don't want a PR headache.

How can you tell that's the intent? Bioware's shallow normally, and they've had gay characters in their games since before this became an internet kerfuffle.

I mean, if they wanted a PR headache, wouldn't Bioware have taken relationships out of the games after Mass Effect at the very least? That was a huge shitstorm. Why add a gay option when the path of least resistance would be removing relationships, not adding gays.

So tell me, how do you know so certainly that these are just to check a box?

First, it would most definitely be more of a shitstorm if they had removed relationships from Mass Effect altogether. The only shitstorm that resulted originally came from conservative pundits who aren't even end-users. I wouldn't be surprised if the "controversy" actually increased sales. Dropping romance, OTOH, would have pissed off a large sector of fans, decreasing sales. Gamers expect 'ships in their space-opera RPGS...

On to the more important point, here's the thing: what I'm talking about is a gut reaction, based on intuition and first impressions. I'll do my best to pin down why "eye-roll" is my first instinct, but I'm not 100% certain.

Given the nature of this feeling, I don't know how to describe it without a specific example, so I'm going to talk about Dragon Age: Origins. I have a lot more hours with DA:O than the sequels, and I'd like to avoid the nonsense of "but it's in the fuuuuutuuure so sexual orientation totally doesn't matter" (and it is nonsense) that you get when talking about Mass Effect.

So in DA:O, you have four romance options: Alistair, the sensitive, playful, eager-for-commitment white knight looking for a soulmate to grow old with. Morrigan, the bullshit fanservice romance that makes no sense with her character but you can't make a character with such copious side-boob and not let the player hit that. Leliana, the exotic french choir girl, with all the savage church-repressed sexuality you would expect from something like this. Finally, there's Zevran, the damaged bad boy with a cavalier attitude, whom you can fix if only you can pierce through his fear of commitment.

Alistair and Morrigan are straight-only. For Alistair, it's because his entire character hinges on being traditional, and even the cynical writer has limits. Morrigan, because if she went both ways then homosexual women would have more options than homosexual men, and That Wouldn't Be Fair. Besides, we all know players want Morrigan for the Side Boob, because she has the personality of a reddit troll.

That leaves Leliana and Zevran. Great! Switch some pronouns around and we're good to go! I'm sure there are a ton of gay men who fantasize about Draco in Leather Pants, just like I'm sure every lesbian has dreamed about bagging a (Justified) Sexy Nun!

It's like the homosexual options are a bad console port--the developer went through a minimum amount of effort, to take a thing designed for one environment, and shoehorn it into another. They put in a token effort, so they can expand their audience while incurring a minimum amount of cost, with little to no actual regard to what it adds to the experience or how to make it more appropriate for the target platform. And like most token inclusions, it masquerades as "inclusiveness" when it's only checking the box on the PR checklist.

grimner:
But that is a problem of inherently bad writing, or writing that, though not necessarily "bad", is at the very least done haphazardly. Bioware do have some extremely inorganic notions of romance, but to be fair, they're boring regardless of gender, for the most part.

Inclusiveness is a step in the right direction with regards to correcting this, though. Look at other media, like television, for example: afroamericans were incredibly token in the 80's and 90s (Fresh Prince, Cosby show et al), as well as gays and gay culture ( Will & Grace). It took a bit of a leap going from these shows to shows like say The Wire or Six Feet Under, where such topics and people are treated with a degree of depth. It's work in progress, so to speak.

Yeah, I'm not saying developers shouldn't try to be inclusive. I'm just pointing out that my first gut reaction when I see the homosexual options is usually to roll my eyes, for the token-ness. I'm sure I'm not alone in this feeling, and I think it's a large driver in the conflict.

I think people see calls for more inclusiveness, interpret as "token homosexuals are good, please give us more half-assed efforts at political correctness!" and jump into the fray. Then ugly names like "bigot" start getting bandied about, and we all roast in flames.

