I don't get the idea of preventing the sale of something just because it's offensive.
If you don't want to buy it, then don't buy it. I don't like the idea of shoving agendas down other people's throats and telling them how to live (To an extent of course. We have laws for a good reason).
The only issue Nintendo would have is the backlash, but I suggest that they place a simple blank title screen with a warning that it's offensive or inappropriate.
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky
The insult comes from the fact that the game is a twisted version of a Biblical story.
the story of Isaac is one of profound faith.
I quite despise the idea of demanding the sacrifice of living things. I mean it might make sense to show devotion in a very radical form but if i take the Bible literally i don't see any good in the original story.
Again, it was about faith. Abraham had such faith in God that he didn't doubt Him. Isaac himself was a result of that faith, being born of Abraham's infertile wife, and God had promised that Abraham's line would continue through Isaac. Isaac couldn't have children if he was dead, and God promised he would have children. Abraham had faith in God's promise. He believed that whatever happened, God would keep His word, and he was right. Abraham's unfaltering faith serves as an example to modern believers.
I am the TrueWiiMaster! Those who call the Wii casual BEWARE!
The insult comes from the fact that the game is a twisted version of a Biblical story.
the story of Isaac is one of profound faith.
I quite despise the idea of demanding the sacrifice of living things. I mean it might make sense to show devotion in a very radical form but if i take the Bible literally i don't see any good in the original story.
Again, it was about faith. Abraham had such faith in God that he didn't doubt Him. Isaac himself was a result of that faith, being born of Abraham's infertile wife, and God had promised that Abraham's line would continue through Isaac. Isaac couldn't have children if he was dead, and God promised he would have children. Abraham had faith in God's promise. He believed that whatever happened, God would keep His word, and he was right. Abraham's unfaltering faith serves as an example to modern believers.
Thanks for explaining.
I couldn't see all that from the isolated Wikipedia entry so it's good to have all this context. I do think it's quite a strong story now.
I still don't like the idea of instead demanding another living thing sacrifice but at least now i can understand why some people wouldn't like the Binding of Isaac connection.
the comparision with racism is so idiotic. no one can choose his skincolour. but religion and faith are things you choose (at least thats how it should be). although most people only become religious because they are forced to believe in that stuff from birth on. that's why religion is still a thing even today. and dont tell me that wouldnt be true. i was forced to believe in that stuff and had a hard time to free myself from that stuff!
I was wondering when someone would say that. You're partially right. People can't choose their race, but they can choose their religion. That said, the truly religious don't believe there really is a choice. A Christian believes that if they don't believe in Jesus, they'll go to Hell. If they truly believe that, which is inherent to being a Christian, they aren't going to choose not to believe. Religion is generally only a choice to nonreligious people.
Also, I wasn't trying to equate the two. I was suggesting that games that were hateful or offensive in other ways would be frowned upon, and this game should be as well.
And finally, your idea that religion only exists because parents force it on their children is flawed. First, it implies that religion would only be believed if taught to people at a young age, when they don't know better. That's not true. There are many educated Christians, and many adult converts. Second, it implies that religion is ridiculous or unbelievable, which it isn't (this isn't really the place for that debate though). And third, it implies that religion is special in being passed on to new generations, when in reality all information is passed on. The reason modern technology exists is because advancements have been passed on, for example.
I am the TrueWiiMaster! Those who call the Wii casual BEWARE!
Critiquing or parodying the dominant religion of the western world is not the same as making fun of or insulting oppressed people. The former lets people think about ideas and how to think about the world, the latter reinforces oppression and allows people to continue to be ignorant and hateful.
You do realise that video games are mostly fiction, fiction being basically the ultimate form of parody, just because it isn't funny doesn't make it any less of a parody. "For a tangible example, the act of purchasing a game which blatantly objectifies some reprehensible act (not speaking of parody here) could be misinterpreted as a motion of support for such activities." So if I purchase Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty or BF I am supporting murdering people? Because I purchase D&D handbooks I believe we should live a life adventuring and exploring, to be a PC and not an NPC? Couldn't be because I want to play a game and have fun?
Fiction is not automatically parody. The definition of a parody is a humorous or satirical imitation of something serious.
