Please don't introduce humans as battle-able enemies
|
Posted 2021-07-24 16:14:12 (edited)
|
 Kaz #15854 |
|
Posted 2021-07-24 17:20:12
|
 Crescent #12054 |
|
Posted 2021-07-24 17:39:57
Obviously there won't be overly graphic violence towards humans in this game, it'll be just like any other enemy. Each to their own, but I’d consider the current violence level to be pretty graphic! And while I’m fine with that for wildlife/wildlife conflicts, if human/wildlife conflicts were handled the same way it’d make me uncomfortable. 🤷♀️ |
 Badger #10939 |
|
Posted 2021-07-24 17:45:05 (edited)
Yes it's true that humans are a factor in this game already. But the few mentions of humans in the game thus far are far less intrusive and allow players the ability to create lore without human interaction. (For example, I read on a previous page in this thread that there's a chance of pup death/injury in your daily notifications that mentions humans. I've been playing this game for almost a year and had no idea that was a possibility. None of the pup injury/death descriptions I've gotten thus far have included mention of humans.) If humans were introduced as battle opponents, it wouldn't be a game factor that we could choose to ignore or downplay in our style of gameplay any longer. Battle encounters are a major component to this game and including humans in them is not something that we as players can avoid. I mean, I can choose to retreat from every single bear encounter in the game, but even if I did, I wouldn't be able to say this game doesn't have bears as a major opponent. The same would be true for humans. Unless the game could include the ability for each players to choose whether or not human battle opponents would be included in the random assortment of enemies you encounter on the map? I don't know if that is a possibility or not, when it comes to coding, but if so, I think it would definitely be a good compromise. Any player that is uncomfortable with the idea of having humans as a more major part of the game could choose to keep that feature turned off. |
 Ryuukokoro #32675 |
|
Posted 2021-07-24 17:49:42
Wolves are preserved to be aggressive by nature toward humans when, like virtually all wild animals, they tend to avoid humans entirely for their own safety. The only times wolves encounter humans and there is death involved it is when hunters execute them with guns. It's not a "fight." Wolves cannot "win." They are just killed. And, personally, I find it rather meaningless to include human battle NPCs on Wolvden when all it is a revenge fantasy for users to act out as their lead wolves despite the fact that it's humans out killing wolves in real life. It doesn't add much to the game positively, and what it does add (a battle interaction some flat out do not want to see, the possibility of trophies involving human body parts or clothing) is...not appealing to me at all. |
 Yupup #45642 |
|
Posted 2021-07-24 17:50:12 (edited)
i can’t go outside right now without seeing smoke on the horizon from wildfires, certainly caused by humans. you can go outside and see how bad humans are to nature. i’m pretty certain there’s a reference to climate change in the glacier… humans have always existed in this game. they’re seen referenced in the raccoon trading center. lioden has an event about how humans are detrimental to nature. it’s a harsh truth but it’s a real truth to the real world. whos to say humans won’t be enemies in a similar event, not something constant? you can see sled dogs in the glacier as well. you’re already indirectly interacting with them in the game in ways. |
 Pikachu #409 |
|
Posted 2021-07-24 18:04:48
I understand where you are coming from that we need to be aware human impacts on nature and I agree to a certain extent, but making humans an enemy is such a slippery slope. It has become pretty common in media to make a story line of nature versus people, covid was used allot in this way back in early 2020. This line of thinking has become termed "ecofacism" (this is a real term and I am not labelling it to you) and leads to allot of consequential thinking, such as leading to apathy towards protecting nature. Unfortunately having battling humans (especially if there is no other site interaction) kinda feeds that narrative because it isn't a wolf fighting a bear (a competitor) or deer (food source) but has a completely different subtext. So I think it is a little unfair to say those who do not support this are unaware of the current environmental state. Conservation (wolves included) does not gain when we make it humans versus nature, instead it has be how can humans live with nature, and we really need to do away with the former. |
 🌊salt&shell #20526 |
|
Posted 2021-07-24 18:39:56
