Nintendo refuses to add same-sex relationships to game

#1 Posted by FreedomFreeLife (2657 posts) -

http://o.canada.com/technology/gaming/nintendo-refuses-to-add-same-sex-relationships-to-simulation-game-tomodachi-life

omodachi Life is described by Nintendo as a game that allows people to encounter strange, humorous versions of everyday events, like meeting new friends, moving into a new apartment and doing chores (it sounds very similar to Animal Crossing). The game also allows your Mii, Nintendo’s online avatar and digital representation of the player, to pursue and marry female characters and vice-versa.

Nintendo’s idea of a “strange and humorous world” seems to adopt a very hetero-normative perspective because it doesn’t allow players to engage in same-sex relationships, spawning the social media campaign #Miiquality, urging Nintendo to add same-sex relationships to Tomodachi Life.

“Nintendo never intended to make any form of social commentary with the launch of Tomodachi Life,” Nintendo of America said in a statement provided to the Associated Press.

“The relationship options in the game represent a playful alternate world rather than a real-life simulation. We hope that all of our fans will see that ‘Tomodachi Life’ was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary.

The ability for same-sex relationships to occur in the game was not part of the original game that launched in Japan, and that game is made up of the same code that was used to localize it for other regions outside of Japan.“

Homophobia

#2 Posted by Bigboi500 (30328 posts) -

Good. Somebody should stand up to sexual deviancy.

#3 Edited by freedomfreak (41471 posts) -

Well, Nintendo is stuck in the past.

No surprise here.

#4 Edited by DocSanchez (1727 posts) -

@Bigboi500: unless you are being sarcastic ( you name makes me wonder) what an extreme bigot.

Note to Nintendo: this is about relationships, not sex. You can have a wholesome family game and still include gay relationships. There's nothing wrong with it and you need to join the 21st century. There's nothing political about reflecting modern society properly and giving people a choice.

#5 Edited by trugs26 (5675 posts) -

Japan is conservative. The game was intended for Japan. Ideally they should change it, but meh, no biggy.

#6 Edited by FreedomFreeLife (2657 posts) -

@freedomfreak said:

Well, Nintendo is stuck in the past.

No surprise here.

Yeah. Nintendo should come back in reality...

At least it was possible in The Sims 3

#7 Posted by nintendoboy16 (27266 posts) -

Old news.

#9 Edited by II_Seraphim_II (20497 posts) -

I don't think Nintendo is doing anything wrong. Don't get me wrong, I think homosexual couples deserve the same respect and rights as heterosexual couples, but that's not the point. Nintendo isnt trying to change the world. Not every single thing you do needs to be some great attempt at changing the world. They just want to make a scandal/controversy free product, so they aren't going to do anything that will more than likely annoy the majority. Its not about being in "the past" or being cowards, its about it not being their battle.

#10 Edited by freedomfreak (41471 posts) -
@FreedomFreeLife said:

Yeah. Nintendo should come back in reality...

At least it was possible in The Sims 3

I honestly don't care enough about this, freedomfreaklife.

#11 Posted by FreedomFreeLife (2657 posts) -

@II_Seraphim_II said:

I don't think Nintendo is doing anything wrong. Don't get me wrong, I think homosexual couples deserve the same respect and rights as heterosexual couples, but that's not the point. Nintendo isnt trying to change the world. Not every single thing you do needs to be some great attempt at changing the world. They just want to make a scandal/controversy free product, so they aren't going to do anything that will more than likely annoy the majority. Its not about being in "the past" or being cowards, its about it not being their battle.

I don´t agree at all.

First, this is changing the world by "banning same-sex". In modern world, we don´t do that unlike people who are Homophobians.

Second, what you mean scandal free and aren´t going to do anything that will more likely annoy the MAJORITY???

No, majority supports same-sex. Look at game The Sims has sold over 150 copy game.

The Sims is simple proof that you wrong. Nintendo said that majority nobody wants to play online game. You think they are right about that too?

#12 Posted by DocSanchez (1727 posts) -

@Bigboi500: no idea what you're on about now. Were you bring sarcastic or not? Because if not. You were being serious and I'm responding in kind.

