Login

Fire Emblem Fates - petting mini-game removed

Coming from a Nintendo rep...

“Yes, that is the case [that petting isn’t in the English version]. You might have heard somewhat misinterpreted or exaggerated information about the Japanese original game, but even in the Japanese original version, we have not included any features which are considered inappropriate in Japan.”

Categories: Media, Portables

Comments

blade_master
Tue Jan 26 16 06:33pm
Rating: 1

I wonder if the people outraged over this localization change are the same people who were angered when the petting minigame was first revealed.

I'm pretty sure they are mutually exclusive camps.

I imagine there is some overlap, but they are far from the same people.
There are a few people who disliked the minigame, but are more against censorship, and thus wanted it to stay in the game on principle.

I'm still gonna buy the game, but I'll finish learning Japanese then buy it in its original form. Japan is so much better at handling things that are considered censor-worthy in the U.S. In my opinion, games from Japan in their native land are better than the localization. Notice I said in MY opinion.

ik_solver
Tue Jan 26 16 10:55pm
Rating: 1

The censorship situation between Japan and the US isn't as simple as you think. For example, Japanese games are more prone to censorship over violence than they are for sexual content. Just to name one, Resident Evil 4 doesn't have any decapitations. It's also funny to note that Ashley's breasts don't jiggle, even though they do in the US version.

Alright, I get the idea now, thanks. But even if what you said is true most of the time, it's still interesting to see what changes will be made, for better or for worse. Topics like this get me curious for what happens behind those walls of pretty much any game related company.

ik_solver
Sat Jan 30 16 11:05pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 1 time)

I think about it a lot, too, and I think it will differ from company to company. Obviously, people behind games like Senran Kagura will just put in whatever they want and it doesn't see any changes when localized as far as I've heard, but a game like Fire Emblem Fates I think was put into an awkward position.

A lot of people forget that Awakening was going to be the last Fire Emblem game if it didn't sell well, so they had to find a way to create a bigger draw. That's why it had, on top of the usual Fire Emblem fair, a greater emphasis on role playing (creating your own character) as well as dating sim elements (pairing up your character with whoever you want and even pairing whichever party member you wanted with another). They wanted the game to generate interest to both Western and Japanese audiences, as well as pulling in other audiences that may not have had interest in the franchise to begin with.

But then this minigame comes into question, and it's hard to say if they ever even considered it being in the Western release. I admittedly don't know very much about Japanese culture, but I think placing one's hand on another's head is at least a little common, and it can have romantic connotations, too, sort of like how a hug in some Western cultures can be friendly between two people while also being more intimate for a couple. But I can say as someone living in the US that if I ever saw two people, friends or otherwise, petting, I'd see it as strange. It's more common to see things like stroking hair or caressing the face, shoulders, or something along those lines, and this minigame probably wouldn't have had such a stigma attached to it if it didn't look so much like petting and more like intimacy. Unfortunately, it bears a resemblance much closer to the minigame in Pokemon X/Y where you pet your Pokemon like pets, and I don't think a lot of people that were picking up the game casually, unknowing about this minigame, would have reacted well to it.

Speaking as a soon-to-be game creator, this is why it's hard for me to take a side on this censorship debate, because so long as it's self-imposed, there may be reasons why the creators willingly take things out. Either they wanted to avoid people taking something the wrong way, maybe it didn't turn out the way they had hoped it would, maybe they were aiming for a specific age rating, or they just knew that different cultures react to certain things differently and planned on not including it to begin with. I guess all I can really say is that if someone genuinely doesn't feel like purchasing a game that removes something, regardless of how risqué or not it is, that person has the right not to do so. It's just important to know that this isn't as rare a case as some people think. Games as far back as the NES days have seen changes when going from country to country. I distinctly remember reading about games like Castlevania that edited nude statues, removed blood, and changed the names of weapons to avoid religious references (the cross was just called a boomerang, for example).

I might get hate by some people here but I'm actually really glad they removed the minigame. Even if it was optional, just the fact that it was there made me uncomfortable. In fact, all the creepy stuff in this game was the main reason why I was undecided to play it, but it seems the localization team is making good choices and we'll have a really nice game.

I don't know how I feel about this.

I guess I don't like not being able to judge this content for myself.

I'm more annoyed about how they handled other elements of this game.... breaking it in to multiple versions in order to nickle and dime the Fire Emblem fans. THAT'S the practice I won't be supporting.

