nintendo excludes gay marriage from tomodachi life

[Turner]

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

No because in Tomodachi Life marriage = pregnancy = offspring. The entire marriage mechanic is really just a cutscene from the moment of proposal where the female is made to wear bridal clothes and the male dons a groom's suit. The whole scene is a presented in a humorous way and a parody of the typical wedding found Japanese dramas. Following this the female gets pregnant through implied intercourse (Yes the female Mii's stomach expands in a comedic fashion) and several cutscenes are shown of the father playing with the baby Mii.

It's not something that could be 'patched in' or could ever have been opted out of. It would probably considered more offensive if one of the same-sex couple was forced to wear a dress while the other was forced to wear a suit and downright strange for a male to become visibly pregnant.

[lets all go out for some frosty chocolate milkshakes]

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

turner, how do you think lgbt representation should be handled in the current media??

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.

haha lmao tell me about it


i got fed up of waiting for my disabled lgbt mixed race knightess in armour and started workin on my own story instead lmao, its gonna be crap as all hell but its something at least <----- edit: this sounds snarky @ u but it wasn't meant to be, apologies, i have been genuinely frustrated at misrepresentation and just upped and went "SOD IT" and started work on a literal mafia story where all the characters look like they've walked out of the downtown pride






tbh Being Serious For A Bit i feel that the Third Wave D.I.Y ethos is really important in social movements these days if one feels inclusivity is not being achieved but thats cos im smackbang in the middle of a latter day riot grrl/DIY community which thankfully has kept me grounded from the dreadful tumblr slactivist community and their second-wave radfem ways of achieving stuff





the hilarious consequence to this is if microsoft or sony release an avatar-based game where you can gay marry tbh tho, imagine the pages and pages of awful topics on gamefaqs and angry nintendo nerds

It's not something that could be 'patched in' or could ever have been opted out of. It would probably considered more offensive if one of the same-sex couple was forced to wear a dress while the other was forced to wear a suit and downright strange for a male to become visibly pregnant.

see now i think this would be a great feature tbh

[Turner]

turner, how do you think lgbt representation should be handled in the current media??

At the discretion of whoever makes said 'media'. I don't think it should be 'represented' at all, I don't think anything or anyone should be actively 'represented' for the sake of being represented. If you want to make a homophobic game/movie/book/album then fine, if you want to make a heterophobic game/movie/book/album then fine - it should be entirely up to the person who makes it.

see now i think this would be a great feature tbh

It was a bug for a while in Tomodachi Collection

[Lord Raven]

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).

The conversation seems relatively civil to me.  I'll show you examples of arguments-gone-wrong if you want a comparison.

Some people on this forum *cough cough* have had tendencies to take arguments a little personally.

[Hahex and Oshawott]

Oh God I stayed up till 3 last night typing out a reply and it's not here any more whyyy. I'll just quickly blitz through those points again then.

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?

That's certainly a tough question, and most things that I would answer with will probably be problematic. Fortunately, it's not up to me to decide. It's down to Nintendo, or whoever any x group is petitioning for y action to, to decide when they want to start listening.

You also argue that petitioning for same-sex marriage in Tomodachi Life is also implying that Nintendo is in fact homophobic. But that's not entirely logical. When people start and sign a petition, it's because they believe that there's a chance that whatever they're signing for will be considered seriously. Obviously, the more signatures you collect, the more people who believe that. The fact that there's a few people who've signed it show that they believe it's something that can be realistically included in the game (although, as it turns out, it can't be put in. Not for any moral issue, but because of the pragmatic issue of coding and time etc.) Now you can't just stroll into North Korea and start a petition for democratic election because a) people will be terrified for their lives for signing it and b) it's incredibly unlikely that Mr Kim-Jon Un and his merry comrades are going to listen to it. From that perspective, it's impossible to accuse people of accusing Nintendo of being homophobic.

