Support NeoGAF

[Ridley327]

Moreover, Splatoon is rated E(10+) and not fit for 7 year olds anyway. Chances are they won't even know how to set up an account and since the parents are the ones who create the account, they should be aware of parental settings as well.

That rating doesn't mean much to that age group, considering LEGO games, Skylanders, and Disney Infinity are also E10, and we know who the biggest audiences are for those games.

A T-rating might have an impact, but as far as anyone is concerned, an E10 is basically one fart joke over the line for a normal E.

 

[Alienous]

There's a few flaws with using a seperate device. First of all, that device may not have enough juice for extended play. Secondly, you can't chat with randoms. Thirdly, you would have to request your friend's(more specifically friends you met on the internet) skype account in order to set up a party if you don't already have it.


Moreover, Splatoon is rated E(10+) and not fit for 7 year olds anyway. Chances are they won't even know how to set up an account and since the parents are the ones who create the account, they should be aware of parental settings as well.

And the average 7 year old deserves a bit more credit than you think. Children that age and a bit older probably set up their consoles mostly by themselves, and it's fairly reasonable for their parents to think that they are being responsible by avoiding purchasing games rated above their age group rather than tinkering with parental settings, not realizing that an online environment doesn't fit neatly into a rating.

Nintendo played it completely safe and I completely understand. This will, hopefully, be a smooth introduction to multiplayer shooters for a lot of children.

 

[Amir0x]

Considering ho fucking terrible people are online, I can understand why Nintendo wouldnt want it.

It's so nice nanny Nintendo is here to protect us.

A mute button isn't a good solution to voice chat harassment. It's an accepted one, but it's actually a pretty poor solution.

1. It requires the victim to be harassed to be effective
2. It provides no feedback to the harasser that they need to calm down

It's a perfect solution. People who are so paranoid of what others are going to say to them, who want to cower from some e-insults, can simply keep it muted at all times. They don't have to communicate at all. Others can decide to mute specific players only after they've been insulted. Still others can decide to keep it on at all times.

It's called options, and I should get to choose when and how to utilize those options, not Nintendo because they want to craddle me in their ever overprotective arms.

Nobody needs a nanny company deciding that IT'S ALL BAD™, and frankly I can put it in a worse way than I already have - it's actually insulting at this point. Which is why Nintendo indisputably continues to be left laughably behind in the online arena, including multiplayer offerings, and why Splatoon is already handicapping its potential audience even if it wasn't just on the dead Wii U platform. And I actually think Splatoon is a rad idea.

And this isn't even Nintendo that explained these faults of the mute button, it was Valve, a company that has a long and important history in online multiplayer. Valve solved this issue with a pre-emptive mute system based on reports, but haven't quite worked out the first issue too well.

Is the fact VALVE has a stupid opinion as well supposed to make this whole situation more palatable? They have dumb opinions on a billion different subjects, many of which have caused mass controversy amongst the online community. There was a recent one they waded into, selling mods. So their opinion on the matter doesn't mean shit to me if it's the wrong opinion.

It's the wrong opinion. Stop nanny-ing people, and give THEM the option to shut shit on or off. It's not complicated.

Since Splatoon is a family oriented game (probably more slanted towards kids), they want to avoid the first issue all together. They can't have a game that is infamous for its toxic online community.

Every Nintendo product wants to be a family oriented one. I guess we need to eliminate voice chat from the Nintendo online sphere for all eternity? Yeah, no. Voice chat multiplayer is inherently superior to non-communication multiplayer; strategies become infinitely more complex. If Nintendo wants to stay out of that realm, that's on them. They will continue to be rightly criticized for it.

And even so, I think you're kind of exaggerated a bit with how many players even use voice chat. You can play, like, 10 games of TF2 and find 2 people talking on the mic between those games, one of which is a jerk and you need to mute him anyway. So it's really not as deal breaking as you imply.

I play online multiplayer games all the time and I rarely ever encounter silent communities anymore. And more than that, it doesn't matter how many other people communicate, because the groups I play with always communicate. As long as I have that option, I'm going to utilize it - and smash groups of players who don't.

