Binding of Isaac Denied 3DS Release Over Religious Concerns

Its stupid that the game is banned over a general mocking of religion. If you ignore that and look a little deeper it is centered around one of the worst stories in religion. IMO anyway. A story that preaches to place god above all else, including slaughtering your only child for the sole purpose of proving your love and faith in god, is pretty fucked up. Its that type of mindset that brings enough malice to attack or kill another person over a perceived slight against your god or religion.

@Branthog said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Branthog said:

@DryvBy said:

I'm curious to the ones complaining... would you feel the same if Nintendo blocked a game for it's gay bashing? If that's somehow different, then you need to check your hypocrisy.

I'm sorry, but that's a rather miserable comparison.

Religious people are constantly trying to associate themselves with other maligned groups of people in some deranged attempt to confuse the public that religion deserves some sort of special protection and reverence. Stupid and wrong is stupid and wrong. Cloaking it in "religion" doesn't suddenly make it a protected idea that none shall critique. Especially if that belief is not only wrong, but encourages or even mandates discrimination and hate.

Religious people like to shut down criticism by asserting that their belief in insane mumbo-jumbo is above questioning and criticizing and that for you to do so is intolerant. Further, that your intolerance of their intolerance makes you just as bad (it doesn't; tolerance of intolerance makes you a coward).

So, in short, suggesting that criticizing the absurdities of religion is on par with hatred, discrimination, and violence toward people because of their sexuality (or ethnicity, skin color, or any of the other things religion tries to cling onto in its pathetic defense) is pretty intellectually offensive.

Now, if this was a game about strapping on a flamethrower and heading out to the crowded NYC streets to start melting the faces off of Christians and Muslims and other assorted lunatics, then it would be a different issue.

But you see, you're prescribing absolute moral guidelines here, just like the religious institutions you so despise. You're deciding that certain actions are absolutely wrong and certain actions are absolutely right. Also, I don't see moral relativism as being 'intellectually offensive', but I suppose that is subjective.

This isn't about moral relativism. This is about the bullshit attempt of religious people to associate themselves and their religion (religion is an idea) with ethnicity, gender, sexual-orientation, or nationality. It is absurd to say that criticizing or ridiculing stupid ideas is on the same level with ridiculing, harassing, or committing violence against people based on the things identified in my previous sentence. No reverence or tolerance is owed to stupid ideas and it should not be taboo to criticize (even though, sadly, it is in reality). Whether that stupid idea is "stone women to death for adultery, don't wear mixed textiles, and pray to an invisible magic sky man" or it's "the earth is flat and remote viewing is real".

Whether someone likes people of a certain orientation, gender, ethnicity, or nationality is irrelevant. Obviously people have ignorant and bigoted judgements in that regard. But a criticism against ideas (religion) is absolutely not even remotely related in any way to gay-bashing, racism, sexism, etc. (But religious people like to associate it with that, the same way that they have more recently tried to put forth the idea that their 80% majority is actually somehow a poor and defenseless minority). And, amusingly, the people most likely to be gay-bashing racists are those most offended by the criticism of their ideas (religions).

Belief should not be some magic word that cloaks you in this shield protecting you from criticism of stupid ideas and thoughts.

So in other words, what I said you believe before: "Freedom of speech! --- only if you agree with me.". That's the problem with people like you. You believe you are right and anything outside of YOUR beliefs is stupid. I'm almost certain you'd be one of the guys rooting the religion was a waste of time when "science" (used loosely) said it the world was flat.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish: Oh hell yes.

@the_mighty_monarch: Agreed! Here here!

@Vegetable_Side_Dish: Point taken, but nowadays its no longer the case. Or at the very least, its no longer the case in pretty much any area where people would be choosing whether or not to buy the game.

I was mostly just using that as a point to jump in and speak my mind anyways XD

@Vegetable_Side_Dish: Religion is absolutely a choice. I was raised very specifically Christian. Went to church every Sunday, and Sunday School quite frequently. It wasn't shoved down my throat by my parents, but it was taken for granted my entire life. It was completely an integral part of my upbringing.