At the same time, had Microsoft or Sony done the same thing, there would probably still be petitions for same-sex marriage. As you've mentioned before, these companies are supposedly a lot less inclusive than Nintendo. But there are still petitions. In which case, what do the demands really say about the people's opinion of the company? One interpretation is that all companies would be accused of homophobia. The other is that people don't really care about whether a company is homophobic or not; if they are are, well that's not seen as a good thing but if they're not then it still doesn't matter. The supporters will still ask for same-sex marriage regardless.

And let's assume that you're right and that asking for same-sex marriage must necessarily imply that people are also accusing Nintendo of homophobia. Does that mean that we'll never be able to ask for same-sex marriage in a video game without any wild implications that are put onto it by opposition? That doesn't seem particularly fair either.

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?

People talk about what Nintendo should do all the time. Some say they should develop for smartphones, some say they should stick to the franchises that they know and some say they should make consoles that can compete in terms of hardware with Sony and Microsoft. You're mistaking my "should" as "must". I'm making a heavy suggestion, not forcing a dictate onto them. If it appeared that way, then I apologize for not making that clearer. 

And on a much lighter note, I found this mildly amusing.

[Turner]

You also argue that petitioning for same-sex marriage in Tomodachi Life is also implying that Nintendo is in fact homophobic.

No I did not at all. You are acting as though the 'Miiquality' petition is the only facet of this entire debate when in fact it came AFTER the homophobia accusations of which there were plenty. Once again, this is not on BBC because some people wanted to make a petition. Even The Korea Times outright called Nintendo homophobic. There are quite a few other links I could post here, but I'd be breaking the rules if I did, turns out the people who accuse Nintendo of homophobia aren't exactly very polite themselves.

And let's assume that you're right and that asking for same-sex marriage must necessarily imply that people are also accusing Nintendo of homophobia. Does that mean that we'll never be able to ask for same-sex marriage in a video game without any wild implications that are put onto it by opposition? That doesn't seem particularly fair either.

Once again, this is not a 'wild accusation'. These are solid facts. Video games developers should include same-sex marriage at their own discretion and when they do, that is fine. Complaining that the lack of feature is 'homophobic' is ridiculous however.

If you want to read something worthwhile about this then read the following article:

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/ChristianNutt/20140508/217351/Understanding_Nintendos_Tomodachi_Life_problem.php

This person has the clearest grasp of the situation. Make clear notes of 1) How much control you actually have over the game and its characters and 2) Animal Crossing and skin tones.

[Hahex and Oshawott]

No I did not at all. You are acting as though the 'Miiquality' petition is the only facet of this entire debate when in fact it came AFTER the homophobia accusations of which there were plenty. Once again, this is not on BBC because some people wanted to make a petition. Even The Korea Times outright called Nintendo homophobic. There are quite a few other links I could post here, but I'd be breaking the rules if I did, turns out the people who accuse Nintendo of homophobia aren't exactly very polite themselves.

Could you PM me some of those links in that case, please?

Either way, whether or not the news sites, or even individuals, accused Nintendo of homophobia or not, the act of requesting same-sex marriage in Tomodachi Life itself is not wrong. The one point that I have a problem with is this original assertion:

Complaining about Nintendo not having gay marriage in their game is an unnecessary attack on Nintendo,

Yes, it's an attack, but is it unnecessary? Well it depends on the definition, but for the most part, it seems fair enough that people are upset that a game doesn't have a feature they want. Do Nintendo have to listen, or comply? They don't. But it's still acceptable to make a point about it.

[Turner]

Either way, whether or not the news sites, or even individuals, accused Nintendo of homophobia or not

They did. I literally just gave you an example of a major tabloid doing so. There is no 'or not', stop trying to act like there is some king of ambiguity in what was said when there clearly wasn't. I'm also pretty sure PMs fall under the same rules as the rest of the site, but it's really not difficult to find with some google-fu.

the act of requesting same-sex marriage in Tomodachi Life itself is not wrong.

