Nintendo Patches Out Same-Sex Marriage in Tomodachi Collection

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

lacktheknack:
That's a hell of a difference that you refuse to acknowledge.

But hey, I doubt I can change your mind. Just know that, while there definitely is malice, it's not as common as you seem to think.

Because while you have seen malice, I have also seen (and performed) incredibly offensive actions that weren't remotely intended to be so.

The problem with "I don't intend to be malicious" is that it's a scapegoat to keep on performing the same offensive/ignorant actions and evade the responsibility of making restitutions or even owning up to what they did.

lacktheknack:
And no, I still don't think that Nintendo, of all companies, is malicious.

That's cool, we don't have to think the same.

Well, I'm not terribly surprised. Nintendo is a family company, although I don't know why they fixed this and not Birdo....

Seriously..

Well.. guess they didn't see that one coming.

This may not be Nintendo's opinion on the subject at all: this was, after all, a bug. They may not wish to continue this because the current framework for the game doesn't support this union with proper coding, dialogue triggers or scripting, as seen with the male pregnancy.

lacktheknack:
Maybe when they say "human relations that become strange", they meant that whole "male pregnancy" thing.

Oh well. Maybe next time.

OT: You're avatar is freaking terrifying! T_T

Back on topic, I wish they'd just left it alone and let those who wanted to play with it enjoy themselves.

JoJo:

rasputin0009:
Nintendo has always been anti-gay. I'm surprised they even let Link be as feminine as he is and Zelda to cross-dress as Shiek. But I guess Link always saves a dress wearing Zelda in the end so it's okay.

Have they? I've never seen anything from Nintendo particularly anti-gay, I mean Nintendo games tend to barely even touch on romance and relationships really further than the fairy tale style "hero saves princess" angle a lot of their games seem to have. I suppose they could be criticized for lacking openly gay characters in most of their games but sadly that's currently a given for most media aimed at children.

I don't think Nintendo is anti-gay, I just think they don't care either way. That is very Japaneses, as well. Gay stuff over there is seen more a novelty rather then something to get upset over, and either you like the novelty or you don't, it's really as simple as that. My friend moved there and he even told me 'black face' is still a thing there. They don't hate black people though, they just don't care either way.

If that place is really everything I'm told, I might move there one day. That excess mellow-ness sounds like a refreshing change to the 'bottled C4' that is western life.

Entitled:
Japan is very reserved about all public expressions of sexuality. They don't really have an equivalent to our fundamentalist homophobes, but neither do they have many respected gay rights activist. So it's going to take a long time, because no one wants to talk about it for the first time.

They are hostile against many of the acts and self-identifications that westerners regard as basic freedoms, but even that has more to do with a general "The stake that sticks out gets hammered down" attitude, than particularly picking on gays.

This.

Actually, fun fact, this is why anime and manga tend to have far more positive deceptions of gay characters than their western counterparts, but at the same time why Nintendo is eliminating it from the game - because it is okay to be gay in Japan, but not to talk about it.

Also, because characters in fiction are often portrayed as individuals even while Japanese society hates individuality.

Finally, this also means that many of the above mentioned portrayals of homosexual characters in anime and manga tend to lean towards (Japanese) stereotypes - because many of the creators have never actually met an out gay person.

Well Nintendo just opened Pandora's box on themselves. If this bug hadn't occurred no one would have give a flying f*** if the game allows same-sex marriage, not it has been unintentionally allowed then removed by the fix the community will be all over them. I find it funny when something like this happens that people take it as a personal insult, it was a bug, it got patched.

capacha: Pandora's box... see it agrees, and is spookily prophetic since I didn't read it til now.

So you're telling me the people responsible for this:

image

Are a bunch of homophobes?
Ya, of course, why didn't I see it before?

Darken12:

lacktheknack:
That's a hell of a difference that you refuse to acknowledge.

But hey, I doubt I can change your mind. Just know that, while there definitely is malice, it's not as common as you seem to think.

Because while you have seen malice, I have also seen (and performed) incredibly offensive actions that weren't remotely intended to be so.

The problem with "I don't intend to be malicious" is that it's a scapegoat to keep on performing the same offensive/ignorant actions and evade the responsibility of making restitutions or even owning up to what they did.

lacktheknack:
And no, I still don't think that Nintendo, of all companies, is malicious.

That's cool, we don't have to think the same.

