Topic: nintendo excludes gay marriage from tomodachi life

[lets all go out for some frosty chocolate milkshakes]

turner are you actually gay yourself or not, just curious

[Hahex and Oshawott]

You've taken that quote completely out of context of the rest of the thread despite agreeing with it below. 'EVERYONE' is a rating. Stop falling back on emotional bias to make a point. You are being hysterical instead of logical.

The fact it's a fantasy world also means that it makes no sense to include the feature. This argument works both ways, not just your way.

Then I suppose we'll have to leave that on a moot point.

No, absolutely not. I'm not sure how easy you think making a videogame is, but an option like this is not as simple as including a 'If samesex then baby = null' line. Given how tightly the offspring mechanic works with the marriage feature there would have to be entire portions of the code rewritten, along with all the other parts of the game that interact with said code plus all the bug testing, QA etc. that comes with it.
 

Only as much time as it would be to have that check at the marriage. You misunderstand my point. If the game originally intended to have same-sex marriage, then there doesn't seem to be much difference time-wise as doing that rather than the current mechanic. I'm not asking for rewritten coding, but I'm considering a Tomodachi Life 2.

It may do, it may not. But getting a game rated is time and money, time and money which Nintendo are in no position to be frugal with at the moment. 

That's still true. But even if the rating goes up, I still stand by my claim that the inclusion can still increase sales. Of course, both of us would need some sort of statistic to qualify that, but that's certainly beyond my vision, as well as, I assume, yours.

This is a silly non-issue that bears no relevance to the subject at hand. Just because 10 year olds may be playing GTA in their spare time does not mean that Nintendo are going to suddenly throw caution to the wind and allow you to murder a prostitute in Donkey Kong. It doesn't have any bearing on their leniency at all, they play by the rules because it is the most financially secure option to them. If you are marketing a game to kids, it does not make sense to include a feature which could potentially offend their parents and prohibit them from playing the game and thus making a point of sale. I'm sure this scandal may outrage a few gay dads or lesbian mothers, but it's a numbers game and you don't appease the few if it means losing support of many.
 

That's not so much my point. Rather, its more that parents are still willing to buy games that are 'higher' rated for their children. Thus, sales may not be affected by as much as you think. I don't think you could really compare same-sex marriage to murder. 

As you said, its a numbers game. I feel that the differences between those against same-sex marriage and those against are less and less great, as time goes on. Its not quite appeasing the few, but rather, choosing an almost equipotent side.

At the end of the day, you really don't have a leg to stand on in this argument.

Morally it makes no sense to include the feature. Same-sex marriages are the minority, asking for a game to include the wants and desires of one minority group but not another is basically saying that minority x is more important than minority y which is not only stupid and unfair, it's completely unmeasurable. Last time I checked there was no option to make your Mii travel entirely by wheelchair either, but of course representing same-sex couples in a religious tradition that many people gay and straight don't even care about themselves is far more important, right?   

It's completely quantifiable. You can see a petition for Miiquality, you don't see a petition for the disabled. And its hardly a question of minority vs. minority, either. As I've said before, even though only a few people may fall under the LGBT umbrella, everyone has an opinion on whether or not it is right for people to be homosexual. It wasn't just black slaves who fought in the American Civil War, it was men who supported liberty against men who supported slavery, roughly split in two halves.

The problem with this argument is that it consistently falls back on emotional-bias and presents the fallacy that only a homophobe could ever oppose such a viewpoint, and as though this wasn't bad enough on its own, when an equally footed emotional-bias argument in the form of able-ism comes into play suddenly those people do not matter?

Only a homophobe could have the view that the only form of legitimate marriage is same-sex marriage? That is what I'm saying, and I don't see where emotions come into it here. Now, it's not necessarily the ultra-conservative Bible-waving homophobe, but at the same time it's not exactly embracing or conforming to the LGBT movement either.

As dragoncat quite adequately put it, there are lots of people who ARE proud of their disabilities. Acting as though all of them want some kind of escape is a massive insult and once again - you could literally put forward that exact same argument for homophobia ("Homosexuals have life hard enough, being able to play as a straight character is a form of escape for them"). Do you see how offensive THAT may sound? You're acting as though pride is some kind of coping mechanism, try going to a gay pride parade and telling everybody that they are secretly ashamed of themselves and see how far you get.

All right, I'll acknowledge that there are people who are proud of their disabilities. Are they proud enough that they're offended when there's no option for them to be disabled in a video game? Is it a feature that people want? There's no evidence to suggest that that is the case. You're trying to represent a group of people, that is, those who want to be represented as a disabled person in a video game, who don't exist. Start a petition asking for wheelchairs to be included in Tomodachi Life. See how far that gets you.

Fine, that point might have came off a little more harshly than I intended. But like you said, it's a game of numbers. How many people are Nintendo likely to offend by not including gay marriage than they are by not including disabled miis?

And finally people are still dodging the point that Nintendo has absolutely no obligation to include this feature anyway. Nintendo doesn't even have an obligation to be tolerant of any minority whatsoever. They make creative works and it is completely up to them how they make them and what beliefs they do or do not convey within such works.

