News Article

Outdoors Unleashed: Africa 3D Hits North American eShop This Week

Posted by Thomas Whitehead

It's sport, apparently

Teyon has today confirmed that Outdoors Unleashed: Africa 3D arrives in the North American eShop tomorrow, priced at $3.99. It's an arcade shooting game with the goal of bringing the "thrilling excitement of becoming a hunter" to 3DS through 35 missions, with over 30 guns and accessories thrown in for good measure.

Of course, shooting animals in 3D has been done recently, with Crazy Chicken Pirates 3D, as well as a DSiWare version, involving little more than blasting away at cartoon chickens. This title goes for a different angle, however, with more realistic visuals — relative to the capabilities of 3DS — and by turning a real-life activity into a game.

While your opinions on the merits of game hunting in Africa undoubtedly vary, we're slightly surprised that a title that allows indiscriminate gunning down of endangered species got through the Nintendo approval process.

It's a tough topic, but check out the trailer and decide for yourself.

Subscribe to Nintendo Life on YouTube

From the web

Game Screenshots

User Comments (54)



BenAV said:

Teyon have been releasing some half-decent games (for the price) recently... but this is not one of them.
It looks rather horrible really.

I'll stick to destroying cats in Cat Frenzy instead.



JHardin1112 said:

I don't know. The Crazy Chicken Pirates 3D game, was alright but very limited. This game actually seems to have some decent content and scope to it. I got a review copy myself which I will check out later tonight, but I'll be writing my up my review at our site soon.



Rargon said:

I'm not much for the Hunter-Game Genre, but the price isn't half bad at all.



eltomo said:

There's a Zebra, grazing happily, and I come along and shoot it's brains out!!? Not my kind of game.

Outdoors Unleashed Urban 3D sounds better



3dbrains said:

I might get this game purely to piss of the lady.

me, "what do you mean you wont do my ironing?"
her, "I'm sick of it, never again, do your own ironing!"
me, "Do my ironing or the Rhino gets lead in it's brain!"
her, "OK if you promise not to hurt the cute wickle animal"



SteveW said:

"gunning down of endangered species"? - we have plenty of games where you kill people, would that be better?



Robo-goose said:

I think they should make a sequel to this where you get to play as elephants with giant lasers for tusks.
It'll be called "Elephants Never Forget".



Adhrast said:

I can't understand how the hell this is being published on the eShop while The Binding of Isaac isn't :S



darkgamer001 said:

The funny thing is, I doubt PETA will say anything about this game...they just went after Mario because it is, of course, a much more famous title....



Samholy said:

what the hell. dont encourage these titles people.
a game about killing animals ??? ridiculous.
better get a Grand Theft Auto and kill tons of people instead.



Chris720 said:

@ThomasBW84 Unless you shoot them in the back of course...

This isn't a game for me, I don't mind shooting pixelated people, but this is just horrible, this is where I draw the line... :/



RR529 said:

So GTA is fine, but this isn't? The graphics are the only thing that aim to be somewhat realisic about this. If you watch the tailer, it's an arcadey on-rails shooting gallery (with no blood), so it's not trying to be realistically gruesome. Some choices in targets may be in bad taste, but it's certainly not the worst thing out there (some of that worse stuff you tend to be fine with).

It was originally supposed to be a $30 retail release, so unless gameplay is really screwed up, this'll probably be a good value for the price. If that's the case, I'm willing to look past some odd choices in targets.

EDIT: Also, Teyon is answering every single question posted in the comments of the YouTube video, so if you want to voice your opinion, there you go (just be sure to comment on the video posted by Teyon, instead of NintendaanNC).



rayword45 said:

Seriously people, I can't possibly see how this game is "immoral" or "sick" in your eyes.

Go play GTA, where you gun down and run over random civilians. Go play COD: MW2, where your goal is to terrorize an airport and murder loads of innocent people waiting for a plane.

But for heaven's sake, DON'T play a game where you shoot helpless animals. That's just evil!



Furealz said:

Guh, virtual animals are like robots. They don't possess feelings! Why would this game make someone kill real wildlife? The game is as about as harmless as GTA anyways........besides I still ain't getting this rushed TEYON game ahem. Never bought a title from them, never will plain and simple.



Tsuchiya said:

What a truly abhorrent idea...

Making light of an incredibly sad and evil human practice by making it "fun" and handing it to youngsters. Nice move Nintendo...

Enter PETA and for once, I'll be on side. I'm all for diverse games and fantasy violence but I draw the line at depictions of real world crimes made into videogames.

