Jimquisition: Tomopology Life

[blackrave]

Great episode and, yes, Jim, I accept your apology

P.S. What's anetaserkizian?

 

[FYI I Am Some Guy]

This is the first time I've really seen Tomodachi Life footage, because Tomodachi didn't seem like my jam, but holy shit this game is whack. Worshiping the Virtual Boy? Someone's face flying off into outer space? Ninjas? 'The Regginator' in a muscle suit? I need to keep my eyes on this now.

 

[tstorm823]

That's perhaps their greatest strength and weakness though, they will never bend to anothers will or succumb to 'peer pressure'... even if it may do them some good.

You do realize you just posted this in a thread about them apologizing and promising to succumb to that peer pressure?

 

[Nixou]

the apology came from people purposefully misconstruing the situation to make Nintendo appear anti-gay in the first place

Nintendo's original "We're not into social commentary" nonpology was a cowardly act based on the (thankfully obsolete) assumption that pre-emptively capitulating to the homophobic bigots is the safest choice.
It doesn't take sincere belief in the negative stereotypes surrounding LGBTs or visceral hatred and intend to harm gay people to be "anti-gay": yielding to the bigots is enough

 

[HalfTangible]

Snip

Well consider this scenario...

If, by contract, time, or funding, I am limited to including only one preset player character in a game, I could either make the character's sex, female or male.

In reality, a well designed character has multiple facets. But for the sake of this scenario, let's only consider sex as the undecided trait.

If I choose male, this means this work has missed the opportunity to include a female player character.

But if I choose female, this means the work has missed the opportunity to include a male player character.

Classic zero-sum situation.

Now personally, I would choose female, because the "opportunity debt" is bigger for representation of women than for representation of men.

EDIT: Of course, there is the possibly of robots and androgynous super beings, but one still has to choose a set of pronouns unless one wants to spend extra time on editing the dialogue and fluff.

... Er... ... ... What does any of that have to do with the post you were quoting?

 

[themilo504]

People consider apologies to be a bad thing? unless you were bullied into doing so apologizing is by its very nature a good thing.

Also It?s really tempting to Godwin this thread.

 

[Something Amyss]

The end damn near killed me, Jim. I demand an apology.

So we have 3 articles on the escapist, multiple long as threads and 2 jimquisitions about or related to this issue if im correct.

This means I was right, Tomodachi life is officially this years Dragons Crown *hurray*. Nintendo I salute thee.

Edit: I just noticed they have even more in common. Both where issuess that started out relatively small (via a small complaint even though tomodachis was more reasonable at first) and then became huge after the critized party responded in a very unhelpfull manner(altough again nintendos response was more reasonable). Holy shit the similaritys are starting to scare me, I´m starting to believe theres more to this then I anticipated.

Both really blew up because the people who were defending the company in question decided to turn it into a bigger deal than it was.

Figured that one should show up, too. I mean, the only apparent reason this is different from requests on probably over a dozen different games is that people picked up on Miiquality and for some reason decided that they were against it. Dragon's Crown would have similarly boiled over (I'm not sure if the first round was preventable, mind) if people didn't see a couple of middling reviews and try and turn it into this whole big thing. Like, almost on the level of GTA review hate.

It was absurd. And insane. And in bitching about the issue, they brought it to light.

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

I think if murderers wanted to be included in the game, my bigger issue would be that they were, you know, murderers.

Of course, there are other issues, but if you want parity to homosexuals, this is kind of a big sticking point (and indeed,you'd need to be a danger to society to be equatable to homosexuals, which is one of the reasons people object to the comparison of gays to murderers and pedophiles....Gays aren't hurting anyone).

In fact, there are thousands of games where you can kill people. You can even play as a sociopath in many games. GTA and the Saints Row games immediately spring to mind. I think you accidentally made a completely different point:

It's more socially acceptable to depict a sociopath or a murderer than a homosexual.

I mean, seriously, think about that for a second. Sociopaths are included in the gaming community. Nobody says "well, murder is illegal" and justifies its exclusion, like they have with homosexuality/gay marriage.

what if nintendo includes homophobes in the game just for inclusivity sake? How will gays enjoy the game then?

I need more details. Am I forced to play as a homophobe, or is homophobia as optional as choosing who you marry? If the latter, why the hell do I care?