Nintendo aren't obligated to do anything (aside from abiding by the law, paying taxes etc.) They could collapse the entire company if they really wanted to. But for a company like them, it's a question of money. At the same time, we're not obligated to buy their products. We could simply say "You know what, we're never going to buy a Nintendo product ever again until they include same-sex marriage." Is that so unfair to Nintendo? I can't really say, but that's how it works when you're trying to sell stuff. Sure there's no moral obligation, but there's still this possibility. Now I doubt that it'll ever become that extreme in reality, but in principle, as a company that's just about holding on, these are things that they must consider.

People have every right to complain about a feature that's not being included in a game. If Blizzard make a sequel to a popular dungeon-crawling loot-grinding game that has been 'dumbed down' for consoles, people are going to complain. If Valve make Half Life 3 and its just short of being the best game the world has ever seen, then people are going to complain. If there's an overpowered champion on League of Legends, people are going to complain. It's unreasonable to take away people's right to complain about something.

[Turner]

Which paraphrased says "Tomodachi life can't include gay people because children can't see that."

No it does not, stop taking this out of context. ERSB works on a case-by-case basis. Tomodachi Life is a game for EVERYONE. If you need confirmation of this then check the box art. The point I am making is that this this game is for EVERYONE by ERSB standards and there is a possibility that Nintendo (or even the ERSB) could decide that including such a feature may well be outside of this rating therefore they do not include it under protection of that rating alone. Whether or not the rating IS affected by the feature is not important.

Stop being hysterical and relying on emotional bias. I will not ask you again.

If it works both ways, then you can't use it either, and given I was countering your argument that's kind of my point >_>

My argument was a counter to people who believe it should be included. You're countering a counterpoint that needs no counter.

Did Hahex not also say he didn't think it'd be reasonable to ask for it added in after release?

Then there is absolutely no reason for this to be such a fuss 2 years after the release of the game. It's not even reasonable to get angry about it full stop. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Don't wait years for the localization and then suddenly act as though this comes as some kind of surprise.

But marriage is integral to the game, so if you can't marry the games screwed, but as disabilities wouldn't actually effect gameplay in anyway it's not really a comparable issue.

Actually, it's not. There is no part of the game which forces you to marry or even implies you must do to get the most from the game.

I don't have an obligation to say 'Sorry' if I accidentally slam a door in someone's face, I still do.

Slamming the door on someone's face is an actively rude action to take on your behalf, failing to include a feature in a videogame just because a minority group may feel excluded is not. Terrible analogy. It does not warrant an outcry nor does it warrant an apology.

All this is is unnecessary public shaming pure and simple. And for what? An apology to make us feel powerful? Acceptance of the minority in question? Under what circumstance does bullying a neutral party into apologizing publicly for not including a same-sex marriage feature (in one single game) help the cause at large? All this does is instill a culture of fear and resentment and give the message that anyone who doesn't comply with these beliefs will find themselves and their company at risk in doing so. Shades of fascism come to mind. People wonder why companies like Microsoft can purport outright misogynistic and homophobic dogma and make so much money in doing so, this is why; because the alternative is a divided fanbase and bad PR.

. Only as much time as it would be to have that check at the marriage. You misunderstand my point. If the game originally intended to have same-sex marriage, then there doesn't seem to be much difference time-wise as doing that rather than the current mechanic. I'm not asking for rewritten coding, but I'm considering a Tomodachi Life 2.

Asking for Tomodachi Life 2 IS asking for rewritten coding. Do you think they just scrap the previous code and start over on every sequel? The mechanics WILL have to be rewritten to include this, it's not as easy as checking the magical 'include single sex marriage' box. Asking for the feature in Tomodachi Life 2 is fine, note asking, not acting like a spoiled child and causing a blight on the reputation of Nintendo at the worst possible time over something so stupidly trivial. This is the issue here, not the inclusion of the feature but the false mentality that Nintendo have a right or responsibility to include it.

That's still true. But even if the rating goes up, I still stand by my claim that the inclusion can still increase sales. Of course, both of us would need some sort of statistic to qualify that, but that's certainly beyond my vision, as well as, I assume, yours. As you said, its a numbers game. I feel that the differences between those against same-sex marriage and those against are less and less great, as time goes on. Its not quite appeasing the few, but rather, choosing an almost equipotent side.

Well given the fact that the minority in question is in fact a...you know, minority I think the figures (or at least potential figures, which is what Nintendo cares about here) by all predictions are not going to be weighted in favour of the minority. You may be right, the inclusion of sales may indeed sell more units but as far as market prediction goes it's a no-brainer, and that's all this is about.

It's completely quantifiable. You can see a petition for Miiquality, you don't see a petition for the disabled.

Are you serious? Every time a new console comes out there is a fresh partition to remap the controller buttons so disabled people are able to play the games. There is a market dedicated to peripherals for disabled people to play the games and this is just so they can play the games, let alone be represented in them. If you are honestly suggesting that disabled gamers form a smaller minority than homosexual players (that wish to marry in-game) then I have absolutely nothing to say, because that is insanity.

And its hardly a question of minority vs. minority, either. As I've said before, even though only a few people may fall under the LGBT umbrella, everyone has an opinion on whether or not it is right for people to be homosexual. It wasn't just black slaves who fought in the American Civil War, it was men who supported liberty against men who supported slavery, roughly split in two halves.

