FeRDNYC

@jsty3105 Oh, I wasn't referring to Nintendo's statement on THIS issue, specifically. (I hadn't seen it, at the time I commented — heck, I still haven't.) But, Nintendo in general have a decades-long history of official communications that can be best characterized as: "Using as many words as possible to say as little as possible". As well as releasing statements that serve no purpose other than to assert their policy of not telling anybody anything about anything. (INow that I HAVE looked at their statement regarding Dispatch, it's predictably right there: "We also do not discuss specific content or the criteria used in making these determinations."

I mean, I'm not saying that's "not believable" in the sense that I think it's FALSE. But it does not make me believe that Nintendo is actually trying to explain anything to us — in fact, they're stating point-blank that they're NOT explaining anything and won't be.

In the end, AdHoc's statement makes me believe that they're genuinely making an effort to communicate as much information as they're allowed to (something Liam touched on in the article, as well), as frankly as possible. Obviously they're constrained by Nintendo's rules, but the overall impression is that they're being as forthcoming as possible within those constraints. While Nintendo has never released any statement, ever, that failed to give me the exact opposite impression.

AdHoc's statement also contains zero instances of them telling us what they won't tell us, or what their communication policy is regarding these issues. I doubt they even have a formal policy, which is kind of refreshing. (Man, that's sad. But true!)

Nintendo, as per their norm, can't get through a single official comment on anything without ducking behind their communication policy, AKA stating what they're not going to tell us, Despite nobody benefiting from or being interested in any of that bovine effluence.

@cylemmulo As always, I'll just paraphrase Sheila Broflovski here: "Remember what the MPAA says: Horrible, deplorable violence is okay, as long as nobody says any naughty words [or shows any naughty bits]!"

AdHoc continues to impress. While the situation isn't ideal, their statement is up-front, transparent, and most of all BELIEVABLE. Other companies (including, not least of all, Nintendo themselves) could learn a lot from them about how to address this sort of thing in a way that makes things better instead of worse.

@HalBailman "Verbing weirds language." –Calvin & Hobbes

Also, you think people don't say "sexed"? Au contraire. It's usually a transitive verb ­— you'd say you "sexed someone", not "I sexed last night". (That would be, "I did the sex last night!")

@Ogbert "I'm saying people are being hypocritical because they know Grant Kirkhope's name so they're getting up in arms about him not being included but not caring at all about others."

That's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be saying, "Oh, I think Nintendo should credit Kirkhope, but ONLY him. There's no need to credit [any of those other artists]". But I don't see anyone saying that. I think most people would say they should credit Kirkhope and everyone else whose contributions helped make the finished product. Crediting someone is polite and shows humility, it's an acknowledgement that your work builds on that of others. So, very much not Nintendo's style.

But people aren't required to devote equal time to campaigning for each individual excluded artist, by name, lest they be guilty of hypocrisy. If Kirkhope's tweet started this conversation, then that's already helped raise awareness of all those other artists who're being similarly excluded. And if Nintendo were to change the policy only for Kirkman, THEY would be the hypocrites, which is why they should correct this across the board. If that adds 300 names to a game's credits... so what? Again, credits cost nothing.

"Here's the fact: Grant Kirkhope didn't work on this game. He made that rap a long time ago for a different game for which he was credited at the time. Nintendo now own that rap, and do not need his permission to use it again, nor do they need to credit him if they don't feel it necessary."

They don't HAVE TO credit him, legally. Agreed. But that doesn't mean they don't "need to", at least if they don't want the fans distracted by conversations like this. But it's really about whether they "want to", and what it says that they don't.

As for Kirkhope not working on the game, well that's a matter of perspective, isn't it? If they're using lyrics, and possibly more, of his original composition, how is that not a contribution to the new game? Whoever performed the new version had to have words to rap, or they couldn't have recorded anything. The lyrics didn't just materialize out of thin air. And if "Nintendo owns them" is a reason not to credit the writer, them why even credit him originally? It was just as true that Nintendo owned them then.

@larryisaman Sadly, though, Nintendo not wanting to credit him probably is at least partly about not wanting to have to pay him. Or, at least, their lawyers not wanting to make any acknowledgements that could weaken their case if Grant or anyone else were to sue for compensation. (Personally I think they should both credit AND pay him, but we know they're legendary tightwads.)

You only live once... but you only die twice.

"brown swede" mudguards? It's cool that they're from Sweden, but I wonder what they're made of?

Probably suede. I bet it's suede.