Jimquisition: Tomodachi Strife

[tstorm823]

Why include heterosexual romance in the first place then? You have to proviide a rationale for why one exists, but not the other. I can easily say "its not a real world simulation, so there's no romantic situations in the game" by that litmus.

Because they thought miis having babies would be funny.

So why didn't they provide and explanation then? Because that "social commentary" comment was the explanation. Nintendo's actual apology gives a reason for not including it, as well as an actual apology.

That wasn't so difficult for them to admit, seeing as it came in just two days, so why couldn't they do that in the first place, when they only had Miiquality as a small movement with nobody really pressuring them? Because that wasn't their intention with the original statement.

Exactly the last sentence here. That wasn't their intention in the first place. They weren't trying to explain why they excluded gay relationships. All they were saying was that they didn't mean to cause any harm. They even phrased it that way, talking about what they meant and intended. They didn't even deny they'd done wrong, they just said they didn't mean to.

So, the way I see it, they made a statement saying they meant no harm, they weren't trying to make political statements on homosexuality, and they'll take the feedback into consideration. Then people got more upset, so they apologized, explained why they couldn't fixed it, and promised better in the future.

The way you see it, they made a statement saying they couldn't include gay marriage because of the social implications, then threw in a line about hearing the feedback for the hell of it. Then, when people got upset, they apologized and gave a second, totally different reason for not having gay relationships, making it so that one of their reasons has to be a lie. Then they promised to improve in the future and totally ignore the social commentary problem.

Which of these scenarios makes sense?

Thats what their actual apology says. I cannot see where you're deciphering this "apology" to non-heterosexual people in the "social commentary" statement they made except for the "relationship" sentence they had, and even that was rather offensive.

It wasn't an apology. It was a statement clarifying their intent. Saying "we didn't mean harm" isn't an apology. That is true.

 

[xaszatm]

It is the same game. They just decided to port it over here. As for why they didn't do that earlier, that's because Nintendo considered it "Too Japanese" and didn't think the game would click with outside audiences. So they left it in Japan until sometime this year.

OK, so, the game is being release to countries outside Japan completely unmodified? It's exactly the same code as the Japanese version?

Yes. Aside from a few translation adjustments and minor code enhancements like different mini games the game is basically the same.

So, in other words, it's not the same?

Also, if it's so minor, then why did it take so long to release, and why are so many people on this thread making a big deal about how difficult it is to change games?

Because it WASN'T in development until around 4 months ago, where it was almost literately thrown onto Treehouse's lap in addition to the other stuff they were working on. Stop assuming that this was always intended for a worldwide release, it wasn't. As to why people are making a big deal about it? Probably because they need another excuse to yell at this game? I don't know.

 

[tstorm823]

And who are you, Nintendo's translator/telepath? Tell me again, if that is what Nintendo meant to say, then why didn't they say that, rather than these other words which they actually said?

Because those other words mean the same thing unless you play the "how can I be offended by this" game.

"It's not real life, it's just whimsical nonsense" somehow got translated to "oh, so gay marriage can't be whimsical?" That is not at all implied unless you are trying to be offended.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

This isn't a game where you have control or agency, it's a series of gags and sitcom-esque sequences with voiced script.

So, why is it marketed as being about "your life as a Mii" or whatever?

If that's the case, then shouldn't the outrage be over Nintendo's false advertising? I even watched their long promotional video in full, and still came away with the impression that it was more like The Sims.

You'd need to change the ai, get people to write the new dialogues, voice the new dialogues and then find a way to implement all that into the existing build without breaking the game as well as pissing off as few people as possible, since this is a company and the bottom line is more important than any social issue, after all.

If the bottom line mattered, they'd do exactly that, and pull out all the stops to re-develop this for a Western audience. The costs of development would pale in comparison to the potential income. By simply making minimal changes to a Japanese game, they aren;t going to get nearly the amount of sales they would from a proper effort.

"Changing code isn't as easy as flipping a switch. People should probably be happy that Nintendo responded to its gaffe as generously as it did, while also keeping their hearts close and recognize that even a company that makes whacky fun-loving games is still a company. You should treat them as a company, not your pal, and the disappointment that you levy at them (which is genuine and reasonable) should be in that context."

Did you write this? That paragraph is in quotation marks, so I'm not sure if it is from some other (unreferenced) source.

Anyway, being "happy" that Nintendo responded "generously"? What kind of nonsense is this? That paragraph sounds like it was written by a victim of Stockholm syndrome. Oh, and changing code, at its most fundamental level, is just flipping switches, seeing as computers work in binary.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

And who are you, Nintendo's translator/telepath? Tell me again, if that is what Nintendo meant to say, then why didn't they say that, rather than these other words which they actually said?

