Really bad move on their part, imo. There's no reason for this in 2014.Yes there is because gay marriage is still not backed 100%. Not many states in the US have legalized gay marriage, and then you have some more of the middle east which believes it to be heathenous. And last I checked, multimillion dollar companies exist to make money.
unfortunetly this could also be because japan is still terribly cagey about gays, despite the tomes of yaoi suggesting otherwise
hence the "eh, in the next game we'll uh, wider audience, whatever" attitude where they've still not explicitly said "yes gay marriage will be in the next game"
a possibility for the whole "sorry the localisers can't do 'owt" is probably cos that'd be messing w/ core code and then you have to send it through the debugging process and they probably dont view gay marriage on the same level as literal shipment-stopping bugs unfortunetly
on a cultural level, they haven't legalised or wholly recognise gay marriage and just over half the people polled in japan said they dont support gay marriage 1 (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/03/18/national/52-4-of-japanese-say-they-oppose-same-sex-marriage/) and the country as a whole struggles a bit w/ lgbt, feminism, race issues etc, in general (groping of females on the mixed gender carriages, no sexual harassment laws ,xenophobia to the point where to the point where the UN is all 'uh' (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2010/02/26/national/japan-faces-u-n-racism-criticism/))
not to mention they're still in the "ha ha look at that gay, they're so wacky and funny to laugh at" stage with these things which is why you have stuff like "Hard Gay", but still no nationwide civil rights against discrimination for lgbt status
which is surprising cos, just like the west, in the ancient times they were gay as all hell i.e. sleeping w/ young boys (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=a6q-PqPDAmIC&pg=PA26&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) and such, (cf. roman/greek times where we'd all bugger each other senselessly) but suddenly the modern age makes a heterosexual prude out of everyone, who knew
you probably gotta go into longwinded reasons about pre- and post-meiji restoration or some other thing to find out the reasons for this, no "bliggghhgh crhistianity forbids the gays!!!!" cos christianity didn't really make a big hit there (its a literal minority religion)
like its not a wasteland and there is lgbt movements and stuff ofc??? they're not north korea about it, but its still a bit of a Cultural Problem atm
well this was an embarassingly long carepost about japans attitudes to gays,
it's fine to be gay so long as you have children, it sounds (and is) a strange mentality to have but there you go.
are against gay marriage because it goes against the traditions of marriage
Japan's problem is that they are traditionalists as opposed to strictly defined homophobes or xenophobes
discounting the usual ITS A SIN reasons, of courseAs for the source of homophobia in the Bible, it seems that at the time the Bible was compiled/written (or even as far back as the Torah), homosexuality was always linked with rape and violence in many instances. I can't help but feel that this representation has caused all homosexuality to be condemmed by the church.
p.s. i only brought up christianity since its the oft cited reason why we hate gays in the west, not sure why you've commented on japanese christians being uptight?
In the begining, I figured that Nintendo didn't want to raise a big fuss over a sim game and just wanted to go with a very conservative approach to the game. Most likely, they didn't want to potentially offend anyone homophobic, because usually they raise the biggest fuss right?
The article you linked definately raises one valid possibility; that of people wanting to believe that their movement has spread over to Japan to free them from their conservative ways. At the same time, I don't think that it's solely a Japanese thing. I think that if any of the major companies released some sort of comedic life sim without same-sex marriage but still straight marriage then people will still raise the same big fuss over it.
gay marriage still isn't legal everywhere anyway, and if they included it there would be hundreds of bible bashers screaming about how nintendo is spreading the "homosexual agenda" and how they won't buy their kids the next cool nintendo game.You mean like what happened with Pokemon? Maybe there's more people against gays than there are against demon pokemon but ultimately, it seems similar enough in principle.
You mean like what happened with Pokemon? Maybe there's more people against gays than there are against demon pokemon but ultimately, it seems similar enough in principle.unfortunately, the homophobic side is just as loud as the lgtba+ side, but both sides will demonise anything they don't like, so it's just a big pile of steaming cow leavings. like i said, maybe an optional patch will come out where you don't HAVE to download it that will put gay marriage in. besides it's a really weird game as it is anyway and you don't have to get married? idk
I think people also mistake Nintendo's role in all of this. These people are fans of Nintendo's videogames, they began playing games and consoles made by Nintendo because they liked them. Nintendo has absolutely no obligation to meet their standards whatsoever. Videogames are still a creative work and it is entirely the discretion of the creator as to what is or is not included.But if said band made a song that included marriage and said something about how it could only between a man and a woman, that would be controversial, no?
Would these people complain at and cause an international incident press statement over their favorite musician/band for not including enough songs about same-sex relationships or for not using enough gender neutral pronouns in their songs? I highly doubt it. Nintendo does not owe you any particular game mechanic.
Would these people complain at and cause an international incident press statement over their favorite musician/band for not including enough songs about same-sex relationships or for not using enough gender neutral pronouns in their songs? I highly doubt it. Nintendo does not owe you any particular game mechanic.
unfortunately, the homophobic side is just as loud as the lgtba+ side
But if said band made a song that included marriage and said something about how it could only between a man and a woman, that would be controversial, no?
Secondly, we're talking about features here. Unless you personally believe that the right to same-sex marriage is more important than the right to identify as a certain gender, we would then be in a position where gender identity also has to be coded into the game.
Surely if someone was biologically male but chose to be female identity, they'd just select female and vice versa? I'd argue that including a gender identity would almost be transphobic as it's implying they're not just a regular whatever gender they identify as, if you get what I mean?
Surely if someone was biologically male but chose to be female identity, they'd just select female and vice versa? I'd argue that including a gender identity would almost be transphobic as it's implying they're not just a regular whatever gender they identify as, if you get what I mean?
But that isn't at all what Nintendo are saying and you're completely misunderstanding the difference between someone talking about reality and an artistic work of fiction.
First of all, Tomodachi Life takes place in a surreal fantasy world - it is a work of fiction just as every videogame is, it does not take place in the real world. It does not claim to be a representation of real life or a representation of how real life should be, quite the opposite in fact. For all we know, the archipelago in which the numerous islands of Tomodachi Life reside may all collectively be governed by a law which does not permit same-sex marriage so it wouldn't make any sense for it to be an option.
But then what about ableism? Isn't it offensive that this horrific Tomodachi Island game just assumes I'm not paraplegic and wheelchair bound? This sounds ableist to me and I want a Wheelchair also included in the game, otherwise it's not like real life.
Demanding features to meet the expectations of minorities is a slippery slope because you can split hairs to the nth degree. Of course it would be nice if we could have them; It would be nice if GameFreak brought back the VS seeker, but that doesn't mean that A) They have a personal responsibility to meet my individual expectations and B) It also doesn't mean that I don't want any more Pokemon games until they can give me that feature.
I'd say a deeper rooted problem here is that people are expecting corporations and media companies to be an accurate guide to the public on what is acceptable in society and then complaining when they don't meet those expectations. If you are honestly looking toward multifaceted entertainment corporations like Nintendo to rewrite the book on what is socially acceptable to human society then you are the biggest problem in this equation.
Whether or not same-sex marriage is legal in this fictional world isn't really the point here. In many countries where it is illegal, you will still find people protesting and rallying for its legality. And even though you claim it's not supposed to be a representation of the real world, it's still a game about the interaction between humans. These Miis make friends and rivals in similar ways to the way we do in reality; why should marriage and love be any different? Saying that the game is somehow totally different and wackier than our reality doesn't explain why this particular instance of peoples' lovelife aren't represented.
The difference here is that homosexuality is a feature of someone's identity that they are proud of having, and feel that it is an attribute of their self which should not be removed.
Generally, people are either for homosexuality or against it. There are people who wish to stay out of it, naturally, but for the most part I believe that this is the case. It happens that in this instance, a sufficient amount of people have raised a big enough fuss over this issue that this matter has become one of controversy. An issue on the lack of representation for something such as non-binary gender or the like doesn't get complaints about it because that is a true minority, where there are significantly less people who have a strong opinion on the matter.
People aren't expecting corporations to change what's socially acceptable.
And yes, whether or not same-sex marriage is legal in a fictional world is exactly the point. This videogame takes place in a fictional world thought up by the creator of this work. If same-sex marriage was not on the agenda then it makes zero sense for it to be included. Would you complain if same-sex marriage was not included in Assassin's Creed or Empire Earth? I can only hope you would not.But Assassin's Creed and Empire Earth don't have any representation of marriage in it at all, and even if they did, the lack of same-sex marriage for the most part is because it's a representation of human history for which the most part did not have same-sex marriage, and not because it's set in a fictional universe. Assassin's Creed in particular puts in the shoes of one particular character, whereas at least your own Mii in Tomodachi Life is based on yourself. Of course its unreasonable to expect every Assassin to have to option of being gay because they're a particular person. In the same way, a person's Mii also represents a particular person, who may or may not be gay. If Connor was gay, then he wouldn't be in a straight relationship, and in the same way, a Mii should not be forced into heterosexual marriages if it represents a gay person. Then there's the option of not getting married entirely, but then why is it fair that straight people should be able to have a representative marriage when gay people can't?
Lots of people are proud to be disabled or suffer from various illnesses. To suggest that these people shouldn't be included in such a game because they all want to 'escape reality' is an insult.
Your problem is that you are assuming this is some kind of homophobia issue when it is not, and your comments about a 'true minority' are frightful. Once again I revert back to the ableist issue, are you saying that the disabled are not a 'true minority'? Or simply that they do not matter because they haven't had enough media coverage to squeeze an apology out of Nintendo?It's not a question of importance. Rather, it's a question of what a society expects and demands from a product for purchase. Is it unfair that the disabled don't have a strong enough voice? Perhaps. But the case is, there is a lot more demand for same-sex marriage.
