PETA’s attention grabbing ‘Mario Kills Tanooki‘ game did make the headlines across gaming media. PETA have released a statement and have asked Nintendo fans to view it as ‘tongue-in-cheek’.
PETA’s campaign has somewhat worked, drawing a crowd of angry gamers to wonder why their plumber hero was portrayed as a cold critter killing psychopath. In a response to an inquiry by 8bitfix, PETA made this statement:
Mario fans: Relax! PETA’s game was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, a fun way to call attention to a serious issue, that raccoon dogs are skinned alive for their fur. We wish real-life tanukis could fly or swat enemies away with their tails and escape from those who profit from their skins. You can help them by never buying real fur.
Lovely in sentiment but insulting in execution.
The reason I stated that it only somewhat worked is because when you take a beloved icon and distort their message into something as grotesque as the wanton slaughter of animals is counter-intuitive – all you’re doing is pissing off the people you want to convert to your cause.
Hopefully PETA will resume plans for their porn site instead.
Mario Kart 7 shortcut exploits patched
Celebrate Super Mario 3D Land with your very own Tanooki suit
Nintendo announces pink 3DS holiday bundles
Mario 3D Land and Skyward Sword Sell More Than 500,000 Copies Each
Sony and Nintendo consoles are holding first-party games back - UKIE
Super Mario 3D Land - out tomorrow for 3DS
Yep, this is just a refersal after PETA realised that they’d made one giant cock up.
Login or Register to reply.
James Haresign (November 17th, 2011)
“all you’re doing is pissing off the people you want to convert to your cause.”
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there – this is a major problem with all of PETA’s campaigns; they’re preaching to the choir. If one’s already invested in the values that PETA holds, then this Mario game (or the “holocaust on your plate” campaign, or most of their other ones) will be convincing, but if one doesn’t hold those values then it comes off as insensitive and absurd. Given their massive budget, one might have expected them to be able to come up with more compelling PR campaigns.
Then again, I suppose it’s for the best that they’re largely ineffectual and hugely self-congratulatory. Can you imagine how dangerous they’d be if they were competent?
Login or Register to reply.
sqrrl101 (November 17th, 2011)
It’s not so much their incompetence that’s letting them down but their lack of agenda. They have no sense of comprimise – yes, animals should be treated humanely, no, we will never stop eating them. Also, ethical values are subjective to the point of irrelevant in most cases. Resources allocated to non-fur clothing harms habitats and the ecosystem, so they’re basically the same as the rest of us meat eaters: as long as we don’t see the blood, we’re fine.
Login or Register to reply.
Mark Ankucic (November 17th, 2011)