Print 96 comment(s) - last by Reflex.. on Jun 18 at 11:53 PM

Game is among top Windows, PS3, and PS4 MMORPGs

Iconic Japanese RPG-maker Square Enix Holding Comp., Ltd. (TYO:9684) announced a bit of interesting news this week at the 2014 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) in Los Angeles, Calif.  A year after the critically acclaimed relaunch of its MMORPG Final Fantasy XIV (the relaunch being dubbed "A Realm Reborn"), Square Enix has decided to allow characters to engage in same sex marriage.
Is Square Enix endorsing gay marriage? What does this mean for gamers? To understand the decision, you must first understand Japanese culture and the game's development arc.
I. Western Gamers Mostly Don't Understand Japanese Culture
Japanese gamemakers are finding their art forms at the center of a rather foreign controversy over gay marriage and civil rights in the U.S.
In Japan, homosexuality was promoted as a key part of the culture, but it was also marginalized as a private behavior.  Furthermore, the nation's homosexual population never experienced the kind of religious castigation seen in the U.S., but at the same time have less financial rights than in more liberal/progressive regions of the U.S.
Japan as a society handles homosexuality fundamentally differently and in a far more sedate fashion than the overly polarized modern American sociological landscape.
Where Japan is finding itself in unfamiliar territory is when it brings its art to a Western audience.  Nintendo Comp., Ltd. (TYO:7974) found that out the hard way recently, with its upcoming 3DS game Tomodachi Life.  After "banning" gay marriage in the Japanese version of the game -- a feature that was only available via a bug -- the gaming veteran experienced a decidedly mixed reaction from its upcoming Western audience.


Western gamers nearly all misunderstood Nintendo's position.
Those who opposed gay marriage mistakenly believed Nintendo was making some sort of stand against gay marriage and praised the gaming giant.  Those who supported it condemned Nintendo, also mistakenly thinking it was making some sort of a social statement.  Even after explaining the difference between homosexuality in Japan versus homosexuality in Western society, the majority of readers on our previous piece on the topic still seemed to mistakenly believe Nintendo was making some sort of stand against gay marriage.
A fair criticism raised by a couple commenters on the previous piece is that while Japanese view the issue differently, they should know better as any company must regionalize its product to not seem peculiar or offense to foreign markets it targets.  Indeed, the treatment of homosexuality is far from the only oddity (from a Western standpoint) in Japanese pop culture, so this was definitely an avoidable faux pas on Nintendo's part.
To its credit, once Nintendo realized Western gamers' misunderstanding it apologized.  In May it released a statement, remarking:

We apologize for disappointing many people by failing to include same-sex relationships in Tomodachi Life. Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game’s design, and such a significant development change can’t be accomplished with a post-ship patch. At Nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy. We are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone. We pledge that if we create a next installment in the Tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game-play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.

Square Enix has been taking notes, and has been a bit savvier in wording its comments, in order to avoid such backlash.
II. Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn -- Where You Can Marry a Cat Person
The roots of this week’s announcement lie in the rebirth of Final Fantasy XIV (FFXIV).
Originally launched in alpha form back in Sept. 30, 2010, Square Enix intended for FF XIV to inherit the legacy of the aging, but generally well-liked MMORPG, Final Fantasy XI.  Unfortunately FF XIV proved a rare dud, and was riddled with bugs, leading top gaming magazines to deride it as "broken".  The invite-only alpha was nearly scrapped altogether, but instead Square Enix committed a major amount of developer manpower to fixing the problem-plagued title.
The result debuted in beta form in 2012, retitled Final Fantasy 14: A Realm Reborn.  Unlike its predecessor, this time Square Enix got it right; critics generally gave the reworked online game high marks.

A feature that was proposed to be eventually added was the ability for players characters/avatars to "marry" each other, in game.  This exclusive status would bring certain perks and new interactions.  But notably, much like Nintendo, Square did not support gay marriage at launch (much to Sepiroth's chagrin).  But Square has seen somewhat less criticism as since day one it made it clear that it was willing to consider modifying the proposed upcoming feature to allow gay marriage, including making exclusive content that appealed to its gay fans.  

It should be noted that many heterosexual fans playing characters of the opposite gender were also interested in this feature.  For example, a male playing an attractive female character might wish to "marry" his girlfriend's female character in-game.  Nonetheless, much of the debate regarded the feature devolved into a gay rights discussion.

Director Naoki Yoshida commented in a 2012 fan Q&A video session:

As for same-sex marriage, this is an extremely controversial topic that has been under discussion in the MMO world for the past few years.  First we would like to start out with opposite-sex marriage, and then consider the feedback from our players in order to make a careful decision. I can't say whether or not it will be possible at this point in time. I'd like to keep dialog open with our players as we deliberate the matter.

For Square the issue provoked internal debate, as some of its artists and programmers -- both in Japan and in the U.S. -- are gay.  Final Fantasy's lead artist -- famed anime director Yoshitaka Amano -- is unmarried and rumored to be gay.

Marriage to cat people was allowed since the launch of FFXIV:ARR, but gay marriage was originally taboo. [Image Source: Destructoid]

The issue was largely shelved during the game's release schedule.  On Aug. 27, 2013 Square Enix took the game out of beta, making it an official title available for Sony Corp.'s (TYO:6758) PlayStation 3 and Windows gaming PCs.  And most recently in April, Square Enix offered up a PS4 version for $39.99 USD with a Collector’s Edition available for $79.99 USD.  The PS4 editions feature enhanced graphics and exclusive content.
III. Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn Loosens Restrictions
Pressure had since mounted given Square Enix's promise to reevaluate the issue.  As some publications noted, you could marry cat people in the game, but you still couldn't have a homosexual marriage.