Yes they absolutely are. Videogames change with the times much like any form of media. Had Nintendo been making videogames in the 1800s there probably would have been no option to play as a black person as such people were not part of normal society and were in fact, shunned from it. The very fact that Nintendo allows you to create a black Mii today is because black people are openly accepted into society and videogames are a representation of that, you probably wouldn't be able to create female Mii were it not for the suffragettes. In 50 years time (depending on the strength of the movement) I do not doubt that videogames will represent change in our society and will allow same-sex marriage in their videogames where applicable.But then why do we have to wait 50 years? Same-sex marriage, or at the very least some sort of same-sex union, is allowed in most of Western Europe, Canada, South America, South Africa etc. As you've mentioned, there's strong support for (and against) in America and Japan. People aren't renowned for being patient as whole, that's why it's supposed to be a virtue. People want their cake now.
The difference is that what people are doing now is the opposite. They are expecting Nintendo to influence society by adding this feature instead of changing society themselves and waiting for the feature to be adapted when it is considered normal.It's not as simple as people expecting Nintendo to lead the way for same-sex marriage. It's not as if people aren't rallying for the motion already and they haven't gotten anywhere with it. This is not separate from everything else, but rather in conjunction with it. They simply want Nintendo to acknowledge the progress they have made so far, and well, to be represented in a game like this. I don't expect Reggie to challenge Putin to a wrestling match because of the matter, or lead some sort of gay armed revolution. At the end of the day, though, the media do have a certain influence over how society works. It's a two-way channel though, media is created within and draws from a society and feeds back into it.
You are literally acknowledging the power a video game company has over society's opinion of normality and asking them to add a feature in order to make that feature socially acceptable. If you cannot see what is wrong with this mentality then I can only pity you and as I said before - you get what you deserve. Progression of homosexual rights within society will crawl forward at a snail's pace if you expect a company that creates videogames to push the movement forward.
And let's not forget, it is Nintendo's discrecion to make what they want to make. They are fully allowed to make a completely homophobic game if they want, or even a heterophobic one. Our feelings and opinions should not control or censor a creative work, that is simply fascism no matter who's feelings are being hurt.Well we shouldn't get the wrong idea about the game. Yes it's a creative work but it's made with the primary purpose of being sold to a market, hopefully for a tidy profit. They're not entirely at liberty to create a homophobic or heterophobic game because at the end of the day, they're a company that's aiming to make profit, more so now than ever. If there's a missing feature that people want that they consider a 'deal-breaker', then they won't buy the game and Nintendo will miss out on the money that they could've gained. In this instance, Nintendo's apology may have actually encouraged sales, fortunately for them. Take a look at this, from the miiquality page. (http://24.media.tumblr.com/90282a86fb73a7989f3e507d7b2e6451/tumblr_n5e4caZHrE1tzk9k4o1_1280.png) (whether or not that will significantly affect sales is another thing entirely).
Lots of people are proud to be disabled or suffer from various illnesses. To suggest that these people shouldn't be included in such a game because they all want to 'escape reality' is an insult.
To be honest, you don't see gay couples in Pokémon (when you battle the partners in double battles), but no-one has made a deal of it. It might not be integral to the game, but it's something to draw comparison to. It's all blown a bit far out of proportion, whether Nintendo actually thought about it is unknown to us...but I don't think they left it out just to cause a stir.
Yes I get what you mean and you pretty much just answered the question as to why this is so ridiculous. You can argue either way that including gender selection is transphobic just as much as excluding them could be offensive to people who identify as a particular gender. You really can split hairs on this until every game that isn't a 100% accurate representation of real life is 'offensive' and requires some kind of apology.
I think with the example of Pokémon it's kind of ignored, wrongly or rightly, because they're NPC. Like, there's one thing saying "It just so happens that no one in this world is gay" and saying "No one in this world can be gay".
also i'm fairly sure miis can have any kind of hair - and female miis can have facial hair so it's literally just one will have a higher voice and longer shirt. i could put a moustache on my mii but it's still me. heck, i have 20+ miis on my 2ds that aren't me, obviously, and you don't have to play tomodachi life with YOUR mii, right? :yI think the thing is, people want to be able to put themselves in the game, and if they are in the game, they want a degree of likeness to themselves in real life. As you said, in pokemon every couple is just an NPC. That's fine, it wouldn't be reasonable to ask for a gay couple in every single game or something. But when it's personal, then that's where the tensions arise.
1) Tomodachi Life is a game for EVERYONE. Therefore it must be accessible to children.
2) In Japan and the US, same-sex marriage is not legal, whether we like it or not.
3) To include gay marriage into this game would be sending the wrong message - that it is acceptable for same sex couples to marry. It is not. And no, not because of any homophobic reasons but because it is simply not permitted by law.
4) The marriage feature of Tomodachi Life is tied in with a pregnancy and offspring feature.
5) Allowing same-sex couples to marry in Tomodachi Life is not as simple as checking a box, it would require the entire marriage mechanic to be re-written in order to either explain why males are pregnant or explain where this baby came from. This is on top of the other aspects of the game that would also have to be re-written in-turn to allow for these changes. If you allowed same-sex marriage in the games that were released in countries where same-sex marriage is legal, it would then raise a number of compatibility issues and hamper the communicative features of the game.
6) Same-sex marriage was never 'patched out', it never existed in the first place and was a serious, game breaking bug that led many westerners to believe that it was included in the first place.
7) Because Same-sex marriage is not legal in the US, including such a feature would likely remove the 'EVERYONE' rating of the game, eliminating the primary market for whom the game is aimed toward.
More facts:All right, for a start I agree that it would be unreasonable to rework the game, after its been released for a while in Japan already, just for western audiences etc. etc. As you said, its not an easy process and even after coding it in, there's still a ton of bug testing, QA, possibly more translation that needs to be done.
4) The marriage feature of Tomodachi Life is tied in with a pregnancy and offspring feature.
5) Allowing same-sex couples to marry in Tomodachi Life is not as simple as checking a box, it would require the entire marriage mechanic to be re-written in order to either explain why males are pregnant or explain where this baby came from. This is on top of the other aspects of the game that would also have to be re-written in-turn to allow for these changes. If you allowed same-sex marriage in the games that were released in countries where same-sex marriage is legal, it would then raise a number of compatibility issues and hamper the communicative features of the game.
6) Same-sex marriage was never 'patched out', it never existed in the first place and was a serious, game breaking bug that led many westerners to believe that it was included in the first place.
7) Because Same-sex marriage is not legal in the US, including such a feature would likely remove the 'EVERYONE' rating of the game, eliminating the primary market for whom the game is aimed toward.
If you honestly believe Nintendo should spend additional time and money to code a feature into the game that isn't even legal in many of the countries it will be released in and would lose them significant amounts of money just because you personally are offended by the exclusion of the aforementioned feature, then please quote this post and state your reasoning below. Thank you.
I'd say that comparing homosexuality with an illness is also insulting. I never said that they all want to 'escape reality' but merely posited it as a possibility. I'm under the impression that if you gave a blind man the ability to see, or a disabled man the ability to walk, or a deaf man the ability to hear, then they would gladly accept? You can be proud of your disabilities and I assume the achievements that they make despite that, but I don't think they wouldn't hesitate to attain a cure for them. It is in this way that the two situations differ; gay people do not generally seem to be attached to the idea of a 'cure' for their homosexuality. Thus, it seems to me that disabilities are undesirable and that typically people do not want to be represented by a disabled avatar? I'm only talking from the perspective of a healthy teenager so if there are significant instances to the contrary, then I'd be interested in finding out more about them.
I fail to see how this has any bearing on gay marriage being included? It's hardly something that needs to be hidden from kids, and the insinuation that it is is kind of offensive.
Regardless, this is kinda muted by your own argument that it's a fantasy world, and so real law has no bearing.
It should just be a move for the gender check to happen at the baby-making stage, rather than the marriage stage, no?
I have to wonder, would the introduction of same-sex marriage really lead to an enhanced age rating? Other games that have been mentioned in this thread, such as The Sims, have had higher ratings, but is that not because of slightly more suggestive content aside from homosexual relationships?
Then there's the issue of whether the ratings really matter or not. There's the caricature that a proportion of players of the Call of Duty franchise are ironically below the age of 18. They've simply gotten their parents to go and buy the game for them. In fact, I would imagine that most children, with no income of their own so to speak, would be getting their parents to buy for them. I dispute your point, then, on whether Nintendo would lose significant amounts of money from this move in this case. I also stand by my belief that Nintendo would make more money from putting same-sex marriage into a Tomodachi Life 2 than they would lose out from concerned, conservative parents.
b) Even if the rating was increased, there's not necessarily a "significant amount of money" lost for nintendo. The inclusion may actually have the opposite effect.
("Homosexuals have life hard enough, being able to play as a straight character is a form of escape for them"). Do you see how offensive THAT may sound?
1) Tomodachi Life is a game for EVERYONE. Therefore it must be accessible to children.
You've taken that quote completely out of context of the rest of the thread despite agreeing with it below. 'EVERYONE' is a rating.
Taken out your trash at the end about it being emotional - the point is that the audience being children has no bearing whatsoever on whether gays should be included. Are children with gay parents automatically scarred for life because the children can't see gayness? No.
The fact it's a fantasy world also means that it makes no sense to include the feature. This argument works both ways, not just your way.
If it works both ways, then you can't use it either, and given I was countering your argument that's kind of my point >_>
No, absolutely not. I'm not sure how easy you think making a videogame is, but an option like this is not as simple as including a 'If samesex then baby = null' line. Given how tightly the offspring mechanic works with the marriage feature there would have to be entire portions of the code rewritten, along with all the other parts of the game that interact with said code plus all the bug testing, QA etc. that comes with it.