Options brother. Never a bad world with more of 'em.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

It's just over time, as technology got better and there were more advanced options and stuff, the gap between what adult gamers expect in a game versus what's appropriate for a children's game widened.

I find it hard to accept the idea that talking to friends might not be acceptable for children.

 

[Nanashrew]

Moreover, Splatoon is rated E(10+) and not fit for 7 year olds anyway. Chances are they won't even know how to set up an account and since the parents are the ones who create the account, they should be aware of parental settings as well.

E10+ is more like the PG rating in movies. It may contain mild violence and mischief but still acceptable among the age group though parental guidance is always advised.

 

[phanphare]

It's a perfect solution.

nah. voice chat should be an option for sure but it should be off by default. users should have to opt-in, not opt-out.

 

[nampad]

He is right, Nintendo is fucking cheap and lazy. All those excuses for all their backwards behavior need to stop.

 

[Gormless Noodle]

If the 3DS letterbox disaster is anything to go by, I can take a guess why they keep communication methods to a minimum. It's incredibly sad for the rest of us, but I understand to some degree.

 

[Crimson Kopite]

Man, people are doing some serious mental gymnastics to find an excuse or reason for no voice chat. It is cheap and lazy, much like the rest of Splatoon's launch state.

 

[Amir0x]

nah. voice chat should be an option for sure but it should be off by default. users should have to opt-in, not opt-out.

Nothing in my statement made a comment about whether it should be default in or default out. So whatever you feel on that subject is independent of my view.

It's a perfect solution to give players the option to shut voice chat on or off, or to mute independent players individually. That's the solution. Whether you want to default voice-in or default voice-out, I'm not commenting on that because we don't have the option at all here, which is the actual problem we're dealing with.

If I was making a multiplayer online game, I'd default it on because I want people to communicate with voices, my multiplayer game would be superior when complex strategies are being laid out only possible through verbal means. And people could turn that off if they didn't like it (and they'd likely lose due to it, but that's their right - it's an option). But it doesn't matter what I'd do, because that wasn't what I was commenting on.

 

[The Boat]

Voice chat should definitely be there, at the very least with friends. There's nothing cheap or lazy about it as we know the reasons behind it, stupid as they may be. I also fail to understand how voice chat can make the difference between playing the game for weeks or for months, it seems like a tantrum to me, or maybe he cares more about these things than the actual games.

Regardless, Nintendo needs to stop being stubborn about voice chat, among other things related to online.

 

[Mr. Lemming]

If Disney said something as ridiculous as "We're not going to allow stabby sword-fights in Pirates 5 because we think the Finding Dory crowd will get squeamish" that would seem ridiculous right? That's what Nintendo sounds like when they proactively censor the online userbase of their first flagship shooter in 15 years.

But Disney did essentially say this in the 80s, which is why Touchstone Pictures exists. It's only since the 00s where they are putting everything under the Disney label. Maybe the solution for Nintendo is to make another brand for older gamers.

Or they could add voice chat with friends in an update like it has existed in previous Nintendo titles. I don't think its lazy and cheap, its obviously a deliberate decision and hopefully with enough constructive feedback we can change their minds.

 

[phanphare]

Nothing in my statement made a comment about whether it should be default in or default out. So whatever you feel on that subject is independent of my view.

It's a perfect solution to give players the option to shut voice chat on or off, or to mute independent players individually. That's the solution. Whether you want to default voice-in or default voice-out, I'm not commenting on that because we don't have the option at all here, which is the actual problem we're dealing with.

oh ok never mind, I misinterpreted that part. seemed like you were countering what that poster brought up. carry on then good sir

;p

 

[ramparter]

nah. voice chat should be an option for sure but it should be off by default. users should have to opt-in, not opt-out.

I'd be ok with that, can we all agree and let nintendo know?

 

[Amir0x]

oh ok never mind, I misinterpreted that part. seemed like you were countering what that poster brought up. carry on then good sir

;p

As I edited into my post above, if you are asking my view on opt-in/opt-out... if I was making a multiplayer online game I would keep it opted-in, and let players choose if they don't like the voice community or not. But I don't think opt-in or opt-out is inherently superior to one or the other, as long as we have the option there.

