In the past, several animal rights groups have tried to ban Pokémon, claiming that pokémon battles closely resemble cockfights. This aspect of the controversy was actually touched upon in Pokémon Black and White. The main villains in this generation are Team Plasma, whose ultimate goal is to "liberate" all pokémon from their trainers, by either convincing the trainer to release their Pokémon, or by theft. This group believes that by catching and training pokémon, humans are enslaving them and denying them their right to live their lives peacefully in the wild. On a number of occasions throughout the game, the player must confront Team Plasma and force them to return the pokémon that they stole. Meanwhile, Team Plasma's leader, N, wishes for nothing more than to create separate worlds for humans and pokémon. He therefore works his way toward the top so that he can defeat the battle champion, which will thus make him the indisputable king of pokémon trainers. Once he has attained this level of power, he plans to force all trainers to set their pokémon free.
It's fairly clear to me that the existence of pokémon rights activists in this game was a direct reference to the same animal rights groups who have been clamoring for the ban of all Pokémon games. Based on the game's portrayal of Team Plasma, it seems that the game developers found these animal rights activists to have well intentions, but also to be severely lacking in common sense. The obvious flaw in Team Plasma's plans is that they are completely disregarding their beliefs by battling pokémon in order to ultimately set them free. Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about it. As a person who plays Pokémon, I certainly don't feel good whenever I see real animals fighting. But I'll admit that before I started playing Pokémon, I did find the overall concept of the game rather disturbing. I think what animal rights activists don't see is that when you actually play the game, you really come to love those pokémon that you catch and train all by yourself. There are even side-games where you can feed, pet, and play games with your cute little pokémon.
But it's not like the game really needs anyone to defend it. Pokémon is one of the most popular games in history, and will continue to be popular until it ceases production. No matter how well-intentioned, animal rights activists won't be able win this battle. There's just too much money to be made off of kids wanting to play with cute animals.
This is interesting. I have never played Pokeman, so I am not too clear on how the game works or the controversy. Are there actually real animals involved or are we talking about digital animals? If they are real animals--how? How do you get a rooster into a video game? I am so video game illiterate; I don't get it. If they are digital, why are the animal rights activists so upset? I guess I see the danger in perpetuating violence against a certain animal (the rooster, let's say), but with so many things happening in the "real" world, I would think animal activists have bigger fish to fry.
ReplyDeleteMany pokémon are based on real animals, but none are actually referred to as 'animals' in the game. The argument that animal rights activists make is a psychological one--they don't like the idea of children simulating what appeared to be cockfights in Pokémon games. It's a new trend in media and politics to be questioning the moral consequences of children playing video games that simulate acts of violence--they think that the children will not have developed the sense of morality necessary to know not to reenact those violent actions in the real world.
DeleteWhen I say "psychological" argument, I mean one that is based on no hard evidence, just on mere concepts and opinions of the people who support them. To be honest, I agree with you-- animal rights activists are wasting their time with games like this, and there is no evidence showing that children who play pokemon also are interested in cockfighting or dog fighting. They're just jumping on the let's-blame-video-games bandwagon.