The #Miiquality movement and Nintendo's response

@l4wd0g: If a company releases a product in a foreign market, then it can and should be held to that market's standards. In this case, it's absolutely appropriate for Western players to criticise Nintendo's design decisions when they're the ones being marketed to.

Just as I expected, Nintendo responds:

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

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

"We have heard and thoughtfully considered all the responses," Nintendo said of the #Miiquality campaign. "We will continue to listen and think about the feedback. We're using this as an opportunity to better understand our consumers and their expectations of us at all levels of the organization." We have been looking to broaden our approach to development whenever possible as we put all our energy into continuing to develop fun games that will surprise and delight players."

Let's keep it civil.

I really don't see what some people expected for a game coming out in a month. The guy who started this thing has the right perspective to me and I think the outcry can be a little more harsh if another game in this series comes out and is still like this. But it's an easy, safe thing to jump on and show how progressive you are so plenty of people will do it.

You're talking about a company that asked people to upload their saves to get past a glitch in Twilight Princess in 2009 no less. I'm not even the 3ds supports patches.

@trafalgarlaw: That situation is far from comparable.

I would love to get this addressed but I can't help but feel and suspect that Nintendo has other serious problems it needs to work on first.

It does. Multiple games have received patches. Nintendo are slow and boneheaded. That's who they are, sure, they are the Nintendo Elephant (and I love them) but it's a damn shame that that means the default reaction has to be "Welp, that's Nintendo for ya! Whatchagonnado????" It's just sad. It's a damn shame. I can only hope they'll learn from this debacle.

And if all of this is simply down to them not willing to spend the money on a fix, at least not at this early point, given the game's potentially niche status? They'd be far better off simply explaining those circumstances. This response they've provided the press could potentially be more troubling than the feature's absence in the first place.

My view of this is that this isn't a civil rights thing. Its a piece of software. If its creators didn't have gay marriage in mind for whatever reasons that is their call.

You have every right to voice your opinion about it but in the end its an artist and his art situation here. If it doesn't fit their vision then that is how the cookie crumbles. If this were an actual civil rights thing I'd be squarely opposed to it but its not. So honestly, I think people need to settle down about it.

We're in a pretty weird place when it still seems rational to some that a "family company" wouldn't want to include options for gay folks (who want to play the game in a way that represents their potential... families).

I'm sure it's coming soon, and it's incrementally happening already, but games that include this kind of stuff (and I'm talking more about games featuring "deep" optional relationships like Bioware sort of does, etc.) need to stop parading their inclusions of specifically straight and gay options and just realize that it's best for the gameplay experience to just support any kind of relationship the player might want. I long for the day where the term "relationship" just means exactly that. No penis and vagina necessarily required.

For these kind of games, limiting interactions in this interactive medium is pretty damn dumb.

@fattony12000 Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It's really heartwarming to see a duder who could have easily made a divisive video about how Nintendo is homophobic and evil, and instead conveys his rational points so acutely and positively that no one can really argue with them. Progress!

@demoskinos In any other kind of game I'd be the first one arguing your point. When you're playing as a character, you're experiencing the story options through their point of view, and the POV of the game's creators. Geralt the witcher shouldn't have gay relationship options, because he's not gay. And if you were paying as a specifically gay male character, you shouldn't have the option to get down with the ladies.

But with these kind of games, they're about open play and making your own decisions. Hell, you play as a "Mii"! It's not some character who has a predetermined orientation, it's whatever you want. So when a game touts relationships (and even worse in this case, where actual gameplay is only available for people who engage in those relationships) but leaves out the option to have a relationship that's true to yourself or how you want to play, it just seems like it's missing a feature.

It's not the lack of taking a stand on a social issue or any civil rights anything. It's just a trend in these kind of games where they are missing a gameplay piece. Essentially, releasing an unfinished product to certain millions of people.

Same-sex marriage currently isn't legal in Japan, so it's not much of a surprise that a Japanese game doesn't initially include it. (Yes, it'd be great if same-sex marriage were recognized everywhere, and countries with death penalties for anti-sodomy laws are terrible, but these are not the issues at hand.) So while it would have been nice to have it in the base game, it's no real surprise, and it's definitely nothing nefarious.

I think we're lucky to get Tomodachi Life released in the west, since the previous one never came out in the US. It's coming out soon, so there was no way that the current localization would include this. Even an update is a little far-fetched, since this isn't a game breaking bug.

It's easy to comment, snarky or not, on the internet about this to show how progressive you are, but it completely ignores the realities of software development, project management, release schedules, marketing, etc. at Nintendo. I don't think same-sex relationships were ever a possibility with this release, no matter how much people would have liked it to be included. Perhaps maybe in future releases.

What should be taken away from Nintendo's statement is, "We will continue to listen and think about the feedback. We're using this as an opportunity to better understand our consumers and their expectations of us at all levels of the organization." Instead we get people taking offense and claiming that Nintendo is tone deaf.

I'd support this even if it just puts it on the punch-list to do for the next game, or some other game. At this point in time such choices are allowed in people lives, so why not in games too. It is always a 'net good' to find a way to be more inclusive and make our games even better for all gamers.

I admit that it would be cool and rad to shove it people's face if Tomodachi Life included same-sex Mii relationships for the Western release. As other people have pointed out, the original game reflects to some degree the less-than-stellar support for same-sex relationships in Japan and so by taking the simple localization approach this is the consequence. Given the precedence in games like The Sims, I was actually somewhat surprised it wasn't in there because it seemed like a weird game that would just allow do whatever man.

I will say that I'm glad it's become a specific thing and not just some potshots on twitter. That hashtag is pretty great.

I'd also love to know how much disagreement and friction there is over this between Nintendo of America and Japan. Likewise for people internal to both departments.

Luckily no one in this thread is out right attacking Nintendo (yet). Though I intentionally haven't read the related Kotaku and Polygon articles and their comments, which I'm sure are filled with what you describe.

As I said above though, that video is a shining example of how to make these points in a welcoming and understandably convincing way. He even goes out of his way to say don't boycott Nintendo, don't demand this practically impossible change on release, and buy the game if you want to see positive change in the future. Fantastic to see some actually rational folks arguing these points.

Also, that quote you plucked pretty clearly says to me, "We're Nintendo of America and we totally hear you, but you have to understand... we don't really have any influence at all on the dumb shit that the Japanese owners get themselves into and we don't even really know what this game even is and how we managed to get it published over here. One miracle at a time folks. Sorry!". I feel bad for NoA sometimes.

Sure it's art but it's also an entertainment consumer product right? I'd argue a game like this made by a large team without a central story, is more entertainment than art. Although it certainly has aspects of both.

And smart companies listen to customers when they request a feature in their consumer product.

I don't think Nintendo has to do this, I just think it would be pretty smart of them to do so. If they don't in my opinion it's a tremendous missed opportunity to win back some much needed customers.

That's why the Free DLC option makes the most sense in my mind. If say their Japanese customers don't want that option, then they don't have release the DLC in that region. They don't have to change the base game, which they probably couldn't anyway at this point, they don't have to rush for a Day 1 Patch, they don't have to force this option on religious families who may get upset, but they still have a way to provide players with this play option. Just announce now that the DLC is coming with some sort of reasonably fuzzy date (say 6 months) so that any potential customers who want to play a same-sex relationship might still pick up the game instead of passing on it.

Could not agree more with this. I fully support same-sex marriage but... are we really trying to fight this battle? Really?

@drebin_893: People on the internet are terrible when it comes to picking battles.

I concur

While I agree that this is usually a good way to approach a creative work, I don't believe it is a good way to approach this work. This is a game that is meant to allow you to tell your own made-up stories, with no narrative enforcement of its own. If your story includes homosexuality, though, then you can't tell it using this game, because it has no homosexuality tools. I think of that as different from, say, a story-driven RPG where you can't have the prewritten character engage in a same-sex relationship because that character was written to be heterosexual.

Regardless, I don't think it was realistic or even reasonable to expect Nintendo to make this change per popular request. Should they have simply coded it in the first place? That's a different question.

As far as internet outcries go, this one is very pleasant and polite. It's like I have to make up my own mind because no one is yelling their awesome opinions at me.

@kcin: Some fair points there. My biggest beef here is the reaction so many "luminaries" of the game industry are giving to Nintendo's response. I don't think Nintendo was closing doors on possibilities but was genuinely caught off guard by this and is still trying to gauge its customer base. Yet a lot of people are just throwing Nintendo under the bus when I think they gave about as proper a response one could hope for.

It's true, Japan is a social microcosm, and they are probably (if perhaps inexcusably, as an international company) ignorant of the significance of this to a Western audience. However, I think that they probably could have responded better by being more honest, which, if we hope that they are listening and wish they could do something about this, would have read something like, "it is unfortunately too late for us to incorporate the desired features in this release, but we will heed this call in future releases."

I, too, don't think they were closing doors. I am concerned about Nintendo's own concern about how it's perceived by "family" organizations, though, and I assume that they will probably continue to play dumb if they ever end up accidentally broaching this subject again, since they so rarely touch on sexuality to begin with.

I think it's more about encouraging Nintendo in making a better game. Tomodachi Life is about having your own story and living your own silly life with others, falling in love and having fun, and for it to deny that any people, yourself-included, could be interested in same-sex relationships is simply a clear oversight.

I don't think anyone's planning to boycott the overseas release, as it's already a pretty much done game, but it makes sense to speak with a strong, unified voice to tell Nintendo about a way to help their game be more enjoyable for everyone. Most of us, including the creator of the petition, knew that it was unlikely the game would be changed, but this is an opportunity for sending a message. Then it could potentially help Nintendo make better games in the future, as they'll realize that many gamers do want to see same-sex relationships in games. The next Tomodachi Life could end up fixing this oversight and add even greater variety to the series.

Gamers want better games, and this is an easy way in which Nintendo could make their games more enjoyable for a wider variety of gamers. It's as simple as that. So, I hope people will continue to send the message that this is something they want to see in more Nintendo games, and maybe we'll get to see some fruit from them listening.

@demoskinos: Sure, nobody should force them to do something if it isn't a part of their creative vision, but that doesn't stop it from being homophobic or make it unreasonable to ask them to freely decide to include homosexual relationships.

@achaemenid: It's not homophobic to create a relationship game that is not designed to support homosexual relationships. That's like calling an author homophobic for not including gay characters in a story.

Is the design of Tomodachi Life limiting in that way? Yes. But it is not a malicious act of hatred that homosexual relationships aren't possible in the game.

I'm bummed but not surprised at Nintendo's response. Oh well! I don't have a 3DS, so I wasn't going to get it either way.

@achaemenid: I don't think you understand homophobia if you think this is what that is. Yes its probably a little tone deaf to the social climate of the west but this is also a Japanese game made by Japanese people for a Japanese audience so I don't think it should be surprising that it isn't fully in tune with how the west is starting to view these issues. There is however no malice and hatred behind this decision its simply the way they've been making these games from the start.

@hailinel: It may not be a not a malicious act of hatred but you will admit it is discriminatory, no? I mean imagine if the game did not allow interracial relationships. That would certainly be racist, wouldn't it?. Maybe the definition of the word homophobic is too flexible. I see it applicable to this situation but I guess you don't.

And to use you're analogy with the author, I think there is a bit of a difference between not representing gay characters, and restricting the freedom of players to be gay.

Am I a jerk if I admit that my first reaction to this was to laugh? I mean I agree with the whole campaign and I suppose it should be done. But it's such an internet, politically correct thing to do over such a dumb thing like a silly Nintendo game. Like I imagine every time this is brought up on Twitter there's a #jointhecoversation at the end of the post.

But whatever. It should be done.

#jointheconversation

@kcin: Yeah I do think that is part of the hesitation here. Let's be real homosexuality in the west is still very much a hot button issue even if progress is being made Because honestly no matter what move they make if they look like they are taking sides the other side is going to blast them. I don't think they want to look insensitive but on the other hand let's face it there is still a sect of Soccer moms who if they think Nintendo is pushing pro-gay agenda on their kids will boycott them. Its a fragile situation to say the least. And its the position that I think Nintendo didn't want to be in. They can only delay so long before they have to shit or get off the pot so let's hope they make the right decision.

@achaemenid: The definition of homophobia is not flexible. It literally means to have an irrational fear of homosexuals. That has nothing to do with designing this game in a way such as to purposefully exclude them with a malicious intent. And unless you can prove that the design team members are homophobic individuals that designed the game as they did out of hate, your argument has no ground to stand on.

@hailinel: The definition of every world is very flexible. Languages change and evolve significantly over time. The word "decimate" used to mean "to reduce by one tenth" but now has changed completely to mean "to utterly destroy". Or the meaning of the word "Gay", for instance. This thread is not about the rights of very happy people, but about homosexuals.

All I can say is that I have heard the word homophobia used to refer to acts which are not the result of active hate and malice enough times for me to feel as if it is a legitimate part of the word, beyond that, I can't say more. Maybe I'm totally wrong and only a small proportion of people use it that way but I feel like I've heard it used that way a significant amount of times.

Anyways, this is a dumb argument. I see your point. I definitely think it is discriminatory and wrong, even if it isn't homophobic per se.

@jasonr86: Is it bad if I had the same first reaction as you?

@alexandersheen:

I haven't been yelled at yet so I think we're ok.

DLC! DLC! DLC! DLC!

@achaemenid: The suffix "phobia" literally means "to be afraid" If people use the word any other ways then they are using it incorrectly.

@demoskinos: The prefix "Deci" means "ten". if people are using the word Decimate to mean anything other than "to reduce by one tenth" they are using it incorrectly.

Oh wait.

@achaemenid: The problem with calling something like this "homophobia", as we can see in this very thread, is that when those kind of accusations come out, it becomes an argument about the intent of the game creators, an argument between us about the state of representation in games, and usually tons of distracting arguments about all kinds of other semi-related nonsense that all detract from any valid points that could be made. (Like the wonderfully articulate arguments in the video in the OP. Notice he never implied any feelings of hostility towards Nintendo or accused them of bigotry at all.)

Basically, saying that with these kind of life-simulator games it's best to allow as many relationship options as possible, is a great point that's hard to argue with. Saying that Nintendo are a bunch of homophobes, is a divisive point that will only cause more arguments and get nothing done. With these kind of discussions hoping to bring about positive change, context matters, and when you accuse a group of hate (intentional or not), it just throws that context away and halts any progress that could have been made.

Why does every thread here about social issues turn into arguments about the dictionary?

Best of luck for this!

What about my Miiquality? Hashtag what about me? Me!

Damn it. Now I'm just disappointed to find out this game has nothing to do with boats having relationships.

This is a good cause though.

@milkman: Because words are loaded with implied meaning and tone before they are used, and they need to be pulled apart by others into the sentences and paragraphs that it would have been clearer to say to begin with. It is more vitriolic and cutting to use words like "social justice warrior", "feminazi", "misogyny", "hipster", and "homophobic", but the meanings that these words are meant to convey are sometimes not as inherently negative as the person saying them wants them to be.

Okay everyone, I apologize for the derail. I never meant to say that the people at Nintendo were full of hate or malice or bigots, or meant harm and I agree completely with @joshwent when he says that accusing people of being hateful or being bigots just poisons the discussion and positive change is much easier to achieve if you don't resort to doing so.

From my experience the word "homophobia" can be applied to situations where someone is not a bigot or hateful but obviously that's not how most people see it and I'm truly sorry for any misconceptions. I'll be more careful in my use of that word in the future.

All I was trying to say in my original post in this thread was that you can disagree with something (the lack of options for gay people in the game) and want it to be altered without asking for it to be forcibly changed.

The fact that people are "upset" about such a small thing is so baffling.

It's a video game. A video game with virtual sexuality that probably poorly portrays relationships to begin with simply because relationships are complicated. Let them make what they want to make or what they think is most likely to sell or whatever. It's a free market they should be allowed to make what they want and the consumer will decide.

Get over it, you know it will be an arbitrary difference even if they do change it. It's not like it will be an accurate representation of homosexual people.

@grantheaslip:

I don't think Japanese society has much incentive to embrace gay relationships, either. Japan is already facing depopulation because people aren't having enough children; they'll have a hard time backing a policy that would encourage infertile relationships.

I must say, this thread has reminded me that in general, the GB community is pretty reasonable, caring, and awesome. I unfortunately was first exposed to the news story from other websites and their responses were not as well thought out and measured as those here. Even the Joystiq article featured some horrific comments from both sides. And on one hand, you have the hateful comments from Kotaku commenters that are basically homophobic or crazy ignorant at best (though the initial article is a bit judgey and snarky), but on the other hand, you have that Polygon editorial which basically calls Nintendo the most hateful bigots ever to exist and thinks that everyone who works for them should be burned at the stake. Here, the basic response is "that would be super cool if that was included and the video is very good, but I doubt they have the time or budget to do so, so hopefully they will do that for sequels if it is popular enough to even have western sequels." Then, Nintendo releases a statement that is basically just saying that and most on the internet explode over it, but the people here are happy that Nintendo basically agrees with the thread thus far. So, yay for the Giant Bomb duders!

It seems that the other sites take particular umbrage with Nintendo's line "we didn't mean for social commentary." Most are taking it as Nintendo saying that homosexuality is a political issue when I think it means the exact opposite. I take it as they meant "whoops, we didn't mean to make it seem like were were against homosexuals." I am sure those against Nintendo will throw fancy terms like "heteronormative thinking" at the company, but I think it more correlates with the risk of putting out this game at all. It is super weird product and no one ever thought it would come to the west. To me, this is EXACTLY like that episode of Parks and Recreation where Leslie marries gay penguins accidentally. I feel like Nintendo should have just released a statement that was "We didn't mean to take a stance! We thought it was cute, dammit!"

I am bummed for homosexual people who feel left out. Still, I think that going crazy and calling Nintendo horrible close minded tone-deaf bigots cheapens complaints when something glaringly homophobic and offensive comes along. I think the attitude of this thread and the initial video is great. I just hope when Patrick comments about this on "Bombin' the Am" on Friday that his response is equally as measured. I love Patrick and think he gets way too much flack in general on social justice issues, but when it comes to this kind of topic, he often bends over backwards to be overly empathetic and can come off as preachy.

Just to add a bit more to the dictionary discussion, homophobic does need intent to be determined, but if we want to discuss whether Nintendos work in this case is prejudice--intentionally or not--it is very easy to do.

Since prejudice is merely pre-judging a situation before you have all information, intent is not required.

And based on the discussion, there are many who feel Nintendo has made judgments that seem naive and ignorant.

I sure hope NoA doesn't get crucified for something that is most likely outside their influence. But, my goodness, they could have drafted a better public statement than that.