Topic: nintendo excludes gay marriage from tomodachi life

[Turner]

Surely if someone was biologically male but chose to be female identity, they'd just select female and vice versa? I'd argue that including a gender identity would almost be transphobic as it's implying they're not just a regular whatever gender they identify as, if you get what I mean?

Yes I get what you mean and you pretty much just answered the question as to why this is so ridiculous. You can argue either way that including gender selection is transphobic just as much as excluding them could be offensive to people who identify as a particular gender. You really can split hairs on this until every game that isn't a 100% accurate representation of real life is 'offensive' and requires some kind of apology.

I'd say a deeper rooted problem here is that people are expecting corporations and media companies to be an accurate guide to the public on what is acceptable in society and then complaining when they don't meet those expectations. If you are honestly looking toward multifaceted entertainment corporations like Nintendo to rewrite the book on what is socially acceptable to human society then you are the biggest problem in this equation.

[kindtocrows]

Surely if someone was biologically male but chose to be female identity, they'd just select female and vice versa? I'd argue that including a gender identity would almost be transphobic as it's implying they're not just a regular whatever gender they identify as, if you get what I mean?

There are people who identify as non-binary, which is neither male nor female. Not going to get involved in this discussion because I understand where all sides are coming from and I'm not sure what I think, I just wanted to point that out since non-binary people are often forgotten about.

[Hahex and Oshawott]

But that isn't at all what Nintendo are saying and you're completely misunderstanding the difference between someone talking about reality and an artistic work of fiction.

First of all, Tomodachi Life takes place in a surreal fantasy world - it is a work of fiction just as every videogame is, it does not take place in the real world. It does not claim to be a representation of real life or a representation of how real life should be, quite the opposite in fact. For all we know, the archipelago in which the numerous islands of Tomodachi Life reside may all collectively be governed by a law which does not permit same-sex marriage so it wouldn't make any sense for it to be an option.

Whether or not same-sex marriage is legal in this fictional world isn't really the point here. In many countries where it is illegal, you will still find people protesting and rallying for its legality. And even though you claim it's not supposed to be a representation of the real world, it's still a game about the interaction between humans. These Miis make friends and rivals in similar ways to the way we do in reality; why should marriage and love be any different? Saying that the game is somehow totally different and wackier than our reality doesn't explain why this particular instance of peoples' lovelife aren't represented.

But then what about ableism? Isn't it offensive that this horrific Tomodachi Island game just assumes I'm not paraplegic and wheelchair bound? This sounds ableist to me and I want a Wheelchair also included in the game, otherwise it's not like real life.

The difference here is that homosexuality is a feature of someone's identity that they are proud of having, and feel that it is an attribute of their self which should not be removed. This is to the point where even to suggest a so called "cure" for it is offensive, as it implies that there is something wrong with them. On the other hand, I don't think there are as many people who can honestly say that they're happy about being stuck in a wheelchair. In fact, there's a chance that some may even play these sorts of games as a sort of "escape" from the reality they're in.

Demanding features to meet the expectations of minorities is a slippery slope because you can split hairs to the nth degree. Of course it would be nice if we could have them; It would be nice if GameFreak brought back the VS seeker, but that doesn't mean that A) They have a personal responsibility to meet my individual expectations and B) It also doesn't mean that I don't want any more Pokemon games until they can give me that feature.

I suppose this is one of my big points in my argument: this isn't the expectation of a minority any more. Of course, there's a minority of people who fall under the LGBT umbrella, but that's not to say that the majority of people don't have an opinion on same-sex marriage. Generally, people are either for homosexuality or against it. There are people who wish to stay out of it, naturally, but for the most part I believe that this is the case. It happens that in this instance, a sufficient amount of people have raised a big enough fuss over this issue that this matter has become one of controversy. An issue on the lack of representation for something such as non-binary gender or the like doesn't get complaints about it because that is a true minority, where there are significantly less people who have a strong opinion on the matter.

I'd say a deeper rooted problem here is that people are expecting corporations and media companies to be an accurate guide to the public on what is acceptable in society and then complaining when they don't meet those expectations. If you are honestly looking toward multifaceted entertainment corporations like Nintendo to rewrite the book on what is socially acceptable to human society then you are the biggest problem in this equation.