"I guess I don't like not being able to judge this content for myself."

Vonter posted a fan translation on the last page.

Spoiler

Content matters in the products we consume. It reflects our culture. It reflects what we are willing to accept. Kudos to NoA, though they are most likely trying to avoid controversy, but kudos. I am proud of a company that does not support antiquated and offensive concepts, or the idea that we can make light of them. I have loved their content for 25 years. I am proud to say that this organization took the responsibility to not promote the following:
The notion of using of a hallucinogenic on a non-consenting person and receiving romantic rewards.
The notion that one's sexual orientation might be artificially altered by the actions of others.
The notion that I should be able to select from a group of comrades and at will pet them how I choose.
And lastly in the case of the recent Silent Hill release, the notion that it is acceptable for me to choose to dress an adolescent girl in lingerie as a reward for completing an objective.
Thank you, NoA. You wisely chose on the right side of history, whether altruistically or for the cause of maintaining your image. You will not submit to the perpetuation of concepts that objectify and demean the identity authenticity of others.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, and I very much doubt I'll persuade you from yours, so that won't be my intent. I just want you to know that I strongly disagree with what you said. Especially that last part, since it can easily be switched around.
"Nintendo submitted to people who are overly sensitive to these concepts"
I also don't agree that they necessarily objectify and demean people. The lingerie thing, I can definitely see why that'd be the case (though depending on story context, it might not be as objectified as it seems at first). The whole Fire Emblem thing, that's not demeaning at all. Skinship is a real thing, and the touching minigame -- from what I saw of it -- seems to reflect that fairly well. Of course skinship is often a bit more subtle than it's portrayed in this game, but if they made the minigame too subtle, it really loses its impact. (It also needs to have sped-up effects, since nobody is going to 'pet' their characters for literally months.)
And as for the thing with the whole drugging and all that? Did you read the scene? It may be flimsy (as all such scenes in the game are, because again, people probably don't want to spend TOO much time, considering how many characters there are) but nothing was done without consent, and there was no brainwashing into making the girl love the protagonist. The protagonist did give the girl a potion without her knowledge, but that was simply to surprise her. Before it could lead to anything bad, the protagonist immediately revealed what he has done, and the girl was completely okay with it. In fact, she was glad that the protagonist went through such lengths. They started training, and over time, love grew. I see nothing wrong with this and it's not demeaning.

On top of that, I never really understood why it's encouraged by people to cut this content, but not other content that wouldn't be okay outside the world of fiction. Even if I were to grant you that the whole FE thing is wrong (which it isn't), why would it be wrong to have in the game? Many things happen in the game that would be wrong outside it, like betrayal to your family, or the murdering of soldiers.

Censorship or localization. I don't really care what it's called

Removing something like this is just dumb. end of story.
Either have it for every region or don't include it at all anywhere.
It's like NoA and NoJ don't communicate.
Also. It's not like things like Fatal Frame and FE are all ages games. Nintendo doesn't need to play babysitter here.

That wouldn't change anything.

As evidenced here: http://www.dualshockers.com/2015/12/03/apparently-kirias-stage-outfit-in-genei-ibun-roku-fe-was-too-sexy-for-nintendo/

People still get offended even if Japan changes it ahead of time.

Pretty clear NCL makes changes sometimes too, and we still get mad about it, even though it wasn't a localization.

It's not really "ahead of time" when they already showed it in trailers.
Giving people expectations and a reason to get offended when it's removed.

But what difference does that make?

It's literally no different from when they show HUD menus, logos, or regular outfits/designs in trailers and then it looks different in the final game. For example, Woolly World. It happens ALL THE TIME and the only mentions it ever gets is a brief side note in a Gamexplain vid or something.

The only reason people are offended is because it was a sexy outfit. Not because they showed something and it was different later.

If it was like, a guy's jacket and they changed it, or a guy wearing shorts and he suddenly had pants, nobody would give a shit. It is only a big deal because they changed a girl's pants to be less revealing.