This monstrosity is nothing more than a real life inspired kill fest and I'll be sure to inform PETA about this rubbish and I hope it flops.



Spoony_Tech said:

If you were tranqing the escaped animals from a zoo or something then maybe. This kinda made me feel uneasy at best. However is monster hunter any different?! I love that game!



Philip_J_Reed said:

Seriously people, I can't possibly see how this game is "immoral" or "sick" in your eyes. Go play GTA, where you gun down and run over random civilians. Go play COD: MW2, where your goal is to terrorize an airport and murder loads of innocent people waiting for a plane.

You know, it's possible, just possible...hear me out here...that certain people also find those games immoral, or feel uncomfortable playing them. It might not be an either/or situation.

Seriously, folks have a right to say "I don't like this concept for a game." Pointing at other games with unrelated concepts and asking them why they don't rebel against those instead sort of misses the point. For starters, how do you know they don't feel that same way about the games they listed? And secondly, even if they didn't, does that mean that they've waived the right to be uncomfortable with any game, regardless of content? Of course not.



MrWalkieTalkie said:

I hate animal hunting games because I just love animals so much! The only thing I like though, is that this is only a game and its better this way than to do it in real life. But I would still never get it...



Scollurio said:

Hunting animals for fun or pride is wrong, cruel and perverse, so is the depiction of it in a video game.



rayword45 said:

@Philip_J_Reed It's possible, but I see COD on some of these people's backloggery.

And it's simply a comparison. Not only that, but watching the video, it's hard to see this as highly offensive (moreso then similar games in bars/arcades) with the inaccurate depictions of death (with no blood or gore) and the low-quality graphics.

Also, on your second part, my personal view (and you don't have to share this idea) is "If you're offended by low-resolution animals dying, but have no problem with accurate depictions of terrorism with much higher quality graphics, your views are a tad skewed."



Burning_Spear said:

I can't believe we haven't evolved beyond the point of having games that glorify the senseless killing of animals. Really, Teyon? This was your best idea?



Philip_J_Reed said:

It's possible, but I see COD on some of these people's backloggery.

But once again, is that a problem? Some things make them uncomfortable, and others don't. I see you've already reached your "if that's true then your views are skewed" conclusion, but I think that's a bit harsh.

Some folks are made uncomfortable by this game, but not other games...which, in turn, might be games that make others uncomfortable. It doesn't have to follow or suggest a's a matter of personal preference, and nothing to do with warped perceptions.

After all, some folks are afraid of bears. They have every right to be; bears can tear us to pieces in a moment. And other folks are afraid of crickets...which couldn't hurt us if they tried. That might seem like a skewed view to an outsider, but, hey, that's not what matters. It's what a person feels as an individual that matters, and that's their business.

And, honestly, I understand if someone sees a huge distinction between violence in a wartime situation and violence against wild animals...but that's another topic altogether.



eltomo said:

I have no problem killing man in a video game, as we're corrupt and we distory. I felt a little bad killing Inca's on Colonization.

This is just gunning down harmless animals for profit and glory, I don't see any appeal in that at all... Its like having a Cut Down the Rainforest Game...



Windy said:

UM. your not gunning down anything. It's a fantasy game setting people. That's what gaming is about. Playing in fantasy settings. Gosh we might as well protest world of warcraft and other games as well since there are images of animals being killed in those games as well. Do we know reality and Fantasy? Might be time to stop playing games if you dont and seek out a doctor. I think the game looks great compared to most eshop games



TheDreamingHawk said:

Just a sick idea. And that's bad for me considering how I finished the series "Kimba the White Lion," which is AGAINST these acts.



Tsuchiya said:


Africa is a fantasy setting? I don't think so...

Here we have a "game" set specifically in Africa which allows players to carry out real world crimes that cause incredible amounts of bloodshed and help reduce already minimal numbers of endangered animals...

If only this murder was fantasy...



Burning_Spear said:

I think everyone who plays World of Warcraft understands that that is a fantasy and that there is little to indicate that people are transferring that experience to real-life behavior. Whereas this game depicts a real-life activity that needs to be discouraged, not glorified.



RR529 said:

While I agree that the poaching of elephants (lions, hippos, ect.) is a horrible travesty, the contents of this (or any) video game is fantasy (even if that fantasy is based on real world events). For instance, in GTA, innocent civilians are ruthlessly mowed down (of course, murder happens in the real world as well, and is much more serious than poaching), and yet not nearly as many people protest those games (which are also much more realistic & gruesome in their depictions).

