There are opinions worth considering and respected. I just honestly think 'saving a dog over a kid' is not one of them.
Last edited:
-
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
There are opinions worth considering and respected. I just honestly think 'saving a dog over a kid' is not one of them.
There's this game called Pokemon where you train to make creatures dog fight for glory, so you better avoid that too.
It's scary that such a violent and extreme piece of entertainment has to hurt digital doggo's to make you pause for thought on buying it.
Last edited:
The OP is absolutely well within their rights not to be comfortable with how Far Cry depicts violence against animals. Don't frame it as if they are some crazy PETA like person. Not to mention, perhaps I missed it, but they didn't reference Pokemon.
If it was a proven sadistic serial killer, like Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson, then sure I would pick the dog.
But I think people are just using an average human being for this comparison. So let's say it's a stranger you don't know, but they are truly a random average decent normal human being. Then is there a choice?
I get that people love dogs and don't like seeing depictions of violence against them.
I don't get that people are fine with wading through an ocean of human bodies just to draw the line when body number 10001 is a dog.
I don't get that people are fine with wading through an ocean of human bodies just to draw the line when body number 10001 is a dog.
This. Seems like you're overreacting and can't separate virtual animals to real life animals. I do crazy stuff in games all the time, that doesn't mean that I'm suddenly going to be okay with doing it in real life. It's a video game.
Having an emotional response to this stuff or calling it tasteless and insensitive is reasonable. Calling the developers sick and psychotic for including it in a fictional game is just a bit much.
You're doing a very good job of removing this argument from the fact that you literally said OP shouldn't hold the feelings he does because he should also hold the same feelings towards humans.
But I digress, it's impossible to tell exactly how many people feel certain ways about certain things. However, there is much more evidence to suggest that, in Western socities, the deaths of random dogs are seen as more inherently emotional than the deaths of random adult humans. 'The dog dies' wouldn't be such an overused trope in media which wants to garner an emotional reaction if we, as you seem to suggest, don't care about dogs dying. You'd also see a lot more outrage considering the sheer level of violence practically every single piece of media shows towards adult human males.
Though, to be honest, I'm tired (literally) and since you haven't even tried to argue for your actual original point I'm not going to continue this any longer.
Nobody's making the argument that seeing this stuff will cause similar behaviour in real life; I honestly have no idea where you're getting it from.
The Internet and humanity is full of selfish assholes. That doesn't mean that the value of a singular human life is somehow diminished. Also homeless people and petty criminals deserve to live.
Murdering people is not a good comparison to the objectification of women in media, because by and large that objectification predominantly extends to or focuses on only one gender, whilst murder doesn't, thus there's the gender imbalance and potential sexism and all inadvertently detrimental elements or factors involved.
Your post seems somewhat reaching, and also conflates context to make the point. You state;
"Pretty much everyone deals with the death of a pet and probably hasn't had a family member of friend die by a knife to the face."
FIrstly, pretty much everyone doesn't deal with the death of a pet, specifically a dog. In the UK, from memory I believe 24% of people own a dog, and 40% a pet. Secondly, why add the family member or friend die by a knife differentiator but not the same for dogs? I'd argue orders of magnitude more people in life have probably had to deal with the death of a human loved one versus the death of a dog, especially globally.
And extending to that, the desensitisation thing still doesn't or shouldn't remove the emotive value of human killing, especially in the correct context or if said characters have been built up or given relatability or characterisation. If you're completely desensitised from the killing of humans, simply put there's a deeper issue there.
Last edited:
They absolutely are well within their rights to be uncomfortable with it. But instead of acknowledging their own sensitivity to it, the OP reads more like a very harsh judgement of the game creators. "who the fuck designs this shit?" and throwing around words like sociopathic. It also then implies, that there's probably something wrong with people who don't have such a strong reaction to it. And they don't end their post with "I'm skipping it" they end it with "Ubi take this out".
Last edited:
Seems like they put that stuff in for the sake of getting a cheap emotional reaction from the player. Kinda sad that they couldn't come up with better ways to achieve that, but at the same time I can respect if that's the route the devs wanted to go down.
Though with that said, I don't think I'll be playing the game myself. Based on the article it seems like they might be trying too hard to get a reaction out of players and I really don't care for games that put stuff like this in just for shock value.
Though with that said, I don't think I'll be playing the game myself. Based on the article it seems like they might be trying too hard to get a reaction out of players and I really don't care for games that put stuff like this in just for shock value.
Its an interesting discussion to have but your post doesn't indicate where you think the line is for a videogame to tell a story? What do you think is not over the line personally?
