Nintendo Apologizes For Not Allowing Same-Sex Relationships In Life Sim Game

An anonymous reader writes "Nintendo has been taking heat recently for their decision not to allow same sex relationships in Tomodachi Life, an upcoming life simulation game for the 3DS. An advocacy group for LGBT issues said, 'In purposefully limiting players' relationship options, Nintendo is not only sending a hurtful message to many of its fans and consumers by excluding them, but also setting itself way behind the times.' The group also pointed out that The Sims allowed such choices over a decade ago. Nintendo originally replied that the game was not intended to be social commentary, and pointed out that the U.S. release of Tomodachi Life is just a localization of the Japanese version (gay marriage is not legal in Japan). Now Nintendo has officially apologized for 'failing to include same-sex relationships' in the game, and they promised to build a more inclusive experience if they make a sequel."

Comments

Japanese version?

[ArcadeMan]

So, I can marry my purple tentacle with my demon-hunter magical schoolgirl?

Overreacting

[duke_cheetah2003]

This is just dumb. It's a game!

I'm all for LGBT rights and such, but really to criticize a game just cuz it don't include your sexual orientation..? I dunno about that. What's next? Is the LGBT community going to demand air time in Disney cartoons next?

Besides, no one complained about Harvest Moon, another game that only permits heterosexual marriages. So what! It's a game!

Re:Overreacting

[QuasiSteve]

Now read that with s/LGBT/Black/

Not that I completely disagree, but if you're going to make a 'life simulation' game localized to a given market, then it's not all that far-fetched to make it reflect the (aggregate) society of that localization, or accept that you'll get complaints if you don't.

Ultimately Nintendo's solution is to say "we'll look at it IF we make a sequel" - it's not much of a commitment, more of a PR strategy.

Re:Overreacting

[pla]

Now read that with s/LGBT/animals/.

Now read that with s/LGBT/power tools/.

I completely support the right of gays to marry (to the extent that I support any marriage, an institution I wholly reject, as does my long-term partner). But this amounts to a purely manufactured controversy. The game contains what it contains; don't like it? Don't play it. Send a message with your wallet, rather than pissing and moaning about a game you didn't create not behaving like you want it to.

Re:Overreacting

[QuasiSteve]

Now read that with s/LGBT/animals/.

Now read that with s/LGBT/power tools/.

Yes, and that's the 'slippery slope' argument one could make.

However, "reflect the (aggregate) society of that localization". What society are you living in where you can legally marry animals and/or power tools, and are either of those characters that you [i]can[/i] play as in the first place?

Re:Overreacting

[Andtalath]

It's entertainment.
Entertainment in a large fashion dictates what is ok and normal.
Every bit of acceptance is good.

This is also the matter of people noticing that a feature is lacking in their game.
It's the same type of complaint, in a fashion, as when you can't play games in a LAN unless you are connected to the internet.
It's an unneccesary addition specifically not allowing two people to get together.

Re:Overreacting

[Guppy06]

Why are LGBT discriminated against if not for how they're portrayed (or deliberately not portrayed) in art and culture?

Re:Overreacting

[Antique Geekmeister]

For younger contributors, I do remember the first 'interracial', actually the first black/white, kiss on television. It was on Star Trek, and it caused some fascinating chats among my friends

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

It did cause a lot of controversy at the time. Among my very few contacts from so long ago, the universal agreement is that Nichelle Nichols was, and remains, a stunning woman woman whom any of us would be proud to have kissed at any point in her career.

Re:Overreacting

[Noxal]

The game contains what it contains; don't like it? Don't play it. Send a message with your wallet, rather than pissing and moaning about a game you didn't create not behaving like you want it to.
How about I do both?

Re:Overreacting

[thesandtiger]

Kind of funny that you're using YOUR voice to suggest other people shouldn't use theirs.

You're pissing and moaning on Slashdot because other people aren't behaving how you want them to.

Speaking with your wallet and your wallet alone does nothing - how do the people you're boycotting know why you're boycotting? Speaking up with your wallet and your voice is far more powerful.

Re:Overreacting

[jez9999]

I'm all for LGBT rights and such, but really to criticize a game just cuz it don't include your sexual orientation..? I dunno about that. What's next? Is the LGBT community going to demand air time in Disney cartoons next?

No... but they might start demanding that CEOs be fired for small private contributions to a campaign whose message is contrary to their opinion about how marriage should be redefined...

Re:Overreacting

[ArcadeMan]

As an anime catgirl lover, I strongly oppose all games which don't offer me cute anime catgirls as a character choice.

Re:Overreacting

[QuasiSteve]

What about adoption? Children without marriage? Poly-amorous relationships? Common enough in my area that no one blinks an eye, and yet they're not in the game.

