Game Review

Cabela's Dangerous Hunts 2013 Review

USA USA Version

Posted by Philip J Reed

The hunt is on?

Maybe we're just gullible human beings here at Nintendo Life Towers, but we expected Cabela's Dangerous Hunts 2013 to feature know...hunting. Not that we're disappointed, as this far more action-oriented approach has undoubtedly made for a better game, but the FPS / survival approach certainly caught us off guard.

So, yes, we'll get this out of the way up front, for those who would like to play a nice hunting game on their shiny new Wii U: you don't hunt in this game. Ever. Sure, you shoot plenty of animals, but you do so for the same reason you'd shoot the enemy in a war game: you want to get home alive. Hunting isn't a sport here; it's a necessity.

This is reinforced by the fact that the game's main feature is a robust story mode. Almost immediately you're thrown into exotic locations, beset on all sides by vicious opponents, with only your trusty sidearm to protect you. It's a far cry from crouching in some tall weeds or waiting patiently on a deer stand, and it lends the game a very conflicted feel, as though it can't decide what it should be.

The plot is a sort of reverse Bambi. While out hunting with your father, the older man is slain by those nasty, villainous woodland creatures. It's a wound that never quite heals — and some interactive flashbacks sell this concept surprisingly well — and ten years later you return with your brother to your dear old dad's favourite hunting spot, in order to slaughter as many things as you can. Because he would have wanted it that way, we guess.

The hunting trip, however, takes tragic turn after tragic turn, and it becomes less a celebration of your father's life than it does a frantic scramble to save your own. Sometimes you'll be defending yourself from waves of animals crashing down on you through the foliage, sometimes you'll be squaring off against massive brutes in open fields, and other times you'll be scrabbling for supplies in dark, dangerous buildings that feel like they've been pulled straight out of ZombiU. In short, it's absolutely nothing like hunting.

While the game does all it can to reinforce the concept that you are, indeed, fighting for your life, there are definitely moments that feel less than ethically sound. Early in the game you're riding in the back of an open vehicle, picking off everything you see with a rifle as you go riding on by. Sure, the game tells you this is because a sandstorm has riled up the animals and they may ram the vehicle otherwise, but it feels a bit troubling to engage in what is essentially narrative-enforced poaching. This is compounded by the fact that you're encouraged to kill the animals before they get angry and try to ram the vehicle, meaning you are absolutely killing them without any reason for doing so, and without any intention of using the carcass or the meat. It's pure and simple drive-by shooting, and it's only the first in a long line of problematic set pieces.

The moral implications of this first-person animal shooter side, the action is quite well handled. Enemies rush at you from every possible angle, and you can either take your time to scope out a perfect shot or spray the area with precious ammo and hope for the best. Sometimes the game will even enter a slow-motion mode to allow you to zero in on an attacking animal's heart or brain for an instant kill.

In the main game you move with the left control stick and aim with the right. The left trigger looks through the scope (if your gun has one) and the right fires. The shoulder buttons allow you to execute a smooth dodge in either direction, and you can press up on the D-Pad to trigger that mystical second-sight all hunters have that reveals the path ahead and highlights hidden healing items.

The controls change substantially in the shooting gallery mode, wherein you simply tap on the touch screen to fire. It's a nice option we would have liked to have had in the main game as well, where the touch screen isn't used for much more than selecting guns.

It's a reliable and intuitive control scheme, but there are other problems with the experience. For starters, the frame rate is absolutely terrible whenever anything is about to happen. Walking along and shooting animals is fine, but the moments before a bridge collapses or a tree falls over are jerky and agonising. The stuttering gives away the fact that something is about to happen, nullifying surprise, and it makes the experience feel a bit shoddy. The graphics are nice but don't seem much more impressive than anything the Wii could have handled, and the sound is effective and atmospheric.

Overall the presentation feels just slightly amateurish. Voice acting isn't properly synched to the animations, the sound output from the GamePad lags just far enough behind the console itself to create an annoying echo effect, and the bodies of slain animals simply dissolve into nothingness, even further removing the action of the game from anything that could even remotely be considered "hunting".

Another issue is simply one of navigation. While you can press Up to see where you need to go, the line runs both ways, and there are relatively few landmarks in the wild. It's very likely you'll try to reorient yourself after a skirmish and end up backtracking because you can't remember which way you came from.

This is doubly frustrating when you find yourself in an area with respawning enemies. Here you'll need to flee before you get worn down or use up all your ammo, but you'll be spinning around and shooting things so often that it's impossible to remember in which direction you're trying to advance. Even pressing Up in the middle of battle is difficult, as you'll likely have to take your thumb away from the control stick to do so. This means you can either go somewhere or know where you're supposed to go, not both. It gets frustrating fast.

