Rose_of_Night
Pro Adventurer
When I saw this making the rounds, I thought "this reminds me of that guy", but I didn't believe he'd have the COJONES to go harrass Nojima about this.
Bruh.
Bruh.
I think some people just want the same story over and over. Or maybe they really are ignorant of the other FF games and decide to @ the head writer anyway.
If I didn't come from the existential angst of Type-0, I might have appreciated that in XV, lol....
I would think that counts though. Especially since the ones who are making ff7R, were apart of ff7OG. I also read there were recent death threats to remake Tifa's japanese voice actress. I'll bet Nojima took all of this into account. Unless he's a person that thinks "well, it didn't happen to me, so I don't care."
Of course he took that into account. It's absurd to think Nojima would stop talking(about FF7) to an entire community, because of a single person(who could have been easily blocked).
"He took it into account", and "tweeting they want a romantic plot to go one way"
Did you not read what the Japanese articles written on this topic have said? Or what Jairus did?
I feel like you're roughly summating/extrapolating a whole meaning/experience while ignoring what actually happened, with tangible proof in reality.
This is about Jairus, not some vague group of "shippers" reaching out to Nojima. Jairus wasn't just "asking," he was legit threatening. Repeatedly. And that in turn is called harassment.
Shipping may facilitate toxic behaviors/actions towards each other, which is what enabled Jairus to act how he does. But to say that this is something everyone's been doing is a huge generalization, especially when the person who caused this and their message is right there, being highlighted as an offensive message that caused Nojima to act. This isn't ambiguous. Yes, Jairus is the one who prompted Nojima to say that.
What Jarius was doing is wrong, but to pile Nojimas stepping back onto one person, even if theyre an idiot, is too much.
I mean, while what you're saying is right, I don't think this fact is too much.
If someone finds a bunch of containers of unsecured gasoline just out in the open, and decides to light a match and ignite it to make a "statement," that's still their action they chose to do.
Yes, the people who left a bunch of gasoline unsecured out in the open are responsible for poor safety management, but the nutjob deciding to blow it up is still a nutjob who made that choice. I think both can be true simultaneously.
You should.While I admit, I havent looked into this too deeply
You should.
Because I see it more like, you have groups of people who are arguing, egging each other on, it escalates the situation and the more unhinged people escalate further.
While I admit, I havent looked into this too deeply, but from what I did see, I think a lot of people didn't come across looking good and were escalating the situation from the beginning.
I doubt a creator would necesarily step back because of one person, even if that person was the final straw. But more, due to a wider toxicity and the drama that surrounds it.
Am I the only one that thinks this was an inevitability of splitting the game into parts?