Nintendo Reiterates Stance on Same-Sex Couples in Tomodachi Life

Wednesday, May 7th, 2014

Share this page

We are proudly a Play-Asia Partner

SUPPORT OPRAINFALL BY TURNING OFF ADBLOCK

Ads support the website by covering server and domain costs. We're just a group of gamers here, like you, doing what we love to do: playing video games and bringing y'all niche goodness. So, if you like what we do and want to help us out, make an exception by turning off AdBlock for our website. In return, we promise to keep intrusive ads, such as pop-ups, off oprainfall. Thanks, everyone!

By


Tomodachi Life - NA Box Art

Believe it or not, the quirky life-simulation title Tomodachi Life has been a source for some controversy lately. While the game allows for male and female Miis to form relationships and have children together, it doesn’t extend those abilities to Miis of the same sex. It was rumored that a glitch in the initial Japanese version of the game allowed players to do that, but that the glitch was later patched. That claim was later debunked, however, by Nintendo product marketing manager Bill Trinen.

“The other thing that was going on was that quite a few Japanese players were dressing up Mii characters… Essentially they would create a male version of a Mii character and assign their gender as female, and that was how the two males were able to have a baby.” A patch released around the same time was actually made to correct a data-transfer issue, he told IGN, and was unrelated to issues of gender and sexuality in-game.

However, this has not stopped players from protesting the inability to have romantic relationships between two men and two women in Tomodachi Life. Petitions have been launched and commentary has sprouted up online regarding the game’s- and Nintendo’s- stance on the matter. Despite that, Nintendo has retained their initial view on the issue. Their most recent announcement reads:

“Nintendo never intended to make any form of social commentary with the launch of Tomodachi Life,” a Nintendo of America representative said in a statement to the Associated Press. “The relationship options in the game represent a playful alternate world rather than a real-life simulation. We hope that all of our fans will see that Tomodachi Life was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary.”

Tomodachi Life is set to release in North America and Europe this summer for the 3DS.

SOURCE

About Angela Hinck

Former Contributor: Content Manager- Situated in sunny Florida, Angela spends plenty of time watching anime and playing video games. RPGs and survival-horror are her go-to genres; but if it's weird or different, she's willing to give a shot. She graduated from the University of Central Florida with a BA in Creative Writing and now puts her skills to good use writing about the nerdier things in life, including news and game reviews for Operation Rainfall.




  • Jorge

    Like it or not, you’re making a social statement either way. If it wasn’t a big deal, you’d let anyone have a relationship with anyone. By making a binary you are making a statement.

    • AlbedoAtoned

      Exactly. I’m of the belief that had they included it in the beginning, there would be less of a stink about it than what has happened here.

      Now I’m not saying that they have to, it’s their choice, but even if they didn’t want to make a big social statement, they could have put it in there and went on their way.

      If I were in charge, I would allow relationships between any adult characters that consented. Heck, I’d allow them to be polyamorous. Because at the end of the day, no matter what one’s views on those matters in real life are, it’s just a videogame. People should be allowed as much if not more freedom in a videogame than in real life, it’s one of the reasons why they play them. If people have less freedom in videogames, then something seems off. Imagine if the next gta game wouldn’t let you kill people, or the next street racing game wouldn’t let you break any city laws.

      It doesn’t take social commentary to put all of these things in, all it takes is a desire to make a great product, purposely leaving these things out is what is making the social statement.

  • WCM

    Good on Nintendo for sticking to their values. I have respect for companies that espouse traditional values and refuse to let political correctness bullies make them appease a tiny minority.

    • Sandy

      And I have little respect for companies and people that do not have an open mind and are not willing to accept people for who they are and things they cannot help. Tradition is not always the right way.

    • WCM

      Tradition may not always be the right way, but neither may be what is considered politically correct by a minority. We should all be open to accepting the views of others, but its a two way street- just as you are allowed to believe what you want, others should be allowed their opinions even if it is different from your own.

      Bullying others to accept your opinions is not right, which is why I’m glad Nintendo is sticking to their beliefs in the face of politically correctness bullies.

    • Sandy

      For my point, see the comment below by Randy_Thompson. This isn’t bullying, this is about rights. It’s just a video game, there’s nothing wrong with adding in an option for people that want it. Your argument can go both ways.

    • Gidd

      This has absolutely nothing to do with “rights”. How does a video game affect your “rights”? Video games are entertainment media, you aren’t being forced to buy or play this game, or any other for that matter.