#14 Edited by Bigboi500 (30328 posts) -

@FreedomFreeLife said:

@II_Seraphim_II said:

I don't think Nintendo is doing anything wrong. Don't get me wrong, I think homosexual couples deserve the same respect and rights as heterosexual couples, but that's not the point. Nintendo isnt trying to change the world. Not every single thing you do needs to be some great attempt at changing the world. They just want to make a scandal/controversy free product, so they aren't going to do anything that will more than likely annoy the majority. Its not about being in "the past" or being cowards, its about it not being their battle.

I don´t agree at all.

First, this is changing the world by "banning same-sex". In modern world, we don´t do that unlike people who are Homophobians.

Second, what you mean scandal free and aren´t going to do anything that will more likely annoy the MAJORITY???

No, majority supports same-sex. Look at game The Sims has sold over 150 copy game.

The Sims is simple proof that you wrong. Nintendo said that majority nobody wants to play online game. You think they are right about that too?

Dude, you should really know what a word means before you abuse it repetitively. The term "homophobic" refers to a time when people were uninformed and wrongly scared of homosexuals being the only ones who could spread the aids virus.

#15 Edited by KungfuKitten (21218 posts) -

You will only play games that represent all races and genders and religions and cultures equally?
Good luck with that.

It would be nice to have the option, nothing more.

#16 Edited by FreedomFreeLife (2657 posts) -

@Bigboi500 said:

@FreedomFreeLife said:

@II_Seraphim_II said:

I don't think Nintendo is doing anything wrong. Don't get me wrong, I think homosexual couples deserve the same respect and rights as heterosexual couples, but that's not the point. Nintendo isnt trying to change the world. Not every single thing you do needs to be some great attempt at changing the world. They just want to make a scandal/controversy free product, so they aren't going to do anything that will more than likely annoy the majority. Its not about being in "the past" or being cowards, its about it not being their battle.

I don´t agree at all.

First, this is changing the world by "banning same-sex". In modern world, we don´t do that unlike people who are Homophobians.

Second, what you mean scandal free and aren´t going to do anything that will more likely annoy the MAJORITY???

No, majority supports same-sex. Look at game The Sims has sold over 150 copy game.

The Sims is simple proof that you wrong. Nintendo said that majority nobody wants to play online game. You think they are right about that too?

Dude, you should really know what a word means before you abuse it repetitively. The term "homophobic" refers to a time when people were uninformed and wrongly scared of homosexuals being the only ones who could spread the aids virus.

Banning homophobic fits well in 1 group. Something is very wrong with you when you defending Nintendo right now. 95% says yes to Same-sex, 5%(you) says no with Nintendo.

YOU LOST

#18 Edited by Litchie (16430 posts) -

Damn man, you seem really obsessed with Nintendo. Pro tip for those who care about this: Don't play the game. Or were you trying to spin this into "Nintendo hates homosexuals" or something? If that's the case, I think you are very wrong.

This reminds me of when people were bitching about a white man killing black people in Resident Evil 5. I don't think Capcom hates black people either.

Sure, the option should be there, but I don't think it really matters since... It's a game. It's not real. It's made for people who wants to have fun. Can't have fun without gay marriages? Don't play it.

#19 Posted by Sagemode87 (1012 posts) -

@Litchie: agreed

#20 Edited by locopatho (20421 posts) -

@II_Seraphim_II said:

I don't think Nintendo is doing anything wrong. Don't get me wrong, I think homosexual couples deserve the same respect and rights as heterosexual couples, but that's not the point. Nintendo isnt trying to change the world. Not every single thing you do needs to be some great attempt at changing the world. They just want to make a scandal/controversy free product, so they aren't going to do anything that will more than likely annoy the majority. Its not about being in "the past" or being cowards, its about it not being their battle.

You say they aren't trying to change the world. But, um, there ARE gay people in the world. So if a company chooses to not include them in their game which features relationships, that makes a statement. If they choose to ignore the reality that they ARE gay people in the world, for fear of "controversy", that does seem cowardly to me. Everyone should be allowed express themselves equally, even in a game.

If Nintendo's Mii creator didn't include any black skin tones, they'd have been rightly ripped apart for excluding millions of people. I don't really see how this is any different.

This isn't a case of showing a straight romance between two predefined characters and simply not having a gay character or characters in the game. As I understand it, this game allows you to create all your own characters and have them interact. Why can't one/some/all of those characters be gay?

#21 Edited by GamingGod999 (3006 posts) -

Just provide the option, Nintendo.