It's not that I don't think you can have a voiceless multiplayer session be great fun, but I think that becomes harder the more complicated the potential strategies involved in a game. Splatoon seems to have room for great amounts of strategy, so to me it's disappointing that we can't communicate that to other players except in the most basic terms.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

No voice chat and no party chat? That's inexcusable

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Is the fact VALVE has a stupid opinion as well supposed to make this whole situation more palatable? They have dumb opinions on a billion different subjects, many of which have caused mass controversy amongst the online community. There was a recent one they waded into, selling mods. So their opinion on the matter doesn't mean shit to me if it's the wrong opinion.

It's the wrong opinion. Stop nanny-ing people, and give THEM the option to shut shit on or off. It's not complicated.

This doesn't really explain to me why Valve is wrong. You've just stated they are wrong and left it at that.

How are those two points not valid reasons for being hesitant to add voice chat? Adding a mute button solves neither of those issues. In order to know you need to mute, you need to have been harassed. And muting the harassing player doesn't do anything besides shove the issue under the rug.

And having the mic muted by default means they just wasted their time to even make the game have voice chat since exactly 5 people will use it as the amount of people who turn off default options is pretty small, especially on a console game. Which also means having mute off by default and having players turn it off themselves means they won't, and will be harassed until they are harassed enough to turn it off, which isn't a good solution for what, in essence, is a kid's game.

If I was making a multiplayer online game, I'd default it on because I want people to communicate with voices, my multiplayer game would be superior when complex strategies are being laid out only possible through verbal means. And people could turn that off if they didn't like it (and they'd likely lose due to it, but that's their right - it's an option). But it doesn't matter what I'd do, because that wasn't what I was commenting on.

Your superior game would most likely fail unless it was some kind of MOBA. Most multiplayer games have to be designed with the intention the average player won't use voice chat.

To use Valve again (since they talk a lot about their design issues), when designing TF2, Valve had to work around this limitation by making sure maps were designed in a way that everyone would be playing on their own and accidentally all be working towards the same goal and helping each other without really realizing they were helping anyone or making any complex strategies. Basically, how you can turn a game that can easily just devolve into a free for all deathmatch and make people do objectives without actually purposely working together.

 

[phanphare]

As I edited into my post above, if you are asking my view on opt-in/opt-out... if I was making a multiplayer online game I would keep it opted-in, and let players choose if they don't like the voice community or not. But I don't think opt-in or opt-out is inherently superior to one or the other, as long as we have the option there.

yeah true that. I just think for Nintendo specifically having voice chat off for everybody makes more sense. that way nobody hears something they don't want to hear and those that want to chat can just turn it on and have at it.

edit: you're crazy with the edits!

 

[cheesekao]

And 7 year old's deserve a bit more credit than you think. Children that age and a bit older probably set up their consoles mostly by themselves, and it's fairly reasonable for their parents to think that they are being responsible by avoiding purchasing games rated above their age group rather than tinkering with parental settings, not realizing that an online environement doesn't fit neatly into a rating.

Nintendo played it completely safe and I completely understand.

Was referring to the ESRB rating but eh.

Again, Nintendo has allowed voice chat with strangers in the past with pokemon pearl and diamond and nothing majorly negative of note happened to kids playing the game. Why should this be any different? The bare minimum they could do is 'friends only' voice chat.

That rating doesn't mean much to that age group, considering LEGO games, Skylanders, and Disney Infinity are also E10, and we know who the biggest audiences are for those games.

A T-rating might have an impact, but as far as anyone is concerned, an E10 is basically one fart joke over the line for a normal E.

E10+ is more like the PG rating in movies. It may contain mild violence and mischief but still acceptable among the age group though parental guidance is always advised.

That makes me question why is E10 even there anyway,

 

[Alienous]

Disney doesn't even make 2D animation anymore. Their biggest videogame property of the year will be either be Star Wars Battlefront, a FPS/TPS, or Disney Infinity, which is a fanservice mashup of ALL of their IP.

If Disney said something as ridiculous as "We're not going to allow stabby sword-fights in Pirates 5 because we think the Finding Dory crowd will get squeamish" that would seem ridiculous right? That's what Nintendo sounds like when they proactively censor the online userbase of their first flagship shooter in 15 years.