      The fact is, it is _all_ about bullying by a political-social movement to force their opinions into various forms of media. By capitulating, the developers would in essence be endorsing the views, which like it or not are quite controversial. The developers have no obligation to allow themselves to be bullied by any group of people.

      If you don’t like the fact that they omitted specific options and decide to take it as a personal affront, don’t buy the game. You’re more than welcome to support games and other forms of media that support your opinions- however you have no right to force your opinions on others that do not agree and could actually be offended by having controversial views shoved in their faces. The problem with the LGTBQ community is that they chant about “tolerance” of their viewpoint, but refuse to “tolerate” any opposing viewpoints. Until they stop being hypocrites and bullies, they will never be “accepted.”

    • Randy_Thompson

      I can’t help but be a little disgusted by the idea that tolerating a viewpoint of “such and such people are lesser than me, why can’t you see from my point of view that they should be treated lesser than me?” is even considered to be sane.

      There are plenty of psychotic killers that slaughter innocent people and claim that other people and the justice system just don’t understand them or where they are coming from. Perhaps that sort of behavior and mindset should also be tolerated rather than confronted?

    • Gidd

      And I can’t help but be a little disgusted by the idea that being forced to tolerate someone else’s opinion because they have decided everyone has to accept it is somehow OK. Everyone should be allowed to have their own opinions.

      You set up a disgusting straw man by making that comparison, that would be no different from me setting up a slippery slope argument about how accepting LGTBQ will eventually lead to being forced into accepting polygamy, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, etc.

      Quite frankly, no one cares what you do in your bedroom. I don’t see why the knowledge of it needs to be forced down everyone’s throat.

    • Goose

      That is a disgusting strawman argument you created and is in no way relevant. This just sounds like you are selectively tolerant. If you are open-minded and tolerant of peoples point of view or their morals and ethics, you should be tolerant of both change AND tradition, no matter how convoluted YOU may think it seems. The LGBT community loves to play the victim. I only wish they can do it better without hiding behind the premise of ‘open-mindedness’ because they are anything but.

    • Sandy

      Then I don’t want to hear a peep out of you if a company made a game that did not allow straight marriages.

    • Goose

      The only peep you will hear out of me is if some unjustifiably entitled fellow decides to bully and slander a video game developing company just because they didn’t add a feature (which was never originally intended to be in it) to match their sexual preference, then use that fact to disguise it as a way to oppress a demographics’ “rights” because I am tolerant enough to understand that a company is free to decide whatever they want to do with their product and I understand that some things in life do not cater to me or my demographic.

    • Gidd

      If a game like that had any chance of selling, it would be made. Fact of the matter is that there is no real demand for a game like that. There is little point in trying to cater to a really small minority of loud people.

    • Goose

      I don’t think this has much to do with having an open mind, more like they are sticking to what they had originally planned for the game. This is just bullying companies into catering to their demographic. People need to grow thicker skin and get this through their skulls: it’s just a videogame. This kind of attitude towards video game developers really makes one think: who is the closed minded one here?

    • Sandy

      This isn’t bullying, this is about rights. It’s just a video game, there’s nothing wrong with adding in an option for people that want it. Your argument can go both ways. You’d definitely be feeling differently if they only allowed same sex relationships in the game, so again, two way street.

    • Goose

      This is bullying developers to cater to same-sex relationship rights and features that were not originally planned for the game. It is their game, their intellectual property, their art and their fictional setting that they created. They can do whatever they want with it and they can express whatever morals and ethics their company stands for in their products and they don’t have to cater to an overly vocal, ‘supposedly open-minded’ demographic. If same-sex marriage advocates are so open-minded then they should be open-minded enough to know that Nintendo reserves the right to do whatever they want with their game.

    • blackrosewitch121

      Actually SANDY, I as a gay person think it’s great they don’t allow same sex relationships. It stops annoying whiners like you from enjoying life because you can’t get over the fact that a VIDEO GAME doesn’t allow you to be gay. You make us gays look TERRIBLE. Thanks and GOOD NIGHT

    • Charlotte Buckingham

      How would you react if Nintendo disallowed interracial marriages in this game?

