Poll: Dog Fighting "Game" on Android Store

[NezumiiroKitsune]

There has been a lot of debate here about how games should be treat as an art form, primarily so that creators can have freedom of expression, without abiding by a restrictive and financially hampering system, that the majority agree the government need nothing to do with. The likes of PEGI and ESRB do a superb job of self regulating, and it's important to recognise this.

However I put to you, is this defensible, and if not why?

http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-android-to-block-dog-fighting-app

They put forward it appears to condone dog fighting, and labels Android with the same message. However we need only look at China Town Wars or a host of other games, in which illegal activity, including but not limited to the killing of people and animals, dealing in drug trafficking and theft, and arson, to question this conclusion. Through much debate it is generally agreed, the content of a title rarely reflects the opinions of the developers or condones the taking part in the activity. So, should people make up their own minds whether they want this or not?

Is this different because it isn't subject to any regulation or certification?

Is their decision to link content within the game, to the suggested inside knowledge of the player, of how training dogs for fighting works in reality, an attempt to condone the content IRL?

Should this be protected for the sake of the freedom of games developers, to create risky, but significantly more substantial titles?

Is their any real potential for this to turn anyone to dog fighting, who wasn't before interested in it? If not, is it an issue at all?

 

[emeraldrafael]

I thought this game got shot down before.

anyway, if tehy want to market it, I tihnk they should. if people are really worried about the influences of harmful subjects, they'd get rid of individuals smoking and drunk driving and such. as long as the app makes money to cover its costs, then the morals and ethics can be debated or negated in light of the profit.

 

[Steve Lovell]

Isn't this news pretty damn old? And pokemon are colorful and cute ^_^

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

Heh, using and abusing animals for bloodsport.
Where have I heard about that before...

oh right.

I guess its okay to beat up, enslave and support blood fights between innocent animals as long as you market it correctly.

Hohoho, very good.

I imagine Pokémon get's away with it due a combination of fantastical creatures, nothing dying as an intended result of the battles, and the attacks being fanciful, rather than savage mauling. It helps whenever something does die in Pokémon, it's a huge sorrowful affair, and never (?) the result of a battle.

Fine line though. Does this mean all "Pokémon masters" secretly yearn to fight animals? Is that reading too much into nothing? Yes.

 

[FallenTraveler]

This is just silly, not because of dogfighting, that is wrong, we all know that. But because people are blaming GOOGLE for it... of course that's a small population, but still. The petition ought to be blaming Kage Games completely.

On one hand I am all for pulling this. On the other hand, it is a game, even if this isn't a defensible game, it is along the same lines of No Russian in MW2. It is there to get a rise, but it is also there to prove a point. If there is some warning about not condoning animal cruelty then maybe it is a bit better, but this could go either way for me...

Oh, and the obligatory "Pokemon animal fighting pokemon BLAH!"

 

[the spud]

Mass Effect 2 had a dog (like-thing) fighting circuit that you lost no paragon points for playing. This isn't new.

 

[Jodah]

The only censorship I am against is Governmental. If the public wants a distributor to ban something they have the right to ask for it. Furthermore said distributor has the right to ban or not to. Its when they ask for Governmental intervention that the feces hits the twirling blades.