It's not about evading responsibilty so much though as helping you decide which course of action to take when confronted with someone being ignorant.
Like, if you get a fact wrong in conversation with someone completely on accident, and they go off on you like you just shot their baby even though a "hey dude sorry but it's not like that" would have sufficed, are you going to lend more or less weight to their argument? I've committed offense really without meaning too and had people tell me so in a variety of different ways. I'm definitely more willing to listen to someone who treats me like an intelligent adult who made a faux paw, than someone who screams at me about how I "should have known better" no matter how many times I try to apologize.

Likewise Nintendo sells products to Americans/Europe/Wherever else but it's still a Japanese company and in Japan Gay Rights as we know them here don't exist. Women's rights has only recently become a thing. Pretty much any movement that centers around individuality never picked up much traction there because Japanese culture emphasizes the family over the individual. Has this led to some less than ideal conditions for minorities? Of course. But calling their entire cultural viewpoint malicious wouldn't get you anywhere with someone if you were trying to communicate to them /why/ it's a bad thing. Sorry for rambling but I just think a little empathy and an understanding that people fuck up sometimes without meaning too goes a long way towards fostering understanding between groups.

Raine_sage:
Sorry for rambling but I just think a little empathy and an understanding that people fuck up sometimes without meaning too goes a long way towards fostering understanding between groups.

I understand that. I understand everything you say. I merely resent being told how I should feel (or how forgiving I should be). I want to be angry at this. Let me be angry at this. Thank you.

Darken12:

lacktheknack:
Again, that could take days, depending on how messy the code is (and believe me, code can get unbelievably messy).

Also, I think you're being paranoid. Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity, and this is definitely a case where they could have simply not thought of what their actions were implying.

I literally hate Hanlon's Razor with the stabbing fury of a thousand slashers. No. It's not all innocent stupidity. There is malice in the world, and I know because I have seen it. I refuse to accept "oopsie daisy, we're all just harmless bumbling fools, tee hee!" as a valid excuse. No. At the end of the day, I do not care if it's stupidity or malice. It makes absolutely no difference to me, and I heavily resent the implication that I'm supposed to excuse or forgive or change how I feel because someone did something I highly disapprove of out of stupidity instead of malice.

Do...

Do you have a job?

I only ask because 90% of the time our management is trying to do A and ends up accidentally also causing B.

B can sometimes be an unintended message and other times B can be an actual change to game design that results in people thinking it was intentional.

Your issue is mean-worth theory, basically for you the world is much harsher than it actually is. There are >a lot< of nasty people in the world but that's just a raw number. The actual % of people in the world that are 'evil' is quite small. It's large enough to be noticeable and inconvenient to life. So in that respect I do agree it should be addressed.

The odds that this update was done because of homophobia is incredibly slim. I imagine if people bring up the change and mention the message it sends the developers will change it or earnestly apologize.

You won't believe them, but it won't make it untrue.

Darken12:
The problem with "I don't intend to be malicious" is that it's a scapegoat to keep on performing the same offensive/ignorant actions and evade the responsibility of making restitutions or even owning up to what they did.

The Reddit argument.

"Oh I see! Reddit White Knights against misogyny and then now this post about tits is on the front page! Hypocrites!"

Different people are different people. Observing that some people lie does not mean all other people lie.

It's generally obvious when people are using a scapegoat to get out of trouble. It's not a very subtle thing.

Just like on Reddit some people like X and other people on Reddit like -X.

Darken12:

Raine_sage:
Sorry for rambling but I just think a little empathy and an understanding that people fuck up sometimes without meaning too goes a long way towards fostering understanding between groups.

I understand that. I understand everything you say. I merely resent being told how I should feel (or how forgiving I should be). I want to be angry at this. Let me be angry at this. Thank you.

But why? Nintendo are patching a bug that comes with game-breaking issues, as well as allowing male characters to get pregnant.

If this was a Bethesda game, we'd be calling on them to patch it ASAP. Now that it's Nintendo, why are you trying to turn it into this huge thing?

Sometimes, we forgot we're past the first decade of the XXI century...

theultimateend:
*snip*

And yet my viewpoints are my prerogative. We are all constantly making assumptions and decisions based on available evidence. We all have our systems for doing so. I haven't criticised yours (you can believe in the goodwill of Nintendo and the rest of the world as much as you want), so kindly refrain from doing the same with me.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
But why? Nintendo are patching a bug that comes with game-breaking issues, as well as allowing male characters to get pregnant.

