GLAAD is bullying Nintendo

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by HipHopBeats (2855 posts) -

This is ridiculous. Why should Nintendo apologize for making a game they want to make? Talk about self entitlement. GLAAD is the new PETA.

#2 Edited by Lucky_Krystal (1730 posts) -

Well....if you ask me, I'd hardly call that "bullying" nor would I ever put GLAAD on the level of PETA. PETA is terrible.

#3 Edited by HipHopBeats (2855 posts) -

@Lucky_Krystal said:

Well....if you ask me, I'd hardly call that "bullying" nor would I ever put GLAAD on the level of PETA. PETA is terrible.

And so is GLAAD. They seem to whine about everything. It's getting to the point every time a dev allows romance options and doesn't include same sex romance, the dev is sending a "hurtful message".

Devs should just be able to create what they want. Not issue statements and messages explaining why they didn't cater to a specific group of people.

#4 Edited by Pffrbt (6367 posts) -

And so is GLAAD. They seem to whine about everything. It's getting to the point every time a dev allows romance options and doesn't include same sex romance, the dev is sending a "hurtful message".

Making a game about building relationships involving a player made avatar and not putting in some basic orientation options to reflect the lives of your potential audience either because you deliberately wanted to exclude them or because you forget they exist is somewhat of a "hurtful message". I can not understand why people like you are getting upset over the fact that people want some equal representation in a game where it would be entirely appropriate and at the expense of nobody.

#5 Edited by 187umKILLAH (1337 posts) -

I am so sick of buying a game and not having any option that represents me and my lifestyle, I mean come on is it really that hard to make a game that caters to all of us morbidly obese, half black, half jewish, down syndrome, cross dressing, nudist, atheist dwarves who are into B&D? Why am I being excluded? Guess I'll just have to accept that game developers can create there own game without having to bow to the pressure of every moaning, self righteous, attention seeking crybaby who thinks the world owes them a favour.

:P

#6 Edited by platinumking320 (644 posts) -

I looked too quick. Almost thought it said GLAAD was BUYING Nintendo.

LOL! My Bad.

#7 Posted by foxhound_fox (86990 posts) -

Well....if you ask me, I'd hardly call that "bullying" nor would I ever put GLAAD on the level of PETA. PETA is terrible.

PETA employs and harbours terrorists.

#8 Posted by Pedro (20994 posts) -

This thing is being blown out of proportion. How many people truly care?

#9 Edited by HipHopBeats (2855 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

@HipHopBeats said:

And so is GLAAD. They seem to whine about everything. It's getting to the point every time a dev allows romance options and doesn't include same sex romance, the dev is sending a "hurtful message".

Making a game about building relationships involving a player made avatar and not putting in some basic orientation options to reflect the lives of your potential audience either because you deliberately wanted to exclude them or because you forget they exist is somewhat of a "hurtful message". I can not understand why people like you are getting upset over the fact that people want some equal representation in a game where it would be entirely appropriate and at the expense of nobody.

It's at the expense of devs not being able to make the game they want to make without having to respond to a bunch of annoying brats feeling left out. Not everything has to cater to or include every group of people. It's selfish to feel shunned because you weren't included in everything or everyone is not kissing your ass the way you want them too.

Did you even read the article? It would be cool if what you said was true. But it's not. It's a bunch of whiny, crybabies feeling the need to be included in everything. And overly compassionate people like you are the wind beneath their self entitled wings.

"Cruz pointed out that The Sims, one of the first mainstream games to allow same-sex relationships, was released over a decade ago. Many major game franchises have followed suit in supporting same-sex relationships, including Mass Effect, Dragon Age and Fable. "Nintendo should do the same," Cruz said."

That sounds a lot like self entitlement to me. Bioware caters to the gay community so Nintendo should too. Lmao! Billy's school offers vegetarian dishes for lunch. Our school should too.

There are no jamaican protagonists in Uncharted. Naughty Dog must have forgotten jamaicans exist. There are no obese female fighters in Dead Or Alive. DOA devs must have forgotton obese women exist. COD Ghosts has no rottweilers or pit bulls, just a german shepard. COD must have forgotten other breeds of dogs exist. My point is where does 'equal representation' start and end?

There is no way to represent everyone in everything. There will always be someone who feels they were misrepresented or not represented at all. You can't please all of the people all of the time. Nor should you try to.

So from here on out, every single game with romance options that doesn't include alternative lifestyles is sending out a 'hurtful message'? How did they deliberately exclude gay people? How did they forget gay people exist?

#10 Edited by HipHopBeats (2855 posts) -

I looked too quick. Almost thought it said GLAAD was BUYING Nintendo.

LOL! My Bad.

Lol, GLAAD may be buying Bioware pretty soon with all their liberalism announcements about every game they're working on. "Look, we've included a non gender protagonist on the Dragon Age Inquisition box art!"