Which doesn't change the fact that I drifted from it. It was a belief, but the idea of 'faith' wasn't enough to fill the gaps in questions it couldn't answer. So I found something different.

If religion wasn't a choice, Scientology wouldn't be such a potent force. Sexuality is something inherent, but religion, like morality, is something that needs to be taught.

With all of this said, I don't think people have a right to suggest something offensive simply shouldn't exist. I vehemently disagree with things like, I don't know, Neo-Nazi's and the KKK and such, but if they simply sit around believing what they say and not actually harassing or murdering anyone, then they have the right to think the way they do. It offends me as a person, but I can choose to not agree with them and leave it at that if they aren't hurting anyone. (Though those extreme cases usually do.)

Should we ban crosses from all public areas because it might offend those who aren't Christian? Do we ban books that discuss atheism because it's blasphemous? NO! That would just be stupid. Let people think whatever the hell they want as long as they're not hurting you physically. With a video game it's the least debatable to exist. You have to CHOOSE to play it. You might hate a game that has you going around murdering gay people or Christians for no reason. But you'd probably love a game that has you murdering the people who would murder gays or Christians for no reason. But then those people would be offended. But if both of you stuck to your own game, you both get to be happy and nobody's getting hurt. It's exactly the same as letting people believe in what they choose to believe in.

-

But despite ALL THAT. Nintendo has every right to deny release. I personally might think its stupid, but it comes back to letting people have their own beliefs. I actually think its really stupid, because they only make the system, if they don't actually work on the game, they have no liability. Though I guess people might be mad at them for not blocking it, but again, that only causes backlash from the people who think things that offend them shouldn't exist, which is ludicrous because if everything that was offensive to at least someone was banned, the world would need to cease to exist to appease everyone. And then there'd be no one to offend anyways.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Branthog said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Branthog said:

@DryvBy said:

I'm curious to the ones complaining... would you feel the same if Nintendo blocked a game for it's gay bashing? If that's somehow different, then you need to check your hypocrisy.

I'm sorry, but that's a rather miserable comparison.

Religious people are constantly trying to associate themselves with other maligned groups of people in some deranged attempt to confuse the public that religion deserves some sort of special protection and reverence. Stupid and wrong is stupid and wrong. Cloaking it in "religion" doesn't suddenly make it a protected idea that none shall critique. Especially if that belief is not only wrong, but encourages or even mandates discrimination and hate.

Religious people like to shut down criticism by asserting that their belief in insane mumbo-jumbo is above questioning and criticizing and that for you to do so is intolerant. Further, that your intolerance of their intolerance makes you just as bad (it doesn't; tolerance of intolerance makes you a coward).

So, in short, suggesting that criticizing the absurdities of religion is on par with hatred, discrimination, and violence toward people because of their sexuality (or ethnicity, skin color, or any of the other things religion tries to cling onto in its pathetic defense) is pretty intellectually offensive.

Now, if this was a game about strapping on a flamethrower and heading out to the crowded NYC streets to start melting the faces off of Christians and Muslims and other assorted lunatics, then it would be a different issue.

But you see, you're prescribing absolute moral guidelines here, just like the religious institutions you so despise. You're deciding that certain actions are absolutely wrong and certain actions are absolutely right. Also, I don't see moral relativism as being 'intellectually offensive', but I suppose that is subjective.

This isn't about moral relativism. This is about the bullshit attempt of religious people to associate themselves and their religion (religion is an idea) with ethnicity, gender, sexual-orientation, or nationality. It is absurd to say that criticizing or ridiculing stupid ideas is on the same level with ridiculing, harassing, or committing violence against people based on the things identified in my previous sentence. No reverence or tolerance is owed to stupid ideas and it should not be taboo to criticize (even though, sadly, it is in reality). Whether that stupid idea is "stone women to death for adultery, don't wear mixed textiles, and pray to an invisible magic sky man" or it's "the earth is flat and remote viewing is real".