Maybe it's just me, but my answer is: I honestly don't.

 

[Pogilrup]

Snip

Well consider this scenario...

If, by contract, time, or funding, I am limited to including only one preset player character in a game, I could either make the character's sex, female or male.

In reality, a well designed character has multiple facets. But for the sake of this scenario, let's only consider sex as the undecided trait.

If I choose male, this means this work has missed the opportunity to include a female player character.

But if I choose female, this means the work has missed the opportunity to include a male player character.

Classic zero-sum situation.

Now personally, I would choose female, because the "opportunity debt" is bigger for representation of women than for representation of men.

EDIT: Of course, there is the possibly of robots and androgynous super beings, but one still has to choose a set of pronouns unless one wants to spend extra time on editing the dialogue and fluff.

... Er... ... ... What does any of that have to do with the post you were quoting?

The part about inclusivity being zero sum.

 

[Something Amyss]

What does the internet hate more?

Gay people being included in future games?
Or Anita?

Anita. Anita's so powerful even her name can bring forth a shitstorm of rape threats. Anita is Voldemort, "she who must not be named" and gay inclusion is but a death eater. Still feared but without the same gravitas.

Also, I hear if you say her name in the mirror at midnight, she will immediately appear and destroy all of your games because gaming is sexist.

Then the new groups show up and seem to not be given the same scorn.

....Are you serious? People wanting gay relationships in games have been routinely told to vote with their wallets, and it wasn't absent here.

That half assed internet nerds jumped on them because one of the things the game breaking bug did was allow for something resembling gay marriages.

If there's one thing I know about internet nerds, it's that we are full-assed. >.>

More to the point, even some of Nintendo's apologists admit that the reason they got jumped on had more to do with how they phrased the removal. And the real pouncing didn't happen until they further ut their foot in their mouths with this "social commentary" crap. Poorly worded or not, these are what really sparked the "pouncing."

Maybe Nintendo should just stop saying stupid things. I'm curious, though,. Did you defend the Xbone when Microsoft reps were saying stupid things, too?

But there's increasingly an idea in our culture that being fair to a culture means excluding whatever is currently considered the dominant force.

Oh, it's not increasing. It's always been there and in pretty much the same fashion. At least, in this culture. That's like arguing "kids these days." And it probably extends further. People tend to be more comfortable with and able to process binary choices. Coke or Pepsi. Sox or Yanks. Democrat or Republican. Gay or Straight. Black or White.

Uh, subtle blasphemy there, Jim. But I bet, god loves you nontheless, you magnificent bastard

Subtle?

 

[HalfTangible]

Snip

Well consider this scenario...

If, by contract, time, or funding, I am limited to including only one preset player character in a game, I could either make the character's sex, female or male.

In reality, a well designed character has multiple facets. But for the sake of this scenario, let's only consider sex as the undecided trait.

If I choose male, this means this work has missed the opportunity to include a female player character.

But if I choose female, this means the work has missed the opportunity to include a male player character.

Classic zero-sum situation.

Now personally, I would choose female, because the "opportunity debt" is bigger for representation of women than for representation of men.

EDIT: Of course, there is the possibly of robots and androgynous super beings, but one still has to choose a set of pronouns unless one wants to spend extra time on editing the dialogue and fluff.

... Er... ... ... What does any of that have to do with the post you were quoting?

The part about inclusivity being zero sum.

It still isn't zero sum to include the option to BE female, because you can still pick the male option if you prefer =/ And I can't even imagine a scenario where you don't have the time or funding to create more than one player character. It might not fit your particular game (see: Mario, Zelda, etc) but if you're making a game where male/female is even an option you're gonna have the time and the funding.

And that's ignoring the fact that this isn't an 'inclusive' scenario you're presenting, this is a scenario where you absolutely must exclude someone.

 

[Pogilrup]

Snip

Well consider this scenario...

If, by contract, time, or funding, I am limited to including only one preset player character in a game, I could either make the character's sex, female or male.

In reality, a well designed character has multiple facets. But for the sake of this scenario, let's only consider sex as the undecided trait.

If I choose male, this means this work has missed the opportunity to include a female player character.

But if I choose female, this means the work has missed the opportunity to include a male player character.

Classic zero-sum situation.

Now personally, I would choose female, because the "opportunity debt" is bigger for representation of women than for representation of men.

EDIT: Of course, there is the possibly of robots and androgynous super beings, but one still has to choose a set of pronouns unless one wants to spend extra time on editing the dialogue and fluff.

... Er... ... ... What does any of that have to do with the post you were quoting?

The part about inclusivity being zero sum.

It still isn't zero sum to include the option to BE female, because you can still pick the male option if you prefer =/ And I can't even imagine a scenario where you don't have the time or funding to create more than one player character. It might not fit your particular game (see: Mario, Zelda, etc) but if you're making a game where male/female is even an option you're gonna have the time and the funding.

And that's ignoring the fact that this isn't an 'inclusive' scenario you're presenting, this is a scenario where you absolutely must exclude someone.

Well if the plan was to include one and only one preset player character, there will be opportunity costs in fleshing out that character.

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

 

[Something Amyss]

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

Except it falls flat in this case. There's a negligible issue in including gay characters cost-wise, because gay models look just like straight models. So on top of the already heavily-contrived scenario, you have to include the notion that there weren't just constraints, but razor-tight ones. An already unrealistic scenario becomes even moreso.

Besides, as already pointed out, this isn't an issue if inclusion but exclusion.

 

[atavax]

If there's one thing I know about internet nerds, it's that we are full-assed. >.>

More to the point, even some of Nintendo's apologists admit that the reason they got jumped on had more to do with how they phrased the removal. And the real pouncing didn't happen until they further ut their foot in their mouths with this "social commentary" crap. Poorly worded or not, these are what really sparked the "pouncing."

Maybe Nintendo should just stop saying stupid things. I'm curious, though,. Did you defend the Xbone when Microsoft reps were saying stupid things, too?

Or maybe if consumers want companies to speak to candidly consumers can't immediately interpret what they say in the worst way possible. Like when someone says they aren't trying to make social commentary interpreting it as them saying that the inclusion of same sex marriages can only be done through social commentary.

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

 

[Pogilrup]

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

Except it falls flat in this case. There's a negligible issue in including gay characters cost-wise, because gay models look just like straight models. So on top of the already heavily-contrived scenario, you have to include the notion that there weren't just constraints, but razor-tight ones. An already unrealistic scenario becomes even moreso.

Besides, as already pointed out, this isn't an issue if inclusion but exclusion.

Ok perhaps that scenario isn't a good example, but I really want to talk about opportunity costs in creative decisions.

Opportunity costs is the cost of not receiving the benefits of the next best thing you that could've done. Basic economics concept.

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

A hefty opportunity cost in total.

 

[HalfTangible]

Well if the plan was to include one and only one preset player character, there will be opportunity costs in fleshing out that character.

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

If there's only one preset character, then it's deliberately being exclusive. It is the exact OPPOSITE of 'inclusivity is a zero-sum game' because there's no inclusivity in the first place.

And it's a moot point in this case, since we're talking about a game where the whole point is to custom-build your own character from scratch.

Oh, it's not increasing. It's always been there and in pretty much the same fashion. At least, in this culture. That's like arguing "kids these days." And it probably extends further. People tend to be more comfortable with and able to process binary choices. Coke or Pepsi. Sox or Yanks. Democrat or Republican. Gay or Straight. Black or White.

Stop crushing what little hope for humanity I have left, please =(

 

[CloudAtlas]

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

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

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

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

My God, are you in deep shit now. Prepare yourself for the attack that will ensue, because the things you feel (that you cannot change) are not allowed.

Whatever attack may ensue will be for other reasons (like the gay-murderer-analogy).

If you state openly that the idea of two men kissing, or, if I may be so frank, fucking each other in the ass, makes you feel icky, but are firmly against discrimination regardless because you think whatever minor personal discomfort you may sometimes face does not justify actually making the life of homosexuals significantly worse, I doubt you will get attacked a lot. On the contrary, you will see some gays applauding you. And rightly so, for admitting to know your own feelings are wrong, that takes some courage too, and supporting something that you believe is right even though it affects you personally negatively (or so you think), that's rather noble I'd say.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Those who want to see more preset prechosen female characters or non-straight player characters are unfortunately asking developers to incur the opportunity cost of creating a male and/or straight player character.

Somehow parts of the audience just wouldn't accept the opportunity cost.

Except it falls flat in this case. There's a negligible issue in including gay characters cost-wise, because gay models look just like straight models. So on top of the already heavily-contrived scenario, you have to include the notion that there weren't just constraints, but razor-tight ones. An already unrealistic scenario becomes even moreso.

Besides, as already pointed out, this isn't an issue if inclusion but exclusion.

Ok perhaps that scenario isn't a good example, but I really want to talk about opportunity costs in creative decisions.

Opportunity costs is the cost of not receiving the benefits of the next best thing you that could've done. Basic economics concept.

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

A hefty opportunity cost in total.

It is definitely hard to imagine that a significant number of potential male buyers would have been put off by making just one out of three main characters in GTA V a woman. But many female (and male) potential buyers would have very much welcomed it. Wether that female character would have been any good... well, given GTA's general attitudes towards women, that might have been a different question.

 

[Demonchaser27]

Thank you so much for this video. I'm so sick and tired of people believing that "no matter what" you should stick to an idea. This is probably one of the biggest problems in our society, not just gaming. Politicians and businesses here just constantly do whatever they want, without any consideration to analyze themselves or apologize. At best you get them saying, "oh no don't get us wrong we were heading this direction anyway" after finally backpedaling from some horrendously anti-humane or anti-consumer practice. At worst you get EA or most big banks, who absolutely refuse to budge and instead just slightly change their business model to screw you in a different way. You know, the predatory methods.

And even worse, yes the people who literally look down on a company for admitting they were wrong. Don't get me wrong, Microsoft did change, while having a shitty attitude about it, but they did change they're system to be more pro-consumer. But the people, oh my god, they people who literally believed Microsoft in saying, that they couldn't implement several features if they went back to the old system. *Sigh* There was nothing that they did with Always Online that they couldn't still do without it. You would just, you know, turn on the online when you do it, ta da, and then turn it off when not using it anymore. Microsoft just said all that to have a weapon to try and get people to buy back into their crap DRM.

Thank god for you, Jim.

 

[Demonchaser27]

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

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

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

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

I'll be honest with you. I have a friend who plays Fable games. It bothers him to no end that he cannot kill kids in the game. He's no serial killer or anything. But he has a point. The game is about doing what you want. Being as good or as evil as you want. I mean you can basically become like a demon/devil in the game. And you can go on murdering sprees. So his point is not that he just randomly wants to kill children, but because by all logical means, if you are going to play a totally evil character, why would you magically exclude kids?

That being said it never bothered me, except one time in Assassin's Creed III. The Assassin's Creed series normally has some kind of annoying character who you either distract with money, push them away or kill them. Well in Assassin's Creed 3, knowing that they could get away with saying "We can't just allow kids to be killable," made it so that the annoying "gets in your way all the time" NPC's were always kids. That meant you couldn't push them, kill them or anything. You always had to stop the game to get out money and waste money to get them to go away. Again, I don't want to kill kids in a game, but that's just trolly of Ubisoft to make them kids knowing that that lessens options for the player against that particular obstacle.

 

[Abnaxis]

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

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

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

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

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

I don't understand this. The dialogue for the romance options in DAII is pretty much exactly the same, regardless of your gender. And yet, the homosexual options are more shallow? Does not compute, dude.

Captcha: "Like the dickens". Not me, personally, but everyone should be allowed to, whether in real life or in a video game.

As I said, both are mutually shallow. I mean, the fact that the dialog is exactly the same either way shows just how shallow it is to begin with. Whether you're in a homosexual relationship or a heterosexual relationship should actually make a difference if the game is interested in delivering a compelling romance narrative, but romances in DAII amount to "do the quest so we can bang before the final boss."

My point isn't that the gay option is more shallow, but that the shallowness is exacerbated by the fact that it was tacked on with a minimum amount of token effort, by people who don't have any artistic desire to add a homosexual option but included it because the corporate guys don't want a PR headache. It's transparently only paying lip service to the whole "inclusiveness" issue, which rubs people the wrong way. Angry fans then direct their ire at the people the marketing executives are trying to placate, and flames ensue.