FF XIV marriage
Square Enix has loosened its restrictions, allowing gay marriage in-game for the first time in its MMORPGs. [Image Source: Gamespot]

This time around, though, the feedback prompted action.  FF XIV: ARR's director announced this week that the upcoming marriage option would indeed allow gay marriage.  Comments Mr. Yoshida:

People within Eorzea will be able to pledge their eternal love and or friendship in a ceremony of eternal bonding. And this will be open to people regardless of race, creed, and gender. Two players...if they want to be together, in Eorzea, they can-through this eternal bonding ceremony.

We discussed [gay marriage] and we realized: within Eorzea, why should there be restrictions on who pledges their love or friendship to each other? And so we decided to go this way

Today Final Fantasy XIV: ARR is one of the world's most popular MMORPGs, with over 1.8 million subscribed gamers.

Soon lesbian or gay gamers (or those roleplaying gay or lesbian characters) now enjoy equal rights to cat people, humans, and other heterosexual avatars.  The bad news?  You won't be able to marry your Chocobo anytime soon (it's a bird!).

Sources: Polygon, Square Enix [2012 views]

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

An Attempt
By mike66 on 6/11/2014 9:51:23 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think we should even bother to cater to these minorities, because this is exactly what they are, a minority. This BS society we now live in that lets them have more say than the majority is just crazy. Just because you don't get a mention does not mean you are being discriminated against. I know that some people really love their pets and in some places in the world they have been allowed to marry them, why don't they have the game changed to cater to their funk.
Stop discrimination against game developers.

RE: An Attempt
By shikigamild on 6/11/2014 10:58:55 PM , Rating: 1
As a game developer it would be actually easier to not put conditionals on events.
Just ask the developers of The Sims or Second Life. Those were pioneers games were "you can build relationships", and it was easier just to go by the route of not making restrictions.

To make a marriage or some kind of engagement possible only between people of opposite gender, depending on the code, it will probably take some more lines of code to make that happen.

In other words, it's actually an extra effort to restrict relationships than to just "don't care" as you seem to imply.

RE: An Attempt
By techxx on 6/11/2014 11:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
Damn you just beat me to it!

RE: An Attempt
By Da W on 6/12/2014 6:45:56 AM , Rating: 3
Forward year 2020, Disney is forced to remake their Sleeping beauty story, the gay nation found it discriminating that she's waken up by a prince, in the new version she will be kissed by a princess (and if the daddys wait after the generic they will have a surprise scene...)

RE: An Attempt
By techxx on 6/11/2014 11:03:08 PM , Rating: 3
Seems reasonable to me to allow same-sex marriages in a video game IF the player chooses to do so.
- Probably more development effort to NOT allow it
- Straight players would never even know it's there
- Gays are happy
What's the problem?

RE: An Attempt
By KoolAidMan1 on 6/12/2014 12:22:53 AM , Rating: 3
And this is the kind of trash comment that gets upvoted around here.

Stay classy DT

RE: An Attempt
By futrtrubl on 6/12/2014 1:28:45 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think we should even bother to cater to these minorities, because this is exactly what they are, a minority.

Yeah, why did they give a vote to black people? They were (are) a minority right?

RE: An Attempt
By FITCamaro on 6/12/2014 8:03:57 AM , Rating: 1
Homosexuality is not a race or a gender. No one is trying to deny gay people the right to anything. They are being denied a tax status. One which no one has any right to period. There is no right to marriage in the US. Because the founders did not view marriage as something that comes from the state. It comes from God.

In my perfect world, the government wouldn't care if you're married. You'd just get married in whatever fashion you choose and the government stays out of it. That doesn't mean I have to accept it though if your version of a marriage violates my beliefs. As I should have the right to do. We don't need state sponsored marriage to create legal documents about inheritance, visitation rights, etc.

RE: An Attempt
By domboy on 6/12/2014 8:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with FITCamaro. Marriage should go back to being a Holy Sacrament with no legal ramification whatsoever.

Also, the way I see it society logically can't "redefine" marriage, it can only un-define it. It's either one man-woman, or it's whatever you want it to be, as there is logically no reason to stop at gay marriage.

Hopefully this game will support that to... marry who or whatever you want.

RE: An Attempt
By datdamonfoo on 6/12/2014 10:51:11 AM , Rating: 2
You are conflating marriage with "holy matrimony". Marriage in itself is not a religious construct. And since the institution of marriage was established and defined by humans, it can be further expanded or restricted by humans.

RE: An Attempt
By FITCamaro on 6/12/2014 11:12:46 AM , Rating: 1
That is your point of view.

RE: An Attempt
By domboy on 6/12/2014 12:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
You are conflating marriage with "holy matrimony". Marriage in itself is not a religious construct. And since the institution of marriage was established and defined by humans, it can be further expanded or restricted by humans.

Depends on who you ask, and how you define the terms. Since religion and secular society are at odds over this issue the simplest solution would be what FITCamero suggests and just remove the government from the issue completely, so all you have left is the "holy matrimony".

Next best would be to separate the government benefits from "marriage", and let people setup whatever sort of relational configuration they'd like.

In both cases people can get "married" or enter into "holy matrimony" in whatever religious or non-religious institution supports their preference, gay, straight, plural, etc. In this way the government would not be in the position of dictating morality, and people with different beliefs won't be put in legal trouble if they refuse to violate their conscience on this issue due to some government mandate.

RE: An Attempt
By datdamonfoo on 6/12/2014 10:48:44 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry, but you are incorrect, at least in the U.S. The Supreme court has affirmed that marriage is a right multiple times. Marriage also does not come from any god. It has existed longer than religion.

