i wouldn't be surprised if peta was already making a game where all you do is kill animals and use them to make convenient items, oh wait. Just Kidding but in all seriousness I think that peta is going to skip this one over and just bash on about another nintendo and then make a flash game about how its bad by over portraying eventhhing
How long until PETA goes after Far Cry 3?
- Thread starter Erttheking
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't know, how long until we stop giving PETA attention?
Because once we stop doing that, they'll find something else to yell at for attention. They focus on games because gaming websites are pretty much the only ones who front-page news of PETA saying stuff about other stuff. Everywhere else pretty much ignores them unless they do something big. Methinks we should all do that as well.
Because once we stop doing that, they'll find something else to yell at for attention. They focus on games because gaming websites are pretty much the only ones who front-page news of PETA saying stuff about other stuff. Everywhere else pretty much ignores them unless they do something big. Methinks we should all do that as well.
Probably never. I wouldn't be as big a popularity stunt as going after Mario since more people know Mario then Far Cry 3. When they do something like this it's to generate buzz more then because they actually oppose something.
Probably never. PETA thrives on marketing and Farcry is not nearly a mainstream enough title to draw in the publicity to make it worth their time. Also, the focus of their activism is about domestication and farming of animals...they're not really that concerned with hunting for sustenance ...or wild animals in general.
Uh, FarCry 3 places the animal-slaughter in a survival setting, and their skins are used to further that survival.
So, I'm not sure they will. 'Cause it's kind of a sensible situation in which to kill animals. That said, PeTA is not a sensible organization. So who knows.
So, I'm not sure they will. 'Cause it's kind of a sensible situation in which to kill animals. That said, PeTA is not a sensible organization. So who knows.
Considering also how the animals in Far Cry III are frequently MORE dangerous than a ballistic-proof, steel-clad psycho with a flamethrower and 5 of his buddies... I'll say PETA probably like Far Cry III.
I think I died more to tigers in that game than I died falling 7 feet. I mean seriously, that game was almost as bad as War Z when it came to the player taking damage from falling.
I think I died more to tigers in that game than I died falling 7 feet. I mean seriously, that game was almost as bad as War Z when it came to the player taking damage from falling.
Pretty sure that unless you count euthanizing animals, whining a lot and diverting money that could actually be used by legitimate groups that genuinely give a shit about animals and not just attention (i.e. Humane Society) that PETA has never done anything that could reasonably be considered "useful". They're a bunch of crazies.Fisher321 said:
Alligators? Nope, Saltwater Crocodiles. Alligators can only be found in North America and China and mainly inhabit fresh water whereas crocodiles are comfortable in both fresh and saltwater. Salties are also the biggest and most dangerous of their kind and have a triangle-shaped head while an alligator's is U shaped.erttheking said:
PETA gave BattleField 3 crap about killing rats but not anything towards Dishonored.
I guess you just have to give them time for them to notice things.
I guess you just have to give them time for them to notice things.
i do not think they will i love far cry but i do not think it is as big a name in the media like mario or pokemon is so they will not get as much publicity and that is what peta wants in the end well that and a lot of cash
drummond13 said:
On the subject, I am surprised they haven't gone at any RPG where you kill animals. And those have been around for a long time. Although, as Thuggych pointed out, Far Cry 3 is not mainstream enough. Makes perfect sense given how they attacked Mario, Pokemon and Battlefield.
I practice RPG and explosive .50 cal sniper rifle hunting.
The animals don't feel pain, so it's the most humane way to do it.
Coincidentally, it's also the most fun.
But it's definitively about killing them humanely. NOT about seeing their little pixelated corpse fly in different description to the sound of my laughter.
The animals don't feel pain, so it's the most humane way to do it.
Coincidentally, it's also the most fun.
But it's definitively about killing them humanely. NOT about seeing their little pixelated corpse fly in different description to the sound of my laughter.
Wait, but the Mario thing didn't even make sense, since Mario was just wearing a costume[footnote]I think. Probably.[/footnote], and thus no fictional animals were harmed. A better example would be Pokemon, seeing as it's WAY more obvious, and they were still just about the last people on Earth to figure it out.Ryotknife said:
But as far as Far Cry 3 goes, I think the effort it would take them to find out about the "skinning animals" aspect of the game[footnote]I.e., doing some research into the game beyond looking at the front cover[/footnote] will turn out to be too much for PETA, and they'll let it slide. And then make a flash game parody of it 15 years from now.
I'm thinking...."Far CRY", with a picture of some crying animals off to the side.