Yes, but then you're actually arguing my point for me. Marriage is in the game. It's just that there's a check in the code that says "if (MiiA.gender == m && MiiB.gender == f) { okiedoke; }" which quite actively blocks two male or two female Miis from marrying each other.

Unless, of course, you view 'gay marriage' as distinctly different from 'straight marriage', because then your argument makes sense.

Re:Overreacting

[Bing Tsher E]

You consider it relevant whether games 'validate' you? How sad.

Re:Overreacting

[AdamHaun]

I'm all for LGBT rights and such, but really to criticize a game just cuz it don't include your sexual orientation..?

You're talking like this is a small thing, like the game didn't include their exact hair color or that one shirt they like to wear. People were upset because Nintendo was pretending that their relationship with their spouse did not and could not exist. That's not a small thing in a "life simulator", nor is it an attitude that's limited to games. And when Nintendo was called on it, they tried to dodge the issue rather than confronting it.

A better question is, what about this bothers you so much? Regardless of what kind of product it is, customers (potential and actual) have every right to criticize it. This is core game functionality. What's wrong with talking about it?

What's next? Is the LGBT community going to demand air time in Disney cartoons next?

I'm not sure what you're exactly trying to say with that, but Disney might be a bit ahead of you there.

Re:Overreacting

[QuasiSteve]

By all means, offer up a better parallel. Not that these issues should need parallels, but some people apparently do.

QS

Re:Overreacting

[BrendaEM]

I validate my pathetic existence by fighting ignorance.

Re:Overreacting

[Idarubicin]

Now read that with s/LGBT/Black/

Now read that with s/LGBT/animals/.

Which is totally sound reasoning, if you would like to make the assertion that "LGBT people", "black people", and "animals" are all proper subsets of the group "people". Or, alternatively, that "LGBT people", "black people", and "animals" are all not subsets of the group "people". Which one of those arguments did you want to plant your flag on?

Don't play it. Send a message with your wallet, rather than pissing and moaning about a game you didn't create not behaving like you want it to.

Welcome to America, where we have now passed through the stage where money is equivalent to speech and reached the point where money is the only socially-acceptable form of speech.

Don't like what other people are saying about the game, pla? Guess you should stop pissing and moaning about it, and just not give any money to the people whose behaviour you disagree with. You know--follow your own advice.

Re:Overreacting

[I'm New Around Here]

The problem your argument faces is that age-based consent is purely a legal fiction based on the culture the people are part of. Just as the culture was mostly against homosexuality but now accepts it, the same could happen with pedophilia. If it does, you would come across as bigoted for your stance against it.

Re:Overreacting

[Atzanteol]

This is just dumb. It's a game!

I'm all for LGBT rights and such, but really to criticize a game just cuz it don't include your sexual orientation..? I dunno about that.

Of course you don't. You're well represented. Now imagine you're a 14-year old suddenly realizing that you're different from 90% of the rest of the culture. And that there still exists taboos telling you that *how you are* is somehow wrong. In fact there is an entire section of the population telling you that you are immoral through no fault of your own. In fact there's a very real fear that you could be disappointing your family if you admit it to them.

NOW try to picture sitting at home playing a game to relax and realizing that even here there you are an outcast.

Sure in the big picture "it's just a game." But what's wrong with people who are struggling for acceptance as it is pushing back to get greater acceptance in every area of life - including games?

Where's the apology for lack of Polyagmy?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a family friendly company they completely dropped the ball when it comes to living my virtual harem fantasies.

Jesus christ

[Anonymous Coward]

The game is offensive unless it allows relationships between ethereal giraffe genderqueer fursonas and tri-curious pansexual midget doctors. Right?

Is it so bad that people just want to make a game that reflects the relationships the majority of people on Earth have? Do they really have to support every sexual minority to be "fair"?

Re:Jesus christ

[Vapula]

They HAD to program that test, excluding same-sex marriages, because such marriages are illegal in Japan (and in many countries).

Allowing it would have have to be on a country basis... and that'd have required much more work than a single test. Don't forget that english-localized games are send in many more countries than only USA.

And I don't even talk about the nightmare if the two protagonist don't live in the same country and are playing through internet, one in a country where same-sex marriage is allowed and one where it's illegal.

Nintendo choice was the one requiring the less work and presenting the less legal risk.

Re:Jesus christ

[Missing.Matter]

They HAD to program that test, excluding same-sex marriages, because such marriages are illegal in Japan (and in many countries).