RE: An Attempt
By FITCamaro on 6/12/2014 11:14:04 AM , Rating: 2
The Supreme Court has also ruled that slavery is a right in the past. That does not make it so. The court can be wrong when it does not follow the original intent of the constitution. Which says absolutely nothing about marriage.

RE: An Attempt
By datdamonfoo on 6/12/2014 5:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's a strawman argument. The Supreme Court, as of now, has affirmed that marriage is a civil right. As such, it should apply to everyone equally. Slavery was inherently established to treat people unequally. Also, slavery was constitutional, and completely in line with what the Founding Fathers wanted. We have progressed as a people and know it is wrong, just like the majority of the US now know that treating gays unequally is wrong.

RE: An Attempt
By Moishe on 6/13/2014 9:33:01 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely... I don't give a rat's arse what people do, but the fact that "marriage" and sec orientation is politicized is really sad.

This article shouldn't even exist. Who cares if they allow same-sex in a fictional virtual world? It simply doesn't matter until you bring politics into it and then it turns into

religious = intolerant superstitious chumps
gays = the champions of freedom

This whole hubbub is total BS.

The world has much bigger issues and Americans are wasting their time arguing about whether or not some virtual dude in a virtual world can virtually get married.

Really pathetic.

RE: An Attempt
By datdamonfoo on 6/12/2014 10:45:06 AM , Rating: 2
So only the majority should be given consideration, and any minority, by virtue of their minority status, should not have a say?

RE: An Attempt
By Dr of crap on 6/12/2014 12:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, whoa there.
I, as a white hetrosexual male, AM IN THE MINORITY, and as such I want MORE rights are respect!!!

I want a game that only has non-gay marriage!

And does that come with fries?

Now Jason Mick is a Japanese culture expert.
By shikigamild on 6/11/14, Rating: 0
By shikigamild on 6/12/2014 2:45:49 AM , Rating: 3
Dude, there is nothing stopping you or (the gays) from leaving Japan and moving to the GAY capital of the world, SAN FRANCISCO! You'd be welcome with open arms no doubt!

Nothing stopping me?, what about my job, my friends, and the fact that since I don't have an American nationality, I cannot legally just move out to some random place in America, and that I don't want to go to some place just because there are a lot of gay people?.

But still, I love the over simplistic solution to the fact that you get annoyed by people you don't like.
I mean, nothing is stopping you from being a reasonable human, then you wouldn't be annoyed.

By FITCamaro on 6/12/2014 7:50:37 AM , Rating: 1
Don't worry if you're not a citizen. Our President sure doesn't care.

By robinthakur on 6/17/2014 8:19:31 AM , Rating: 2
I apologise to you on behalf of the ignorant trolls on Dailytech, we are not all so hateful or so angry. Thanks for the insight from Japan, whilst I love all things Japanese it does not surprise me much given their intolerance of other races and groups. Lol at use of "the gays". Where the capital of the world for "the straights"? Detroit? What about "the whites" and "the jews" don't they get a capital too? Why not go experience the rest of the world a bit and learn about people other than you and your immediate circle of friends directly, rather than being drip fed invective your usual sources?

RE: Now Jason Mick is a Japanese culture expert.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/14, Rating: -1
By peterrushkin on 6/12/2014 12:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
Soon it will be against the law to have your own opinion to be against "insert anything" because some other group will be intolerant of your own view.

What is this world actually coming to? I'm telling you, no one will be happy until we are just 1 sex, 1 skin colour, 1 religion. But then I'm sure someone somewhere will NOT be happy LOL. just sayng....

By shikigamild on 6/12/2014 3:08:45 AM , Rating: 1
Soon it will be against the law to have your own opinion to be against "insert anything" because some other group will be intolerant of your own view.

Like in:
Soon it will be against the law to have your own opinion to be against homophobia because homophobic people will be intolerant of your own view.

Just like in Russia :D

Also no one is saying anything about making laws against others, you can be a homophobe if you want, and I can also call you out for being a homophobe if I want. That's how freedom of speech works, it's actually both ways.

What is this world actually coming to? I'm telling you, no one will be happy until we are just 1 sex, 1 skin colour, 1 religion

Like in "Men", "White" and "Christian"?... just saying...

By Moishe on 6/13/2014 9:35:00 AM , Rating: 2
That's what I'm saying.

These articles turn into.
A. a religious person saying "this shouldn't be"
B. athiests/gays trying to shut down the free speech of those who disagree
C. name calling like children
D. intolerance and bigotry.


RE: Now Jason Mick is a Japanese culture expert.
By Reflex on 6/12/2014 1:00:07 AM , Rating: 2
Slavery is a tradition in the United States. Women as property is a tradition in the United States. Institutionalized racism is a tradition in the United States.

Just because it is a tradition does not make it worthy of preservation. There cannot be 'bullying' by 3% of the population (actually the percentage is more than twice that). That's not even close to possible. The fact is that the laws are changing for two reasons: 1) the *majority* of the population supports equality for homosexuals, as demonstrated in dozens of national polls, and 2) the laws themselves, much like the laws against women and minorities, are themselves unconstitutional.

Personally I find the founding fathers to have been brilliant to have devised a constitution that made it inevitable that over time their real vision for the nation would win out over the evils of their day, without those who defended those evils even realizing what ratification would cost them.

By Visual on 6/12/2014 3:08:59 AM , Rating: 1
Way to miss a point there... the 3% thing was about the richest 3%, not the gayest 3%...

RE: Now Jason Mick is a Japanese culture expert.
By Moishe on 6/13/2014 9:57:08 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you know what the word "tradition" means.

If you're saying that these things happened at one time, you're right.


