Guild Wars 2

Myhr.9108:

SlippyCheeze.5483:

Kako.1930:

Lol, all this over a magical floppy fish animation in a video game. Triggered much? :P

Well, no more than the people here ranting about how this current rash of treating people with respect — sorry, policital correctness — is destroying modern society, I’d have to say?

In any case, no, it’s about the addition of an animation of a creature constantly suffering to a video game that, previously, hadn’t featured that sort of thing. The important part there is “ongoing representation of an animal suffering”.

Some folks, sure, would find even the level of violence represented in GW2 unpleasant to deal with, and that’s fine. Some folks are fine with significantly greater levels of realism of violence, and that’s … probably also fine, but definitely not my cup of tea.

Everyone has a line, somewhere. Sure, lots more people are going to be uncomfortable given the torture prisoners game to play, than by the flopping fish pet, but that doesn’t mean their discomfort is non-existent, or that you can dismiss them by saying others have it worse.

So, by all means register that you don’t find it a problem, and feel free to correct people if they misstate the cause of your being comfortable with this all.

Just dismissing them out of hand, though, makes you look rather uncompassionate, and using phrases like “triggered much” makes it look like you disrespect the actual suffering of folks with mental illnesses.

That really doesn’t seem like a strong position to gather support for the idea that this is just a joke, and not one that is based on enjoying something suffering. (PS: I’m curious, what the funny part is, if anyone wants to contribute an explanation?)

Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour. Just take a look at some cartoons, the number of slapstick moments where one of the protagonist is hurt to make the audience laugh is incredibly high.

On to your “ongoing representation of an animal suffering”, I’ll just ask you this : what is wrong with it? I mean, really? Because, the key word here is not “suffering” nor “animal” or “ongoing”. It’s “representation”. It’s not real, it’s an act of expression. Bad taste? Maybe. But since when should we censor bad taste? As long as it’s not real, it should be allowed! Even if I don’t like something and think it should never happen IRL, people should be able to draw/paint/program/dream about it.

If you’re trying to change people’s minds, there are better, more respectfull and downright more efficient ways that to just forbid them to express themselves. In fact, trying to supress one’s instinct can be downright destructive.

Because, do not try to play the victim here. You’re the one trying to prevent people from depicting animal crualty, which has more chance to increase real acts of animal crualty thant preventing them, by the way…

Be a little open-minded, please, allow people to have some fun, even if you don’t share their tastes. Thank you.

SlippyCheese didn’t forbid anyone from expressing themselves though. In the post you quoted, they said “So, by all means register that you don’t find it a problem, and feel free to correct people if they misstate the cause of your being comfortable with this all.” I also do not see them ‘playing the victim’. I see that they disagree with you, but that is hardly the same thing.

Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour.

Personally I’m not sure that enjoying watching others suffer says good things about human nature, or even if it should be even used as a argument. After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure some people get from watching them suffer.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure people get from watching them suffer.

This is a bit over the top, and not at all what Slippy was talking about. I believe that they were referring to comedy, not bloodsport. Seeing an anvil dropped on the coyote in the Loony-Toons is more along the lines that I think they were going. That is suffering, but again, a representation of such. It does not depict a real animal being killed.

Its a video game.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour.

Personally I’m not sure that enjoying watching others suffer says good things about human nature, or even if it should be even used as a argument. After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure some people get from watching them suffer.

Why do you keep comparing a floppy fish in a video game to awful things like a dog laying down on its side gasping for air and flopping around, and now dogs killing each other in dog fights?

Sephas.8793:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure people get from watching them suffer.

This is a bit over the top, and not at all what Slippy was talking about. I believe that they were referring to comedy, not bloodsport. Seeing an anvil dropped on the coyote in the Loony-Toons is more along the lines that I think they were going. That is suffering, but again, a representation of such. It does not depict a real animal being killed.

Not Slyppy’s post. Myhr.9108’s post where Myhr said that Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour

If enjoyment of watching suffering is the argument used to allow certain types of humor, then why stop there? Why not enjoyment of other types of suffering?

I don’t think the argument that enjoyment of suffering is a moral argument.

Nihevil.8024:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour.

Personally I’m not sure that enjoying watching others suffer says good things about human nature, or even if it should be even used as a argument. After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure some people get from watching them suffer.

Why do you keep comparing a floppy fish in a video game to awful things like a dog laying down on its side gasping for air and flopping around, and now dogs killing each other in dog fights?

It’s a comparison to make people stop and think.

Yes it’s only a fish, but pain and fear are basic bottom level emotions and sensations. In real life, a fish out of water is suffering. Personally I do not wish to see a mini pet that’s has the animations of an animal that’s suffering (most specifically, gasping for air as it suffocates). People don’t have sympathy for it. It’s only a fish, they say. However if I point out that a dog with the same animation is distasteful, then maybe they’ll see the connection as they do have sympathy for dogs and can imagine them suffering,

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour.