This isn't a great analogy.

Age ratings are meant to give an indication of what kind of audience is being targeted. The way a Pirates of the Caribbean film is separated by Finding Dory is mostly my the age rating (and advertising).

A better analogy would be if a particular genre of film (let's say a horror movie) would tend to illicit explicit vocal responses from the audience, but this particular horror movie is designed for children. Those same vocal responses are expect (because of the genre), but the audience will contain younger children. So Disney decide that that monitors should be at every screening to making sure no noise is made, just in the event of an spontaneous 'Holy shit!'.

...

...

Eh, that's a shit analogy. But hopefully you see what I'm trying to say. It's heavy-handed but it's the safest method.

Was referring to the ESRB rating but eh.

Again, Nintendo has allowed voice chat with strangers in the past with pokemon pearl and diamond and nothing majorly negative of note happened to kids playing the game. Why should this be any different? The least they could do is 'friends only' voice chat.

Shooters tend to have more vocal, toxic environments than a Pokémon game (as well as having more Pokémon having less players any given match, exclusively with friends with whom a friend code has been exchanged, etc.), if only for sudden outbursts or annoyances for kill stealing, or camping, or whatever. It's unlikely that Splatoon will be entirely immune to that.

Even 'friends only' voice chat has its risks, but I do think that's an agreeable solution. Nintendo have just chosen the safest path and I think that's understandable and of the most benefit to children who just want to have fun. Adults have, generally, quite easy access to alternative means of communication. Nintendo just want their ecosystem as safe as possible, I think.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Again, Nintendo has allowed voice chat with strangers in the past with pokemon pearl and diamond and nothing majorly negative of note happened to kids playing the game. Why should this be any different? The least they could do is 'friends only' voice chat.

Diamond and Pearl only have voice chat with friends, only in lobbies of trades and battles. Diamond and Pearl didn't even have battles with random players, everything but the GTS was friends only. Diamond and Pearl are pretty poor examples of Nintendo online done right

 

[lingpanda]

I'm ok with it. In my younger years I wouldn't be. With that said it's Nintendo's product. If you or I don't like it. Don't buy it. Consumers speak with their wallets. That's how definitive change will happen.

 

[Amir0x]

This doesn't really explain to me why Valve is wrong. You've just stated they are wrong and left it at that.

How are those two points not valid reasons for being hesitant to add voice chat? Adding a mute button solves neither of those issues. In order to know you need to mute, you need to have been harassed. And muting the harassing player doesn't do anything besides shove the issue under the rug.

And having the mic muted by default means they just wasted their time to even make the game have voice chat since exactly 5 people will use it as the amount of people who turn off default options is pretty small, especially on a console game. Which also means having mute off by default and having players turn it off themselves means they won't, and will be harassed until they are harassed enough to turn it off, which isn't a good solution for what, in essence, is a kid's game.

First, I answered "why" in all the rest of the comment. Valve is wrong and Nintendo are wrong for all the reasons the post elaborated on. I don't need to state it for a fourth time for you to agree or not; you've made up your mind, and want nanny Nintendo and Valve to decide for you. That's fine. But I've stated my reasons clearly.

Second, look how absurd your reasoning is for just keeping options out. "Well sir if you have the option but opt-out by default, few would use it! So I guess it's just better not to have the option at all, so that NO ONE would be able to use it! Huzzah!"

It's a looping reasoning that defeats itself on the surface. It essentially means you can never have voice chat, because there will always be asshole humans and if you have an opt-out voice system to make it safer for the paranoid, then few will use it so we might as well not have it! How fucking ridiculous is that? I'll answer: extremely ridiculous.

I'm sorry Nintendo is so afraid of human beings that they want to nanny people. I'm sorry there's actual gamers out there who don't know how apparently to go into options and turn voice on or off, or who are so afraid of even the tiniest insult that they don't want to deal with the one second suffering they'll have before they muted a specific insulting player. It sucks for them, genuinely.

But we can't hold back the entire world of online gaming because of paranoid gamers and nanny developers.

