-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Far Cry New Dawn's Animal (Dog) Cruelty is sadistic and waaaay over the line
- Thread starter VinFTW
- Start date
it's funny how people here disagree with the usual bullshit of saying games make you violent but if you kill dogs in a game YOURE A MONSTER YOURE GOING TO KILL DOGS IN REAL LIFE TOO
me and my doggo will be a force of destruction!
kill all other doggos, people and any other animal that gets in the way!! one rocket launcher at a time.
kill all other doggos, people and any other animal that gets in the way!! one rocket launcher at a time.
Well I mean, if you wanna be logical and argue in good faith, then sure.
But since we're not, let's just repeat "it's not real!" ad-naseum, make fun of the OP for having negative emotions towards animal cruelty. Imply they're bonkers. Imply their wife is bonkers. Oh, and call them a hypocrite.
Everyone sure is nice on Era, huh?
This "gotcha" has been posted no less than 100 times in this thread, but dogs are innocent. They don't have the capacity to be evil. Humans do.
Hunting tigers for upgrades is way more fucked up for me. At least dogs aren't super endangered.
Honestly, I'm still reeling from the sudden unexpected passing of my dog back in September, so there's no way I'd be able to play this, even if they're just virtual dogs. I know it might sound stupid and I should get over it and all that, but I don't know if I ever will.
I don't understand the problem to begin with. Going by that article It's supposed to be over the top. Just like carmageddon or saints row was. If we'd talk about farming simulator or the Sims allowing you to slaughter pets it would be a significantly bigger problem although most people would still come with the "but it's a videogame" argument which is justified. Who am I to restrict anyones vision? If you got a problem with it don't play it.
Good post. As someone who's currently raising a puppy, all this stuff makes me a bit uncomfortable (but I can understand why they're doing this, post-apo world etc)
Speaking of: All of the Far Cry games have hunting, and even other animals that attack you. Boars, snakes, birds, alligators, cheetas, cougars, deer, elk, etc.
Just because it's dogs now you're offended?
Just because it's dogs now you're offended?
My post wasn't targeted at the OP; whilst I don't have the same emotional reaction to the content find it 100% OK that they feel how they do. It was targeted at the numerous arguments that ignore the emotional aspect of things and pretty much boil things down to a purely logical maths equation between different variables.
It's not stupid. Emotions are just as valid a reason to not play/engage with something as any other; it doesn't matter if they're not 100% logical.
"Trump's America" has very little to do with the story Far Cry 5 is trying to tell. It's like watching Neverending Story and complaining that it spends more time talking about the collective hopes and dreams of mankind made manifest as a magical land called Fantasia, and not the struggles of a single father raising a bullied son.
Far Cry 5 is very explicitly a somewhat mystical game about an anti-materialistic doomsday cult that has absolutely nothing to do with the "alt-right" or any of those other groups taking over a community in a desperate attempt to save as many people as they can before the world ends. Their members are terrible people who openly admit they are terrible people, but united by a greater noble cause. I think some people wanted a game about an "alt right" cult full of racists. They wanted some kind of catharsis as they struck back in a virtual manner at proxy Trump devotees. They got the literal opposite. They got a terrible and vicious cult fueled by twisted compassion and forgiveness.
It's no different to how games like Battlefield: Hardline or Homefront: The Revolution were misconstrued because they were very explicitly about one thing (such as the perils of privatized police forces), while some people wished they were about this other thing (police brutality against African Americans). HFTR spawned some absolutely bizarre think pieces because some people got it into their heads that an alternate history game about a technocratic Korea taking over the world as an ethnically diverse cast fight back against them was actually a celebration of white nationalism.
In ten years people are gonna look back on Far Cry 5 and wonder why so many people were so fixated on stuff that was totally absent from the game because the game had nothing to do with that stuff, while blithely ignoring the stuff actually in the game.
Nobody is saying that. Literally nobody. The most we've got is jett's "sickos" comment but that's still nowhere near as hyperbolic.
I now equate the people who make Far Cry games to the sophomoric, juvenile writers at Vice media who make B-rated "racey" social media stories about anal sex to get clicks and views. It's all designed to portray the brand as being edgy but there's absolutely zero substance to it.
If they focused on making AI that wasn't as dumb as a box of rocks and gun play that actually feels good instead of a chore then maybe more people would still be playing Far Cry 5 and actually hyped for this new iteration.
What plays badly to you isn't bad for everyone.
Not to mention, most people liked FC5.
I fail to see how this matters. No one in here is defending animal cruelty. How many of the digital people that can be slaughtered in video games are innocent? Plenty.
That's a given. This is a videogame forum discussing how we like and dislike certain games. Everyone will have a different opinion here.
i mean when we have threads where people criticize violence against human characters the same people crawl out of the woodwork to be all "they're just pixels they're not reaaaal you should never be uncomfortable about how violence is depicted in mediaaaaaa you're just looking to be offended" to try and shut down conversations so
Funny because your post was worded as if it spoke for everyone:
Yeah it amazes me how like 95% of the replies in this thread are reveling in their refusal to understand that different people feel different things. I barely got past the intro to Wolfenstein 2 because of this shit. I'm not interested in anyone telling me how they think I'm wrong for feeling that way, I just do, I deal with it. I'm thankful someone wrote this piece because I was interested in this game.
Yeah. they're saying even sillier things, i was too kind
The game doesn't force you to mistreat the dogs. Enemies, the bad people who are okay to kill because they're bad, are the ones doing it. If you the player go out of your way to kill a dog who isnt attacking you, that's on you - or would you rather have all dogs to be invincible like bethesda essential NPCs? How would that be an improvement in a semi realistic open world game? Is the issue here that bad people are doing bad things, but with dogs and that's a no-no?
