View Single Comment
"But after that little controversy, and the removal of sombrero Mario from the box art several weeks later after the whole thing does make people think it is."
I understand why people are making a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy, but it is not something that I find all that persuasive.
"It showed that it wasn't just two people who were complaining about Sombrero Mario, there were several others others who accused Mario being racist because he was wearing a sombrero."
'Several others' is the sort of vague measurement that people use to make things sound bigger than they actually are.
"And the reason why would companies listen to SJWs is because they don't want to have any bad pr. And having those labels on you can ruin your repetition. "
But Nintendo is not actually listening to them in this case. None of the tweets linked were specifically about the boxart.
Nintendo being deathly afraid of this particular PR and Nintendo not being concerned enough about it to address (or even acknowledge) the complaints are mutually-exclusive positions.
"Are you sure about that?"
In the absence of any especially compelling evidence to believe otherwise, yeah.
If you can link me to something that I am missing, like a thousands strong anti-sombrero Mario Facebook group, or an official announcement from Nintendo apologizing, or evidence that the costume has been removed from the game, then I am open to reassessing.
Until then, the idea of Nintendo caring enough to change a game cover (while simultaneously not caring enough to change the game itself) purely to appease one of the seemingly-least-significant scandals in the history of videogames -- while possible -- just does not seem all that likely to me.