The other two modes are the aforementioned shooting gallery, wherein you tap the touch screen to fire and can earn extra points for shooting certain animals in sequence, and a Maneater mode, which sees you accomplishing small tasks in abbreviated periods of time. They're both nice additions, but an actual hunting mini-game feels like a missed opportunity.

As a complete package Cabela's Dangerous Hunt 2013 is a bit lacking, but the satisfying action of the story mode may be a surprise worth experiencing for yourself. That is if you don't mind slaughtering creatures in their natural habitat as though they're Nazi zombies.


As a tie-in game for a line of hunting gear, Cabela's Dangerous Hunts 2013 is surprisingly capable. It's by no means a flawless experience, and we find it hard to recommend it very strongly, but anyone who does decide to give it a shot — so to speak — may find themselves pleasantly surprised. The controls are fluid and there are some surprising action sequences to keep the momentum up. Many of the set pieces are morally dubious at best, but there is definitely some fun to be had along the way.

From the web

User Comments (115)



Bankai said:

This series of games makes me want to hurt human beings. The very concept of the game is offensive.



Bass_X0 said:

I agree with Bankai.

I also disagree with real hunting. If man wants to hunt against animals as a sport then he should go in wearing just his underwear. Or arm the lions and tigers with guns too.



Moshugan said:

My friend pirated Cabela's Survival: Shadows of Katmai last summer. It was a riot at a gaming party we had. Totally bonkers and hysterical! But definitely not anything I would personally pay any money to play.

P.S. I do not condone piratism.



Bankai said:

Even if you're into hunting (I've already had that argument), Cabela's Dangerous Hunts is still morally bankrupt. Anything that encourages the notion that bears/ big cats/ crocodiles are animals to be feared (and thus justifying their slaughter) is so completely irresponsible that this is one of the times I wish PETA was around.



kkslider5552000 said:

@Bankai I dunno, if what I saw from TotalHalibut was any indication, the game's too ridiculous and unintentionally hilarious to be offensive.



WingedSnagret said:

I actually saw footage of this. And I'm not joking, one of the scenes is set in Africa, and you are in a jeep trying to outrun a sandstorm while shooting buffalo and other animals that try to smash the vehicle while also running away. And here's the kicker, the native tour guy driving says, "There are buffalo everywhere! Shoot them all!"

No self-respective tour guide would EVER say that! I'm okay with hunting games, but if it's like this where you kill every single animal in sight and they are portrayed as monstrous killing machines, that is just wrong.

Oh, and this game is made by the same people who make Call of Duty. Go figure...



Chrono_Cross said:

Oh, and this game is made by the same people who make Call of Duty. Go figure...

Treyarch and Infinity Ward were not involved in this game's development cycle whatsoever. Don't attack when you don't know what you're attacking.



Bankai said:

@CactusJackson I think he just got developer and publisher mixed up. Happens a lot in this industry.

Of course, you're right. By the other guy's logic this game is also made by the same people that made Skylanders and the console version of Angry Birds. Pretty talented bunch to be able to "make" such a range of different games



Jaz007 said:

I don't really get why everyone is so upset about this game. I don't see why it's so wrong to kill animals in a action "hunting" game.



DerpSandwich said:

You guys are all taking this way too seriously. You've got a problem if you go out and do this in real life, but it's just a stupid game.

And hunting isn't wrong if you're eating what you shoot, but that's not really a can of worms that I feel should be opened here on Nintendo Life...



moomoo said:

@Bankai There's Madworld, a game about murdering people. There's also Manhunt. Same premise, but less humorous in its approach. I don't see you getting up in arms about those.



JeanLuc_Vaycard said:

Thats the thing. There are thousands of games where you kill humans in a hundred different ways. People have no problem with that but oh noes when they cute little cheetah gets killed in a fictional setting then everyone is in an uproar. I think its about as likely to make people go on a hunting spree is as all these war games will make people go on a killing spree. Lighten up, its a game.



theblackdragon said:

This old argument again? Wake me up when everyone starts frothing at the mouth over Monster Hunter or any random FPS again — it's okay when it's only humans and/or made-up creatures that are getting killed, amirite? ffs.



moomoo said:

For what it's worth, I do see the perspective. Some find hunting as a sport to be morally wrong. There's no activities considered sport in the real world that condone the acts seen in Madworld, so it's not really supporting anything that actually exists. Meanwhile, hunting games do.



