Jump to content

Gee, thanks, PETA.


N.G
 Share

Recommended Posts

I haven't actually played the game (yet, at least) so I have just one thought: They're going crazy about "protecting" FICTIONAL creatures?

...I have no words to express how that makes me react. All I can say is that if I made a video game, I'd be strongly tempted to troll them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I haven't actually played the game (yet, at least) so I have just one thought: They're going crazy about "protecting" FICTIONAL creatures?

...I have no words to express how that makes me react. All I can say is that if I made a video game, I'd be strongly tempted to troll them.

not really, the point is to draw a parallel between animal abuse and pokemon. they weren't trying to protect pokemon, they were trying to sort of compare it.

now don't get me wrong. it's still stupid as fuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well this "environmental message" just ruined my fucking day... just when a bought white 2...

BUT HEY ANIMAL RIGHTS AMIRITE?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

before you make thiese kinds of things, WATCH ALL THE GOD DAMN EPISODES AND PLAY ALL THE GOD DAMN GAMES!

brb gonna murder PETA WHO SHALL JOIN ME IN MY QUEST?

Edited by dandragon01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heehee, Crash they're mostly worried about how it'll mess with childrens' minds, making them think it's okay to abuse creatures irl x3

not really, the point is to draw a parallel between animal abuse and pokemon. they weren't trying to protect pokemon, they were trying to sort of compare it.

now don't get me wrong. it's still stupid as fuck.

Right, fair enough. I guess I just didn't bother to look beyond the literal, I'm rather literal-minded anyway and can you blame me for not specifically putting in the effort this time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh, this isn't going to turn out well.

Pokemon is an insanely popular franchise, attacking them will likely not be without repercussions. As are all attempts to hinder the profits of the greedy.

There will be reparation, and it shall be paid in blood. :p

But seriously, how messed up is this? Pokemon aren't animals. They are portrayed like animals, but largely this is just to make the games a little believable.

I know these people like to talk about how impressionable people who play video games are -- I mean, they never let up on Grand Theft Auto. But the single argument destroying detail lies in a simple question. How many kids have ever been seen making animals fight each other because they saw it on Pokemon? ZERO! FUCKING ZERO! And that is enough to make their whole world come tumbling down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly didn't see anything wrong with the game. My only surprise was it hadn't happened sooner, as pokemon really is just glorified cockfighting. Granted, I only played until the end of the Cheren fight, but that's because it wasn't entertaining.

Also, PETA are dicks for putting down all those animals, yes. Don't misconstrue my support of free speech / parody for a support of the organization or of the message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno that anyone's trying to say they can't criticize Pokemon like this (more that they're being dumbasses about it), but there is the matter of copyright since they've used actual Pokemon and on that front I think they've gone well outside the realm of fair use. So they can quite likely get owned for that.

I dunno, they've done far worse on the terribleness front, but this one goes pretty far on the stupidity front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, fair enough. I guess I just didn't bother to look beyond the literal, I'm rather literal-minded anyway and can you blame me for not specifically putting in the effort this time?

It looks like you're taking this way more personally than you should XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh, this isn't going to turn out well.

Pokemon is an insanely popular franchise, attacking them will likely not be without repercussions. As are all attempts to hinder the profits of the greedy.

There will be reparation, and it shall be paid in blood. :p

But seriously, how messed up is this? Pokemon aren't animals. They are portrayed like animals, but largely this is just to make the games a little believable.

I know these people like to talk about how impressionable people who play video games are -- I mean, they never let up on Grand Theft Auto. But the single argument destroying detail lies in a simple question. How many kids have ever been seen making animals fight each other because they saw it on Pokemon? ZERO! FUCKING ZERO! And that is enough to make their whole world come tumbling down.

lol people really aren't getting it

i also don't understand why you kids are so mad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my favorite part of all this is even the game doesn't really argue at all why keeping animals in balls and forcing them to fight each other is good

it's just kind of assumed that N is wrong because he's the bad guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why people are getting mad, I thought this was pretty cute, lol. Angsty kids I guess.

The people who actually believe this is an attack against Nintendo boggle my mind. If their goal is to say that Pokemon is cockfighting..it is! You beat Pokemon up who are just living their lives in the wild, trap them, train them and make them fight other Pokemon. There isn't a game out there that fits the description more, unless you can find a fighting game with a roster made up entirely of roosters.

But of course, I really doubt they have any plans to do anything about Pokemon. It looks more to me like it is a cute parody to raise awareness among the youth that the games are popular with.