Personally I’m not sure that enjoying watching others suffer says good things about human nature, or even if it should be even used as a argument. After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure some people get from watching them suffer.

It doesn’t, human nature is what it is, but yes, it should be used as an argument, because denying your impulses is auto-destructive. And there is a difference between a dog fight and a virtual dog fight : in the second case, no dogs are actually hurt.

This is what should be important. Not what people think, but what they do. You can’t and should not want to police people’s minds.

Edit :
@ Just a flesh wound : this, this is the danger, I’ll rewrite what you said :
“If enjoyment of watching suffering is the argument used to allow certain types of humor, then why stop there? Why not enjoyment of other types of suffering?”

You’re “allowing” certain types of humor? Since when are certain types of humor forbidden?

And yes, there are many people that enjoy other types of suffering, and guess what, they have the right to do so, under certain limits (mainly, not forcing the suffering unto others, be they humans or animals)

Myabe they could put a little bubble of water around its head, then the gasping animation could stay since thats what fish do anyways, right? :P

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Sephas.8793:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure people get from watching them suffer.

This is a bit over the top, and not at all what Slippy was talking about. I believe that they were referring to comedy, not bloodsport. Seeing an anvil dropped on the coyote in the Loony-Toons is more along the lines that I think they were going. That is suffering, but again, a representation of such. It does not depict a real animal being killed.

Not Slyppy’s post. Myhr.9108’s post where Myhr said that Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour

If enjoyment of watching suffering is the argument used to allow certain types of humor, then why stop there? Why not enjoyment of other types of suffering?

I don’t think the argument that enjoyment of suffering is a moral argument.

You are really mischaracterizing the counter argument, though. No one is arguing that they just enjoy suffering so want to see more of it in game. They are arguing that either (1) the suffering is implied by the viewer due to the animation, however reading the description tells you the fish is a magic fish and is just fine – no suffering occurs, or (2) because it is not real there is no real suffering. Yet you keep circling back to this morality argument as a way to police the thread. Show me where someone said something along the lines of “I think the argument that enjoyment of suffering is a moral argument.” which seems to be the strawman you keep countering.

Moonyeti.3296:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Sephas.8793:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure people get from watching them suffer.

This is a bit over the top, and not at all what Slippy was talking about. I believe that they were referring to comedy, not bloodsport. Seeing an anvil dropped on the coyote in the Loony-Toons is more along the lines that I think they were going. That is suffering, but again, a representation of such. It does not depict a real animal being killed.

Not Slyppy’s post. Myhr.9108’s post where Myhr said that Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour

If enjoyment of watching suffering is the argument used to allow certain types of humor, then why stop there? Why not enjoyment of other types of suffering?

I don’t think the argument that enjoyment of suffering is a moral argument.

You are really mischaracterizing the counter argument, though. No one is arguing that they just enjoy suffering so want to see more of it in game. They are arguing that either (1) the suffering is implied by the viewer due to the animation, however reading the description tells you the fish is a magic fish and is just fine – no suffering occurs, or (2) because it is not real there is no real suffering. Yet you keep circling back to this morality argument as a way to police the thread. Show me where someone said something along the lines of “I think the argument that enjoyment of suffering is a moral argument.” which seems to be the strawman you keep countering.

It just struck me that Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour is a bad argument for keeping a mini pet that’s imitating the actions of an animal that’s dying.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

It just struck me that Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour is a bad argument for keeping a mini pet that’s imitating the actions of an animal that’s dying.

Except that it’s not, “imitating the actions of an animal that’s dying”, this is simply how you choose to view it. As stated before, the description states that it’s a magic fish and is alive… not, “dying”.

Sephas.8793:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

It just struck me that Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour is a bad argument for keeping a mini pet that’s imitating the actions of an animal that’s dying.

Except that it’s not, “imitating the actions of an animal that’s dying”, this is simply how you choose to view it. As stated before, the description states that it’s a magic fish and is alive… not, “dying”.

You and the others may be able to change my mind and the other readers of this thread, but that doesn’t touch why I started it. To repost.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Rashagar.8349:

I think the point is that any personal discomfort one feels on seeing the mini is a result of the narrative one is applying to it rather than an intrinsic element of the mini itself.

The question I’m curious about is, are you capable of removing the “ick feeling” for yourself by making a conscious decision to alter the narrative you’re projecting onto it? Now that equally valid alternative narratives have been presented I mean. (Fair do’s to you if you can btw, it’s not an easy thing to do)

Someone may be able to “change the story in their mind” after reading the thread. However, most people in the game who dislike the mini’s animation will never see this thread. They simply won’t buy the mini. And that’s my point. ANet made this mini to make money. If it doesn’t meet their projected sales then it’s not a success for them. If it doesn’t sell well and ANet doesn’t know why people aren’t buying the mini then they won’t know they made a mistake or how to correct it.