Whether someone likes people of a certain orientation, gender, ethnicity, or nationality is irrelevant. Obviously people have ignorant and bigoted judgements in that regard. But a criticism against ideas (religion) is absolutely not even remotely related in any way to gay-bashing, racism, sexism, etc. (But religious people like to associate it with that, the same way that they have more recently tried to put forth the idea that their 80% majority is actually somehow a poor and defenseless minority). And, amusingly, the people most likely to be gay-bashing racists are those most offended by the criticism of their ideas (religions).

Belief should not be some magic word that cloaks you in this shield protecting you from criticism of stupid ideas and thoughts.

No, it absolutely is about moral relativism. You are placing your belief that, for example, homosexuality is fine, above their belief that it is not. Your believe that this is right is due to some form of moral code or principles that you hold. Their belief is also based on some form of moral code or principle that they hold. It really is as simple as that. You can argue that the source of these religious beliefs is inferior to whichever yours is by making fun of the people that believe in the literal existence of a God, or that the events of, for example, the bible were factually correct, but in all honesty you are missing a huge subset of people of faith that simply see these things as a metaphor for the code of ethics established by their religious community. Also, calling all religious ideas 'stupid' is just childish. Not only, again, a massive generalization, but also a simplistic term that means nothing. I'm trying to be civil but I see you have a bone to pick with anyone that does not conform to your system of thought. (Sort of like religious fundamentalists, eh?)

I think what Branthog is trying to say is... religion is simply a belief, while being gay, or being a specific race or sex, is not a choice. This is why it's so different, because you can choose a religion.

I suppose part of this is my own moral code, in which I say it's absolutely fine to criticize a belief because it's something that person chose to do. However, it's totally not okay to criticize something somebody doesn't have a choice over.

It's just my own morals, not forcing them on anybody, but by banning this game over a JOKE in the beginning of it, is ridiculous. I could definitely see it coming out with an M-rating, partially due to that, but to ban it? absolutely ridiculous.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Branthog said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Branthog said:

@DryvBy said:

I'm curious to the ones complaining... would you feel the same if Nintendo blocked a game for it's gay bashing? If that's somehow different, then you need to check your hypocrisy.

I'm sorry, but that's a rather miserable comparison.

Religious people are constantly trying to associate themselves with other maligned groups of people in some deranged attempt to confuse the public that religion deserves some sort of special protection and reverence. Stupid and wrong is stupid and wrong. Cloaking it in "religion" doesn't suddenly make it a protected idea that none shall critique. Especially if that belief is not only wrong, but encourages or even mandates discrimination and hate.

Religious people like to shut down criticism by asserting that their belief in insane mumbo-jumbo is above questioning and criticizing and that for you to do so is intolerant. Further, that your intolerance of their intolerance makes you just as bad (it doesn't; tolerance of intolerance makes you a coward).

So, in short, suggesting that criticizing the absurdities of religion is on par with hatred, discrimination, and violence toward people because of their sexuality (or ethnicity, skin color, or any of the other things religion tries to cling onto in its pathetic defense) is pretty intellectually offensive.

Now, if this was a game about strapping on a flamethrower and heading out to the crowded NYC streets to start melting the faces off of Christians and Muslims and other assorted lunatics, then it would be a different issue.

But you see, you're prescribing absolute moral guidelines here, just like the religious institutions you so despise. You're deciding that certain actions are absolutely wrong and certain actions are absolutely right. Also, I don't see moral relativism as being 'intellectually offensive', but I suppose that is subjective.

This isn't about moral relativism. This is about the bullshit attempt of religious people to associate themselves and their religion (religion is an idea) with ethnicity, gender, sexual-orientation, or nationality. It is absurd to say that criticizing or ridiculing stupid ideas is on the same level with ridiculing, harassing, or committing violence against people based on the things identified in my previous sentence. No reverence or tolerance is owed to stupid ideas and it should not be taboo to criticize (even though, sadly, it is in reality). Whether that stupid idea is "stone women to death for adultery, don't wear mixed textiles, and pray to an invisible magic sky man" or it's "the earth is flat and remote viewing is real".