Ah yes but remember this is a risk/reward scenario. How many LGBT supporters will continue to play Tomodachi Life upon finding out at it will not include same-sex marriage? How many homosexuals played Harvest Moon? How many trans* people played AC before there was the freedom to express gender that New Leaf gave us? How many trans* people played Pokemon before there was an option to even choose gender? How many non-binary people continue to play Pokemon to this day?

The list goes on, but the long and the short of it is that these people will play videogames regardless as they have done so far, so as far as any video game developer is concerned, there is no potential drastic loss in sales in excluding them.

Compare that to the bashers, the right wing nutjobs, American soccer moms and bible bashers - many of which own Nintendo consoles because they believe that Nintendo has games which will not burst the bubble they force their child to live within. There was a movement to ban Pokemon by these people who didn't like that it contained concepts of evolution, they are extremists who absolutely will pull the purse strings if a game features something even slightly offensive to their beliefs and make no mistake, they will not allow their little Jimmy to play Tomodachi Life 2 if it means he can virtually marry little Tommy from across the street.

All right, I'll acknowledge that there are people who are proud of their disabilities.

How open minded of you.

Are they proud enough that they're offended when there's no option for them to be disabled in a video game? Is it a feature that people want? There's no evidence to suggest that that is the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_accessibility
http://dagersystem.com/
http://www.ablegamers.com/
http://www.specialeffect.org.uk/
http://kotaku.com/5538163/quadriplegic-gamer-calls-for-custom-button-remapping-in-console-games

Fine, that point might have came off a little more harshly than I intended. But like you said, it's a game of numbers. How many people are Nintendo likely to offend by not including gay marriage than they are by not including disabled miis? Nintendo aren't obligated to do anything (aside from abiding by the law, paying taxes etc.)

Now you're getting it.

[Hahex and Oshawott]

No it does not, stop taking this out of context. ERSB works on a case-by-case basis. Tomodachi Life is a game for EVERYONE. If you need confirmation of this then check the box art. The point I am making is that this this game is for EVERYONE by ERSB standards and there is a possibility that Nintendo (or even the ERSB) could decide that including such a feature may well be outside of this rating therefore they do not include it under protection of that rating alone. Whether or not the rating IS affected by the feature is not important.

Stop being hysterical and relying on emotional bias. I will not ask you again.

Whether or not the rating itself is important is, on the other hand, a lot more important.

My argument was a counter to people who believe it should be included. You're countering a counterpoint that needs no counter.

This line of thought is getting out of hand. Tomodachi Life is set in a fantasy world. It's solely up to the developers, whether or not to include same-sex marriage or not.

Then there is absolutely no reason for this to be such a fuss 2 years after the release of the game. It's not even reasonable to get angry about it full stop. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Don't wait years for the localization and then suddenly act as though this comes as some kind of surprise.

I haven't even heard of the game until recently, at what point would people be able to voice their complaints when it was an unknown game in Japan? I'm sorry I can't keep up with Japan only releases, and that I get surprised when this sort of stuff comes over (Well, honestly I'm not too surprised. It seems the stance on same-sex marriage is different in Japan than it is elsewhere. If I was in charge of making the game, I probably wouldn't have included same-sex marriage either, at least initially.) 

Actually, it's not. There is no part of the game which forces you to marry or even implies you must do to get the most from the game.

But wouldn't it be nice if everyone at least had an opportunity to experience the same thing from the same game? You keep saying that my arguments are emotionally biased, but then that's not necessarily fallacious. If you do something that makes other people feel bad, then that's not a good action.

All this is is unnecessary public shaming pure and simple. And for what? Acceptance of the minority in question?

Well, yeah.

Under what circumstance does bullying a neutral party into apologizing publicly for not including a same-sex marriage feature (in one single game) help the cause at large? All this does is instill a culture of fear and resentment and give the message that anyone who doesn't comply with these beliefs will find themselves and their company at risk in doing so. Shades of fascism come to mind. People wonder why companies like Microsoft can purport outright misogynistic and homophobic dogma and make so much money in doing so, this is why; because the alternative is a divided fanbase and bad PR.

It's not facism. It's people letting a company know that the product they're providing does not meet their expectations in several ways. Don't companies all across the world spend millions of dollars looking for feedback? Here we are giving it for free. Companies already live in a state of perpetual fear. Will our new product sell enough to make a profit? Is our country's political relationship going to remain stable enough to continue exporting across the world? Are our investors happy with the amount of money we've made this financial year? If someone's trying to sell you ice cream in the middle of winter, then you won't buy it. If Nintendo release a life sim without same-sex marriage, 'people' (some?) won't buy it.

This isn't an emotional argument at all. Nintendo release a product that people may not want because it doesn't have same-sex marriage. At the same time, if said game had same-sex marriage, then they would buy it. Since it doesn't have it, they won't buy it. If they don't let that be known, then maybe Nintendo will attribute the lack of sales to the wrong reasons: maybe the western market just don't 'get' it, maybe they didn't advertise enough, maybe they should've had more Reggie in the trailers. This is an expression of people who want to have their same-sex marriage in a life sim, and they're letting Nintendo know it.