I made the thread to point out to ANet that there is an Ick factor to the animation. If the animation is hurting sales and they don’t know why, then here is the reason. If after looking it over they decide to change the animation then I’ll buy it. If they don’t, then that’s their choice. I’m perfectly capable of ignoring it as is, but neither will I buy it.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Nihevil.8024:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour.

Personally I’m not sure that enjoying watching others suffer says good things about human nature, or even if it should be even used as a argument. After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure some people get from watching them suffer.

Why do you keep comparing a floppy fish in a video game to awful things like a dog laying down on its side gasping for air and flopping around, and now dogs killing each other in dog fights?

It’s a comparison to make people stop and think.

Yes it’s only a fish, but pain and fear are basic bottom level emotions and sensations. In real life, a fish out of water is suffering. Personally I do not wish to see a mini pet that’s has the animations of an animal that’s suffering (most specifically, gasping for air as it suffocates). People don’t have sympathy for it. It’s only a fish, they say. However if I point out that a dog with the same animation is distasteful, then maybe they’ll see the connection as they do have sympathy for dogs and can imagine them suffering,

It’s not suffering at all though. It’s a magic fish. It’s what fish do, flop around outside of water. A dog or almost anything that’s flopping around on its side would probably be significantly injured.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

The new mini pet, a Krytan Floppy Fish, is a fish out of water. It has a gasping for air animation and flops around on the ground. The question is, should ANet keep this animation or change it to a swimming animation. On one hand it is only pixels. No animals are being harmed. On the other hand, it’s depicting an animal suffocating and dying. As for myself, while I know it’s not real it does give me an “Ick feeling” as I watched it lie there gasping for air, so I would vote for a change in animation. Your thoughts?

Video of new mini pet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPSJQ6h8LnE

I agree with everything you said. Its not an issue for PETA but it does make me feel bad and I wouldn’t have it as my pet. A swimming fish would be so much more appealing.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Sephas.8793:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

It just struck me that Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour is a bad argument for keeping a mini pet that’s imitating the actions of an animal that’s dying.

Except that it’s not, “imitating the actions of an animal that’s dying”, this is simply how you choose to view it. As stated before, the description states that it’s a magic fish and is alive… not, “dying”.

You and the others may be able to change my mind and the other readers of this thread, but that doesn’t touch why I started it. To repost.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Rashagar.8349:

I think the point is that any personal discomfort one feels on seeing the mini is a result of the narrative one is applying to it rather than an intrinsic element of the mini itself.

The question I’m curious about is, are you capable of removing the “ick feeling” for yourself by making a conscious decision to alter the narrative you’re projecting onto it? Now that equally valid alternative narratives have been presented I mean. (Fair do’s to you if you can btw, it’s not an easy thing to do)

Someone may be able to “change the story in their mind” after reading the thread. However, most people in the game who dislike the mini’s animation will never see this thread. They simply won’t buy the mini. And that’s my point. ANet made this mini to make money. If it doesn’t meet their projected sales then it’s not a success for them. If it doesn’t sell well and ANet doesn’t know why people aren’t buying the mini then they won’t know they made a mistake or how to correct it.

I made the thread to point out to ANet that there is an Ick factor to the animation. If the animation is hurting sales and they don’t know why, then here is the reason. If after looking it over they decide to change the animation then I’ll buy it. If they don’t, then that’s their choice. I’m perfectly capable of ignoring it as is, but neither will I buy it.

I feel what you were saying here is a valid point to raise. My objections came later when it was being implied that people’s morality was in question because of disagreement.

You and I can argue for or against the mini. I started the thread to let ANet know that I find the animation distasteful and why, and to let others chime in yes or no. Knowing that “it’s magic” doesn’t change the fact that to me, a mini that shows an animal gasping for air is unpleasant and that for me, it’s a lost sale. After that, it’s up to ANet to see if the sales means it’s worth keeping or not and if the sales are low, then they have this thread as a possible reason why.

Moonyeti.3296:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Sephas.8793:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

It just struck me that Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour is a bad argument for keeping a mini pet that’s imitating the actions of an animal that’s dying.

Except that it’s not, “imitating the actions of an animal that’s dying”, this is simply how you choose to view it. As stated before, the description states that it’s a magic fish and is alive… not, “dying”.

You and the others may be able to change my mind and the other readers of this thread, but that doesn’t touch why I started it. To repost.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Rashagar.8349:

I think the point is that any personal discomfort one feels on seeing the mini is a result of the narrative one is applying to it rather than an intrinsic element of the mini itself.

The question I’m curious about is, are you capable of removing the “ick feeling” for yourself by making a conscious decision to alter the narrative you’re projecting onto it? Now that equally valid alternative narratives have been presented I mean. (Fair do’s to you if you can btw, it’s not an easy thing to do)

Someone may be able to “change the story in their mind” after reading the thread. However, most people in the game who dislike the mini’s animation will never see this thread. They simply won’t buy the mini. And that’s my point. ANet made this mini to make money. If it doesn’t meet their projected sales then it’s not a success for them. If it doesn’t sell well and ANet doesn’t know why people aren’t buying the mini then they won’t know they made a mistake or how to correct it.

I made the thread to point out to ANet that there is an Ick factor to the animation. If the animation is hurting sales and they don’t know why, then here is the reason. If after looking it over they decide to change the animation then I’ll buy it. If they don’t, then that’s their choice. I’m perfectly capable of ignoring it as is, but neither will I buy it.

I feel what you were saying here is a valid point to raise. My objections came later when it was being implied that people’s morality was in question because of disagreement.

I meant that using the argument of enjoying others suffering was not what I would consider a moral argument. You, of course, can feel free to disagree.

You know what? I too would prefer a “fish in a bubble” pet. In fact, if you were suggesting that they add one and sell it into the gem store, I’d be 100% behind you.

But you’re asking for ANet to change an already existing animation, which I find just disrespectful for those who enjoy this animation. Let them have the Floppy Fish, and let’s ask for a Bubble Fish, not instead, but alongside them.

If they change the animation then they better be giving refunds as well.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

You and I can argue for or against the mini. I started the thread to let ANet know that I find the animation distasteful and why, and to let others chime in yes or no. Knowing that “it’s magic” doesn’t change the fact that to me, a mini that shows an animal gasping for air is unpleasant and that for me, it’s a lost sale. After that, it’s up to ANet to see if the sales means it’s worth keeping or not and if the sales or low, then they have this thread as a possible reason why.

Yep, that is good data for them to have. No matter what rationales people can offer you, at the end of the day if you are uncomfortable with it you aren’t going to spend money on it. If it turns out most people agree with you, Anet will factor that in when designing future pets for sure.

Myhr.9108:

You know what? I too would prefer a “fish in a bubble” pet. In fact, if you were suggesting that they add one and sell it into the gem store, I’d be 100% behind you.

But you’re asking for ANet to change an already existing animation, which I find just disrespectful for those who enjoy this animation. Let them have the Floppy Fish, and let’s ask for a Bubble Fish, not instead, but alongside them.

My discomfort with this mini would be substantially lessened if they removed the gasping animation. That, specifically, is the Ick factor with this fish.

So, you want to police what other can have. I can’t agree with you on that.

Myhr.9108:

You know what? I too would prefer a “fish in a bubble” pet. In fact, if you were suggesting that they add one and sell it into the gem store, I’d be 100% behind you.

But you’re asking for ANet to change an already existing animation, which I find just disrespectful for those who enjoy this animation. Let them have the Floppy Fish, and let’s ask for a Bubble Fish, not instead, but alongside them.

How is it disrespectful? I question why people enjoy watching a fish dying and having it following them around, but hey they world is full of people whose POV I question. No big news there.

Myhr.9108:

So, you want to police what other can have. I can’t agree with you on that.

Where did I say that? I said my discomfort would be lessened by removing the gasping for air animation. If that’s the main reason you bought the mini then I can see why you would object to the removal of that part of the animation, but me saying I am uncomfortable with it is not “policing what others can have.”

Myhr.9108:

So, you want to police what other can have. I can’t agree with you on that.

Not answering for him, but my answer is that I don’t want to be surrounded by dying fish since I have to see other peoples’ if they have them.

I’ve just spoken to the fish and he says he’s just fine. He’s always wanted to be out of that darned water and he thinks you should save your pity for someone who needs it.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour.

Personally I’m not sure that enjoying watching others suffer says good things about human nature, or even if it should be even used as a argument. After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure some people get from watching them suffer.

No, hes right, what he describes here is the most simplest part of having schadenfreude/malicious joy and thats a form of humour.

However, its something completely different if you have simply schadenfreude over somebody suffering out of a humorous or unwanted situation something, or if you have joy over something or somebody just getting hurt, abused, seeing it/or that person suffering in pain.

That is far away of having anything to do anymore with simple schadenfreude.
That has already crossed by far the line of being just cruelty – to even say pure sadism if you get even so far to realy enjoy it to see others gettign hurt and letting them feel pain.

Suffering on suffocation is a form of mental pain, its very stressful as you see basically others in their fear of death, fighting hopelessly against it to die.

Adding a “minipet” like that is far beyond being funny, its’ in its highest form of disrespectfulness and that has nothing to do with any “political correctness”.
Yes, we play a video game, yes its a fantasy game, yes we have chickenados even but that is something completely different -they are a pure fun thing, just like the pet stones, completely irregular, out of reality.
Theres nothing disrespectful about it, unlike as watching a digital but real looking fish permanently dying basically.
Thats like saying, we play down animal cruelty in GW2, because its a fantasy game.

I find it would be the right sign of Anet to show some respect towards our nature, if they remove this pet out of the game and refund the players who bought it by now and replace that minipet with something different then, that won’t be so disrespectful and playing down animal cruelty/sadism like this. (my opinion)

Most simplest thing with that ANet could replace the pet without alot of effort woulld be by an other new minipet of an already existing thing in GW2 that doesn’t exist yet as minipet – for example a Mini Claw of Jormag with the same animations as the Mini Tequatl.

It’s kind of disgusting, but I think it’s supposed to be. People pay for disgusting.

Except it’s not dying. That’s what you want to interpret here, when in fact it’s a magical fish that can breathe on land except it has no legs(meaning it needs to flop) and is still a fish so it needs to keep making the same gasping motions it does underwater. Seriously have you ever seen a fish underwater before? They “gasp” for air down there too. I don’t even know why this is more disturbing than say, walking around with an eternally bleeding to death jungle wurm head.

Also, I like how you completely disregard a large portion of the playerbase that actually enjoys this mini just because of some people who don’t like it(ie the people who it’s not even meant for). Like everything in this game, if you don’t like, don’t associate with it. No reason to ruin other people’s fun just because you can’t handle seeing some dead pixels in subjective pain.

Now, I’m relatively new to the forums so I have no clue how to respond to multiple comments at the same time. So in relation to your post about the dog instead of fish thing, yes I actually would find that disturbing because that isn’t normal behaviour for a dog.

What makes the fish different you might ask? I’ll say it again, it’s a magical fish with no legs. Like all fish it will flop on land, like all fish it will “gasp” for air because it uses gills on land. However unlike other fish it can actually breathe on land because like Evon Gnashblade said, it’s magical.

TL;DR
No, Anet should not change the Floppy Fish.

PS.
Sorry if this has a few mistakes or structuring is off, posting on a mobile and well, I hate mobiles. Also sorry if this came off aggressive/impolite in anyway as it’s not intended, I really suck at written tone.

Nihevil.8024:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Nihevil.8024:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour.

Personally I’m not sure that enjoying watching others suffer says good things about human nature, or even if it should be even used as a argument. After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure some people get from watching them suffer.

Why do you keep comparing a floppy fish in a video game to awful things like a dog laying down on its side gasping for air and flopping around, and now dogs killing each other in dog fights?

It’s a comparison to make people stop and think.

Yes it’s only a fish, but pain and fear are basic bottom level emotions and sensations. In real life, a fish out of water is suffering. Personally I do not wish to see a mini pet that’s has the animations of an animal that’s suffering (most specifically, gasping for air as it suffocates). People don’t have sympathy for it. It’s only a fish, they say. However if I point out that a dog with the same animation is distasteful, then maybe they’ll see the connection as they do have sympathy for dogs and can imagine them suffering,

It’s not suffering at all though. It’s a magic fish. It’s what fish do, flop around outside of water. A dog or almost anything that’s flopping around on its side would probably be significantly injured.

Except, a fish out of water isn’t the usual state for it. A fish flops and gasps on land because it’s dying and attempting to save its life by getting back in that water. One can argue that dying is a state of injury.

Just a flesh wound, here you go. This is my Char after jumping off the edge and being defeated in EotM. How does this make you feel? I’ve seen no complaints about a Char laying on the ground gasping for breath.

Look at little Charrly Sootfur, laying there in so much pain, she’s suffering. Won’t you help her.

/thread

Fiddlestyx.9714:

Just a flesh wound, here you go. This is my Char after jumping off the edge and dying in EotM. How does this make you feel? I’ve seen no complaints about a Char laying on the ground gasping for breath.

Look at little Charrly Sootfur, laying there in so much pain, she’s suffering. Won’t you help her.

/thread

You can hurt yourself to your heart’s content. ^^

However that doesn’t mean I want a mini of someone that’s in pain and suffering to drag along behind me.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Nihevil.8024:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Nihevil.8024:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour.

Personally I’m not sure that enjoying watching others suffer says good things about human nature, or even if it should be even used as a argument. After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure some people get from watching them suffer.

Why do you keep comparing a floppy fish in a video game to awful things like a dog laying down on its side gasping for air and flopping around, and now dogs killing each other in dog fights?

It’s a comparison to make people stop and think.

Yes it’s only a fish, but pain and fear are basic bottom level emotions and sensations. In real life, a fish out of water is suffering. Personally I do not wish to see a mini pet that’s has the animations of an animal that’s suffering (most specifically, gasping for air as it suffocates). People don’t have sympathy for it. It’s only a fish, they say. However if I point out that a dog with the same animation is distasteful, then maybe they’ll see the connection as they do have sympathy for dogs and can imagine them suffering,

It’s not suffering at all though. It’s a magic fish. It’s what fish do, flop around outside of water. A dog or almost anything that’s flopping around on its side would probably be significantly injured.

Except, a fish out of water isn’t the usual state for it. A fish flops and gasps on land because it’s dying and attempting to save its life by getting back in that water. One can argue that dying is a state of injury.

Fish breathe through their gills so it appears as if they’re always gulping (or gasping) even underwater. This magical fish can enjoy life above and below the surface of the water. It’s silly to think of an animal that loves it’s human so much that it would flop around after the person, sort of like a goofy thing. I don’t think the people that enjoy this pet see it as being a dark or morbid thing like some people are making it out to be, they just see it as what it is: a magical fish on land.

People who see it as an innocent floppy fish might like it, while people with the morbid mindset that the fish is somehow endlessly suffering despite the description might be appalled by it. Just don’t buy it if you can’t see anything but an illusion of suffering in it.

(This is similar to how people with a dirty mindset can think pretty much anything is dirty somehow)

The only thing I see is resources poorly invested. I can see how the fish can be kind-of funny… but I’m sure they could have make something much, much better.

What, do you ask? I don’t know, maybe a sleeping cat that rolls and slides around without ever walking, or a subterranean moa that only shows its head above ground, or a jumping rabbit that takes 15 seconds to fall after after every hop, or a floating chair, or a mini yourself, a Queen Jenna with sneakers, IDK.

But the fish is… more annoying than funny.

Kako.1930:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Nihevil.8024:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Nihevil.8024:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour.

Personally I’m not sure that enjoying watching others suffer says good things about human nature, or even if it should be even used as a argument. After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure some people get from watching them suffer.

Why do you keep comparing a floppy fish in a video game to awful things like a dog laying down on its side gasping for air and flopping around, and now dogs killing each other in dog fights?

It’s a comparison to make people stop and think.

Yes it’s only a fish, but pain and fear are basic bottom level emotions and sensations. In real life, a fish out of water is suffering. Personally I do not wish to see a mini pet that’s has the animations of an animal that’s suffering (most specifically, gasping for air as it suffocates). People don’t have sympathy for it. It’s only a fish, they say. However if I point out that a dog with the same animation is distasteful, then maybe they’ll see the connection as they do have sympathy for dogs and can imagine them suffering,

It’s not suffering at all though. It’s a magic fish. It’s what fish do, flop around outside of water. A dog or almost anything that’s flopping around on its side would probably be significantly injured.

Except, a fish out of water isn’t the usual state for it. A fish flops and gasps on land because it’s dying and attempting to save its life by getting back in that water. One can argue that dying is a state of injury.

Fish breathe through their gills so it appears as if they’re always gulping (or gasping) even underwater. This magical fish can enjoy life above and below the surface of the water. It’s silly to think of an animal that loves it’s human so much that it would flop around after the person, sort of like a kitten y thing. I don’t think the people that enjoy this pet see it as being a dark or morbid thing like some people are making it out to be, they just see it as what it is: a magical fish on land.

People who see it as an innocent floppy fish might like it, while people with the morbid mindset that the fish is somehow endlessly suffering despite the description might be appalled by it. Just don’t buy it if you can’t see anything but an illusion of suffering in it.

(This is similar to how people with a dirty mindset can think pretty much anything is dirty somehow)

Because of the forum cutting off posts you’ve missed the first part of this particular discussion. You might want to go back and read it as it’s about why empathy should be extended to fish by comparing its suffering to a higher animal.

I don’t even know what a “higher animal” is, though…And empathy is best used for actual living beings, not pixelated ones. Like, I’m all against intervening when someone mistreats an real, breathing, leaving animal. But if someone let his/her tamagochi die…whatever. It ain’t real (as of now, at least ^^)

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Kako.1930:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Nihevil.8024:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Nihevil.8024:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour.

Personally I’m not sure that enjoying watching others suffer says good things about human nature, or even if it should be even used as a argument. After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure some people get from watching them suffer.

Why do you keep comparing a floppy fish in a video game to awful things like a dog laying down on its side gasping for air and flopping around, and now dogs killing each other in dog fights?

It’s a comparison to make people stop and think.

Yes it’s only a fish, but pain and fear are basic bottom level emotions and sensations. In real life, a fish out of water is suffering. Personally I do not wish to see a mini pet that’s has the animations of an animal that’s suffering (most specifically, gasping for air as it suffocates). People don’t have sympathy for it. It’s only a fish, they say. However if I point out that a dog with the same animation is distasteful, then maybe they’ll see the connection as they do have sympathy for dogs and can imagine them suffering,

It’s not suffering at all though. It’s a magic fish. It’s what fish do, flop around outside of water. A dog or almost anything that’s flopping around on its side would probably be significantly injured.

Except, a fish out of water isn’t the usual state for it. A fish flops and gasps on land because it’s dying and attempting to save its life by getting back in that water. One can argue that dying is a state of injury.

Fish breathe through their gills so it appears as if they’re always gulping (or gasping) even underwater. This magical fish can enjoy life above and below the surface of the water. It’s silly to think of an animal that loves it’s human so much that it would flop around after the person, sort of like a kitten y thing. I don’t think the people that enjoy this pet see it as being a dark or morbid thing like some people are making it out to be, they just see it as what it is: a magical fish on land.

People who see it as an innocent floppy fish might like it, while people with the morbid mindset that the fish is somehow endlessly suffering despite the description might be appalled by it. Just don’t buy it if you can’t see anything but an illusion of suffering in it.

(This is similar to how people with a dirty mindset can think pretty much anything is dirty somehow)

Because of the forum cutting off posts you’ve missed the first part of this particular discussion. You might want to go back and read it as it’s about why empathy should be extended to fish by comparing its suffering to a higher animal.

Yeah, I saw all the dying puppy examples, my point is that not everyone thinks in this morbid way. It’s not because a fish’s suffering holds less value than a puppy’s so watching a fish suffer is fine, it’s that the fish isn’t supposed to look like it’s suffering at all so the example is irrelevant. People are just interpreting the animation in this really gruesome way for some reason, when it’s just supposed to be a floppy fish that can breathe on land.

I just thought I’d include Taimi as an example. Most people tend to view limping as a sign that someone is hurt, yet she’s just as healthy and happy as any asura. Just because the floppy fish flops does not mean it’s in pain. The description even says it’s just a happy floppy fish living on land and sea.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Kako.1930:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Nihevil.8024:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Nihevil.8024:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour.

Personally I’m not sure that enjoying watching others suffer says good things about human nature, or even if it should be even used as a argument. After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure some people get from watching them suffer.

Why do you keep comparing a floppy fish in a video game to awful things like a dog laying down on its side gasping for air and flopping around, and now dogs killing each other in dog fights?

It’s a comparison to make people stop and think.

Yes it’s only a fish, but pain and fear are basic bottom level emotions and sensations. In real life, a fish out of water is suffering. Personally I do not wish to see a mini pet that’s has the animations of an animal that’s suffering (most specifically, gasping for air as it suffocates). People don’t have sympathy for it. It’s only a fish, they say. However if I point out that a dog with the same animation is distasteful, then maybe they’ll see the connection as they do have sympathy for dogs and can imagine them suffering,

It’s not suffering at all though. It’s a magic fish. It’s what fish do, flop around outside of water. A dog or almost anything that’s flopping around on its side would probably be significantly injured.

Except, a fish out of water isn’t the usual state for it. A fish flops and gasps on land because it’s dying and attempting to save its life by getting back in that water. One can argue that dying is a state of injury.

Fish breathe through their gills so it appears as if they’re always gulping (or gasping) even underwater. This magical fish can enjoy life above and below the surface of the water. It’s silly to think of an animal that loves it’s human so much that it would flop around after the person, sort of like a kitten y thing. I don’t think the people that enjoy this pet see it as being a dark or morbid thing like some people are making it out to be, they just see it as what it is: a magical fish on land.

People who see it as an innocent floppy fish might like it, while people with the morbid mindset that the fish is somehow endlessly suffering despite the description might be appalled by it. Just don’t buy it if you can’t see anything but an illusion of suffering in it.

(This is similar to how people with a dirty mindset can think pretty much anything is dirty somehow)

Because of the forum cutting off posts you’ve missed the first part of this particular discussion. You might want to go back and read it as it’s about why empathy should be extended to fish by comparing its suffering to a higher animal.

Also that enjoying this particular mini does not indicate a lack of empathy on the part of those that enjoy it. That seems to have been a main point of contention in this thread.

Kako.1930:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Kako.1930:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Nihevil.8024:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Nihevil.8024:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Enjoying others suffering is one of the simpliest and most basic form of humour.

Personally I’m not sure that enjoying watching others suffer says good things about human nature, or even if it should be even used as a argument. After all, watching dogs kill each other in dog fights is outlawed, no matter how much pleasure some people get from watching them suffer.

Why do you keep comparing a floppy fish in a video game to awful things like a dog laying down on its side gasping for air and flopping around, and now dogs killing each other in dog fights?

It’s a comparison to make people stop and think.

Yes it’s only a fish, but pain and fear are basic bottom level emotions and sensations. In real life, a fish out of water is suffering. Personally I do not wish to see a mini pet that’s has the animations of an animal that’s suffering (most specifically, gasping for air as it suffocates). People don’t have sympathy for it. It’s only a fish, they say. However if I point out that a dog with the same animation is distasteful, then maybe they’ll see the connection as they do have sympathy for dogs and can imagine them suffering,

It’s not suffering at all though. It’s a magic fish. It’s what fish do, flop around outside of water. A dog or almost anything that’s flopping around on its side would probably be significantly injured.

Except, a fish out of water isn’t the usual state for it. A fish flops and gasps on land because it’s dying and attempting to save its life by getting back in that water. One can argue that dying is a state of injury.

Fish breathe through their gills so it appears as if they’re always gulping (or gasping) even underwater. This magical fish can enjoy life above and below the surface of the water. It’s silly to think of an animal that loves it’s human so much that it would flop around after the person, sort of like a kitten y thing. I don’t think the people that enjoy this pet see it as being a dark or morbid thing like some people are making it out to be, they just see it as what it is: a magical fish on land.

People who see it as an innocent floppy fish might like it, while people with the morbid mindset that the fish is somehow endlessly suffering despite the description might be appalled by it. Just don’t buy it if you can’t see anything but an illusion of suffering in it.

(This is similar to how people with a dirty mindset can think pretty much anything is dirty somehow)

Because of the forum cutting off posts you’ve missed the first part of this particular discussion. You might want to go back and read it as it’s about why empathy should be extended to fish by comparing its suffering to a higher animal.

Yeah, I saw all the dying puppy examples, my point is that not everyone thinks in this morbid way. It’s not because a fish’s suffering holds less value than a puppy’s so watching a fish suffer is fine, it’s that the fish isn’t supposed to look like it’s suffering at all so the example is irrelevant. People are just interpreting the animation in this really gruesome way for some reason, when it’s just supposed to be a floppy fish that can breathe on land.

I disagree with you there. I think, from reading the posts that some people don’t believe fish can suffer or realize that when on land they are suffering. Since fish can feel pain (they have nerves and a brain and pain receptors) then they can suffer and a real life fish on land is suffering. It’s gills are drying, it’s having problems breathing. It’s suffocating and suffocating is unpleasant and frightening. Now, I realize that in life most animals die in pain and suffering of some level. It’s unavoidable and a part of life. However, again, that doesn’t mean I want to have a mini pet that shows the animations of an animal that’s suffering.

Are you guys really talking about the rights and fellings of virtual fish here ? maybe you gone to far, you know just maybe.

MarkoNS.3261:

Are you guys really talking about the rights and fellings of virtual fish here ? maybe you gone to far, you know just maybe.

Actually, I made the thread as a discussion to point out to ANet that some people dislike the gasping animation of a fish out of water and to let ANet know. If it should happen that sales are low, then this could be the reason and for consideration of future mini pets. The topic developed from there.

If the fish is to be removed, then:

- gathering wood should also be removed because it promotes deforestation.
-leather gathering should be removed because is cruel to animals to kill them for their skin.
-weaponsmithing and armor smithing should be removed because we all know that they are bad for the envirronment.
-cooking could stay but only for veggie food.
-a new class should be introduce to the game: Negociator with the role of dealing with foes so we can come up with a peacefull solution to every meta of every maps.

… or maybe we should keep the fish and go on with life. It just some freaking pixels after all.

-.-

Yes, this is exactly why we can’t have nice things.

As much as I respect the OP’s opinion, I just cannot agree with many of you here, taking the conversation to an absurd (and in today’s world, sadly, so popular) level. It’s a fanasy game. It’s a bunch of zeros and ones. If you don’t like the floppy fishy, don’t buy it.

Taking me as an example, I have an arachnophobia. Pretty bad one, actually. Yet I am able to distinguish between the real ones and fantasy-game ones. (Except for some cases when they jump at me out-of-nowhere. Yes, Dragon age’s caverns, I’m looking at you right now.) And I’m far away from telling you to delete your spider pets and burning down Maguuma.

To me, the fish doesn’t look like suffering. It’s silly and I won’t buy it, but mainly because my cat collection would tear that poor fishy apart. And I really don’t want to see the forum posts after that…

Serum.4067:

All this fish mini tells me is that ANet is running out of ideas and has terrible resource management.

Isn’kitten preexisting model with preexisting animations used for an ambient creature that they’re charging $5 USD for? That’s actually pretty good resource management.

I caught the kitten filter for typing ’isn’t (space) it (space) a’. All hail the forum kitten!

heaven forbid a snowflake feels uncomfortable at the site of the pixels of someone else’s gemstore purchase…

meanwhile, lets make all the ambients invulnerable and get rid of all the “suffering” (electrocution, etc) animations used by anything as it’s dieing. get rid of ugly necro minions and turn them into fluffy bunny rabbits.

btw, how do we know this fish didn’t do something to deserve its current state? maybe it did attack someone. maybe it is still trying to attack someone.

There was an interesting topic here in the beginning, and I really tried in good faith to take good arguments on both sides in. Now the extremes are firmly entrenched and this thread is completely absurd from both extremes (anyone who likes this pet is an animal abuser IRL vs anyone that dares to share they feel uncomfortable when asked is a whiny entitled snowflake). This thread might as well be locked, it is only likely to devolve further.

Gaile Gray.6029:

This is an interesting discussion, and it’s clear there are a variety of opinions about the topic. Please feel free to share your thoughts, but we’d appreciate your doing so without the use of pejoratives or insults towards those who hold a different opinion.

TL;dr – Be kind!

What ever you do, please don’t change it….. Threads like this already ruined April Fools day for us.

You guys have created such a great game, please don’t let a few kids ruin it for the rest of us…

(I’m also going to say thanks, this has inspired me to take my family fishing in 3 weeks)

Thread bug, let’s crush it. Oh wait….