#22 Edited by foxhound_fox (89444 posts) -

Are they then going to have to include transsexuals as well? Because they are people too. What about intersex people? And twin-spirited? And queer? They clearly stated that the game was not intended to be a social commentary. It's obviously extremely limited in it's scope and they aren't trying to replicate reality (as one would in a Sims type game).

I just read an article yesterday talking about a mayoral candidate for the Winnipeg election saying "final solution" with reference to the proverbial question regarding the issue of the current mayor's return to office in a blog. Politically correct nutcases, because the current mayor is a Jew, took it as a reference to the Holocaust, and the candidate merely made the quip innocuously as a reference to a "solution" to a problem (the question of his return to the election race). He apologized profusely and now people want his head on a pike.

#23 Posted by Bigboi500 (30328 posts) -

@GamingGod999 said:

Just provide the option, Nintendo.

It's their game, they don't have to cave to political pressure. They have a clear right to not include what they don't agree with.

#24 Edited by Sagemode87 (1012 posts) -

I want the option to make my character really fat. If not, Nintendo is discriminating against fat people. Fat people exist, why can't we get put in the game.

#25 Posted by BattleSpectre (6407 posts) -

Bu...bu..bu.... Reggie's body is ready.

#26 Edited by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@II_Seraphim_II said:

I don't think Nintendo is doing anything wrong. Don't get me wrong, I think homosexual couples deserve the same respect and rights as heterosexual couples, but that's not the point. Nintendo isnt trying to change the world. Not every single thing you do needs to be some great attempt at changing the world. They just want to make a scandal/controversy free product, so they aren't going to do anything that will more than likely annoy the majority. Its not about being in "the past" or being cowards, its about it not being their battle.

Well said.

#27 Edited by GamingGod999 (3006 posts) -

@Bigboi500 said:

@GamingGod999 said:

Just provide the option, Nintendo.

It's their game, they don't have to cave to political pressure. They have a clear right to not include what they don't agree with.

It really shouldn't be that difficult to add the option into the game.

Like locopatho said, imagine if Nintendo's Mii creator didn't allow black skin tones? The criticism they'd receive for neglecting millions of people would be huge. This could reduce the number of potential buyers for the game, thus resulting in smaller profits for Nintendo (doesn't really make sense to exclude them from a business perspective).

#28 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151708 posts) -

So what. Damn....a game is a game. You want a relationship....go get a real one.

#29 Edited by Sagemode87 (1012 posts) -

@GamingGod999: It could also be offensive to people that's not accepting to it. Straight parents probably don't want their kids learning about homosexual relationships.

#30 Posted by PonchoTaco (2240 posts) -

Old news. Leave it to FreedomFreeLife

#31 Posted by drekula2 (1949 posts) -

hmmm deja vu...

ITT: lemmings and cows suddenly pro-LGBT

#32 Edited by GamingGod999 (3006 posts) -

@Sagemode87 all it would do is teach kids that same-sex relationships prevail, and are no different/not abnormal to straight couples; including the option wouldn't make your child 'go gay'.

Not including this can be interpreted as some form of social commentary, but hey-ho.

#33 Edited by locopatho (20421 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

hmmm deja vu...

ITT: lemmings and cows suddenly pro-LGBT

I don't think it's sudden. I recall mostly support of Bioware's same sex romance options. Albeit, the concept of "romances" in a video game is pretty cringeworthy. But hey, equality is still good to see.

#34 Edited by DJ-Lafleur (34179 posts) -

yes, because this is the absolute first time there hasn't been homosexuals/homosexual couples in a video game...

#35 Posted by 93BlackHawk93 (5795 posts) -

They said nothing that makes them homophobes.

#36 Posted by DocSanchez (1727 posts) -

@drekula2: always been something I've been very vocal about. No matter who is involved.

#37 Edited by Bigboi500 (30328 posts) -

@GamingGod999 said:

@Sagemode87 all it would do is teach kids that same-sex relationships prevail, and are no different/not abnormal to straight couples; including the option wouldn't make your child 'go gay'.

Not including this can be interpreted as some form of social commentary, but hey-ho.

See, that's where things go abnormally wrong with the critical assessments of video games. Critical knit-picks don't exist for movies or books, so why should they for video games?

For example: in Pulp Fiction all kinds of negative stereo typed events take place, yet no one labeled the film as racist, pro narcotics or pro homosexual rape.

Another example: the Bible talks about the killing of infants, skinning people alive, decapitation, plague, pestilence, betrayal, infidelity and so on.

