Giant Bomb News

339 Comments

Nintendo Promises Future Tomodachi Games Will Be More "Inclusive"

The company has quickly backtracked from its original comments.

Nintendo came under fire earlier this week for statements the company made about Tomodachi Life, its upcoming quirky and weird life simulator. The company has now apologized.

No Caption Provided

Users had organized to have Nintendo implement same sex marriages into Tomodachi Life, but when asked by the Associated Press about the campaign, the company issued a tone-deaf response.

“Nintendo never intended to make any form of social commentary with the launch of Tomodachi Life" the company said. "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.”

Nintendo has now backed off from those comments, and issued a statement suggesting future Tomodachi games might include new elements based on this feedback. Here's the full statement:

"We apologize for disappointing many people by failing to include same-sex relationships in Tomodachi Life. Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game’s design, and such a significant development change can’t be accomplished with a post-ship patch. At Nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy. We are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone. We pledge that if we create a next installment in the Tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game-play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.

Patrick Klepek on Google+
368 CommentsRefresh

Avatar image for defaultprophet
Edited By DefaultProphet

@patrickklepek: Isn't this the equivalent of me as a white male bitching about not having a male protagonist option in Tomb Raider or black people bitching that all of the Dead Rising protags were white with no black option? Not every game has to directly relate to your personal life experiences. I know we live in an age where the gay community (one which i support) has a much greater voice than it used to, but this still seems like self-entitlement.

It's not. In your examples you're talking about a specific character with traits and a story written by the creators.

In this game your character is your Mii representation, except if you're gay it's an alternate reality version where you're straight and no one is gay.

Avatar image for clush
Edited By clush

@yukoasho: that implication is only there if you want it to be. The game was fine for the Japanese market and they simply localized it without stopping to think about whether this is even an issue. It's an oversight... And one they promised to address in upcoming installments.

Everybody, including Nintendo, agrees that same sex relations should have been in there and they tried to clarify that they didn't mean ill by overlooking it. You can either be happy with that or keep nitpicking at their statement, taking it in the worst way possible and keep fighting a battle over an issue that EVERYONE is on the same side of.

Avatar image for yukoasho
Edited By yukoasho

@freedomtown said:

"the company issued a tone-deaf response."

If by "tone-deaf response" you mean, a perfectly acceptable answer that isn't trying to defend itself and isn't dripping with PR, then yes I agree with you.

As someone said above, only people with an agenda (journalists) made this into a big deal, and only people with an agenda found fault with Nintendo's original response. There are a ton of games with a ton of things that you CAN'T do in them, stop looking to demonize every single thing out there if it doesn't fit into your specific notion of how it should be. Nintendo was making Zero social commentary with this game by including, or excluding, certain things, just stop looking for it.

And @ GB, I know the "news" these days is all about getting hits, regardless of any integrity, but come on....why not try to be better then everyone else and not let these click bait sensationalized non-issue articles from getting posted here.

The issue is with the implication that, in order for there to be support for homosexual couples, the game has to be social statement. That the very existence of homosexuals is still so controversial that to acknowledge them, to have the mere option of homosexual relationships would, by itself, turn the game into a social statement.

I don't think Nintendo, as a corporation, is bigoted. Let's make that clear. However, they're also very slow, very ponderous, very stubborn and set in their ways, and this is just the latest in a long string of things that prove their inability to adapt to changing market conditions. It's 2014, and they're acting like it's 1994.

Avatar image for brechtiandinnertheater
Edited By BrechtianDinnerTheater

@neato: Well, what I find ignorant "as fuck," as you so elegantly put it (Great comment by the way! You're really contributing to the general level of discourse!) is people who start claiming that one's position on the bus doesn't matter only after someone else suggests that maybe they shouldn't have to ride in the back all the time. I imagine you likely won't appreciate the metaphor, so do feel free to tell me where I can stick it, in whatever colorful way you choose to use in place of critically examining my argument. And apologies if I come across as smug, being right has a habit of doing that to me.

Avatar image for neato
Posted By neato

I've never seen so many people so offended by the notion that people might be offended by something that they themselves are not offended by. (Unpack that one!) This is more or less exactly what people mean when they use the term "privilege" by the way, the belief that if one in their own personal life experience has not faced a particular hardship, that said particular hardship must not actually exist, and that concerns to the contrary are thereby invalid. I'm so sorry that people are challenging your worldview! That must be tough... :-(

assigning "privilege" to anonymous posters based on their point of view is ignorant as fuck.