They haven't happened in a long time and the culture has changed. So either

The culture change doesn't matter to you
-- and therefore a group that has ever done wrong can never make up for it
You simply have a chip on your shoulder.

While you're about pointing out the issues with the USA, which has largely been left in the past, why not also speak out against the modern day slavery and intolerance against gays and women.

I.e. To focus on the sins of the past of group A while ignoring the same sins of the present of group B.... you're showing a bias against group A.

By Reflex on 6/18/2014 11:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
I think you missed my point. My point is that the argument that denying equal rights to gays is for traditional or religious reasons is an empty one. Those reasons were used previously to deny equal rights to many other groups. Over time all were found to be illegal and either explicitly legislated against (often against the popular will of the people) or overturned by our courts.

As far as I am concerned there is nothing happening today that has not already happened multiple times in our national history. Gays are just the latest standins for blacks and women, just as "illegal mexicans" is the latest standin for past waves of immigration such as the Italians, Irish, Germans, Chinese, and many, many others.

We tend to repeat ourselves, and usually the traditionalists seem to think that its okay simply because its how things have always been.

By shikigamild on 6/12/2014 2:58:28 AM , Rating: 2
I passed a homeless guy today, and yes I felt sorry for him. I guess that means I "hate" him too...

When you feel bad about things or people in misery, that's normal. When you feel bad about things or people that are completely ok, and in fact they are saying to you that they are completely ok, you are a condescending bastard.

Also saying that there is "something missing" in homosexual people is just plain rude.

But continue you hyperbolic speech and straw-mans, that way you can feel as if you are always right.

Based on your post, Japan seems pretty awesome. They are trying to preserve their culture and traditions. Instead of America, which is letting 3% of the population dictate policy and bully everyone into submission.

You mean, Japan traditions of the Meji restoration, when homophobia was introduced into Japan. Because before that it was seen as something completely normal.
So which traditions should we protect, the once that were introduced in the 19 century by the western world, or the ones before that?... this thing of being a conservative is very confusing.

Yet you didn't disprove a single thing he said. "I'm gay and offended" isn't a winning argument, in fact it's one that's becoming increasingly tiresome.

I did, maybe you have some difficulty reading, if which that is the case, I feel very sorry about you :(

RE: Now Jason Mick is a Japanese culture expert.
By CU on 6/12/2014 9:57:42 AM , Rating: 1
"When you feel bad about things or people that are completely ok, and in fact they are saying to you that they are completely ok, you are a condescending bastard."

Not always. Many people in abusive relationships will tell you they are OK. I still feel sorry for them though. Even though someone says they are OK and appear OK it doesn't always mean they are. It may just mean they are hiding it and trying to fool those around them into believing it.

By datdamonfoo on 6/12/2014 10:57:38 AM , Rating: 2
So you don't trust gay people when they say they are happy being gay?

RE: Now Jason Mick is a Japanese culture expert.
By CU on 6/12/2014 11:13:41 AM , Rating: 1
That depends on the person. Which was my point. Also people sometimes realize years later they were not happy even though they though they were. These basic principles are not strictly directed at gays, but they do apply to them.

So calling someone names for feeling sorry for someone seems out place. When if fact the one feeling sorry for them may see something they do not see themselves.

RE: Now Jason Mick is a Japanese culture expert.
By Reflex on 6/13/2014 2:10:18 AM , Rating: 2
Something tells me there are far more people who regret faking a heterosexual life to fit into society than there are straights who regret living life as a homosexual.

By Moishe on 6/13/2014 9:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
Something tells me that you're just guessing or operating on a gut feeling.

By shikigamild on 6/12/2014 11:07:55 PM , Rating: 1
Many people in abusive relationships will tell you they are OK. I still feel sorry for them though.

There is also the difference between the guy who is actually concerned with a reason, the guy who is honestly concerned with a faulty reason, and the guy who for whatever reason see abuse in a relationship when there is none, and instead of doing any good he just keeps harassing them for no good reason. Like the hyper overprotective mother who is spying on their children even after they marry.
And there is also the complete asshole who says he is concerned and he feels bad, when in reality his only intent is to cause harm or feel superior in a way or another in order to compensate for something.

In the eyes of the one who says he is concerned, no matter the reason, he will always see himself as the first case. When that's not the case it's completely reasonable to call that person out, and tell him to stop.

If they continue even after evidence is presented to show them they are wrong, and they continue to believe in whatever they want to believe and doesn't really care about anything else... then yes, that person is a complete condescending bastard.

The funny thing is, I have no idea if it was because of the demonstrations that took place after his retarded remarks, but now the party of former major Ishihara is one of the few that thinks that gay people should be allowed to marry.

By robinthakur on 6/17/2014 8:22:12 AM , Rating: 2
"Have you ever tried not being a mutant?" The only people I feel sorry for are those influenced by such miserable people as yourself. Get out there and live your life, and stop worrying about what other dull people think. They are being beige.

RE: Now Jason Mick is a Japanese culture expert.
By BSMonitor on 6/12/2014 9:29:09 AM , Rating: 2
Weird, the bigot .... Who gives a frak what this clown thinks.....




bigot Retro chimes in.......

By Moishe on 6/13/2014 9:59:35 AM , Rating: 2
Says the bigot who instantly bashes any religious person in any DT conversation.

Hello pot.

The real issue
By Nyanyanya on 6/12/2014 1:03:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a guy, heterosexual, and have been playing MMOs for a few years. I like to play female characters, as do the majority of players to be honest in games like Aion etc.

So let's say in one of these games I want to "marry" a female player who also has a female character, now if this is not allowed, this becomes an issue of not being able to use the feature -at all-, whether I was heterosexual or not.