GTA, CoD, and BF don't really support or attack anything or anyone. Supporting the games doesn't really support anything but the games. BoI blatantly attacks a specific group. Supporting games that attack specific groups supports attacking those groups.
I am the TrueWiiMaster! Those who call the Wii casual BEWARE!
Critiquing or parodying the dominant religion of the western world is not the same as making fun of or insulting oppressed people. The former lets people think about ideas and how to think about the world, the latter reinforces oppression and allows people to continue to be ignorant and hateful.
It's not a matter of being oppressed or not. Insulting a group should be frowned upon whether they're the majority or minority. Content doesn't have to be insulting or hateful to bring about thought and discussion.
I am the TrueWiiMaster! Those who call the Wii casual BEWARE!
You do realise that video games are mostly fiction, fiction being basically the ultimate form of parody, just because it isn't funny doesn't make it any less of a parody. "For a tangible example, the act of purchasing a game which blatantly objectifies some reprehensible act (not speaking of parody here) could be misinterpreted as a motion of support for such activities." So if I purchase Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty or BF I am supporting murdering people? Because I purchase D&D handbooks I believe we should live a life adventuring and exploring, to be a PC and not an NPC? Couldn't be because I want to play a game and have fun?
Fiction is not automatically parody. The definition of a parody is a humorous or satirical imitation of something serious.
GTA, CoD, and BF don't really support or attack anything or anyone. Supporting the games doesn't really support anything but the games. BoI blatantly attacks a specific group. Supporting games that attack specific groups supports attacking those groups.
The creators of South Park continually attack Mormons. Some people think it is funny so it gets a pass, I bet some people take BoI as a joke too. There is nothing wrong with someone questioning or pointing out what they disagree with. If you don't agree with their stance then no one is focing you to pay them. To say others can't enjoy something created for entertainment because it offends people would destroy all entertainment. There are people that are offended by Pokemon, but doesn't mean I am not going to buy, play, and enjoy Pokemon. No one is saying those people have to support Pokemon but also no one is saying others can't. It is the same argument for BoI.
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
In response to someone who asked if I would say the same thing about a sexist or racist game : yes I would. It's a game, just because it's offensive to some doesn't mean it should be banned. I'm sure there have been pleeeenty of sexist and racist games released. Why should we suddenly start banning games because a few select Christians are offended? Sure if there was a game about the massacre of Latinos (I'm sure one of these call of duties must have taken place in a Latin country at some point) and for whatever reason I felt offense, I just wouldn't play it, but I certainly wouldn't be calling it to be banned.
Critiquing or parodying the dominant religion of the western world is not the same as making fun of or insulting oppressed people. The former lets people think about ideas and how to think about the world, the latter reinforces oppression and allows people to continue to be ignorant and hateful.
It's not a matter of being oppressed or not. Insulting a group should be frowned upon whether they're the majority or minority. Content doesn't have to be insulting or hateful to bring about thought and discussion.
I cannot comment on the game directly because I haven't played it, but if it has something to say that isn't perpetuating racism, sexism, etc., then it shouldn't censured by Nintendo. I agree that just because it is attempting to be funny does not give it a pass, but just because it could be insulting to a non-oppressed group of people does not mean it is a hateful attack.
You do realise that video games are mostly fiction, fiction being basically the ultimate form of parody, just because it isn't funny doesn't make it any less of a parody. "For a tangible example, the act of purchasing a game which blatantly objectifies some reprehensible act (not speaking of parody here) could be misinterpreted as a motion of support for such activities." So if I purchase Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty or BF I am supporting murdering people? Because I purchase D&D handbooks I believe we should live a life adventuring and exploring, to be a PC and not an NPC? Couldn't be because I want to play a game and have fun?
Fiction is not automatically parody. The definition of a parody is a humorous or satirical imitation of something serious.
GTA, CoD, and BF don't really support or attack anything or anyone. Supporting the games doesn't really support anything but the games. BoI blatantly attacks a specific group. Supporting games that attack specific groups supports attacking those groups.
The creators of South Park continually attack Mormons. Some people think it is funny so it gets a pass, I bet some people take BoI as a joke too. There is nothing wrong with someone questioning or pointing out what they disagree with. If you don't agree with their stance then no one is focing you to pay them. To say others can't enjoy something created for entertainment because it offends people would destroy all entertainment. There are people that are offended by Pokemon, but doesn't mean I am not going to buy, play, and enjoy Pokemon. No one is saying those people have to support Pokemon but also no one is saying others can't. It is the same argument for BoI.