I can almost guarantee people would be just as annoyed if they saw concept art, after the game released, and saw revealing clothes were considered and get pissed about it.

nurio
Wed Jan 27 16 02:24pm
(Updated 1 time)

With the Kiria thing, I can't be very certain why they did it, so I am not as bothered by it. But with most edits, it's very clear they did it to avoid a controversy, essentially giving the power to the vocal sensitive people, and that's something I really want to fight against. (Mind, though, that I am not offended by this decision from Nintendo.) That is the reason I am against these kinds of censorship, and it doesn't matter much to me if it were changed during development or during localization.
And people aren't strongly opposed to only "sexy edits". There were also plenty of heated debates surrounding Bravely Second, where they changed the Tomohawk class to a Cowboy class. The reason why it appears to always be about the sexy stuff is because that is exactly the kind of stuff that gets cut/altered every time.

I'm passive on all of it.

At the end of the day, no, I don't support or agree with censorship. However, I don't see a legitimate harm unless it is important, like censoring information from people in the real world. Things like this feels trivial. I don't like it, but I only truly care about the game itself. So I will buy them. They aren't censoring to be mean or keep stuff from us, they do it because they are misguided in their fanbase and afraid of parents starting shit.

The only boycotting I generally do is when a company or game pulls garbage with money. Certain DLC or microtransaction things. Not all, but you know.

I also didn't buy censored CDs, because that literally ruined the songs in many cases.

People do get mad at other stuff, but it generally involves genders/being gay, ages, and clothes (or sex). I am pretty sure less/nobody would care as much about censoring a guy if it happened.

They get HEATED and call for boycotts over nudity. Things that add NOTHING to a game, under the guise of principles.

I just feel like most are lying and bandwagoning the few truthful ones to sound less perverted.

nurio
Wed Jan 27 16 03:00pm
(Updated 1 time)

Hmm, I want to clarify that I never really had much of an interest in Fire Emblem, and it certainly isn't starting now. No, I am against this decision purely on principle.
Are the edits trivial? Hm, I admit that in many cases in the past it was somewhat trivial. But in the case of Bravely Second and this case, it seems like a considerate change. It won't completely impact the game as a whole, of course, but I wouldn't call it trivial in those two cases.
And honestly, I am also fighting strongly against it just to prevent that vocal sensitive group from gaining more power. (This almost sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I hope you know what I mean.) Essentially it's to compensate for the people who yell just as loudly to remove these features, because if I (and others) don't oppose that, corporations will start to think it's increasingly okay to cut features just to avoid any potential controversy. Who knows what will be edited next if we don't make a stand?

That said, I don't believe in boycotting. I've never once boycotted a game because it was edited. It's just that most of the games that have been edited weren't games I were very interested in. In fact, the only edited game I can think of that I was interested in is Bravely Default. And I got that game, and I will get its sequel, despite the edits. But I'll buy it while mentioning I am against the edits.

I am pretty sure less/nobody would care as much about censoring a guy if it happened.
Surely, some people will be less upset. But I don't think it'll be close to nobody. But none of us can say for sure until it happens. I know I would personally be just as strongly against it, though. I hope you don't think I am merely upset because I "can't poke my waifus", as some people have put it.

moldyclay
Thu Jan 28 16 03:44am
(Updated 1 time)

I feel like when I said "trivial" it was a generalization, as I forgot what I said and I'm too tired to look back since the "replies" thing doesn't show my post.

EDIT: OH! I meant games are trivial! Not these specific thing, complaining about games versus real world censoring. Like censoring the news. I feel like, compared to other things, games are so unimportant to get worked up about.

Regardless, I don't mean to say cutting an entire side thing and swapping a class is trivial, but it still isn't a huge thing to me, as the petting is optional to begin with and I really wasn't interested in Tomahawk class (and I am not interested in the new class either).

Similar to how the edited games weren't your cup of tea, the things they are editing are things I was either not going to use or would barely use.

I think I would be more upset when I was in High School, but I have moved on. This is in regards to costume edits, not the Fates/BD stuff.

And honestly, I like the costumes we got in Fatal Frame MORE than the originals. Mostly because I like Zelda and Metroid, but I feel like the ZSS costume is actually more revealing, despite being fully clothed.

It boils down to Nintendo protecting people they don't need to. They cover their asses, but there are ways to do that without sacrificing content.

That said, EVERYWHERE makes edits sometimes, but usually it is violence-related, not sex.

As for the sensitive people, oddly enough they are a double edged sword. They sometimes get more things or keep things in too. I honestly think this has more to do with parents taking it the wrong way (the petting), because T or not, parents WILL buy it for kids and WILL blame Nintendo.