ExtraDebit:
While I whole heartedly cheer for gay people, my logic being the more they want men the more women are left for me, I must admit that I do not enjoy watching two men kiss and hearing another man say "my husband" makes my skin crawl. This isn't something I choose consciously , it's an reaction I have no control of, I was born this way....much like gay people were born gay.

And if I do have to watch two men kiss in my games it WILL affect my enjoyment of the game. So do not be so quick to say it doesn't affect others.

And how do you think gay people feel, living in a world where 90% of the population and nearly 100% of the media they're exposed to is straight people kissing and feeling each other up, and men talking about "my wife" and women talking about "my husband?"

Nobody is entitled to a world where they never have to witness anything they might find "objectionable" or "icky." If you are a well-adjusted human being and accept this, then no, you haven't lost anything. But if for some reason you do feel entitled to a world where everything you come in contact with must fit with your world view, and anything that doesn't is a personal and deliberate slight against you, then I suppose you can be lead to believe you've lost something in the existence of another option you don't have to partake in.

The reason we like people sticking to their guns is because it's standing up for what you believe in. When you claim to have changed your mind it's often not very believable. Politicians especially. People hate hypocrites worse than someone who just holds a view you disagree with.

We hate FAKE apologies. Apologies done not because you *actually* changed your mind, but only because it placates people.

Make no mistake - Nintendo is only apologizing because they feel they have to. They will make sure "future" Tomodachi Life games will be inclusive - and so it's very clear they are simply not going to make any more.

The problem is that there are people for whom equality and social justice are a zero sum game, and for whom every victory women, LGBT folk and POC gain is a loss.

They're called really mediocre people, people who inhabit socially favoured demographics but who are actually quite shit on an individual basis. They typically have an overly high opinion of themselves which, in some dark corner of their mind, they know is overinflated, and that scares them. They base their identities on their exceptionalism, even though they are only exceptional in a rigged game; their egos are built upon a status that can only be artificially maintained. They manage to be above average in a system that regards women, LGBT folk and racial minorities as automatically dismissable, but the more that gets eroded, the more people get drawn into consideration and ultimately declared less shit than them. They slip further and further onto the bottom of the heap once the default position stops working out for them as much.

They get angry at "social justice warriors" for letting more and more people through the gate - people they know will overtake them. They take a sense of exclusionary value from their maleness, their straightness, their whiteness, because they honestly have very little else of societal value. They also get very, very angry when other people try to level the playing field, lest the fact that they are shit be exposed.

They like that Nintendo included them but not gay people in Tomodachi Life, because the sign that only they are worth accommodating and that gay people are still dismissable validates their sense of worth in their straightness, and they got mad about Nintendo not "sticking to their guns" because they mistakenly assumed that Nintendo cared as much about actively excluding gay people as they do.

Fortunately, these people are, as was mentioned before, shit, and the non-shit people we gain with greater inclusivity are worth the loss.

Dragonbums:
Well at least it wasn't a shitfest like the one in the last thread where the now banned user insisted on claiming that homosexuality was a mental illness.

It wasn't all that long ago that homosexuality actually was considered a mental illness, and the reasons it isn't now are mostly a shift in cultural views on homosexuality (that is to say it didn't lose its status as a mental illness because of a change in the scientific understanding of homosexuality but rather the social understanding of homosexuality). The reason that pedophilia and zoophilia (for example) are mental illnesses and homosexuality isn't is mostly cultural (in that we classify being distressed by certain sexual proclivities and having other sexual proclivities at all as mental illness precisely because they are at odds with what the culture at large considers acceptable), in other words.

I apologize a lot, to the point where I sometimes worry it's lost it's meaning. I only apologize a lot because I really am worried if I've offended or upset people with what I say and do (unless they're deliberately messing with me, in which case, whatever). Really, I try to do my best to not be pig-headed and hopefully not incite Jimquisition-level rage with what I say. Thankfully, that's never happened (except possibly when I was arguing about the George Zimmerman case, which I felt very passionately about), but I'm always on my toes... mostly because I really do feel bad when I've made others feel bad. :(

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

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