Did Hahex not also say he didn't think it'd be reasonable to ask for it added in after release?
It may do, it may not. But getting a game rated is time and money, time and money which Nintendo are in no position to be frugal with at the moment.
ESRB ratings (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp) mention it nowhere! as I've pointed out to you once
This is a silly non-issue that bears no relevance to the subject at hand.
Pretty useless statement? It bears every relevance, Nintendo don't include it based on their belief it will drop sales, obviously if people ignore age ratings then an increase in age ratings will not effect their sales
Just because 10 year olds may be playing GTA in their spare time does not mean that Nintendo are going to suddenly throw caution to the wind and allow you to murder a prostitute in Donkey Kong. It doesn't have any bearing on their leniency at all, they play by the rules because it is the most financially secure option to them. If you are marketing a game to kids, it does not make sense to include a feature which could potentially offend their parents and prohibit them from playing the game and thus making a point of sale. I'm sure this scandal may outrage a few gay dads or lesbian mothers, but it's a numbers game and you don't appease the few if it means losing support of many.
To use your own words, 'this is a silly non-issue' as the age rating would be very unlikely to rise
Citation very much needed for this.
At the end of the day, you really don't have a leg to stand on in this argument.
Financially it makes no sense to include the feature, not in terms of programming, the time wasted in doing so or the potential response from paying customers.
Not now, I would agree, but at the time of release I don't suppose it would make much difference either way
Morally it makes no sense to include the feature. Same-sex marriages are the minority, asking for a game to include the wants and desires of one minority group but not another is basically saying that minority x is more important than minority y which is not only stupid and unfair, it's completely unmeasurable. Last time I checked there was no option to make your Mii travel entirely by wheelchair either, but of course representing same-sex couples in a religious tradition that many people gay and straight don't even care about themselves is far more important, right?
But marriage is integral to the game, so if you can't marry the games screwed, but as disabilities wouldn't actually effect gameplay in anyway it's not really a comparable issue.
The problem with this argument is that it consistently falls back on emotional-bias and presents the fallacy that only a homophobe could ever oppose such a viewpoint, and as though this wasn't bad enough on its own, when an equally footed emotional-bias argument in the form of able-ism comes into play suddenly those people do not matter?
As dragoncat quite adequately put it, there are lots of people who ARE proud of their disabilities. Acting as though all of them want some kind of escape is a massive insult and once again - you could literally put forward that exact same argument for homophobia ("Homosexuals have life hard enough, being able to play as a straight character is a form of escape for them"). Do you see how offensive THAT may sound? You're acting as though pride is some kind of coping mechanism, try going to a gay pride parade and telling everybody that they are secretly ashamed of themselves and see how far you get.
And finally people are still dodging the point that Nintendo has absolutely no obligation to include this feature anyway. Nintendo doesn't even have an obligation to be tolerant of any minority whatsoever. They make creative works and it is completely up to them how they make them and what beliefs they do or do not convey within such works.
I don't have an obligation to say 'Sorry' if I accidentally slam a door in someone's face, I still do. Nintendo don't have an obligation to say 'Sorry' if they don't include gays in a game, they still do. Both Hahex and I said we don't think it should be included now, but think it's unreasonable to call it unreasonable to have asked
You've taken that quote completely out of context of the rest of the thread despite agreeing with it below. 'EVERYONE' is a rating. Stop falling back on emotional bias to make a point. You are being hysterical instead of logical.Then I suppose we'll have to leave that on a moot point.
The fact it's a fantasy world also means that it makes no sense to include the feature. This argument works both ways, not just your way.
No, absolutely not. I'm not sure how easy you think making a videogame is, but an option like this is not as simple as including a 'If samesex then baby = null' line. Given how tightly the offspring mechanic works with the marriage feature there would have to be entire portions of the code rewritten, along with all the other parts of the game that interact with said code plus all the bug testing, QA etc. that comes with it.Only as much time as it would be to have that check at the marriage. You misunderstand my point. If the game originally intended to have same-sex marriage, then there doesn't seem to be much difference time-wise as doing that rather than the current mechanic. I'm not asking for rewritten coding, but I'm considering a Tomodachi Life 2.
It may do, it may not. But getting a game rated is time and money, time and money which Nintendo are in no position to be frugal with at the moment.That's still true. But even if the rating goes up, I still stand by my claim that the inclusion can still increase sales. Of course, both of us would need some sort of statistic to qualify that, but that's certainly beyond my vision, as well as, I assume, yours.
This is a silly non-issue that bears no relevance to the subject at hand. Just because 10 year olds may be playing GTA in their spare time does not mean that Nintendo are going to suddenly throw caution to the wind and allow you to murder a prostitute in Donkey Kong. It doesn't have any bearing on their leniency at all, they play by the rules because it is the most financially secure option to them. If you are marketing a game to kids, it does not make sense to include a feature which could potentially offend their parents and prohibit them from playing the game and thus making a point of sale. I'm sure this scandal may outrage a few gay dads or lesbian mothers, but it's a numbers game and you don't appease the few if it means losing support of many.That's not so much my point. Rather, its more that parents are still willing to buy games that are 'higher' rated for their children. Thus, sales may not be affected by as much as you think. I don't think you could really compare same-sex marriage to murder.
At the end of the day, you really don't have a leg to stand on in this argument.It's completely quantifiable. You can see a petition for Miiquality, you don't see a petition for the disabled. And its hardly a question of minority vs. minority, either. As I've said before, even though only a few people may fall under the LGBT umbrella, everyone has an opinion on whether or not it is right for people to be homosexual. It wasn't just black slaves who fought in the American Civil War, it was men who supported liberty against men who supported slavery, roughly split in two halves.
Morally it makes no sense to include the feature. Same-sex marriages are the minority, asking for a game to include the wants and desires of one minority group but not another is basically saying that minority x is more important than minority y which is not only stupid and unfair, it's completely unmeasurable. Last time I checked there was no option to make your Mii travel entirely by wheelchair either, but of course representing same-sex couples in a religious tradition that many people gay and straight don't even care about themselves is far more important, right?
Only a homophobe could have the view that the only form of legitimate marriage is same-sex marriage? That is what I'm saying, and I don't see where emotions come into it here. Now, it's not necessarily the ultra-conservative Bible-waving homophobe, but at the same time it's not exactly embracing or conforming to the LGBT movement either.
The problem with this argument is that it consistently falls back on emotional-bias and presents the fallacy that only a homophobe could ever oppose such a viewpoint, and as though this wasn't bad enough on its own, when an equally footed emotional-bias argument in the form of able-ism comes into play suddenly those people do not matter?
As dragoncat quite adequately put it, there are lots of people who ARE proud of their disabilities. Acting as though all of them want some kind of escape is a massive insult and once again - you could literally put forward that exact same argument for homophobia ("Homosexuals have life hard enough, being able to play as a straight character is a form of escape for them"). Do you see how offensive THAT may sound? You're acting as though pride is some kind of coping mechanism, try going to a gay pride parade and telling everybody that they are secretly ashamed of themselves and see how far you get.
Nintendo aren't obligated to do anything (aside from abiding by the law, paying taxes etc.) They could collapse the entire company if they really wanted to. But for a company like them, it's a question of money. At the same time, we're not obligated to buy their products. We could simply say "You know what, we're never going to buy a Nintendo product ever again until they include same-sex marriage." Is that so unfair to Nintendo? I can't really say, but that's how it works when you're trying to sell stuff. Sure there's no moral obligation, but there's still this possibility. Now I doubt that it'll ever become that extreme in reality, but in principle, as a company that's just about holding on, these are things that they must consider.
And finally people are still dodging the point that Nintendo has absolutely no obligation to include this feature anyway. Nintendo doesn't even have an obligation to be tolerant of any minority whatsoever. They make creative works and it is completely up to them how they make them and what beliefs they do or do not convey within such works.
Which paraphrased says "Tomodachi life can't include gay people because children can't see that."
If it works both ways, then you can't use it either, and given I was countering your argument that's kind of my point >_>
Did Hahex not also say he didn't think it'd be reasonable to ask for it added in after release?
But marriage is integral to the game, so if you can't marry the games screwed, but as disabilities wouldn't actually effect gameplay in anyway it's not really a comparable issue.
I don't have an obligation to say 'Sorry' if I accidentally slam a door in someone's face, I still do.
. Only as much time as it would be to have that check at the marriage. You misunderstand my point. If the game originally intended to have same-sex marriage, then there doesn't seem to be much difference time-wise as doing that rather than the current mechanic. I'm not asking for rewritten coding, but I'm considering a Tomodachi Life 2.
That's still true. But even if the rating goes up, I still stand by my claim that the inclusion can still increase sales. Of course, both of us would need some sort of statistic to qualify that, but that's certainly beyond my vision, as well as, I assume, yours. As you said, its a numbers game. I feel that the differences between those against same-sex marriage and those against are less and less great, as time goes on. Its not quite appeasing the few, but rather, choosing an almost equipotent side.
It's completely quantifiable. You can see a petition for Miiquality, you don't see a petition for the disabled.
And its hardly a question of minority vs. minority, either. As I've said before, even though only a few people may fall under the LGBT umbrella, everyone has an opinion on whether or not it is right for people to be homosexual. It wasn't just black slaves who fought in the American Civil War, it was men who supported liberty against men who supported slavery, roughly split in two halves.
All right, I'll acknowledge that there are people who are proud of their disabilities.
Are they proud enough that they're offended when there's no option for them to be disabled in a video game? Is it a feature that people want? There's no evidence to suggest that that is the case.
