December 28, 2016
Obviously by now Nintendo should have made Princess Peach an empowered lesbian – what are they thinking???
This white knight game reviewer Chris Suellentrop is leading a fight against Nintendo’s first Mario mobile game Super Run Mario, claiming that it’s inappropriate for children due to it’s stereotypical gender roles.
The retrograde gender politics of Super Mario Run are disappointing, even if this tweet makes me feel like a cliché pic.twitter.com/C9HsitIDn2
— Chris Suellentrop (@suellentrop) December 15, 2016
The horror of Princess Peach baking a cake.
Apparently it’s disgusting for any female to do that now. Feminism is clearly not a choice, and is something every female must submit too, otherwise they’re poison to their gender. Too bad they can’t realize it’s actually the other way around.
But feminists have rounded upon the game, with one writer suggesting it was time Mario was rescued BY his love interest Princess Peach, rather than going on missions to save her.
Chris Suellentrop, a top games reviewers at the New York Times, said the recent iPhone Super Mario Game was “inappropriate for children”.
“In an era where we can watch Frozen or Moana…this is not okay,” he said on his podcast, Shall We Play, according to Heat Street.
“People give Nintendo a pass because they’re family-friendly, you know what? This is not family-friendly.”
Right. I wonder what he would consider family friendly…
Like Nintendo, get with the times.
Suprisingly-Not-A-Virgin-Chris review of the game was literally published in the New York Times:
In isolation, there’s nothing wrong with princesses or baking. My daughters love those things, too.
But Super Mario Run relegates its female characters to positions of near helplessness.
So Peach can bake a cake and be a princess but she has to be the hero of the game, otherwise it’s an attack on women? It’s a very simple, straight-forward story line and is a classic. They do not need to revamp it to avoid triggering self-made victims.
And honestly, I don’t know anybody who sits down to play Mario and actually consciously thinks about this crap. Mario is not holding women back and it’s not telling little girls they aren’t worthy or good enough. Adults are telling them that by putting those ideas into their heads.
Peach and Toadette become playable only after you complete certain tasks, which makes the women in the game feel like prizes. (To be fair, the same is true of a few male characters.)
Okay? So because it also applies to male characters are you then admitting that it has nothing to do with being sexist against women? Mario is dominated by male characters, the chances of a female character being one you have to unlock is very high.
Unlocking a character is usually considered a good thing. Games have to have some sort of reward system.
If you want something to genuinely be worried about when it comes to Mario…
I think maybe Chris should reevaluate why he would put such a silly meaning behind it. I honestly feel like only someone who has a questionable outlook on women would be able to come to such warped conclusion.
Worse, should you then use Peach to defeat her kidnapper, Bowser, you’ll discover that neither Mario nor a kiss is waiting for her as a reward.
I’m sure they’d be complaining if the reward was Mario, or a kiss.
Still, lots of girls and women play video games. There are more women over 30 who play video games than boys under 18 who play, according to the industry’s lobbying arm, the Entertainment Software Association. A Pew Research Center survey published last year found that almost 60 percent of girls between the ages of 13 and 17 are gamers.
Seeing people like yourself depicted as heroic on TV and in movies and video games can have a powerful effect on viewers and players.
I don’t know how human beings survived before the days of television and video games. How did they find self worth without being depicted on a screen?!
‘Why can’t Princess Peach look like me?’
I’m not sure what’s happened to make human beings so weak and entitled that they ‘need’ to see themselves represented.
The only thing I really have to say about this is that these normies need to grow the hell up and stop pretending like there aren’t already great female characters in video games.
‘But omg, why isn’t she fat and have blue hair? Women don’t look like that.’
But despite any game makers efforts, feminists will cry and claim that they can never get it right.
Take Elizabeth from Bioshock for example.
Her role in the game is to bring Booker (the main character) back to life, open tears (a tear being a portal to an alternate universe), and hand Booker money and ammo whenever it’s needed.
If you haven’t played the game then you should know that all of those things are pretty damn important. She’s a supporting character, so just like any other supporting character her role is to back you up. This is completely normal.
Elizabeth is proof that feminists just want female supremacy, they don’t want male characters at all.
And if there are male characters, then make sure to assign them unimportant and minor roles.
Elizabeth isn’t sexualized, she’s portrayed as being a bookworm and is seen as more than a ‘romantic interest.’ I was genuinely shocked when feminists still were able to complain about her and claim she wasn’t good enough.
What did feminists really want in Bioshock? They wanted the main character to be female.
I welcome women and white knights to hit the books and make their own SJW games.
Don’t cry about an already established game franchise.
I promote rallying against a form of entertainment if there’s something actually worrying about it, however Super Mario Run couldn’t be further from worrying.
Disagree. It's the single most important issue facing civilization. Also, the op-ed is brilliant. And half of this tweet might be true. https://t.co/aQot9EYpU7
— Chris Suellentrop (@suellentrop) December 22, 2016
Hopefully 2017 gives him a whole list of triggering things to worry about.
Good luck next year, Chris![Editor’s Note: I played Super Mario Run and it sucks, despite having normal heterosexual gender roles. After three levels they want $10, which is insane. Playing it is like watching a video of someone playing the original Sonic the Hedgehog if all the levels were flat. Nintendo should have put that effort into a Zelda RPG, because the FF ports actually make sense on a touch screen and do not suck – they are in fact worth $7, even though the ports were sloppy. (楽しい時間を与えるためにあなたのお金を取る。 この特定の製品にリソースを無駄にするべきではありません。 購入しないことをお勧めします。 小さな豆の人ジャンパーを大いに愛していますが、道徳的には許されません。) -AA]