Exactly, which is why the petition is fine. But I didn't say 'requesting', I said complaining and accusing. There is a big difference, especially so on the scale we've seen.

Once again you're being awfully selective with your paraphrasing when it suits your argument, I get the impression you are doing this because you're aware that you are now fighting a losing battle. Do you honestly think people are too stupid to see you to twist the words of anybody who disagrees with you so that they appear more extreme whilst playing down your own words to make yourself sound more reasonable? That's the oldest trick in the book, maybe you should consider a career in spin doctoring. Or maybe you shouldn't, as this is the third time I've caught you at it now.

[Hahex and Oshawott]

They did. I literally just gave you an example of a major tabloid doing so. There is no 'or not', stop trying to act like there is some king of ambiguity in what was said when there clearly wasn't. I'm also pretty sure PMs fall under the same rules as the rest of the site, but it's really not difficult to find with some google-fu.

Exactly, which is why the petition is fine. But I didn't say 'requesting', I said complaining and accusing. There is a big difference, especially so on the scale we've seen.

I'm not implying any ambiguity, I'm saying that it's irrelevant. I'll concede that I'm wrong about no-one accusing Nintendo of homophobia, but I still don't think that it's wrong to complain about the lack of a feature.

Once again you're being awfully selective with your paraphrasing when it suits your argument, I get the impression you are doing this because you're aware that you are now fighting a losing battle. Do you honestly think people are too stupid to see you to twist the words of anybody who disagrees with you so that they appear more extreme whilst playing down your own words to make yourself sound more reasonable? That's the oldest trick in the book, maybe you should consider a career in spin doctoring. Or maybe you shouldn't, as this is the third time I've caught you at it now.

I'm sorry that I gave you that impression. I'll try to be a little more strict with myself next time. But is it still unreasonable to complain about a missing feature? If you don't like something, then you should complain about it. I'll now link the request with complaint. A petition, which is essentially a mass request, implies dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. It's a forward, progressive take on an otherwise negative complaint.

For example, let's look at this one. The forward action is to protect Mildenhall Stadium from being shut down. But the complaint is that the court's ruling of 'coming to a nuisance' is used too freely and haphazardly in this instance. Likewise here, although the forward motion is to get recognition for Eid and Diwali, essentially they're complaining that they're festivals are not recognized. They're not accusing the government of being corrupted or racist.

Now as you've mentioned, there are accusations of Nintendo being homophobic. But those accusations are not necessarily linked with the act of complaining. You can complain about Nintendo being homophobic, or Nintendo not including same-sex marriage, but one does not necessitate the other. For some people, they go hand in hand and for others they don't. Now, the first one requires a little more substance to be justified, but we can clearly see that the second one is based on a totally true observation; Tomodachi Life does not have same-sex marriage. Thus, the first one is unreasonable and unnecessary as it is not based on a true premise, but the second one is. Because of this, complaining that Nintendo is homophobic must also include an accusation, an unsubstantiated claim, that Nintendo is homophobic, since there is little to substantiate it. There requires further proof or evidence to justify the accusation, in order to justify the complaint.

The second complaint is fully justified. There is no same-sex marriage in the game. Thus, it is just to complain about it, if you deem that to be something that should be in the game. To return to this statement:

Complaining about Nintendo not having gay marriage in their game is an unnecessary attack on Nintendo,

If by attack, you mean an accusation of homophobia, then the two are not conflatable. It's entirely possible that some people are making both complaints at the same time, but then there are others who are only making the latter complaint. I agree that the "attack on Nintendo" is unnecessary, but the "Complaining about Nintendo not having gay marriage" is firstly not the same as an "attack on Nintendo", and, well I wouldn't go as far as to say necessary so, justified.

[Pam-the-Lamb]

 I'm really looking forward to this game. It looks pretty quirky and fun but not something you could play for ages without stopping.

[Turner]

I'm not implying any ambiguity, I'm saying that it's irrelevant.

I'll concede that I'm wrong about no-one accusing Nintendo of homophobia

How can it NOT be relevant when it was the exact argument you used? Do you even know what you're arguing about anymore? Your entire point stood upon the fact that allegedly 'Nobody was calling Nintendo Homophobic'. I've literally shown you proof of that to be false and now you're saying it's irrelevant? Are you seriously saying that facts are only relevant when they support your argument?

But is it still unreasonable to complain about a missing feature? If you don't like something, then you should complain about it. I'll now link the request with complaint. A petition, which is essentially a mass request, implies dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. It's a forward, progressive take on an otherwise negative complaint.

This has been my point all along, complaining and petitioning is fine. Throwing words like 'Homophobia' around is not. It IS however completely unnecessary to complain as this is a product that will be willingly purchased by the customer. It makes no sense to complain about something that you will consensually pay £40 to enjoy with full knowledge that the thing you don't like is included in the game.

To make an analogy, it would be like writing an abusive letter to SEGA claiming that you bought the latest Sonic game and are absolutely outraged that it didn't include any black characters, despite already knowing full well beforehand that there would be no black characters whatsoever and still buying it anyway, then following this up by starting up a hate campaign calling SEGA a bunch of racists.

Likewise here, although the forward motion is to get recognition for Eid and Diwali, essentially they're complaining that they're festivals are not recognized. They're not accusing the government of being corrupted or racist.

This petition may be well phrased and polite, but it definitely falls under 'completely unnecessary' and I have no idea why anyone would even consider putting it forward to government.

Now as you've mentioned, there are accusations of Nintendo being homophobic. But those accusations are not necessarily linked with the act of complaining.

An accusation like 'x is homophobic!!' IS a complaint no matter which way you slice it. People are not calling Nintendo homophobic as a compliment.

If by attack, you mean an accusation of homophobia, then the two are not conflatable.

Calling someone homophobic is an attack. If I was to call someone a racist it would absolutely be an attack on their personal character.

but the "Complaining about Nintendo not having gay marriage" is firstly not the same as an "attack on Nintendo",

You are literally agreeing with me. I have no idea why you are trying to present this as an argument as I said literally the same thing in the last post when you insisted the two were the same. You just keep chopping and changing your point constantly. It's getting difficult to take you seriously at all in this.

[Joeno]

I'm going to interject here after a few reports and say that I have no clue what the discussion is about here.

People have called Nintendo homophobic - or at least their reaction to the issues. Whether or not this is a full attack is a matter of semantics and not really relevant to anything here and I don't really understand why large posts are needed to discuss this. Focus, instead, on the actual argument - is it homophobic, is it the right thing to do, and does it really take that much time to remove a line saying

Code Select Expand

if(person1.gender  != person2.gender) relationship.romantic_allowed = true;?

(On a personal level, this refusal is enough reason for me to no longer be interested in the game and not to purchase it, but that's a personal choice. I also do feel that, by not including it, Nintendo is making a clear statement that makes me feel uncomfortable, and I'm happy that they indicated willingness to change it in the future - I just need to see it happen first)

Anyway, my point is, I don't see why there is even a discussion on whether people are free to complain about this, create petitions and so on. Whether or not Nintendo acts on it, or should act on it, is a separate discussion, and perhaps the debate here could be more interesting and less fierce if the focus can be on the bigger picture instead of the semantics discussed here that seem to have led to nobody really knowing what's being discussed.

[Turner]

and does it really take that much time to remove a line saying

Code Select Expand

if(person1.gender  != person2.gender) relationship.romantic_allowed = true;?

Have you actually seen how this game handles the marriage mechanic? It's certainly not as easy as that. You don't even get to choose who your Mii has a romantic attraction to, let alone marry. Effectively the entire Relationship + Marriage + Pregnancy + Childbirth mechanic is one big cutscene that pairs a random male Mii with a random female Mii and generates a (horrific looking) child by mixing the visual features of both. This is why Nintendo referred to the game as a comedic fantasy world, not because they were making some kind of implication about same-sex relationships.