Whether someone likes people of a certain orientation, gender, ethnicity, or nationality is irrelevant. Obviously people have ignorant and bigoted judgements in that regard. But a criticism against ideas (religion) is absolutely not even remotely related in any way to gay-bashing, racism, sexism, etc. (But religious people like to associate it with that, the same way that they have more recently tried to put forth the idea that their 80% majority is actually somehow a poor and defenseless minority). And, amusingly, the people most likely to be gay-bashing racists are those most offended by the criticism of their ideas (religions).

Belief should not be some magic word that cloaks you in this shield protecting you from criticism of stupid ideas and thoughts.

No, it absolutely is about moral relativism. You are placing your belief that, for example, homosexuality is fine, above their belief that it is not. Your believe that this is right is due to some form of moral code or principles that you hold. Their belief is also based on some form of moral code or principle that they hold. It really is as simple as that. You can argue that the source of these religious beliefs is inferior to whichever yours is by making fun of the people that believe in the literal existence of a God, or that the events of, for example, the bible were factually correct, but in all honesty you are missing a huge subset of people of faith that simply see these things as a metaphor for the code of ethics established by their religious community. Also, calling all religious ideas 'stupid' is just childish. Not only, again, a massive generalization, but also a simplistic term that means nothing. I'm trying to be civil but I see you have a bone to pick with anyone that does not conform to your system of thought. (Sort of like religious fundamentalists, eh?)

I think what Branthog is trying to say is... religion is simply a belief, while being gay, or being a specific race or sex, is not a choice. This is why it's so different, because you can choose a religion.

I suppose part of this is my own moral code, in which I say it's absolutely fine to criticize a belief because it's something that person chose to do. However, it's totally not okay to criticize something somebody doesn't have a choice over.

It's just my own morals, not forcing them on anybody, but by banning this game over a JOKE in the beginning of it, is ridiculous. I could definitely see it coming out with an M-rating, partially due to that, but to ban it? absolutely ridiculous.

@BombKareshi: Hey man, in Final Fantasy Legend you kill god. Nuff said.

They let Megaten games on the SNES and DS, wtf.

So did Nintendo not allow this on the 3DS because of "religious concerns" or is that just speculation and hearsay from the developer?

If it's the latter, this is coming off as the patented Kotaku standby of posting such an article as little more than an excuse for anti-Christian trolls to post hateful stuff in the comments section. That's not good for the community.

"questionable religious content"?

That's a pretty vague reason

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Branthog said:

@DryvBy said:

I'm curious to the ones complaining... would you feel the same if Nintendo blocked a game for it's gay bashing? If that's somehow different, then you need to check your hypocrisy.

I'm sorry, but that's a rather miserable comparison.

Religious people are constantly trying to associate themselves with other maligned groups of people in some deranged attempt to confuse the public that religion deserves some sort of special protection and reverence. Stupid and wrong is stupid and wrong. Cloaking it in "religion" doesn't suddenly make it a protected idea that none shall critique. Especially if that belief is not only wrong, but encourages or even mandates discrimination and hate.

Religious people like to shut down criticism by asserting that their belief in insane mumbo-jumbo is above questioning and criticizing and that for you to do so is intolerant. Further, that your intolerance of their intolerance makes you just as bad (it doesn't; tolerance of intolerance makes you a coward).

So, in short, suggesting that criticizing the absurdities of religion is on par with hatred, discrimination, and violence toward people because of their sexuality (or ethnicity, skin color, or any of the other things religion tries to cling onto in its pathetic defense) is pretty intellectually offensive.

Now, if this was a game about strapping on a flamethrower and heading out to the crowded NYC streets to start melting the faces off of Christians and Muslims and other assorted lunatics, then it would be a different issue.

But you see, you're prescribing absolute moral guidelines here, just like the religious institutions you so despise. You're deciding that certain actions are absolutely wrong and certain actions are absolutely right. Also, I don't see moral relativism as being 'intellectually offensive', but I suppose that is subjective.

