Nintendo Promises Future Tomodachi Games Will Be More "Inclusive"

I find it funny how people can categorize Nintendo's first response as "tone deaf" when those people themselves seem to be regular deaf.

Their original statement didn't mean "we think that acknowledging homosexual relationships is social commentary". It meant "we didn't intend any social commentary by not including homosexual relationships in our game".

The syntax in that first sentence seems off.

@raven10 said:

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).

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?

Nintendo has been nothing but kind through this whole thing, and people are still down their throats about it looking for any reason to bitch, they explained why it wasn't possible and why it wasn't included to begin with, apologized and are promising future games will support it.

I don't understand why this isn't done and over with.

@viciousreiven: After taking the time to trace this shitstorm all the way back to the beginning I'm realizing the real problem here was an irresponsible gaming press sensationalizing all of this. Patrick included.

It seems like many people were just bummed to have this option left out. They were letting Nintendo know they'd like to be included, since they are fans of the company and their games and want to feel welcome in the Nintendo universe. That's reasonable and understandable. When I first started hearing about this it seemed like some people were calling Nintendo out for being anti-gay. Biased due to omission. You do see that in this thread as well, unfortunately. I will never support anyone's creative vision to conform to anything ever. I do support people letting a company know they are an overlooked segment and they'd like that to change.

Other than the Nancy Grace who editorialized it here and the Alex Jones's following suit in the comments decrying an anti-gay conspiracy; I think we're all pretty much in agreement that we want everyone to have fun with their games and its cool with ALL of us for a company like Nintendo to reach as many fans as possible. Just don't expect a consensus among all gamers to guilt anyone if their creative output isn't inclusive enough or strong arm anyone into awkward apologies for their artistic output (thankfully that doesn't seem like that was the original intent of the Miiquality movement).

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.

@planetfunksquad: You bring up a good point. We like to be accepting of different people, their sexual preferences, their customs, and also their culture. However, that can often create conflicts. As you said, the reality is different cultures view homosexuality in very different ways, some of them in very negative ways.

I think I would have preferred a more honest response from Nintendo:

We chose not to include same-sex relations because we know that many or most of our customers (especially parents, or perhaps the Japanese, whatever) would not like it. The backlash from them would have been worse than the backlash from the other side.

Whatever they say or however they word it, that's what it basically comes down to. :)

The original response should have been something like this all along. Good on them for at least changing their words.

If the game was all homosexual relationships, I probably wouldn't play it. I can see the point being made. I'd also be real upset if my Mii married a guy if they could and did change the game to include both hetero and homosexual relationships.

End of the day I don't know near enough about the game to even comment on any of it. Nintendo seems to be in clear on this one though imo.

That just brings it down to the level unintentional social commentary- passive rather than active exclusion. The PR quote about not intending to make social commentary from the AP article was itself another bit of commentary. That's how things go. That's why the term tone deaf was appropriate.

Making drama out of nothing again, America - fuck yeah.

Glad the mole hill was actually just a mole hill after all.

Predicting rage at launch regardless, the internet hate machine never turns its gaze away from Nintendo. At least they addressed the problem sensibly.

Everything about that sentence is way off and frankly it's the only thing offending me in this entire scenario.

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.

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?

@amafi: agreed

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.

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

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

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.

VIDEO GAMES

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.

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

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.

@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.

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?

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".

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

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:

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.

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

@everystraightpersonever said:

what's the big deal?

@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.

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?

@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.

@jasondesante: Gross! How has this not been moderated yet?

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

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.

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. ;)