If this was a Bethesda game, we'd be calling on them to patch it ASAP. Now that it's Nintendo, why are you trying to turn it into this huge thing?

I don't care if it's Nintendo. I would be expressing my distaste of any company who pulled something like this. I am not buying the "we're just patching a bug!" excuse. If you want to fix a bug, you fix the bug.

Also, I am not making anything into a "huge thing", I am doing what everyone else is doing: sharing my opinions on this matter. I did not go around quoting people and starting arguments. I expressed my opinions and people latched onto that because goodness forfend I express a divergent opinion.

I think that Nintendo prefers to avoid anything that might have a controversial meaning to anyone.

Despite the fact that Christians would like most Christian references in Nintendo games, they explicitly removed all references to Christianity in Nintendo games. Somehow I get the feeling conservative American Christians would have gotten a kick out of Link holding up a book with a cross on it rather than offended.

Though Nintendo will probably shy away from gay depictions of fictional characters until it becomes mainstream enough for them to see it as a profitable and safe thing to do. Nintendo doesn't really have an opinion on this sort of thing.

You don't see too many gay characters from Nintendo. Though you do see a lot of crossdressers and characters who seem in some way transgender. Or other characters who blur gender lines of some sort. For instance, Vivian from Paper Mario.

Darken12:

Schadrach:

Darken12:
I am pretty sure that changing one line of dialogue from "we're pregnant!" to "we're adopting!" would have been a lot simpler than preventing the marriages altogether. They can't even claim simplicity or laziness on this one, because the lazy option was, coincidentally, the most progressive.

Except that the "mother" actually gets depicted as pregnant. So, it's not changing one line of dialog, it's also figuring out some reasoning behind why whenever a gay couple decides to adopt, one of them gets really fat for a while. =p

I find it hard to believe that people who wanted to avoid showing mpreg in a game went out of their way to depict mpreg in the in-game models.

Not to mention that if that was the bug they wanted to correct, that should have been the bug they corrected.

Likely there's either a "preg" piece that gets attached to existing models or a standard deformation applied to the model to apply "preg." IOW, there's like not special mpreg models.

Not a coder, are you? I can tell from the fact that you think "add a check that keeps men from being marked as a 'wife' which bars gay marriage but blocks actual problems too" and "add a mechanism for events to verify the gender of people instead of assuming they were put in standard 'husband' and 'wife' slots then check and potentially rewrite every event to utilize the new conditions and be sure that that didn't break anything in some other obscure corner case" are even remotely similar amounts of effort.

Darken12:

theultimateend:
*snip*

I don't care if it's Nintendo. I would be expressing my distaste of any company who pulled something like this. I am not buying the "we're just patching a bug!" excuse. If you want to fix a bug, you fix the bug.

But they fixed a bug, that's why we're having this conversation in the first place.

Think of this from the perspective of the people who fixed the bug:

When a game gets finished and bugs are found later, they do the natural thing they are contracted to do and apply patches. They don't add features, they don't add extra content to the game, because all that content is stuff that has to be tested as well. It's stuff that requires it's own prerogative to test and merge into the core game.

Adding features costs money, what may be just "leave the bug in!" to you is instead "contract a whole new team to add in this feature and test it against the stable code-base". Because the original team doesn't exist in whole anymore, they have already been shuffled off to a new project.

Even if this just was a text bubble malfunction, the crew who was left behind to fix bugs have no choice but to fix the bugs they were given. I doubt that programmer who fixed this was really going to put his job on the line over a bug. No one should have to.

Please don't act like this is the result of an evil bigoted programmer trying to crush gay rights, this is probably just a guy trying to keep his job.

Earthfield:
Sometimes, we forgot we're past the first decade of the XXI century...

Yeah, evil Nintendo doing it's job. What an awful collection of bigots that Nintendo.

Sticky:
*snip*

As I have repeatedly stated in this thread, I genuinely do not care if Nintendo did it on purpose or if they're just incompetent and unaware of how shitty their bug-fixing method is. The outcome is the same either way.

Schadrach:
*snip*

Regardless of whether it's harder or easier to do this or that, the outcome is the same.

Darken12:

Sticky:
*snip*

As I have repeatedly stated in this thread, I genuinely do not care if Nintendo did it on purpose or if they're just incompetent and unaware of how shitty their bug-fixing method is. The outcome is the same either way.

On the contrary, their bug-fixing method is actually extremely efficient because the bug doesn't exist anymore.