    • WCM

      “Disallowed” is an intentional use of semantics in an effort to distort the facts. By not going out of their way to do something, the conclusion with that terminology is that they were actively trying to slight some minority group with a special interest. By using the term “disallowed”, you are essentially requiring the devs to include every possible form “marriage” lest you may offend some special group. I guess that “disallowing” adult men from marrying young boys would also offend the NAMBLA crowd too, should the devs include that kind of marriage in order to appease that group too? Where do we stop with the assumption that the developers are actively trying to offend some group?

      Perhaps instead of looking at it with a victim mentality as if everyone is trying to “disallow” you from doing things, we enter the real world where traditional marriage is such a vast majority that everything else is simply statistical outliers and developers are really wasting their time and efforts trying to appeal to every tiny minority special interest out there.

    • Charlotte Buckingham

      Well, it’s not allowed, so I don’t see how my use of “disallowed” is misleading.

      NAMBLA and marriage equality are not comparable. Marriage equality is about a relationship between two consenting ADULTS. Children are not fully developed physically, emotionally or mentally, so they cannot give consent in the full knowledge of knowing what they are agreeing to.

      What do you have against a relationship between two consenting adults that would make you fight so fiercely to see their relationships excluded from this game? You’ll probably counter by saying that you don’t have anything against gay people getting married, but if so, why do you care so much? Why do you continue to argue?

      Also, I do realise that at this point it cannot be changed; development ended long ago. But it’s something that should be in the sequel.

      My partner often says that “tradition” is another term for “outdated”. I agree. If tradition is the only argument you have, then you have none. If we stuck to what was traditional, my current relationship wouldn’t be able to exist. I’m European, he’s Asian.

      This game touts its ability to allow you to live out your real life virtually, but doesn’t account for the ~3.5% of people who are not heterosexual. That’s one in 33. That is a minority, nowhere near a tiny one.

      And if developers are going to offend some group… Why can’t it be the people who are against gay marriage?

      (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/)

      EDIT: Also I just realised that you didn’t actually answer my question as to how you’d react if interracial marriage was not in the game. Care to answer?

    • WCM

      I didn’t answer because its irrelevant. I’m not acting like a victim because my chosen form of “marriage” is or is not present.

      I do have a significant issue with the intentional framing of your argument in a manner that implies that omission must be intentional in an effort to slight some group. It ignores reality of creating a product. I realize you frame it in that manner due to an agenda you have, but it needs to be called out because words matter in framing an argument.

      3.5% is still higher than any of the studies and polls I’ve seen, which usually put the number closer to 1.6%. Regardless, from a business perspective, either of those are so ridiculously small that catering to that minority is not worth the time and money.

      As for “consenting adults”, let me ask you, should siblings be allowed to get married? Most people, even who support LGTBQ seem to be against that, even if they are “consenting adults”. Their reason? Their children may come out with mental or physical problems due to inbreeding. But what if the “consenting adult siblings” are both the same gender? I bet you still will have moral qualms with that idea, but you are a complete hypocrite to claim that their relationship is wrong if an LGTBQ relationship is not.

      You have to understand that when you move the line for what marriage is and what is acceptable, where you you STOP moving it. Why is one so-called deviancy from the norm acceptable, but others are not? The moment you accept that LGTBQ is acceptable, you have absolutely no valid arguments against polygamy, incest, or any other form of “marriage” that any number of “consenting adults” agree to.

      Tolerance is a two way street. You can believe what you want, but you and no one else has any right to tell me what I am allowed to believe. You can bleat all you want about tolerance, but until you tolerate my opinions as well, I have no reason to take you seriously.

    • H9T

      I have to admit I’m a little confused by what you mean by
      asking the LGBT+ community “tolerate your beliefs”. It seems quite clear that
      your belief is in “traditional” marriage, but in what way are you asking others
      to tolerate your beliefs? I don’t believe that anyone is infringing on your
      right to heterosexual marriage. And no one is telling you that you can’t
      believe in “traditional” marriage, they are just asking you not use your belief
      to justify infringing on their own rights. Are you asking them to be “open-minded
      and tolerant” of your opinions by NOT engaging in marriages and relationships
      that you deem as unacceptable? If you don’t believe in same sex marriage, then
      by all means don’t have one. But I really fail to see how someone is being
      intolerant by asking you to respect their rights and their choices. I am genuinely
      curious how you would like people to be more tolerant and respectful towards
      your opinions, because if you are asking for “tolerance” through oppression and
      silence of others I think you may need to look up what the word tolerance means.

