PETA vs. Pokémon: It’s not very effective

Default_picture
Monday, October 15, 2012
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Sam Barsanti

I appreciate the cleverness of these PETA ads (people are clearly putting a lot of work into them), but I think the way they always seem to be just as critical of video games as they are of animal cruelty seems like a very poor choice. They're already trying to antagonize people, so why bother antagonizing people that haven't done anything to hurt animals?

I’ve been meaning to write something for Bitmob for months now. Perhaps a discussion of immersion, a critique of live systems, maybe some reviews. A lot of things have been brewing in my mind, but with this new Pokémon Black & Blue game that PETA released last week, I am enraged and finally motivated to speak out.

I never thought much of PETA before. Yeah, the group’s intentions are good, but I don’t personally support much of what they’re doing (at least not to the point of actually pledging support). But now, I might just hate them forever.

If you haven’t heard, Pokémon Black & Blue (hereafter PB&B) is a parody game that PETA released to coincide with the launch of Black 2 and White 2 last weekend. The player controls several abused Pokémon in battle against their former masters with equal parts civil disobedience and over-the-top comic violence.

Offensive, ignorant, and ill-conceived, this mockery of a game is a half-hearted attempt to portray Pokémon as something that it absolutely is not.

 

What PB&B really boils down to is a simple misconception: the notion that the Pokémon series is about capturing animals and forcing them to fight each other, willingly or not, for your amusement. Anyone who has seen a single-paragraph synopsis of the Pokémon games might reach that conclusion, but this dismisses all aspects of the presentation of the game’s fictional context.

Honestly, it’s almost grating sometimes how explicitly and forcefully the characters in Pokémon tout friendship, teamwork, and love between trainers and their partners. You’d have to play one of the games without reading anything to miss that. PB&B is actually more grating in this department, though, since the entirety of the in-game dialogue is essentially one big repetition of “Pokémon have feelings, too!”

Have you seen the cartoon? The very first episode shows protagonist Ash risking his life to protect his Pikachu, which sparks their friendship for the entire series. If I recall, any trainer in the series who isn’t best friends with their Pokémon is promptly defeated by someone who is. Plus, there are boatloads of people who own/befriend Pokémon but don’t battle with them.


Because nothing says “obey me” like altruistic self-sacrifice.

But it’s not just about the misconception of Pokémon itself, it’s about the misconception of games in general. No matter the perspective a player has, a game is just a game.

Best described by the concept of the “Magic Circle,” a game takes place within artificial barriers from real life in which actions and their outcomes are assigned meaning and value based on context independent of the real world. Reasonable players can recognize this distinction and play the game in such a context.

In the world of Pokémon, capturing and training wild animals is valuable and promoted. Doing so leads not only to success in battling but also success in friendship, learning, science, economy, and more. Maybe in the real world these actions do not yield the same outcomes and aren’t attributed the same values, but the game is separate from reality.

What PETA is doing, then, is trying to interpret the fictional world of Pokémon with a real-world perspective (a very particular one at that). This breaks the Magic Circle and changes Pokémon into a different thing entirely. This different game just so happens to be PB&B, yet it is branded as though it were any other Pokémon game.

So, if PETA is really opposed to the values of Pokémon but can’t approach them in thier proper context, they must really mean to target the nearest real-world equivalent: pet ownership. Domesticated animals have been removed from their natural environments (captured) and taught to perform certain tasks like hunting, racing, or rolling over (trained) for our entertainment or our own benefit (battled, etc.). Plus, real animals are much less equipped to prevent humans from abusing them than Pokémon are. Even a Caterpie stands a reasonable chance of asphyxiating someone with a String Shot.

If PETA doesn’t separate Pokémon from reality, isn’t PB&B just a statement against pet ownership in general? Heck, maybe they staunchly oppose pet ownership already. As I said, I had never paid PETA much mind before, but after playing Pokémon Black and Blue I won’t even bother to find out.


Along with other sites, GamePolitics.com includes a concise look at PETA's views on the game.

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (3)
Default_picture
October 15, 2012

The "magic circle" statement might be hard to defend for every video game.  Using "God of War" as an example, the player might believe there is value in sleeping with multiple women as it gets them experience (the sex mini-game contained in every "God of War" game).  When in reality there is consequences for not practicing safe sex:  Unwanted pregnancies, STDs, relationship issues, and so forth.  What PETA has done is connect real problems (animal abuse for profit) in our world to the fictional world of a video game where these concerns are not taboo, but encouraged.  Pokemon's magic circle establishes that the animals in this game are perfectly fine with fighting for their 'trainers' or 'owners'.  The "God of War" and "Pokemon" worlds are not wrong or degrading because their "magic circle" argument establishes that there is some justifiable context for there actions.  But there are still players calling out "God of War" a sexist product, as PETA has done with Nintendo's multi-million dollar product.  Saying a game is justified because of its magic circle is not going to magically negate criticism towards the product.

But PETA is no better with justifying their actions via their own magic circle.  In "Pokemon: Black & Blue" (PB&B) there is a great deal of shock value to manipulate the player in supporting PETA.  Twisted personifications of Pokemon trainers like "Ash Ketchum" are presented in their magic circle as an immoral dick that seeks to gain profit off the suffering of animals.  A link exists in the game to a video of animals being harmed by humans as a way to help us gamers understand what PETA finds in value.  PETA does have a point for calling out "Pokemon" and Nintendo animal abusers, but they use the same theory of a magic circle to justify their actions.

100media_imag0065
October 15, 2012

I really hate PETA with a passion. Funny thing is, I'm a Liberal and an animal lover, so I should be right up their alley. I donate constantly to my local SPCA, and even volunteer my time. We donate to the WWF, and a ton more. Yet, PETA will never get a single dime from me. They are hypocrites, liars, manipulators, thieves, criminals, burglars, con artists, egotistical douche muffins. The day I give those lying fart inspectors a single dime of my money, well, it will be a cold day in hell.

The world will be a better place without them.

Default_picture
October 15, 2012

I mean, in principle, the "magic circle" does be provide justifiable context, but that certainly doesn't stop people from thinking otherwise. But yeah, the greater problem is PETA's hypocrisy in criticizing Pokemon's supposed violence again animals by having animals and people fighting each other, then claiming their game as an equivalent of the original Pokemon games. They're free to express their opinions, but they aren't doing themselves any favors by not doing any fact-checking and being ridiculous and unreasonable.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.