People aren't expecting corporations to change what's socially acceptable. Their opinions and beliefs are exactly what form what is socially acceptable. Other games, such as Sims, Skyrim and ME3, recognise this. The problem arises when corporations do not acknowledge these opinions. The deeper rooted problem isnt what people expect from Nintendo, it's what Nintendo expects (maybe not the entirely correct word, but I'll keep it for the sake of rhetoric) of the people. By never having planned to have same-sex marriage as part of the game, Nintendo are essentially saying that only the traditional, heterosexual marriage is 'normal', and that same-sex marriage is not significant enough to bother including in the game.

Ultimately, I agree with you to the point where it's unreasonable to patch the game over at this point to include same-sex marriage. But I don't agree that the protests and petitions themselves are unreasonable. Of course people aren't expecting a hyper-realistic representation of their lives, otherwise there's not much point in playing the game. The problem is that the people who support LGBT people have the objective of creating a world where there is no value-based distinction between same-sex and straight marriage. Tomodachi Life threatens this objective, since the lack of same-sex marriage implies that there is a difference between them.

[Turner]

Whether or not same-sex marriage is legal in this fictional world isn't really the point here. In many countries where it is illegal, you will still find people protesting and rallying for its legality. And even though you claim it's not supposed to be a representation of the real world, it's still a game about the interaction between humans. These Miis make friends and rivals in similar ways to the way we do in reality; why should marriage and love be any different? Saying that the game is somehow totally different and wackier than our reality doesn't explain why this particular instance of peoples' lovelife aren't represented.

Love and marriage are not the same thing (And in particular, marriage in Japan does not carry the same connotations as it does in the west). And yes, whether or not same-sex marriage is legal in a fictional world is exactly the point. This videogame takes place in a fictional world thought up by the creator of this work. If same-sex marriage was not on the agenda then it makes zero sense for it to be included. Would you complain if same-sex marriage was not included in Assassin's Creed or Empire Earth? I can only hope you would not.

The difference here is that homosexuality is a feature of someone's identity that they are proud of having, and feel that it is an attribute of their self which should not be removed.

Lots of people are proud to be disabled or suffer from various illnesses. To suggest that these people shouldn't be included in such a game because they all want to 'escape reality' is an insult.

Generally, people are either for homosexuality or against it. There are people who wish to stay out of it, naturally, but for the most part I believe that this is the case. It happens that in this instance, a sufficient amount of people have raised a big enough fuss over this issue that this matter has become one of controversy. An issue on the lack of representation for something such as non-binary gender or the like doesn't get complaints about it because that is a true minority, where there are significantly less people who have a strong opinion on the matter.

Your problem is that you are assuming this is some kind of homophobia issue when it is not, and your comments about a 'true minority' are frightful. Once again I revert back to the ableist issue, are you saying that the disabled are not a 'true minority'? Or simply that they do not matter because they haven't had enough media coverage to squeeze an apology out of Nintendo?

People aren't expecting corporations to change what's socially acceptable.

Yes they absolutely are. Videogames change with the times much like any form of media. Had Nintendo been making videogames in the 1800s there probably would have been no option to play as a black person as such people were not part of normal society and were in fact, shunned from it. The very fact that Nintendo allows you to create a black Mii today is because black people are openly accepted into society and videogames are a representation of that, you probably wouldn't be able to create female Mii were it not for the suffragettes. In 50 years time (depending on the strength of the movement) I do not doubt that videogames will represent change in our society and will allow same-sex marriage in their videogames where applicable.

The difference is that what people are doing now is the opposite. They are expecting Nintendo to influence society by adding this feature instead of changing society themselves and waiting for the feature to be adapted when it is considered normal.

You are literally acknowledging the power a video game company has over society's opinion of normality and asking them to add a feature in order to make that feature socially acceptable. If you cannot see what is wrong with this mentality then I can only pity you and as I said before - you get what you deserve. Progression of homosexual rights within society will crawl forward at a snail's pace if you expect a company that creates videogames to push the movement forward.

And let's not forget, it is Nintendo's discrecion to make what they want to make. They are fully allowed to make a completely homophobic game if they want, or even a heterophobic one. Our feelings and opinions should not control or censor a creative work, that is simply fascism no matter who's feelings are being hurt.

[Hahex and Oshawott]

And yes, whether or not same-sex marriage is legal in a fictional world is exactly the point. This videogame takes place in a fictional world thought up by the creator of this work. If same-sex marriage was not on the agenda then it makes zero sense for it to be included. Would you complain if same-sex marriage was not included in Assassin's Creed or Empire Earth? I can only hope you would not.

