So remove the entire mechanic?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Ubisoft trolls PETA's Assassin's Creed IV whaling complaint
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
BlackGoku03
Member
Good stuff. Good material.
Maybe. Primarily, don't use "historical accuracy" as a defense for why you included it. As we have established, they really don't care that much about reproducing history exactly.
faceless007
Member
I don't see what's so wrong with Durante's point. I don't really care one way or the other about the whaling mechanic, but the idea that anything in the AC series is justified by "historical accuracy" is absolutely laughable. You guys know Connor didn't really help out all those things during the Revolution, right? Also that one guy with an axe surrounded by 20 guys with muskets usually doesn't end well for the guy in real life?
The Albatross
Member
They're not really using history as a defense in the way that you're implying that they do. You're implying that his comments mean, "AC:Black Flag is a historical game so we include everything that is in history, therefor this is good to include." When, the comments mean, "AC:Black Flag is a game set during a historical time so we include things that did happen during that historical time by our discretion."
Their defense by means of history is not to say that they are obligated by history, but that they can include whatever they want in any historical context. And, they can.
Nostremitus
Member
Did PETA complain about getting to shoot dolphins in Sin and Punishment 2?
Or hunting in AC3?
Seems like they're just looking for free publicity from a recent announcment from a large franchise. I doubt they've even looked into the context in which it's used in the game.
Or hunting in AC3?
Seems like they're just looking for free publicity from a recent announcment from a large franchise. I doubt they've even looked into the context in which it's used in the game.
Sakura
Member
I'm not sure I understand the big deal. I probably killed a thousand Komodo Dragons in Far Cry 3 which are listed as "vulnerable", yet I shouldn't be able to kill whales in a game set in a time when people killed plenty of whales? They aren't real whales, it's a game. Even in real life the majority of whales hunted by Japan are Minke Whales which are listed as "Least Concern" under conservation status. I think people over react too much to this kind of stuff.
You don't have to change yourself. But surely you don't expect every other human to have the same opinion as you on this subject?
Personally I don't give a crap about animal cruelty as a subject, does that make me wrong? No. As long as I have never done anything illegal to animals (which I have not), then that's the only thing that matters. I don't really care what happens to them otherwise.
You seem like a real debbie downer on this subject, what's your personal angle on it? You have something happen to you or what?
Either way, please don't expect everyone to think exactly like you or judge them. (Unless they actually physically & illegally abuse animals)
It's good neither Tookay nor myself are making that argument.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
More disturbing is that they endorse assassinations.
The Albatross
Member
I, for one, know that as soon as I play the whaling mechanic I am going to move to Japan and join those Japanese whaling fleets. Finally, a videogame exists to help me pursue my passion of killing whales.
Maybe that is what they are trying to say. If so, they could have made their point clearer by -- instead of providing a snippy response clearly aimed to get some cheap laughs out of their audience -- actually addressing the subject in a more comprehensive and earnest manner. As I suggested in my original comment.
Not at all, but I retain my right to voice my opinion on the subject. As for my "personal angle": I really hate animals being treated cruelly. I'd hope that this suffices as motivation?
I think this goes beyond simply not doing their job perfectly or even good. It's gross negligence. Which raises the question why Ubi should be expected to favor such an organization with a serious response?
CamHostage
Member
To be fair, PETA's job is to raise awareness and create influence. For the most part, its statements about depictions in entertainment products are not declarations of war, they are pleas for what they consider enlightenment on a respectable cause of protecting creatures that cannot protect themselves from humanity. Nobody expects these products to be erased from history because an activist group got angry, but shining a light on the issue could influence media producers to think about what their products mean to the public. (For instance, even if the characters don't have that emotional weakness I bet the whaling sequences will likely have a bittersweet undertone to the presentation when the whale subsides, unlike the more triumphant death scenes that we would have seen in say a '60s high-seas adventure movie.) PETA does fuck up its own purposes by being uppity and self-righteous about it, but pointing out that its members find it grotesque to treat whaling as a trophy-hunting game quest set-piece, that is a fair statement to make.
And Ubisoft made the perfectly proper response that gave PETA its dignity (with perhaps more dignity given to their cause than their organization, clever girl) while also establishing its choices in the handling of the subject matter. And they made a funny at the same time.
I'm sure everyone arguing against your position also hates animal cruelty.
Weltall Zero
Member
Came into the thread bracing myself to be the one single odd guy not joining the traditional circle of PETA-ridiculing. Was almost shocked to find Durante defending my exact point of view.
But all the cool kids are laughing at PETA, so by being snarky and dismissive they earn edgycool points. This matters more than any serious discourse.
That's pretty much the gist of it for me too. PETA might be misguided at times in their methods, but their hearts are in the right place.
By portraying whaling as something cool for the player to do, they are in a way (however small) making it more tolerable to society at large. I personally find this disgusting considering it's a practice that is still carried out today, with no moral justification whatsoever. Making it seem like a cool adventure is the last thing I want, personally.
Says who? It does makes you wrong in my book. If there is a "right" and "wrong" opinion about racism, sexism, etc. why would not there be such about animal rights (whichever it is)?
Unless, of course, you're positing the old "every opinion" is right, at which point I sadly must resort to using Godwin's law.
So, who exactly are you to say who Durante is and what he must think?
But all the cool kids are laughing at PETA, so by being snarky and dismissive they earn edgycool points. This matters more than any serious discourse.
That's pretty much the gist of it for me too. PETA might be misguided at times in their methods, but their hearts are in the right place.
By portraying whaling as something cool for the player to do, they are in a way (however small) making it more tolerable to society at large. I personally find this disgusting considering it's a practice that is still carried out today, with no moral justification whatsoever. Making it seem like a cool adventure is the last thing I want, personally.
Says who? It does makes you wrong in my book. If there is a "right" and "wrong" opinion about racism, sexism, etc. why would not there be such about animal rights (whichever it is)?
Unless, of course, you're positing the old "every opinion" is right, at which point I sadly must resort to using Godwin's law.
So, who exactly are you to say who Durante is and what he must think?
It's interesting that you say this while quoting my response to someone who flat-out stated that he doesn't.
Frankenstrat
Member
Damn. AC IV's influence is already working.
Oh dear. Those are endangered, you know.
That is correct, I did say that.
But to be perfectly clear, I have never committed any physical animal cruelty myself. Mainly because I've got better things to do and have no interest in those acts, and also because I don't own any animals and I'm never around any.
So basically I don't care about animals either way. Do you think my feelings on the subject are somehow "wrong", given the fact I've never actually committed animal cruelty?
Well, you mostly ignored my point about personal morality affecting your views on whether content in media should be censored, and I'm passionately anti animal cruelty, if that counts.
I admire your convictions, and yes, I'm not happy with Ubisofts reaction to the situation so far, but I'm also against censorship, and am aware that my views will not be reflected by everyone.
Anyway, if anyone's ethical compass is affected by the portrayal of whaling, glorified or not, in a game about fantasy pirates killing each other, well, we've got bigger things to worry about in society.
The Albatross
Member
Frankly, I think Ubisofts response was a lot more reasonable and a lot less cheap than PETA's initial complaint. At worst, Ubisoft is replying in kind, at best, I think their response is more comprehensive and earnest.
PETA: "Joe Schmoe sitting in his mother's basement playing this game.."
And you think Ubisoft is the one going for cheap laughs out of their audience?
I mean, it glorifies killing human beings but whaling is over the line?
Well, there might be a problem with such apathy. I'm not saying you should go volunteer at the SPCA. But you don't care that animals suffer? Excessively?
But killing humans, that is just fine. Killing whales is where you draw the line?
I would like someone to go and find the post where I say that "glorifying the killing of humans is just fine". (Before you go look, probably the only thing you will find is me saying that I don't play particular games because they do glorify violence)
I don't want to get into that discussion. I just thought it was worth pointing out that MuseManMike apparently didn't read the post I was replying to.
We have lots of things to worry about in society, I can absolutely agree with that, but the argument that "bigger" ones should prevent us from worrying about "lesser" ones always rang hollow to me.
Weltall Zero
Member
That video seems biased as all hell, but I don't really care for PETA one way or the other. I don't care who pointed out that whaling is in ACIV; it doesn't change the fact that there is. Poisoning the well isn't going to support either side of the argument.
Do you think a racist's feelings are "wrong" even if he's never actually beaten up someone from a different race?
Frankenstrat
Member
Yeah, it's super one-sided. And yes, putting it in the game might not have been the best idea given the attitudes surrounding it. Wasn't there a big thread on whaling recently as well?
Messofanego
Banned
Why should Ubisoft give a proper response to PETA, an organisation that jumps on every news topic in any medium that involves animals in whatever manner like the Westboro Baptist Church does to gay news? PETA are as attention-seeking as them, and don't deserve a response.
Team Meat did make Super Tofu Boy for them, which is probably the kindest response you can give to PETA.
Duane Cunningham
Member
Now PETA, was this part really necessary? You're not going to win any friends this way:
(..Not to mention that it's kind of a disjointed statement. Does Joe live with his mother or is he a homeowner?)
(..Not to mention that it's kind of a disjointed statement. Does Joe live with his mother or is he a homeowner?)
That wasn't actually my point! I wasn't saying that this isn't something to be "less" worried about than others, merely saying that if people are truly moved towards thinking whaling is "ok" thanks to a computer game, then we're truly fucked as a society.
Frankly, for 99% of people, I think that's patently untrue, and that people will realise that whaling isn't acceptable just because they saw pirates do it (yes, there will always be idiots who will, but then, they're just that, idiots) and in fact, may get people who otherwise not be engaged by the subject to do a little digging into it and realise that it still goes on in modern times.
Just out of interest, I want your honest opinion on something, in order to help prevent something, (anything, so doesn't have to be whaling in particular), that you find morally unacceptable, do you think it's better to pretend it doesn't exist, or to bring as many people as possible into the debate, even via abstract means that isn't necessarily biased to one moral viewpoint or the other?
OverBlood 3
Banned
I really wish the mods would ban any mention on PETA on neogaf (gaming side at least). All this grasping at games to say how they're create more cruelty to animals etc or whatever it is they're bullshitting about is just them piggybacking on the publicity of games (which are incredibly well publicised) to garner even more publicity for them.
Every 'heh fuck PETA' post is another dollar in their pockets for creating some brand awareness or whatever they're intentions are. You're doing their job by making threads to laugh at how pathetic their statements are, you're playing into their hands they know it's stupid but they also know people will talk about it.
This is coming from a vegan also, I think they're cunts.
Every 'heh fuck PETA' post is another dollar in their pockets for creating some brand awareness or whatever they're intentions are. You're doing their job by making threads to laugh at how pathetic their statements are, you're playing into their hands they know it's stupid but they also know people will talk about it.
This is coming from a vegan also, I think they're cunts.
Ideally that's true, but the problem is that governments have to prioritize handling issues due to monetary & physical resources.
So in real life, some things have to be considered "above" others... I'm sure you understand that.
But you played dishonored that has you killing people. The whole games is based around assassinating people. Did you raise objections about how the game makes you kill people?
Absolutely the latter, but with the exception that "abstract means" should not include ones that could have an impact diametrically opposed to what you are trying to achieve.
I don't know how much you know about Dishonored, but I played the game without killing anyone. It's one of the selling points of the game. Even though there are some characters in that game that "deserve" death far more than any whale or animal ever could.
I felt so bad every time I killed one of those helpless turtles. ;(
Me too. It was weird.
Weltall Zero
Member
No, Durante is right in disbelieving that kind of argument; it's actually a very common fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_worse_problems
It can be used to wrongly dismiss pretty much everything, and it is in fact brought up often to shut up everything from sexual discrimination to racism, to... well, pretty much anything. In fact, it is usually a sign that the one using it has no real ground or arguments to support its side anymore.
Indeed, while I don't usually like to play games based around killing human beings (in the best of cases I find them boring), at least in most games you usually kill human beings that are trying to kill you. Wholeslaughter of innocents in games is usually met with as much or more backslash than animal abuse, and I'm sure we all remember several instances (that one COD game or whatever that had you kill civillians in an airport, killing prostitutes in GTA games, etc.).
This is beside the point that murdering people in most countries is, you know, illegal and obviously shunned by society. While, as I linked above, whaling is still performed by many first-world countries.
Good point, but as we don't know how the subject is being handled, can we at least agree on the old standard of Innocent until proven guilty? We simply do not know yet how Ubisoft are handling the subject, and until we do, it's too early to judge. The problem with PETA is their record on criticising games isn't exactly stellar as evidenced by the Super Meat Boy faux pas so I'm not one to jump the gun here.
If AC4 has whaling in there just because "they can", and makes it look like a fun thing to do with no reference to the impact it had at the time and how it affects things now then yes, I'm going to be with you in criticising Ubisoft, until then, I'm holding fire.
Also: Stop addressing only the bits of our exchanges that you disagree with! It makes it look like I'm totally disagreeing with you (Which I am not), at least in my head!
Totally agree, which is why that wasn't what I was trying to do! I can see why Durante took that interpretation of my argument though, so it's my bad for making it seem like I was trying to do such a thing.
I felt worse personally stabbing beavers for their expensive pelts in AC3... firing a rocket launcher at a group of animals in Far Cry 3 did not seem as cruel..
I totally agree with that, but that was my initial point in the thread: it would have been nice if Ubisoft offered some concrete clarification instead of (or at least in addition to) a quip.
That's not at all my goal, I just usually cut out the exact quotes I reply to, and I rarely reply to what I agree with
Not a good analogy.
A racist actively hates/dislikes another set of people. Even if he's not physically beating them up, a racist by definition harbors negative feelings and thoughts.
I don't dislike/hate animals... I'm just completely neutral about them.
If 100% of animals hypothetically lived a charmed life, it wouldn't bother me at all. Whereas a racist would be upset if the opposing set of people all became successful.
So no, I'm not a "racist" of animals =P
And I doubt you will be forced to whale in this game. No need to object to whaling in this game because it is an option, much like killing is an option in Dishonored.
I really don't think some virtual whales dieing is anything to get upset about. You are wasting energy worrying about virtual whales that feel nothing.
I asked you something a few posts up.
Weltall Zero
Member
If someone didn't particularly care either way about the beating and/or killing of people, as long as they were black people, would you label them a racist?
No, that is called apathy.
Alcoholikaust
Member
they DONT condone pirate lifestyles?
posers...Im out/
posers...Im out/