Jimquisition: Tomodachi Strife

[Ophenix]

Oddly enough posts here are less soul-crushingly homophobic than the FB comments below the article. Nice to know people who have opinions more varied than "What next? U WANT DUCKSEXMii TOO?!?!" still exist.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Also, as an extra piece to point out, The Sims 4 is actually given an AO (Adult Only) rating in Russia because of the fact that it includes gay marriage

Russia has been censured (not to be confused with being censored or being smacked with a censer) by the international community, including the United Nations Human Rights Council for its current discriminatory policies regarding Gays and alternative sexualities. Russia's doesn't really serve as a good example of legitimate behavior regarding fair treatment of gays or other fringe groups.

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

Discrimination was rather common not only in Germany but worldwide in the 1930s and 1940s. It was common practice storefronts to refuse service against Jews, even here in the US. Also: blacks, Irish immigrants, Italian immigrants, pretty much anyone who looked weird, had a funny name or accent, or was followed by vicious rumors.

Discrimination is rampant in an unregulated market, and we've since realized that equal treatment is one of the market rules we have to enforce by law. The notion that we can let storekeepers set the policies they want works only in an environment in which there is perfect competition. (That is to say, there is a superfluous number of competing businesses, some of which do serve any given demographic, and all businesses are instantly accessible to a given customer.) In reality a customer's access to a market is contingent on limits of locality, on obstacles to new start-ups, on closed markets and price fixing, and on a countless number of other anti-competitive practices. So no, people often do not have access to goods and services they want when discrimination is allowed. If Mississippi businesses are allowed to deny service to someone on the grounds that they are gay, I wonder if they are also allowed to deny business to someone on the grounds that they are black or Jewish or a woman. If not, I suspect the laws that protect the latter demographics from discrimination should, by the same intent, protect gays as well...and gamers, and gun enthusiasts, and atheists, and pretty much anyone else who is non-mainstream.

Disclaimer: As someone who is overconscientious of social inequality, I regard Tomodachi Life as being discriminatory for requiring marriage to unlock further parts of the game (such as having children) let alone disallowing same-sex marriage entirely. By requiring marriage, it makes the (ages old) implication that one's legitimacy as a human being is based on whether or not the union of one's parents was authorized and blessed by the society around it. We should not be so judged, nor those who have children out of wedlock. The fact that gay marriage (and interracial marriage before it) has required such an arduous process for our societies to develop acceptance of it (still not completely here in the US), our community, our government and our moral institutions cannot be trusted to fairly adjudicate who should be allowed to love each other and form families, and who should not.

And Because social simulations are complicated, there is no escaping controversy and some elements of societal constraints in such games. The Sims 2 (still the best Sims-series game in my opinion) allows for gay relationships, but gay marriages are still civil unions, representing the separate but equal legal notions of its time. Similarly, Sims 2 only regards exclusive relationships: every sim gets jealous if one of their lovers woohoos with someone else. Sims 2 also doesn't allow polygamy which, although it gets a bad rap from Mormon and Muslim polygyny has shown to be more egalitarian when taken out of the context of misogynistic religious dogma (as per, for example, the Church of All Worlds' polyfidelity). So while it gives players a lot more latitude than Tomadachi Life, it is not representative of a far-future ideal in which people can freely form relationship bonds with whoever they choose.

Mr. Sterling, you live in Mississippi? I'm so sorry. That state is a hotbed of hyperconformity and enforced conservative Baptist values. Have you ever considered moving to either of the coasts?

238U[footnote]As of this posting I have not received a US National Security Letter or any classified gag order from an agent of the United States.
This post does not contain an encrypted secret message
Monday, May 12, 2014 1:47:10 PM
soap denim rumor snail opera shopping center guilt fall[/footnote]

 

[RickF7666]

First I want to start by saying I support anyone's desire to call out someone for behavior that you find problematic. What I don't support is getting the government involved to enforce your morality on someone by force. Which means while you might not like people discriminating or excluding something you support, they have every right to do so. As a private enterprise you should be able to cater to whichever clientele you want. As an example if someone is abusive you should be able to refuse them service. If a private enterprise wants to exclude some group but the local community doesn't like that then that business might not survive because they will loose customers, but they shouldn't be forced to shut down by government.