Fine, that point might have came off a little more harshly than I intended. But like you said, it's a game of numbers. How many people are Nintendo likely to offend by not including gay marriage than they are by not including disabled miis? Nintendo aren't obligated to do anything (aside from abiding by the law, paying taxes etc.)
No it does not, stop taking this out of context. ERSB works on a case-by-case basis. Tomodachi Life is a game for EVERYONE. If you need confirmation of this then check the box art. The point I am making is that this this game is for EVERYONE by ERSB standards and there is a possibility that Nintendo (or even the ERSB) could decide that including such a feature may well be outside of this rating therefore they do not include it under protection of that rating alone. Whether or not the rating IS affected by the feature is not important.Whether or not the rating itself is important is, on the other hand, a lot more important.
Stop being hysterical and relying on emotional bias. I will not ask you again.
My argument was a counter to people who believe it should be included. You're countering a counterpoint that needs no counter.This line of thought is getting out of hand. Tomodachi Life is set in a fantasy world. It's solely up to the developers, whether or not to include same-sex marriage or not.
Then there is absolutely no reason for this to be such a fuss 2 years after the release of the game. It's not even reasonable to get angry about it full stop. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Don't wait years for the localization and then suddenly act as though this comes as some kind of surprise.I haven't even heard of the game until recently, at what point would people be able to voice their complaints when it was an unknown game in Japan? I'm sorry I can't keep up with Japan only releases, and that I get surprised when this sort of stuff comes over (Well, honestly I'm not too surprised. It seems the stance on same-sex marriage is different in Japan than it is elsewhere. If I was in charge of making the game, I probably wouldn't have included same-sex marriage either, at least initially.)
Actually, it's not. There is no part of the game which forces you to marry or even implies you must do to get the most from the game.But wouldn't it be nice if everyone at least had an opportunity to experience the same thing from the same game? You keep saying that my arguments are emotionally biased, but then that's not necessarily fallacious. If you do something that makes other people feel bad, then that's not a good action.
All this is is unnecessary public shaming pure and simple. And for what? Acceptance of the minority in question?Well, yeah.
Under what circumstance does bullying a neutral party into apologizing publicly for not including a same-sex marriage feature (in one single game) help the cause at large? All this does is instill a culture of fear and resentment and give the message that anyone who doesn't comply with these beliefs will find themselves and their company at risk in doing so. Shades of fascism come to mind. People wonder why companies like Microsoft can purport outright misogynistic and homophobic dogma and make so much money in doing so, this is why; because the alternative is a divided fanbase and bad PR.It's not facism. It's people letting a company know that the product they're providing does not meet their expectations in several ways. Don't companies all across the world spend millions of dollars looking for feedback? Here we are giving it for free. Companies already live in a state of perpetual fear. Will our new product sell enough to make a profit? Is our country's political relationship going to remain stable enough to continue exporting across the world? Are our investors happy with the amount of money we've made this financial year? If someone's trying to sell you ice cream in the middle of winter, then you won't buy it. If Nintendo release a life sim without same-sex marriage, 'people' (some?) won't buy it.
Whether or not the rating itself is important is, on the other hand, a lot more important.
This line of thought is getting out of hand. Tomodachi Life is set in a fantasy world. It's solely up to the developers, whether or not to include same-sex marriage or not. I haven't even heard of the game until recently, at what point would people be able to voice their complaints when it was an unknown game in Japan? I'm sorry I can't keep up with Japan only releases, and that I get surprised when this sort of stuff comes over (Well, honestly I'm not too surprised. It seems the stance on same-sex marriage is different in Japan than it is elsewhere. If I was in charge of making the game, I probably wouldn't have included same-sex marriage either, at least initially.)
But wouldn't it be nice if everyone at least had an opportunity to experience the same thing from the same game? You keep saying that my arguments are emotionally biased, but then that's not necessarily fallacious. If you do something that makes other people feel bad, then that's not a good action.
Well, yeah.
It's not facism. It's people letting a company know that the product they're providing does not meet their expectations in several ways. Don't companies all across the world spend millions of dollars looking for feedback? Here we are giving it for free. Companies already live in a state of perpetual fear. Will our new product sell enough to make a profit? Is our country's political relationship going to remain stable enough to continue exporting across the world? Are our investors happy with the amount of money we've made this financial year? If someone's trying to sell you ice cream in the middle of winter, then you won't buy it. If Nintendo release a life sim without same-sex marriage, 'people' (some?) won't buy it.
This isn't an emotional argument at all. Nintendo release a product that people may not want because it doesn't have same-sex marriage. At the same time, if said game had same-sex marriage, then they would buy it. Since it doesn't have it, they won't buy it. If they don't let that be known, then maybe Nintendo will attribute the lack of sales to the wrong reasons: maybe the western market just don't 'get' it, maybe they didn't advertise enough, maybe they should've had more Reggie in the trailers. This is an expression of people who want to have their same-sex marriage in a life sim, and they're letting Nintendo know it.
Or is it really? Are you right when you say that people are expecting companies to lead the way in same-sex marriage reforms and don't actually care about the game itself? I can't say that I was particular interested in the game either way, and yet here I am spending hours debating about it on a Pokemon forum. My argument pivots on whether or not people would've boycotted the game when they would've initially considered buying it, before Nintendo issued their apologies.
Then the other good point that you made is that Nintendo is merely trying to somewhat express the general culture that the world is in right now, in its own weird way. The majority of the world still doesn't accept same-sex marriage, after you include the majority of Africa, Russia, China, half of America and Japan themselves. Is it too early to be then demanding that same-sex marriage should be allowed in their games?
I haven't totally convinced myself away from those two points, the first one more so than the latter. But as it stands, the fact that Nintendo has issued an apology after this controversy has certainly drawn attention to the game. I think the saying goes, "All news is good news," or something along those lines, and I don't feel that at the end of the day Nintendo came out worse after this.
To be honest, you don't see gay couples in Pokémon (when you battle the partners in double battles), but no-one has made a deal of it. It might not be integral to the game, but it's something to draw comparison to. It's all blown a bit far out of proportion, whether Nintendo actually thought about it is unknown to us...but I don't think they left it out just to cause a stir.
I'm distinguishing between what they can do and what they "should" do. I CAN go outside and open up a lemonade stand on the streets in the middle of a winter night in some dodgy place in London. It's not a financially safe thing to do, and its probably not good for my well being either. But as a company who, as you keep pointing out, are in deep financial troubles right now, they should be primarily concerned with trying to salvage whatever they can make. Now whether or not including same-sex marriage will be a good move or not is questionable, but we can't debate that.
Yes, I totally agree with, Nintendo are a great company and are far more conclusive than the rest of the big three. Does that make them exempt from all criticism in the world? No, even the best of us 'make mistakes'. And honestly, I don't buy that Nintendo are filling up all of their eggs in the one basket that is Tomodachi Life. If it flops a little, then that's not going to look great for Nintendo, but it's not as if their entire hopes are riding on this one game. And if it somehow does, then Nintendo have grossly misrepresented and underestimated the market that their trying to sell to.
And this so called controversy will not ultimately "bite Nintendo in the back", so to speak. As I've mentioned, plenty of people had not heard about Tomodachi Life before this controversy. Maybe you have, maybe I'm slightly more ignorant than others in the Nintendo scene. But the game's now been covered in dozens of news sites all across the internet. So has their first apology, which didn't seem great, but also their second. I don't see how it could be anything other than free advertising. Maybe initially, Nintendo was painted as some demon, homophobic company, but now, they're a company that is committed to change. Your argument that this event is going to somehow lead to the death of Nintendo is completely and utterly overstated.
If people choosing to not buy products that they don't want is facism to you, then I'm afraid to say that you live in a facist world then. The principle of people buying things that they want is totally how our economy works. Let's assume that, you know what, people love everything that Nintendo ever makes from now on. These guys are in financial trouble, you know, we should help them out by buying every single game they ever make from now on. That's even more ridiculous than the situation we're in now.
If people choosing to not buy products that they don't want is facism to you, then I'm afraid to say that you live in a facist world then.
Censorship of art in the interest of personal belief is fascism.
Your argument that this event is going to somehow lead to the death of Nintendo is completely and utterly overstated
complain about the lack of a trivial feature in a trivial game during one of the most financially decisive moments of Nintendo's fate.
I don't buy that Nintendo are filling up all of their eggs in the one basket that is Tomodachi Life.
a trivial feature in a trivial game.
turner why'd you go for the 20 quote post and not my simple question,
turner are you actually gay yourself or not, just curiousDon't spit this out. I'm waiting on my Pakistani protagonist and it's a little bit of a drag being a white/asian person interacting with solely white/asian people.
Just to make my view clear - I don't think Nintendo should have included the feature if they analysed it to be a bad thing for their company, but I don't see any harm in them apologising and I don't think it was unreasonable for people to ask it to be included. I DO think it's unreasonable if people keep persisting to have e feature added when Nintendo have said they can't include it and have apologised.Are these people the majority of fans though?
You're acting as though this incident was handled in an adult manner. If only it was as calm and sensible as people saying 'Well then I'm not going to buy this'. But no, we got the "NOT INCLUDING MINORITY x IS xPHOBIC AND OFFENSIVE" crowd instead.Now, it's possible that there could be an implied "NOT INCLUDING MINORITY x IS xPHOBIC AND OFFENSIVE" in the demands, but at face value, the miiquality movement started off with a group of people asking Nintendo to allow gay marriage in a video game. Whether Nintendo are a horrible homophobic company or not is not really on the agenda. You're the one who's creating a straw man fallacy here. There's nothing wrong with asking for a feature to be put in a game, then dropping it when Nintendo says to the effect of considering the issue a little more seriously for a potential sequel.
