A Look at the Tomodachi Life Conundrum

I know I'm a tad late to the party regarding this particular story, but you guys know that when I end up reading something that gets me thinking I have to write on it. The aforementioned "something" was an opinion piece that was submitted to N4G earlier in May. Titled "You Should Be Upset About Tomodachi Life", the entirety of the opinion piece is structured in a way so as to make you (the reader) feel a need to demonize Nintendo and anyone who is on the company's side over the created issue of the lack of homosexual relationships in the game. The problem that I have with sensationalist journalism like this is that it is meant to cause a ruckus. It is designed to insight anger. Even the title itself is made to try to convince you that if you are on Nintendo's side or are indifferent to the issue, then you are wrong and should join the side opposing Nintendo. This is where opinions get to be completely out of control.

There are a couple of points that I want to cover here. One, the opinion piece which I will detail here and how it fails as an informative article. Two, gamers trying to bring about equal representation in games through discussion, but not formulating their argument enough which leads it to sounding more like snobbish entitlement. This sort of thing can lead into a whole other dialogue about the integrity of journalism and how far downhill it has gone. Trust me, I will get to that in the near future.

As for the opinion piece, I couldn't help but be baffled at what I was reading. The author was essentially making a case against the arguments in support of Nintendo. As I was going down the list, his writing became more and more aggressive. It also became apparent that he completely veered off into unrelated territory that had absolutely nothing to do with this topic. My mouth dropped at one instance and I will share that with you right now.

http://errornotfound.org/20...

Regarding kids being exposed to sex and homosexuality via a game, the author writes, "It’s also worth noting that the argumentative tactic of “now’s not the time” is used the world over by the people with the s****iest opinions". Both subjects aren't exactly family-friendly content that parents expect their kids to be exposed to by a video game nor is it a game's place to educate kids on such subjects. Bringing this up does nothing to support his argument that we should be outraged that Nintendo is supposedly ostracizing a group of people.

Regarding the argument that Nintendo can afford to add same-sex relationships in the game, the author says this, "It is possible that Nintendo designed a system whereby “homosexual code” would have to be added, but I find that terribly unlikely. If anything, some code would have to be removed...". He's making this reasoning needlessly complicated. While Nintendo most certainly can afford to patch the game with additional programming, it doesn't mean they will or should. They have a right to have the game be the way they want. It is their project and their vision. Which brings us to...

Regarding the argument that it's Nintendo's game and they do with it what they please, the author says (after comparing this issue to the Mass Effect 3 ending fiasco), "If Nintendo wants to make their game their way, fine. I can’t stop them. That also doesn’t shield them from criticism. I don’t believe an artistic criticism should sway the hand of the author. I believe a moral criticism should. It’s the difference between me not liking your story, and me not liking you. If you’re fine with me not liking you, then, I dunno, make your game bigoted". One, Nintendo did not design the game to be bigoted. They just don't have homosexual relationships available. Two, his argument holds no weight in what can be considered moral criticism.

Moral as an adjective means to be "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character" and "holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct". Well, that certainly doesn't equate to what the author is talking about. How about the noun definition of moral? The noun usage is defined as "a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience" and "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do". Basically, the noun definition details the learning of a lesson or the actions one does to other people being right or wrong. No, that doesn't support the author's point. Why use that terminology?

Nintendo can take artistic criticism for a game; however, the author using the term "moral criticism" does not make sense here. Nintendo is not on trial for actively denying the representation of a group in the game. They are also not out to make social commentary on being anti-gay, but the people behind the idea that Nintendo is are fooling themselves. They are the ones who created the issue to begin with, not Nintendo. Nintendo responded to the complaint of there being no homosexual relationships with this:

"Nintendo never intended to make any form of social commentary with the launch of Tomodachi Life. The relationship options in the game represent a playful alternate world rather than a real-life simulation. We hope that all of our fans will see that Tomodachi Life was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary."

The author describes that statement as "utterly disgusting". What? This falls under the same area of the article where he delved into kids' exposure to sex which I think has no way to support his points. The game doesn't have sex in it and it doesn't make social commentary. Why bring it up? What is he trying to accomplish? It certainly isn't to try to convince Nintendo that they were wrong for not including homosexual relationships. I think it's to demean Nintendo and anyone on their side with scathing remarks.

This is where people (like the author) who essentially complained to Nintendo turn their arguments into self-centered, entitled hysteria. They go from being informative to raging snobs who claim that they are on the moral high ground because they are siding with a group that is not being represented in a game. Here is a little Journalism 101: just because you use big words and stomp your feet a little to show that you're upset, doesn't mean that you're getting your point across in a thoughtful way. You are more so acting like a neanderthal who is trying to express his opinion on global warming by smashing his podium with a stone club.

Yes, homosexuals are not as represented in video games as other groups are. However, that does not mean that any developer or publisher are inclined to cater to every group out there. Humans are incredibly diverse and complex. It's virtually impossible to accommodate everyone. I don't see or hear people complaining that there aren't options for your character to have physical disabilities. They don't complain about characters not being able to have dwarfism or gigantism. All three of those groups don't get as much representation in video games, but I don't hear any complaining on their behalf.

Why when making an argument must people go into a fever pitch? They pound their chest and scream all in an effort to make one side seem like it's the primordial evil. Nintendo never outright did anything that slandered homosexuals. The only thing Nintendo is guilty of is porting a game's original content from Japan. People are genuinely pissed about this. If everyone had the same mindset as that author, then no one would be happy because they would find that every video game or book or movie is terrible because they aren't representing one group or another. I'm here to tell you that there are way better things to be pissed off at than a game that doesn't have representation of a group.

What needs to be recognized is that when a person or a group creates something for art or entertainment they had a vision for it. Can it be controversial, insulting, or stupid? Most certainly. Maybe they knew it would be those things. Can it be enlightening, inspiring, and creative? Of course. Art and entertainment fluctuate as much as tastes and opinions. That has to be understood. Nintendo making a fun and quirky game that reflects fiction to our reality is all that they intended. They never planned on alienating certain groups. Opportunistic people with their own social agendas are the ones who created the issue. They are the ones who sparked the debate that started with one side arguing while the other didn't know it was being petitioned. People just need to relax and game and stop trying to politicize everything with realism. That is where the problems start.