But Assassin's Creed and Empire Earth don't have any representation of marriage in it at all, and even if they did, the lack of same-sex marriage for the most part is because it's a representation of human history for which the most part did not have same-sex marriage, and not because it's set in a fictional universe. Assassin's Creed in particular puts in the shoes of one particular character, whereas at least your own Mii in Tomodachi Life is based on yourself. Of course its unreasonable to expect every Assassin to have to option of being gay because they're a particular person. In the same way, a person's Mii also represents a particular person, who may or may not be gay. If Connor was gay, then he wouldn't be in a straight relationship, and in the same way, a Mii should not be forced into heterosexual marriages if it represents a gay person. Then there's the option of not getting married entirely, but then why is it fair that straight people should be able to have a representative marriage when gay people can't?

It's not so much a question of whether same-sex marriage is on the agenda, but rather why is it not?

Lots of people are proud to be disabled or suffer from various illnesses. To suggest that these people shouldn't be included in such a game because they all want to 'escape reality' is an insult.

I'd say that comparing homosexuality with an illness is also insulting. I never said that they all want to 'escape reality' but merely posited it as a possibility. I'm under the impression that if you gave a blind man the ability to see, or a disabled man the ability to walk, or a deaf man the ability to hear, then they would gladly accept? You can be proud of your disabilities and I assume the achievements that they make despite that, but I don't think they wouldn't hesitate to attain a cure for them. It is in this way that the two situations differ; gay people do not generally seem to be attached to the idea of a 'cure' for their homosexuality. Thus, it seems to me that disabilities are undesirable and that typically people do not want to be represented by a disabled avatar? I'm only talking from the perspective of a healthy teenager so if there are significant instances to the contrary, then I'd be interested in finding out more about them.

Your problem is that you are assuming this is some kind of homophobia issue when it is not, and your comments about a 'true minority' are frightful. Once again I revert back to the ableist issue, are you saying that the disabled are not a 'true minority'? Or simply that they do not matter because they haven't had enough media coverage to squeeze an apology out of Nintendo?

It's not a question of importance. Rather, it's a question of what a society expects and demands from a product for purchase. Is it unfair that the disabled don't have a strong enough voice? Perhaps. But the case is, there is a lot more demand for same-sex marriage.

Yes they absolutely are. Videogames change with the times much like any form of media. Had Nintendo been making videogames in the 1800s there probably would have been no option to play as a black person as such people were not part of normal society and were in fact, shunned from it. The very fact that Nintendo allows you to create a black Mii today is because black people are openly accepted into society and videogames are a representation of that, you probably wouldn't be able to create female Mii were it not for the suffragettes. In 50 years time (depending on the strength of the movement) I do not doubt that videogames will represent change in our society and will allow same-sex marriage in their videogames where applicable.

But then why do we have to wait 50 years? Same-sex marriage, or at the very least some sort of same-sex union, is allowed in most of Western Europe, Canada,  South America, South Africa etc. As you've mentioned, there's strong support for (and against) in America and Japan. People aren't renowned for being patient as whole, that's why it's supposed to be a virtue. People want their cake now.

The difference is that what people are doing now is the opposite. They are expecting Nintendo to influence society by adding this feature instead of changing society themselves and waiting for the feature to be adapted when it is considered normal.

You are literally acknowledging the power a video game company has over society's opinion of normality and asking them to add a feature in order to make that feature socially acceptable. If you cannot see what is wrong with this mentality then I can only pity you and as I said before - you get what you deserve. Progression of homosexual rights within society will crawl forward at a snail's pace if you expect a company that creates videogames to push the movement forward.

It's not as simple as people expecting Nintendo to lead the way for same-sex marriage. It's not as if people aren't rallying for the motion already and they haven't gotten anywhere with it. This is not separate from everything else, but rather in conjunction with it. They simply want Nintendo to acknowledge the progress they have made so far, and well, to be represented in a game like this. I don't expect Reggie to challenge Putin to a wrestling match because of the matter, or lead some sort of gay armed revolution. At the end of the day, though, the media do have a certain influence over how society works. It's a two-way channel though, media is created within and draws from a society and feeds back into it.

By saying that people are waiting for the feature to be implemented "when it is considered normal" is the exact attitude that they are against. For them, same-sex marriage is (or at least should?) considered normal, and banning it is abnormal/arbitrary. Can't you see that they are exactly being the change they want to see? The supporters of same-sex marriage don't just want a world where it is legal, but where it is considered totally normal. Even to the point where video games acknowledge it as an option.