The tomohawk thing and the convo are definitely sensitive people, and it is dumb that we can't just have things be real, but eh. Hope for better luck next time.

Nintendo's only going to see sales as a decline of interest in Fire Emblem if it does poorly unless everyone is vocal and it stirs up news stories painting them as a bad guy, but I think that is a losing battle, because a lot of people didn't want these or don't care enough.

This right here https://youtu.be/yzPXObE7SUc

Personally I don't have a problem with them removing this, I really didn't care about it.

I think the biggest problem here is that people against censorship at full blast seem to think people who don't care or aren't upset support censorship.

It's as simple as not caring because it doesn't affect them. If it doesn't affect them, they aren't going to care that it affects you beyond "sorry, that sucks".

If it affects you, don't buy it. No other answer. Nobody is telling you to. If enough of you don't and it sends NOA the wrong message you don't want FE, that is your problem. It is your fight, nobody else's. They will stand up when it is something they care about.

Bottom line is that this will not affect MOST people, so MOST will not care. People weren't buying it for touching people, but to play FE. Or people don't follow and don't know. Or simply, people have no opinion on it since it is a weird concept without experiencing it themselves.

In the grand scheme of things, this won't affect sales and Nintendo will see no ramifications for censoring it. Not because people support censorship, but because this is not important enough to the majority (or they don't know) and people just want to legally play the games.

For myself? I would do the poking and prodding, but I won't miss it. They could make it full blown sex or remove it entirely and I would feel the same " Seems unnecessary, but sure".

Likewise, I would likely never see the dialogue with Soleil anyway, so it wouldn't really affect me.

I am not saying that it not affecting me means that everyone should be okay with it, which is what everyone assumes for some reason. But I am not going to boycott the game because other people want an unnecessary side thing or because they removed a conversation that upset people in the first place.

I don't "support" censorship. And yeah, I don't think Nintendo should remove anything either. But like I said, not affecting me, so no, I am not boycotting it. I want to play Fates.

You leave me alone, I leave you alone. Simple as that.

I'm not telling you to buy it, stop telling me not to.

There's also the third option of simply not accepting this. Play the game, check the subbed option online. It'll suck but that's the situation Nintendo is lending.

I think what bothers me the most is that this just keeps showing Nintendo will not bring anything they'll find risque to other parts of the world. Captain Rainbow, Mother 3, Another Memory, Love Plus etc. That's problematic since in a global digital market it's a shame not being able to get something because of light cultural differences. I'm not saying there should be flexible with all things they make in Japan [since there some things one keeps to themselves], but I find limiting on the kinds of games they could offer.

Also it makes me wonder if they'll just release the SMT x FE, and in what way considering that also has certain elements that might be culturally alien to other parts of the world.

Another Memory Code is considered a risque game...? I played both games, and saw nothing risque about it.
Or perhaps you're talking about another game?

Your whole argument is easily defeatable based on the basis that it's an optional mini game.

Everyone that says it's not for them and that they don't care might not exactly be the same people that advocate censorship, but you sure as hell don't mind it in this case. This grey area tends to support people on the censorship side.

You being ok or not caring about censorship gives the idea that it is ok.

In this case, you grey-not caring people pretty much lose the argument when it is an OPTIONAL (You can skip it if you don't care guys!) mini game. You say you don't care for it? Fine then leave it in the damn game, don't play it, and move on. Censoring it is a more extreme position, it's an end-all position.

One more thing, why was it censor in the first place? Petting humans? really? do you pet your pets guys?
Even if it looks like it insinuates some sort of sexual fantasy or w.e it doesn't seem like it goes all the way.

The only thing I agree with you is your decision to buy/support the game.

I don't think you know what you are saying.

You keep saying my "argument" is defeated, but clearly don't get my argument.

It being an optional minigame does nothing to anything. I am not Nintendo. I didn't remove it. I am not telling them to or saying it is okay that they did. You are saying because it is optional, that is just as good a reason to keep it. Okay? I never disagreed with that. I never said anything to imply that it should be removed or anything.

In fact, when it was first revealed, I actually defended its existence for that very reason, being optional. You can find my comments still on this site saying I didn't get why people were upset.

But because it is optional, I also don't get why people are upset now. It is not mutually exclusive, I can support the game and also not care if it is removed.

My not caring isn't an argument to BE beaten. It isn't telling anyone to do anything or agree.

