Jimquisition: Tomodachi Strife
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
The problem with the argument that Jim is making is that homosexuals represent an extremely tiny percentage of the population. What's more it's not something that is "generally accepted", it's a major political issue in the first world seeing divides of like 50% of the population, and something that is outright detested in the second and third world with the support of homosexuality being one of the things used to rally those people against the first world as being decadent and immoral, indeed one could argue it contributes to a lot of overall political tensions as a lot of countries want to engage in censorship of the media, internet, and other things in part because of this kind of thing and the idealogy the American media presents.
Trying to say that "gay rights" shouldn't be political is by definition a political statement, and a controversial one. Especially seeing as the entire gay rights movement started as saying that someone should not be arrested simply for leading an alternative lifestyle. The very term "alternative lifestyle" has fallen out of use right now, but it was a key element of the whole gay rights movement for a long time. Only some very extreme people were making arguments that gays should be basically inserted into all aspects of society and media, and presented as being around in equal number to heterosexuals and such when they aren't. The movement snowballed into this kind of thing, going to attacks on things like video games for treating an alternative lifestyle as one, and not feeling obligated to include it, when originally it was more based around the idea that what a couple of consenting adults do in their own bedroom is their own business. The whole argument that "it's not like anyone is going to get up in your face about it, if your not in their bedroom why do you care" more or less no longer applies. This is in part why the issue is increasingly political, and why you have a lot of people who were early gay rights supporters now embracing the other side. Even in the US, perhaps the most permissive nation on earth, there isn't real inertia for gay marriage, which is why you see it being passed someplace one day, and then banned another, in part because in order to pass a lot of these laws a political game needs to be played to bypass the normal checks and balances inherent in society to allow changes to laws without the necessary levels of societal support. If there was some trend towards majority or super-majority support you wouldn't see the issues you do now, because a tiny, fringe, minority of haters just couldn't accomplish this much.
What's more, one has to also look at video games in particular and the negative reaction the gay community is getting from it's own actions. Look at say "The Old Republic Online" as an example, a set of designers (Bioware) who showed that they had no problem developing gay and bi-sexual characters when they fit a given storyline, was brutally attacked for writing a game where they didn't insert any such characters and romance options as they didn't think it fit. The basic argument was one of an entitled minority. When Bioware eventually agreed to develop some, a promise it kept with it's first major expansion, the gay community then rallied screaming that it wasn't enough, making it clear (and some people even outright stating) that what they wanted was intrusive gay content, so if you walked onto your ship you'd have homosexuals trying to flirt with you and stuff, with the specific intention of annoying straights in order to make a statement. The clashes over this in and outside of the game have largely died down, but it kind of showed that this is a minority group that tends to escalate it's demands when you give them anything, which can be an issue when your dealing with sexual behavior that actually repels a good amount of the population who aren't wired that way (basically you might not care if two dudes want to get it on, but you don't want to have to watch them make out, or have some dude following you around, trying to get into your pants).
There is also the issue of course of international acceptance, a big question is of course whether a game like a life sim is being intended to be sold internationally and a lot of effort regionally editing it is undesired. Sure the first world might push for their gay relationship simulator being thrown in, but in other countries where such behavior is seriously looked down on or still outright illegal you have a problem. Especially if your heavily selling to various Asian countries who aren't always the most progressive and tolerant guys on the planet. While a nation like Australia might tolerate some easily bypassed filters (South Park's crying Koala) other nations might not be so accepting and it could hurt business relations. While it wasn't sexual I look towards some of the stories I've heard about WoW's release in China, where they have a prohibition against showing the dead/undead walking around, so they had to re-do the entire playable undead faction into something else (basically ugly humans) for a Chinese release which apparently too a lot of work, and lead to certain things playing out very differently since especially early on the major theme is fighting against undead and "The Lich King". Supposedly this also lead to them using less undead in their later expansions (which I haven't played as much) although they were still present as well, and the whole Pandaria thing was in part a compromise by throwing in some eastern (particularly Chinese) inspiration so it could be defended as "mythological" under Chinese law and see less censorship. How true all of this (especially the later parts) are is debatable, but I've run into a lot of references over the years. Surprisingly regional content requirements is something nobody bothers to consider when homosexuality in games come up, it's one case where the cosmopolitan tend to gain major cases of tunnel vision both in the actual numbers involved in their own country, and global attitudes outside of the first world countries the US most shares media coorespondance with.
