Some of you probably already know it by now, but the new Nintendo game for 3DS, "Tomodachi Life", a game kind of similar to The Sims (sort of), lacks the option of same sex relationship. This has started a campaign by a guy from Arizona called Tye Marini (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=808594) and... well, the rest is becoming history, as Nintendo is getting kind of a backlash.

Some examples:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-05-07-nintendo-refuses-to-allow-same-sex-relationships-in-tomodachi-life
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27321200

Personally, I hope they can add the option for same sex relationships, it just makes sense imho.

What do you think?

Everything can be made better by adding lesbians.

I don't see the big deal. It's just a video game for god sake!

Edit: Maybe the could make a "Gay Persons" DLC. Let's face it, atleast it will add some wanted content! :D

Well, the response from Nintendo is certainly quite hollow. They say they "did not intend to make any form of social commentary", but surely they must have realized that they can't avoid doing so no matter how they style their game. Leaving LGBT characters out of a life simulation game is as much of a social commentary as putting them in. Nintendo certainly have a choice of which commentary to make, but they don't have the option to not make one at all. Not when they are releasing a life simulation game.

Hmm yeah I can see that it's a tricky one, Nintendo are saying that they didn't want to engage in 'social commentary' but I'm not sure that's possible any more - you're making 'social commentary' whether you include same-sex relationships or not
As the game is base on people Miis that are designed to represent themselves, be 'avatars' or whatever, it DOES seem a little exclusionary, I guess.
In general I'm not sure EVERY game should be forced to include same sex relationships (or even hetero relationships and have same sex exclusively, if that's what the designer wants) on the grounds of artistic choice but here it seems like they should include everyone for that Mii, avatar reason!
Heh I suppose they could include the tanooki suit, officially as a nod to Mario but secretly for the furries!

Nintendo often seems to take conservative approachs to content. Although homosexuality is becoming more socially acceptable, there are still groups not open to it - even just a few years ago it'd have been just as likely people would boycott a game allowing same sex relationships (possibly there'd still be backlash).

What I find odd is the compulsion of social groups to demand inclusion in all areas of reference. The GLBT community is about 10% of the population, but now it's seen ODD that a game doesn't include the option for gay characters (when they constitute a significant minority). I'm a vegetarian and many games outright don't allow any option for vegetarianism (i.e. Don't Starve, Rogue Legacy, The Pit, etc) - that doesn't mean the developers are "anti" vegetarian, just that vegetarianism isn't part of their world view or practical to implement considering their target audience. As an atheist in Texas it's impossible to escape religious references or content, that doesn't mean the world is full of hate... just that my religious views are such a minority they many aren't likely to consider them as a gut reaction innocently endorsing religious views out of ignorance of my perspective more than spite.

It's not as bad as Chic-Fillet and I'm not a P.C. whore but yeah, that was pretty bad of Nintendo. I'm just wondering if it was deliberate or they just didn't think to include it.

Its obvious the whole reason nintendo did not include LGBT because they do not want to get flak from the Parent groups,Right Wing Politics, and Christian nuts that fears their children will be perverted by "Sodomites"

Its either flak from the Gay Community or flak from the 3 groups. Basically Nintendo is screwed either way :P

10% is not a "significant minority", it's a significant minority. Said minority is expressing disappointment at its exclusion and you're aware of it, that's how you know it's significant.

Comparing the menu in a game about killing monsters and relationship choices in a game about relationships is stupid. Yes, if it was a game about managing a restaurant, it'd be weird if none of the customers are vegetarian. But you're still an idiot for making the comparison, because vegetarians are not a persecuted minority.

Comparing food choices and family relationships is stupid, fullstop.

PS. Rogue Legacy's drumsticks are an affront to God.

I could care less, but not much.

More crying about nothing. People nowadays need more important things to worry about.

Bingo. Oh, poor persecuted homos... Let's include them in a video game, maybe that'll make them feel more appreciated. ;P

I keep reading of how the Russian gaming market is becoming ever more important; maybe Nintendo feared this game would be banned there if same-sex relationships were included, what with Putin's much-publicized laws against "gay propaganda directed toward minors" (something like that, can't remember the exact wording). Kidding aside... Well said. It's also rather puzzling to me that this, of all things - a casual Nintendo game - gets picked as a "battleground", in a world where openly gay people of many countries risk life imprisonment and even the death penalty. I would think that there are thousands of much more important issues to raise.

I like the fact that the same sex relationships in Skyrim is due to the developer not thinking about it :)

(i.e. they forgot to set the flag for sex, so all characters can marry whatever character they want)

I had a same sex relationship in The Sims and the game made me end it....true. Okay she also happened to be my housekeeper and it did give me the option, end the ralationship or fire her.