And this is also why being able to be in a relationship with a member of the same sex was a bug; because it allowed males to get pregnant (as pictured in this thread already). Effectively there could be a lot of incestuous Mii children made with these games. There's been far too much jumping on the 'I feel offended and alienated' bandwagon without people actually bothering to study why the game is the way it is in the first place.

I think people have really not done their research at all on this game, it's nothing like Animal Crossing. You are not playing as yourself, nor do you have the same level of control over yourself as you would on games like The Sims. It really is much more like having a Mii Tamagotchi than anything people are thinking of, I see absolutely nobody read the link I posted though. 

[Hahex and Oshawott]

You are literally agreeing with me. I have no idea why you are trying to present this as an argument as I said literally the same thing in the last post when you insisted the two were the same. You just keep chopping and changing your point constantly. It's getting difficult to take you seriously at all in this.

OK, my point is that complaining about the lack of same-sex marriage is not an attack on Nintendo. You can accuse/complain about Nintendo being homophobic, but it's not the same as complaining about same-sex marriage. I suppose I have been quite sloppy, and that last post doesn't seem to be as clear as it could be. Let me clarify:

How can it NOT be relevant when it was the exact argument you used? Do you even know what you're arguing about anymore? Your entire point stood upon the fact that allegedly 'Nobody was calling Nintendo Homophobic'. I've literally shown you proof of that to be false and now you're saying it's irrelevant? Are you seriously saying that facts are only relevant when they support your argument?

If the facts are wrong, then they can't support my argument. I don't think you'd like it if I tried to stand by that assertion, so I dropped it.

This has been my point all along, complaining and petitioning is fine. Throwing words like 'Homophobia' around is not. It IS however completely unnecessary to complain as this is a product that will be willingly purchased by the customer. It makes no sense to complain about something that you will consensually pay £40 to enjoy with full knowledge that the thing you don't like is included in the game.

To make an analogy, it would be like writing an abusive letter to SEGA claiming that you bought the latest Sonic game and are absolutely outraged that it didn't include any black characters, despite already knowing full well beforehand that there would be no black characters whatsoever and still buying it anyway, then following this up by starting up a hate campaign calling SEGA a bunch of racists.

Well hold up. The game's not even out yet, no one's paid anything, apart from maybe a deposit. So first, let's not assume that said person wrote the letter after they got the game, in order to tighten up the analogy. You can still complain about a lack of black characters, but then the hate campaign is wrong.

Leaving that point for just a moment, if the game lacked a feature that they would otherwise buy had the feature been included, then they would not have bought it. Otherwise, it would seem like an attractive game that would be worth your time buying. So the game will not be bought, but you will might also attempt to persuade the game company to add in said feature. That is a little more accurate representation of what's happening, rather than what you're describing.

An accusation like 'x is homophobic!!' IS a complaint no matter which way you slice it. People are not calling Nintendo homophobic as a compliment.

Calling someone homophobic is an attack. If I was to call someone a racist it would absolutely be an attack on their personal character.

I phrased this poorly. Calling Nintendo homophobic is a complaint/accusation, but it's not the same complaint about not having same-sex marriage.

You are literally agreeing with me. I have no idea why you are trying to present this as an argument as I said literally the same thing in the last post when you insisted the two were the same. You just keep chopping and changing your point constantly. It's getting difficult to take you seriously at all in this.

But you said the exact opposite at the beggining, which is why I'm assuming you're against that!

Complaining about Nintendo not having gay marriage in their game is an unnecessary attack on Nintendo,

This very sentance right here is what I have a problem with. If you can't tell what I'm trying to argue about, then that's totally my fault, but I am arguing against that one particular sentance. That "Complaining about Nintendo not having gay marriage in their game is not an unnecessary attack on Nintendo." The attack on Nintendo is, instead, the complaints that they are homophobic, not that they don't have gary marriage in their game. These are the two compaints that are not conflatable: the complaint against gay marriage and the complaint that Nintendo is homophobic.
When I said: 

And let's assume that you're right and that asking for same-sex marriage must necessarily imply that people are also accusing Nintendo of homophobia. Does that mean that we'll never be able to ask for same-sex marriage in a video game without any wild implications that are put onto it by opposition? That doesn't seem particularly fair either.

that was to show that this sentence cannot be true, or that it would be ridiculous if it were true, not that I was arguing that it was the case.
The key word is 'assume'. It's assuming that the initial statement is true, not that it is true.

Now that you've seemed to have backed down from the initial assertion, to:

Complaining that the lack of feature is 'homophobic' is ridiculous however.

I'd like to move on to something that might be a little more relevant to, as Joeno puts it, the bigger picture.

I think people have really not done their research at all on this game, it's nothing like Animal Crossing. You are not playing as yourself, nor do you have the same level of control over yourself as you would on games like The Sims. It really is much more like having a Mii Tamagotchi than anything people are thinking of, I see absolutely nobody read the link I posted though. 

Here, the way you put "Mii Tamagotchi" doesn't quite adress the problem. The difference is a question of identity. With a Tamagotchi, the Tamagotchi is an entirely different entity to the person playing with it. But a Mii, in every single respect, is an avatar of the person playing it. It is supposed to be the exact same person, adjusted aesthetically for game mechanics and cohesive game art style. The Mii is still a representation of a person. Even though the player has no control over it, the Mii should still retain some very fundamental characteristics of the player and one of them is whether or not the Mii is gay.

As you've pointed out, this leads to a absurdity, where the question is, "To what degree do we let the Mii represent the player?" It's ridiculous to make the Mii become a completely exact representation of the player, but at the same time, there are elements of a person which makes the person uncomfortable if it isn't carried over into a game. With a Mii, most heights, weights, ages, gender etc. generally have a potentiality to be represented. Things like hair style are trivial as they're not a necessary predicate of a person; it just so happens that their hair has grown in such a way, or if it was intentionally cut like that, then that was a choice and it might have just as likely been cut in any other way, had the person chosen differently. But people don't typically make a choice about being gay, they're either born gay or not. As an essential part of their character, it then becomes strange that other parts of a person are accurately (for a Mii anyhow) represented, but this particular feature is not.

Then this reduces to absurdity: does this mean that Nintendo will then have to "continue splitting hairs to the Nth degree" until they have a perfect representation of someone's personality, or even to go as far as their exact genetic pattern? And then there are further details that can be added to the Mii customizer, that a player can't easily change or influence, such as the exact size/height of each of their facial features.

I assume that the limitations of the Mii Maker is due to comedy effects. It's amusing to see a system create a likeness of a person from a preset collection of parts. Then the need for a representation of someone's personality is not included because it's not necessary for the majority of their games. It comes through through the actual player's behaviour within the game, for the most part. In a game like Tomodachi Life, watching an avatar of a gay man marrying a woman isn't comedic, it's slightly upsetting. The player has no chance to input this particular part of their personality into the game, either, because, as you said, the player lacks that much control of their avatar.

Sure, this will happen with other parts of a person's personality. For example, if my Mii were to start studying hard for an exam, then that wouldn't be very much like me at all. But someone's aptitude to work is a little different from someone's sexual orientation, in that it's a little more trivial. So, it's funny when something like that happens. This humour isn't quite as appreciated in other areas of life.

Then the other point is the case of the disabled. A person's disability is also a key feature of their personality. A car accident survivor's Mii playing football in the park is not in particularly good taste. Thus, where do we draw the line? Earlier on I gave the responsibility of deciding to Nintendo, and that ultimately I have no say in what they should do. Seeing as the previous line of inquiry led to a semantic train-wreck, then I'll return to this.