What? These are not real marriages we are talking about. These are pretend marriages between pretend characters. Murder is also illegal in Japan but there are plenty of Japanese video games, television shows, movies, books etc. depicting murder. Ever seen Battle Royale? You want to tell me the that shit is legal in Japan?

Re:First World Problems

[Sique]

Actually, the complaint arised when two people who owned already the game found out they couldn't have their Mii characters marry in the game. But let a fact not spoil your rant. Keep up the good work!

Re:Kind of understandable from Nintendo

[BrendaEM]

Is 1:10 people really an anomaly?

Nintendo is not for first timers

[tepples]

Even with a Kickstarter campaign, how would such people come up with the "relevant game industry experience", "stable business organization", and "list of published game titles" that Nintendo expects?

Montgomery transit boycott

[tepples]

Racial equality wasn't achieved by black people voting with their wallets.

Are you claiming that the Montgomery, AL, transit boycott of 1955-1956 didn't help?

Re:Montgomery transit boycott

[Bing Tsher E]

Correct. People didn't free themselves through valiant Civil Rights struggle.

Bureaucrats and Politicians in Washington did it for them. And they should get down on their knees and thank them every day for it!

Re:First World Problems

[Vapula]

LGBT is 1% of Nintendo Buyers.
And most LGBT people won't care/complain...

So, it'll be 1/10000, 1/20000 or even less (don't forget that Nintendo primary commercial targets are children and Japan where same sex union is illegal) who could decide to not buy the game... unlikely to have any impact to Nintendo profitability...

And if Nintendo decides to implement it, it'll require lots of extra-development as they'll have to comply with local laws of some countries (including their own) where same sex union is forbidden. which means lots of extra costs...

And maybe as many (or more) people *not* buying the game because same sex union is allowed in it and they are strongly opposed to it...

Re:They're 5% of the population

[s.petry]

Try approximately 1% of the population. The wiki here shows 3.8% average but when you look at how they estimate numbers their estimates are grossly incorrect. For example people that express "curiosity" are counted, as are those that may have experimented at some point in time. Here is a quote to show the inaccuracy clearly.

According to the Williams Institute review conducted in April 2011, approximately 3.80 % of American adults identify themselves being in the LBGT community; wherein, (1.70%) identify as lesbian or gay, bisexual (1.80%), and/or transgender (0.30%);

The way they get the 3.8% number is to tally up all of the results, yet there is no control preventing people from answering to multiple categories. Depending on who is running the study, bisexuals may automatically be counted as lesbian or gay. Other studies may ask the questions separately, but a bisexual person would normally respond that they have same sex relationships so are also lesbian or gay. People identifying themselves as transgender are bisexual, gay, or lesbian (don't make the mistake of jumping to circular reasoning on that one) almost all of the time.

Re:What this means is...

[ArcadeMan]

Wouldn't it be easier to have the games check for the console's country setting and do things differently according to national laws?

Damned If they do. Damned if they don't

[captjc]

Nintendo is going to be blasted either way. As a game that is rated for everyone, and as a company that is seen as a children's toy company, if they included it, the latest controversy will be that this toy company is trying to indoctrinate everyone's precious little snowflakes into the homosexual agenda. I'm sure that either Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or and one of the Fox News cadre will call for a boycott of all Nintendo products and all the ignorant middle age assholes that actually give credence to what these people say will be going around with signs saying, "God hates Mario" or whatever. While Nintendo isn't as utterly screwed as the media like to portray it as, that kind of bad publicity would put them into a very bad place.

However, the big problem was that same sex relationships were possible in the Japanese version of the game via what Nintendo calls a "bug." If it was never possible in the first place, it could have been defended as a simple design decision, but by having it possible and getting rid of it, the media is spinning it as some sort of social commentary by Nintendo. So, by fixing the bug, now they are getting the wrath of the LGBT community and are facing the kind of bad publicity that they really don't need right now.

Basically, all this will do is ensure that these kind of social simulators will remain as Japan only.

Look at it from a different perspective

[cardpuncher]

These are just avatars in a game. Someone actively decided that certain rules would apply to their interactions - there was no necessity to impose any societal values on those interactions, players would simply have applied those values they felt appropriate for themselves. In other words, the developers decided to impose their own vision of societal norms when there was no real need to do so.

This is a very similar issue to the "emoji racism" campaign - someone actively designed the almost-exclusively-white characters, even though there was no functional or other requirement to exclude black faces. It almost certainly wasn't concious racism - they just failed to think beyond their limited personal experience and reflect the wider world.

That's a reasonable thing to call out.

Re:Negativity

[BrendaEM]

More girls are raped than boys, so it would seem that more pedophiles are heterosexual.

Re:Kind of understandable from Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

Is 1:10 people really an anomaly?