That said, yes, Nintendo has committed yet another press flub, but at the same time I don't think they can be considered entirely wrong in making their statement about politics. Anyone who has clashed from either side of the gay rights equasion in the USA even and watched the laws waffle, should be painfully aware this is a political battleground even if people wish it wasn't one. Even if a gay-accepting super-majority appears in the first world (as opposed to being wishful thinking people hope will become a reality through claiming it is) it will still remain an international battleground and a factor in anyone wanting to sell a product outside of the most civilized and enlightened countries. Especially seeing as it's not like we're going to start invading nations because they are mean to gay people.
I'll also say that I think "alternative lifestyles" is a slippery slope especially when you start looking around globally. One group that outnumbers homosexuals vastly for example are Polygamists, which can become increasingly common outside of the first world. Even the US has had issues with Polygamist communes and the male children being forced out as soon as legally possible so the older men can monopolize all the girls. I don't know if this game already allows that, but to put things into perspective it could be argued that if your going to allow one alternative lifestyle, you have to allow all of them, especially more common ones, when looking at a global marketplace. Follow that train far enough and even if it's not polygamy and it's problems you will eventually wind up with something that will offend even the most tolerant person. Not an argument I expect to be popular here, but when looking at a product like this it does make a degree of sense to cater to the largest group of people (the supermajority) and pretty much try and omit everything that could cause a serious problem. In absolute terms it's not just gays getting the shaft, it's just that they represent a political flash point in the US and other first world nations. I mean in theory if such nations were more politically powerful in a global scale, you could potentially see some nation that allows and encourages polygamy and has a low age of consent argueing that it's bigoted to have a game based on western American/European standards where they can't say marry 12 year old girls, relegate them to house work once they get "too old" (18 or so) and then marry another one, as a few women's rights coalitions will point out garbage like that still happens throughout a surprising portion of the world, and would count as a valid lifestyle people would want to simulate.
Ahh well, I'm rambling. I'm not going to argue this in detail, I already know most people will disagree with me for one reason or another. I just think it's not that big a deal, and honestly this is probably the wrong place to be trying to draw a line if you support gay rights. It's an easy target from a certain point of view, but really if I was a gay rights supporter I'd be picking other battles, and working more towards trying to create that supermajority as an actual reality than fighting things like this that are likely to just solidify the divide and convince as many people to side against you as they will bring to your side. I'm kind of in the middle of the issue which makes me hated by both sides (strongly pro-gay and strongly anti-gay) so I get it from both ends, which is why I'm not going to bother to get into serious political arguments here again.
Trying to say that "gay rights" shouldn't be political is by definition a political statement, and a controversial one. Especially seeing as the entire gay rights movement started as saying that someone should not be arrested simply for leading an alternative lifestyle. The very term "alternative lifestyle" has fallen out of use right now, but it was a key element of the whole gay rights movement for a long time. Only some very extreme people were making arguments that gays should be basically inserted into all aspects of society and media, and presented as being around in equal number to heterosexuals and such when they aren't. The movement snowballed into this kind of thing, going to attacks on things like video games for treating an alternative lifestyle as one, and not feeling obligated to include it, when originally it was more based around the idea that what a couple of consenting adults do in their own bedroom is their own business. The whole argument that "it's not like anyone is going to get up in your face about it, if your not in their bedroom why do you care" more or less no longer applies. This is in part why the issue is increasingly political, and why you have a lot of people who were early gay rights supporters now embracing the other side. Even in the US, perhaps the most permissive nation on earth, there isn't real inertia for gay marriage, which is why you see it being passed someplace one day, and then banned another, in part because in order to pass a lot of these laws a political game needs to be played to bypass the normal checks and balances inherent in society to allow changes to laws without the necessary levels of societal support. If there was some trend towards majority or super-majority support you wouldn't see the issues you do now, because a tiny, fringe, minority of haters just couldn't accomplish this much.