The only enterprise which shouldn't be able to discriminate is the government because they are the representatives of all the people and thus should treat all citizens equally. One of the biggest problems that the world is facing right now is governmental over reach. It is regularly used by groups of people to restrict competition.

So please use your voice to challenge those whom you don't agree with, but don't try to get the government involved. One of the prices of freedom is the possibility of being offended and that's a good thing.

 

[Miles Duffield]

Don't need to ask for our permission Jim. I for one am entirely behind you.

Love you much.

 

[Sticky]

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that different countries are at different levels on issues. if you look at the country Tomadachi Life came from it kind of makes a lot of sense.

The point many are making is that is all well and good but the game is being localized. The Sims does it fine in USA and Europe (barring those homophobic pricks in Russia) why couldn't the content be localized?

Not him, but I'll just answer your question and shoot down this line of thought people are having.

Localization teams strive for what is known as symmetry between two different types of code bases. What that means is that there exists a copy of a base of code that, while not being equal to the original code base, is at least compatible with each other. Which means it retains all the key features which not changing the value of the code.

Let's take an example, Let's say a Japanese company makes a video game to be localized in America. They make a copy of the code (not even the system code, just the code for the front-end) and assets used for the game, and send it off to the localization firm. Said localization firm only changes what they need to change in order to meet the hardware requirements of the foreign platform and the language requirements. They then package the game and send it to the publisher for retail.

They do this because THEN they don't have to hire DEVELOPMENT TEAMS to change the code and go through development hell on their own. Why? Because it wastes money and time when the game has already undergone thousands of hours of development time making sure it runs stable for someone to come along and add a new feature that requires hundreds hours more of testing to ensure the code is now fully stable with the rest of the code tree. This is even assuming that they have the correct code needed to add that feature in the first place and ensure it's stable vs the original base.

In short, every person saying that a localization team should be the ones to add features are wrong. There is no arguing this, localization is not for development except during cases of game-breaking bugs and oversights and never will be. Even then the original developer is contacted because it is their job to squash bugs and maintain the core game, not the localization team.

End of story.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

But shame someone just because he didn't enable what is important to you is just as damn bigoted as those who prevent homosexuals from using their services.

Oh yes, being upset about being excluded is JUST THE SAME AS DENIAL OF SERVICE! Anyone who cares about the representation of gays is just as bigoted as the biggest bigot who ever bigoted!

Some of these false equivalence arguments are just astounding. Where do you get your logic from? Oh wait, why was I expecting logic from people who jump to "evil SJW brigade" whenever a discussion of gender or identity comes up?

The way you twisted the meaning of the words makes you as bad as any extremist out there.

This video makes Jim literally AS BAD AS THE KU KLUX KLAN. As bad as Islamic Justin Bieber abortion clinic bomber terrorists for bicycle lanes!

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

It makes me extremely sad to see Nintendo doing this, and I will not be buying the game as a result, unless I hear of them patching the option back into the game (rather than simply promising to include it in 'future' games.) However, it's not entirely unpredictable since the Japanese culture has a very different view on homosexuality than we do. This does not excuse them of course, Nintendo has been making games for a western audience for years, so there's no way they don't know what's going to work for us and what won't, but Jim makes the best point about this in relation to inclusion/exclusion and the political associations we make with it.

For a company that's not doing extraordinarily well, not to mention with E3 just around the corner, it's odd that Nintendo's PR department didn't see this bad press coming and take steps to handle it better. They aren't exactly in a good position to fall from the good graces of their audience.

 

[nevarran]

They just want to sell their game in Russia

 

[xaszatm]

It makes me extremely sad to see Nintendo doing this, and I will not be buying the game as a result, unless I hear of them patching the option back into the game (rather than simply promising to include it in 'future' games.) However, it's not entirely unpredictable since the Japanese culture has a very different view on homosexuality than we do. This does not excuse them of course, Nintendo has been making games for a western audience for years, so there's no way they don't know what's going to work for us and what won't, but Jim makes the best point about this in relation to inclusion/exclusion and the political associations we make with it.