There's a difference between something offending people and something meant to offend people. Pokemon doesn't attack anyone or anyone's beliefs. BoI does.
And I'm not saying no one should be able to play BoI. It exists, and people should be able to play it. I think it's disgusting, and that the developer, as well as the people who support it, have no respect for or sensitivity to the religious people it insults, but I wouldn't limit free speech. I also think racists should be allowed to be racist, as long as they don't hurt anyone, even though I think racism is terrible. That's how freedom works. My disapproval doesn't limit another person's personal freedoms. That said, I don't want to see BoI on the eshop. The eshop is a closed platform run by Nintendo, and I don't want Nintendo to allow, and thereby approve of, hateful content on the service.
I am the TrueWiiMaster! Those who call the Wii casual BEWARE!
In response to someone who asked if I would say the same thing about a sexist or racist game : yes I would. It's a game, just because it's offensive to some doesn't mean it should be banned. I'm sure there have been pleeeenty of sexist and racist games released. Why should we suddenly start banning games because a few select Christians are offended? Sure if there was a game about the massacre of Latinos (I'm sure one of these call of duties must have taken place in a Latin country at some point) and for whatever reason I felt offense, I just wouldn't play it, but I certainly wouldn't be calling it to be banned.
I wasn't talking about a game that could be called racist in some way, like killing a certain race because of where a game takes place. I was talking about a completely racist game, wherein one race was targeted; basically KKK, the game.
I am the TrueWiiMaster! Those who call the Wii casual BEWARE!
I cannot comment on the game directly because I haven't played it, but if it has something to say that isn't perpetuating racism, sexism, etc., then it shouldn't censured by Nintendo. I agree that just because it is attempting to be funny does not give it a pass, but just because it could be insulting to a non-oppressed group of people does not mean it is a hateful attack.
Why do you think it should be censored if it perpetuates racism, sexism, etc, but not if it attacks Christianity? Why should Nintendo let games that attack Christianity on the eshop, but block games that attack other groups?
Just because a group is in the majority doesn't make hateful attacks against them less hateful.
Edit: I almost forgot to mention that BoI can be seen as racist too, because it mocks the story of the father of the Jews.
@TrueWiiMaster
So basically it just comes down to personal preference. You personally don't want to see it on the eShop. It is less about whether it has the right to be on the eShop andmore just about you not wanting it to be there.
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
In response to someone who asked if I would say the same thing about a sexist or racist game : yes I would. It's a game, just because it's offensive to some doesn't mean it should be banned. I'm sure there have been pleeeenty of sexist and racist games released. Why should we suddenly start banning games because a few select Christians are offended? Sure if there was a game about the massacre of Latinos (I'm sure one of these call of duties must have taken place in a Latin country at some point) and for whatever reason I felt offense, I just wouldn't play it, but I certainly wouldn't be calling it to be banned.
I wasn't talking about a game that could be called racist in some way, like killing a certain race because of where a game takes place. I was talking about a completely racist game, wherein one race was targeted; basically KKK, the game.
Well first of all if have a hard time comparing it to a game like BoI. But I mean sure if anyone decides to release that game, go for it, it'll sell horrifically and they won't put out another like it anyway.
@TrueWiiMaster
So basically it just comes down to personal preference. You personally don't want to see it on the eShop. It is less about whether it has the right to be on the eShop andmore just about you not wanting it to be there.
It is my personal preference that Nintendo keep hateful content off their digital shelves. I'd hope most people would prefer not to see hateful content, but I can only speak for myself here. That said, no game has a right to be on the eshop. Nintendo runs the eshop, and so should be able to choose what's added and what's rejected. The same goes for Sony and Microsoft, and the same goes for brick and mortar stores.
I am the TrueWiiMaster! Those who call the Wii casual BEWARE!
Is it meant to be offending though?
Or is it just trying to appeal to a different group and accepts being taken as an offense by some that are religious?
Forums
Topic: The Binding of Isaac teased yet again
Posts 81 to 100 of 193
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.