And let's not forget, it is Nintendo's discrecion to make what they want to make. They are fully allowed to make a completely homophobic game if they want, or even a heterophobic one. Our feelings and opinions should not control or censor a creative work, that is simply fascism no matter who's feelings are being hurt.

Well we shouldn't get the wrong idea about the game. Yes it's a creative work but it's made with the primary purpose of being sold to a market, hopefully for a tidy profit. They're not entirely at liberty to create a homophobic or heterophobic game because at the end of the day, they're a company that's aiming to make profit, more so now than ever. If there's a missing feature that people want that they consider a 'deal-breaker', then they won't buy the game and Nintendo will miss out on the money that they could've gained. In this instance, Nintendo's apology may have actually encouraged sales, fortunately for them. Take a look at this, from the miiquality page. (whether or not that will significantly affect sales is another thing entirely).

It's not facist to skip out on a product because you disagree with its underlying ideals or because it doesn't have a certain feature you want. At the end of the day, Nintendo could publish a lot of things, but if no one's buying them, then it would be better for them to not publish it at all. If anything, then it's democracy. The consumers of a free market decide what products they want and make "votes" for those products with their purchases.

What should be regarded as standard and normal in what we see is decided by the people. If people expect a product to have same-sex marriage as a feature, then by all means they have every right to let the company making the game that that's what they want to see. Heck, for years people have been asking for Hoenn remakes, and though in some ways it was probably inevitable, here we are, 6 months before it is released. If enough people want something, then someone somewhere is going to produce it. If people want to play a surreal Mii sim game with gay marriage, then they're going to let the video games industry know and if Nintendo considers them to be enough to make money off of, then they will make that game. Is it facist? Restricting? Unfair on video game companies? Maybe, but how loudly will they complain if they make a good chunk of money from it?

[Spriter]

Lots of people are proud to be disabled or suffer from various illnesses. To suggest that these people shouldn't be included in such a game because they all want to 'escape reality' is an insult.

Not trying to be offensive and I apologise if I do offend ANY of you, before I start:

But how? Putting it another way, no-one would be proud of suffering pain or of suffering from a disability, right? Sure some might be proud of surviving the suffering, but I doubt many would like to go through extreme suffering (being paralysed from the neck down certainly sounds unpleasant, for an extreme example). From my experience, whilst I certainly do not have a MAJOR disability, I am not too proud of what I have, as it still has some sort of effect on me.

 Also, not sure if people would want to be reminded of their own individual suffering when you're trying to play video games to supposedly "escape" from it. Video games are a form of escapism to most, similar to being sources of conversation too.

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.

[SaRo|Rapidash]

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.

I think with the example of Pokémon it's kind of ignored, wrongly or rightly, because they're NPC. Like, there's one thing saying "It just so happens that no one in this world is gay" and saying "No one in this world can be gay".

But I still agree that it's been blown way out of proportion

Yes I get what you mean and you pretty much just answered the question as to why this is so ridiculous. You can argue either way that including gender selection is transphobic just as much as excluding them could be offensive to people who identify as a particular gender. You really can split hairs on this until every game that isn't a 100% accurate representation of real life is 'offensive' and requires some kind of apology.

Yeah, but the gender identity thing can be offensive whether it is included or not, but I'm pretty sure including gay marriage isn't going to offend gays. Like, it can be argued including and excluding gender selection is transphobic, but in no way is including gay marriage homophobic.

[Shaymin]

also i'm fairly sure miis can have any kind of hair - and female miis can have facial hair so it's literally just one will have a higher voice and longer shirt. i could put a moustache on my mii but it's still me. heck, i have 20+ miis on my 2ds that aren't me, obviously, and you don't have to play tomodachi life with YOUR mii, right? :y

[Hahex and Oshawott]

I think with the example of Pokémon it's kind of ignored, wrongly or rightly, because they're NPC. Like, there's one thing saying "It just so happens that no one in this world is gay" and saying "No one in this world can be gay".

also i'm fairly sure miis can have any kind of hair - and female miis can have facial hair so it's literally just one will have a higher voice and longer shirt. i could put a moustache on my mii but it's still me. heck, i have 20+ miis on my 2ds that aren't me, obviously, and you don't have to play tomodachi life with YOUR mii, right? :y

I think the thing is, people want to be able to put themselves in the game, and if they are in the game, they want a degree of likeness to themselves in real life. As you said, in pokemon every couple is just an NPC. That's fine, it wouldn't be reasonable to ask for a gay couple in every single game or something. But when it's personal, then that's where the tensions arise.