This isn't about moral relativism. This is about the bullshit attempt of religious people to associate themselves and their religion (religion is an idea) with ethnicity, gender, sexual-orientation, or nationality. It is absurd to say that criticizing or ridiculing stupid ideas is on the same level with ridiculing, harassing, or committing violence against people based on the things identified in my previous sentence. No reverence or tolerance is owed to stupid ideas and it should not be taboo to criticize (even though, sadly, it is in reality). Whether that stupid idea is "stone women to death for adultery, don't wear mixed textiles, and pray to an invisible magic sky man" or it's "the earth is flat and remote viewing is real".

Whether someone likes people of a certain orientation, gender, ethnicity, or nationality is irrelevant. Obviously people have ignorant and bigoted judgements in that regard. But a criticism against ideas (religion) is absolutely not even remotely related in any way to gay-bashing, racism, sexism, etc. (But religious people like to associate it with that, the same way that they have more recently tried to put forth the idea that their 80% majority is actually somehow a poor and defenseless minority). And, amusingly, the people most likely to be gay-bashing racists are those most offended by the criticism of their ideas (religions).

Belief should not be some magic word that cloaks you in this shield protecting you from criticism of stupid ideas and thoughts.

Of course Nintendo would never put that on their system. I'm surprised the word "debate" was even used there, and more surprised that he even bothered bringing it to Nintendo.

Still, it's a shame. Or at least... a shame for people with 3DSs? ...Who don't have....... Steam? Okay, maybe it's not really much of a shame for anyone.

I may not own a 3DS, but it pains me to see that this title won't get played by more people. I've sunk so many hours into this game and still love the shit out of it.

Edit: That is to say, it pains me that it could be locked from a particular group of gamers.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@Branthog said:

@DryvBy said:

I'm curious to the ones complaining... would you feel the same if Nintendo blocked a game for it's gay bashing? If that's somehow different, then you need to check your hypocrisy.

I'm sorry, but that's a rather miserable comparison.

Religious people are constantly trying to associate themselves with other maligned groups of people in some deranged attempt to confuse the public that religion deserves some sort of special protection and reverence. Stupid and wrong is stupid and wrong. Cloaking it in "religion" doesn't suddenly make it a protected idea that none shall critique. Especially if that belief is not only wrong, but encourages or even mandates discrimination and hate.

Religious people like to shut down criticism by asserting that their belief in insane mumbo-jumbo is above questioning and criticizing and that for you to do so is intolerant. Further, that your intolerance of their intolerance makes you just as bad (it doesn't; tolerance of intolerance makes you a coward).

So, in short, suggesting that criticizing the absurdities of religion is on par with hatred, discrimination, and violence toward people because of their sexuality (or ethnicity, skin color, or any of the other things religion tries to cling onto in its pathetic defense) is pretty intellectually offensive.

Now, if this was a game about strapping on a flamethrower and heading out to the crowded NYC streets to start melting the faces off of Christians and Muslims and other assorted lunatics, then it would be a different issue.

But you see, you're prescribing absolute moral guidelines here, just like the religious institutions you so despise. You're deciding that certain actions are absolutely wrong and certain actions are absolutely right. Also, I don't see moral relativism as being 'intellectually offensive', but I suppose that is subjective.

This isn't about moral relativism. This is about the bullshit attempt of religious people to associate themselves and their religion (religion is an idea) with ethnicity, gender, sexual-orientation, or nationality. It is absurd to say that criticizing or ridiculing stupid ideas is on the same level with ridiculing, harassing, or committing violence against people based on the things identified in my previous sentence. No reverence or tolerance is owed to stupid ideas and it should not be taboo to criticize (even though, sadly, it is in reality). Whether that stupid idea is "stone women to death for adultery, don't wear mixed textiles, and pray to an invisible magic sky man" or it's "the earth is flat and remote viewing is real".

Whether someone likes people of a certain orientation, gender, ethnicity, or nationality is irrelevant. Obviously people have ignorant and bigoted judgements in that regard. But a criticism against ideas (religion) is absolutely not even remotely related in any way to gay-bashing, racism, sexism, etc. (But religious people like to associate it with that, the same way that they have more recently tried to put forth the idea that their 80% majority is actually somehow a poor and defenseless minority). And, amusingly, the people most likely to be gay-bashing racists are those most offended by the criticism of their ideas (religions).