For a company that's not doing extraordinarily well, not to mention with E3 just around the corner, it's odd that Nintendo's PR department didn't see this bad press coming and take steps to handle it better. They aren't exactly in a good position to fall from the good graces of their audience.

And congratulations on failing to realize Miiquality's goals! A video that stated in big, bold letters to not boycott the game now will be boycotted, making it that more likely that another game in this series will never see light of day across the states.

 

[carnex]

Oh yes, being upset about being excluded is JUST THE SAME AS DENIAL OF SERVICE! Anyone who cares about the representation of gays is just as bigoted as the biggest bigot who ever bigoted!

You didn't consider me! is as bad. It' business the way i see it by being as stupid. I'm born Serbian and therefor I'm limited in great many was, internationally based on whole lot of lies and you don't see me shaming people. And that's real life, not some damn game.

Some of these false equivalence arguments are just astounding. Where do you get your logic from? Oh wait, why was I expecting logic from people who jump to "evil SJW brigade" whenever a discussion of gender or identity comes up?

This video makes Jim literally AS BAD AS THE KU KLUX KLAN. As bad as abortion clinic bombers or Islamic terrorists!

Well here I really put the shoe in my mouth I give you that. But at least for Islamic bombers I can understand that they are indoctrinated since someone messed much of their world up and continues to do so. While it's not right I can see where they are coming from.

As for where gender identity comes from, we still don't know. Only thing I know that 10% of homo/bisexuals/mixed gender/wrong body sex seems a lot for me if we are to chalk it up to mother nature messing it up in gene copying. What exactly goes on I don't know but I am curious.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.849789.20988562

Sorry for the wait, had to take a test, and sorry for not keeping the post in tact.

I will try to address you as best I can in the spoiler.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.849789.20988534

Should Include you too for the first response.

Spoiler: First response!

It doesn't change the gender. The male sounding and dressing Mii is still a female in code. But on the outside she looks and sounds like a dude (Although I'm sure the particular actions may still have female attributes).

So based on that, and what xaszatm told me, the game does have gay relationships, but you have to cross dress to make them work?

Neat.
If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Spoiler: Rest of Dragonbums post.

But the game is also a year old and Nintendo Treehouse do not have the time or resources to make such a big change like that in such a short time span.

I never thought they should do it before launch, but sometime after or in the next installment is pretty reasonable.

(changing the Sumo game into a football one, ect)
Those are basic translation adjustments.

No. Not the words Sumo and Football. I meant they changed one of the minigames within the game from a sumo game, to a football game. Sorry for not being clear.

It would be really naive of any of us to think that nobody would have any problem with the game had they of allowed both gay and straight couples but only the straight couples could marry.

I did not expect them to have gay marriage in the Japanese version, only the ported version since it was asked for. Then again, Nintendo has chosen to remove/change parts of other games going outside of Japan before because they had LGBT characters/elements.
So I didn't expect that they wouldn't even put it in their version.

Granted, I don't think they didn't put it in out of dislike for gay people. More likely, they just didn't think of it at the time. Which is understandable if gay marriage isn't legal in Japan.
At any rate, it's good to hear they're at least considering it.

It only came off as bad for people looking for something to complain about in the first place. The statement could of been worded differently, but bigotry and anti homosexuality isn't the first thing that comes to my mind.

I agree that Nintendo didn't do this out of malice, but I disagree that only people looking for trouble would find their statements troubling.
While not intentional, their words do have some troubling implications.
That said, I do think it was a wording problem, more than on of bigotry.

The same could also be said for skin tones as well. Animal crossing has yet to allow players to be completely black or dark skinned since inception and yet I haven't heard a peep from the ethnic minority group call Nintendo racists.

It may not be as big as this Tomodachi issue, but that doesn't mean no one was talking about it.

That said, like with your question about FE as to why more people weren't talking about it.
I'd say it's partly because of people spreading the word (as you noted, not always correctly), and the other part is Nintendo's handling of the situation at the start. >.< Very badly chosen words.

That said, if things keep going the way they seem to be going, I think Nintendo will come out on top.

I do hope Jim will address his incorrect information in some way. That could help.

A lot of the anger came from the fact that Casey Hudson stated that the endings before release where going to be the exact opposite of...well..what we got.

Also DLC milking.

Yeah, like what I said before, the reason this got so bad for Nintendo comes down to a number of things going wrong in just the right way to make the public notice.

 

[Dragonbums]

It makes me extremely sad to see Nintendo doing this, and I will not be buying the game as a result, unless I hear of them patching the option back into the game (rather than simply promising to include it in 'future' games.) However, it's not entirely unpredictable since the Japanese culture has a very different view on homosexuality than we do. This does not excuse them of course, Nintendo has been making games for a western audience for years, so there's no way they don't know what's going to work for us and what won't, but Jim makes the best point about this in relation to inclusion/exclusion and the political associations we make with it.

For a company that's not doing extraordinarily well, not to mention with E3 just around the corner, it's odd that Nintendo's PR department didn't see this bad press coming and take steps to handle it better. They aren't exactly in a good position to fall from the good graces of their audience.

http://miiquality.tumblr.com/


Please direct your attention to 3:35 that is all

 

[Aardvaarkman]

The lemming readers, never one to avoid a good twitter shaming of perceived bigotry, didn't stop to ask about context, and went on to vent their usual vitriol about how the rest of the world hasn't come about to the correct way of thinking.

As opposed the the people who disagree with them, who went about this completely calmly, and never once posted an angry rant comparing those people to Nazis. And never once boiled down the complexity of many different people's opinions to "SJW,"

I mean, as if people could have varying degrees of opinion and aren't all members of a groupthink activist cabal. That's just crazy talk. Obviously nobody would ever express their individual opinions without the consent of the hive mind.

 

[RickF7666]

Discrimination is rampant in an unregulated market, and we've since realized that equal treatment is one of the market rules we have to enforce by law. The notion that we can let storekeepers set the policies they want works only in an environment in which there is perfect competition. (That is to say, there is a superfluous number of competing businesses, some of which do serve any given demographic, and all businesses are instantly accessible to a given customer.) In reality a customer's access to a market is contingent on limits of locality, on obstacles to new start-ups, on closed markets and price fixing, and on a countless number of other anti-competitive practices. So no, people often do not have access to goods and services they want when discrimination is allowed. If Mississippi businesses are allowed to deny service to someone on the grounds that they are gay, I wonder if they are also allowed to deny business to someone on the grounds that they are black or Jewish or a woman. If not, I suspect the laws that protect the latter demographics from discrimination should, by the same intent, protect gays as well...and gamers, and gun enthusiasts, and atheists, and pretty much anyone else who is non-mainstream.

In my opinion you pointed out what the problem is, but came to the wrong conclusion. The problem isn't the freedom to discriminate, but the insane government regulation that restricts competition. The problems of "obstacles to new start-ups, on closed markets and price fixing, and on a countless number of other anti-competitive practices" are all imposed by government. Government rules tend to be imposed slowly and are hard to remove once they are in place. This means that a community can used government to restrict something, but when that community changes they have a hard time removing those restrictions. So people need to stop using government to try to solve their problems, it is far to slow and incompetent to be much use for most things, particularly social issues. Government should only be used to protect it's citizens from the use of force, anything else and you have tyranny.

 

[Pebkio]

So AI is controlling who your Mii is trying to hook up with? I assumed you were controlling your little avatar, so the whole idea of having checks for orientation didn't make any sense at all. If you're not controlling your character, then does having your sprite get married actually matter to the gamer? This style of game doesn't appeal to me in general, so I don't get it. Are there any Nintendo fans out there that can tell us if having in game relationships is something that would make or break Tomodachi Life for you?

If I'm not mistaken you have no control over who your Mii's partner up with. The only control you have is how you customize them, and what they eat....that's about it.

Everything else is up to game code chance.

Yeah, no, it's massively disappointing. And looking back, it's probably just because they cut a corner. It was, simply, easier not to code in same-sex marriage. Nothing about civil rights or equality. Just a mediocre product that fails to represent the complexity of reality. The only real story is their dumbass response.

And the real story is that Nintendo was so terrified of admitting that they cut corners when making their time waster that they'd rather stick their foot in their mouth with a politically incorrect statement.