[Turner]

Let's lay down some facts here, shall we? Seeing as some people are clearly relying upon emotional-bias to justify why they think it's okay to demand an apology from a video games company for not including a feature.

1) Tomodachi Life is a game for EVERYONE. Therefore it must be accessible to children.

2) In Japan and the US, same-sex marriage is not legal, whether we like it or not.

3) To include gay marriage into this game would be sending the wrong message - that it is acceptable for same sex couples to marry. It is not. And no, not because of any homophobic reasons but because it is simply not permitted by law.

More facts:

4) The marriage feature of Tomodachi Life is tied in with a pregnancy and offspring feature.

5) Allowing same-sex couples to marry in Tomodachi Life is not as simple as checking a box, it would require the entire marriage mechanic to be re-written in order to either explain why males are pregnant or explain where this baby came from. This is on top of the other aspects of the game that would also have to be re-written in-turn to allow for these changes. If you allowed same-sex marriage in the games that were released in countries where same-sex marriage is legal, it would then raise a number of compatibility issues and hamper the communicative features of the game.

6) Same-sex marriage was never 'patched out', it never existed in the first place and was a serious, game breaking bug that led many westerners to believe that it was included in the first place.

7) Because Same-sex marriage is not legal in the US, including such a feature would likely remove the 'EVERYONE' rating of the game, eliminating the primary market for whom the game is aimed toward.

If you honestly believe Nintendo should spend additional time and money to code a feature into the game that isn't even legal in many of the countries it will be released in and would lose them significant amounts of money just because you personally are offended by the exclusion of the aforementioned feature, then please quote this post and state your reasoning below. Thank you.

[SaRo|Rapidash]

1) Tomodachi Life is a game for EVERYONE. Therefore it must be accessible to children.

I fail to see how this has any bearing on gay marriage being included? It's hardly something that needs to be hidden from kids, and the insinuation that it is is kind of offensive.

2) In Japan and the US, same-sex marriage is not legal, whether we like it or not.

I was under the impression the US was divided on the matter and some states had it legalised and others did not? Regardless, this is kinda muted by your own argument that it's a fantasy world, and so real law has no bearing.

3) To include gay marriage into this game would be sending the wrong message - that it is acceptable for same sex couples to marry. It is not. And no, not because of any homophobic reasons but because it is simply not permitted by law.

This is valid, just quoted it really to show I'm not ignoring it.

4) The marriage feature of Tomodachi Life is tied in with a pregnancy and offspring feature.

5) Allowing same-sex couples to marry in Tomodachi Life is not as simple as checking a box, it would require the entire marriage mechanic to be re-written in order to either explain why males are pregnant or explain where this baby came from. This is on top of the other aspects of the game that would also have to be re-written in-turn to allow for these changes. If you allowed same-sex marriage in the games that were released in countries where same-sex marriage is legal, it would then raise a number of compatibility issues and hamper the communicative features of the game.

6) Same-sex marriage was never 'patched out', it never existed in the first place and was a serious, game breaking bug that led many westerners to believe that it was included in the first place.

All these are to do with mechanics, and the thing is, whilst I agree that it is silly to ask for it to be patched in or whatever, that doesn't mean Nintendo can't apologise? They haven't included and provided justified reasoning and say "We apologise we can't listen to your complaint, as it would upset others" pretty much. That's not harming Nintendo, is it? Why is it so bad that people ask for something to be included in games? Would you say it was unjustified to ask for RS remakes if Nintendo had turned round and said "we're sorry, but due to <insert reason> we're not able to make it"?

7) Because Same-sex marriage is not legal in the US, including such a feature would likely remove the 'EVERYONE' rating of the game, eliminating the primary market for whom the game is aimed toward.

Aside from the fact that few people, in my experience, take note of age ratings, there is nothing on the ESRB website to suggest it would raise the age rating.

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.

[Hahex and Oshawott]

More facts:

4) The marriage feature of Tomodachi Life is tied in with a pregnancy and offspring feature.