Because those other words mean the same thing unless you play the "how can I be offended by this" game.

No, they absolutely do not. How do you extrapolate their opinion on gay people from "we were not trying to make social commentary"?

That is entirely your subjective translation. It is in no way clear what that statement was meant to refer to. You're the one projecting things onto their statement. We can only take the statement as written. Which was clumsy and unclear.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Because it WASN'T in development until around 4 months ago, where it was almost literately thrown onto Treehouse's lap in addition to the other stuff they were working on. Stop assuming that this was always intended for a worldwide release, it wasn't. As to why people are making a big deal about it? Probably because they need another excuse to yell at this game? I don't know.

So, it has been in development more recently than a year ago? I'm glad we cleared that up.

Why are people making a big deal? Did you not watch Jim's video? It may have something to do with the company making a really stupid and ill-advised statement about "social commentary." If Nintendo had not made such a stupid statement, it probably wouldn't be getting any coverage. But they did, and here we are.

And again, the game being "thrown onto Treehouse's lap" at the last minute does not scream "professional software development strategies," it really says "rushed incompetence."

 

[xaszatm]

Because it WASN'T in development until around 4 months ago, where it was almost literately thrown onto Treehouse's lap in addition to the other stuff they were working on. Stop assuming that this was always intended for a worldwide release, it wasn't. As to why people are making a big deal about it? Probably because they need another excuse to yell at this game? I don't know.

So, it has been in development more recently than a year ago? I'm glad we cleared that up.

Why are people making a big deal? Did you not watch Jim's video? It may have something to do with the company making a really stupid and ill-advised statement about "social commentary." If Nintendo had not made such a stupid statement, it probably wouldn't be getting any coverage. But they did, and here we are.

And again, the game being "thrown onto Treehouse's lap" at the last minute does not scream "professional software development strategies," it really says "rushed incompetence."

I wasn't talking about the other complaints. I was specifically referring to the people complaining about how difficult it was to change the game. Don't ask a specific question then take the answer to mean a general response.

EDIT: And the reason why they threw it at Treehouse's lap? I don't really know, but I do think it might have to do with Nintendo attempting to fill in a gap for next month. Remember that they were in panic mode in January. Quick decisions were made, such as Iwata cutting his salary. This just happened to be one of the decisions that wasn't smart. So yeah, this wasn't a strategy, but stop screaming "incompetence."

 

[Cybylt]

[snip

I can't say for the advertising, but the gameplay I described is how it was explained to me from people who have actually played it.

Games with a more foreign flavor have been taking off recently, so the minimal changes won't scare away too many people and like it or not, Nintendo's still mostly seen as a company that makes games for kids (especially by conservative parents), they'd be taking far greater risk on top of putting in months of additional development time with extensive changes like this. It's simply not worth the investment at this point. Any additional purchases they take in from the inclusion will be drowned out by the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars spent putting in the options.

As a company it is in their best interest to always err on the side of caution which is why it wasn't included in the first place and why they said they didn't mean to take a stance.

I did not write that and I think you might be taking it the wrong way so here's the full thing. And it was unnecessary to be so hyperbolic in your response.

Well it's always weird, because people have such passionate connections to video games that I think they sometimes let themselves forget that businesses are businesses, and they're playing the numbers game like anyone else. Nintendo will put out whatever socially acceptable or unacceptable content gets them the most sales. They'll change when it feels like putting in gay marriage will be worth more money. It sucks that art gets run by a business, but video games are so large and so expensive that they're probably more vulnerable to this than anything else, even movies.

I can totally understand the reaction to Tomodachi Life, even more than Animal Crossing, because you are playing as literal a representation of you in Tomodachi Life as you can pretty much get in a video game. So it's probably a huge bummer when a game not only doesn't let you get married to someone of your preferred gender, but effectively pairs you off as a straight couple without asking you. It's probably a huge bummer to hear "you're going to get married to a woman" when you're a gay man playing a game that has a cartoon version of yourself in it. That's a little different than even Bioware games not having same-sex relationships. More on that here: http://gamasutra.com/blogs/ChristianNutt/20140508/217351/Understanding_Nintendos_Tomodachi_Life_problem.php

Really they were never going to change this stuff, even if there weren't a bunch of cartridges already printed and sitting on a shelf. Changing code isn't as easy as flipping a switch. People should probably be happy that Nintendo responded to its gaffe as generously as it did, while also keeping their hearts close and recognize that even a company that makes whacky fun-loving games is still a company. You should treat them as a company, not your pal, and the disappointment that you levy at them (which is genuine and reasonable) should be in that context.