Or is it really? Are you right when you say that people are expecting companies to lead the way in same-sex marriage reforms and don't actually care about the game itself? I can't say that I was particular interested in the game either way, and yet here I am spending hours debating about it on a Pokemon forum. My argument pivots on whether or not people would've boycotted the game when they would've initially considered buying it, before Nintendo issued their apologies.

Then the other good point that you made is that Nintendo is merely trying to somewhat express the general culture that the world is in right now, in its own weird way. The majority of the world still doesn't accept same-sex marriage, after you include the majority of Africa, Russia, China, half of America and Japan themselves. Is it too early to be then demanding that same-sex marriage should be allowed in their games?

I haven't totally convinced myself away from those two points, the first one more so than the latter. But as it stands, the fact that Nintendo has issued an apology after this controversy has certainly drawn attention to the game. I think the saying goes, "All news is good news," or something along those lines, and I don't feel that at the end of the day Nintendo came out worse after this.

[Turner]

Whether or not the rating itself is important is, on the other hand, a lot more important.
This line of thought is getting out of hand. Tomodachi Life is set in a fantasy world. It's solely up to the developers, whether or not to include same-sex marriage or not. I haven't even heard of the game until recently, at what point would people be able to voice their complaints when it was an unknown game in Japan? I'm sorry I can't keep up with Japan only releases, and that I get surprised when this sort of stuff comes over (Well, honestly I'm not too surprised. It seems the stance on same-sex marriage is different in Japan than it is elsewhere. If I was in charge of making the game, I probably wouldn't have included same-sex marriage either, at least initially.) 
But wouldn't it be nice if everyone at least had an opportunity to experience the same thing from the same game? You keep saying that my arguments are emotionally biased, but then that's not necessarily fallacious. If you do something that makes other people feel bad, then that's not a good action.
Well, yeah.
It's not facism. It's people letting a company know that the product they're providing does not meet their expectations in several ways. Don't companies all across the world spend millions of dollars looking for feedback? Here we are giving it for free. Companies already live in a state of perpetual fear. Will our new product sell enough to make a profit? Is our country's political relationship going to remain stable enough to continue exporting across the world? Are our investors happy with the amount of money we've made this financial year? If someone's trying to sell you ice cream in the middle of winter, then you won't buy it. If Nintendo release a life sim without same-sex marriage, 'people' (some?) won't buy it.

This isn't an emotional argument at all. Nintendo release a product that people may not want because it doesn't have same-sex marriage. At the same time, if said game had same-sex marriage, then they would buy it. Since it doesn't have it, they won't buy it. If they don't let that be known, then maybe Nintendo will attribute the lack of sales to the wrong reasons: maybe the western market just don't 'get' it, maybe they didn't advertise enough, maybe they should've had more Reggie in the trailers. This is an expression of people who want to have their same-sex marriage in a life sim, and they're letting Nintendo know it.

Or is it really? Are you right when you say that people are expecting companies to lead the way in same-sex marriage reforms and don't actually care about the game itself? I can't say that I was particular interested in the game either way, and yet here I am spending hours debating about it on a Pokemon forum. My argument pivots on whether or not people would've boycotted the game when they would've initially considered buying it, before Nintendo issued their apologies.

Then the other good point that you made is that Nintendo is merely trying to somewhat express the general culture that the world is in right now, in its own weird way. The majority of the world still doesn't accept same-sex marriage, after you include the majority of Africa, Russia, China, half of America and Japan themselves. Is it too early to be then demanding that same-sex marriage should be allowed in their games?

I haven't totally convinced myself away from those two points, the first one more so than the latter. But as it stands, the fact that Nintendo has issued an apology after this controversy has certainly drawn attention to the game. I think the saying goes, "All news is good news," or something along those lines, and I don't feel that at the end of the day Nintendo came out worse after this.

You are completely contrasting your two points here. On the one hand you are saying that Nintendo has the right to make whatever they want, then on the other you are saying that they should make what suits the people. I can quote and quote until I am blue in the fact so I'm just going to make a list instead:

1) Attitudes to same-sex marriage in Japan are no different to the western world. I have already been over this.

2) It would be nice if same-sex marriage were included. It would also be nice if we got a Vs. Seeker in Pokemon. But if it is not to be then it is not to be, for whatever reason. It's the developer's discretion.

3) Unless Nintendo actively does something homophobic or undeniably offensive then there is absolutely no reason for such an outcry. None at all. What we've seen here is an entitled chimp's tea party.

4) Censorship of art in the interest of personal belief is fascism. Complaining and expecting change when a creative work does not meet your ethical or political beliefs is the mindset of a tyrant.

5) You're referring to the phrase "All publicity is good publicity" and no that is certainly not true of this scenario and probably the point that irks me the most in all this:

Nintendo are a great company; they are far, far more inclusive than any other games publisher of a similar size that I can think of. There are games targeted towards girls, boys, men and women alike, and we're not talking about a few niche titles here and there, we're talking a consistent flow of games for everybody. Very rarely (if ever) have Nintendo resorted to outright misogyny or homophobia in order to build up a faux sense of kinship with their players like Sony and Microsoft have done unashamedly for years, knowingly creating and nurturing a poisonous culture of justified homophobia, racism and sexism amongst young people worldwide.

And yet people would rather take a mile when given several inches and complain about the lack of a trivial feature in a trivial game during one of the most financially decisive moments of Nintendo's fate. Does this not sound entitled to you? Any change this brings about will be nothing more than a hollow victory for the LGBT movement, anyone can point the metaphorical gun at another's head and force him to accept your way of life, but that doesn't mean it lays a healthy foundation for equal rights.

[lets all go out for some frosty chocolate milkshakes]

turner why'd you go for the 20 quote post and not my simple question,

[Xagor]

To be honest, you don't see gay couples in Pokémon (when you battle the partners in double battles), but no-one has made a deal of it. It might not be integral to the game, but it's something to draw comparison to. It's all blown a bit far out of proportion, whether Nintendo actually thought about it is unknown to us...but I don't think they left it out just to cause a stir.

Well there's that male couple (the psychic and the blackbelt), that the internet decided was a couple. (No I'm not going to go grab details right now, maybe once at home later). On the other hand, I think the internet read too much into the throwaway comment made by a Beauty (I think?) in the Battle Chateau (Maison?) that they used to decide she was transgender.

It really looks like to me this discussion here is probably going to get out of hand at some point.

I think the internet as a whole overreacted to the Tomodachi Life situation, and the media (esp the gaming one) exacerbated the situation. Nintendo's original comment on the situation wasn't the best, because it didn't really explain anything, and in trying to be non-committal actually made the situation worse somehow.

Their 2nd comment struck me as basically saying that the commitment required to patch / change the year old game for the Western release would be too big an undertaking from a programming standpoint. It wasn't being approached from a moral standpoint, but a practical one.

I think we can all agree that games being more inclusive can only be for the better though.

Also, I saw comments about yaoi / yuri stuff earlier. No, most of that is not aimed at people who are actually gay. It's mostly meant to titillate straight audiences (whether guys or girls). The stuff that actually deals with the subject matter properly (i.e. Takako Shimura's work) is in the vast minority.

[Hahex and Oshawott]

I'm distinguishing between what they can do and what they "should" do. I CAN go outside and open up a lemonade stand on the streets in the middle of a winter night in some dodgy place in London. It's not a financially safe thing to do, and its probably not good for my well being either. But as a company who, as you keep pointing out, are in deep financial troubles right now, they should be primarily concerned with trying to salvage whatever they can make. Now whether or not including same-sex marriage will be a good move or not is questionable, but we can't debate that. 

Yes, I totally agree with, Nintendo are a great company and are far more conclusive than the rest of the big three. Does that make them exempt from all criticism in the world? No, even the best of us 'make mistakes'. And honestly, I don't buy that Nintendo are filling up all of their eggs in the one basket that is Tomodachi Life. If it flops a little, then that's not going to look great for Nintendo, but it's not as if their entire hopes are riding on this one game. And if it somehow does, then Nintendo have grossly misrepresented and underestimated the market that their trying to sell to.

And this so called controversy will not ultimately "bite Nintendo in the back", so to speak. As I've mentioned, plenty of people had not heard about Tomodachi Life before this controversy. Maybe you have, maybe I'm slightly more ignorant than others in the Nintendo scene. But the game's now been covered in dozens of news sites all across the internet. So has their first apology, which didn't seem great, but also their second. I don't see how it could be anything other than free advertising. Maybe initially, Nintendo was painted as some demon, homophobic company, but now, they're a company that is committed to change. Your argument that this event is going to somehow lead to the death of Nintendo is completely and utterly overstated.

If people choosing to not buy products that they don't want is facism to you, then I'm afraid to say that you live in a facist world then. The principle of people buying things that they want is totally how our economy works. Let's assume that, you know what, people love everything that Nintendo ever makes from now on. These guys are in financial trouble, you know, we should help them out by buying every single game they ever make from now on. That's even more ridiculous than the situation we're in now.

[Turner]

I'm distinguishing between what they can do and what they "should" do. I CAN go outside and open up a lemonade stand on the streets in the middle of a winter night in some dodgy place in London. It's not a financially safe thing to do, and its probably not good for my well being either. But as a company who, as you keep pointing out, are in deep financial troubles right now, they should be primarily concerned with trying to salvage whatever they can make. Now whether or not including same-sex marriage will be a good move or not is questionable, but we can't debate that. 

Yes, I totally agree with, Nintendo are a great company and are far more conclusive than the rest of the big three. Does that make them exempt from all criticism in the world? No, even the best of us 'make mistakes'. And honestly, I don't buy that Nintendo are filling up all of their eggs in the one basket that is Tomodachi Life. If it flops a little, then that's not going to look great for Nintendo, but it's not as if their entire hopes are riding on this one game. And if it somehow does, then Nintendo have grossly misrepresented and underestimated the market that their trying to sell to.

And this so called controversy will not ultimately "bite Nintendo in the back", so to speak. As I've mentioned, plenty of people had not heard about Tomodachi Life before this controversy. Maybe you have, maybe I'm slightly more ignorant than others in the Nintendo scene. But the game's now been covered in dozens of news sites all across the internet. So has their first apology, which didn't seem great, but also their second. I don't see how it could be anything other than free advertising. Maybe initially, Nintendo was painted as some demon, homophobic company, but now, they're a company that is committed to change. Your argument that this event is going to somehow lead to the death of Nintendo is completely and utterly overstated.