Consumers speak with their wallets. That's how definitive change will happen.

Well Splatoon doesn't have to worry about that. It's on Wii U.

 

[sn00zer]

It's so nice nanny Nintendo is here to protect us.

.

This never makes any sense to me?

Since when in the entire history of humanity has punishing/restricting/banashing technology worked out just because it can and is used for bad by x number of people (and certainly not all)?


Might as well remove internet at that point. People can disconnect from smash fights if they are losing or mario kart, its happened before so why not?

Its a system designed and marketed to children. They arent nannying you they are protecting their demographic.

 

[Amir0x]

Its a system designed and marketed to children. They arent nannying you they are protecting their demographic.

Yeah? One of the major launch games was ZombiU. They have tons of M rated games on the system. I guess we shouldn't have those, because it's a system "designed and marketed toward children."

Talk about trying to cage Nintendo systems in a box, and limiting all potential futures.

 

[Oersted]

As somebody who absolutely never voicechats with randoms because of numerous bad experiences, I think Nintendo should have at least given the option to turn it on/off.

It really makes no sense as to why it wasn't included.

Pretty much, default off would have done the job. I guess its maybe also technical limitations. But hey, Destiny had it (weirdly) patched in, so there might be a chance.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

It is cheap and lazy. Tbh, all this does prove is Nintendo is still a "kids" platform and it doesn't matter how much mild M rated games they approve to be on the system to appease their older fans, they still want to protect something that means nothing in 2015. Virginity.

It unacceptable and I seriously can't at some people defending this prehistoric byzantine dynasty decision as ok because personally they won't use it or because they are anti-social, it makes it A-OK. I'm sorry but Nintendo needs to answer for this situation straight up.

 

[Alienous]

Yeah? One of the major launch games was ZombiU. They have tons of M rated games on the system. I guess we shouldn't have those, because it's a system "designed and marketed toward children."

Talk about trying to cage Nintendo systems in a box, and limiting all potential futures.

Parents go out and they see a game with an M on the box, and reasonbly know (or have been made to know) that it isn't for purchasing for children. They then choose what to do with that knowledge.

A child could go out and pick-up Splatoon, or a parent could purchase it for that child, and it's a reasonable expectation to have that the game will be safe for a child to play.

 

[Ridley327]

That makes me question why is E10 even there anyway,

IIRC, it was a rating that Nintendo themselves pushed for, because a few kid-oriented games around the time (including their own) had been bumped up to a T for reasons that shouldn't have merited one. As a result, the ESRB finally got their own PG-rating.

One of the first games to ever nab an E10 was Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat, and it's easy to see why it was a little too much for an E (the Kong fights being a bit more violent than your average mascot platformer boss fight) and not enough for a T (the Kong fights are still pretty exaggerated and ultimately not threatening). E10 makes sense.

 

[Amir0x]

Parents go out and they see a game with an M on the box, and reasonbly know (or have been made to know) that it isn't for purchasing for children. They then choose what to do with that knowledge.

A child could go out an pick-up Splatoon, or a parent could purchase it for that child, and it's a reasonable expectation to have that the game will be safe for a child to play.

It's hilarious to me that people keep the most ridiculous choices in place because they refuse to go with simple solutions that require basic responsibility from a parent. If you don't trust basic responsibility to a parent, then you're a nanny developer. That's the problem.

All you need to do is put on the cover of splatoon's plastic: "This game has online voice chat. Parents should be careful when allowing their children to play online. You can shut off voice chat in the options." Then whose fault is it for not understanding this? Who? Right.

If your basic argument is that parents won't read it and so once again we need others to control their parenting for them through dumb development decisions, then we're back to starting point. You want a nanny developer. That's where the disagreement is.

 

[Z3M0G]

No way nintendo would include voice chat in a game like this. It was a calculated decision. And they made the right choice.

The only thing nintendo is lacking is party chat. So you can talk with friends no matter what game you are playing

 

[Alienous]

It's hilarious to me that people keep the most ridiculous choices in place because they refuse to go with simple solutions that require basic responsibility from a parent. If you don't trust basic responsibility to a parent, then you're a nanny developer. That's the problem.

