User Profile




Sat 31st Aug 2013

Recent Comments



jama commented on This Design For A "Game Boy Evolution" Sure Is...:

@TheRealThanos @electrolite77 How many people in the US and in Europe would approach the Game Boy from an Asian point of view? I'd say most will just use their own culturally influenced approach, not the specific Asian one you propose. You can't expect all eight or seventeen or thirty year olds to care about Japan when many of them just want to play the new Pokemon or Super Mario.

You say the 'boy' in Game Boy doesn't have to do with a gender-aspect but rather with derogatory language? Boy means 'servant'? Boys serve other boys? What image is being conveyed here? I think it's more likely that Nintendo really just (at first) didn't care much for the female audience thinking that mostly boys were interested in playing their games.

And then I suspect, to their surprise, research told them otherwise! But much cultural (gender-aspect related) damage was already done when they started to change gears!

Food for thought: Why did Nintendo name it the Nintendo DS? They could've gone for Game Boy DS. It would've been a perfectly apt name, no? Instead, they chose Nintendo DS. They didn't just choose it randomly.

I think you underestimate how much influence language has on us human beings (consciously and subconsciously). Certain words or uses of words carry certain meanings.

Sorry, this particular example relies on use of profanity, which we do not allow here at the Nlife Network — TBD

Example 2: Why do we say something is 'lame'? Why not 'bad' or any other variety? 'lame' is derogatory against certain people who have disabilities, yet we use it commonly to show that something is 'bad'. So, on a language level, when something is bad, we sometimes use 'lame' to express this. So there's this kind of association of 'lame people' and 'bad'. That is something that's culturally coined.

Example 3: In British English you usually say "the family ARE", "the team ARE", etc. emphasizing that "family", "team" etc. consists of several individuals, not just one. British English emphasizes the individuals. In US English you usually say "the family IS", "the team IS", emphasizing unity. There's a cultural and historical background to that. The UNITED States of America also was 'united' on a language level.

More information regarding language and video games (I've taken some of the examples from that article): I can highly recommend this article, it's a fantastic read.

I think Nintendo realized this and is now slowly changing their attitude towards creating and marketing their products. Which is awesome!

PS: I would like to ask you to stop insulting me. Criticize the text I write, but don't attack me personally please.



jama commented on This Design For A "Game Boy Evolution" Sure Is...:

@readyletsgo What do you mean by "EXTREMELY PC garbage"?

What I'm trying to say is that there is an underlying message with naming a device Game Boy. That message is, at its core, that it's a toy targeted at boys (not girls).

In the beginning, 1989, when the Game Boy wasn't a well known brand, Nintendo could've chosen a neutral name. Why did they decide to add a gender-aspect (Game BOY) to their handheld brand? Were girls not worthy? Was it too much to ask to come up with a gender-neutral name?

I think, back then, the people at Nintendo probably thought that gaming really was mostly for boys.

Of course, today, people know what Game Boy means and who it's for. Or do they? Because I'd argue Nintendo helped establish this group identification thing where gaming was something that boys do, not girls. They helped define that gaming is something girls don't do. This didn't show in every single product they released, but it showed in many important ones: What with Game BOY, Virtual BOY, and almost all the heroes of their games being male (Mario! Link! Donkey Kong! Fox! Captain Olimar! etc. — Samus was a very welcome and needed change of pace, but not enough!)

Again, I'm really glad that Nintendo changed direction when they introduced the DS and Wii families (no gender-aspect to their names!) Their software changed too, see Nintendogs, the Brain academy games, Wii Fit, and so on. Their products became more inclusive. While they're of course still tending to the old games and brands, we can see that even the old franchises are slowly becoming more inclusive (NSMBWii doesn't have female playable characters, Super Mario 3D World does--please please don't let this be a one off like SMB2).

Nintendo games and hardware are now designed to be much more inclusive. I'm not saying that everything should be inclusive, but since I'm sure that girls want to play Mario and Zelda games, why not give them a heroine to better identify with (same gender, etc.). I hope they'll continue to steer this course into the future...



jama commented on This Design For A "Game Boy Evolution" Sure Is...:

Slightly off topic: I hope Nintendo will never release anything related to the Game Boy brand in the future. I find it doesn't fit our understanding of gaming culture anymore. The Game Boy may be a device whose name is well-known, but the name excludes half of the gaming population (Game BOY, where's the Game GIRL?).

It's strange that they named it Game Boy in the first place. The games it offered weren't just "typical boys games". It offered plenty of games everyone--no matter the gender--could enjoy. Yet they still insisted on calling it the Game Boy for a long time: GB Color, GBA, GBA Micro...

Nintendo (3)DS is, in my opinion, a far more suitable title for a gaming device because it's neutral. Nintendo isn't just aiming to sell games to the male demographic, so it wouldn't make sense to name their device Game Boy Something. I'm glad Nintendo seems to have noticed that a more neutral wording of their hardware devices is the more inclusive way to go. Kudos!

They also aptly named their newest consoles Wii and Wii U, heavily emphasizing it's for EVERYONE!



jama commented on Peter Molyneux Reveals His Favourite Zelda Tit...:

To everyone who is interested in watching a ~1hr critical review of Twilight Princess which raises a lot of good points:

The guy in the video is basically arguing that Twilight Princess wasn't the game Nintendo wanted to make. Its purpose was to give the fans just a 'familiar' game (in the sense of Ocarina of Time-familiar) so they'd 'shut up' and let Nintendo do the Zelda game they actually wanted to make (Skyward Sword). He argues this lack of love shows in TP when compared to other titles like Wind Waker.