Again, not caring does NOT mean that I don't want it or think it should be censored. Thought I made that damn clear. It isn't affecting me either way. Like I said, they could add full sex to the game, I would not get mad at that either, and I would probably play it. This is exactly what I am talking about, stop assuming not caring means I want it gone or want others to suffer. It just means I will not take part in boycotts.

I am literally taking neither side here. I am not defending Nintendo, I just choose not to fight them on this. More power to everyone else, but no. I was not "arguing" whatever you think I was, because it being optional has nothing to do with what I was saying. It being in the game would not have affected me. I would NOT be mad if it was still there.

kirome
Wed Jan 27 16 05:22pm
(Updated 2 times)

What I mean is that your arguments are self-defeating.

From what I read, you seem to be on the grey area or I guess in a position in which you don't care/ it doesn't affect you. Truthfully it doesn't affect the majority.

However my issue is that people on the grey area end up supporting for censorship. You seem to be ok with the mini game in question or at least you never implied for it's censorship. But at the same time you seem to go back on it because it's not important enough issue. My argument on this which you seem to agree somewhat is if it's that controversial and it's optional, why not just keep it as such and let those who want to experience it do so.

As for the caring or not caring thing, my problem with that is that being on a grey area, in cases like this, is practically giving up whether you care or not. It's basically telling someone that because it's such a non-issue to you that it's ok to do. I done things like that, heck pretty much all of us have. Not to get too political but, in the US a lot of injustices have been done mainly because people choose these grey areas. "It has nothing to do with me so who cares" that is a mentality that has allowed injustices to continue. Not doing anything about something leads to no opposition to those that do.

Now that I have established this grey issue, and read your new arguments, you don't seem to be as neutral as you are claiming to be. You say you don't disagree that they shouldn't have removed the minigame, but to you it doesn't matter? Well like you said, this is your opinion and it doesn't affect you, at least for this issue. You seem to care for the game, and if I were in your shoes I'd probably not care about this mini game either tbh, however I would probably take a side to this whole censorship issue, after all if censoring this is ok (on a game I'd like) then what other shit would they be ok with censoring? After all, from what I've heard, this is not the only thing they have censored in this game.

yomerodes
Wed Jan 27 16 06:29pm
(Updated 1 time)

In the end, is all in the dissonance values, and why not, blatant hipocrisy.

Let's suppose the part censored were the homosexual relationships included in Fire Emblem Fates.
Who would be the people that would dislike that change?
Many (or most, going by statistics) of us should be COMPLETELY indifferent to such change, either because we are not homosexuals, or because we see no reason whatsoever to play a videogame as an homosexual character and start a relationship with the single homosexual option included.

What would be taken of those that would be 'fine' with that change of censorship? Would we hear and read all those 'is localization not censorship' cries?
...

But back t reality, and thankfully for everyone who never wants to commit to this issues, the only people affected by this piece of censorship appears to be perverts and crazy deviants, so is all fine and dandy with the censorship lovers and the people at margin. We can be fine with the change, or even blatantly like the change and come out in the moral higher ground! What a deal!

the only people affected by this piece of censorship appears to be perverts and crazy deviants
Not sure if sarcasm or if you really think that the all people who liked the (idea of the) minigame are perverts and deviants.

yomerodes
Wed Jan 27 16 06:52pm
(Updated 2 times)

I was talking about the whole 'perception' issue.

1. Game comes to America, company changes a native american character into a white character.
Someone boycotts the censorship. "OMG, you are so awesome for hating racism"

2. Game comes to America, company changes homosexual relationship into heterosexual relationship.
Someone boycotts the censorship. "OMG, you are so awesome for defending diversity"

3. Game comes to America, company altogether removes a minigame in which you touch a character and make them feel uncomfortable...or changes a bikini into bigger clothes...or changes the sexuality in a conversation...long etc
Someone boycotts the censorship. "OMG, you are going to refuse a game just for your desire to molest a digital character/see a digital character in less clothes/etc, you perv!?"

Hating censorship is all the rage...until we reach those spiny moments in which we can be labelled as something bad for doing so. And viceversa, loving o being fine with censorship is easy peasy when we are dealing with something we know already most of the world considers filthy or perverted.