That's Far Cry for you, the series has always used excessive violence and animal cruelty to turn the villains into one dimensional monsters you don't feel bad about killing with trite messages about the ethics of modern consumerism. At least the gunplay is decent, right? Maybe not? It sounds like no one is really hot on it in general, which isn't really surprising
The way that some people sympathize for dogs over humans often freaks me out though and effectively devalues human life in a way that is not beneficial to anyone. During some of my suicidal periods the idea of people mourning over dead dogs more than a dead person was something that briefly pushed me deeper into depression. The idea that such beliefs don't harm people, beyond those being left to die in a theoretical trolley scenario, is naive and simplistic. By making such a choice, even if largely theoretical and not consciously practiced in normal life, there come real costs, see treatment of the homeless for another example.
The way that some people sympathize for dogs over humans often freaks me out though and effectively devalues human life in a way that is not beneficial to anyone. During some of my suicidal periods the idea of people mourning over dead dogs more than a dead person was something that briefly pushed me deeper into depression. The idea that such beliefs don't harm people, beyond those being left to die in a theoretical trolley scenario, is naive and simplistic. By making such a choice, even if largely theoretical and not consciously practiced in normal life, there come real costs, see treatment of the homeless for another example.
Oh the irony, I never mentioned PETA, but double standards are delicious aren't they?
It's a post apocalyptic world where food is scarce. It makes sense for them to eat dogs. Furthermore, it also makes sense for there to be feral dogs who aren't used to humans, since the humans in this story lived underground for years.
This is also a series where hunting and killing animals has been a part of gameplay for a decade plus. Now that it's dogs, people are upset. But if I'm not mistaken, feral dogs were in Far Cry 5...maybe others. My memory is ass.
The vests are maybe a bit much in some viewpoints, but it shows how deranged the bad guys are. Those dogs STILL RUN AT YOU TO ATTACK YOU. It's not like the innocent cat in Generation X on SNES and in arcades, where all it was doing was walking on a fence and you were rewarded if you shot it.
I can understand being uncomfortable with violence against dogs in video games. It's pretty close to killing innocents. If the game had you kill people who were forced or tortured into servitude you might find that uncomfortable too. It isn't just a human vs. animal thing - generally in games you fight enemies that have chosen to be an obstacle to your character's cause, and the context of a dog in an explosive vest isn't that.
It's not the best Far Cry game, but it's pretty good and looks nice. I'm enjoying it, just not as much as some of the others.
The gunplay is good
Sure, but OP doesn't acknowledge that Ubisoft and many people here have the right to make and enjoy the game as is.
I mean read the OP:
It's strange AF. I mean, I'm at a loss reading some posts in this thread.
The "it's fake, get over it" argument will never cease to amaze me. Why are so many of you incapable of engaging in meaningful, nuanced conversation? The idea that animal cruelty would bother someone, fictional or otherwise, is a completely rational response. And the fact that we're comparing innocent creatures to humans attempting to murder you and implying some level of hypocrisy just shows me some of you just aren't all that interested in an honest discussion.
Sure, you didn't mention PETA, but your post also really was disingenuous. I suppose if you're just in it to score points, you got me?
Yeah the OP is emotional and a bit over the top.
This. People who get upset at stuff like this or hunting in games are just being morons
I'm not very convinced that any of you are actually interested in a moral debate, but OK: I'm frankly much more appalled at people who are able to categorically decide whose lives are more valuable. Once you start measuring up the values of lives in a vacuum versus your own "selfish" preferences, things get ugly fast. Why aren't you giving up half your paycheck to charity? That would save hundreds of children's lives. Would you sacrifice a friend's life to save ten random strangers?And so on and so forth. The reality is that we're selfish and make decisions based on what matters to us. Someone not willing to sacrifice their dog to save a random person's life is perfectly understandable to me (and in fact, exactly what every pet owner does by default, when they take their pet to the vet rather than donating the money to charity).
I'm also entirely unconvinced by people categorically labelling all others that disagree with their perfectly neat life value scale as "broken" and "inhuman". They, of course, assume they are morally superior because they value human life more. As an animal rights supporter, helping with cat rescues and adoptions, etc. I can't help but think they simply value animal life less. To them this distinction is meaningless, of course, because they can't imagine animal life being worth that much. To me, it's all the distinction in the world.
Let me repeat it: I don't thing I value human life less than they do; I value animal life more than they do; especially highly intelligent beings like cats and dogs.
It's fine if none of the above resonates with you, and if you've never had a cat or dog (and possibly even if you have), it certainly won't. I would at least hope we can agree that disagreeing with someone, not being able to understand someone's opinion, and calling them broken-minded and zoophiles, are three very different things. And I don't see how the latter has a place in this forum.
And with this, I'm off to sleep. Good night everyone.
Morons...really? I feel like that's pretty strong.
I have to admit I'm pretty confused. I can see that this topic is important to you but I'm struggling not to see how inconsistent you're being here. You're appalled that I, and some others, think that human life is more valuable than animal life when it comes to a specific scenario that was presented (being a fire where you have to decide between an animal or human life).