How are you in any position to say what is or isn't 'overstated' when you've just interpreted a post in this way? Or are you really arguing that Nintendo's financial situation is as good as it has ever been?In which case, I don't see the big deal about all this supposed "bad PR" for Nintendo. It's an honest, forgivable, kind of a big deal apparently, oversight. Like you said, Nintendo are hardly a company with a reputation for any anti-X. If its a trivial feature in a trivial game (and I don't see how it can be that trivial if I've spent the past few days arguing about it), then it doesn't matter if it's now or whenever. I'm not saying Nintendo's financial position are as good as its ever been, but if its a trivial game, then I don't see how this game has any bearing on Nintendo's success as a company.
Talk about moving the goal posts, all you are doing now is falling back on strawman arguments, presumably because you haven't actually countered a single point in this thread, you've only shoehorned your opinion in as fact and expected everyone to swallow it.I'll admit that I might not have understood all your points as thoroughly as I should have, but at the same time, I don't feel that you've countered a single point in this thread either. We can all talk about how our various dogmas blind us to what's written, but that's not going to lead us anywhere.
For your information, Nintendo shouldn't do anything. There is absolutely nothing they 'should' do, regardless of your passive aggressive pressure. They CAN make videogames, but they don't have a right to do so and they certainly don't have a right or responsibility to include minority (or majority) groups. You are fans of them, not vice versa - it's not their responsibility to please and entertain them. You by being a fan are the one who buys the product and if you don't like the product then don't buy it just as you wouldn't buy any other videogame for not including a feature, but don't act like there is some kind of homophobia or discrimination going on, because there is not.You've lost me. Nintendo don't have a right to do so? If they didn't have a right, then how are they allowed to make video games? Unless you meant responsibility, of course.
Are you serious? Every time a new console comes out there is a fresh partition to remap the controller buttons so disabled people are able to play the games. There is a market dedicated to peripherals for disabled people to play the games and this is just so they can play the games, let alone be represented in them. If you are honestly suggesting that disabled gamers form a smaller minority than homosexual players (that wish to marry in-game) then I have absolutely nothing to say, because that is insanity.Fine then. There's a significant number of people petitioning to be able to remap controllers. That's is completely are utterly justified. Here, we have some people who want a feature and are unfortunately totally unable to buy a product until that feature is introduced. When they start petitioning to be represented in the game, then companies should listen. Until then, they better focus on getting that button remapping in their consoles first.
Ah yes but remember this is a risk/reward scenario. How many LGBT supporters will continue to play Tomodachi Life upon finding out at it will not include same-sex marriage? How many homosexuals played Harvest Moon? How many trans* people played AC before there was the freedom to express gender that New Leaf gave us? How many trans* people played Pokemon before there was an option to even choose gender? How many non-binary people continue to play Pokemon to this day?How many LGBT supporters would've refused to buy the game until Nintendo's promise of same-sex marriage as a possibility in the sequel? At the same time, look at just how many prominent bannings of pokemon games around the world was and see how effectual it was in slowing its spread. We can't look at the sales of this game for guidance, because it's distorted by Nintendo's apologies.
The list goes on, but the long and the short of it is that these people will play videogames regardless as they have done so far, so as far as any video game developer is concerned, there is no potential drastic loss in sales in excluding them.
Compare that to the bashers, the right wing nutjobs, American soccer moms and bible bashers - many of which own Nintendo consoles because they believe that Nintendo has games which will not burst the bubble they force their child to live within. There was a movement to ban Pokemon by these people who didn't like that it contained concepts of evolution, they are extremists who absolutely will pull the purse strings if a game features something even slightly offensive to their beliefs and make no mistake, they will not allow their little Jimmy to play Tomodachi Life 2 if it means he can virtually marry little Tommy from across the street.
didn't read the topic b/c apparently there's been an argument but
wouldn't it have been easier for them to include it in the first place anyway? p sure it takes more to code exclusion rules for two people of the same sex (ingame) than it does just to leave it
sims is an example
Treat dodgy posts like bombs in your back garden etc. I'm sure you've been here long enough to know that.
Don't spit this out. I'm waiting on my Pakistani protagonist and it's a little bit of a drag being a white/asian person interacting with solely white/asian people.
It's not something that could be 'patched in' or could ever have been opted out of. It would probably considered more offensive if one of the same-sex couple was forced to wear a dress while the other was forced to wear a suit and downright strange for a male to become visibly pregnant.
turner, how do you think lgbt representation should be handled in the current media??
see now i think this would be a great feature tbh
So would you both please just either take it to PM, or drop it? Or hell, take it to the debate board (but if you do please keep it clean).The conversation seems relatively civil to me. I'll show you examples of arguments-gone-wrong if you want a comparison.
The question really is where does it end? Upon what moral standards is demanding the inclusion of a same-sex marriage feature fine and demanding the inclusion of non-binary gender going 'too far'? Or do we just keep going until every possible minority group is accounted for and each game takes a year longer and several million more dollars to make?That's certainly a tough question, and most things that I would answer with will probably be problematic. Fortunately, it's not up to me to decide. It's down to Nintendo, or whoever any x group is petitioning for y action to, to decide when they want to start listening.
I'd like to ask you personally, Hahex and Oshawott; Precisely where is the line drawn? Is it a particular ratio of minority:majority that needs to be met? Does the minority in question have to 'earn' their right to inclusion through decades of oppression and hate crimes? Or is this simply a matter of numbers? Do we need to get 10K signatures on a petition before we can register a minority as 'valid' and thus have them included into the game too?
It really is that simple yet it's a point you continue to miss/avoid time after time after time. You keep saying "Well Nintendo can do what they want to do, but here's how they should be doing do it". No. Wrong. Incorrect. There is no particular way Nintendo 'should' be doing anything and to expect otherwise is ridiculous. If you understand this so much, why do you insist on contradicting it every single time? Are you really so attached to your personal beliefs that you cannot accept people doing things differently? Isn't this very mentality the one that causes cultural hegemony against homosexuals in the first place?People talk about what Nintendo should do all the time. Some say they should develop for smartphones, some say they should stick to the franchises that they know and some say they should make consoles that can compete in terms of hardware with Sony and Microsoft. You're mistaking my "should" as "must". I'm making a heavy suggestion, not forcing a dictate onto them. If it appeared that way, then I apologize for not making that clearer.
You also argue that petitioning for same-sex marriage in Tomodachi Life is also implying that Nintendo is in fact homophobic.
And let's assume that you're right and that asking for same-sex marriage must necessarily imply that people are also accusing Nintendo of homophobia. Does that mean that we'll never be able to ask for same-sex marriage in a video game without any wild implications that are put onto it by opposition? That doesn't seem particularly fair either.
No I did not at all. You are acting as though the 'Miiquality' petition is the only facet of this entire debate when in fact it came AFTER the homophobia accusations of which there were plenty. Once again, this is not on BBC because some people wanted to make a petition. Even The Korea Times outright called Nintendo homophobic (http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/world/2014/05/182_156966.html). There are quite a few other links I could post here, but I'd be breaking the rules if I did, turns out the people who accuse Nintendo of homophobia aren't exactly very polite themselves.Could you PM me some of those links in that case, please?
Complaining about Nintendo not having gay marriage in their game is an unnecessary attack on Nintendo,Yes, it's an attack, but is it unnecessary? Well it depends on the definition, but for the most part, it seems fair enough that people are upset that a game doesn't have a feature they want. Do Nintendo have to listen, or comply? They don't. But it's still acceptable to make a point about it.
Either way, whether or not the news sites, or even individuals, accused Nintendo of homophobia or not
the act of requesting same-sex marriage in Tomodachi Life itself is not wrong.
They did. I literally just gave you an example of a major tabloid doing so. There is no 'or not', stop trying to act like there is some king of ambiguity in what was said when there clearly wasn't. I'm also pretty sure PMs fall under the same rules as the rest of the site, but it's really not difficult to find with some google-fu.I'm not implying any ambiguity, I'm saying that it's irrelevant. I'll concede that I'm wrong about no-one accusing Nintendo of homophobia, but I still don't think that it's wrong to complain about the lack of a feature.
Exactly, which is why the petition is fine. But I didn't say 'requesting', I said complaining and accusing. There is a big difference, especially so on the scale we've seen.
Once again you're being awfully selective with your paraphrasing when it suits your argument, I get the impression you are doing this because you're aware that you are now fighting a losing battle. Do you honestly think people are too stupid to see you to twist the words of anybody who disagrees with you so that they appear more extreme whilst playing down your own words to make yourself sound more reasonable? That's the oldest trick in the book, maybe you should consider a career in spin doctoring. Or maybe you shouldn't, as this is the third time I've caught you at it now.I'm sorry that I gave you that impression. I'll try to be a little more strict with myself next time. But is it still unreasonable to complain about a missing feature? If you don't like something, then you should complain about it. I'll now link the request with complaint. A petition, which is essentially a mass request, implies dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. It's a forward, progressive take on an otherwise negative complaint.
Complaining about Nintendo not having gay marriage in their game is an unnecessary attack on Nintendo,If by attack, you mean an accusation of homophobia, then the two are not conflatable. It's entirely possible that some people are making both complaints at the same time, but then there are others who are only making the latter complaint. I agree that the "attack on Nintendo" is unnecessary, but the "Complaining about Nintendo not having gay marriage" is firstly not the same as an "attack on Nintendo", and, well I wouldn't go as far as to say necessary so, justified.
I'm not implying any ambiguity, I'm saying that it's irrelevant.