If people choosing to not buy products that they don't want is facism to you, then I'm afraid to say that you live in a facist world then. The principle of people buying things that they want is totally how our economy works. Let's assume that, you know what, people love everything that Nintendo ever makes from now on. These guys are in financial trouble, you know, we should help them out by buying every single game they ever make from now on. That's even more ridiculous than the situation we're in now.

Are you seriously trying to paraphrase my points into something completely different because you can't argue the original ones?

How on earth did you get this:

If people choosing to not buy products that they don't want is facism to you, then I'm afraid to say that you live in a facist world then.

Out of this:

Censorship of art in the interest of personal belief is fascism.

You're acting as though this incident was handled in an adult manner. If only it was as calm and sensible as people saying 'Well then I'm not going to buy this'. But no, we got the "NOT INCLUDING MINORITY x IS xPHOBIC AND OFFENSIVE" crowd instead.

And what about this:

Your argument that this event is going to somehow lead to the death of Nintendo is completely and utterly overstated

How did you get that from this:

complain about the lack of a trivial feature in a trivial game during one of the most financially decisive moments of Nintendo's fate.

How are you in any position to say what is or isn't 'overstated' when you've just interpreted a post in this way? Or are you really arguing that Nintendo's financial situation is as good as it has ever been?

Maybe you're just having some trouble reading:

I don't buy that Nintendo are filling up all of their eggs in the one basket that is Tomodachi Life.

Well I'm glad you don't buy into that idea, because I wasn't selling you it:

a trivial feature in a trivial game

.

Talk about moving the goal posts, all you are doing now is falling back on strawman arguments, presumably because you haven't actually countered a single point in this thread, you've only shoehorned your opinion in as fact and expected everyone to swallow it.

For your information, Nintendo shouldn't do anything. There is absolutely nothing they 'should' do, regardless of your passive aggressive pressure. They CAN make videogames, but they don't have a right to do so and they certainly don't have a right or responsibility to include minority (or majority) groups. You are fans of them, not vice versa - it's not their responsibility to please and entertain them. You by being a fan are the one who buys the product and if you don't like the product then don't buy it just as you wouldn't buy any other videogame for not including a feature, but don't act like there is some kind of homophobia or discrimination going on, because there is not.

turner why'd you go for the 20 quote post and not my simple question,

Treat dodgy posts like bombs in your back garden etc. I'm sure you've been here long enough to know that.

[Lord Raven]

turner are you actually gay yourself or not, just curious

Don't spit this out.  I'm waiting on my Pakistani protagonist and it's a little bit of a drag being a white/asian person interacting with solely white/asian people.

Just to make my view clear - I don't think Nintendo should have included the feature if they analysed it to be a bad thing for their company, but I don't see any harm in them apologising and I don't think it was unreasonable for people to ask it to be included. I DO think it's unreasonable if people keep persisting to have e feature added when Nintendo have said they can't include it and have apologised.

Are these people the majority of fans though?

Also, the "E" rating is meant for everyone.  The idea is not that it's inappropriate for children to see homosexuality, it's that their parents may see it as inappropriate.

[Hahex and Oshawott]

Good! Looks like we're making some progress here. Let's take this step by step, as always then.

You're acting as though this incident was handled in an adult manner. If only it was as calm and sensible as people saying 'Well then I'm not going to buy this'. But no, we got the "NOT INCLUDING MINORITY x IS xPHOBIC AND OFFENSIVE" crowd instead.

Now, it's possible that there could be an implied "NOT INCLUDING MINORITY x IS xPHOBIC AND OFFENSIVE" in the demands, but at face value, the miiquality movement started off with a group of people asking Nintendo to allow gay marriage in a video game. Whether Nintendo are a horrible homophobic company or not is not really on the agenda. You're the one who's creating a straw man fallacy here. There's nothing wrong with asking for a feature to be put in a game, then dropping it when Nintendo says to the effect of considering the issue a little more seriously for a potential sequel.

Actually, after looking over that the miiquality facebook page for a bit, there's no one accusing Nintendo of being homophobic. Only people accusing the supporters of the feature of accusing Nintendo of being homophobic. I mean, it's hardly thorough and I could just be tunnel visioning a little, so please feel free to have look and prove me wrong.

How are you in any position to say what is or isn't 'overstated' when you've just interpreted a post in this way? Or are you really arguing that Nintendo's financial situation is as good as it has ever been?

In which case, I don't see the big deal about all this supposed "bad PR" for Nintendo. It's an honest, forgivable, kind of a big deal apparently, oversight. Like you said, Nintendo are hardly a company with a reputation for any anti-X. If its a trivial feature in a trivial game (and I don't see how it can be that trivial if I've spent the past few days arguing about it), then it doesn't matter if it's now or whenever. I'm not saying Nintendo's financial position are as good as its ever been, but if its a trivial game, then I don't see how this game has any bearing on Nintendo's success as a company.

