Nintendo Says No To Same Sex Relationships For Tomodachi Miis

[gargantual]

Let em fling mud at nintendo. At least the hyper critique'll move onto new pastures and layoff the dudebro games....

for now....

This game-representational angerfests is a little overheated than it needs to be IMO. The guy who started off this hashtag is making a sincere request in his campaign. Which a few of us out here could take note of.
where one game doesn't give options, another will. If Nintendo's appearing culturally regressive oh well but they'll likely fix their content for the sequel for their audiences sake. But its not like Nintendo is 'contractually' or 'legally' obligated to balance things out. So best not to fling accusations of homophobia, and deliberate regression at em.

and the chick fil-a comparison? Come on...really?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think that's fair enough. Nintendo is the developer and if they don't want same-sex relationships in their game then that is their decision.

No news there, of course everybody is free to be as discriminatory as they want. Is it good though?

Ultimately we are talking about videogame with fictional characters, so when people start saying "why don't those fictional videogame characters behave the way I want them to?", I find it a little hard to take them seriously.

I find it a little hard NOT to take them seriously. The game is marketed with this line:

"Your friends. Your drama. Your life."

I'm not saying you're supposed to replicate every single aspect of your life in a game that is, ostensibly, "your life", but you should have the option right? It's a game about human relationships, I think it would've been wonderful if it would've allowed people to experience the relationships they always wanted but never had. And I guess that was the idea in the first place, but Nintendo didn't think things through.

 

[deadish]

I think that's fair enough. Nintendo is the developer and if they don't want same-sex relationships in their game then that is their decision.

No news there, of course everybody is free to be as discriminatory as they want. Is it good though?

"discriminatory"? Refusing to create a product that fits your specific preferences is "discriminatory" now?

Damn Macdonlds, I demand a steak. What?! They don't serve steak? Obviously they are discriminating against steak lovers! How dare they?!!!

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

I think that's fair enough. Nintendo is the developer and if they don't want same-sex relationships in their game then that is their decision.

No news there, of course everybody is free to be as discriminatory as they want. Is it good though?

Ultimately we are talking about videogame with fictional characters, so when people start saying "why don't those fictional videogame characters behave the way I want them to?", I find it a little hard to take them seriously.

I find it a little hard NOT to take them seriously. The game is marketed with this line:

"Your friends. Your drama. Your life."

I'm not saying you're supposed to replicate every single aspect of your life in a game that is, ostensibly, "your life", but you should have the option right? It's a game about human relationships, I think it would've been wonderful if it would've allowed people to experience the relationships they always wanted but never had. And I guess that was the idea in the first place, but Nintendo didn't think things through.

But Nintendo specifically said this wasn't supposed to be some kind of real-life simulator.

Yes, people are allowed to suggest homosexual relationships as an option. That is their wish/want for the game. But they are overstepping the line if they start calling it homophobic/discriminatory, which I'm glad you didn't do

 

[deadish]

I think that's fair enough. Nintendo is the developer and if they don't want same-sex relationships in their game then that is their decision.

No news there, of course everybody is free to be as discriminatory as they want. Is it good though?

"discriminatory"? Refusing to create a product that fits your specific preferences is "discriminatory" now?

Damn Macdonlds, I demand a steak. What?! They don't serve steak? Obviously they are discriminating against steak lovers! How dare they?!!!

It's discriminatory like leaving interracial marriages out would be. Not fixing the glitch, but leaving them out in the first place.

I'm sorry. But just because the product is not to your liking doesn't make "discriminatory".

If they disallow you from buying their product/providing service, because of your race, gender, sexual orientation ... etc., yes that is discrimination. But if the product being sold isn't to your liking, that's your problem.

 

[deadish]

I think that's fair enough. Nintendo is the developer and if they don't want same-sex relationships in their game then that is their decision.

No news there, of course everybody is free to be as discriminatory as they want. Is it good though?

"discriminatory"? Refusing to create a product that fits your specific preferences is "discriminatory" now?

Damn Macdonlds, I demand a steak. What?! They don't serve steak? Obviously they are discriminating against steak lovers! How dare they?!!!