I'll concede that I'm wrong about no-one accusing Nintendo of homophobia
But is it still unreasonable to complain about a missing feature? If you don't like something, then you should complain about it. I'll now link the request with complaint. A petition, which is essentially a mass request, implies dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. It's a forward, progressive take on an otherwise negative complaint.
Likewise here, (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/53523) although the forward motion is to get recognition for Eid and Diwali, essentially they're complaining that they're festivals are not recognized. They're not accusing the government of being corrupted or racist.
Now as you've mentioned, there are accusations of Nintendo being homophobic. But those accusations are not necessarily linked with the act of complaining.
If by attack, you mean an accusation of homophobia, then the two are not conflatable.
but the "Complaining about Nintendo not having gay marriage" is firstly not the same as an "attack on Nintendo",
if(person1.gender != person2.gender) relationship.romantic_allowed = true;
?and does it really take that much time to remove a line sayingCode: [Select]if(person1.gender != person2.gender) relationship.romantic_allowed = true;
?
You are literally agreeing with me. I have no idea why you are trying to present this as an argument as I said literally the same thing in the last post when you insisted the two were the same. You just keep chopping and changing your point constantly. It's getting difficult to take you seriously at all in this.OK, my point is that complaining about the lack of same-sex marriage is not an attack on Nintendo. You can accuse/complain about Nintendo being homophobic, but it's not the same as complaining about same-sex marriage. I suppose I have been quite sloppy, and that last post doesn't seem to be as clear as it could be. Let me clarify:
How can it NOT be relevant when it was the exact argument you used? Do you even know what you're arguing about anymore? Your entire point stood upon the fact that allegedly 'Nobody was calling Nintendo Homophobic'. I've literally shown you proof of that to be false and now you're saying it's irrelevant? Are you seriously saying that facts are only relevant when they support your argument?If the facts are wrong, then they can't support my argument. I don't think you'd like it if I tried to stand by that assertion, so I dropped it.
This has been my point all along, complaining and petitioning is fine. Throwing words like 'Homophobia' around is not. It IS however completely unnecessary to complain as this is a product that will be willingly purchased by the customer. It makes no sense to complain about something that you will consensually pay £40 to enjoy with full knowledge that the thing you don't like is included in the game.Well hold up. The game's not even out yet, no one's paid anything, apart from maybe a deposit. So first, let's not assume that said person wrote the letter after they got the game, in order to tighten up the analogy. You can still complain about a lack of black characters, but then the hate campaign is wrong.
To make an analogy, it would be like writing an abusive letter to SEGA claiming that you bought the latest Sonic game and are absolutely outraged that it didn't include any black characters, despite already knowing full well beforehand that there would be no black characters whatsoever and still buying it anyway, then following this up by starting up a hate campaign calling SEGA a bunch of racists.
An accusation like 'x is homophobic!!' IS a complaint no matter which way you slice it. People are not calling Nintendo homophobic as a compliment.I phrased this poorly. Calling Nintendo homophobic is a complaint/accusation, but it's not the same complaint about not having same-sex marriage.
Calling someone homophobic is an attack. If I was to call someone a racist it would absolutely be an attack on their personal character.
You are literally agreeing with me. I have no idea why you are trying to present this as an argument as I said literally the same thing in the last post when you insisted the two were the same. You just keep chopping and changing your point constantly. It's getting difficult to take you seriously at all in this.But you said the exact opposite at the beggining, which is why I'm assuming you're against that!
Complaining about Nintendo not having gay marriage in their game is an unnecessary attack on Nintendo,This very sentance right here is what I have a problem with. If you can't tell what I'm trying to argue about, then that's totally my fault, but I am arguing against that one particular sentance. That "Complaining about Nintendo not having gay marriage in their game is not an unnecessary attack on Nintendo." The attack on Nintendo is, instead, the complaints that they are homophobic, not that they don't have gary marriage in their game. These are the two compaints that are not conflatable: the complaint against gay marriage and the complaint that Nintendo is homophobic.
And let's assume that you're right and that asking for same-sex marriage must necessarily imply that people are also accusing Nintendo of homophobia. Does that mean that we'll never be able to ask for same-sex marriage in a video game without any wild implications that are put onto it by opposition? That doesn't seem particularly fair either.that was to show that this sentence cannot be true, or that it would be ridiculous if it were true, not that I was arguing that it was the case.
Complaining that the lack of feature is 'homophobic' is ridiculous however.I'd like to move on to something that might be a little more relevant to, as Joeno puts it, the bigger picture.
I think people have really not done their research at all on this game, it's nothing like Animal Crossing. You are not playing as yourself, nor do you have the same level of control over yourself as you would on games like The Sims. It really is much more like having a Mii Tamagotchi than anything people are thinking of, I see absolutely nobody read the link I posted though.Here, the way you put "Mii Tamagotchi" doesn't quite adress the problem. The difference is a question of identity. With a Tamagotchi, the Tamagotchi is an entirely different entity to the person playing with it. But a Mii, in every single respect, is an avatar of the person playing it. It is supposed to be the exact same person, adjusted aesthetically for game mechanics and cohesive game art style. The Mii is still a representation of a person. Even though the player has no control over it, the Mii should still retain some very fundamental characteristics of the player and one of them is whether or not the Mii is gay.
The games which have included same-sex marriage that I have given before as examples, and have essentially created a precedent for the inclusion of same-sex marriage in video games, that is Skyrim, Mass Effect 3 and The Sims, have all come from American companies.Let me put it this way; when I was a kid, my parents would probably not allow me to buy those games same-sex marriage or not. As an adult, I am able to buy those games. Those games also don't have the same level of mass appeal that Mii Tomagatchi or whatever is supposed to have.
Here, the way you put "Mii Tamagotchi" doesn't quite adress the problem. The difference is a question of identity. With a Tamagotchi, the Tamagotchi is an entirely different entity to the person playing with it. But a Mii, in every single respect, is an avatar of the person playing it. It is supposed to be the exact same person, adjusted aesthetically for game mechanics and cohesive game art style. The Mii is still a representation of a person. Even though the player has no control over it, the Mii should still retain some very fundamental characteristics of the player and one of them is whether or not the Mii is gay.
Then the second question is whether or not the company is morally obliged to add the feature in. I argue that there's no intrinsic right or wrong answer to that question.
Effectively there could be a lot of incestuous Mii children made with these games.
There are no grounds to be offended because nobody is being represented in the first place.
I think equating incest with homosexuality is a big enough misunderstanding of the entire issue.
As a gay man, I feel slighted by the inability to have my Mii, my avatar and personification in the Wii system, actually be my avatar for relationships. Instead, this game tells me that my representation of myself in the Nintendo universe cannot be a gay man and pursue a relationship with another man. Instead, it says that even though in real life I'm gay, in their world I have to be straight, I have to like girls, and if there's any move in any other direction, that gets patched out.
Any words of 'Mii Tamagotchis' aside, Nintendo markets Miis as being you, as representing you.
It's not an arbitrary separate character as you play in most RPGs, no, they encourage you to make a Mii that's recognisable, especially when face recognition comes in. That means that, whether you like it or not or whether it should be in this game or not, your Mii is not such an independent entity that it runs completely separate from you. It is still you.
As this is such a core part of who I am, Nintendo overruling me in what is a very personal thing offends me. It telling me that I (through my avatar) should only be in a straight relationship, offends me.
As for this not being a statement - not including same sex marriage is as much a statement about how much Nintendo values it as it would be if they did include it. By not including it, by not considering it, and by dismissing the concern initially, they make the statement that a same sex relationship is less, that it doesn't merit the same consideration and that it's not normal. That is, again, a message that troubles me. While I wouldn't call it homophobic - this seems to be more a case of forgetfulness - it certainly isn't the right thing to do.
No. No no no. If nobody was represented, there would be no marriage, no relationships, no nothing. Straight relationships ARE represented, it's only the same sex option that's removed. GROUPS are represented, and about 10% of the population is being ignored in faovur of the 90% that's the norm.
I don't care about "it doesnt fit in the game" or "this is not how it works". That, to me, shows how deeply ingrained the ignorance is. If they had thought about this earlier, instead of dismissing it, either through forgetfulness or "because it isn't normal", they could have build it in from the start. The fact that they didn't do that, that they from the start chose a direction that includes a part of the population, is what's troublesome in the first place.
This topic has been going around in circles for a long time. Everyone just keeps reiterating the same points...
Homosexuality is not part of the game at this moment.
Adding homosexuality may make some people happy and some people unhappy.
Nintendo are not willing to take the risk of losing business because of one feature.
This does not need a moral debate.
Please just accept that this is Nintendo's stance on the issue at this time.
This may change in the future once there is more wide spread homosexual marriage but for now, this is just how it is.
I don't think anything else really needs to be said on the subject.
How on earth can you say that is equating homosexuality with incest?
And this is also why being able to be in a relationship with a member of the same sex was a bug; because it allowed males to get pregnant (as pictured in this thread already). Effectively there could be a lot of incestuous Mii children made with these games.
You're ignoring the fact that the whole marriage mechanic is supposed to be a joke that pokes fun at J-Drama.
Because males can get pregnant, there could be incestuous children. That is what you are saying here.
"This genre can be ignorant, so don't call us out on it!
The developers made an intentional decision not to allow it. I don't care about some genre convention being just as ignorant, or it being 'for fun'. I still consider it ignorant and devaluing of my sexuality, of my relationships and of part of me as a person.
To bring out the racism card, to me this is about the same as saying a black and a white Mii can't have children together because JDrama only features Japanese characters. Same sort of wilfull ignorance of the real world.
please do not. gay marriage is two people of the same gender, no matter what sexuality they are so please, do not.(http://www.court-records.net/rips/bubble-(ani)holdit.gif)
The title states Nintendo has not released gay marriage... but... what about Lesbian one! No one will able to emulate "Second Life"!;~;
please do not. gay marriage is two people of the same gender, no matter what sexuality they are so please, do not.