All you need to do is put on the cover of splatoon's plastic: "This game has online voice chat. Parents should be careful when allowing their children to play online. You can shut off voice chat in the options."

Nintendo chose a 100% solution. What you're suggesting and what they've done wouldn't have the net same result.

 

[Greddleok]

Its a system designed and marketed to children. They arent nannying you they are protecting their demographic.

I was literally about to say that. You're telling a company to stop "nannying" people when their target audience is children.

 

[Amir0x]

Nintendo chose a 100% solution. What you're suggesting and what they've done won't have the net same result.

They chose a nanny solution. That's what people are arguing against. Everyone suffers because they believe they have to parent for people.

You're simply arguing for a pro-nanny solution. That's fine, but I'm calling it what it actually is.

 

[Raide]

No way nintendo would include voice chat in a game like this. It was a calculated decision. And they made the right choice.

Right choice to reduce the user-base to poor children who should not use voice chat because of the bad things that might happen to then via the internet!

 

[Alienous]

They chose a nanny solution. That's what people are arguing against. Everyone suffers because they believe they have to parent for people.

You're simply arguing for a pro-nanny solution. That's fine, but I'm calling it what it actually is.

I'm saying that the nanny solution was a completely reasonable one, yes.

 

[botty]

Amir0x is right tbh. Shame that there are people constantly defending Nintendo's bizarre choice to take options away from their customers. "I'm glad Nintendo doesn't give me the option to do this... it's best for me." How utterly passive.

These limited online choices are why virtually every online Nintendo game, aside from Pokemon/Smash/Mario Kart, will have short lived and shallow online communities. You would think with these type of decisions affecting their sales they would change up a bit.

 

[entremet]

I don't mind, but I do think it should be an option for friend teams at least.

 

[cheesekao]

No way nintendo would include voice chat in a game like this. It was a calculated decision. And they made the right choice.

They "protect" one demographic but aggravate another. That's hardly what I'd call 'right'.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

Where is this lie that Nintendo's base demographic has always been children coming from? They've had plenty of more mature headline games on their systems going back as far as the NES days.

The whole narrative just reeks of finding a reason to justify Nintendo's backwards network policies, which have no place in 2015 where connectivity is one of the pillars of modern gaming.

Amir0x is right tbh. Shame that there are people constantly defending Nintendo's bizarre choice to take options away from their customers. "I'm glad Nintendo doesn't give me the option to do this... it's best for me." How utterly passive.

These limited online choices are why virtually every online Nintendo game, aside from Pokemon/Smash/Mario Kart, will have short lived and shallow online communities. You would think with these type of decisions affecting their sales they would change up a bit.

Unfortunately this won't happen. The vocal majority of their fans continue to give them a free pass each time, meaning those of us that enjoy their games but also want better quality products outside of just gameplay mechanics are left unappeased.

 

[Amir0x]

I'm saying that the nanny solution was a completely reasonable one, yes.

Yes, we know kids will play the game. You believe it's an actual decent decision to parent for people. That's why you won't find any grounds to agree with people who want options.

I believe parents should parent, and if they don't do the research on the products (like reading a GIANT SIGN on the plastic cover), they have no one to blame but themselves. You want developers to craddle these incompetent parents and make everyone in the community suffer for it.

 

[Purest 78]

No way nintendo would include voice chat in a game like this. It was a calculated decision. And they made the right choice.

It's a calculated decision That's making them Even less relevant in the console space.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Parents go out and they see a game with an M on the box, and reasonbly know (or have been made to know) that it isn't for purchasing for children. They then choose what to do with that knowledge.

A child could go out and pick-up Splatoon, or a parent could purchase it for that child, and it's a reasonable expectation to have that the game will be safe for a child to play.

It's been a long while since I've seen "conscious" parents who care about what their 5-10 year old are playing. If they are, then they must have parental control over everything they use already if they are worried about ratings.

Which also suggest that things like chatting in a video game is something they might already do not allow and have turned off by default. And let's be real, most parents aren't going to have their child's video game system connected to the Internet, especially if they are worried about game ratings. I think those parents are still old school in the sense that the video game system is for SP only.