5) Allowing same-sex couples to marry in Tomodachi Life is not as simple as checking a box, it would require the entire marriage mechanic to be re-written in order to either explain why males are pregnant or explain where this baby came from. This is on top of the other aspects of the game that would also have to be re-written in-turn to allow for these changes. If you allowed same-sex marriage in the games that were released in countries where same-sex marriage is legal, it would then raise a number of compatibility issues and hamper the communicative features of the game.

6) Same-sex marriage was never 'patched out', it never existed in the first place and was a serious, game breaking bug that led many westerners to believe that it was included in the first place.

7) Because Same-sex marriage is not legal in the US, including such a feature would likely remove the 'EVERYONE' rating of the game, eliminating the primary market for whom the game is aimed toward.

If you honestly believe Nintendo should spend additional time and money to code a feature into the game that isn't even legal in many of the countries it will be released in and would lose them significant amounts of money just because you personally are offended by the exclusion of the aforementioned feature, then please quote this post and state your reasoning below. Thank you.

All right, for a start I agree that it would be unreasonable to rework the game, after its been released for a while in Japan already, just for western audiences etc. etc. As you said, its not an easy process and even after coding it in, there's still a ton of bug testing, QA, possibly more translation that needs to be done.
Although, I don't agree that the current marriage mechanic would've taken any less time to create than a marriage mechanic allowing same-sex marriage if that was how it was planned from the beginning. It should just be a move for the gender check to happen at the baby-making stage, rather than the marriage stage, no?

I have to wonder, would the introduction of same-sex marriage really lead to an enhanced age rating? Other games that have been mentioned in this thread, such as The Sims, have had higher ratings, but is that not because of slightly more suggestive content aside from homosexual relationships? According to the ESRB website, sexuality technically comes under sexual content, which would give a game an M rating. But The Sims 3 was only rated a T despite this. And in Europe, the PEGI board makes no references to sexuality at all, only sexual content or themes. If that's a legitimate concern, then clearly the problem isn't with Nintendo, but with the ratings board. If not the rating board, then it comes full circle to the constitution itself.

Then there's the issue of whether the ratings really matter or not. There's the caricature that a proportion of players of the Call of Duty franchise are ironically below the age of 18.  They've simply gotten their parents to go and buy the game for them. In fact, I would imagine that most children, with no income of their own so to speak, would be getting their parents to buy for them. I dispute your point, then, on whether Nintendo would lose significant amounts of money from this move in this case. I also stand by my belief that Nintendo would make more money from putting same-sex marriage into a Tomodachi Life 2 than they would lose out from concerned, conservative parents.

Another thing is the way you infer that because a game is rated for everyone, it must the case that children are the primary audience of the game. That's not necessarily the case, the E rating only means that the game is suitable for everyone, including children. For example, the Kingdom Hearts has an E10+ rating and despite its cuddly Disney appearance, I'd say that the game is more geared towards a more teenage audience to the point where a T rating would not massively affect sales. Games don't necessarily have to be violent or explicitly sexual to be aimed towards adults or teenagers. I don't agree, then, that children must be the primary focus for the game.

To summarize:
a) The inclusion of same-sex marriage may not necessarily lead to a higher rating. The rating boards do not use the law as a criteria for their judgement.
b) Even if the rating was increased, there's not necessarily a "significant amount of money" lost for nintendo. The inclusion may actually have the opposite effect.
c) E rating does not imply that the game must be for children. Even though plenty of games that are rated E are made with children as a primary audience, that doesn't mean that has to be the case. 

EDIT: sniped by Dick, it seems. Raised a few similar points a lot more concisely than I did

[kindtocrows]

I'd say that comparing homosexuality with an illness is also insulting. I never said that they all want to 'escape reality' but merely posited it as a possibility. I'm under the impression that if you gave a blind man the ability to see, or a disabled man the ability to walk, or a deaf man the ability to hear, then they would gladly accept? You can be proud of your disabilities and I assume the achievements that they make despite that, but I don't think they wouldn't hesitate to attain a cure for them. It is in this way that the two situations differ; gay people do not generally seem to be attached to the idea of a 'cure' for their homosexuality. Thus, it seems to me that disabilities are undesirable and that typically people do not want to be represented by a disabled avatar? I'm only talking from the perspective of a healthy teenager so if there are significant instances to the contrary, then I'd be interested in finding out more about them.

Apologies for making another post while not actually adding anything to the debate, but I felt the need to address this, as it hit a little close to home.