Belief should not be some magic word that cloaks you in this shield protecting you from criticism of stupid ideas and thoughts.

@DryvBy said:

I'm curious to the ones complaining... would you feel the same if Nintendo blocked a game for it's gay bashing? If that's somehow different, then you need to check your hypocrisy.

I'm sorry, but that's a rather miserable comparison.

...

Now, if this was a game about strapping on a flamethrower and heading out to the crowded NYC streets to start melting the faces off of Christians and Muslims and other assorted lunatics, then it would be a different issue.

@DryvBy said:

I'm curious to the ones complaining... would you feel the same if Nintendo blocked a game for it's gay bashing? If that's somehow different, then you need to check your hypocrisy.

I'm sorry, but that's a rather miserable comparison.

Religious people are constantly trying to associate themselves with other maligned groups of people in some deranged attempt to confuse the public that religion deserves some sort of special protection and reverence. Stupid and wrong is stupid and wrong. Cloaking it in "religion" doesn't suddenly make it a protected idea that none shall critique. Especially if that belief is not only wrong, but encourages or even mandates discrimination and hate.

Religious people like to shut down criticism by asserting that their belief in insane mumbo-jumbo is above questioning and criticizing and that for you to do so is intolerant. Further, that your intolerance of their intolerance makes you just as bad (it doesn't; tolerance of intolerance makes you a coward).

So, in short, suggesting that criticizing the absurdities of religion is on par with hatred, discrimination, and violence toward people because of their sexuality (or ethnicity, skin color, or any of the other things religion tries to cling onto in its pathetic defense) is pretty intellectually offensive.

Now, if this was a game about strapping on a flamethrower and heading out to the crowded NYC streets to start melting the faces off of Christians and Muslims and other assorted lunatics, then it would be a different issue.

It's dark and fucked up in so many ways, but it's not that self serious. Kinda weird seeing how games like No More Heroes exist on nintendo platforms, even if they aren't as religious and more Japanese.

I'm fine with this.

Really? Religious content? That's what Nintendo is worried about in this game?

It's likely one of the most disturbing and vile games in my steam list. But still, it's awesome.

@Branthog said:

@TwoLines said:

That's ridiculous. Why don't we boycott God of War because it offends Greek mythology? This is so silly.

Because, don't you know? Every other religion that has ever existed is bullshit and only Christianity is totally super legitimate. Also, because the Greek gods don't have the largest political lobby and financial institution on earth behind them.

Yeah, that's... that\s bumming me out man.

@Branthog said:

@hidys said:

@MormonWarrior said:

@Scooper said:

Nintendo is just making sure they keep their 'Family Friendly' appearance, and selling a few thousand copies of this game on 3DS is not worth the crazy headlines and stories that they KNOW will happen that will sour their brand in the eyes of some portion of the American consumers (an incredibly worrying portion if you ask me) that take the word of the Bible literally (mentals). Some several thousand dollars is simply not worth the sensationalist twaddle that would end up happening.

It's mental for somebody to believe what the Bible says? That sure is compartmentalizing millions upon millions of people with varied belief systems and lifestyles.

I haven't checked out this game (even though I love Meat Boy) because it looks hideous and boring. The weird pseudo-religious junk in the game is nearly meaningless...I just thought it looked like a garbage game. Nothing I've seen or heard has convinced me otherwise.

Yes it is mental to take the bible literally.

Well, fuck, if millions upon millions of people around the world believe something, then I guess it must be true! Fuck that whole observe, study, hypothesize, and test/repeat thing! We just need to come up with some shit and get a marketing team together to persuade enough people to accept the idea and it'll pop into reality!

90% of people in the 12th century believed Dragons were real. That belief actually made them materialize into our world for real! When people stopped believing in them they all dissipated and vanished. That's why there's no bones or record of them anywhere. It's simple logic.

@TwoLines said:

That's ridiculous. Why don't we boycott God of War because it offends Greek mythology? This is so silly.

Because, don't you know? Every other religion that has ever existed is bullshit and only Christianity is totally super legitimate. Also, because the Greek gods don't have the largest political lobby and financial institution on earth behind them.