RE: The real issue
By FITCamaro on 6/12/2014 7:59:52 AM , Rating: 1
In FFXI I only did because there weren't male Mithra characters and they were the best race for a split mage/DD class in my opinion. I continued that in FFXIV because I wanted to essentially continue my character from FFXI.

Any other MMO where I can play the race I want to as a male, I do. If people wanna play women they can. But anyone is lying to themselves if they try to say it doesn't make them kind of a perv.

RE: The real issue
By Motoman on 6/12/2014 9:18:28 AM , Rating: 2
Granted that your perspective as the player is generally right behind the character, you're going to spend the entire time looking at your character's a$s.

I'd greatly prefer to stare at some hot chick's a$s. Opting to play a male character honestly to me seems kind

RE: The real issue
By FITCamaro on 6/12/2014 9:47:23 AM , Rating: 2
If you're actually staring at your characters butt, thinking "I like that", then perhaps yes. If you're playing the game, no.

As I said, if you're a male playing a female character because "I want to stare at a chicks butt", then you're kind of a perv.

RE: The real issue
By xti on 6/12/2014 11:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
perv here, picked female elvaan in ffxi.

not once has the thought of marriage in a video game remotely crossed my mind as something I want to do.

but hey, a video game has to be PC or people get offended. wasnt how it was back in the days, but i got more important things to waste my thoughts on.

RE: The real issue
By siberus on 6/12/2014 12:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
For the most part I stopped trying to play guys when I could never make one look like myself. Too many games have some pretty inferior styling for men so you can end up with quite a few look a likes as everyone ends up liking the same 3 hairstyles and armor combos. 90% of the time the female equivalents of the same armor just look more bad ass with maybe guild wars 2 as an exception(Female heavy armors didn't have much nice choices for a while although you did end up with extremely unique looks as you had to do some serious mixing and matching to look cool) Using tera as an example Castanic female anything is pretty much nicer then castanic dude anything. In FFXIV this is actually less of an issue since they make the armors almost identical for both sexes which can make for some really silly looks when one armor is more geared towards male or female (Im looking at you i50/i90 ranger armor) However, who knows I say this as a guy benefiting from the video game industries over sexualization of women. I know in games like skyrim i usually played a dude since the women models were pretty terrible.

Alright slight subject change. I could care less who anyone wants to marry in an online game. If there were actual benefits to marrying say like increased exp when leveling together I'd probably end up marrying one of my in game dude friends anyway to speed our leveling. Otherwise yawn I don't care about marrying in a game I don't need an online Waifu. Not sure why everyone always tries to treat the online world like reality, it's not otherwise there'd be a lot less turds online since you can't get away with all that crap in real life.

What about the trans-genders?
By peterrushkin on 6/11/2014 6:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
When do I get to marry my pre-op transgendered love?

I mean, if its good enough for Casper Smart is should be good for everyone else?


RE: What about the trans-genders?
By Nexos on 6/11/2014 7:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
More impotantly: can anyone even tell what gender/orientation any character is supposed to be? They all look like androgynous 15 year olds.

I wont even go into the whole sexualisation of minors thing that ff has going on.

No Chocobo love?
By v1001 on 6/11/2014 7:29:03 PM , Rating: 4
What the hell man I want to marry a chocobo, I can't marry a chocobo??? Let's burn down the head quarters and get everyone fired, who's following me!!

Whats Love Got To Do With It?
By mikemn on 6/11/2014 7:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
Truest form of love for the faeries and high elves but I hear the goblins and orcs are against these unions and are planning a revolt on them.

RE: Whats Love Got To Do With It?
By wordsworm on 6/11/2014 8:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
Orcs and goblins shouldn't reproduce anyways. They're so revolting.

epic win
By Motoman on 6/11/2014 9:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
RE: epic win
By peterrushkin on 6/11/2014 10:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
When can we legalise when a man wants to get married to two women like these?

Sign me up baby!

Imagine no marriage in an MMO
By Chaser on 6/12/2014 12:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
....and the subsequent uproar from the heterosexual community.

RE: Imagine no marriage in an MMO
By Moishe on 6/13/2014 10:01:11 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think it'd happen.
The homosexual community is far smaller, more insecure for various reasons, and far more vocal.

Your only right is to not buy the game
By TheJian on 6/13/2014 7:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
I won't support any game company bowing to a ~2-4% audience or any other company catering to this small of an audience as it's stupid. Make what you want (it's YOUR business), if it doesn't sell learn and do better next time. Why can't someone just create their vision and the rest of us either buy it or shut up. We don't own it, we didn't create it and we're forcing undue costs for extra dev on all this crap. How much gameplay testing and content died to try to put this into a game the designer had no intention of making this way? I hope sales plummet so badly they never try this again, or at least until you're dealing with a market large enough to warrant it. Like maybe 15-20% of us being gay, then maybe you have a reason to waste time coding extra crap for already buggy games these days.

It's like the gay writer said recently in his book (can't remember the name), you can't win like this. You're just making the OTHER people (who are not for or against you - I never cared a few years back) VERY ANGRY. Yep, that's me now. Never a problem before it started affecting what I can say, play etc, marching, killing any company they can without their opinion, badgering people for simply speaking their mind (free speech) etc. The gay mafia is not scoring anything but pure anger from me these days. They attack some chicken joint, I go buy as much as I can handle eating for months even if I don't want it...LOL. I might have just let gay issues slip by at election time, now? Voting against anyone supporting ANYTHING even resembling gay rights etc. The way they are "tolerant" ROFL is unbelievable. They are the worst of what they claim others are (intolerant completely!).