#11 Posted by Lucky_Krystal (1730 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

Making a game about building relationships involving a player made avatar and not putting in some basic orientation options to reflect the lives of your potential audience either because you deliberately wanted to exclude them or because you forget they exist is somewhat of a "hurtful message". I can not understand why people like you are getting upset over the fact that people want some equal representation in a game where it would be entirely appropriate and at the expense of nobody.

It's at the expense of devs not being able to make the game they want to make without having to respond to a bunch of annoying brats feeling left out. Not everything has to cater to or include every group of people. It's selfish to feel shunned because you weren't included in everything or everyone is not kissing your ass the way you want them too.

Did you even read the article? It would be cool if what you said was true. But it's not. It's a bunch of whiny, crybabies feeling the need to be included in everything. And overly compassionate people like you are the wind beneath their self entitled wings.

"Cruz pointed out that The Sims, one of the first mainstream games to allow same-sex relationships, was released over a decade ago. Many major game franchises have followed suit in supporting same-sex relationships, including Mass Effect, Dragon Age and Fable. "Nintendo should do the same," Cruz said."

That sounds a lot like self entitlement to me. Bioware caters to the gay community so Nintendo should too. Lmao! Billy's school offers vegetarian dishes for lunch. Our school should too.

There are no jamaican protagonists in Uncharted. Naughty Dog must have forgotten jamaicans exist. There are no obese female fighters in Dead Or Alive. DOA devs must have forgotton obese women exist. COD Ghosts has no rottweilers or pit bulls, just a german shepard. COD must have forgotten other breeds of dogs exist. My point is where does 'equal representation' start and end?

There is no way to represent everyone in everything. There will always be someone who feels they were misrepresented or not represented at all. You can't please all of the people all of the time. Nor should you try to.

So from here on out, every single game with romance options that doesn't include alternative lifestyles is sending out a 'hurtful message'? How did they deliberately exclude gay people? How did they forget gay people exist?

The only crybaby I see here is you.

I'm confused as to why people like you get so offended over people who are continuously erased and ignored asking for a little representation. I'm confused as to why you're so angry and offended then want to harp on others for apparently being so "oversensitive" and "easily offended." Like...are you even going to play this game? What's got your panties in a knot?

#12 Posted by Pffrbt (6367 posts) -

@HipHopBeats: "It's at the expense of devs not being able to make the game they want to make"
Not really since the only thing they'd have to do differently is add in the option for same sex relationships. Unless the game they wanted to make is one that deliberately excludes a group of people for no real reason, which is pretty shitty in of itself and sends a hurtful message to their fans.

Obviously not every spectrum of person on the planet can possibly be represented, so don't even try pulling that slippery slope bullshit (which, by the way, is the same kind of shitty logic people use to try to keep interracial couples from marrying along with homosexual) but having the basic representation of race, orientation, and gender is perfectly reasonable and there's no reason why any of these should be excluded.

"Not everything has to cater to or include every group of people."
Not everything does, but when there's no reason not to then why not.

"It's selfish to feel shunned because you weren't included in everything or everyone is not kissing your ass the way you want them too."
In other words you're offended at the idea of anyone who isn't straight getting some representation in a game.

"But it's not. It's a bunch of whiny, crybabies feeling the need to be included in everything."
Considering how incredibly hateful and bitchy you're getting over other people wanting some representation in a game at the expense of no one else, I don't think you really have any room to be pointing fingers at others and calling them whiny self entitled crybabies.

"That sounds a lot like self entitlement to me."
Sounds like wanting more inclusive relationship options in a game and overall wanting more in-touch developers.

"Bioware caters to the gay community so Nintendo should too. Lmao! Billy's school offers vegetarian dishes for lunch. Our school should too."
Sure, why not. I don't see the harm in either case.

"There are no jamaican protagonists in Uncharted. Naughty Dog must have forgotten jamaicans exist."
This is about player made virtual avatars, not developer made pre-determined characters created specifically to fill a specific role. This little strawman meltdown doesn't work.

"My point is where does 'equal representation' start and end"
At player made avatars that are meant to represent the player, and at romantic sections of games where the player is being asked to be an active participant.

"There is no way to represent everyone in everything."
And no one is asking for that.

"So from here on out, every single game with romance options that doesn't include alternative lifestyles is sending out a 'hurtful message'?"
Yes, kind of. If you're asking the player to be an active participant in romantic sections of games, consideration should be given to the fact that not everyone is straight. Not giving that consideration needlessly alienates and excludes part of your audience.

"How did they deliberately exclude gay people?"
By deliberately making the decision to exclude same sex relationships.

"How did they forget gay people exist?"
Because if the decision to exclude same sex relationships wasn't deliberate, then it was thoughtlessness.