Okay, that's what I was hoping you meant.
Yeah, I agree that people are quick to judge if you oppose this kind of censorship. Opposing any other kind makes you look like a decent man with principles, but opposing this kind makes you look like a sexual deviant. It's rather unfair. I still remember being called a pedophile myself.

It isn't really self defeating, it's that I am "passionately apathetic".

Which, for people strongly opposed enough to fight, is obnoxious, because I refuse to fight, despite agreeing with their argument.

You can absolutely agree or disagree with an issue and not take action because it isn't that big of a deal personally. It isn't ideal for the greater good and makes you an annoyance, but it is a legitimate stance.

It becomes neutral because you disapprove of censorship, but don't think censorship actually hurts anything in that instance.

I think censorship CAN be harmful, but not as meaningful in video games. Games are toys/entertainment, and unless it is historical or biographical censorship or something super important (like removing the bi relationships or stuff dealing with real issues), it is censoring imaginary characters in imaginary situations. Censoring things that aren't real.

I simply don't feel that is important enough to fight, even though I don't agree with it.

It is trivial compared to actual censorship of news, if we're getting into politics, which I don't want to.

That isn't contradictory at all. You just take issue with my not going all the way to one side, but I have the right to do that. That and it being hard to articulate what I am saying.

If you support this or call the minigame creepy, etc, you're just rationalizing because you can't get anything else.
There's nothing creepy about the game, it goes in-tone with the relationship sim the series took since awakening, of which elements existed on older FE games already and there's absolutely no reason to cut such volume of content from the game at all.
You should've also waited for a real source before reporting this.
Kotaku is NEVER a proper source for anything.

Good, the less weeb features the better.

If you wanted less fewer "weeb features", what are you doing playing a Japanese game with an anime-esque style?

Because playing Japanese games of any art style clearly automatically makes you a weeb. Bitch please.

That's not what I said. I never even called you a weeb in the slightest.
...Guilty conscience much?

You implied that the game is 'weeb' in the first place and as a result it doesn't matter if they whore it out with more needless fanservice. Stop twisting my words to suit your non-arguments.

nurio
Wed Jan 27 16 06:37pm
(Updated 1 time)

I'm not twisting anything. You are the one looking for implications that aren't there. And either that's because of a guilty conscience or because you have a lot of history/experience with people implying such things.

If you were not implying that then what's the point of your reply in the first place?

Slight confusion, but mostly curiosity. Read the question at face value. (And heck, you can then maybe answer it.)
I'm simply wondering why someone who seems so opposed to weeb things isn't bothered by an anime-esque art style.

If it makes anyone feel better, the localized games has a feature called "private rooms." Which I heard it's some sort of localized name for the face petting room. Whether it's the localized term or a different mini-game altogether, no one knows.

Oh, that reminds me a bit of Voltorb Flip from Pokémon HGSS.

Maybe it'll be replaced with strip poker ;p

Somewhere I wish they would do that. Not necessarily because I want the strip poker (but I certainly wouldn't hate the strip poker either!) but because it'd send quite a powerful message.
"You hate the touching minigame? You want us to remove it? Yeah, okay."
*several days later*
"There. It's gone now. It's strip poker now. Now stop being offended."

It might also do something, other than touch people.

Believe it or not, localization is and has always been more than translating text. There is nothing wrong with removing features that would make the game stand out in a bad way in the west. It might be censoring, but if it offends you just don't buy the game.

Wed Jan 27 16 06:08pm
(Updated 1 time)

Take this with a grain of salt, son!!!!!!!!!

(From a gamefaqs comment)

"Thanks for contacting us. I can certainly understand your concerns about this situation. At this time, the removal of the petting mini game in Fire Emblem Fates has not been announced. More importantly, we do not have any information that tells us this will or won’t happen, but I will pass along your comments to the departments which make those decisions.

If or when we do make an official announcement about Fire Emblem Fates, we will share all the exciting details on our website (www.nintendo.com).

Sincerely,

Nintendo of America Inc.
Richard Woolslayer"

Slightly hopeful when combining this with this and this. I'm staying very, very cautious, though.
...I also doubt Nintendo would announce on the website about cut features.

Hey, if it turns out to be false, then kotaku and the sites that decided to quote kotaku will be under fire. The possibility of them getting bombarded and shutting down is very..... Pleasing~

Yeah, not buying this anymore. At first I was pissed that I couldn't get the special edition, now I don't feel so bad that I don't have it.

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!