[Hahex and Oshawott]

There are two "shoulds" about this. There's one, as a profit-seeking company and another, as a collection of moral-agents. The first Nintendo will only consider the amount of money that can be made from including same-sex marriage. It includes factors such as the age-rating, proportion of LGBT people who will buy the game regardless of whether it's included or not versus those who will not, the parents who will refuse to buy the game for their children due to their beliefs etc. It's a completely quantifiable amount, but I lack the insight to gather these figures up. Things like petitions can help quantify that amount, but at the end of the day, they're a little untrustworthy. This is because there's the likely possibility that some people will sign the petition but not follow up with an economic transaction.

Then the second question is whether or not the company is morally obliged to add the feature in. I argue that there's no intrinsic right or wrong answer to that question. Although I wouldn't go as far as to say we live in a total cultural hegemony, I think that our basis of morality still comes from the culture in which we're brought up, taught to us by teachers, parents and other role models. Then the question of where the idea that "being homosexual is not wrong" arises must then come from people who oppose the ideals of their parents, else there would be no changes in what we consider right or wrong. So we don't live in a total hegemony because there's still a real potential of people questioning the ideas of the "owners of the means of production", or whatever's the top of the Marxist chain of being. Alternatively, the change in social attitudes towards homosexuality can be put down to a dialetical "social" revolution. Either way, the degree to which an action is considered "right" to me, is based upon the culture of where that action is taking place.

The games which have included same-sex marriage that I have given before as examples, and have essentially created a precedent for the inclusion of same-sex marriage in video games, that is Skyrim, Mass Effect 3 and The Sims, have all come from American companies. Very broadly speaking, this has had postive reactions. We should be able to infer that, within the culture, the inclusion is deemed as a good act. Now you argue that Japan has a very similar attitude to the LGBT movement as in the West, in that they're not in any way "behind" on the attitudes to gay marriage. It would make sense that Nintendo not having same-sex marriage in their game would then still be seen as a wrong action. But it seems that it's only the Western audiences that have reacted negatively to it. There are a few possible explanations to this:
1) The attitudes towards same-sex marriage in Japan are different to that of the Western World.
2) The attitudes towards marriage, and other typical familly relations, are different in Japan than they are to the West.
3) The attitudes towards complaining about missing features is different in Japan than to the West.
4) Whether or not the Japanese people particularly care about the topic at hand or not, though this may tie back in to the 1, 2 or 3.
Where by "the attitude" means the general, common opinion on a topic. This isn't an exhaustive list, and I don't claim it is either.

Now, it would make sense to say that it's only fair that, assuming the circumstances which someone was born into, the only correct culture to conform to is the one they were born in, as they would not have a choice or an oppurtunity to be born into a different culture. Then, it seems that Nintendo aren't wrong in only including same-sex marriage in Tomodachi Life. But this is a dangerous line of reasoning which can result in Nazism, among other things. If someone was raised a Nazi, then how would they know that what they're doing is wrong, after all? Thus, the moral judgements of one "system" must be able to "critique" the laws of another. But that's also problematic, as one culture cannot account for other environmental or historical experiences of another culture, which have led them to create differences in moral opinion.

Then, based solely on the evidence of complaints, petitions and whatnot, it seems that the people of the West regard Nintendo's decision to be morally wrong. The lack of this type of evidence from the Japanese side, however, does not mean that they deem it to be acceptable, however, only that they have not complained about it. This can be attributed to many reasons, as I've pointed out. At the same time, the evidence from the western side is also inconclusive. There's plenty of backlash against the very act of complaining, and on a bigger scale, against the LGBT movement itself. Once again, I lack the sufficient insight to quantify this, so to even conclude that only the Western world, where the complaints have arisin from, deem Nintendo's actions to be wrong would be foolhardy.

The reason why I initially didn't go into this particular point, is that, as you can see, it results in some sort of Pyrrohnian Scepticism for me. It's not really possible to argue whether or not Nintendo are right or wrong about the action, and therefore it's difficult to assert whether or not they should include same-sex marriage in Tomodachi Life or not.