Talk about moving the goal posts, all you are doing now is falling back on strawman arguments, presumably because you haven't actually countered a single point in this thread, you've only shoehorned your opinion in as fact and expected everyone to swallow it.

I'll admit that I might not have understood all your points as thoroughly as I should have, but at the same time, I don't feel that you've countered a single point in this thread either. We can all talk about how our various dogmas blind us to what's written, but that's not going to lead us anywhere.

For your information, Nintendo shouldn't do anything. There is absolutely nothing they 'should' do, regardless of your passive aggressive pressure. They CAN make videogames, but they don't have a right to do so and they certainly don't have a right or responsibility to include minority (or majority) groups. You are fans of them, not vice versa - it's not their responsibility to please and entertain them. You by being a fan are the one who buys the product and if you don't like the product then don't buy it just as you wouldn't buy any other videogame for not including a feature, but don't act like there is some kind of homophobia or discrimination going on, because there is not.

You've lost me. Nintendo don't have a right to do so? If they didn't have a right, then how are they allowed to make video games? Unless you meant responsibility, of course.

But as long as Nintendo are determined to sell stuff, and they will strive for that goal until the bitter end, then it is their responsibility to entertain "them" (I assume you meant the fans?) If Nintendo want to make money, then they'll sell what the people want to see. There's no point putting a movie on a VHS if no one even owns a suitable player for it (right, that's a dumb analogy I just made up on the top of my head, leave it alone I know its trite).

Unless what you're trying to say is that Nintendo don't have to cater to me, as in personally? Well I suppose not, but then if there's a significant proportion of people who won't buy the game because it doesn't have same-sex marriage, then that changes things.

You're right though, I'm not in a position to say anything about whether or not there's homophobia in the Nintendo HQ. But then I don't need to, I'm only asserting that it's fine for people to petition for a feature to be added into a game. Maybe it's partly my fault because I made the same assumption, but there's not an overall, overt feeling that Nintendo are the devil, but rather, that they feel that there's a feature that should be in the game that isn't.

Are you serious? Every time a new console comes out there is a fresh partition to remap the controller buttons so disabled people are able to play the games. There is a market dedicated to peripherals for disabled people to play the games and this is just so they can play the games, let alone be represented in them. If you are honestly suggesting that disabled gamers form a smaller minority than homosexual players (that wish to marry in-game) then I have absolutely nothing to say, because that is insanity.

Fine then. There's a significant number of people petitioning to be able to remap controllers. That's is completely are utterly justified. Here, we have some people who want a feature and are unfortunately totally unable to buy a product until that feature is introduced. When they start petitioning to be represented in the game, then companies should listen. Until then, they better focus on getting that button remapping in their consoles first.

Ah, here we go, there's a difference between wanting to play a game and, crudely put, wanting to be in a game. As I've said before, when people start asking to be able to be disabled in a video game, not a disabled person playing a video game, then I'll be on their side.

Ah yes but remember this is a risk/reward scenario. How many LGBT supporters will continue to play Tomodachi Life upon finding out at it will not include same-sex marriage? How many homosexuals played Harvest Moon? How many trans* people played AC before there was the freedom to express gender that New Leaf gave us? How many trans* people played Pokemon before there was an option to even choose gender? How many non-binary people continue to play Pokemon to this day?

The list goes on, but the long and the short of it is that these people will play videogames regardless as they have done so far, so as far as any video game developer is concerned, there is no potential drastic loss in sales in excluding them.

Compare that to the bashers, the right wing nutjobs, American soccer moms and bible bashers - many of which own Nintendo consoles because they believe that Nintendo has games which will not burst the bubble they force their child to live within. There was a movement to ban Pokemon by these people who didn't like that it contained concepts of evolution, they are extremists who absolutely will pull the purse strings if a game features something even slightly offensive to their beliefs and make no mistake, they will not allow their little Jimmy to play Tomodachi Life 2 if it means he can virtually marry little Tommy from across the street.

How many LGBT supporters would've refused to buy the game until Nintendo's promise of same-sex marriage as a possibility in the sequel? At the same time, look at just how many prominent bannings of pokemon games around the world was and see how effectual it was in slowing its spread. We can't look at the sales of this game for guidance, because it's distorted by Nintendo's apologies.

Well, even though it seemed to be OK for Nintendo to release games that only had same-sex marriage in the past, today looks like it's a little different, and unprecedented. Honestly, after this fiasco, I wouldn't be surprised to see a petition for same-sex marriage in a future Harvest Moon game.


This has gotten a little messy it seems. Our initial point of contention is whether or not people are right to petition for the feature of same-sex marriage in a video game. I argue that it is fair, you argue that it is not. If I have this right (and well, if not, then here's my new straw man), you argue this because it would be:
a) unreasonable for Nintendo to change a feature for a game that has already been released for some time in Japan, and unreasonable to go through the effort of rewriting code that they would've otherwise carried over for the sequel.
b) not fair on Nintendo because they're in financial problems.
c) implies that Nintendo are a homophobic company, when in fact, they're extremely inclusive.
d) people should first strive to make same-sex marriage more widely accepted, before they expect a video games company to reflect that.
e) Nintendo have no responsibility, or motive, to comply to the wishes of a minority. Morally, they have no responsibility, and from motive, it is a large risk to take when they're in perilous waters. In fact, it could even stand to harm them, as it can possibly increase their ESRB rating and offend those on the right side of the fence.