Bankai said:

@moomoo Hunting is a socially sanctioned hobby/ sport, however, and killing people is not. My protest against games like this is against the actual activity. Anyone in their right mind knows that killing people is a bad thing. Too many otherwise smart people have this ridiculous idea that it's ok to shoot a bear, however, and dumb games like this one reinforce that idea.



Chrono_Cross said:

If kids learn from this game that killing animals is intense and fun, then I don't see why they wouldn't get the same impression from a game like Manhunt or GTA.



Molotov said:

Wow Look At The Amazing Graphics. Its Almost As Good As On The iPad 4. Oh Wait The Game Sux



Bankai said:

@CactusJackson I disagree.

Cabela is an actual outdoors goods company and it actively provides hunting gear to the market. Games that have the Cabela name on them are closer to the likes of FIFA Soccer in that they are in effect commercial advertisements for the sport.

There is no real-life equivalent that justifies the behaviour of Manhunt or GTA in modern society. Those games are closer to pure fantasy.

And frankly I wouldn't be surprised if games like Call of Duty either encouraged some people to join the army, or reinforced their career decision in their mind. Historically books, films, music, and watching sport on TV have inspired people to take up new hobbies or even change their careers. I see no reason to think a game can't do the same.



Chrono_Cross said:


If this attracts people to get involved into hunting, so be it. It's a widely appreciated sport here in America and usually provides food for said family. Killing bears and alligators on the other hand, doesn't necessarily make sense.

But that's the thing: unless it's in self defense, killing those creatures should be known to be a no-no. And unless you're too young to understand or mentally ill, you should know this.



LordJumpMad said:

After reading this review, it sounds like to me it's the only Wii U game worth playing, seeing how Activision has once again grace this dated gen console with real quality gaming.
All of you should be thankful that 3rd parties would even make give this failing console a gem of a game.



Slapshot said:

Really? Do we have to get into this same tired argument every time that hunting game is mentioned here?

Here's a hint: it's legal to hunt in the US and if you don't like it - call PETA (they can't do a thing about it).



Bankai said:

@CactusJackson - Illegal hunting is a plenty big problem throughout the world.

If people want to take up the... sport... so be it. I'm going to continue to argue against anything that promotes hunting as a legitimate/ entertaining/ beneficial activity however.

That there is my right as a bleeding heart liberal. Deal with it.



RR529 said:

I actually have had alligator before, at a local cajun restaurant. It was pretty good

BTW, it was someone else in our group who ordered it, they just let everyone try a piece (I had some sort of shrimp dish).



gojiguy said:

These games are hilarious. Survival: Shadows Of Katmai is insane. You are constantly attacked by packs of wolves and you end up killing at least 300. Everything in that game wants to kill you.



Chrono_Cross said:

Cabela supports hunting as much as GTA supports robbing, smoking and, well, grand theft auto.

Hint: It doesn't.



Bankai said:


From Cabela's own website:

"Quality Hunting, Fishing, Camping and Outdoor Gear at competitive prices."

So yes, Cabela does support hunting.

Edit - you do realise that Cabela is an actual manufacturer of hunting weapons, right? It's like Remington.



Chrono_Cross said:

I'm talking about the games.

I don't know why it surprises you that a hunting company supports hunting.



Bankai said:

Why do you think a hunting company would sponsor a game? Because the game then acts as marketing for the hunting company.

So taking this one step further, why does a company spend money on marketing? To encourage consumers to spend money on that company.

Putting 1 and 1 together results in this 2: Cabela sponsors game to raise brand awareness for Cabela guns and stuff. No company sponsors GTA (though if Starbucks were smart, the next GTA would totally feature hot coffee). The comparison between the two games is flawed.

We've seen what happens when real gun companies sponsor video games. Medal of Honor, remember? Cabela gets away with it because it's ok to shoot animals or something.



Chrono_Cross said:

I thought we were discussing the message Cabela's video games supposedly exposed? Because it's just as guilty as any other violent video game out there and should not be singled out. You should bring up other violent games to benefit yourself even though it's been proven that mankind does not learn from violence and sex in video games, books and movies, unless they're mentally ill.

Hunting is a sport, and like the NFL there is merchandise to be sold and the sport has to have a supporting message to encourage others to watch and partake in it.

If Cabela didn't encourage others to hunt, it wouldn't be as big as it is today, let alone the chance it would still exist.