That's the one little factoid you seem to be missing.

Darken12:
Regardless of whether it's harder or easier to do this or that, the outcome is the same.

This is why I don't like threads that devolve into programmers vs non-programmers. Easier is by definition better as a decision for the person who made this change.

One of the reasons I'm so bitterly against outrage against programmers is because at the end of the day, they're just doing their job. It was this persons job to fix a bug, and he did it.

Sticky:
On the contrary, their bug-fixing method is actually extremely efficient because the bug doesn't exist anymore.

That's the one little factoid you seem to be missing.

Right, right. Because if we take, say, WoW, and they receive a bug report about a certain ledge in an area which a player can jump from in order to bypass invisible walls, the perfect bug-fixing method is to make the entire area unavailable! Of course! Now that's some sound, intelligent bug-fixing.

You know what method has 100% efficiency in solving every single bug ever? Shutting down the entire game so that nobody can play it.

EDIT:

Sticky:
This is why I don't like threads that devolve into programmers vs non-programmers. Easier is by definition better as a decision for the person who made this change.

One of the reasons I'm so bitterly against outrage against programmers is because at the end of the day, they're just doing their job. It was this persons job to fix a bug, and he did it.

He fixed the bug by removing something that mirrors real-world bigotry, thereby (inadvertently, if we're feeling generous) mirroring real-world bigotry. This is like having a faulty polygon in one of the darker skin tones and saying that the way to fix it is to prevent players from creating darker-skin characters. Or having a glitch when female models enter a certain area, so the bug fixing is to prevent female players from entering that area. Or from leaving the kitchen.

It's not good bug-fixing, and I have no sympathy for whoever did this.

Darken12:

Sticky:
On the contrary, their bug-fixing method is actually extremely efficient because the bug doesn't exist anymore.

That's the one little factoid you seem to be missing.

Right, right. Because if we take, say, WoW, and they receive a bug report about a certain ledge in an area which a player can jump from in order to bypass invisible walls, the perfect bug-fixing method is to make the entire area unavailable! Of course! Now that's some sound, intelligent bug-fixing.

You know what method has 100% efficiency in solving every single bug ever? Shutting down the entire game so that nobody can play it.

Once again, proving why I don't like having these programmer vs non-programmer arguments.

I'm sure Nintendo's actual solution was really to cause every Wii in the world to explode so they never have to see the evils of gay marriage. I'm also sure their original goal was to make the game completely unplayable like you're suggesting that they have done instead of fixing a bug to ensure that the game remained playable.

Or you know, maybe their actual solution was following typical QA guidelines, receiving a bug report, fixing a bug, and then closing that bug report.

A far cry from what you think they have done, which is completely destroy the game and any value it may have because they made a business decision that you don't agree with. Really I think you're just too emotionally invested in this particular argument.

Darken12:

He fixed the bug by removing something that mirrors real-world bigotry, thereby (inadvertently, if we're feeling generous) mirroring real-world bigotry. This is like having a faulty polygon in one of the darker skin tones and saying that the way to fix it is to prevent players from creating darker-skin characters. Or having a glitch when female models enter a certain area, so the bug fixing is to prevent female players from entering that area. Or from leaving the kitchen.

It's not good bug-fixing, and I have no sympathy for whoever did this.

Do you really not see the huge logical gap in your argument? Let me magnify it a bit for you

Darken12:

He fixed the bug ...
It's not good bug-fixing

The politics of it are irrelevant. That's up to the company to decide. The team in charge of maintaining the game only handles logical values.

Sticky:
A far cry from what you think they have done, which is completely destroy the game and any value it may have because they made a business decision that you don't agree with. Really I think you're just too emotionally invested in this particular argument.

I see sarcasm is lost in you.

No, I do not think that this bug-fixing has destroyed the game. That was an exaggeration of your "meh, I'll just stop the players from being able to access the bug instead of actually fixing it" mentality, taken to its logical extreme. Stopping a player from accessing a bug is not good bug-fixing, much less when doing so mirrors real-life bigotry.

Sticky:
The politics of it are irrelevant.

The politics are literally the only thing that is relevant about all this, at least to me. I could not care less about the whys and hows of this. The only thing I care about is the fact that this sloppy, lazy "bug-fixing" has ended up mirroring (and, in an indirect way, supporting) real-life bigotry.

Darken12:
Stopping a player from accessing a bug is not good bug-fixing, much less when doing so mirrors real-life bigotry.