But they don't only feature Japanese characters so that's completely irrelevant. Have you actually watched any J-Dramas?
No, that is a complete jump to conclusions and you know it.
because it allowed males to get pregnant (as pictured in this thread already). Effectively there could be a lot of incestuous Mii children made with these games.
This is absolute nonsense. You might as well say that Super Mario Bros is homophobic because it only portrays a heterosexual relationship,
If you were to make the relationships same-sex, not only would massive parts of the game be re-written,
it's like WarioWare meets Animal Crossing meets Tamagotchi.
I think you're putting far more weight on the marriage mechanic than is actually needed. It is a tiny, unimportant part of the game that is done completely in parody.
But they don't only feature Japanese characters so that's completely irrelevant. Have you actually watched any J-Dramas?
The only way to read the sentence is males pregnant => incestuous Mii children.
Just because it's not intended by the creators doesn't mean people can't get offended. We see this time and again with politicians and public figures apologizing for being ignorant about these issues.
There is a problem in videogame culture where same sex relationships are ignored or hated when they happen (see The Last Of Us for a recent example. That doesn't make it okay.
Mario saves handsome prince? Easy to write, change a few names and sprites. Luigi's Mansion didn't have a princess to save.
How about if you think it's so easy to patch out then you write a patch actually including it?
And let's not forget, it's not Nintendo's responsibility to represent hetero or homosexual relationships. What they do with their game is their business and it's not anybody's right to a different game. Once again we come back to the musician + album example.
You haven't said anything relevant in terms of semantics so I'll just raise this:Man, I looked at some trailers and the Nintendo Direct for the game. They never said anything about it not using the Miis directly, so I assumed that they just used the same ones.
I think you should actually research the game before you make comments like this, because you're judging it completely out of context. Considering how little you knew about this game I don't really think it's your place to say how the Mii is represented. In Tomodachi Life, you're essentially creating a Mii especially for the game, it's not actually *your* own Mii. It doesn't represent the same characteristics as you if you don't want it to. What you are saying might be correct if Tomodachi Life actually used Miis directly, but they do not.
which the player can import from their 3DS, other devices, or QR codes, or create from scratch using the 3DS' camera or the in-game creation tools.So, although some miis are going to be created in game, there's still a very high chance that players are going to put in their own avatars into the game.
How about if you think it's so easy to patch out then you write a patch actually including it?That analogy doesn't really work either. For one, we don't even have accsess to the code of Tomodachi Life. If it was made on a DS game, then maybe it would be a little easier to put some magic gameshark code, but it's not.
Amusing you should use this as an example because 1) Animal Crossing does not allow any skin colour outside of whiteJoeno used the example of a "positive" feature in the game. You've highlighted a "negative" feature. A game's allowed to have both good and bad parts about it. Joeno's not saying that Animal Crossing is a perfect game, just that it was one particularly good feature. There was also some upset about the lack of other ethnicities in the game, like the article you linked pointed out. Still, contrary to Joeno's point, I recall there being less interest in the lack of diversity of skin colour than there is now about same-sex marriage.
Once again we come back to the musician + album example.People buy music because it sounds good, and not necessarily for any political statement it's making. In order for the artists to make decent music, then there has to be some sort of artistic separation between fan and artist. The (good) musician doesn't also act purely out of the motive of money, but because of a genuine appreciation and enjoyment of the music-making process. If people buy the music, then that's a happy coincidence, but they need a relatively little amount to continue making music.
And as I've ALREADY SAID, if you made it 'more universal' you would completely nullify the entire mechanic in the first place. Please DO SOME RESEARCH. You've obviously not played this game and have absolutely no idea as to what the marriage mechanic is like. Maybe you should actually buy the game before you judge it.
Nevertheless, I would like an explanation of what is the main difference between these, Soap Operas and "regular dramas". Perhaps then I/we will be able to grasp the grace of this argument.
If you give me access to the source code I'll happily do so.
And, in response, anyone has the right to give their opinion about Nintendo's decisions, call them out if they feel they have been handled inappropriately, make it clear they won't buy the game with the current design decisions (and take it into account for future purchase decisions) and otherwise discuss and state how they feel about the issue and whether they feel the right issue has been made.
Also, the problem with comparing the game with Mario is that the Mario games represent one particular relationship. In the same way, the Mii represents one particular person, who has a tendency to a particular type of relationship. It's strange to put Mario in a homosexual relationship, because he's a straight man. He's straight because the Mario games are a riff on the fairytale genre. In the same way, it's strange to put a homosexual person in a straight relationship, because that particular person is gay. So ultimately, any analogy trying to compare the two doesn't quite work, since Tomodahi Life should theoretically be applicable to the universal, rather than the particulars.
And then here: Joeno used the example of a "positive" feature in the game. You've highlighted a "negative" feature. A game's allowed to have both good and bad parts about it. Joeno's not saying that Animal Crossing is a perfect game, just that it was one particularly good feature. There was also some upset about the lack of other ethnicities in the game, like the article you linked pointed out. Still, contrary to Joeno's point, I recall there being less interest in the lack of diversity of skin colour than there is now about same-sex marriage.
People buy music because it sounds good, and not necessarily for any political statement it's making. In order for the artists to make decent music, then there has to be some sort of artistic separation between fan and artist. The (good) musician doesn't also act purely out of the motive of money, but because of a genuine appreciation and enjoyment of the music-making process. If people buy the music, then that's a happy coincidence, but they need a relatively little amount to continue making music.
People play videogames because they are fun, and not necessarily for any political statement it's making. In order for the developers to make decent videogames, then there has to be some sort of artistic separation between fan and artist. The (good) developer doesn't also act purely out of the motive of money, but because of a genuine appreciation and enjoyment of the videogame development process. If people buy the videogame, then that's a happy coincidence, but they need a relatively little amount to continue making videogames.
So to speak, Tomodachi Life isn't a work of art, unlike the music artist's album. Nintendo are also very concerned with what the consumers think of their products, because they have the primary intention of selling the product to them. That's what a responsible company would do, and where their responsibility lies.
Hold on, the game isn't out in EU / America until June...so unless you got it from Japan, then you couldn't have played it...
The question is, have you played it either? If you have, fair enough, but as far as I know you haven't outright stated you have played it.
There is a problem in videogame culture where same sex relationships are ignored or hated when they happen (see The Last Of Us for a recent example. That doesn't make it okay.Are you talking about Bill or the DLC? Because Bill's homosexuality has very little to do with the story (and really anyone's sexuality has little to do with the story) and the DLC had incredible reviews in general, with the one moment being a talking point amongst people (and the creators of the DLC have basically acknowledged them as being gay).
They both take place in an entirely fictional scenario though, their job isn't to represent you in your entirety but rather insert a vague version of yourself in a fantasy world. The Miis also won't have most people's haircut, they won't have everyone's build or features or gender or wear the clothes that players will equally identify themselves with, but we don't complain about the lack of those features as being discriminatory because they aren't. Your Mii is no more you than Mario or even the protagonist of Pokemon, yet in B/W2 there is no option to go on a date with Curtis.Isn't it entirety possible that people identify more with the fact that they're gay, rather than any accidental predicate of themselves? I don't think the importance of someone's haricut or clothes is equivalent to their sexual orientation. Or maybe some people are more senstive to their sexuality as a result of the changes in social attitude to them?
is it okay to complain about the lack of feature simply because you wanted it? No. No more than complaining about the lack of a feature in a Pokemon game.What? Didn't you only just say that it was justified to complain about a missing feature? Isn't it OK to complain about a missing feature in Pokemon as well?
Hahex. I am asking you right now to explain to be how the above should be changed to accommodate same-sex marriage without conflict to the following:Even though it's predominantly a female-male scene, I don't see the problem with simply replacing the female with a male. Then, their clothes would probably have to match in the actual wedding. Everything else can be the same. Then, have the scene finish after the bed sequence, with no mention of a baby, so at about 1:20 in this video. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHrG4hzWKuo) The J-drama stereotype doesn't necessitate that the couple have a child immediately in the next scene. In fact, "101st Marriage Proposal" finishes straight after the proposal. You can still keep the cheesy fireworks and music.
1) Retaining the joke/reference to 80s J-Drama which predominantly features a female and male equivalent scene
2) Explains why the male is pregnant despite this not being biologically possible
3) Explains why a bed scene is shown followed by the sound of a baby crying to imply that a child was just conceived
4) Explains how the offspring Mii has obvious features of both parent despite this not actually being possible
Well if you are ever able to do it then maybe you'll convince everyone (Nintendo included) just how great you are and how easy it was to include in the first place.Of course it's going to be a little more mechanically difficult to add same-sex marriage than it is for allowing cross-dressing, but honestly, if Nintendo are going to make a sequel to the game, then they're hopefully adding new features anyway. Either way, the company is still going to be going over established mechanics and adding new ones. Otherwise, there's no point in making a sequel if it's exactly the same as the original.
But the two aren't the same at all, Animal crossing uses the same models for both male and female, allowing the player to wear female clothes does not require any special programming as it fits the male exactly the same way as it fits the female. In that situation it really is a case of it being easier to leave the option on than explicitly turn it off.
Like in all forms of media, there's a distinction to be made between games that are made for art's sake and games that are made for money's sake.
You can keep going on about how the player has no real control over the Mii, or isn't meant to be really represented
Even though it's predominantly a female-male scene, I don't see the problem with simply replacing the female with a male.