I grew up with a cat that my family rescued from a broken home. She was abused and it took her months to feel confident enough to even sit on our laps. I understand the love that an animal can share with other people and by expressing strong language about the given scenario, my intent is not to take away or diminish that whatsoever.
However, to me the love that a human being can share is categorically broader and deeper. Denying a random person the ability to either find or continue that love by picking an animal to me is absolutely inhumane. What it comes down to is I will never be able to understand, given this, how someone could make a decision like that. And yet, I do know there are many people who would. Just look at the innumerable scenes in movies like Independence Day where a random dog is cheered after unrealistically escaping an explosion.
Last edited:
Great post man. I always appreciate your thoughts in topics like this.
OP ...really? So bears, deer, birds, etc. is fair game but not dogs? They aren't people, they're animals. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.
I have heard of people avoiding certain games due to animal cruelty. Not something to take out a game just became someone is sensitive to it.
I have heard of people avoiding certain games due to animal cruelty. Not something to take out a game just became someone is sensitive to it.
As others have said, that's some really overacting stuff. Killing people is fine, doing sick things to humans is fine. But eating pups and what is an issue. You know people eat dogs (and cats) in RL? Then again, we eat deer, sheep, lamb, chicken, etc.
No the fact of the matter is that you failed to see the underlying message that I was trying to put forward. There is violence in multiple contexts regardless of what is being treated as cruel. If you can only discern violence through the face or thing it is portrayed on without subjectively talking about the fact that violence happens to many things in fictional representations of reality, but in this case it is suddenly a problem. There is also a failure of seeing or speaking about the fact that the mission with the dogs cruelty ends in many dogs getting rescued. Even though they are merely fictional representations. Now that is done, back to slaughtering people with knives.
Your PETA comment and "points" snarky comments just shows me you aren't here for anything other than personal argument, rather than the discussion of fictional context.
Wow, someone really said they would save a dog over a kid...
Okay, I'm done reading this thread, I have a headache.
Okay, I'm done reading this thread, I have a headache.
Thank you very much! :) And I really need to go to sleep now. :D
What makes you think that when I say I can't understand why people would value a dog worth than a human, that means I agree to those saying people who think so likes to fuck dogs?
Have a nice sleep, btw.
OP
OP
If you read the thread I stated my OP is poorly stated and kinda ruined the threads tone and subsequent discussion, definitely regret that.
Oh yes, theres many out there that think this way.
I have a "vegan" coworker who has said that out loud.
On topic with this, to each their own. I've actually been watching a few streams on this game and it looks real fun co-op. I was considering it but I still have a backlog to take care of.
Well said.
It's unfortunate to be surrounded by people in this thread that are unable, or unwilling to understand why a person may find attachment to their dog/animal more than a random human being. Instead, resorting to sweeping assumptions about that individuals mental state or social standing.
I wonder what goes through the mind of people who make threads like this...
"My opinion is obviously correct and completely rational so of course everyone will agree with me!"
or
"My opinion is so clearly over-the-top that the discussion will inevitably devolve into madness!"
"My opinion is obviously correct and completely rational so of course everyone will agree with me!"
or
"My opinion is so clearly over-the-top that the discussion will inevitably devolve into madness!"
I'll just never understand the outrage over killing a virtual game animal I guess. It's really god damn weird to me.
1. It is not real.
2. You are ok with killing everything else including fake humans but you draw the line at a fake dog? Why?
3. I heard in Mortal Kombat you kill other PEOPLE. Same thing in GTA. And Fortnite. Apex Legends. Some of the most popular games on the planet are mostly about killing people. Disgusting! Better start making those threads!
1. It is not real.
2. You are ok with killing everything else including fake humans but you draw the line at a fake dog? Why?
3. I heard in Mortal Kombat you kill other PEOPLE. Same thing in GTA. And Fortnite. Apex Legends. Some of the most popular games on the planet are mostly about killing people. Disgusting! Better start making those threads!
They are also okay with killing and skinning other animals and making wallets with their skins but dogs?? That's where they draw the line!
I can't really speak for the OP so I can't really say one way or another how they feel about different types of animal cruelty. Your original response was pretty dismissive and that's why I reacted as strongly as I did. If you feel like I'm only here for personal argument, then that sucks, because I really am trying to understand the different opinions in here.
Did the OP say they were okay with any of this?
Yeah, he/she was planning to buy the game before knowing about the dogs thing.
Yeah I see that in the OP. I don't see them knowing about the whole skinning thing though. In either case, being inconsistent doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong. Lots of people are inconsistent about a whole host of things.
I truly get that both of you, as well as others, feel rather strongly that this is outrage for outrage's sake. And I understand the OP is worded in a way that makes it easy to think that way.