Furthermore, PETA is a non-profit organization. Suing PETA accomplishes jack, they're entirely run by donations. If Nintendo is smart they will just ignore them, not give them more power. The strength of an organization like PETA is directly related to the amount of media exposure and attention they are given. By acknowledging them and making drama you are only giving them a bigger audience - and they already have their dedicated donation base who aren't going anywhere, as proven by their annual revenue.

Edited by Tangerine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people who actually believe this is an attack against Nintendo boggle my mind. If their goal is to say that Pokemon is cockfighting..it is! You beat Pokemon up who are just living their lives in the wild, trap them, train them and make them fight other Pokemon. There isn't a game out there that fits the description more, unless you can find a fighting game with a roster made up entirely of roosters.

Digimon World, Monster Rancher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digimon isn't the same. Digimon is like a game within a game; all of the creatures are data, not living, breathing animals. Even if they were it wouldn't be worse, the only features DW has over Pokemon is the detail in their raising.

Monster Rancher is not the same at all. You can play the game without ever fighting - there are monsters whose personality traits make them dislike fighting and will be better off if you don't ever battle them. You have the option to never fight in that series, in Pokemon that's the entire point. Stats do not do anything in Pokemon other than contribute to battle. In Monster Rancher they contribute to important non-battle causes, like exploration. And exploration is just as much a viable career for a monster who dislikes battling as battling is for a monster who needs to be battled.

Monsters in MR are also not trapped. They live with you, they will run away if you treat them poorly, and they won't listen to you if they don't like you. You don't beat them up and trap them and instantly have their loyalty. MR is like a pet simulator with monsters and optional battles. You can extract cruelty from it if you want to be anal, but it is not the same or worse than Pokemon's execution of it. Battling may advance the story in both series', but in one your monsters' personality traits are so much more detailed that you can tell whether or not your monster actually likes to battle and raise them accordingly. In the other that's their only significant purpose. Most of any extracted "cruelty" is the player's raising method in MR. In Pokemon it's the way you play the game.

Edited by Tangerine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the Digimon are data you still raise them and have them battle other Digimon and win money and other items, like Pokemon. Also, even if the Pokemon are in their Pokeballs they live with you too, you know. Depending on the game you don't even have to raise a Pokemon just for battling either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monster Rancher is not the same at all. You can play the game without ever fighting - there are monsters whose personality traits make them dislike fighting and will be better off if you don't ever battle them. You have the option to never fight in that series, in Pokemon that's the entire point. Stats do not do anything in Pokemon other than contribute to battle. In Monster Rancher they contribute to important non-battle causes, like exploration. And exploration is just as much a viable career for a monster who dislikes battling as battling is for a monster who needs to be battled.

In MR3, you can't play without fighting, and you can end up in a fight w/out being able to avoid it during exploration IIRC. Visiting new areas in MR3 generally involves more forced "story" fights. In MR1, I don't think there's any exploration. In MR2, exploration is a pretty infrequent event IIRC, and you need to battle to unlock it. Also there are stats in pokemon that contribute to things aside from battle (though most/all are hidden stats?), and pokemon can be used solely for exploration (i.e. load em up with hm moves etc). Admittedly the things aside from battle in pokemon are not really as interesting, but that's basically the same for Monster Rancher. I'd actually say that while exploration more frequently involves fighting in Pokemon (duh), the non-battle aspect of exploration is more important and interesting in Pokemon than in Monster Rancher.

I do agree about harshness though. How harsh/nice you are to your monster in MR seems to make more of a difference (and going in either direction can be effective, and your assistant might act as a yes-man no matter what). It seems more accepting of being harsh if not cruel regardless of what the monster wants, but it also seems to take the player's approach a little more seriously.

Edited by L1049
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In MR3, you can't play without fighting, and you can end up in a fight w/out being able to avoid it during exploration IIRC. Visiting new areas in MR3 generally involves more forced "story" fights. In MR1, I don't think there's any exploration. In MR2, exploration is a pretty infrequent event IIRC, and you need to battle to unlock it. Also there are stats in pokemon that contribute to things aside from battle (though most/all are hidden stats?), and pokemon can be used solely for exploration (i.e. load em up with hm moves etc). Admittedly the things aside from battle in pokemon are not really as interesting, but that's basically the same for Monster Rancher. I'd actually say that while exploration more frequently involves fighting in Pokemon (duh), the non-battle aspect of exploration is more important and interesting in Pokemon than in Monster Rancher.

You never have to initiate a battle yourself. In Pokemon it's outright stated that you're forced to fight someone if you come into contact with another trainer.

As for exploration, there is one cycled for every season once they're all unlocked.

@ bold: I haven't played the original MR. But either way you can still play it without ever fighting if that's what you choose to do. MR2 and MRA2 are the ones I've played the most, and I probably have more monsters who have never fought (apart from the random ranch invasions and stray monsters in exploration) than ones who have. The main appeal of the series to me is raising the monsters; it's part of why I stopped liking it past the 2nd game, because the monsters became less of the focus. Their personalities and nuances were greatly downplayed in favor of combat upgrades. But you always have that choice in MR, you never have to battle your monster if you don't want to. To say that MR is the same in that battles are the most interesting thing to do is silly. Most of the fans I've seen don't even consider it the draw of the series.

Another thing: you have no control over battles during exploration, at least in the ones I've played. In those battles your monsters are said to be protecting you because you are being attacked by stray monsters. These stray monsters are monsters who have been treated poorly by their owners and ran away. This is a vastly different message from the one that can be taken from Pokemon. In MRA2, there's even a system that has your monster given a chance to calm the stray one after the battle.

I personally find exploration and monster raising to be more interesting in all of the MR games I have played. Exploration because it awards you with items that can greatly improve the raising of your monster, and monster raising because that's the heart of the game. Most battles in MR are decided by a couple of attacks, and that bores me.

I do agree about harshness though. How harsh/nice you are to your monster in MR seems to make more of a difference (and going in either direction can be effective, and your assistant might act as a yes-man no matter what). It seems more accepting of being harsh if not cruel regardless of what the monster wants, but it also seems to take the player's approach a little more seriously.

Some monsters are classed "good" and some are classed "bad". Bad monsters tend to want to be raised more harshly and for battle, and that's the only time your assistant will really act as a yes-man if you're treating your monster poorly. She'll never give you trouble for treating a monster properly (unless you outright spoil it, then she'll laugh about how spoiled he is :P:), but she'll always suggest you may be being too harsh on them if you are stressing them out. If the monster is one who wants to be trained for battle, she will comment on you not giving it what it wants. That's about it really. Certainly not comparable to Pokemon on the cockfighting front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing: you have no control over battles during exploration, at least in the ones I've played. In those battles your monsters are said to be protecting you because you are being attacked by stray monsters. These stray monsters are monsters who have been treated poorly by their owners and ran away. This is a vastly different message from the one that can be taken from Pokemon. In MRA2, there's even a system that has your monster given a chance to calm the stray one after the battle.

Oh ya, that's right. I think that in 3, the exploration has you manually controlling the battles (and also any battles against other trainers/monsters outside of tournaments), but I forgot that in 2 they're automatic.

I personally find exploration and monster raising to be more interesting in all of the MR games I have played. Exploration because it awards you with items that can greatly improve the raising of your monster, and monster raising because that's the heart of the game. Most battles in MR are decided by a couple of attacks, and that bores me.

In MR3, most of the time a single move that will do lots of damage will take lots of guts (like 25-50) unless you're talking about extreme differences in attack/defense type stats or low life on the target. Golems and a few others have cheap powerful moves (that miss a lot, of course), so it can get annoying either using or fighting if you mind a strong element of chance in battle. The same applies to the really heavy hitters in MR 1-2, but I don't remember what the moves are like (or even how you get them XD).

And I find monster raising interesting in MR, and I wasn't wording things well when I said otherwise, but I feel like I wouldn't like it as much if I didn't have tourneys, since they feel like the best benchmark for how the raising has gone. Of course, I didn't have any real idea of the magnitude of the effect stats would have on how a monster would do.

I just remembered a sad thing from MR2...Suiki (sp?) Suezo, a monster with weird but very high stats who would die after one week of use ;( Obtained from the MH1 disc IIRC. One of the worst things :(

Some monsters are classed "good" and some are classed "bad". Bad monsters tend to want to be raised more harshly and for battle, and that's the only time your assistant will really act as a yes-man if you're treating your monster poorly.

Ah. I generally would go off the monster's condition (in terms of endurance), what was coming up on the calendar, and whether it was asking for different kinds of treatment (and how going along with it or not would affect its personality stats). I feel like I remember in 3, the monster sometimes asks for a different training method for a given week than what you're telling it to do, and it seemed like that made it more likely to get great results. I also only remember characteristics related more to battle performance and endurance than willingness to train or battle, but I guess it's different in MR2 (I played that game a lot but it was a long time ago).

Edited by L1049
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...