We should be more worried about veterans getting killed in VA before we even print a story on toilet paper about this crap. We are the next VA (obamacare is the same thing, just a bigger mess with larger groups). VA=80% union...Well duh, kill the VA so vets can go to private doctors on vouchers. Or just give vouchers until nobody is going to the VA since you just die there. Competition might make them better or they go under.

By Reflex on 6/13/2014 7:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
- Percentages of homosexuals are between 8-10% based on most current studies, and higher if you count bisexuals and the fact that many have homosexual tendencies even if they never act on them (often due to social pressure).

- Your percentages are arbitrary, and almost all considerations can be written off if one assumes an arbitrary percentage that fits their goal of defining out a group.

- People don't 'shut up' because we live in a free country. Change never occurs because people shut up. It has always come because people are loud and vocal about a perceived injustice. The only people who argue that those who are harmed by the status quo are those who prefer the status quo even when others are harmed by it.

- There is no extra development work to permit players to marry each other even if the same gender. From a coding and testing perspective, it is easier to simply not have a gender check in the code than to have one. You will reduce bugs by permitting gay marriage in game.

- They changed it not for the 8-10% of potential players who are homosexual and themselves represent millions in possible income, but for the more than 50% of the western world who believes in homosexual equality and marriage. This is like saying they shouldn't bother to code in interracial marriage because in the west only a small percentage of people are black. The fact is that by omitting it they would offend nearly everyone, whether they are black or not.

- The gay writer is welcome to their opinion, but they are wrong. Homosexuals standing up for themselves, alongside straights who stood alongside social justice are now responsible for both the change in attitude among the general public which has swung dramatically since the first states started allowing gay marriage and did not implode into anarchy, and for the court cases that have demonstrated the unconstitutionality of the redefinition of marriage that occurred between the 90's and mid-2000's to attempt to prevent homosexual marriage. Without these challenges the laws would not be changed today nor would public opinion be so strongly on their side.

- There is no free speech infringement. Protections for speech are from the government. In the private sector, free speech in no way protects an individual from the consequences of that speech, and those consequences generally are also expressions of free speech. Free speech is only infringed if the government attempts to step in to block it.

- What gay mafia? Why is it a 'mafia' to demand equal treatment under the law? Was it also the black mafia in the past? The female mafia? The Native American mafia? The slave mafia?

- Intolerance of bigotry is not in itself bigoted. It is intolerant, as it should be. I do not tolerate everything, nor should you. For instance, pedophilia is not tolerable, nor is the beating of women. There is no reason to uphold tolerance of bigotry as an ideal to strive for.

- You are free to vote how you wish. You are following the proud tradition of bigots during every past civil rights fight, and one day I'm sure you will lie to your grandchildren and tell them how you supported gay rights all along, just as many white people do about their role during the 60's as well.

- Veterans getting poor treatment is indeed a terrible thing. Two of my siblings are veterans and both have some medical issues due to Iraq and Afghanistan deployments. Fortunately as a society we can attend to multiple ills at once, and action on the veterans situation is hopefully coming soon, along with all the progress we are making on homosexual civil rights.

By stm1185 on 6/12/2014 12:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
I don't find this the least bit shocking for a game that already lets people have relationships with a race that is clearly a stand in for children. If anything its classing the joint up a bit.

Well until NAMBLA finds it.

Slew of errors...
By breathlesstao on 6/12/2014 12:51:45 AM , Rating: 2
First off: marriage system was not part of any of the beta tests; the upcoming update does not "patches" that to allow gay marriages, it's gonna be introducing the system as a whole for the first time to the game.
Second: it's not FFIV, it's not FFIX, it's FFXIV - if Roman numerals are too difficult, please just use the Arabic ones.

they caved to the nuts
By p05esto on 6/11/14, Rating: -1
By BSMonitor on 6/12/2014 9:44:16 AM , Rating: 3
Lucky for them. They do not have a sub-culture of idiots who believe in magic as real science.

By sgw2n5 on 6/12/2014 10:27:08 AM , Rating: 3
Hmm... imagine that...

FIT is a bigoted, religious whackadoo trying to force his beliefs on all of his countrymen because he thinks this is a christian nation. Surprise surprise.

By xti on 6/12/2014 11:43:43 AM , Rating: 2

By sgw2n5 on 6/12/2014 11:48:00 AM , Rating: 2
Oh really? I'm trying to force Christianity on the entire nation? Answer this, are homosexuals trying to force their agenda on the entire nation?

Ahh... the nebulous gay agenda argument. What exactly in your mind is the gay agenda? People expecting to have the same rights as everyone else? THE HORROR!

Were the founders bigoted religious wackos? Because they believed the same as I, if not more vigorously, that this nation rose up under divine providence.

Yes, in fact, they were. They also owned slaves. Your point?

A nation of Christians living obediently would certainly solve many of our nations problems.

So in your christian utopia, would we get to kick women out of the village 1 week out of the month for being "unclean"? Would we still be allowed to eat shrimp? Would we ban pain medication for women giving birth? That is god's punishment for Eve's sin after all...

By sgw2n5 on 6/12/2014 3:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. Just... wow.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 4:05:01 PM , Rating: 1
I miss the Fit that used to join in with me against Liberals and Obama and defended our Constitution.

Lately it's just God this, God that....I dunno who got to him, but it's kind of awkward...

By sgw2n5 on 6/12/2014 4:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
It's like watching an elderly relative slip into dementia. I feel bad for the dude.

By FITCamaro on 6/12/2014 4:38:35 PM , Rating: 1
Except it does say those things. Blatantly. Whether you choose to believe it is your choice.

I grew up Catholic too. I'm not one anymore. The Catholic Church has largely abdicated the Old Testament in order to appear more friendly to the world.