Thank god there's no real programmers that think like you do. Segmentation faults and stack collisions everywhere.

Of course they would probably be very happy if customers thought this way, it would make their job a lot easier to just release buggy, broken products and then just saying "I'm sorry, we didn't fix these bugs because someone on our team found one of the bugs to be morally endearing". Where do you even work that you think that finding a problem and solving it is bad practice? Certainly not anything technical.

Darken12:
The politics are literally the only thing that is relevant about all this, at least to me. I could not care less about the whys and hows of this. The only thing I care about is the fact that this sloppy, lazy "bug-fixing" has ended up mirroring (and, in an indirect way, supporting) real-life bigotry.

When you program anything your care is in function. Everything else comes second. Everything else HAS to come second because computers aren't programmed using the powers of good feelings and positive inclusiveness. They're programmed by hard, logical facts about how that program should and shouldn't function. When someone makes a logical oversight, that can cause problems in a world that is based on 100% logical facts existing.

You saying "BUT IT'S BIGOTRY!" wouldn't actually fix the bug and doesn't add anything to the conversation. Because the game doesn't care about how you feel about it, it only cares about the logical facts that are put inside of it.

Once again, if you wanted to add a whole new set of logical facts that tell it that gay marriage is okay, that would require breaking down the game and adding in all those new laws of the universe that the game was completely unaware of beforehand. Like that two men can't get pregnant, or that marriage doesn't require an opposite gender slot.

Want that to happen? Petition Nintendo. Don't blame a mere coder and/or QA person whose mere job is to fix logical problems with how the game is currently defined.

Sticky:
Want that to happen? Petition Nintendo. Don't blame a mere coder and/or QA person whose mere job is to fix logical problems with how the game is currently defined.

False dichotomy. Implies there is no possibility of fixing a bug without that kind of undesirable results. There is. Don't paint the programmers as tragic victims who had no other choice but to do this. There were other ways of accomplishing their goals. They just did not care.

Darken12:

Sticky:
Want that to happen? Petition Nintendo. Don't blame a mere coder and/or QA person whose mere job is to fix logical problems with how the game is currently defined.

False dichotomy.

Only if you've never programmed a day in your life. If you are working as part of a team, you have only two choices: Fix it or get out.

Darken12:
Implies there is no possibility of fixing a bug without that kind of undesirable results. There is. Don't paint the programmers as tragic victims who had no other choice but to do this. There were other ways of accomplishing their goals. They just did not care.

Oh they had another choice:

They could lose their jobs.

Is that what you want? I mean, Nintendo would just go find someone else to fix the bug. And in the end nothing would have changed anyway. But do you think that programmer is going to lose his job over what amounts to something that he has to do every day?

I find it kind of interesting that you would rather this person get fired fighting this futile battle over a misunderstanding in the game instead of doing what would be the actual, moral thing to do if he really wanted to make change: Which is petition the higher levels to try and allocate resources to implement this feature.

Do you seriously think this was as easy as pressing a big red button called "Fix Bug Without Being a Bigot"? Do you think they just happened to press the one right next to it that was called "Fix Bug(Special Homophobia Edition)"?

Sticky:
Oh they had another choice:

They could lose their jobs.

Nope. They could have taken the trouble to resolve the male-pregnancy issue without banning same-sex marriage. That was an option too.

Let's get one thing straight: unless you work for Nintendo and were there when they were handling this bug, everything you're saying is purely hypothetical. The option to fix the bug in a different way was always there. Whether it was the programmer's fault or if it was their management who refused to let them fix the bug in a different way, or if it was a direct order from the upper echelons stating that gay marriage was a mistake that should have never happened. I genuinely do not care. The outcome is the same.

And as I have repeatedly stated, I care far more about the outcome than the intricacies of where and why it went wrong, especially when those intricacies are used to excuse away the outcome.

Darken12:

Sticky:
Oh they had another choice:

They could lose their jobs.

Nope. They could have taken the trouble to resolve the male-pregnancy issue without banning same-sex marriage. That was an option too.

Let's get one thing straight: unless you work for Nintendo and were there when they were handling this bug, everything you're saying is purely hypothetical.

Yeah, maybe I don't know for 100% fact how this particular instance went down. But I do know how large programming teams work, and I know how game companies typically function. And you very clearly do not. I would go as far as to say that you've never had to work with another large group of people in a company organization before based purely on how you say they should have solved this problem.

Let's get one thing straight: when you work in a section of a project, be it bug fixing, patching, testing, or adding features. You stay there, you do not overstep your bounds. Because the second you do that in a professional environment, you're out. Gone, period.

Here's how this situation likely went down with my experience with programming teams and bug fixing: Someone noticed the bug and filed a QA report on it. A QA tester verified the bug and forwarded it to the appropriate team for fixing. The team examined the bug and fixed it.

They didn't start adding features

They didn't start trying to find ways to keep the bug

They didn't start trying to re-form the team and make a whole new scenario where same sex marriage was possible

Why? Because that's not their job. They aren't managers, they aren't going to supersede the chain of command. And if that QA tester went back and found the bug un-fixed, that programmer would be in trouble.

Maybe you don't understand this, but people with good jobs at Nintendo don't want to risk their position. No one does, no one is going to take a stand over something that is, for all intents and purposes, unintended behavior with the game. The job of making a same-sex branch in the game code falls squarely in the realm of management. Not these bug testers

So you can take your hypotheticals about how these people should have gone over their manager and made a completely new branch of this project and find a manager who wouldn't fire your ass on the spot for even suggesting that.

Even the mere suggestion of that at some companies is akin to mutiny. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand how large of a project you're proposing is. I guess as long as someone else is doing it, then it's real easy to say "IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE THIS WAY" from the sidelines, right?

Darken12:
And as I have repeatedly stated, I care far more about the outcome than the intricacies

Then you care more about feeling good than actual truth or facts. The devil is always in the details, and you so casually saying "ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THE PROGRAMMERS AT NINTENDO ARE WRONG" completely misses why they did that, what the correct approach is, and how in the future this could be addressed.

Turning everything into a bad guy / good guy scenario only paints you as being extremely emotionally charged.

Sticky:
Turning everything into a bad guy / good guy scenario only paints you as being extremely emotionally charged.

That's not what I'm doing. I am expressing my opinion in an open forum. You are the one repeatedly challenging my opinion and using hypotheticals to try and sway me. I have repeatedly stated that I do not care how or why it happened. I do not care if it was a programmer who did it wilfully, or because he didn't know better, or because it's a tyrannical workplace environment. I do not care if it was a direct order from the higher-ups and the programmers were doing what they were told. I do not care about the programmers and I am not blaming them for anything. My anger is directed at Nintendo as a company for the end result that we are currently witnessing.

You do not agree? That is perfectly fine. I have no intention of swaying you to my point of view. Feel free to keep on thinking whatever you want to think.

Darken12:

Sticky:
Turning everything into a bad guy / good guy scenario only paints you as being extremely emotionally charged.

That's not what I'm doing.

...

I do not care how or why it happened

...

My anger is directed at Nintendo as a company for the end result

So... basically you're painting it as a strictly bad guy/ good guy scenario?

(in an open forum, of course)

Innegativeion:
So... basically you're painting it as a strictly bad guy/ good guy scenario?

(in an open forum, of course)

No. I am merely expressing my anger and disapproval at this turn of events.

I love bigots or apologists trying to defend the action based on "Well, it was a bug so they should fix it, fuck all consequences!", because your computer can't really tell the difference between a bug and working as intended. If it could there wouldn't be bugs period. The only difference between 'bug' and 'working as intended' is your intentions. If a 'bug' came out that makes your game better, then really just say it's a feature because there's no real difference.

Big_Boss_Mantis:

JoJo:

rasputin0009:
Nintendo has always been anti-gay. I'm surprised they even let Link be as feminine as he is and Zelda to cross-dress as Shiek. But I guess Link always saves a dress wearing Zelda in the end so it's okay.

Have they? I've never seen anything from Nintendo particularly anti-gay, I mean Nintendo games tend to barely even touch on romance and relationships really further than the fairy tale style "hero saves princess" angle a lot of their games seem to have. I suppose they could be criticized for lacking openly gay characters in most of their games but sadly that's currently a given for most media aimed at children.

Nintendo aims their products at children and are very cautious about controversial themes.
And its a necessary stance when you have a lot of games based on mascots and/or toons. (even if it makes them retrogade)

Still, I don't think you should call them homophobic, since they have Birdo, which is a transgender character! (and, well, since it has been hinted that it is Yoshi's girlfriend, then that could even make the egg-throwing dinossaur gay)

So I guess if you're a gay kid or what not you're not allowed to have self identifiable role models because bigots find anything that's different than them 'controversial'?