It's discriminatory like leaving interracial marriages out would be. Not fixing the glitch, but leaving them out in the first place.

I'm sorry. But just because the product is not to your liking doesn't make "discriminatory".

Please point out where I said "Not to my liking." Stop trying to change my argument.

If they disallow you from buying their product/providing service, because of your race, gender, sexual orientation ... etc., yes that is discrimination. But if the product being sold isn't to your liking, that's your problem.

The liking thing is something of your imagination.

If it's not "not to your liking", why are you complaining in this thread? It should be a non-issue to you. Yet here you are ...

Rosa Parks is rolling in her grave.

 

[deadish]

I think that's fair enough. Nintendo is the developer and if they don't want same-sex relationships in their game then that is their decision.

No news there, of course everybody is free to be as discriminatory as they want. Is it good though?

"discriminatory"? Refusing to create a product that fits your specific preferences is "discriminatory" now?

Damn Macdonlds, I demand a steak. What?! They don't serve steak? Obviously they are discriminating against steak lovers! How dare they?!!!

It's discriminatory like leaving interracial marriages out would be. Not fixing the glitch, but leaving them out in the first place.

I'm sorry. But just because the product is not to your liking doesn't make "discriminatory".

Please point out where I said "Not to my liking." Stop trying to change my argument.

If they disallow you from buying their product/providing service, because of your race, gender, sexual orientation ... etc., yes that is discrimination. But if the product being sold isn't to your liking, that's your problem.

The liking thing is something of your imagination.

If it's not "not to your liking", why are you complaining in this thread? It should be a non-issue to you. Yet here you are ...

Rosa Parks is rolling in her grave.

I pointed out how it's discrimination. You didn't address that. Me not liking something and it being discriminatory aren't mutually exclusive.

Just because you don't like that people point out you support discrimination doesn't mean it isn't true.

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy has no African-Americans in them nor any Asians. It's all white people. Should I file a lawsuit for discrimination?

I'm sorry. It's not discrimination if some subset of society isn't "represented" in a product.

 

[Mike Lemond]

For some reason, I believed the readers of The Escapist were more intelligent than readers of most other websites. Turns out, they're just as rabid and reactionary as any other group. It's really a shame.

For all the unnecessary hatred, threats, and misdirected rage this "LMNOPQ community" has been spewing out, it's looking more and more like a terrorist organization.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think that's fair enough. Nintendo is the developer and if they don't want same-sex relationships in their game then that is their decision.

No news there, of course everybody is free to be as discriminatory as they want. Is it good though?

"discriminatory"? Refusing to create a product that fits your specific preferences is "discriminatory" now?

Damn Macdonlds, I demand a steak. What?! They don't serve steak? Obviously they are discriminating against steak lovers! How dare they?!!!

That would be funny if the analogy worked, but as it stands you're comparing a product that claims to have a wider range than it actually offers, and a service that markets the only thing that it sells. Nobody thinks you can have steak at McDonald's, but a "life simulator" that needlessly limits human relationships is eye-catching.

 

[Mike Lemond]

So it's rabid and reactionary to point out they don't view gays equally, as they aren't treating them equally, but it isn't rabid and reactionary to call mere words without threat of any violence terrorism?

No need to fly off the handle here. I believe it was William Shakespeare who said, "Calm thy tits."

But yes. That is correct. Terrorism does not have to involve physical violence. For example, if a group makes people fear for their well being for expressing an unpopular opinion.

 

[Mike Lemond]

Then I'll expect you'll wait a rather long while, if you think the word "terrorism" automatically implies physical violence.

Shall I use a different word to describe the (string of random letters) community?

How about religion.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Well, that's one more company to add to the block list for homophobia.

Such a shame, I really liked Nintendo too.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge them, they've got to keep in mind what the current viewpoint in their home country is as opposed to what they may feel.

Home country view is irrelevant when they're so deeply involved with Western affairs.

Well to be fair, people asked for a game that was already made, be brought over for the west, so they did. Despite the bad reporting, this was never an option in the game, and the US version is the same code as the original version. the game wasn't made with western affairs in mind.