What's more, one has to also look at video games in particular and the negative reaction the gay community is getting from it's own actions. Look at say "The Old Republic Online" as an example, a set of designers (Bioware) who showed that they had no problem developing gay and bi-sexual characters when they fit a given storyline, was brutally attacked for writing a game where they didn't insert any such characters and romance options as they didn't think it fit. The basic argument was one of an entitled minority. When Bioware eventually agreed to develop some, a promise it kept with it's first major expansion, the gay community then rallied screaming that it wasn't enough, making it clear (and some people even outright stating) that what they wanted was intrusive gay content, so if you walked onto your ship you'd have homosexuals trying to flirt with you and stuff, with the specific intention of annoying straights in order to make a statement. The clashes over this in and outside of the game have largely died down, but it kind of showed that this is a minority group that tends to escalate it's demands when you give them anything, which can be an issue when your dealing with sexual behavior that actually repels a good amount of the population who aren't wired that way (basically you might not care if two dudes want to get it on, but you don't want to have to watch them make out, or have some dude following you around, trying to get into your pants).
There is also the issue of course of international acceptance, a big question is of course whether a game like a life sim is being intended to be sold internationally and a lot of effort regionally editing it is undesired. Sure the first world might push for their gay relationship simulator being thrown in, but in other countries where such behavior is seriously looked down on or still outright illegal you have a problem. Especially if your heavily selling to various Asian countries who aren't always the most progressive and tolerant guys on the planet. While a nation like Australia might tolerate some easily bypassed filters (South Park's crying Koala) other nations might not be so accepting and it could hurt business relations. While it wasn't sexual I look towards some of the stories I've heard about WoW's release in China, where they have a prohibition against showing the dead/undead walking around, so they had to re-do the entire playable undead faction into something else (basically ugly humans) for a Chinese release which apparently too a lot of work, and lead to certain things playing out very differently since especially early on the major theme is fighting against undead and "The Lich King". Supposedly this also lead to them using less undead in their later expansions (which I haven't played as much) although they were still present as well, and the whole Pandaria thing was in part a compromise by throwing in some eastern (particularly Chinese) inspiration so it could be defended as "mythological" under Chinese law and see less censorship. How true all of this (especially the later parts) are is debatable, but I've run into a lot of references over the years. Surprisingly regional content requirements is something nobody bothers to consider when homosexuality in games come up, it's one case where the cosmopolitan tend to gain major cases of tunnel vision both in the actual numbers involved in their own country, and global attitudes outside of the first world countries the US most shares media coorespondance with.
That said, yes, Nintendo has committed yet another press flub, but at the same time I don't think they can be considered entirely wrong in making their statement about politics. Anyone who has clashed from either side of the gay rights equasion in the USA even and watched the laws waffle, should be painfully aware this is a political battleground even if people wish it wasn't one. Even if a gay-accepting super-majority appears in the first world (as opposed to being wishful thinking people hope will become a reality through claiming it is) it will still remain an international battleground and a factor in anyone wanting to sell a product outside of the most civilized and enlightened countries. Especially seeing as it's not like we're going to start invading nations because they are mean to gay people.
I'll also say that I think "alternative lifestyles" is a slippery slope especially when you start looking around globally. One group that outnumbers homosexuals vastly for example are Polygamists, which can become increasingly common outside of the first world. Even the US has had issues with Polygamist communes and the male children being forced out as soon as legally possible so the older men can monopolize all the girls. I don't know if this game already allows that, but to put things into perspective it could be argued that if your going to allow one alternative lifestyle, you have to allow all of them, especially more common ones, when looking at a global marketplace. Follow that train far enough and even if it's not polygamy and it's problems you will eventually wind up with something that will offend even the most tolerant person. Not an argument I expect to be popular here, but when looking at a product like this it does make a degree of sense to cater to the largest group of people (the supermajority) and pretty much try and omit everything that could cause a serious problem. In absolute terms it's not just gays getting the shaft, it's just that they represent a political flash point in the US and other first world nations. I mean in theory if such nations were more politically powerful in a global scale, you could potentially see some nation that allows and encourages polygamy and has a low age of consent argueing that it's bigoted to have a game based on western American/European standards where they can't say marry 12 year old girls, relegate them to house work once they get "too old" (18 or so) and then marry another one, as a few women's rights coalitions will point out garbage like that still happens throughout a surprising portion of the world, and would count as a valid lifestyle people would want to simulate.
Ahh well, I'm rambling. I'm not going to argue this in detail, I already know most people will disagree with me for one reason or another. I just think it's not that big a deal, and honestly this is probably the wrong place to be trying to draw a line if you support gay rights. It's an easy target from a certain point of view, but really if I was a gay rights supporter I'd be picking other battles, and working more towards trying to create that supermajority as an actual reality than fighting things like this that are likely to just solidify the divide and convince as many people to side against you as they will bring to your side. I'm kind of in the middle of the issue which makes me hated by both sides (strongly pro-gay and strongly anti-gay) so I get it from both ends, which is why I'm not going to bother to get into serious political arguments here again.
IGN- "So it was actually two separate things that got lumped together into one piece of confusion that resulted in people not quite understanding what had gone on."MarsAtlas said:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/05/nintendo-on-gay-marriage-and-tomodachi-life
Saying that the glitch and the gay relationships were unrelated.
Kotaku- "Update: In a comment released to MCVUK, Nintendo stated that there wasn't a bug that allowed same sex marriage. Rather, some fans had dressed female characters to look like male ones."
Saying that the glitch and the gay relationships were unrelated.
Would you like to contest my double sourced information?
Nope incorrect, Two male mii's marrying each other, was what happened when a user would set one of the two mii's to female, either their own or the one they wanted to marry and cross dressing, Still in the game. The bug was again, when data was imported from the Wii or the old ds version, it would add those mii's to the 3ds game, while doing it, it caused a data leak, so when the game assigned the mii's into the game, it'd make them single, married, friends and what not, and setting them to married it could accidentally set two males or two females as married. Some players noticed this and thought it was cool, but it also crashed the game.MarsAtlas said:
The player could never do this on their own, before or after patch, all the patch did was fix it from screwing up the data transfer that wouldn't allow the players to save their game anymore if that transfer glitch happened.
http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2014/04/nintendo_provides_some_context_to_2013s_tomodachi_life_same_sex_marriage_controversy
((probably the only good news article on the whole story))
First, i disagree with his assessment of Nintendo's response. That when Nintendo responded and said they aren't trying to make social commentary. That interpretted them as saying allowing for gay marriage would be social commentary. When in fact i think they meant that when they omited same sex marriage they weren't trying to commentate on it. I think it is a case of people interpretting Nintendo's response in the worst way possible. Its typical people on the internet looking for reasons to be upset.
I think part of the reason for backlash is a disrespect for the game genre. Yeah, the AAA singleplayer games that don't include all sub sets is acceptable because it is ART and its about the developers' vision more then satisfying every individual, but in a life sim, the developer is racist if they don't. The sistine chapel isn't worse because it is a bunch. of white people. Art is Art and as long as the art isn't inherently hateful which omission of some minorities isn't, then the artists don't deserve this crap.
I think it is also disrespectful of Japanense culture. That the game was perfectly respectful in their culture. I don't want every Japanese piece of art to have to avoid being shown in the west inorder to avoid backlash. Being tolerant of other cultures goes well beyond being tolerant of people with other sexual preferences and even goes well past being tolerant of pieces of art that omit gay couples.
My undersanding is the game is about making babies.It is obvious that including gay couples would require another set of mechanics. While it would of been nice to have gay options, saying a game about making babies is discriminatory if it doesn't also have mechanics for gays to make babies is ludicrous.
I think part of the reason for backlash is a disrespect for the game genre. Yeah, the AAA singleplayer games that don't include all sub sets is acceptable because it is ART and its about the developers' vision more then satisfying every individual, but in a life sim, the developer is racist if they don't. The sistine chapel isn't worse because it is a bunch. of white people. Art is Art and as long as the art isn't inherently hateful which omission of some minorities isn't, then the artists don't deserve this crap.
I think it is also disrespectful of Japanense culture. That the game was perfectly respectful in their culture. I don't want every Japanese piece of art to have to avoid being shown in the west inorder to avoid backlash. Being tolerant of other cultures goes well beyond being tolerant of people with other sexual preferences and even goes well past being tolerant of pieces of art that omit gay couples.
My undersanding is the game is about making babies.It is obvious that including gay couples would require another set of mechanics. While it would of been nice to have gay options, saying a game about making babies is discriminatory if it doesn't also have mechanics for gays to make babies is ludicrous.
Welcome to the forumsatavax said:
You do bring up an excellent point: what about the Japanese viewpoint in this? Nintendo doesn't seem to really care about being the spearhead of gay rights movement in Japan, so why do people in the west feel that it is their job to be that way?
I'm sure no one would argue that it's Nintendo's duty to fight for the rights of the downtrodden whoever they may be on the basis that they are a company that sells video games for profit.
It's not the job of localization to add features, that's the job of the original developers at NoJ. And the developers at NoJ have no incentive to modify the design document after the main game has already gone gold. It makes no business sense or practical sense to make it this way and is completely infeasible by design standards. For whatever reason, financial or practical, they decided not to pursue making it a feature. This is also likely because games about heterosexual couples come out here in the west all of the time, I can find several about them just looking at a list of recently released games, and no one raises a fit about it except this one time.Silvershock said:
Still following along, or do you need help?
Why should they be given fewer options because of this?Therumancer said:
I'm really hoping you're not saying we should turn our backs on equal treatment in order to placate people.Therumancer said:
I have never seen an argument that gay people should be shown in "equal number", and I'm pretty well informed on this subject. I'm pretty certain that's just an imaginary argument, invented by people who want to smear the cause for gay representation.Therumancer said:
May I just ask-- do you consider it "intrusive straight content" when a straight character flirts with your character in a game, or does the sexuality of it simply not enter into it when it's straight?Therumancer said:
You seriously implied that acceptance of homosexuality may lead to acceptance of polygamists who force male children out?Therumancer said:
You are deliberately associating me-- and anyone else who loves the same gender, through no choice of their own-- with those actions. You cannot just say something so incredibly hurtful, and personal, and then say you're not going to "get into" it.
Okay, I'm usually on the same page as you on these issues, Jim, but after watching this video, I have to ask the question: What the fuck are you talking about? Setting aside the issue of (in my opinion) Nintendo not saying what you implied that they said, how can you reasonably claim that including something that is a current social hot topic is not a socially political comment while excluding the same automatically is? Whether positive or negative, publicly taking a stance on gay marriage at this time(and especially in Japan where there is no clear majority of support for it) is absolutely making a political comment, as there is a lot of politics involved in the issue right now(as you yourself mentioned later in the video).
Actively taking a stance on pro-blacks or pro-women's rights isn't a political issue because the laws involving those topics are well established and long standing, so taking a negative stance on that is only bigoted, not politically controversial. The laws involving gay marriage are currently in flux, so taking a negative or positive stance on that is political(though being negative is no less bigoted).
On the other hand, I also don't believe that one is making a socially political comment either by including or excluding unless one intends to. Not everyone cares about social politics, and despite what some of the more abrasive members of out community might claim, you don't fall into the "against" column by default if you don't proudly proclaim that you are "for." You aren't part of the problem simply by not actively trying to be part of the solution. The only way to be part of the problem is by actively campaigning against gay marriage.
And that isn't what's going on here. Nintendo is a Japanese company. There is no gay marriage in Japan, no laws concerning property distribution for gay couples, and no great majority of Japanese citizens campaigning for a change in that regard. When a company from such a background says that they had no intentions of making socially political commentary through their games, I believe them, and I can't see any way to claim otherwise without coming off as a demagogue.
It's important to remember that there is a difference between you inferring something and them implying it. Intent matters, and trying to put words into someone's mouth to further your own political agenda is a bad, bad thing regardless of how benign the agenda itself is. It's the difference between your usual episodes, which are pointed commentary calling out the bullshit that people in the industry try to get away with, and this one, which comes off like a feminazi's blog reading rape intent in every word a man says or writes.
Remember: just because you are offended does not mean that they were offensive.
Actively taking a stance on pro-blacks or pro-women's rights isn't a political issue because the laws involving those topics are well established and long standing, so taking a negative stance on that is only bigoted, not politically controversial. The laws involving gay marriage are currently in flux, so taking a negative or positive stance on that is political(though being negative is no less bigoted).
On the other hand, I also don't believe that one is making a socially political comment either by including or excluding unless one intends to. Not everyone cares about social politics, and despite what some of the more abrasive members of out community might claim, you don't fall into the "against" column by default if you don't proudly proclaim that you are "for." You aren't part of the problem simply by not actively trying to be part of the solution. The only way to be part of the problem is by actively campaigning against gay marriage.
And that isn't what's going on here. Nintendo is a Japanese company. There is no gay marriage in Japan, no laws concerning property distribution for gay couples, and no great majority of Japanese citizens campaigning for a change in that regard. When a company from such a background says that they had no intentions of making socially political commentary through their games, I believe them, and I can't see any way to claim otherwise without coming off as a demagogue.
It's important to remember that there is a difference between you inferring something and them implying it. Intent matters, and trying to put words into someone's mouth to further your own political agenda is a bad, bad thing regardless of how benign the agenda itself is. It's the difference between your usual episodes, which are pointed commentary calling out the bullshit that people in the industry try to get away with, and this one, which comes off like a feminazi's blog reading rape intent in every word a man says or writes.
Remember: just because you are offended does not mean that they were offensive.
I'm sorry, but that is so much bullshit, and it's that sort of thinking that ruined Squeenix until they made Bravely Default and realized how much bullshit it is. You cannot compare a work of art, be it a game, book, movie, etc, to a banal retail slogan. Granted, I wouldn't compare this Tomadachi thing to a well written novel or anything, but trying to cater to the largest audience possible is one of the worst trends in big media right now. A developer is under no obligation to make a game that caters to your tastes, and you are under no obligation to buy a game you don't like. Learn to love the niche, for it is your friend. Better to have games you love and loathe than a market full of "meh."Jasper van Heycop said:
Japanese developers catering to western markets is the worst thing to happen to Japanese games.
To me this situation seems comparable of accusing eastern developers of pedophilia for the sexualization of girls that appear to be about 10 years old in many eastern videogames. First, the lack of homosexuals wasn't inherently hateful, 2nd, their game is perfectly acceptable in the society that the developers were living in and where the original market for the game was. If you aren't comfortable playing a game that doesn't allow homosexual options, simply avoid the game like people that aren't comfortable with sexualized 10 year old girls avoid games with them in it. Calling out the developers in a foreign culture for homophobia because of the lack of homosexual relationships seems as arrogant as calling out eastern devs for pedophilia for the presence of sexy 10 year old girls. Why as a culture should we let sexy 10 year old girls slide but not the lack of same sex couples? As long as they aren't preaching hatred, intolerance, or violence (which is better then what some american developers can claim) let them be, imo. I mean, really? Of all the violent shit that is perfectly acceptable in videogames, the lack of same sex marriage isn't?
1. People asked for this game that came out last year in only japan and wanting them to put in something that never really existed in the game is basically asking them to move a mountain.Jasper van Heycop said:
2. Going by state and country legislation, They ARE catering to AMERICA. And that's not even factoring in the causal and young crowd this is targeted to, not the hip generation that contain the people perfectly fine with loving whoever you want to love. So be more upset it isn't the normal in your country first before your upset it isn't normal in some other countries video game.
3. Last maybe the issue is to mature for a group of people willing to go off on a SJW tirade then bother to check the facts.
Possibly yes, but probably no. Do you have any idea how much work what you might consider a "minor" feature can take to implement? How much coding is involved, how many bugs could result? Unless the game was coded with the intention of adding such features from the start, adding something as seemingly simple as your suggestion could take a lot of time and effort, more so than what usually goes into localizing an already existing game. This is usually only done when a developer is required to censor a game by another country's law, not to broaden a game beyond its original intent.themilo504 said:
This doesn't make any sense. Like, at all. Unless the programmers behind tomodatchi life are idiots, allowing gay marriage shouldn't require more code changes than a couple of lines here and there. Which is about as much as those other changes would require. I mean, it should just require a change to some if statements. That really should be it.Eve Charm said:
I didn't see anyone mention this but i certainly didn't read all the comments but whatever.
The bug that allowed for male/male marriage just tagged a male character as female randomly, even if they could have left it in it would not have been a good idea since you can't control it. Also a tagged character would only be able to marry other male characters, basically meaning your character would randomly be made gay and all other males would be gay only for him. As a completed project adding in gay characters is unrealistic without a massive overhaul, but doing it from the ground up it would have been minor in the grand scale of things. But this also means the positive aspect of the bug can be recreated exactly as it was by making a female character with male ascetics. The most you can say Nintendo did is remove the uncontrollable element of it.
The bug that allowed for male/male marriage just tagged a male character as female randomly, even if they could have left it in it would not have been a good idea since you can't control it. Also a tagged character would only be able to marry other male characters, basically meaning your character would randomly be made gay and all other males would be gay only for him. As a completed project adding in gay characters is unrealistic without a massive overhaul, but doing it from the ground up it would have been minor in the grand scale of things. But this also means the positive aspect of the bug can be recreated exactly as it was by making a female character with male ascetics. The most you can say Nintendo did is remove the uncontrollable element of it.