Cause you could make the same (bad) argument against having female or non-white protagonists too.

Bigots making people feel bad about who they are should be the more controversial stance, not people merely existing and being gay.

Same sex marriage is all well and good. Male pregnancy is a bit strange. If I was Nintendo (yes, the whole company) I'd have just run with it or tried to patch official same sex relationships in to engender a bit of good PR, but at least they're consistent either way.

Damien Granz:
So I guess if you're a gay kid or what not you're not allowed to have self identifiable role models because bigots find anything that's different than them 'controversial'?

Cause you could make the same (bad) argument against having female or non-white protagonists too.

Bigots making people feel bad about who they are should be the more controversial stance, not people merely existing and being gay.

You have a very compelling argument. And you are completely right.

But, before throwing around words like "bigot" or calling my argument "bad", try to see the big picture here.

Nintendo is a company. It sells products. It is not an activist of any cause, nor a group of people trying to make the world a better place.

It is very convenient (and necessary for them, really) to do not take sides.
Those "bigots (that) find anything that's different than them 'controversial'" are consumers. Are voters. They have representatives of their points of view on the government, on rating boards ...
Are they the majority? I think it depends on the culture of the country. The times are rapidly changing to ensure the protection of the civil rights to gay people in a huge part of the world.

Still, Nintendo have to post a profit. It has to please shareholders, lest they simply go out of business.
And that is what I was saying. They cannot have Fox News using them as a target for bad journalism. They don't want fervorous christian parents refusing to buy their children DS's.
They gain nothing (and lost dearly) if they get a boycott from the more conservative part of society.
And older people are usually the ones that most resist change. They are the ones buying games for their kids.

That said, I don't find them homophobic. They just avoid the issue. (and even slipped in a transgender in their character roster)
Yes, sometimes not taking a stance is bad enough. I would be criticizing it if their core demographic were mostly teenagers or young adults (DC comics, for instance, took a good stand in a good moment). But, in Nintendo's case I find it justifiable.

The day will come when Nintendo, Disney, McDonalds, will all have an role model for that gay kid you mentioned. It is inevitable.
One day Samus won't take orders from a male figure and will have a girlfriend. Then Fox Mcloud could get married to a male wolf.
We are just not there yet, and, unfortunately, a company can't deny this fact.

Big_Boss_Mantis:

Damien Granz:
So I guess if you're a gay kid or what not you're not allowed to have self identifiable role models because bigots find anything that's different than them 'controversial'?

Cause you could make the same (bad) argument against having female or non-white protagonists too.

Bigots making people feel bad about who they are should be the more controversial stance, not people merely existing and being gay.

You have a very compelling argument. And you are completely right.

But, before throwing around words like "bigot" or calling my argument "bad", try to see the big picture here.

I'm not necessarily saying you're a bigot, but the only people that actually find a gay (or non-white, non-male, etc.) protagonist, especially in a game where the protagonist is supposed to be 'yourself' as controversial are bigots, and that an argument that revolves around "He who throws around the largest unwarranted shit-fit gets their way" is somewhat inherently bad and self fulfilling.

Big_Boss_Mantis:
Nintendo is a company. It sells products. It is not an activist of any cause, nor a group of people trying to make the world a better place.

It is very convenient (and necessary for them, really) to do not take sides.

Except they've inherently taken sides by being "You can make yourself (unless you're gay/bi)". It's harmful to the people that are being discriminated against that people are trying to say that the 'neutral' stance is "Go fuck yourself". That might seem like the neutral stance if you're apathetic to the issue at hand because it doesn't effect you, but you're confusing 'neutral stance' to 'statistically more common outcome'.

Think about it if it was in reverse, if there was only gay marriage and a bug came out and allowed opposite sex partners. Would you consider it 'neutral' stance to make a patch to ban opposite sex relationships? No you'd feel it was somewhat spiteful and foolish. You wouldn't consider your erasure or exclusion to be neutrality. Now, I know that you might be thinking 'make your own game/community' etc, but imagine now if this was the case in every community or sphere. Imagine if people didn't want you at their restaurants, bars, pools, schools, sports teams, in their movies, games, books etc... and it gets old very fast.

Big_Boss_Mantis:
Those "bigots (that) find anything that's different than them 'controversial'" are consumers. Are voters. They have representatives of their points of view on the government, on rating boards ...

I'm unsure that I like the insinuation that discrimination is OK as long as you have enough money, and it has a pretty weak legal backing as it is, and one that's weakening every day. Also it's a bad matter of principle to be like "Well, something is bad but it's hard to change it because bigots might complain". It seems like a self fulfilling prophecy where you get in a loop or echo chamber of unchallenged hate because those that might challenge it are afraid of hurting the feelings of those shouting the hate, making bigots feel more powerful and more willing to keep shouting louder, etc.

Big_Boss_Mantis:
Are they the majority? I think it depends on the culture of the country. The times are rapidly changing to ensure the protection of the civil rights to gay people in a huge part of the world.

Yeah, homophobes are in the minority and are becoming more so every day, but not because bystanders one day woke up and just had an epiphany or ex-bigots hearts grew 3 sizes one day. They did so because LGBT groups and straight allies have fought against the status quo, and straight allies and LGBT people started a dialogue with each other to find out that they're actually people and not some nebulous 'not my problem' other, one that bigots never wanted to happen.

Big_Boss_Mantis:
Still, Nintendo have to post a profit. It has to please shareholders, lest they simply go out of business.

You say this though as if LGBT people or allies or people apathetic to them have no money to spend too though, and that's a myth that needs to be dispelled as well. A lot of people bend at the knee for bigotry because they think "If I don't take money from horrible people, then I won't have money at all", but that's not the case. That's what I mean by it being bad to stay silent in the first place as it creates that bigotry echo chamber where myths like this prevail.

Big_Boss_Mantis:
And that is what I was saying. They cannot have Fox News using them as a target for bad journalism. They don't want fervorous Christian parents refusing to buy their children DS's.

Yes, because right wing journalists will never use video games or modern technology or fads like rock music and flapper girls as a scapegoat for all of society's ills anyways.

Big_Boss_Mantis:
They gain nothing (and lost dearly) if they get a boycott from the more conservative part of society.
And older people are usually the ones that most resist change. They are the ones buying games for their kids.

See, again that's the harm that myth and echo chamber has done to you, is make you think that without taking money from horrible people they won't have money. That's why bigots want people to stay silent on issues, so that people who would otherwise be friendly like you think that without them you lose dearly and gain nothing.

Also, the core demographic for buying games aren't 55+ people, the core demographic for buying games are 20-30 year olds who are (increasingly every day) less homophobic. So they don't stand to 'gain nothing'.

Big_Boss_Mantis:
That said, I don't find them homophobic. They just avoid the issue. (and even slipped in a transgender in their character roster)

Even if I was to give them that one token transgendered character (and I don't, considering the Birdo thing came from a joke in a mistranslated manual from a game slapped together as a repaint of another game and was never intended to be a 'core' character, and the current status of said character's transgenderism is basically mute silence), they might not necessarily be doing this out of homophobic but out of like a general laziness, but it doesn't really change the fact that it's harmful.

Big_Boss_Mantis:
Yes, sometimes not taking a stance is bad enough. I would be criticizing it if their core demographic were mostly teenagers or young adults (DC comics, for instance, took a good stand in a good moment). But, in Nintendo's case I find it justifiable.

I'm not sure where or why you believe that the core demographic for video games to be 55+ year olds. Especially a game about Miis.

Big_Boss_Mantis:
The day will come when Nintendo, Disney, McDonalds, will all have an role model for that gay kid you mentioned. It is inevitable.
One day Samus won't take orders from a male figure and will have a girlfriend. Then Fox McCloud could get married to a male wolf.
We are just not there yet, and, unfortunately, a company can't deny this fact.

Well, first, I don't think anybody really cares so much to change established characters. I don't think really Samus 'needs' a relationship (gay or otherwise), etc. And also Fox and Falco are pretty much already a gay interracial married bickering couple as it is, the furry fandom's love for Krystal be damned. Katt was clearly Falco's beard. Jokes aside though, I do believe the day for inclusion will come too, but not as long as we assume that gay people or straight allies have nothing economic to contribute and stay silent as long as not staying silent will make bigots frown.

Because, as I said, it's bigots who want 'You're invisible and don't exist' to be the neutral stance. Especially in a game that's ostentatiously about 'yourself'. I could see an argument for a neutral stance for 'Mario' is that he's either straight or like, asexual, because asexual has been pretty much how he's always been portrayed except in like, maybe Mario 64 (he's kissed in other games by Peach but usually he just kinda sits there like a lump). But a neutral stance that the 'Damien' character is heterosexual isn't very neutral at all to me!

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

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