1 out of 10 people being homosexual is a gross exaggeration. That number includes bisexuals and any heterosexuals who admitted to a survey monkey of having once had a homosexual thought. 9/10 adults are straight to the core, and 9/10 of the 1/10 are 99.9% straight.

Re:Kind of understandable from Nintendo

[Vapula]

If you take recent studies done to correct population sampling (more than 100000 people, randomly selected), you fall under 5% for LGBT (some studies made on more than 500000 people lead to less than 3%)

In most of these studies, Bisexual account usually for half of the people which leads to 1-2% homosexuals...

Can 1-2% be called an anomaly ?

Re:Kind of understandable from Nintendo

[RazorSharp]

Is 1:10 people really an anomaly?

1:10 where? San Francisco, the United States, the world? I'd like to see an objective source that validates that statistic. I hear people throw it around a lot but I've never seen it verified.

Any organism that actively engages in a behavior that inhibits its ability to reproduce is an anomaly. That's just a basic understanding of how natural selection works. Humans, with our self-reflecting consciousness, have a great tendency to do anomalous things as our behavior is more than mere impulse, so I don't mean it as a disparaging remark. I personally don't want to reproduce because I don't think the human race needs to increase our numbers at this time, and this type of decision makes me an anomaly among organisms.

I can't stand the California attitude that evolution is a hardened fact yet being a homosexual is like being born to a ultra-special race that must be cherished and insulated from anything that might possibly be misconstrued as a slight against their amazing specialness. Do I believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against? No. Do I think they should be able to marry? I don't believe that marriage should be a legal status among straights or homosexuals. Call your partnership with your significant other whatever you want to call it. Do I think that every TV show and movie and video game should have token gay people? No. At a certain point the pursuit of inclusiveness makes a spectacle of those included. It used to be the token black guy who always had something snappy to say. Now it's the token gay guy. I guess next up will be the token tranny.

Re:Secret guidelines

[MBGMorden]

Mass Effect and Dragon Age both had same-sex relationship options, and both were available on Xbox and Playstation, so those platforms certainly don't restrict that from appearing on there. Not sure about Nintento and iOS, but I doubt they'd ban the concept on the entire platform.

Besides - the whole thing has gotten a bit silly lately anyways. Dragon Age 2 not only allowed same-sex relationships, but made it so that EVERY character capable of starting a romance could enter into a relationship with your character regardless of your gender. That effectively removes heterosexuality from the game and renders everyone bisexual, which is in no way realistic.

Re:First World Problems

[Drew_9999]

LGBT is 1% of Nintendo Buyers.

Citation?

Re: First World Problems

[_xeno_]

Because marriage in the game is intended to produce children (note: not applying that to reality at this time, please don't argue that), and having two characters of the same sex breaks the game when it attempts to determine which character is the father and which is the mother.

It was literally a crash bug, which is why they patched it out.

Re:Kind of understandable from Nintendo

[Anubis IV]

In the US, the number is closer to 1:27, since only 3.8% of the population identify as LGBT. Other research on the topic indicates that social pressure may be pushing that number down, but that even if everyone who was LGBT identified as LGBT, the number would still only be around 5% of the US' population.

For some perspective on whether or not 3.8-5% gets considered to be an anomaly, I have Morton's toe, which occurs in about 10% of the population, yet it's still considered an anomaly. If an uncontroversial variation of the human human toe with 2-3x more occurrences than the thing you're asking about is still considered an anomaly, then it seems to me that you've already answered your own question.

Mind you, I'm not prescribing that it should be called that. I'm merely describing that, given the numbers and other occurrences against which we might compare it, it seems like it would fall in line with being called as such. Take it with some salt.

Re:Thank God

[davester666]

We're sorry we didn't do it in this universe, but we might do it in an alternate, parallel universe. Try switching to other universe to see.

Re:Kind of understandable from Nintendo

[Noxal]

I'm a ginger too, you insensitive clod!

National and Natural Laws in Games

[billstewart]

Video games don't even have to obey the laws of physics, much less national and local laws. It's nice if they can at least obey the laws of Cartoon Physics consistently, for whatever version of that they choose to implement.

Is there a Japanese-localized version of Grand Theft Auto?

Re:Kind of understandable from Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, most transgender people consider "tranny" to be a slur.

And I don't know many LGBT people who are thrilled with the idea of the "token" gay character either, because such a character is always played for laughs. I can't tell you who's being pandered to there, but it's sure not us. I value the few instances of deep characters who happen to be gay, just because sometimes people are gay.

Re:bah!

[Khyber]

"Society is sure bending over for something like 1% of the population."

One percent? You'd better start citing sources.