First of all, there actually is a way to allow deaf people to hear, it's a device called a cochlear implant. It's a little extreme, needing brain surgery, but it apparently works really well. The problem is, even though they can hear sounds, they can't understand them. If you give a deaf person who's been deaf their entire life a cochlear implant, they will pretty much only understand your words at the same level as a newborn. It takes years of speech therapy to be able understand you, and many just don't want to bother with that, or simply just don't like the noise. Many deaf people are perfectly fine with being deaf, and are even proud of it. I'm sure some would jump at the chance to hear, but none that I've talked to.

I can't really say anything for blind people though, since I don't actually know any.

But here's a controversy that might be a little closer to the issue at hand, autism_{I mean similar in the sense that they feel similarly, not in the sense that they should add something to the game, sorry.}. I only just skimmed these articles, but they seem to be good. Sorry in advance if they're not. Anyway, point is, similarly to how homosexuals and others who are a sexual minority see their sexuality as a part of who they are and wouldn't change it, many autistic people see autism as a part of who they are, and wouldn't dare change it. This is coming from someone who knows and is good friends with a lot of autistic people, and may be autistic herself _{(still waiting for tests. waiting list is too long)}, and is part of a sexual minority _{(one that not many know of and is often told we don't exist, which is rather depressing)}.

I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but I think this is long enough, so I'll end here.

[Turner]

I fail to see how this has any bearing on gay marriage being included? It's hardly something that needs to be hidden from kids, and the insinuation that it is is kind of offensive.

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.

Regardless, this is kinda muted by your own argument that it's a fantasy world, and so real law has no bearing.

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.

It should just be a move for the gender check to happen at the baby-making stage, rather than the marriage stage, no?

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.

I have to wonder, would the introduction of same-sex marriage really lead to an enhanced age rating? Other games that have been mentioned in this thread, such as The Sims, have had higher ratings, but is that not because of slightly more suggestive content aside from homosexual relationships?

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. 

Then there's the issue of whether the ratings really matter or not. There's the caricature that a proportion of players of the Call of Duty franchise are ironically below the age of 18.  They've simply gotten their parents to go and buy the game for them. In fact, I would imagine that most children, with no income of their own so to speak, would be getting their parents to buy for them. I dispute your point, then, on whether Nintendo would lose significant amounts of money from this move in this case. I also stand by my belief that Nintendo would make more money from putting same-sex marriage into a Tomodachi Life 2 than they would lose out from concerned, conservative parents.

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.

b) Even if the rating was increased, there's not necessarily a "significant amount of money" lost for nintendo. The inclusion may actually have the opposite effect.

Citation very much needed for this.


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

Financially it makes no sense to include the feature, not in terms of programming, the time wasted in doing so or the potential response from paying customers.

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?

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?

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.

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.

[SaRo|Rapidash]

("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?

As offensive as that sounds, I take that with a lot less offence than:

1) Tomodachi Life is a game for EVERYONE. Therefore it must be accessible to children.

Which paraphrased says "Tomodachi life can't include gay people because children can't see that." And I don't know about other gays, but I certainly take that with more offence than the other statement, which has basis with countries like Uganda (I think?) being so homophobic.

You've taken that quote completely out of context of the rest of the thread despite agreeing with it below. 'EVERYONE' is a rating.

Taken out your trash at the end about it being emotional - the point is that the audience being children has no bearing whatsoever on whether gays should be included. Are children with gay parents automatically scarred for life because the children can't see gayness? No.

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.

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 >_>

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.

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

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. 

ESRB ratings mention it nowhere! as I've pointed out to you once

This is a silly non-issue that bears no relevance to the subject at hand.
Pretty useless statement? It bears every relevance, Nintendo don't include it based on their belief it will drop sales, obviously if people ignore age ratings then an increase in age ratings will not effect their sales
 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.
To use your own words, 'this is a silly non-issue' as the age rating would be very unlikely to rise

Citation very much needed for this.


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

Financially it makes no sense to include the feature, not in terms of programming, the time wasted in doing so or the potential response from paying customers.

Not now, I would agree, but at the time of release I don't suppose it would make much difference either way

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

I don't have an obligation to say 'Sorry' if I accidentally slam a door in someone's face, I still do. Nintendo don't have an obligation to say 'Sorry' if they don't include gays in a game, they still do. Both Hahex and I said we don't think it should be included now, but think it's unreasonable to call it unreasonable to have asked

Quoting takes too long, so it's just bolted comments ^^