@hidys said:

@MormonWarrior said:

@Scooper said:

Nintendo is just making sure they keep their 'Family Friendly' appearance, and selling a few thousand copies of this game on 3DS is not worth the crazy headlines and stories that they KNOW will happen that will sour their brand in the eyes of some portion of the American consumers (an incredibly worrying portion if you ask me) that take the word of the Bible literally (mentals). Some several thousand dollars is simply not worth the sensationalist twaddle that would end up happening.

It's mental for somebody to believe what the Bible says? That sure is compartmentalizing millions upon millions of people with varied belief systems and lifestyles.

I haven't checked out this game (even though I love Meat Boy) because it looks hideous and boring. The weird pseudo-religious junk in the game is nearly meaningless...I just thought it looked like a garbage game. Nothing I've seen or heard has convinced me otherwise.

Yes it is mental to take the bible literally.

Well, fuck, if millions upon millions of people around the world believe something, then I guess it must be true! Fuck that whole observe, study, hypothesize, and test/repeat thing! We just need to come up with some shit and get a marketing team together to persuade enough people to accept the idea and it'll pop into reality!

I've heard they are trying to get it on the Vita and PS3, please make this happen.

@DryvBy said:

I'm curious to the ones complaining... would you feel the same if Nintendo blocked a game for it's gay bashing? If that's somehow different, then you need to check your hypocrisy.

I'm sorry, but that's a rather miserable comparison.

Religious people are constantly trying to associate themselves with other maligned groups of people in some deranged attempt to confuse the public that religion deserves some sort of special protection and reverence. Stupid and wrong is stupid and wrong. Cloaking it in "religion" doesn't suddenly make it a protected idea that none shall critique. Especially if that belief is not only wrong, but encourages or even mandates discrimination and hate.

Religious people like to shut down criticism by asserting that their belief in insane mumbo-jumbo is above questioning and criticizing and that for you to do so is intolerant. Further, that your intolerance of their intolerance makes you just as bad (it doesn't; tolerance of intolerance makes you a coward).

So, in short, suggesting that criticizing the absurdities of religion is on par with hatred, discrimination, and violence toward people because of their sexuality (or ethnicity, skin color, or any of the other things religion tries to cling onto in its pathetic defense) is pretty intellectually offensive.

Now, if this was a game about strapping on a flamethrower and heading out to the crowded NYC streets to start melting the faces off of Christians and Muslims and other assorted lunatics, then it would be a different issue.

One more chance I have to say that The Binding of Isaac is awesome and you should definitely play it.

I'm curious to the ones complaining... would you feel the same if Nintendo blocked a game for it's gay bashing? If that's somehow different, then you need to check your hypocrisy.

A company like Nintendo is free to publish what they want on their products, and there is no censorship about it. It isn't their first denial gaff either. Just talk to Robert Pelloni of 'Bob's Game'. Here in America people tend to think they have a right to not be offended ever, and whiile that's not the case, Nintendo does have the right to steer their organization however they please, even if it's right into the ground.

@MrKlorox: your comment about Darksiders being more like Zelda than Binding of Issac isn't relevant to this because Darksiders never came out on a Nintendo platform.

After Super Meat Boy's reaction and this, I think McMillen should realize Nintendo is not a healthy environment for indie developers. I think his insistence is mostly fan loyalty.

Its ok, though. He can always come to PSN. I am sure we will welcome SMB and BOI properly...

That's ridiculous. Why don't we boycott God of War because it offends Greek mythology? This is so silly.

@MrKlorox: your comment about Darksiders being more like Zelda than Binding of Issac isn't relevant to this because Darksiders never came out on a Nintendo platform.

While I can understand Nintendo's stance to protect their family friendly image, it is sad that in this age, systems condoning slavery, homophobia, incest, omnipotent deities impregnating 13 year olds, murdering 'impure' brides/siblings and generally treating women as second class citezens are held as the right choice for Nintendo.