      Also the incest argument is pretty silly. Like it or not,
      same sex marriage has become legal in quite a few states in the US and in other
      countries as well, and that number is on the rise. Incest however is illegal
      almost everywhere and in many places punishable by imprisonment. There are very
      concrete reasons to disallow incest (as you did mention) as it potentially
      harms others by creating children with severe birth defects. But last time I
      checked, same sex marriage isn’t harming anyone. And the reason for discussion
      of interracial marriage is that it was at one point illegal due to no reason other
      than bigotry and intolerance.

    • Charlotte Buckingham

      Slippery slopes!

      I’ve only dabbled in genetics (I’ve studied it a little in high school and in my first year at university and then went off to ecology and geology) but even that was enough for me to see that close relatives having children is bad for the gene pool, especially in a few generations’ time. This causes actual physical problems for the children. And that is why I oppose

      You even acknowledged that inbreeding causes problems. Do same-sex couples?

      http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup

      You can probably find your own with further research. It’s pretty easy; these types of studies are abundant.

      Apologies if you didn’t like the framing of the initial question. The point of it, though, is to weed out hypocrites.

      I am aware that you can believe what you want. But I personally do not tolerate opinions which discriminate, as yours does against non-heterosexual couples. Until you can see that what you’re saying IS discrimination, this argument is going to go in circles and get nowhere, so I will go and work on my geology assessment instead.

    • WCM

      And you didn’t answer my question, does the idea of same-sex siblings getting married bother you? Or do you have that same queasy feeling that most people get when they think about incest? If you have a problem with those relationships, you are guilty of the same type of discrimination that you accuse me of having.

      It is a slippery slope, but it can’t be ignored. Once precedent is set to move the line from where it has been through virtually all of recorded history, you have no justification to not move the line again to appease some other offended group seeking their rights. Why is one form of so-called deviancy from the norm acceptable to you, but not others? Where does it stop?

      I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom, its not my business. I just would prefer not having it thrown in my face, straight gay or otherwise. If people would just go about their day minding their own business, this wouldn’t be an issue. The problem with the LGTBQ isn’t that they want tolerance, its that they want to force everyone else to accept and endorse and participate too. They have their opinion that their lifestyle is fine, and they refuse to accept that others do not agree. People are allowed to have their own opinions, whether you feel its discriminatory or not, whether you like it or not. I’m not telling you that you aren’t allowed to support the LGTBQ agenda- more power to you as far as I’m concerned. But as long as the movement bleets about tolerance without seeing how hypocritical they are about tolerating other’s viewpoints, they are nothing more than bullies.

    • Goose

      You missed his point.

      “I guess that “disallowing” adult men from marrying young boys would also offend the NAMBLA crowd too, should the devs include that kind of marriage in order to appease that group too? Where do we stop with the assumption that the developers are actively trying to offend some group?

      Correct me if I’m wrong but this was only meant to be an example. He’s simply saying that you can’t please everyone. That is the nature of business. One product has the ability to satisfy a vast majority of people, but there will always be those minuscule, special groups that have qualms.

      “And if developers are going to offend some group… Why can’t it be the people who are against gay marriage?”

      I don’t understand this. Just because a product does not simply cater to your standards or demographic, it is automatically offensive. Do you honestly think that video game developers are actively trying to rigorously and purposely offend people? Do you honestly think that a product’s premise is to play favoritism to the demographic it caters to, yet its existence is meant to belittle minority groups? You have to understand that there are products that cater to some groups that you just so happened to not be a part of. Your exclusion from these projected groups does not imply the products company is offending you. You need to grow thicker skin, seriously. Nobody is targeting you.

      “My partner often says that “tradition” is another term for “outdated”. I agree. If tradition is the only argument you have, then you have none. If we stuck to what was traditional, my current relationship wouldn’t be able to exist. I’m European, he’s Asian.”

      And without these traditions there would be no guideline for our current standard of living. Refer to WCM’s statement:

      “Why is one so-called deviancy from the norm acceptable, but others are not? The moment you accept that LGTBQ is acceptable, you have absolutely no valid arguments against polygamy, incest, or any other form of “marriage” that any number of “consenting adults” agree to.”