People suddenly forgot you could (could, not had to) also shoot dogs and even kids on the original fallouts? Are Black Isle a bunch of sickos who need to be boycotted as well? Or every wild dog enemy in every other game? If you go out shooting every harmless dog you see in sight it sure doesnt paint a good picture of you but that's on you, not the game.
By all means don't buy the game if you don't like seeing animal cruelty, that's your prerrogative. But to demand the publisher to patch it out of the game or even worse accusations is plain stupid.
Yeah, I love dogs. I own 4 rescues and I would never hurt one. This game doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's a game and all sorts of terrible things happen to humans already in games.
And that's a fair complaint. It just seems comes off as callous to human life when the consensus stacks the other way.
It also seems like some of the violence directed towards the dogs is done in a way to not only vilify the antagonists but also create empathy for dogs as well as your companion. Whether or not it's done effectively is a different discussion to be had.
Overall I think something like this stems from desensitization to the killing of people in games.
Except innocent people get killed all the time in games. Also, I don't understand why some people think that dogs are angels that can do no wrong. They are animals. People tend to forget in the West where we have such a romanticized image of dogs. Sometimes dogs will even eat their own pups. Nature can be a bitch.
I do wonder how the people who are so precious about dogs feel about eating meat. That's something that is in the real world.
Back in my home country, we had asshole dogs. They were basically wolves and many lived and roamed around in packs so it was very dangerous for kids to go outside. I have heard lots of stories about people being bit or killed by them. Unlike say western countries where most dogs are very good.
Did someone complain because of the cat-suppressor in postal?
Btw: I like all animals, except spiders.
Btw: I like all animals, except spiders.
But even in the real world, humans are still considered more important than dogs in the justice system.
That's why murdering a human carries more of a sentence than murdering a dog. They are not the same penalties, and certainly not equivalent crimes against a human child.
That's why Michael Vick got 2 years for being totally convicted of murdering several dogs with concrete proof. If he murdered several humans with concrete proof, it would be way more than that.
Yep everytime this happens I remember this bit from the robbin' season. Show is ssoooo good
Yep. Dogs will do anything for you and right and wrong to them is relative with who teaches them. Farcry always had a very dark undertone with a lot of the baddies and this is just another tool used to show how messed up people can affect the world in their twisted favor.
How am I supposed to view any of your arguments in good faith when your first move was to pull a complete Strawman out of nowhere? You clearly think I, the OP and anyone not on your side is in some way irrational (you putting words into my mouth being a good being a good example of that) so I'm not going to engage with the rest of your argument.
While I dont care either way in fiction, I do find it much harder to kill animals or watch people kill animals than kill humans. Like those poor horses in GoT!
I know, and I'm agreeing. There's a reason why people have negative reactions to animal cruelty. Specially dogs.
And it's probably for that reason that the developers even put that in the game in the first place. They wanted to evoke a strong negative reaction.
Saying "but what about killing humans!?" is literally, whataboutism. There are levels to discomfort. And not everyone will react the same way. Some people are triggered by the death of animal due to personal circumstance (having a pet pass away, ect).
The aggression in this thread is palpable. Video games don't need defending, and I think it's extremely rude to react this way. Some people are more sensitive than others, that's nothing to be ashamed of.
Far cry 5 was a great game. I can't wait to start this new far cry game. I don't understand why people think far cry 5 sucked. It was one of the highest selling games last year. I'm sure this new game will sell very well too. Ubisoft makes the best games hands down.
The difference between reality and a video game? As in, one is real and one isn't? As in, the whole debate over "agency" is absolutely ridiculous in this context because video game characters aren't real have no free will to speak of?
Or you can just be crazy and be mad over nothing.
And there are still parts of the world where dogs and cats are consumed. It's consitently decreased as pet ownership has increased but it's still a very real cultural thing.
The consumption of living humans is a unanimously taboo practice.
Why don't you raise the stake further and say people are fine with mass genocide or nuclear holocaust if they play Fallout games as well.
Get a grip.
People are triggered by many different things, doesn't mean they all should make sense.
I'd rather hear people describe their dreams over hearing someone express this sentiment ever again. We know. We agree. Animal violence is effective at getting a strong emotional reaction out of people. That's why media uses this trope. I feel like this is one of the few cases where virtue signaling is actually an accurate description. Maybe I'm unlucky, but I think I've heard people express this feeling thousands of times in my life and everyone says it like they are uniquely sympathetic toward animals for feeling bad about animals dying in media. I can tell the article uses the term doggo or pupper without even clicking on it.
OP
OP
Theres a website dedicated to dogs dying in movies
If youre only argument is, "people are crazy if they get upset over imaginary things happening" then I'm not going to give you the time of the day.
These things cause real emotion to real people. Now I'm not fucking crazy, nor do I need to get a life (as some people have suggested), because I couldn't care less about playing a game that makes me a bit uncomfortable.
Dogs have the capacity to be evil, dogs are not innocent just because you view ones that have been thoroughly domesticated as you would a child.
And get out of here with this borderline repulsive take. If you're going to go full deterministic for a dog, then why not a human. We're all the products of our environment and what we consciously decide is already decided by complex biochemistry in our brains arriving at a conclusion before our consciousness thinks it's thought of it.
Dogs are innocent and don't have the capacity to be evil XD Come on now.
Last edited: