Video games are an ever increasing
medium of entertainment and storytelling. With the variety of stories
told it is no wonder that in some of them animals will feature either
as part of the scenery or even part of the storyline. Today I want to
discuss an issue with you. Are animals represented accurately in video games, should we even care and should animal violence be present
in them.
Hunting games aside, I believe that
animals are present in a variety of popular games. Pretty much all
the games revolving around fantasy will have some sort of predatory
animal as an adversary at some point and a lot of open world games
will feature birds or even mammals for ambiance. Which leads to the
first point. Animals as adversaries. Personally I don't mind it.
Although it may pain some people to shoot or stab virtual wolves or
bears it is fine by me. I have virtually shot wolves, fought bears
and stalked deer. What I can see as a potential problem however is
that predators often tend to be demonized and lead to misinformation.
People complain that stories or shows give some animals a bad name
and quite frankly I think that some video games have gone to extreme lengths in regards to predators. Beware though! Should we accuse the
games? Shouldn't we educate our children on the fact these animals
are just virtual and that the actual animals are nothing like this.
In addition to that, isn't it likely that a bear or tiger attack could
occur in the wild. Is it really that wrong for video games to include
video game attacks by animals? I am not saying that most games are
accurate but who wants to include wolves in their game when the
actual animal is very elusive. What would be the point? In my opinion
the demonization of predators shouldn't happen but as with many other
things in video games, it is all fake and in the end it is either up
to us or the educational system to teach to our children that these
animals aren't real.
Which leads me to my second point.
Should violence against video game animals be considered abusive?
PETA and other groups believe that games such as Battlefield 3(which
included one scene that you have to kill a rat or be discovered), the
upcoming Assassin's creed 4(which involves pirates and whaling) or Red
Dead Redemption(where you can shoot the entire American Frontier)
encourage animal violence. My opinion is that it doesn't. Shooting a
virtual whale, while although controversial, will not harm animals
nor will it cause the consumers to be pro whaling. Video game
violence in some cases may be obvious, in others not. Pokemon will
not encourage children to battle animals with each other and neither
will killing and skining animals in Red Dead Redemption. In the end
of the day it comes down to proper education. Virtual animals are
exactly that, virtual. Unless there is a video game that doesn't out
right torture animals, it doesn't warrant any sort of trouble.In my
opinion it is a waste of time and money to campaign and advocate
against this sort of cause, where there are a variety of other causes
that are well worth campaigning.
Kudos however to some games who have
done some research in regards to nature and set up a proper ecosystem
of sorts. In Red Dead Redemption, hunting is just part of the open
world environment but it is a way to make money and animals are
everywhere. However animals are distributed by habitats, they hunt,
seek water and will take livestock. The ecosystem pretty much feels
alive. Want to hunt bears? Try mountainous areas where they den. Saw
a deer carcass? A predator is probably around. These sort of video
games, although featuring hunting, create an appreciation for nature
and the animals themselves.
In my opinion it comes down to
education. Video game animals are fake, education will stick forever.
If proper education occurs there is no reason to fear anything from
video games. As I said there are other causes to advocate for which
deserve your attention more. In my opinion let video games be.
Advocating against them will do nothing more but label you as stupid
or a fanatic both of which do not benefit the purpose of conservation
advocates but rather hurts it. People should focus on the real
matters at hand and ignore video games.
Great read, although I'd like to point out two specific recent examples.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, you have Far Cry 3's ecosystem, which includes a lot of hunting, however it is done without any emphasis on killing animals for sport. It simply isn't encouraged to do so, and you don't actually get to earn that much by doing it (apart from selling pelts for money, I suppose, but there's so many ways to earn money it ends up being a personal choice rather than enforced on you). When you absolutely *have* to hunt, it's either for specific reasons (you will need specific pelts to craft specific things) or for side missions with very specific parameters, more often than not (a villager's family has been mauled by a bear and he wants you to kill it, for example, or you need to put down a pack of rabies-infested wild dogs before they spread the disease). The animals have their own balance in the island: their own habitats, their own food chain, their own behaviour. Predatory animals won't attack you unless you attack them or tresspass into their personal space, carnivores will attack herbivores, some predators are more solitary while others live in packs etc. I'd really like your input on how it measures up to real conditions.
On the other side of the spectrum, you have PETA protesting the negative portrayal of the Zerg in Starcraft 2, which I personally find extremely overzealous, let alone grossly misinformed on the lore of the thing, making it a rather silly protest and one that hurt PETA more than did any good. PETA assumed Zerg are an above animalistic intelligence swarm of insects, portrayed as conquerors and villains. In the game's lore, the Zerg are a bio-engineered swarm of evolution-perfected insect-like aliens controlled by a very sentient (and quite malevolent) hive mind. The Zerg are, by non-natural design, death incarnate operated by a singular, very smart, scheming mind. Zerg aren't animals, they are biological tools/troops, and this is why PETA's campaign got mocked so much. If they want to protest virtual animal abuse, they really ought to do their research first, because in this day and age, the great wall of snarkiness and trolls won't let any ill-prepared push to get through.
I would really like to play Far Cry 3 just for the ecosystem and such.I have read good stuff about it. So far for me the most realistic portrayal would be Red Dead Redemption where although predators will more often or than not,attack you it is still quite accurate. If you overhunt wolves, wolves won't appear for a while. If you hunt deer, less wolves will still be around and so forth.
DeleteMy main concern is cases like PETA and the Zerg or Pokemon. These sort of cases really hurt them and other advocates and in my opinion it will make it a lot harder for organisation to campaign against a game that actually features gruesome animal torture or abuse because they already lost a lot of credibility.