#13 Posted by HipHopBeats (2855 posts) -

@HipHopBeats said:

@Pffrbt said:

Making a game about building relationships involving a player made avatar and not putting in some basic orientation options to reflect the lives of your potential audience either because you deliberately wanted to exclude them or because you forget they exist is somewhat of a "hurtful message". I can not understand why people like you are getting upset over the fact that people want some equal representation in a game where it would be entirely appropriate and at the expense of nobody.

It's at the expense of devs not being able to make the game they want to make without having to respond to a bunch of annoying brats feeling left out. Not everything has to cater to or include every group of people. It's selfish to feel shunned because you weren't included in everything or everyone is not kissing your ass the way you want them too.

Did you even read the article? It would be cool if what you said was true. But it's not. It's a bunch of whiny, crybabies feeling the need to be included in everything. And overly compassionate people like you are the wind beneath their self entitled wings.

"Cruz pointed out that The Sims, one of the first mainstream games to allow same-sex relationships, was released over a decade ago. Many major game franchises have followed suit in supporting same-sex relationships, including Mass Effect, Dragon Age and Fable. "Nintendo should do the same," Cruz said."

That sounds a lot like self entitlement to me. Bioware caters to the gay community so Nintendo should too. Lmao! Billy's school offers vegetarian dishes for lunch. Our school should too.

There are no jamaican protagonists in Uncharted. Naughty Dog must have forgotten jamaicans exist. There are no obese female fighters in Dead Or Alive. DOA devs must have forgotton obese women exist. COD Ghosts has no rottweilers or pit bulls, just a german shepard. COD must have forgotten other breeds of dogs exist. My point is where does 'equal representation' start and end?

There is no way to represent everyone in everything. There will always be someone who feels they were misrepresented or not represented at all. You can't please all of the people all of the time. Nor should you try to.

So from here on out, every single game with romance options that doesn't include alternative lifestyles is sending out a 'hurtful message'? How did they deliberately exclude gay people? How did they forget gay people exist?

The only crybaby I see here is you.

I'm confused as to why people like you get so offended over people who are continuously erased and ignored asking for a little representation. I'm confused as to why you're so angry and offended then want to harp on others for apparently being so "oversensitive" and "easily offended." Like...are you even going to play this game? What's got your panties in a knot?

Who said anything about me being angry or offended? In truth, I find it quite comical to see yet another article about GLAAD in another uproar over another gaming injustice committed against them through lack of homosexual romance options. It's also cool to see supporters like you fighting for justice and taking one for the team. Fear not. You'll always be a Power Ranger no matter what!

#14 Posted by Pffrbt (6367 posts) -

Who said anything about me being angry or offended?

It's pretty clear that this has you upset.

#15 Edited by HipHopBeats (2855 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

@HipHopBeats said:

Who said anything about me being angry or offended?

It's pretty clear that this has you upset.

Lol, if that makes you feel validated, cool. Last I checked, this was a gaming forum and I'm talking about a gaming article I read on this site. Seems like you're the one catching feelings calling me hateful and bitchy. I'm merely stating my opinion on an ongoing topic in the gaming industry.

@Pffrbt said:

@HipHopBeats: "It's at the expense of devs not being able to make the game they want to make"

Not really since the only thing they'd have to do differently is add in the option for same sex relationships. Unless the game they wanted to make is one that deliberately excludes a group of people for no real reason, which is pretty shitty in of itself and sends a hurtful message to their fans.

Obviously not every spectrum of person on the planet can possibly be represented, so don't even try pulling that slippery slope bullshit (which, by the way, is the same kind of shitty logic people use to try to keep interracial couples from marrying along with homosexual) but having the basic representation of race, orientation, and gender is perfectly reasonable and there's no reason why any of these should be excluded.

What if the game Nintendo wanted to make is the game that we are seeing? You have a hipster way of thinking, claiming Nintendo deliberately excluded gay people. Guess what? Nintendo doesn't need to explain themselves or why they made a game how THEY wanted to make it.

You're talking self entitlement bullshit and selfish logic, lol! It's like teaching your kids to have good self esteem without raising them to be self entitled jerks. That's exactly the kind of statement Cruz made. Some self entitled bullshit, lol.

And what does interracial couples has to do with this? If a girl is cool, I don't give a shit what color she is. As far as gay marriages go, you're right, I do not agree with homosexuality so I guess that makes me a shitty person, lol.

At the same time, I feel if a gay couple wants to exchange vows, they should have the right to do so and that's their business. None of that shit has anything to do with what this thread is about, lol!

"Not everything has to cater to or include every group of people."

Not everything does, but when there's no reason not to then why not.

Maybe because Nintendo was just thinking of making a game they wanted to make.