      You hold a 2-person relationship with your current significant other, which is a fairly traditional relationship by real-world standards. If tradition really means nothing to you, then you would have no problems pursuing a polygamous relationship but I’m sure your significant other would protest. Tradition may not be a stable foundation for an argument but you cannot argue that your current standard of living follows these ‘outdated’ traditions. Holding a 2-person relationship, celebrating holidays, I bet you indulge in all of these ‘traditional’ acts and events. Being European and dating an Asian? How is that even remotely close to a deviating act? I’m Asian and my girlfriend is black. Only a child would be so eager to deviate from norms and traditions when they have laid the foundation for civilized society. For the record, I myself don’t agree with most of it, but that is no reason to deny it.

    • Charlotte Buckingham

      I don’t think the developers were actively planning to exclude same-sex relationships. My point with that question was that WCM made an appeal to traditional values. Traditional values also only allow for people of the same race to marry, but that was been turned on its head last century.

      No, you can’t please everyone. And I worded myself poorly there. I was trying to make a point that WMC seemed absolutely okay with people being offended, which I disagree with, and… it came out totally wrong.

      My point in pointing out that my partner and I are of different races is that, once, our relationship would have been considered against the norm. Now it’s not, and it was a hell of a fight to get to this point. That fight is now happening with same-sex relationships. Incidentally, if I wanted to be in a polygamous relationship, I’d pursue one. Just because I happen to be someone who likes my monogamous relationship doesn’t mean I’m doing it because I feel I have to. That’s just the way I like it.

    • H9T

      Actually, the use of “disallowed” is quite relevant in this situation, considering that same sex marriage WAS in fact in the game and was labeled as a “bug” and “patched”. So yes, same sex marriage was very specifically disallowed in a way that “every other possible form of marriage” was not.

    • Bakuryukun

      bullies? what bullies? A group of people who are underrepresented in media want representation in media, oh what mean evil cruel people.

      The game looks great as is and I look forward to it, but more options and more inclusivity seems like it would be a good fit for this kind of game. It’s a shame really.

    • Gidd

      Under represented? Are you actually paying attention? For a minority that comprises somewhere between 1.5% and 4% depending on what poll/survey/research you look at, LGTBQ has managed to bully their ways into being one of the most OVER represented minorities across all forms of media. If you were to try to figure out how many people are LGTBQ based on popular media, you’d conclude that somewhere between 1/4-1/3 of all people must be. You cant turn on your tv, watch a movie, or read a book made in the last 5 years without having the LGTBQ agenda shoved in your face.

    • Bakuryukun

      DAMN THOSE GAYS AND THEIR AGENDA. THEIR AGENDA OF WANTING PEOPLE TO NOT TREAT THEM LIKE SHIT. WHAT A BUNCH OF ASSHOLES RIGHT? Poor you, you have to deal with people shoving icky icky gayness in your face, that must be so hard for you.

      I’m sorry but media (and society at large) starting to become comfortable with homosexual characters in things and thus a bunch of them popping up in numbers they didn’t used to doesn’t count as over representation, what a stupid assertion. White dudes have been the main protagonists in MOST media for a looooong time, white dudes are also coincidentally NOT THE MOST NUMEROUS TYPE OF PERSON. But for some reason that’s seen as okay, but oh no as soon as homosexuals start appearing it’s just too goddamn much over representation.

  • AnnoyedMoose

    I’m more appalled that people care enough to throw a stink about this. It’s a video game, not a social rights movement. Get over yourselves and stop being offended by every little thing and learn to enjoy life.

    • Goose

      It’s a video game, not a social rights movement.

      I can’t agree with this more. What’s up with this trend of over-analyzing, nit-picking and bullying video game developers? Video games are supposed to be a means of entertainment, not a means for developers to secretly push a supposed secret social agenda. If you’ve got a problem with a game, then don’t buy it. If you’re so worried about equality, complain to your state congressman or involve yourself in a political group and help advance their movement because making shitty, pseudo-political tumblr pictures, complaining on VIDEOGAME forums about equality in purely fictional media won’t do shit. In the end, you’re just bitching. Look at a video game for what it is: a fucking video game. Just because it doesn’t cater to you doesn’t mean it’s meant to be offensive or the game contains some sort of secret ulterior propaganda. It’s a fucking game for christs sake.

    • Sandy

      Exactly, it’s just a video game, so there’s no reason not to add more options for more players, like same sex relationships.

    • Gidd

      Sure there is. How many parents do you think will find this game offers same-sex options, and do not want their children exposed to that? Why should developers appeal to a population of <2% that want same-sex relationships, and similarly risk a potentially much larger population of people that will refuse to buy a game with that option? You have to keep in mind that Nintendo is a family oriented company, catering to a tiny minority would be foolish if it could cost them a lot more than it gains.

    • Sandy

      Exposed to something that there’s nothing wrong with in the first place? You sound like a bigot. There are many different types of families, dude.

    • Goose

      To you and the minority you represent there may be nothing wrong with it but to others there is. There are many types of families like you have stated and most of them disagree with same-sex marriage. Do you find something wrong with other peoples’ opinion that find same-sex marriage wrong? You are the bigot here if you do not understand that people also have differing opinions on morals and ethics. What you think is wrong does not mean everyone else has to think it is wrong.

    • Charlotte Buckingham

      “To you and the minority you represent there may be nothing wrong with it but to others there is.”

      This goes two ways. To me and other people who advocate for gay rights, this option not being in the game is wrong.

      “There are many types of families like you have stated and most of them disagree with same-sex marriage.”

      And some of them do. So why are they not being represented?

      “Do you find something wrong with other peoples’ opinion that find same-sex marriage wrong?”

      I asked this above, but how would you have reacted if interracial marriage had been banned? Speaking as a bisexual person with a slight preference for women, sexuality is NOT a choice. No more than race is. I was talking to a guy just yesterday at work who was kicked out of his house when he came out, and his parents kept blaming one another, like he was at fault.

      If straight people don’t want gay marriage, then maybe they should stop giving birth to gay people.

      “You are the bigot here if you do not understand that people also have differing opinions on morals and ethics. What you think is wrong does not mean everyone else has to think it is wrong.”

      Yes, everyone has different opinions. You’re telling everyone in this comment thread to tolerate opposition to marriage equality, but you seem unable to tolerate people advocating for marriage equality.

    • Goose

      “Yes, everyone has different opinions. You’re telling everyone in this comment thread to tolerate opposition to marriage equality, but you seem unable to tolerate people advocating for marriage equality.”

      The point I was actually trying to come across was that this comment, “Exposed to something that there’s nothing wrong with in the first place?” is invalid because some families DO find something wrong with it especially when heterosexual relationships and marriages are considered a norm. You justified that by telling us about your friend, that there ARE people who exist that have a problem with it:

      “I was talking to a guy just yesterday at work who was kicked out of his house when he came out, and his parents kept blaming one another, like he was at fault.”

      I have an older brother who is gay and every member of my nuclear family has accepted him from the day he confessed, however individuals in my extended family have shunned him so I have seen with my own eyes the disdain he gets from them.

      I don’t rightfully know how you could make the assumption that I am unable to tolerate marriage equality when my initial point was to voice an opinion that “Sandy” had refused to acknowledge with a bias statement such as “exposed to something that there’s nothing wrong with in the first place.” I’m simply saying people who think differently about same-sex marriage exist. Did I identify myself as one? If you read carefully enough, no I did not. Make implications all you want but I have not once identified myself as an advocate nor an opponent. My previous comments’ topics entail that Nintendo can do whatever they want with their intellectual property as they see fit and they don’t have to cater to small, unjustifiably entitled, special interest groups that happen to excel at bullying and being loud when there is a chance it would alienate the significantly larger demographic they are catering to. If you want to translate an excluded feature in a video game to real-world politics is up to you, but this mentality that VIDEOGAME DEVELOPERS (like they have any semblance of political power anyway) are actively trying to cruelly offend minority groups is out of hand.

    • Charlotte Buckingham

      I apologise for making that assumption. That was wrong of me.

      But now I’m even more puzzled as to why you’re arguing about this as much as you are. I just don’t understand why, if you’re not against same-sex relationships, you would argue so much. Yes, there was bias in Sandy’s statement… Yeah, I just don’t understand why you’re arguing so much then.

      Also, it sounds to me like you’re saying it’s okay for Nintendo not to include same-sex relationships just because some people aren’t okay with it. Some aren’t okay with the option not being in the game, as seen in this comment thread.

      “…when there is a chance it would alienate the significantly larger demographic they are catering to.”

      The game won’t force you to pursue a same-sex relationship. It would be an option. Why would this alienate people? I mean, how many people buy The Sims? Fable? Did you know not all the characters in Borderlands are straight? No one’s being alienated when same-sex couples options are added to a game. More people are included; that’s it.

      And… Good at bullying? It’s not bullying to demand or ask for what others (in this case heterosexual couples) are able to take for granted.

    • Bakuryukun

      Gamers: Videogames are a serious art form that deserves the same respect that other media get!!

      Hey we have a serious issue about a serious topic.

      Gamers: WHOA MAN CALM DOWN IT’S JUST A VIDEOGAME.

  • Randy_Thompson

    For anyone and everyone who thinks this isn’t a big deal or that it’s just whining – let’s throw a hypothetical out there: Tomodachi Life allows you to live a quirky, video game version of life. Tons of fun. Tons of games. Get to start a family. It’s all the same, but it is ONLY same sex relationships. For the hetero-normative players out there how do you feel about this game coming out? Are they overlooking something by not allowing heterosexual relationships? Will this affect whether or not you buy it and enjoy it?

    • Sandy

      Exactly my point.

  • Mabase

    It saddens me that Nintendo actually has to come out and defend themselves for this like they’ve done something wrong. Not every game needs to cater specifically to everyone’s needs. I don’t avoid games with female protagonists just because I’m a man. And before someone asks the inevitable, yes, I would play Tomodachi Life even if the relationships in it were same sex only despite my being heterosexual, and that’s precisely because I’m not looking forward to playing Tomodachi Life for a realistic depiction of relationships nor am I looking to emulate my own life choices in a virtual environment.

    And “Sandy”, the Japanese version of this game came out over a year ago. They’re probably not doing anything more than translating it for this localized version, so yes, there is a reason why they can’t add extra options.

  • DragonNinja

    Let’s looks at it this way. Revenue, one of the big motivators of all decisions a game dev makes. Would the cost of making an update such as add same sex relationships be worth any projected revenue? Maybe, maybe not. That would also be time taken away from the development of the next project that team would be working on. I personally don’t imagine the return would be big enough to validate the effort, and I doubt them not doing so would cause many (if any) homosexual persons to downright boycott purchase of all future Nintendo products

  • blackrosewitch121

    Do people in this debate not realize that the game has been out in Japan ALREADY so the version never had it to begin with and they are not going to change it for whiny gays (I am gay so don’t even start). I am so sick of gay protestors thinking everything needs to cater to us. If you don’t like something then don’t buy it and buy only gay friendly games and try to enjoy being a gamer. It will be SLIM PICKINGS for you. Please get over this.

    • QA

      I can only speak for myself here (obviously) but I think the issue is less the exclusion and more Nintendo’s response. Whether they like it or not, labeling same sex marriage as a bug is definitely social commentary. And then when fans asked for it they gave wishy-washy answers about said social commentary. Honestly I think if they had never bothered trying to “patch” the issue in the first place (or if the issue had never come up) no one would have said anything. Or even if they had honestly said, “Yeah, the game is already developed that’s just not possible at this point”, the response would have been much different.

      I think we all know that our representation in games is very minimal, and I don’t think anyone is expecting LGBT options as a requirement. Most games offer only heterosexual relationships and no one really bats an eye. When LGBT options are included (i.e. The Sims, BioWare RPGs, etc) they are viewed as a perk and not the norm. And it’s true that it’s very much Nintendo’s choice to make the game as they see fit, but I think the issue was really their PR response.

  • Bakuryukun

    Nobody asked you to make a social commentary, they just asked for options.

  • Vinicius

    This comments section sunddenly became Tumblr.

    • Vallen

      Yep, it also resembles youtube among other sites too. What really surprises me is the fact that THIS is what people argue over?? Like seriously lol?..I think people need to find a job or spend their time doing more productive things

    • Vinicius

      You need to see the gamefaq boards, they are on fire right now. If my predictions are correct people will forget about this 1 or 2 weeks after the game is released and them they will find something else to bitch about.

  • Thanatos2k

    What do they really want here? Do they want Nintendo to go back and change the game, a game already long released in Japan, to suit their agenda? If so, Nintendo should give them the middle finger and release it unchanged, which they plan to do.

    Or are they suggesting that the game shouldn’t have been made in the state it’s in in the first place? That’s a fair point I suppose, but then the question is why didn’t they complain when the game was first released?

    They should be celebrating games that offer these options, NOT
    condemning those that don’t. The former gets people to support you, the
    latter gets them to hate you, even if your cause is just.

    Another point that’s inconvenient for these advocacy groups – same sex marriage is still illegal in Japan. Are they seriously suggesting Nintendo should have made the game depicting illegal activities in a game they’re trying to market to everyone? Sucks, I know, but maybe try changing those laws first before you whine at a game developer?