[Hahex and Oshawott]

((Hit the character limit, that's a first))
a) and b) have no bearing on the rightness of asking for a feature to be added to a game. Is it equally unreasonable for your disabled gamers to petition for controller remapping, if that controller happened to be a WiiU gamepad? That would surely require a large amount of programming, and I assume a lot longer play-testing for EVERY game, as they would now have to make sure there are no bugs with various different button mappings. That still costs money. It's unreasonable to expect it to be added in the short run, or immediately, but it's not a sin to hope.

c) Well, if I've accused Nintendo of being homophobic then I hereby retract that statement. Honestly, there's no hidden anti-gay agenda here, at least no conscious one. It's not about taking an evil corporation though, it's about getting a feature that people believe should be in a game into a game.

In the case of d), then why not both? Is it not possible to seek same-sex marriage in both reality and the virtual world at the same time? Are you going as far as to say that it is in fact WRONG to seek both at the same time? I was always taught to finish dinner before eating dessert, but I never would've thought it would apply here. If Nintendo reads that an acceptable way of representing a feature of human relationships is in one way, and people disagree with that interpretation of that, then they're entitled to their opinion. Then, in the case that Nintendo are trying to sell said representation of human relationships to people who don't think it is an accurate representation, then they're not obliged to buy it. In fact, they're totally right in saying, "Look, that's not how life works according to me. If you're really trying to sell this stuff to me, then go back and redo this."

e) Nintendo aren't responsible for making games that everyone will like. That's certainly something they strive for, but there's no pleasing everybody. In the same way, people don't have a responsibility to like every single thing they see. If people see something that they dislike a lot, then they'll try and change it.

Nintendo's financial situation or reputation doesn't make them invincible from criticism. I actually don't really care about the state of Nintendo: they'll still stay around as long as they make enough of the games that people want to buy. Of this I have no doubt. This petition is simply an indication to Nintendo of what a proportion of the people in their customer base want to buy. Therefore, it's totally justified.

[Turner]

Once again Hahex and Oshawott you are demonstrating a complete lack of reading comprehension.

It's fine to make a partition, it's fine to ask for a feature, it's fine to beg for a feature, but this is not newsworthy in of itself. You claim there are no accusational tones behind these demands, you claim that nobody is implying Nintendo is homophobic but you couldn't be more wrong. This would even be news if somebody was not offended by it. The very reason we are talking about this in the first place is because the feature is *gay marriage*, would there be articles on the BBC if this were about the exclusion of any other feature? No, there would not.

The very fact this is news relies on the fact that people are offended enough to cause a storm about it, what they don't realize is that there is absolutely no obligation on Nintendo's behalf to include this feature and to throw accusations of homophobia around based on its exclusion is childish entitlement that does absolutely no good for anybody.

It really is that simple yet it's a point you continue to miss/avoid time after time after time. You keep saying "Well Nintendo can do what they want to do, but here's how they should be doing do it". No. Wrong. Incorrect. There is no particular way Nintendo 'should' be doing anything and to expect otherwise is ridiculous. If you understand this so much, why do you insist on contradicting it every single time? Are you really so attached to your personal beliefs that you cannot accept people doing things differently? Isn't this very mentality the one that causes cultural hegemony against homosexuals in the first place?

The only people who think this is controversial are the people who want this to be controversial, they want it to be controversial because they believe that they have some right to see their minority groups represented in a video game. They come to this conclusion because they, (like everyone) are aware of the fact that we allow video games to shape what is culturally acceptable far more than we should. But instead of heading to the root of the problem and fixing that, it is of course far easier to complain that game x doesn't represent minority y.

The question really is where does it end? Upon what moral standards is demanding the inclusion of a same-sex marriage feature fine and demanding the inclusion of non-binary gender going 'too far'? Or do we just keep going until every possible minority group is accounted for and each game takes a year longer and several million more dollars to make?

I'd like to ask you personally, Hahex and Oshawott; Precisely where is the line drawn? Is it a particular ratio of minority:majority that needs to be met? Does the minority in question have to 'earn' their right to inclusion through decades of oppression and hate crimes? Or is this simply a matter of numbers? Do we need to get 10K signatures on a petition before we can register a minority as 'valid' and thus have them included into the game too?

[OpalRhea]

...Would you guys please just stop already? You're both making extraordinarily good points. But this seems to be turning into a massive argument, and while I agree that something has to change, Nintendo's games have a social structure that reflects current reality.

It feels like you guys are desperate to have a debate, but slinging insults at someone's intelligence isn't the way to go about it. So would you both please just either take it to PM, or drop it? Or hell, take it to the debate board (but if you do please keep it clean).

[sans the skeleton]

didn't read the topic b/c apparently there's been an argument but
wouldn't it have been easier for them to include it in the first place anyway? p sure it takes more to code exclusion rules for two people of the same sex (ingame) than it does just to leave it
sims is an example

anyway i wasn't planning on getting this game anyway. it sounds terrible in the first place? sims basically does what it does but way better so i've heard, so :/