Which also means that it wouldn't affect them too much if their child is not online and also already set strict parental control. Which explains why this decision to have no chat is asinine.

 

[Verendus]

I think there's a simple solution here. If you're an adult, stop playing games targeted at kids, if you're going to get upset about it. That means stuff like Splatoon, Mario, and Pokemon, is simply not for you. If you're going to force your way into this audience, when these games are not made for you, then don't get upset that Nintendo isn't catering to you manbabies. You take what you get, and you like it as it is.

Options? OPTIONS? No, I don't think so. There is no such thing as options. Even Jesus didn't get an option when he was nailed to the cross. They build the game how they please. If you want voice chat in Splatoon, you better hope Nintendo makes a similar game for their adult demographic, because they don't owe you options. This game wasn't made for you, okay? It was made for the kids. Everyone is always asking someone to think of the children. Well, Nintendo did just that.

Stop hating on them. Instead, appreciate that they're looking after the most vulnerable of our society. These kids are the future gamers. By the time they start using voice chat when they're older, they'll be more sensible and mature than the average gamer is today, because they won't have been exposed to the filth you get online. You have to think about the long-term. Nintendo is nurturing the future of our hobby. They deserve to be applauded for that.

Fucking IGN. Always stirring shit.

 

[Chopper]

Its a system designed and marketed to children. They arent nannying you they are protecting their demographic.

The Wii U isn't marketed to anyone.

Voice chat should definitely be an option, even if it were locked behind parental controls.

 

[phanphare]

I think there's a simple solution here. If you're an adult, stop playing games targeted at kids, if you're going to get upset about it. That means stuff like Splatoon, Mario, and Pokemon, is simply not for you. If you're going to force your way into this audience, when these games are not made for you, then don't get upset that Nintendo isn't catering to you manbabies. You take what you get, and you like it as it is.

Options? OPTIONS? No, I don't think so. There is no such thing as options. Even Jesus didn't get an option when he was nailed to the cross. They build the game how they please. If you want voice chat in Splatoon, you better hope Nintendo makes a similar game for their adult demographic, because they don't owe you options. This game wasn't made for you, okay? It was made for the kids. Everyone is always asking someone to think of the children. Well, Nintendo did just that.

Stop hating on them. Instead, appreciate that they're looking after the most vulnerable of our society. These kids are the future gamers. By the time they start using voice chat when they're older, they'll be more sensible and mature than the average gamer is today, because they won't have been exposed to the filth you get online. You have to think about the long-term. Nintendo is nurturing the future of our hobby. They deserve to be applauded for that.

Fucking IGN. Always stirring shit.

can't tell if serious or not.....

 

[Hung_real]

I think there's a simple solution here. If you're an adult, stop playing games targeted at kids, if you're going to get upset about it. That means stuff like Splatoon, Mario, and Pokemon, is simply not for you. If you're going to force your way into this audience, when these games are not made for you, then don't get upset that Nintendo isn't catering to you manbabies. You take what you get, and you like it as it is.

Options? OPTIONS? No, I don't think so. There is no such thing as options. Even Jesus didn't get an option when he was nailed to the cross. They build the game how they please. If you want voice chat in Splatoon, you better hope Nintendo makes a similar game for their adult demographic, because they don't owe you options. This game wasn't made for you, okay? It was made for the kids. Everyone is always asking someone to think of the children. Well, Nintendo did just that.

Stop hating on them. Instead, appreciate that they're looking after the most vulnerable of our society. These kids are the future gamers. By the time they start using voice chat when they're older, they'll be more sensible and mature than the average gamer is today, because they won't have been exposed to the filth you get online. You have to think about the long-term. Nintendo is nurturing the future of our hobby. They deserve to be applauded for that.

Fucking IGN. Always stirring shit.

I laughed

Well played

 

[Amir0x]

can't tell if serious or not.....

It's Verendus, he's not being serious

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

can't tell if serious or not.....

It's Verendus.

 

[botty]

Unfortunately this won't happen. The vocal majority of their fans continue to give them a free pass each time, meaning those of us that enjoy their games but also want better quality products outside of just gameplay mechanics are left unappeased.

Unappeased until we venture towards another console manufacturer.