Books and films have extremely controversial content that never gets attacked simply for being portrayed, yet you're making claims that 'not including' something 'can be interpreted as some social commentary', and that's such a vague leap at best. That line of thinking could lead to almost anyone or anything being accused of any imaginary subject matter used to strengthen any view point.

#38 Edited by GamingGod999 (3006 posts) -
@DJ-Lafleur said:

yes, because this is the absolute first time there hasn't been homosexuals/homosexual couples in a video game...

It seems the complaints are coming due a patch Nintendo released, supposedly correcting an exploit that allowed 'same-sex' relationships (misconception).

#39 Posted by Junsei (702 posts) -

hmm its a game made in japan. same sex marriage is not allowed in japan. its that simple. I wonder what will happen if Nintendo brings a love plus game to the states. lets say that prison will be packed

#40 Edited by locopatho (20421 posts) -

@Bigboi500 said:

@GamingGod999 said:

@Sagemode87 all it would do is teach kids that same-sex relationships prevail, and are no different/not abnormal to straight couples; including the option wouldn't make your child 'go gay'.

Not including this can be interpreted as some form of social commentary, but hey-ho.

See, that's where things go abnormally wrong with the critical assessments of video games. Critical knit-picks don't exist for movies or books, so why should they for video games?

For example: in Pulp Fiction all kinds of negative stereo typed events take place, yet no one labeled the film as racist, pro narcotics or pro homosexual rape.

Another example: the Bible talks about the killing of infants, skinning people alive, decapitation, plague, pestilence, betrayal, infidelity and so on.

Books and films have extremely controversial content that never gets attacked simply for being portrayed, yet you're making claims that 'not including' something 'can be interpreted as some social commentary', and that's such a vague leap at best. That line of thinking could lead to almost anyone or anything being accused of any imaginary subject matter used to strengthen any view point.

We don't have any control over other media. We watch films and read books and the characters and events are pre determined. We are not party to the events we see. We are passive observers.

That is NOT the case for games. We are active participants. What we choose to do changes the storyline and the gameplay we experience. At least in some games, we get to choose who are character is. THAT is why it is important to give people equality and choice in games.

When a developer creates a world without a certain type of person in it (in this case, there are no gay people in Nintendo's game), that is implicitly denying those people exist. If Rockstar made a new GTA game set in America but every character was white, would that be ok? No, of course not. There are millions of black/hispanic/asian/native america/etc people in America. Making a game without any of them included, implicitly denying their existence, would be wrong.

I don't see any difference here. If a gamer wants to play this game (Personally I have no interest) and have their boy hold hands with another boy, what's the harm in that? What is to be gained by forcing him to hold hands with a girl?

Edit: And movies/books absolutely are picked to pieces for stuff like this. Read some Django Unchained reviews to see as much :P

#41 Edited by hiphops_savior (7973 posts) -

If Nintendo adds it, they will still get bashed for bowing to "pressure".

#42 Edited by Heil68 (45795 posts) -

I made a thread yesterday on this..haha

#43 Posted by Bigboi500 (30328 posts) -

@locopatho: I understand that other forms of media are criticized, all things are, but they don't cause such a stir in political circles in the same way. And just because something isn't available in a a game content-wise, that in and of itself isn't any sort of social statement or political agenda. Having said that, they have every right to determine what is or isn't allowed because they own said product. If that offends anyone, they should simply avoid the product.

Simply having interactions within a form of media doesn't make it vulnerable to forms of criticisms that are otherwise off limits to others. Developers always set limitations to what a player can do, whether it be creatively or in freedom. They set the stage, they set the parameters, they make the rules. Much the same way films and books create a specific setting and environment.

Just like with any product, you can support it, buy it, become a fan of it or simply ignore it. Political correctness has no place in entertainment media or any creative works.

#44 Edited by KungfuKitten (21218 posts) -
@foxhound_fox said:

Are they then going to have to include transsexuals as well? Because they are people too. What about intersex people? And twin-spirited? And queer? They clearly stated that the game was not intended to be a social commentary. It's obviously extremely limited in it's scope and they aren't trying to replicate reality (as one would in a Sims type game).

I just read an article yesterday talking about a mayoral candidate for the Winnipeg election saying "final solution" with reference to the proverbial question regarding the issue of the current mayor's return to office in a blog. Politically correct nutcases, because the current mayor is a Jew, took it as a reference to the Holocaust, and the candidate merely made the quip innocuously as a reference to a "solution" to a problem (the question of his return to the election race). He apologized profusely and now people want his head on a pike.