So, in a video game, why is killing an innocent animal more of an issue than killing an innocent civilian?



TheConsiglio said:

I'm Definitely gonna get this I don't care if I slauder animals. Its not like I'm doing it in real life. And wasn't this supposed to be a 30.00 retail release? What HAPPENED???



Windy said:

@Tsuchiya But were not talking about the real world here. Where talking about a videogame which is in fact not real. I actually do not plan to buy this. It's not my type of game nor is say a grand theft auto for that matter. My point is Videogames are nothing more than air which equal fantasy. Dont let your kids play violent games plain and simple. I think the game looks good though. Sorry to spark a violence in videogame debate. Also you must be a very nice person to think that way about this game and I truly commend you on that



MixMasterMudkip said:

All of saying how horrible this game is, watch the video again. Are you guys even paying attention to how aggrieve and deadly those animals are. Endangered or not these animals are trying to kill you, so you must fight back. XD



Neram said:

Regardless of moral standpoint, this game looks stupid anyway.

For people defending the point that it's not real, just a video game, everyone realizes this but that doesn't mean the IDEA behind a game can't be immoral or sick. Game developers get away with a lot because of the "it's just a game" moniker, there's got to be a certain level of responsibility taken by the developers, after all "it's just a game", so lets come up with an appealing or imaginative way to utilize the game design you've created, rather than delegate to violence or in this case, mass slaughter of wildlife.



Barbiegurl777 said:

I saw the out doors unleashed series on 3ds a while back like a few months ago & was interested but never picked up a copy of the game yet. Lol this will be nice to have to play along with toki tori. For over the weekend along with my NSMB 2 game.

Happy Gaming! (^_^)



zionich said:

I'm going to be one of the people that says its just a game. It's no different than Call of Duty in my opinion. Why people put more value to digital animals is beyond me. In my opinion, Be against video game violence in any form, or just let it go.



chiptoon said:

@Windy and others- Maybe its because fulfilling a fantasy of gunning down masses of wildlife is a bit sick. As Philip said - normally in games where you kill lots of people, they shoot back. Theoretically at least the pleasure isn't from gunning down masses of people, but in facing a challenge and surviving. Still, I try to avoid games with neck-stabbing etc, and certainly find this game repulsive.



Scollurio said:

To clarify a few things, shooting people in games like call of duty is different, yes it is a fantasy setting (even if based on real places, real weapons) and in the context of the game (like in any media, like a book or a movie) I think it's widely accepted to "kill the enemy" who would instead kill YOU. And no, I didn't like the airport scene - I don't even play call of duty.

Hunting animals often in an almost industrial manner or for any other reason than eating that animal - yourself or with your family - is just pure wrong. Sure its an opinion, but killing for fun is wrong. And that is what it boils down to. Killing for fun is wrong. No matter if its civilians in GTA - I never said the mainstream-acceptance of mutilating digital images of real people satisfies me in the least - or especially if its animals.

Don't get me wrong, I loved Mortal Kombat when I was smaller - but it was always in the context. Having a game like this hunting game is like having a "lock your daughter up in your basement game" - or like that other guy said "chopping down the rainforest" - sure it would also just be a game but I really think that practices like that shouldn't be promoted and if you get a joy out of those things well my friend then I guess its best for YOU to lock yourself up in a really remote dark place.



Scollurio said:

And as an afterthought, if this game KEEPS some people from shooting real animals, then FOR GODS SAKE SELL IT IN THE MILLIONS!

(but still that logic is flawed otherwise we would see far more "invite your little niece on a trop"-games - if those type of games would prevent anything...)



MrAndrewJ said:

Well, the borderline offensive trailer had my interest. The drama and threats to contact PETA were enough to make this a day one purchase for me.

My shortest argument: shooting endangered animals for sport is horrible. Shooting pixels for sport is awesome. A structure of free speech that allows such virtual alternatives is necessary and also awesome. Shoot more pixels.

I've only played the first stage, but you lose points for shooting females at this point. That was a sobering contrast to the blissfully uncouth advertising.



EaZy_T said:

^wholly agree with MrAndrewJ.

I wasn't even going to buy this, but the over-the-top craziness of the posts here drove me to purchase it. Not a bad game for the price.

A call to peta is ridiculous, no animal are harmed in the execution of this eShop download. It's an arcade style shooting gallery game folks, not a trip to Africa to poach animals.



Mikefoster12345 said:

Rather than reviewing this you should be suggesting that the game is banned. This is totally unacceptable in modern times

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...