@MrKlorox said:

@princess_zelda said:

I think Nintendo is fine with something tasteless/obscene as long as it doesn't directly reference their own products. They're specifically trying to avoid being associated with filth that tries to look like Zelda.

The Darksiders series is way closer to a Zelda game than Binding of Isaac. Something tells me you haven't played this game.

I would disagree with that myself. Ignoring the whole religious concerns thing, I feel like I'm the only one who's ever played The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, every single time I see BoI brought up. It's always mentioned as "closely resembling" an unnamed Zelda game but the two games are actually similar to an extreme degree.

Just watch the trailer for the Binding of Isaac and compare and layouts of rooms and movements of enemies to those in some of the dungeons and areas in A Link to the Past.

Monstro's jumping nearly mirrors the Armos Knight's, Scolex is pretty much just the Lanmola fight, the Duke of Flies acts similar to an Octoballoon, Fistula splits like a Biri; so on so forth.

So while I'm not saying that the Binding of Isaac doesn't have a completely new story, that's totally unrelated to the Zelda storyline, and I'm also not saying that it's a carbon copy or that it isn't a fun game but there is definitely no game closer to ALttP than BoI that I can think of.

@Djratchet said:

@YukoAsho: Well, yeah. But I don't think they will have a problem finding a publisher. Maybe I'm crazy, though.

It'll be interesting either way.

@YukoAsho: Well, yeah. But I don't think they will have a problem finding a publisher. Maybe I'm crazy, though.

@MormonWarrior said:

@Scooper said:

Nintendo is just making sure they keep their 'Family Friendly' appearance, and selling a few thousand copies of this game on 3DS is not worth the crazy headlines and stories that they KNOW will happen that will sour their brand in the eyes of some portion of the American consumers (an incredibly worrying portion if you ask me) that take the word of the Bible literally (mentals). Some several thousand dollars is simply not worth the sensationalist twaddle that would end up happening.

It's mental for somebody to believe what the Bible says? That sure is compartmentalizing millions upon millions of people with varied belief systems and lifestyles.

I haven't checked out this game (even though I love Meat Boy) because it looks hideous and boring. The weird pseudo-religious junk in the game is nearly meaningless...I just thought it looked like a garbage game. Nothing I've seen or heard has convinced me otherwise.

Yes it is mental to take the bible literally.

@Baal_Sagoth said:

A move that is unfortunately to be expected from a corporation pretty much exclusively in the business of producing children's toys. Still, good to read this as a news story on GB considering how much Nintendo pays lipservice to supposedly still providing entertainment of a bigger scope and for an adult audience.

Exactly. Who's to say Nintendo won't insist on Wii U games being neutered this way?

@Djratchet said:

Whatever, now they are looking over over at PS3 and/or Vita. Works out in my opinion. Sony will put it up as soon as it gets an ESRB rating, they couldn't care less what it is as long as it isn't AO.

They may need a 3rd party to publish, or self-publish. Sony, last I checked, was simply not interested in publishing it.

Shame, great little game. Music just fucking rocks. I dont really care for hand helds, but this would definitely be a game id get for it. Love the opening intro. Still havent beat that damn thing. >.>

@forkboy said:

@mlarrabee: Self-censorship is still censorship bruv. And this isn't even self-censorship, this is a platform holder preventing a game from being released for no other reason than it might offend a small minority of people.

That's censorship.

Self-censorship is what you and I both believe in: The right and responsibility of everyone to control their own domain, and to allow others to do the same. Nintendo is wielding control over what they directly own, and forcing no one else to follow suit. To forbid self-censorship is, in itself, censorship: Restricting others' rights to control what they produce and receive.

@mlarrabee: Self-censorship is still censorship bruv. And this isn't even self-censorship, this is a platform holder preventing a game from being released for no other reason than it might offend a small minority of people.

That's censorship.

I spent 5 bucks on The Binding of Isaac. I have played over 60 hours of it.

So sad, this game is fantastic and a perfect handheld game. Maybe on the Vita?

You know, this would actually be a perfect game to have on a portable system and I would love to have it on my 3ds (though I'm not really enamored with the style). So they've lost at least one sale right here.

Good Lord.