People don't care much for the truth. They probably disliked the guy and saw an opportunity to ruin him. Just like this is another opportunity to jab at Nintendo. If it were another company it would be no problem. The logic used is fine but the conclusion drawn is stark and every other company than Nintendo is not taken into consideration. The same with most criticism on SW. The point you made says it all and there is no retort. In most games in which you can express yourself as a video game character do not allow you to be fat or transsexual, but that was not a problem until Nintendo made a game.

It would be cool and I would consider it a step forward to have the option. But it's not showing us a big problem with Nintendo or gaming in general.

#45 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (8839 posts) -

I'm going to be devil's advocate and say that this shouldn't even matter at all when the design of Tomadachi is aimed towards kids. This issue is being blown out for the sake of controversy, and trying to force politics into games.

#46 Posted by kingjazziephiz (2435 posts) -

@DJ-Lafleur: right. I'm guessing the gays never played harvest moon

#47 Posted by GamingGod999 (3006 posts) -

@Bigboi500 said:

@GamingGod999 said:

@Sagemode87 all it would do is teach kids that same-sex relationships prevail, and are no different/not abnormal to straight couples; including the option wouldn't make your child 'go gay'.

Not including this can be interpreted as some form of social commentary, but hey-ho.

See, that's where things go abnormally wrong with the critical assessments of video games. Critical knit-picks don't exist for movies or books, so why should they for video games?

For example: in Pulp Fiction all kinds of negative stereo typed events take place, yet no one labeled the film as racist, pro narcotics or pro homosexual rape.

Another example: the Bible talks about the killing of infants, skinning people alive, decapitation, plague, pestilence, betrayal, infidelity and so on.

Books and films have extremely controversial content that never gets attacked simply for being portrayed, yet you're making claims that 'not including' something 'can be interpreted as some social commentary', and that's such a vague leap at best. That line of thinking could lead to almost anyone or anything being accused of any imaginary subject matter used to strengthen any view point.

Films and books receive critical knit-picks all the time for their ideologies/representations/stories...

This issue has really caught on since Nintendo released a patch last December, where many news-outlets misreported that it now prevented same-sex relationships (it was never available in the first place). However, since then Nintendo has said they have no plans of introducing this option.

#48 Edited by Bigboi500 (30328 posts) -

@GamingGod999 said:

@Bigboi500 said:

@GamingGod999 said:

@Sagemode87 all it would do is teach kids that same-sex relationships prevail, and are no different/not abnormal to straight couples; including the option wouldn't make your child 'go gay'.

Not including this can be interpreted as some form of social commentary, but hey-ho.

See, that's where things go abnormally wrong with the critical assessments of video games. Critical knit-picks don't exist for movies or books, so why should they for video games?

For example: in Pulp Fiction all kinds of negative stereo typed events take place, yet no one labeled the film as racist, pro narcotics or pro homosexual rape.

Another example: the Bible talks about the killing of infants, skinning people alive, decapitation, plague, pestilence, betrayal, infidelity and so on.

Books and films have extremely controversial content that never gets attacked simply for being portrayed, yet you're making claims that 'not including' something 'can be interpreted as some social commentary', and that's such a vague leap at best. That line of thinking could lead to almost anyone or anything being accused of any imaginary subject matter used to strengthen any view point.

Films and books receive critical knit-picks all the time for their ideologies/representations/stories...

This issue has really caught on since Nintendo released a patch last December, where many news-outlets misreported that it now prevented same-sex relationships (it was never available in the first place). However, since then Nintendo has said they have no plans of introducing this option.

That's true, as I mentioned above, but those films' producers and creators don't get labeled for the content they have. At best, the films, books themselves are stamped that way. This game might be controversial to some, but Nintendo is getting labeled as "anti-homosexual" when the Country they are in doesn't allow same sex marriage.

As someone else already said, it's just an excuse to attack Nintendo because it's Nintendo.

#49 Edited by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

Nintendo isnt obligated to provide anything in their games they dont want to. You have a problem, let your wallet talk. Its obviously working with the WiiU. But believing that an individual, or group, should be forced to behave, think a particular way is a very totalitaristic attitude.

#50 Posted by bbkkristian (14963 posts) -

@xboxdone74: well said. I'm shocked I actually agree with you.