The J-drama stereotype doesn't necessitate that
but the way you've presented the task makes it seem like it's impossible to do.
And let's not forget, it's not Nintendo's responsibility to represent hetero or homosexual relationships. What they do with their game is their business and it's not anybody's right to a different game.
You might as well say that Super Mario Bros is homophobic because it only portrays a heterosexual relationship,
There is a big difference between the actual complaints being made though, is it okay to complain about the lack of feature simply because you wanted it? No. No more than complaining about the lack of a feature in a Pokemon game.
And this is the very point where we disagree. In my view, it is okay about complaining about a lack of a feature. That's what is done in game reviews, in comparisons between games, between consoles, in many other places.
People have complained about the lack of contests in Pokemon games. That's fine. People have complained about the lack of RNGing being possible in new games. That's fine.
If you can't complain about features missing or not being what you want, that's a big chunk of game criticism and review gone.
Maybe so, but it's not your place to dictate that. You may sit there and say "This was made for the money" but for all you know this could have been something developers had been stewing on for years. There really is no distinction to be made as far as you are concerned.If there's no distinction, then how can you assert that it is an artful masterpiece where the opinion of the buyers are totally irrelevant? Even so, it's ridiculous to say that the developers don't care about how well it sells either.
"You can keep going on about the facts, but I'm choosing not to acknowledge them!"There are no facts about it. What people interpret their mii as in any game is their opinion at the end of the day. If people see themselves in their Mii, then they see themselves in their Mii. Just in the same way that I can interpret The Hunger Games as some deconstruction on the way reality TV and celebritiy culture is treated in today's society.
Because that wouldn't match the cliche it is supposed to represent. Opinion discarded.Does it have to? The fairytale genre doesn't typically have plumbers saving princesses from turtles, it's supposed to be Prince Charming saving the princess from a dragon if anything. The fact that you still recognise Mario as a fairy tale shows that there's a degree of interpretation involved in whether or not something is a parody of something else.
Please list 5 of your favorite 1980s J-Dramas before you decide what the stereotype necessitates. No, watching the trailer for Tomodachi Life does not justify your opinion.OK I'll bite, what J-drama do you reccomend to watch?
Because it is.1800s America is an actual historical location. Tomodachi Life takes place on some fictional island. Even though the marriage system may be based off of J-dramas, it's not set IN a J-drama. I don't expect a black president in 1800s America because there was no black president in 1800s America. But Nintendo don't have to abide by any historical accuracy, they can choose whether or not to include same-sex marriage.
Tomodachi Life's Marriage Feature = A joke
The joke = explicitly making fun of a certain cliche from a certain aspect of Japanese popular culture
The cliche = exclusively heterosexual in nature
There. That's the reason why. If you can't understand this, then you are lacking braincells because it's really not a difficult concept to grasp. It's the same logic as to why you wouldn't expect a movie set in 1800s America to depict a black president as being perfectly normal and acceptable.
If there's no distinction, then how can you assert that it is an artful masterpiece where the opinion of the buyers are totally irrelevant? Even so, it's ridiculous to say that the developers don't care about how well it sells either. There are no facts about it. What people interpret their mii as in any game is their opinion at the end of the day. If people see themselves in their Mii, then they see themselves in their Mii. Just in the same way that I can interpret The Hunger Games as some deconstruction on the way reality TV and celebritiy culture is treated in today's society. Does it have to? The fairytale genre doesn't typically have plumbers saving princesses from turtles, it's supposed to be Prince Charming saving the princess from a dragon if anything. The fact that you still recognise Mario as a fairy tale shows that there's a degree of interpretation involved in whether or not something is a parody of something else. OK I'll bite, what J-drama do you reccomend to watch?1800s America is an actual historical location. Tomodachi Life takes place on some fictional island. Even though the marriage system may be based off of J-dramas, it's not set IN a J-drama. I don't expect a black president in 1800s America because there was no black president in 1800s America. But Nintendo don't have to abide by any historical accuracy, they can choose whether or not to include same-sex marriage.
Thus, they've chosen not in order to maintain the integrity of a genre of TV that they're attempting to parody. Now, to go back to your Mario analogy, if Mario rescued Wario from Bowser each time, and it was Wario who kissed Mario, then it's still identifiable as a fairy tale. We have a heroic man who braves countless dangers in order to save the love of his life. Although maybe I don't have perfect knowledge on how exactly the J-drama proposal is supposed to be different from any other proposal, with proposals and weddings in general, then traditionally they're seen as "exclusively" heterosexual.
Now what do I necessarily see in a proposal, and what represenents the way it's seen at least where I live? You have two people who love each other very much, the usually male party gets down on one knee and presents a ring to the other party, while asking, "Will you marry me?" Of course it's usually between a male and a female; I can't personally recount a gay proposal on TV. But the distinguishing features of the proposal is the kneeling down and the presentation of a ring. If two men or two women did the same action, then it's still immediately recognisable as a proposal. The kneel and ring is also cheesy and cliche, but it signifies the proposal nonetheless which is why it's still in practise. If it was a straight couple where the man merely asks the woman if they want to be married, without the kneel or the ring, then that doesn't really fall into the proposal cliche that I have.
For the sake of illustration, let's take out J-drama and replace it with public proposals. Here's one. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeYmAvBREeM) It has all the clichés of a public proposal, it's in a big sports stadium, everyone cheers when the man says yes, there's lots of excitement etc. etc. I wasn't confused for a moment on whether or not it was a proposal. If that was altered for some comedy effect, then it's still recognisable as a parody of a proposal.
What seems to be the specific part of the J-drama parody that doesn't allow same-sex marriage is that it is supposedly specifically parodying 80s j-drama in particular. But even then, it's only a parody. So, seeing as I'm totally clueless on the matter and that you are much more of an expert with this sort of thing, can you explain to what degree the Tomodachi Life is parodying J-drama, why it only parodies J-drama in the 80s in particular and especially why a parody of the typical J-drama proposal/marriage scene loses it's funniness when it's between two people of the same sex, rather than those of opposite sexes?
There's also a case for localization as well. If a game like "Osu! Tatake! Ouendan" can be completely transformed into "Elite Beat Agents" for an American release, then adding in same-sex marriage certainly seems trivial in comparison, at least to my uneducated, programming illiterate mind. Speaking from personal experience, and what seems to be the case for everyone in this thread bar you, Western gamers don't typically "get" the whole 80s J-drama thing. Similarly, they wouldn't "get" the concept of a cheer squad. Thus, maintaining the integrity of the marriage 'joke' isn't as necessary for westerners, and many(?) people would prefer it if they sacraficed the joke that they don't get for same-sex marriage instead.
There's also a case for localization as well. If a game like "Osu! Tatake! Ouendan" can be completely transformed into "Elite Beat Agents" for an American release, then adding in same-sex marriage certainly seems trivial in comparison at least to my uneducated, programming illiterate mind. Speaking from personal experience, and what seems to be the case for everyone in this thread bar you, Western gamers don't typically "get" the whole 80s J-drama thing. Similarly, they wouldn't "get" the concept of a cheer squad.
can someone explain the Last of Us thing cos its one of those games i wont be playin until a good year or so cos im ghetto as all hell and wasted my entire videogame budget on two xenon xbox360s (outside of like, two 3ds games) like a clownSomething like this (http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2014/02/24/the-last-of-us-left-behind-plot-point-explained-by-druckmann-ellies-job-explained/)
which, well, you know what xenon 360s do best, might as well just threw my money up my own arse really
And this is the very point where we disagree. In my view, it is okay about complaining about a lack of a feature. That's what is done in game reviews, in comparisons between games, between consoles, in many other places.It depends on the reviewers. I've seen some dumb complaints in reviews about things that are missing; I've seen a review of Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn where the reviewer complained that you couldn't insert your Miis into the game.
People have complained about the lack of contests in Pokemon games. That's fine. People have complained about the lack of RNGing being possible in new games. That's fine.
If you can't complain about features missing or not being what you want, that's a big chunk of game criticism and review gone.
As a company, Nintendo should carefully consider what people have to say about their game, in order to make an informed decision on what games people want to buy. The fact that they've issued statements regarding the issue have shown that in this instance, they have done exactly thatI think fans that speak out don't speak for every buyer of a game. Can you do me a favor and back up your argument by finding a petition that told Nintendo to include same-sex marriage, then compare it to the number of people who are buying the game? There's a faction of people indifferent, there's a faction of people against it, and there's a faction of people for it from my point of view, and fans outcry is not very telling of the actual number of people who want it in the game.
If your argument hinges on Tomodachi Life being a parody on J-dramas
You don't want to elaborate on your points, so I can't say anything else.
Seeing as I don't see how the J-drama parody aspect can even possibly relate to same-sex marriage, then I'll ignorantly conclude that there is no relationship between the two, and therefore that your point about Nintendo attempting to maintain a joke has no relevance to this thread.
Also, I maintain that it's entirely possible for Nintendo to add same-sex marriage to the sequel to Tomodachi Life, without too much trouble.[/qupte]
Good for you.
"I haven't researched what I'm arguing so I'll conclude there's no relation!!!"I don't believe you've done any research either. Sounds like you read somewhere about the relationship about Tomodachi Life and J-dramas and are just baselessly parrotting it as an excsue. What are your top 5 favourite J-dramas in that case?
I don't believe you've done any research either. Sounds like you read somewhere about the relationship about Tomodachi Life and J-dramas and are just baselessly parrotting it as an excsue. What are your top 5 favourite J-dramas in that case?
(and turner you're being a bit bullish i think maybe you need to stop it with the whole 'i'm gonna really directly act like this person is completely stupid' thing because as far as i can tell you're about to get into insult territory)
(sorry)