Dog-Fighting Game Pulled from Android Market

[Michelle Weiss]

games ok but NOT in real life there's a line

 

[gizunt]

Killing people - All right ! Killing Dogs - No way.

Totally agree man! putting two man\women against each other in a fight to the death with torturous ways to kill your opponent is ok but dogs is too much? besides its better to be done in a video game then real life.

 

[disfunkybob]

Screw this dogfighting game! Now if you'll excuse me, I have some Pokemon to train.

Touche. Or at least it would be if Pokemon like Angry Birds was a problem in society. Unless you weren't coming out in favour of the dog fighting game in which case I apologise wholeheartedly.

Nah, I hate the dicks fighting dogs. Micheal Vick will always be wearing that metaphorical scarlet A as far as I'm concerned.

I just find the slight hypocrisy about "this game is okay, but this isn't" amusing. And you know what, don't let hypocrisy be a completely dirty word. Sometimes fire can be fought with fire.

 

[irani_che]

replace "dog" with "pokemon"
problem solved

 

[viranimus]

Good? How did it get there int he first place?

As for actual dogfighting, I think there should only be one punishment. If convicted you are held until someone else anywhere is convicted of dogfighting. Once two parties are convicted they are put in a cage and forced into death match. The looser dies, the winner keeps fighting until they loose or there is no one left to fight and the problem gets fixed.

 

[Treblaine]

This game should be put back on the market.
In Pokemon I can fight all animals I want. In Manhunt you can stalk and violently murder people to death with primitive weapons like palstic bags and shards of glass.

Why does this Dog game matter? You can't use any argument against it you couldn't against any other game. It allows you to simulate doing illegal things? Cruel things? Immoral things? Need I list you the amount of games that allow this?

In New Vegas I could fight Rad Scorpions in a ring; why is this game any different?

Oh you know, dogs are special, you can't hurt them in a game without people makign a load of fuss;


Oh wait. Nope, it's mostly hypocrisy.

The point is people are ultimately indifferent to the appalling murder rates in the United States, after all it's mostly "gang members" (code word for guess what) killing each other. And they don't like "gang members", they can kill each other all they like. But they LIKE dogs, and while they are complacent over the slaughter of people the idea of dogs being hurt is such a shock to them they get all idealistic, that NO DEPICTION of it can be accepted.

So in the unique circumstances of a game where a dog hurts another dog they are reminded of that blood sport those "gang members" practice and get all indignant and start making exceptions to freedom-of-speech that ultimately undermine liberty for ALL games.

I put this in the same category as N'Gai Croal's rant about black zombies in Resident Evil 5, but at least he saw sense in the end.

The difference between this and CoD WaW and BlOps' Dogs killstreak and Hellhounds is that they were trained to attack you. So it could technically be called self defence. Or do you want people to just sit there as a rabid dog comes to bit their cocks off, while they're carrying a gun?

Well by the OP's logic the game shouldn't even be sold as we shouldn't even play such games. We put ourselves in this situation and no retailer should sell such games... apparently.

Remember this is a game where not only are you attacked by dogs and must defend yourself but you set dogs to attack and kill other people.

Which is apparently alright with the OP by their own omission, but if EVER those dogs were allowed to directly fight each other... well somehow that would SOMEHOW be going too far (sarc).

I'd just like the Op to put his opinions on WaW/Blops dogs into his article and explain the distinction there.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

this shit is worse than rapelay imo

What? How?

one simple reason amimals are 100% innocent and can never be deserving of callous behaviour such as torture in this case, people enacting horrors on each other is fine(for lack of better word) but don't enact it on the only truly innocent creatures of the world

What?! Animals are truly innocent? They kill people. They kill each other. They eat each other. They rape each other.... Are you implying that people deserve to be raped?

oh sweet christ i hope that was sarcasm

just in case it wasn't let me explain, animals are incapable of evil, humans are more than capable, an animal will only commit an act if it is towards either its own survival or towards the good of its pack

an animal will not inflict misery upon another life just for misery's own sake

No evil person actually believes they are evil. Nero. Stalin. Hitler. All names of famous evil men, all men who honestly believed they were doing what was right for the people they were in charge of. I fail to see how an animal doing something horrendous for "the good of its pack" is any different from this. Besides, you know Dolphins, those cute little squeaky things? Serial rapists, and intelligent enough that rape actually has significance. Think about that for a while before you start talking about how cute and innocent animals are again.

 

[KirbyKrackle]

Saying "X violent game exists on an entirely different platform and is sold through entirely different distribution channels, so this game should be allowed to exist on the Android market" is kind of a poor comparison. The real comparison is probably better made between this game and the rest of the games available for the Android. Does the Android perhaps simply have a general ban on mature, controversial, or violent games? If it does, that might be unfortunate for Android purchasers with interests in those games, but makes this decision in line with their policy.

Also, All Things Digital is apparently staffed by morons. This isn't really a free speech issue. No one can walk into a store and demand the store sell whatever crappy product was just shoved in their face, and that doesn't change just because the store's online. Cripes, just sell it elsewhere.

 

[Easton Dark]

I actually had to do a double-take on the thread title.

A dog fighting game? Protests would be the natural response to this kind of game, not praise for being 'edgy'.

 

[Vrach]

The most popular mobile game may involve flinging birds at castles, but until Angry Birds becomes a real-life problem I don't think we have to worry about that.

So if I'm reading that right, what you essentially just said is "if it's a real life problem, there shouldn't be a game about it".

Good thing every single violent game Escapist ever defended from Fox and whatever other morons went ahead and railed at the gaming industry never included an activity that's a real life problem.

*massive thumbs up*

 

[Sparrow]

Violence toward animals has always been a grey area for me. In one sense, I enjoy killing the shit out of humans in a video game but detest having to do it to animals. I'm not sure what distinction between the hampers me, other than finding animals adorable!

I point to you the dogs in CoD (see video at top of the page) you cannot find those attack dogs "adorable". Or at least no more than the Wermacht soldier also trying to kill you.

Humans should be instantly more appealing by the very fact of having human faces and language.

BTW, would you "enjoy killing the shit out of " this person:

So before you all start putting up pictures of cute puppies and saying "how could you wan widdle diddums hurt" look at this nice looking chap. He's a Nazi. An officer in the German army in World War 2 sworn allegiance to Adolf Hitler, he fights and kills for his cause.

Consider that you enjoy killing people in games because of the way they are depicted, not what they are.

Now, you see, I'd be alright with killing that guy. Not because he's a Nazi, but because he's human. I'm completely fine with that. A widdle puppy, however? Damn straight I'm going to chose my dog over the entire population of the world, thank you for the option Fable 2.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Violence toward animals has always been a grey area for me. In one sense, I enjoy killing the shit out of humans in a video game but detest having to do it to animals. I'm not sure what distinction between the hampers me, other than finding animals adorable!

I point to you the dogs in CoD (see video at top of the page) you cannot find those attack dogs "adorable". Or at least no more than the Wermacht soldier also trying to kill you.

Humans should be instantly more appealing by the very fact of having human faces and language.

BTW, would you "enjoy killing the shit out of " this person:

So before you all start putting up pictures of cute puppies and saying "how could you wan widdle diddums hurt" look at this nice looking chap. He's a Nazi. An officer in the German army in World War 2 sworn allegiance to Adolf Hitler, he fights and kills for his cause.

Consider that you enjoy killing people in games because of the way they are depicted, not what they are.

Now, you see, I'd be alright with killing that guy. Not because he's a Nazi, but because he's human. I'm completely fine with that. A widdle puppy, however? Damn straight I'm going to chose my dog over the entire population of the world, thank you for the option Fable 2.

Well, that's my disturbing revelation for the day. I knew this site was full of misanthropists, but choosing a dog over the entire human race?

 

[John Funk]

The most popular mobile game may involve flinging birds at castles, but until Angry Birds becomes a real-life problem I don't think we have to worry about that.

So if I'm reading that right, what you essentially just said is "if it's a real life problem, there shouldn't be a game about it".

Good thing every single violent game Escapist ever defended from Fox and whatever other morons went ahead and railed at the gaming industry never included an activity that's a real life problem.

*massive thumbs up*

No, I said that unless it's a real life problem, I don't think there will be any outrage over that.

 

[Sparrow]

Now, you see, I'd be alright with killing that guy. Not because he's a Nazi, but because he's human. I'm completely fine with that. A widdle puppy, however? Damn straight I'm going to choose my dog over the entire population of the world, thank you for the option Fable 2.

Well, that's my disturbing revelation for the day. I knew this site was full of misanthropists, but choosing a dog over the entire human race?

You appear to be missing my point. The dog. Was. Adorable.

 

[Treblaine]

one simple reason amimals are 100% innocent

What?! Animals are truly innocent? They kill people. They kill each other. They eat each other. They rape each other.... Are you implying that people deserve to be raped?

oh sweet christ i hope that was sarcasm

just in case it wasn't let me explain, animals are incapable of evil, humans are more than capable, an animal will only commit an act if it is towards either its own survival or towards the good of its pack

an animal will not inflict misery upon another life just for misery's own sake

OK then explain why the real life fox that got into my auntie's garden killed ALL the chickens and took only one of the bodies away to eat? No more chickens to poach, it didn't help their survival, it did it because it has a killer instinct BEYOND survival.

What about when a new lion joins the pack it KILLS the young cubs. Without exception. That is for neither their own survival nor the pack/pride but their own selfish desires for mates and "exclusivity".

Also "will not inflict misery upon another life just for misery's own sake" I hope you don't consider that a definition of innocence?

If a man murders someone for his money - not because he wanted him dead or to suffer, just his money - does that make him innocent? He was motivated by greed and disregard for human life, not sadism.

Animals are only innocent in the limited sense that they do not have the intellectual capacity to tell right from wrong, only good from bad. That is, they know that doing "bad" things will have repercussions they will regret.