Avatar image for mrsmiley
Posted By mrsmiley

@amafi said:

@patrickklepek: Their original answer was fine, only someone really looking for something to be offended at could possibly have taken that the wrong way.

Totally agree. The game is obviously a silly parody of life in an alternate world. If Nintendo doesn't include same-sex relationships in a silly, alternate world, that is completely their decision to make. There are plenty of dating sims out there that are strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual, based on what the developer wants to do. Developers shouldn't be pressured to making their game a certain way. This sucks.

Avatar image for clush
Posted By clush

It's the nature of the game itself that makes it a magnet for this kind of controversy. A large part of the game involves creating virtual likenesses of yourself, your friends, and anyone else you can recreate in the Mii Maker, and watch them live out their virtual lives, interact with their virtual friends, and have virtual relationships and love affairs.

It's a bit of a harsh oversight that a game of this nature assumes that you and all your friends are hetero.

Some people pointed this out to Nintendo and appealed for them to do what they could to address it, and after fumbling their words, Nintendo eventually issued a statement promising to do exactly that, and everyone involved was happy with that.

Of course, this is the internet, so somewhere along the way, some other people decided it wasn't an oversight caused by cultural differences but a deliberate hate crime, and now it's turned into all this.

This is probably the best breakdown of the situation out there.

Also this comment section isn't nearly as bad as some people claim it to be. Seems to me that, much like Nintendo's original statement, people want to interpret things in the worst way possible for the sake of controversy.

I feel bad for the people behind the Miiquality campaign. They made a positive, sensible, civil appeal to Nintendo only to have their campaign poisoned by people hungry for controversy and eager to fight.

It's too bad that even @patrickklepek seems to have gotten sucked into this. Guess I expected more after watching the PAX panel with him advocating civil discourse on the internet in such a profound way.

GB could have featured the original Miiquality video or interviewed Tye Marini and gotten behind the positive way in which the appeal was made... instead they waited until the whole thing turned into a shitstorm only to add fuel to the fire at that point. (Ie. the tweets and article featured in worth reading)

As was said on the panel, an important part of changing internet culture is actively getting behind exceptions to the rule instead of only pointing at the worst and either piggybacking it or crying foul.

Avatar image for freedomtown
Edited By FreedomTown

"the company issued a tone-deaf response."

If by "tone-deaf response" you mean, a perfectly acceptable answer that isn't trying to defend itself and isn't dripping with PR, then yes I agree with you.

As someone said above, only people with an agenda (journalists) made this into a big deal, and only people with an agenda found fault with Nintendo's original response. There are a ton of games with a ton of things that you CAN'T do in them, stop looking to demonize every single thing out there if it doesn't fit into your specific notion of how it should be. Nintendo was making Zero social commentary with this game by including, or excluding, certain things, just stop looking for it.

And @ GB, I know the "news" these days is all about getting hits, regardless of any integrity, but come on....why not try to be better then everyone else and not let these click bait sensationalized non-issue articles from getting posted here.

Avatar image for blitz_kill
Edited By Blitz_Kill

@patrickklepek: Isn't this the equivalent of me as a white male bitching about not having a male protagonist option in Tomb Raider or black people bitching that all of the Dead Rising protags were white with no black option? Not every game has to directly relate to your personal life experiences. I know we live in an age where the gay community (one which i support) has a much greater voice than it used to, but this still seems like self-entitlement.

Avatar image for melodiousj
Edited By melodiousj

There is still one little question that I take away from this all. Why does Nintendo have to put same-sex relationships into their game? Is there a rule somewhere saying that they have to? I'm pretty sure that Nintendo is not hating against same-sex relationships with the exclusion of this feature in the game.

I honestly think all of this news is ridiculous and blown out of proportion. It's like me not purchasing a romantic comedy on DVD because the movie features a heterosexual relationship. It's the creative choice of the creators. I honestly don't know why people got so offended by this in the first place.

It's the nature of the game itself that makes it a magnet for this kind of controversy. A large part of the game involves creating virtual likenesses of yourself, your friends, and anyone else you can recreate in the Mii Maker, and watch them live out their virtual lives, interact with their virtual friends, and have virtual relationships and love affairs.

It's a bit of a harsh oversight that a game of this nature assumes that you and all your friends are hetero.

Some people pointed this out to Nintendo and appealed for them to do what they could to address it, and after fumbling their words, Nintendo eventually issued a statement promising to do exactly that, and everyone involved was happy with that.

Of course, this is the internet, so somewhere along the way, some other people decided it wasn't an oversight caused by cultural differences but a deliberate hate crime, and now it's turned into all this.

Avatar image for brechtiandinnertheater
Edited By BrechtianDinnerTheater

I've never seen so many people so offended by the notion that people might be offended by something that they themselves are not offended by. (Unpack that one!) This is more or less exactly what people mean when they use the term "privilege" by the way, the belief that if one in their own personal life experience has not faced a particular hardship, that said particular hardship must not actually exist, and that concerns to the contrary are thereby invalid. I'm so sorry that people are challenging your worldview! That must be tough... :-(

Avatar image for brechtiandinnertheater
Edited By BrechtianDinnerTheater

@wilshere: Yeah, cause that's totally what I said, that everyone who doesn't agree with me is literally Adolph Hitler.

Avatar image for guilherme
Posted By guilherme

I agree with their original statement, it makes perfect sense! Sadly though media sites print titles like "NINTENDO HATES GAYS" and suddenly Nintendo gets a big backlash even if they never said anything of the sort.

These stupid headlines and news sites need to be held accountable for what they write up. It is like when you get news saying "Cliffy B hates PC gaming" or "PM thinks Minecraft is amazing... AGAIN" and people end up getting fed up with them. Not their fault, they probably just randomly speak to someone and they decide it is news worthy to go on their site....... blame the stupid arse site.

Why I like Giantbomb, they don't write shit up like this.

This. It seems people want to be offended by everything nowadays.

Avatar image for wilshere
Posted By Wilshere

Wow, the staggering amount of totally non-self-aware hetero privilege on display here is more than a little gross. I don't go into the comment section on GB very often... is this indicative of the usual level of discourse, or was stormfront down this weekend and all the haters somehow wound up here? Pretty disappointing either way.

Everyone with a different opinion than mine is literally Hitler, check!

Avatar image for paulunga
Edited By paulunga

They basically said nothing in the original statement. I don't know how someone can be offended at that wishy-washy PR bullshit answer.

Well, actually, I guess I do know how, I've spent enough time on the internet and watched enough Parks and Rec. ;)

Avatar image for brechtiandinnertheater
Posted By BrechtianDinnerTheater

Wow, the staggering amount of totally non-self-aware hetero privilege on display here is more than a little gross. I don't go into the comment section on GB very often... is this indicative of the usual level of discourse, or was stormfront down this weekend and all the haters somehow wound up here? Pretty disappointing either way.

Avatar image for dukest3
Posted By DukesT3

I know way too much about this game than I normally would.

Avatar image for homelessbird
Edited By Homelessbird
Avatar image for hunttis
Edited By hunttis

@jasondesante: I feel really sorry for you if you can't function without thinking about gay sex, but the problem here is not sex. It's sexuality. I hope you can find someone to explain the difference to you.

Avatar image for druv
Posted By druv

I agree fully with this. Saying that they didn't intend their game to make social commentary is implicitly saying that they think doing everything according to their status quo is not social commentary. Which is obviously false. It's the kind of blindness that leads to people making comments like "well, we didn't want to make this a race thing, so we made the character white". Which is actually something that happens.

For anyone disappointed in the Giant Bomb community over this, I have to ask... have you been paying attention?

@scotto said:

They should have included the ability for anyone to marry anyone from the start - to not think to include the option is a form of passive "social commentary" in and of itself, which I think is what they (and some of their defenders) continue to not understand.

Avatar image for sergio
Edited By Sergio

@daedelus: It's not impossible to patch a game. However, is it possible to patch this given the current resources to meet deadlines without impacting other projects' deadlines without missing marketing timelines that had already been planned ahead of time? Look through the rest of this thread if you really think it's as simple as changing some dialogue pronouns. It's more than that, and that's before one has to consider QA and marketing.

Avatar image for strohfist
Posted By strohfist

@everystraightpersonever said:

what's the big deal?

Avatar image for jumbs
Posted By Jumbs

@daedelus said:

I don't think Nintendo's response was good enough. It smacks of paying lip service to the idea of including same-sex relationships just to smooth public relations. It's not "impossible" to patch this into the game. It would in fact take very little work. Just change some dialog pronouns around and the one line that governs the sex of the bride and groom.

And all the comments on this story angry about Nintendo apologizing and bombers grasping at why this is a big deal. I'm disappointed. I guess I had hoped the Giant Bomb community was more tolerant and progressive. Video games have a long way to go towards being tolerant. Check out this video about the topic:

Gamers, a group that is often marginalized, are incredibly intolerant. Use of the words "F*ggot", "Rape", etc are common place. You'd think they'd understand. But WAHHH WHITE MEN

Avatar image for nomin
Posted By Nomin

I think Link is secretly gay. Luigi was supposedly homosexual too. Birdo of course, is the banner transvestite that Nintendo thought would wholly validate their 'inclusive' status in the eyes of those liberal gayjins.

Avatar image for daedelus
Posted By daedelus

I don't think Nintendo's response was good enough. It smacks of paying lip service to the idea of including same-sex relationships just to smooth public relations. It's not "impossible" to patch this into the game. It would in fact take very little work. Just change some dialog pronouns around and the one line that governs the sex of the bride and groom.

And all the comments on this story angry about Nintendo apologizing and bombers grasping at why this is a big deal. I'm disappointed. I guess I had hoped the Giant Bomb community was more tolerant and progressive. Video games have a long way to go towards being tolerant. Check out this video about the topic:

Loading Video...

Avatar image for huxleyy
Posted By Huxleyy

@roycampbell: I couldn't have said it better myself.

I can't bring myself to back Patrick on this, either.

This entire thing was a joke.

Avatar image for greggd
Posted By GreggD

@lurkero: I was referring to people equating the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-20th Century to this situation. It's a ridiculously inaccurate comparison.

Avatar image for fonzinator
Posted By Fonzinator

@lurkero said:

@fonzinator: Most of the comments on this thread are equivalent to "If homosexual people want games with homosexual people perhaps they should make their own games where that is the focus."

I don't think the analogy is too far off from representing a lot of the comments. And the games don't necessarily have to be of lower quality. Just separate.

When comparing games to the separate facilities of the 50's and 60's in the US, then yes the games would have to be of lower quality because that is what happened with "colored only" things of the time.

And you are missing the point. This is sticking to headlines because it is becoming increasingly important to point out. Just like civil rights in the USA became increasingly important to point out in the 1960s until the civil rights act was finally (and begrudgingly) passed by those who didn't like giving up some of their privilege so that more people would be considered equal and not separate.

I think marriage equality is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more important to point out than what a bunch of old Japanese farts might think. Things like this just bring out hate, misunderstanding, and dilute the point.

Nobody is asking Nintendo to add homosexuals to all of their games. They are asking that if Nintendo has a game with customizable relationships that homosexual relationships be included.

That's all great and it started that way, but it turned into "it would be sooooo easy to change" or people with the ability to write articles to the masses write things in angry ways and try to make Nintendo look as bad as possible. I don't find that fair at all especially with how civil and normal this whole miiquality thing started. Note I am not saying it was necessarily you who is taking part of elevating this whole thing. Just in general.

Avatar image for lurkero
Posted By Lurkero

@greggd: Nintendo has every right to not include homosexual relationships. That doesn't give people the right to silence opposing opinion. In the end, all Nintendo has to say is, "we don't want homosexuals in the game" if that is their policy.

Avatar image for jamessmarion
Posted By jamessmarion

@greggd: That's fine. It's just how I feel. If one my my friends knowingly supported a company that I feel has done something like this, it would just impact how I think about them.

Avatar image for greggd
Posted By GreggD

@lurkero said:

@fonzinator: Most of the comments on this thread are equivalent to "If homosexual people want games with homosexual people perhaps they should make their own games where that is the focus."

I don't think the analogy is too far off from representing a lot of the comments. And the games don't necessarily have to be of lower quality. Just separate.

And you are missing the point. This is sticking to headlines because it is becoming increasingly important to point out. Just like civil rights in the USA became increasingly important to point out in the 1960s until the civil rights act was finally (and begrudgingly) passed by those who didn't like giving up some of their privilege so that more people would be considered equal and not separate.

Nobody is asking Nintendo to add homosexuals to all of their games. They are asking that if Nintendo has a game with customizable relationships that homosexual relationships be included.

I don't disagree with you, but we are talking about video games, and not something like where you can and cannot drink from/ride in/get an education. They are luxury products for enthusiasts, not basic human rights. Should Nintendo be more inclusive? Absolutely, but it's on a basic moral level that has nothing to do with inherent rights.

Avatar image for lurkero
Edited By Lurkero

@fonzinator: Most of the comments on this thread are equivalent to "If homosexual people want games with homosexual people perhaps they should make their own games where that is the focus."

I don't think the analogy is too far off from representing a lot of the comments. And the games don't necessarily have to be of lower quality. Just separate.

And you are missing the point. This is sticking to headlines because it is becoming increasingly important to point out. Just like civil rights in the USA became increasingly important to point out in the 1960s until the civil rights act was finally (and begrudgingly) passed by those who didn't like giving up some of their privilege so that more people would be considered equal and not separate.

Nobody is asking Nintendo to add homosexuals to all of their games. They are asking that if Nintendo has a game with customizable relationships that homosexual relationships be included.

Avatar image for needsmoredakka
Posted By needsmoredakka

I'm glad to see this article hasn't taken the Kotaku/Polygon approach and gone with a headline along the lines of "Nintendo Bans Same-Sex Marriage, Declared Most Problematic Company 2014".

Avatar image for fonzinator
Posted By Fonzinator

@lurkero said:

@goldrock said:

@posh: nobody is forcing gay people to play the game though. If I was gay, I'd probably avoid this game and move on with my life. There's also a difference between being "anti gay marriage" and "anti gay". Thought that should be thrown out there.

If I was black I would just move on, and drink from the fountain designated for black people. Can't they be happy with their own fountain? Why do they feel the need to be considered every time a new fountain is built?

Just... no. An analogy that would fit your point would be to make entirely different "separate but equal" games of lower quality specifically for homosexuals. This imaginary game would have a giant sign that said "FOR GAYS ONLY" on the box, and the "original" tomadachi life game would say "HETERO ONLY".

I'm not saying that there is no homosexual discrimination out there, but this is what sticks to headlines?

Avatar image for greggd
Edited By GreggD

@wilshere: I don't think you're homophobic, but personally, and just on a personal level, I would feel worse about someone I know for playing the game.

If you were one of my friends I'd feel uncomfortable keeping you around because you would think less of me for wanting to play a cool game just because there's a bit of controversy surrounding it. On a personal level, I'd think you weren't worth it to have to deal with that kind of drama and potential betrayal, for lack of a better word.

Avatar image for jamessmarion
Posted By jamessmarion

@wilshere: I don't think you're homophobic, but personally, and just on a personal level, I would feel worse about someone I know for playing the game.

Avatar image for steelerzfan101
Posted By steelerzfan101

There is still one little question that I take away from this all. Why does Nintendo have to put same-sex relationships into their game? Is there a rule somewhere saying that they have to? I'm pretty sure that Nintendo is not hating against same-sex relationships with the exclusion of this feature in the game.

I honestly think all of this news is ridiculous and blown out of proportion. It's like me not purchasing a romantic comedy on DVD because the movie features a heterosexual relationship. It's the creative choice of the creators. I honestly don't know why people got so offended by this in the first place.

Avatar image for greggd
Posted By GreggD

@sergio: Yeah, that reads kind of...something worth publishing? Like, because they issued a clarification, that's somehow not worth publishing?

Avatar image for sergio
Posted By Sergio

First the press wanted us to be pissed off that Nintendo removed code to allow same sex couples. That turned out to be inaccurate (it was a bug that broke the game). Then they wanted us to be pissed off because they don't know how to read a response. Then they wanted us to be pissed about a clarification and apology and treat it like backpedaling ("Ha, we caught those fuckers now!"). Where they move the goal posts next is anyones guess. The worst part is they piggybacked all this click bait on the much more level headed Miiquality movement and ended up perverting the entire thing. The media wouldn't have said a single thing about this issue if it wasn't for the friendly, fun and positive outreach to Nintendo by a few fans. Something we could all have gotten behind without ripping out each others throats. I hope the opportunistic, exploitative a-holes felt all the extra traffic was worth it. Write an article that is honest, stays positive and encourages healthy discussions on where we can all find agreement and I bet you don't end up with a comments section like this.

I can kind of see your point.

I couldn't help but imagine him with his hands together, fingertips to fingertips, all Mr. Burns-like, going "excellent" until Nintendo's second statement was released.

Avatar image for make_me_mad
Posted By Make_Me_Mad

@raven10 said:

@patrickklepek said:

@pickassoreborn said:

The internet will still not be happy though, right?

They might have a point: this should have been Nintendo's original statement. It has sound reasoning, explains the localization process, and acknowledges how it can be handled in the future. Nintendo knew this was coming, due to the "bug" in the Japanese version, and still didn't have a good answer.

Agreed. They were almost certainly not going to be able to change it at this stage, but explaining why and promising to include it from the beginning next time is a much better response.

The only thing I find offensive in this whole affair is the way the media comported themselves.

The campaign starts out reasonably. People are disappointed that there aren't homosexual relationships in Tomodachi Life. They start a grassroots campaign to simply request either a patch or representation in the next game(s). Nintendo makes its first awkwardly worded response, attempting to explain that it wasn't done out of malicious intent. Ever hungry for a controversy, the enthusiast media completely misinterpret the statement, paint Nintendo as bigots, and poison the dialogue. Nintendo further explains the situation, apologizes (not for the first statement but the lack of gay Miis), and promises to fix the problem in future games. The enthusiast media don't even acknowledge (much less apologize for) their own errors or poor behavior, continue taking pot shots at Nintendo even though the people behind the movement got the desired result, then smugly pat themselves on the back as if they got a stubborn Nintendo to backtrack from an offensive position (which existed only in their minds).

Avatar image for gnoltac
Posted By GnolTac

VIDEO GAMES

Avatar image for fminus
Edited By FMinus

@scotto said:

They should have included the ability for anyone to marry anyone from the start - to not think to include the option is a form of passive "social commentary" in and of itself, which I think is what they (and some of their defenders) continue to not understand.

Nintendo have thousands of gay fans, many in states or countries with gay marriage, who have no ability to represent their actual sexual preference in this game.

Their new response is better than the initial one, though I still don't buy that it's too crazy difficult for them to patch it in - or promise it in a future patch.

Some of the reactions to Nintendo were a bit overheated on this issue (welcome to the internet), but disappointment in Nintendo is fully warranted on this one. Even Electronic Arts, for all of it's massive faults, is way out ahead of Nintendo in recognizing and respecting different sexual preferences in their games.

Nintendo has fans, not gay or straight fans, that's the problem what people don't understand. I'm not running around asking people if they are straight or gay either, nor do I ever think about that, if this isn't a subject of discussion.

It's a game, entertainment, not a real life simulator.

Avatar image for gbrading
Posted By gbrading

If The Sims managed it over 14 years ago, I don't know why Nintendo are having so much trouble.

Avatar image for wilshere
Edited By Wilshere

@melodiousj said:

@jamessmarion said:

@melodiousj: Playing Tomodachi doesn't make you homophobic. But I do feel that games that are intentionally exclusionary should not be played, if only to send a message.

But that's the thing. I amgoing to play this game. Maybe it doesn't make me homophobic, but it still makes me part of the problem in yours and other people's eyes. Maybe I shouldn't care about that, but I do.

I've been waiting 5 years for a Tomodachi game to come to the West. I had no idea there was even an issue here until earlier this week. Maybe that's a blind spot on my part, but still, it's not my fault Nintendo dropped the ball.

I don't really wish to speak on behalf of anyone other than myself here. I really, really want to play this game, and have wanted to play it for years… and under the current circumstances, I feel like I'm going to be judged very harshly if I do, and that's just not fair. I'm playing the game in spite of it's failures, not because of them, as will be the case for most, if not all people who play the game. Why should we be looked down upon?

It's real easy for people who weren't gonna play a game in the first place to boycott it. The fans are caught in the middle. It's Shadow Complex all over again.

By the same token, I don't want to subject myself to the kinds of mental gymnastics it would take to handwave away the controversy just so I don't have to feel guilty about it. Maybe there's a way I could make it up to the LGBT community?

Do what you think is fun, rather than worry if the voice in the sky will accept your actions.

Avatar image for deathpooky
Posted By Deathpooky

@koolaid said:

After reading some of these comments, I can't help but feel that pieces like Samantha Allen's post on Polygon did much more harm then good.

To me, Miieqauility started as a extremely civil request. "Heeeey. We would really like this feature for these reasons. I realize that it probably can't make it into this game. But maybe add it in a patch? Or in the next Tomodachi Life? It would be best if you could just acknowledge this. Thanks!"

There was no outrage. No vitriol. No bullying like some of these comments claim.

But then I read Samantha Allen talking about "the beating, bigoted heart of Nintendo" and I'm like 'Whoa, whoa whoa! This is a bit much! She doesn't represent us!'

But stuff like that happens a few times and now we have a forum war. One where I bet people would probably agree if they didn't both make assumptions about what assholes the other side are.

This is about where I come down. Nintendo's response was tone deaf and likely illustrated a cultural disconnect and lack of understanding, but was the original game and the bad response were in no way "bigoted" or "homophobic." Failing to properly address an issue doesn't make you a bigot. And the result of a overheated rhetoric is just to harden opinions on the other side and generally inflame an otherwise civil, positive conversation.