I still personally don't feel human presence or battles would add much to the setting. |
Mapleleaf #45702 |
|
Posted 2021-07-24 19:44:25 (edited)
Many years later I became a mum (not by giving birth but for caring deeply for someone). He was 26 and I was 59. He was a dog trainer before he came to my home town and loves dogs so much I found myself loving them too. Then someone told me Peter was playing so much the dog got over excited. It wasn’t the dogs fault after all. These days I can’t get enough of dogs and even sponsor one for the deaf society. I collect plushie dogs (as well as horses) and other things. I realise how much I missed in my frequently busy life for so long.unlike my son though I tend to like smaller dogs like Bichon Friese, some terriers and spaniels. And now of course I love wolves |
PhoebeFoal #44748 |
|
Posted 2021-07-24 19:49:58 (edited)
Like so many mentioned already, wolves have a reputation for being aggressive or bloodthirsty-- A lot of shows, children's tales (Like the 3 piglets and little red riding hood), series, movies (Twilight), cartoons (Wolf's Rain to a certain extent)-- Those forms of media have this depiction of the wolves being snarly bloody creatures that wish to draw blood for fun. It's so important to demystify this rumor, it's been detrimental to wolves' well-being, health and especially their population. If Wolvden follows that trope, it would only push the harmful narrative further and it would contribute to the fake view on wolves being so aggressive. I have grown okay with the presence of humans in the game, as long as they are not something you HAVE to harm to progress in the game. I am able to ignore the human encounters, but again, I have PTSD with animal-on-human violence and already see a ton of blood and gore, as well as more sensitive subject matter I cannot disclose here, when it comes to animal aggression towards people and other animals-- The last thing I want is to see more of that in a game I can feel myself comfortable in. The poacher event and this addiction to killing poachers is the main reason I left Lioden and I really don't want to leave a game where I feel I can escape my trauma for a portion of the day. To discuss @Polaris' point, I will have to politely disagree heavily with you. See, a lot of us, including myself, are aware of the damage that humans have contributed to the wildlife, but I want human encounters to shed the good in humans. Personally, almost asll I see is the bad things the human race has done on media, just like how it has been the case with wolves. A lot of players are already aware of the actions and consequences about how humans suck, how they are horrible, how they are cruel and evil, how they never care for animals or their environment and are greedy monsters, I am personally very fed up of this trope because, obviously, it's the furthest thing from the truth for the majority of the population and we do not see good people most of the time trying to fix things and make the world a better place. There are a few encounters suggested in the previous pages in this thread where your wolf can interact with humans peacefully or be jerkish in the sense they can scare humans with a bark, without resorting to killing and maiming. I also personally strongly dislike the way Lioden portrayed poaching as this black-white situation, as it is much more complex than just ''evil human kill for fun''. It also greatly feeds into misanthropy (As some players in this thread said they want to ''kill the stupid humans'') and I personally cannot comprehend why players want so badly to kill humans. You are able to write the presence of humans and human-related death in your lore-- As already mentioned above, if humans DO directly exist in the game as battle-able encounters, it will be tough to write about not seeing humans in your lore. I seriously am not looking forward at all to Wolvden following that mindset. Edit: To add onto my points, I am the friend with animal related PTSD @Wrightworth is talking about and I strongly appreciate the fact they are aware of people that also suffer from animal-related trauma in this thread, as I feel it's a very important point to consider. While I understand that Wolvden cannot cater to every single person here, it would be very distasteful if people with trauma voiced how they personally feel about something they find triggering, and that triggering scenario is placed anyway. It feels insensitive at worst, and neglectful to the players. I do not wish to make the devs bend their backs for me and it will never be my intention, but it is important to consider people that have trauma when it comes to the ideas and suggestions you have in mind. |
Sinxerely | Slava Ukraini #26651 |