Regardless of your feelings about me Reclaimer, I respect you. But I really don't care about your thoughts on my beliefs.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 4:46:21 PM , Rating: 1
That's fair. And I guess I don't care to see that you want us to go by the Bible in order to solve socioeconomic issues.

To me it's a just a book, sorry.

The Catholic Church has largely abdicated the Old Testament in order to appear more friendly to the world.

Having read the Old Testament all I can say is, good call! A civilized society and what's in it are mutually exclusive. There's a reason America/Europe and the UK (and others) doesn't resemble the Middle East, and religious people not forcing the Old Testament is probably one of them.

I respect you too, and have no "feelings" toward you at all. I've gotten into WAY more heated religious debates with my mother, and love her dearly. I just think it has it's place.

By FITCamaro on 6/12/2014 4:53:18 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not advocating for the US to be a theocracy. I'm advocating for the government to stay out of people's lives for the most part. As far as something like drug policy, you don't have to be a Christian to agree that drugs like cocaine and heroin are bad for society. As far as abortion, yes, my religious views guide me. But my view on abortion hasn't changed. I've always been against it. The Constitution clearly protects the right to life for all Americans. Science agrees with me that the unborn are human beings who think and feel when abortions take place.

By Reflex on 6/12/2014 5:43:37 PM , Rating: 1
Citizenship is awarded at conception now! If a fetus is a person, then one merely needs to be conceived in the USA in order to be considered a legal citizen!

I cannot wait to start my side business performing in vitro for foreign couples on US soil, then sending the results back to them for implantation...

By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 6:05:53 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry this is one area I agree with Fit. I'm an atheist, but strongly am against abortion.

A fetus is one thing. But it's legal to abort "fetuses" developed to the point that they have dreams, can feel pain, have normal human brain-wave patterns that prove they have an emotional state, etc etc.

Buddy, that's not a damn "fetus", that's a PERSON! A sentient being. And you are killing it.

I don't know who started this BS that if you're apposed to abortion you must be a religious wacko, but screw that.

By FITCamaro on 6/12/2014 6:42:29 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry but that right to me extends to everyone. Just in America we protect it. Or we're supposed to.

One being born in America does not equal citizenship. That is a twisting of the 14th amendment. Their parents must also be subject to the jurisdiction of the US as well. Which does not include the children of illegals.

By FITCamaro on 6/12/2014 5:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
And if you considered me an intelligent, thoughtful person who reasoned things out before, why would that opinion change now? Maybe you should consider that maybe there's something to what I'm saying rather than dismissing it entirely as "Oh he just lost his mind.". Not to say that God promises all believers perfect lives, far from it, but my life has changed immeasurably for the better since I accepted Christ and became a Christian. One thing I've hoped you and others have noticed on here is how my language has changed over time. As in, been less vulgar. Just one of many things about my life I've tried to change.

I'll still enjoy largely backing you up on most arguments. But I think you know where I'll be disagreeing with you at times.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 5:58:38 PM , Rating: 1
And if you considered me an intelligent, thoughtful person who reasoned things out before, why would that opinion change now?

That hasn't changed, where did I say it has?

but my life has changed immeasurably for the better since I accepted Christ and became a Christian.

And I'm very happy for you. But to me that simply says you changed your state of mind, not that there is an actual supreme being responsible for everything in the physical Universe.

Maybe you should consider that maybe there's something to what I'm saying rather than dismissing it entirely as

Well Fit...I don't know what to say. I just can't relate to Creationism. I wouldn't know where to even start even if I wanted to.

Who created God? Why is there only one God? Why are there, convenient, Biblical reasons why we all don't know there's a God. How does one get to be an omnipotent being anyway and where do I sign up?

You see? It's just improbable. And I'm sure you've been taught pat answers to all these, believe me I've heard them all, but apparently I just don't have the "faith". I live in a physical world, I can see it, I can touch it, I don't have to believe in it.

I don't believe religious people are stupid idiots. Even back then when they were writing the Bible and inventing religions, early man was simply ignorant about science and physics. Intelligent people were doing what modern day scientists are doing now, trying to explain the world around us in terms we can understand. It's just that their tools sucked a lot more, and the general knowledge-base was poorer.

How could we possibly expect someone with ZERO knowledge of gravity, space/time, or even matter=/=energy conversion to comprehend the Sun, Moon, and the planets? In the face of such awesome incomprehensible power and seemingly mystical phenomenons, it's easy to see how religion got started.

By MrHanson on 6/14/2014 2:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
We must once again demand accountability from scientists. Most science that deals with present-day observations and verifiable results by experiment is sound, but origins stories based on evolution usually take an inch and run a light-year. They are monstrosities of imagination extrapolated far beyond the evidence. This garbage is dished out recklessly all the time in the science media. The Darwin Party will continue to lead our impressionable students and low-information adults down the primrose path of philosophical naturalism without them even knowing it, convincing them this is “science” when it’s really brainwashing.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/16/2014 11:21:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yes scientists should dump the Theory of Evolution, for which there is supporting evidence and observable proof, and opt for Creationism. For which there is ZERO supporting evidence aside from a book known to have been written by men.

Also you people seem not understand what a scientific theory is. It's called the THEORY of evolution for a reason. It's not a law, but a theory. It's not perfect and there's a lot of questions to be answered about how complex life fully came to be. It's simply the best explanation based on fossil records, observable changes in living organisms, based on what we know today.

If you don't want "impressionable" people taught this, then it's time you proposed a better theory. And I'm sorry but "god did it" isn't going to cut it.

By Moishe on 6/13/2014 9:27:20 AM , Rating: 2
Your comment is as intolerant and bigoted against the religious.