Then it should have been in the original game.

We didn't excuse Chik-fil-a for coming from a Christian background and we shouldn't excuse Nintendo here.

No, Japanese companies should not have to give into pressure from people that want to act like Ugly American{footnote] I say Americans, but I mean the West.[/footnote] towards a Japanese game that was made by a Japanese company and was targeted towards a Japanese audience. By all means don't buy the game, boycott it, get pissed off about it, or whatever but don't expect Nintendo to fall-in-line and only make games that abide by Western values.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

That would be funny if the analogy worked, but as it stands you're comparing a product that claims to have a wider range than it actually offers, and a service that markets the only thing that it sells. Nobody thinks you can have steak at McDonald's, but a "life simulator" that needlessly limits human relationships is eye-catching.

So then I assume that it would also "needlessly limi[t] human relationships" if the game didn't have corrupt politicians, tax collectors, verbally abusive boyfriends that go after girls with low confidence, or victims of violence and/or rape in the "life simulator"?

Seriously, since when does the game have to contain every aspect of human relationships?

 

[IceForce]

When it comes to issues of LGBTQ, if you're not with us then you're part of the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Furthermore, saying "if you're not with us, you're against us", means you're effectively making (more) enemies for yourself where there are none.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

Ya know, the sad thing is that I really do believe Nintendo when they say they weren't trying to make any social commentary. Unfortunately, because of how same-sex relationships are viewed in Japan, Nintendo probably didn't quite understand why this would be a big deal to their western audience.

That said, I can't see it as something that would be that hard to add in. If enough of their potential customers would like to see the feature included, and the bug proves it's completely possible, I can't see why they wouldn't at least consider it.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Ya know, the sad thing is that I really do believe Nintendo when they say they weren't trying to make any social commentary. Unfortunately, because of how same-sex relationships are viewed in Japan, Nintendo probably didn't quite understand why this would be a big deal to their western audience.

Oh they understand it just fine.

It's just that they are trying to stick to their vision and intention for the game. I know right, how dare a developer do that?

Also in Japan there is no such thing as "discrimination" in media/entertainment. There is a simple unspoken understanding that media/entertainment CAN aimed at certain demographics and target audiences (and not others), which is totally fine.

That's why you have all sorts of weird stuff coming out of Japan all the time and don't hear about people taking offence for not being catered to.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

That would be funny if the analogy worked, but as it stands you're comparing a product that claims to have a wider range than it actually offers, and a service that markets the only thing that it sells. Nobody thinks you can have steak at McDonald's, but a "life simulator" that needlessly limits human relationships is eye-catching.

So then I assume that it would also "needlessly limi[t] human relationships" if the game didn't have corrupt politicians, tax collectors, verbally abusive boyfriends that go after girls with low confidence, or victims of violence and/or rape in the "life simulator"?

Seriously, since when does the game have to contain every aspect of human relationships?

Not EVERY aspect but if dating is going to be a core factor of gameplay/simulation why restrict that to heterosexual relationships?

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

It's a simple decision, Nintendo. Despite your adamant stance on the subject, some traditions need to die due to its narrow-minded background.

Tradition related to procreation and the survival of our species is a "narrow minded background"?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

That would be funny if the analogy worked, but as it stands you're comparing a product that claims to have a wider range than it actually offers, and a service that markets the only thing that it sells. Nobody thinks you can have steak at McDonald's, but a "life simulator" that needlessly limits human relationships is eye-catching.

So then I assume that it would also "needlessly limi[t] human relationships" if the game didn't have corrupt politicians, tax collectors, verbally abusive boyfriends that go after girls with low confidence, or victims of violence and/or rape in the "life simulator"?

Seriously, since when does the game have to contain every aspect of human relationships?

Not EVERY aspect but if dating is going to be a core factor of gameplay/simulation why restrict that to heterosexual relationships?

Because the game was made by Japanese developers and it was created with Japanese people as the target audience and it shouldn't be a surprise that Japanese games might be reflective of Japanese cultural norms? If your looking for more reasons why, how about the fact that Japanese game developers should be forced to fall-in-line and conform to Western norms?