Vegan Gamer: Are We Okay With Animal Cruelty in Games?
Video games don’t let you hurt kids, but I can kill a cat?
You spur on your horse, jerking sideways at the last second to dodge a tree. Together, you hop over a small river, your eyes fixed on the small gray creature darting between the underbrush. It disappears — have you lost it? Just as you start to reign in your horse, out the rabbit jumps again, straight under the heavy thud of your steed’s hoof. A black and white notification pops up “Horseman 5: 5 of 5 animals trampled”. You did it!
I think I confuse people when I tell them I love games like GTA, Minecraft, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Far Cry 5. For two reasons: I’m a vegan and I’m a pacifist. Death bothers me — why should an animal die just so I can eat it? I’m the person that cries when people die in films, even if they weren’t important to the story.
That being said, there’s nothing more relaxing than getting a slow-motion testicle shot in Sniper Elite. Violent games are popular for a reason — they’re fun. In retrospect, maybe I’m the most violent pacifist you’ll ever meet?
But how does this apply to animals? Well first, you’ve probably heard of the question: does in-game violence promote real-world violence? Well, recently there’s been a new question, albeit with less press coverage: does animal cruelty in games harm real-world animal welfare? If you happily shoot a friend’s dog in FarCry 5, who’s to say you won’t shoot your neighbour’s dog tomorrow?
Video game violence has always been a hotly contested discussion. There have been many studies attempting to prove or disprove a correlation. However, all taken together, the evidence seems to suggest that if there is a link, it is a tenuous one that is influenced by many other factors. To summarise, if you’re a violent person, it’s very difficult to prove that video games are to blame for it.
A philosophy paper on the ethics of violence against animals in video games argues that it is more harmful than violence against humans. There have been few studies done on the effects of violence against animals, and the topic is usually ignored. The paper has a lot of good arguments for why we should start talking about it. However, if studies struggle to find a link between violence in games and violence in real life, then why would it matter if the violence is against animals instead of humans?
But here’s the catch, and one of the arguments of the paper: regardless of what studies have found on violence, there are still types of violence that just aren’t okay. The biggest example is violence towards children. There are exceptions, but the majority of violent games do not have children in them. Games like GTA and Watch Dogs are centered around huge open world cities that are populated entirely by adults. Because of this, when you inevitably start plowing through pedestrians, it’s impossible to hurt kids. So how are animals any different? In the real world, animals, like children, cannot consent and can easily fall foul of mistreatment and negligence. Yet, the majority of games with animals not only let you kill them, they encourage it by putting in rewards and achievements. Are we okay with this?
To properly think about this, let’s go back to the beginning — why do we play games? I think we play games for two reasons:
- It feels good. Rewards, achievements, and story progression all give us that coveted dopamine rush.
- To gain new experiences. Humanity is driven by curiosity, and games hook us in with premises like “What would it be like to be a mercenary on an alien planet?”
Do animals help games feel good? Of course they do. Taming, rearing, hunting, etc. all give us opportunities to get achievements and interact with animals. Animal interaction, even if the animal is virtual has been shown to be potentially effective as supportive animal companions.
Do animals in games give us new experiences? Yes. Games are a controlled, low-risk way to ride horses, live alongside tigers, go hunting, or even just have a pet dog.
Based on this, what happens if we remove animals completely? Searching “animal” in the Steam game store gave me over 7,000 results. I don’t think it needs to be argued that nuking all animal-containing games would create an un-fillable hole. However, there are plenty of games without animals which are incredible successful and satisfying to play.
A less drastic approach would be to make all animals invincible. We still get our animals, they just can’t be harmed. There are plenty of games like this. Farming games like Stardew Valley let you care for a whole host of animals with minor repercussions — even severe neglect doesn’t kill your chickens, they just stop producing eggs and look a bit grumpy. However, there are many games where invincible animals would create problems. Survival games, first-person shooters, many open world games operate on the kill or be killed principle. If every aggressive bear in FarCry5 was suddenly invincible, the game would stop being fun and start being unplayable. It can be argued that violent games can just replace aggressive animals with humans, but this would remove a lot of diversity from games. It would also feel unrealistic if survival games didn’t include hunting for food. In reality, if you’ve been stranded in a forest it might be safer to catch and eat small animals than to experiment with potentially poisonous plants.
Perhaps it is the context that matters most. Why are you hurting animals? Are there rewards or repercussions? And who is inflicting the pain? Is it a character you are controlling or is it you? Stepping into another’s shoes is one of my favourite parts of a game. Living and making decisions based on a morality that is not your own is a fascinating experience. If anything, I am proof that someone can be vegan but still enjoy games with animal-based violence. Maybe some would argue that playing these games makes me not vegan, but I personally don’t think my love of games has anything to do with the decisions I make in the real-world.
In summary, does animal violence in games hurt animal welfare? Probably not. Is it still an opportunity to normalise harmful behaviour? Maybe.
I’m glad to be able to interact with animals in games. Does it take away from the game when they are invincible? In most situations, no. But a pet who can die or be killed forces me to be mindful — I can’t wildly swing my sword, or walk into a danger zone without taking a risk. I may have infinite regenerations, but these computer-generated animals do not. In a way, their trust means more when their life is fragile.
So why am I talking about this in the first place if I don’t have an answer? Why did you read this? Well, I believe it is these kinds of conversations that make us human. Asking ourselves complicated ethical questions may seem frustrating and pointless when there are no good answers. But ultimately, asking ourselves if we are okay with the decisions we make, like allowing animal cruelty in games, is a habit that can make us more open-minded, considerate people.