"It's selfish to feel shunned because you weren't included in everything or everyone is not kissing your ass the way you want them too."

In other words you're offended at the idea of anyone who isn't straight getting some representation in a game.

"But it's not. It's a bunch of whiny, crybabies feeling the need to be included in everything."

Considering how incredibly hateful and bitchy you're getting over other people wanting some representation in a game at the expense of no one else, I don't think you really have any room to be pointing fingers at others and calling them whiny self entitled crybabies.

The more you try to disprove what I say, the more you prove my point. Nintendo issued an unnecessary apology when they should have ignored GLAAD altogether.

I don't hate gay people. I simply have no sympathy for crybabies, regardless of sexuality, who feel the world should revolve around and cater to their every whim. If things don't go your way, guess what? You man up and get over it. Or in this case, simply don't buy or support the game.

Even if it's an unpopular opinion, it doesn't mean I'm hateful, it's just my opinion.

"That sounds a lot like self entitlement to me."

Sounds like wanting more inclusive relationship options in a game and overall wanting more in-touch developers.

Lol! How so? By stating Bioware kisses the gay community's ass so Nintendo should too? What if a dev is simply making the game they want to create?

"Bioware caters to the gay community so Nintendo should too. Lmao! Billy's school offers vegetarian dishes for lunch. Our school should too."

Sure, why not. I don't see the harm in either case.

In that case, the complaining student should simply enroll in Billy's school and not expect the world to specifically cater to their vegetarian choices.

"There are no jamaican protagonists in Uncharted. Naughty Dog must have forgotten jamaicans exist."

This is about player made virtual avatars, not developer made pre-determined characters created specifically to fill a specific role. This little strawman meltdown doesn't work.

But Cruz statements wasn't a strawman meltdown? Bioware does it so Nintendo should too? Lol, overlook the pink elephant in the room if you want. But if you can't see the self entitlement in that statement, you're one of those new age hipsters who sides with whatever is the coolest or most popular belief at any given moment.

"My point is where does 'equal representation' start and end"

At player made avatars that are meant to represent the player, and at romantic sections of games where the player is being asked to be an active participant.

How about people simply 'get over it', stop harassing devs or simply not buy the game period? Speak with your wallet. Not with liberal rants. Who are you to tell me how to make my game?

"There is no way to represent everyone in everything."

And no one is asking for that.

Again, did you even read the article? Then again, you may be right. GLAAD is not asking to represent everyone in game. Just make sure you represent THEM in any game with romance options. Again, self entitlement.

"So from here on out, every single game with romance options that doesn't include alternative lifestyles is sending out a 'hurtful message'?"

Yes, kind of. If you're asking the player to be an active participant in romantic sections of games, consideration should be given to the fact that not everyone is straight. Not giving that consideration needlessly alienates and excludes part of your audience.

Lol! That is a well written hipster response right. The type of shit that might get you some extra votes if you were campaigning. Consideration should also be given to the fact that not everyone has to actually play the game period and simply ignore the game instead of demanding a game represent their group of people.

If devs were to go by your hipster logic, then every non caucasian gamer should feel alienated and excluded from every game they everplayed that didn't include at least one main character from their ethnicity. You are the one with strawman logic.

"How did they deliberately exclude gay people?"

By deliberately making the decision to exclude same sex relationships.

Once again this is another hipster response. Maybe Nintendo just wanted to make a game they thought would be cool, period. Again, not every game should be forced to include or represent every group of people. That's like saying every game with a white protagonist made a decision to ignore every other ethnicity on the planet.

"How did they forget gay people exist?"

Because if the decision to exclude same sex relationships wasn't deliberate, then it was thoughtlessness.

Or maybe Nintendo just wanted to make a game they thought would be cool period.

#16 Edited by Pffrbt (6367 posts) -

@HipHopBeats: "I do not agree with homosexuality so I guess that makes me a shitty person"

This tells me exactly the kind of person I'm talking to and the reason why this topic exists. The only reason you're upset is because you hate the idea of homosexuals getting equal representation in a game. Nothing more needs to be said.

#17 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18096 posts) -

"You will be baked, and then there will be cake"

#18 Posted by Archangel3371 (15183 posts) -

No they aren't "bullying" Nintendo, they're criticising the lack of an element in a game and judging from the type of game it is this seems like a fair criticism. Even if you were interested in this game this criticism would in no way affect you so why this would bother you bewilders me.

#19 Posted by Garfield360UK (19500 posts) -

OK, this topic is going nowhere. TC, if you are not going to discuss or allow other views, don't create a thread in the future. However, if you wish to discuss this in an adult manor (i.e. to debate and discuss, not to call people names or try and mock them for disagreeing with you, that is not how we work here) then you may make topics and enjoy debate and discussion next time.

Thank you.