How is it that you don't want FIT to speak his mind about his beliefs, but it's OK if you speak your mind about yours?

How's that hypocrisy working out for you?

By sgw2n5 on 6/13/2014 11:13:34 AM , Rating: 2
I have absolutely no problem with religious people of any flavor. The vast majority are good, well-meaning people. Most of my family and friends are religious, and I love them dearly.

I do, however, have a problem with bigots.

And I never implied that FIT shouldn't be able to speak his mind. Of course he should (and does) have that right.

I don't think that it is hypocritical to point out that someone's views are bigoted.

By sgw2n5 on 6/12/2014 10:32:13 AM , Rating: 3
I don't believe in magic. I believe in a loving, all powerful, but strict God. Because there's plenty of scientific evidence and historical documents to justify it.

LOL, wow.

What scientific evidence? You must have a very poor understanding of science, or you were home-schooled.

By sgw2n5 on 6/12/2014 12:56:52 PM , Rating: 1
Evolution? Really?

You do realize that it has been absolutely, unequivocally proven 6-ways to Sunday. It isn't up for debate. There is literally a mountain of rigorously peer reviewed scientific evidence, from a variety of different fields (biology, chemistry, geology, paleontology, biochemistry, physics) that all corroborate the same theory.

It is of course your right to be entitled to the opinion that it is not true... but it is intensely stupid to do so.

And you say you weren't always like this?? Some snake oil salesman must have gotten his hooks into you deeply. Wow. I hope I can manage to avoid such a fate.

By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2014 1:34:34 PM , Rating: 3
I don't remember Fit being this...evangelic a few years ago. Not at all.

Having said that, the idea that because science can't explain everything in every detail, or some theories may be flawed, automatically means Creationism is correct is a bit hard to take in.

Decades ago scientists didn't believe Earth was hit, and would be hit, by large asteroid impacts. Large and obvious impact craters were said to be dormant volcanoes by geologists and planetologists.

Does that mean "god" was hurling rocks at us? No. And as more and more evidence to the contrary came to light, scientists adopted the new information and changed certain pre-conceptions about it all.

Fit is right, current science cannot explain EVERYTHING about how life came to be on this planet in every minute detail. Nobody has physically observed the first single cell life evolving into more complex structures, nor has a scientists personally witnessed the first mammal being born/hatched. But Creationists all too often use this as a rationale for throwing out the entire thing. That's absurd.

Of course there's nothing wrong with questioning scientific theories. Some of our greatest achievements have come from asking those questions. But I think you need to bring a little more with you than a Bible if you're going to challenge scientific theory.

By Moishe on 6/13/2014 9:28:40 AM , Rating: 2

So how many ways can you bash people you disagree with?

Your arse is showing.

By japlha on 6/12/2014 10:45:12 AM , Rating: 2
They didn't discover things because of their belief in a god. They used the scientific method; that includes observations, experiments and predictions. This method is secular. The Bible makes no mention of the scientific method. Not sure how believing in a talking snake can help one discover gravity or quantum mechanics? By your logic we should also accept alchemy as viable since Newton put a lot of time and study into it and he was also a theist.
Religion is not magic. Real magic is simply an illusion a magician comes up with and understands. Religion is simply tradition, ritual and superstition based on wishful thinking, ignorance and fear of death.
There is no scientific evidence or any historical documents to justify belief in your particular flavour of god. Please present evidence for your assertion that a god, in particular the Christian god, exists is true. I'm willing to be convinced.

By Argon18 on 6/13/2014 4:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
"Lucky for them. They do not have a sub-culture of idiots who believe in magic as real science."

I wonder if they also have a sub-culture of hateful intolerant idiots who revel in the opportunity to insult people whose values, beliefs, and faith are different from their own? Sound strangely familiar? If not, find a mirror.

By datdamonfoo on 6/12/2014 10:55:06 AM , Rating: 3
The US was NOT founded on Christian principles. There is no mention of a god in the Constitution.

By JasonMick on 6/12/2014 11:32:34 AM , Rating: 1
The US was NOT founded on Christian principles. There is no mention of a god in the Constitution.
He might be technically correct about the U.S., thanks to his squirrelly wording.

The U.S. is founded on "Christian" principles (or more aptly the parts of Jewish law Christians happen to still find applicable). In that the courts look down on adultery in divorce proceedings, murder and theft is outlawed... basically legally codifying parts of Ten Commandments.

You could argue this is just common sense, but it is a tenant of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, although don't count on any of these sects' extremist adherents to obey those rules.

Where I think Fit goes wrong, from a pedantic perspective is when he says the modern Japanese state wasn't founded on Christian values/principles.

It WAS FOUNDED on "Christian" (Jewish law) principles as it too outlaws murder, etc.

So he is wrong, technically speaking.

And I should add that obviously "Christian" rules (as far as the Ten Commandments go) are obvious rules for creating a stable society. However, it is true the Jewish people were well ahead of the time in adopting such tenants in a far more barbaric time when marrying your sister was considered okay and killing your father or stealing from your neighbor was begrudgingly accepted.

Christians inherited the Jewish legal tradition, as they, of course, were originally Jews.

However, China and Japan independently developed codified rules similar to the Ten Commandments independently, which was a key reason why many of the empires of these regions lasted so long and were so prosperous.

Anyhow, enough history and semantics!

By FITCamaro on 6/13/2014 12:23:46 PM , Rating: 3
No there isn't. But there is in the Declaration of Independence. And the Constitution is the contract that implements the framework that the declaration set up.

And again, one only has to read the founders and framers own words to see their thoughts and inspiration. But of course secular historians seize only on the parts that try to prove their version of history.

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki