Euphoria14 said:
In W@W the game isn't about the execution of animals for sport, it is portraying a part of WWII that was actually happened. It is trying to stay true to the horrors of that war during that time. Even if a game like you are mentioning came out, would I have an issue with it? I probably would, but it all depends on how it is being represented. Do I condone the execution of an animal in the way they do so, by clubbing it in the head? No I do not. Will I sit here and bitch and moan about it and try to get my way and take away the developers right to express themselves and cater to an audience that may enjoy that? No I will not. Who am I to say what someone should or shouldn't do? If I do not like it I do not buy it and/or play it. Problem solved. We are all adults here, we can make our own decisions, I don't need the PETA trying to make them for me. What is next? Do we get rid of hunting games? Do we deprive those who actually enjoy those things because someone else doesn't? You are trying to argue your point and I am trying to argue mine. My point is that I think we shouldn't allow a group like the PETA to dictate what we can and can not do. Your view seems as though you think that we should ultimately bend to their will. This is an argument that will have no end and that is why I am ending my portion of my argument here. Point is, games aren't for everyone. It is something you need to learn to accept.
|
Agree to disagree ;)
Final thoughts:
I do not think that dev's should bent to organisations like PETA, im just saying that the negative press keeps piling up.. and if a game offends some one.... (and especially this is if it is something that not hurting the integrity of the game) just take it out in the next one and avoid getting more negative press