What they mean was that that in the context of Nintendo being a company, not your friend, that them admitting they did something wrong at all and considering to make change in the future is literally the most you can hope for right now. That isn't to say to be too grateful for it either because again, it's a company, they're not your friend.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

EDIT: And the reason why they threw it at Treehouse's lap? I don't really know, but I do think it might have to do with Nintendo attempting to fill in a gap for next month. Remember that they were in panic mode in January. Quick decisions were made, such as Iwata cutting his salary. This just happened to be one of the decisions that wasn't smart. So yeah, this wasn't a strategy, but stop screaming "incompetence."

How is that not incompetence? They go into panic mode, and hastily make rash decisions? Yeah - that seems exactly like incompetence to me.

At this point, it's kind of hard to find any evidence of Nintendo's competence at all.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I'm not arguing with the people on Tumblr. I'm presenting Tumblr's SJW viewpoint as a devil's advocate for YOU to argue against.

So, it's a straw man. Why is it our job to argue against those arguments, when they have nothing to do with what's being discussed here?

Even if it was about arguing against Tumblr's arguments, then shouldn't you at least link to the actual arguments they are making? You claim that Tumblr is arguing that this game should include toaster marriage, but you provide no link to this argument.

If you don't have a rebuttal to my arguments, that's fine. There's no shame in being wrong.

Wait, I thought they were Tumblr's arguments?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Any additional purchases they take in from the inclusion will be drowned out by the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars spent putting in the options.

If it's costing them millions to make such changes, then they're doing it wrong.

As a company it is in their best interest to always err on the side of caution which is why it wasn't included in the first place and why they said they didn't mean to take a stance.

That's just one way of doing it.

Many companies have made it big by taking risks. Playing safe is not always in the best interest of a company. Particularly in a business as dynamic as gaming and digital entertainment. Nintendo itself would never have been so big without taking risks.

Nintendo took a big risk in betting on video games over its more traditional products. Nintendo took a big risk on the Wii's motion controls, and it paid off in a big way. To say that erring on the side of caution is the proper approach in this industry does not seem to be supported by the evidence.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

So, it's a straw man.

That's not what a straw man is.

Actually, it is.

It's not your job to do anything. Nobody is paying you to try and refute the arguments that I present, are they? You tried to do that of your own free will.

No, I never tried to refute your arguments. I pointed out that you were posting some kind of re-interpretation of something some people supposedly said on Tumblr.

Your "arguments" such that they are, barely qualify as arguments, and are certainly not worth the effort of refuting. I'm saying that if you are so obsessed with what people are saying on Tumblr, then maybe you should take it up with them.

You thought wrong. I never said that.

You did, repeatedly. In almost all of your posts in this thread, you say that people on Tumblr are arguing that (insert object here) should be granted inclusion and equal rights alongside gays.

 

[Cybylt]

Nintendo took a big risk in betting on video games over its more traditional products. Nintendo took a big risk on the Wii's motion controls, and it paid off in a big way. To say that erring on the side of caution is the proper approach in this industry does not seem to be supported by the evidence.

But those are an entirely different form of risk. A political risk, particularly one that is counter to the company's image at large, is a longer shot and far deadlier than any mechanical one can ever be.

As the article says, in a cynical sense they traded off a big headache for a small one by doing this. The result of their response in this case is that a subsection of game journalism gets upset about it and they apologize. If they went the other way there's a chance it would have found its way to main stream news for the company attempting to undercut "Traditional Values" and corrupt the youths or some such bullshit.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

But those are an entirely different form of risk. A political risk, particularly one that is counter to the company's image at large, is a longer shot and far deadlier than any mechanical one can ever be.

So, why did they take that risk? You say they're "playing it safe" - but to exclude gay people in 2014 is a much bigger political risk than to include them.

Especially for Nintendo. Are they not aware of how many gay people are huge Nintendo fans, and even cisplay as Nintendo characters?

As the article says, in a cynical sense they traded off a big headache for a small one by doing this. The result of their response in this case is that a subsection of game journalism gets upset about it and they apologize. If they went the other way there's a chance it would have found its way to main stream news for the company attempting to undercut "Traditional Values" and corrupt the youths or some such bullshit.

It never would have found its way to mainstream news for including gay relationships. And very few people in the game-buying market care about what those news outlets think. The people who would react hysterically to this probably aren't buying video games in the first place.

 

[xaszatm]

EDIT: And the reason why they threw it at Treehouse's lap? I don't really know, but I do think it might have to do with Nintendo attempting to fill in a gap for next month. Remember that they were in panic mode in January. Quick decisions were made, such as Iwata cutting his salary. This just happened to be one of the decisions that wasn't smart. So yeah, this wasn't a strategy, but stop screaming "incompetence."

How is that not incompetence? They go into panic mode, and hastily make rash decisions? Yeah - that seems exactly like incompetence to me.

At this point, it's kind of hard to find any evidence of Nintendo's competence at all.

Because as we all know, when you are in panic mode, you make calm, rational decisions. You want competence? Pick up ANY 3DS and Wii U game. Pick up a Mario game. Obeserve the Level Design, game mechanics. They are more than competent. But I'm sure you'll find some way to complain. I mean, you're still here instead of the other Jimquisition thread that gave a much better response to this mess.

 

[Dragonbums]

So, in other words, it's not the same?

Also, if it's so minor, then why did it take so long to release, and why are so many people on this thread making a big deal about how difficult it is to change games?

Yes it is the same game.

They never intended to release this game worldwide. Like I just said they just decided to make a translation port to see if the Western audience would like it and gave it to Treehouse a few months ago to translate and release in the US. That's it.

And a professional programmer a couple of pages back already explained why implementing things like minigames is easy for this particular game and implementing gay marriage is something that would require another set of development cycles to get it right. Seeing as how this game has ZERO controlled initiative from the player outside of initial voice customization, feeding, and minigames.

 

[Cybylt]

But those are an entirely different form of risk. A political risk, particularly one that is counter to the company's image at large, is a longer shot and far deadlier than any mechanical one can ever be.

So, why did they take that risk? You say they're "playing it safe" - but to exclude gay people in 2014 is a much bigger political risk than to include them.

Especially for Nintendo. Are they not aware of how many gay people are huge Nintendo fans, and even cosplay as Nintendo characters?

As the article says, in a cynical sense they traded off a big headache for a small one by doing this. The result of their response in this case is that a subsection of game journalism gets upset about it and they apologize. If they went the other way there's a chance it would have found its way to main stream news for the company attempting to undercut "Traditional Values" and corrupt the youths or some such bullshit.

It never would have found its way to mainstream news for including gay relationships. And very few people in the game-buying market care about what those news outlets think. The people who would react hysterically to this probably aren't buying video games in the first place.

You're ignoring the company image and their main buyers as of the Wii. While many people who take gaming as a hobby lean liberal and the company has gay fans, the vast majority of the middle-aged and retirees who made up the buyer base do not and are not.

And if you think it wouldn't get a conservative news site or station's panties in a twist then you obviously haven't been paying attention to their articles and coverage of games for the past three decades.

 

[tstorm823]

No, they absolutely do not. How do you extrapolate their opinion on gay people from "we were not trying to make social commentary"?

I didn't. That statement doesn't give an opinion on gay people.

That is entirely your subjective translation. It is in no way clear what that statement was meant to refer to. You're the one projecting things onto their statement. We can only take the statement as written. Which was clumsy and unclear.

Perhaps the reason you think it's clumsy and unclear is because you're trying to make a statement saying "we weren't trying to make social commentary" into "we deliberately avoided gay marriage because we were afraid of making that commentary." I can see how what they said is a clumsy way to say what JIM thinks it says. As it is, it's a pretty efficient way to say "we weren't simulating real life or providing deliberate commentary on society."

 

[Aardvaarkman]

A strawman is an argument that is presented to be the argument of someone else, but is not really their argument, and upon attacking and defeating it, claiming that the person's argument is destroyed.

From Wikipedia:

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition

So yes, what you are trying to do is argue a straw man. You have set up a different proposition, a misrepresentation of what was originally being argued.

It'd only be a strawman if you were to A) defeat my argument, which you're clearly unable to do, and B) then claim that Tumblr's argument has been defeated.

You don't seem to understand what a straw man is.

Your straw man was unsuccessful, because everyone recognized it for what it is. It does not need to be defeated, because it already failed.

It would also need to be an actual misrepresentation of Tumblr's argument in the first place, which it has not been demonstrated to be,

You never actually cited anything from Tumblr, which only makes your arguments even more made of straw.

But I suppose you're just arguing with me about this now because you're frustrated after failing to triumph over my previous argument.

I don't give a shit about "triumphing" and what you are doing barely qualifies as argument.

No, I never tried to refute your arguments.

Whatever you say.

Apparently I did, before you devolved into constantly referring to Tumblr. What I did not do, was attempt to refute your comments about what people on Tumblr argue.

Then quote me saying that, if you can.

"The people on Tumblr would disagree that there are only two genders."

There you go.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

And if you think it wouldn't get a conservative news site or station's panties in a twist then you obviously haven't been paying attention to their articles and coverage of games for the past three decades.

There have been many video games with gay options released within the last decade that did not even get mentioned by conservative news, let alone get their panties in a twist.

For a video game to do that these days, I think you'd have to make a Muslim-based game or one that consists of punching baby Jesus in the face. Merely allowing gay options in a game doesn't even incite a shrug these days.