Medal of Honor does not support a pro war message.



edcomics said:

I can understand people being against actual hunting... but I don't understand why SIMULATED hunting upsets so many people. Why is digital death suddenly offensive when it's deer and geese, when nobody complains about slaughtering purple deer and rainbow geese in, say, a Final Fantasy game? That's to say nothing about games involving the slaughter of human beings and other humanoid creatures. Hunting games are just that — games. I played through a similar game recently with a friend. The gameplay is essentially like a House of the Dead game, except the setting and targets are different. Should I feel guilty over shooting the innocent, flying goldfish in Sin & Punishment: Star Successor? I murdered them, all in the name of raising my multiplier. It's a game. A simple, target shooting game. Morals need not come into the equation.



theblackdragon said:

@Waltz: Cabela is sponsoring a game about hunting, a perfectly legal sport in many parts of the world. It makes sense for them to do so since they sell hunting gear, just like WWE making wrestling games, the NFL or a soccer organization sponsoring sports games, etc. and so forth. I'm sorry you don't personally like hunting or the fact that other people do enjoy it, but them's the breaks.

@CactusJackson: hunting wouldn't be as big as it is today, or Cabela? the former would be just as big with or without games like these, but the latter probably wouldn't...
sorry, i was following your arguments pretty well until that line, lol. :3



Chrono_Cross said:

Cabela wouldn't be as big it is today without its publicity. The hunting community in its entirety, I'm not sure. I'm not God. lol



Bankai said:

I really don't know how I can put this any easier.

I am against hunting. I am against a hunting company sponsoring a game about hunting. Even if the game content itself doesn't encourage someone to hunt, the association with a real hunting company makes the game a walking advertisement for hunting anyway.

I am not against violent games because games don't cause people to do stupid things. However, if, say, Barrett were to sponsor the next Call of Duty game (called, say, Barrett's Call of Duty), I would have a problem with that, because that's encouraging the sale of real guns.

And possessing real guns DOES encourage people to do stupid things.

See the difference here? Cabela games aren't just games. They're promotions for the sport. THAT'S the problem.



theblackdragon said:

@Waltz: For the final time, hunting is legal in countries across the planet. You've had your say. Please, allow other users to share their thoughts about the game at hand and our review now.



Chrono_Cross said:

I know you're against the hunting of animals, but Cabela's games, in no way, advertise their merchandise or force anyone to hunt. There's no menu that pops up after the developer's logo that says: "Buy our guns and hunt defenseless animals in your backyard! It's funny!"

It's just an appropriate way for people who hunt to enjoy a video game they can relate to. Identical to the point of other sport games. (Such as Madden, NCAA, NHL, etc.)



HuntheUniverse said:

Hunting is used for reducing overpopulation. That's why they only give out a certain number of licenses out at certain times a year with only certain amounts of allowed kills. If there were something to be mad at, it'd be poachers, not people who follow the law.

This game is incredibly unrealistic as far as I can tell. This is nothing like the real deal, lol. Don't get your panties in a twist.



castlezelda said:

@CactusJackson Taking life is wrong, human or animal, a life is a life. Taking a life to early is like playing God. I know viral "hunting" games are okay but if someone doesn't hunt in reality then why hunt virtual how hypocritical.



Jaz007 said:

@Bankai Owning guns encourages people to do stupid things, really? I know a lot of people who aren't encouraged in the least to do stupid things by guns, fact guns don't encourage people to do anything stupid at all, it's a tool that sits there that you can pick and shoot something out of, people's own stupidity encourages them to do stupid things. Owning guns DOES NOT encourage people to do stupid things.



Chrono_Cross said:


Next time a bear is trying to kill me and I have a shotgun, I'll be sure to drop the gun and run in a straight path.

Because that's so effective.



Jaz007 said:

@castlezelda hunting is nessecary where I am, there are a buch a deer and no wolfs or other animals to hunt them since they just can't live here, fact all the dear do around here is cause car crashes and eat people's plants, if there was no hunting there would be an increase in car crashes everybody's plants would get eaten and the deer would just start to starve, if a hunter collects deer meat from hunting I see no problem, he is simply doing what a wolf would be doing in the balance of nature.



Bankai said:


Compare gun-related crime in the states to a country that outlaws guns (say, Japan or Australia).

People are the same throughout the world. You have stupid people and violent people in Australia and Japan, just like you do in America.

The difference? Those stupid and violent people in Australia and Japan don't have guns. Problem not solved, but massively reduced.

So yes, gun ownership is the problem that the banning of guns resolves.

@CactusJackson - or you could learn how to not antagonise a bear. That way the bear doesn't have to die.

I've yet to be impaled, ripped to shreds, poisoned or eaten by a wild animal. I didn't need a gun to avoid that.



Chrono_Cross said:

Tell that to hikers. Wild animals don't need to be antagonized to attack humans. You should know this as this is merely common sense.



Bankai said:

You do realise how many deadly animals Australia has, right? More than the US.

I've yet to have to kill one. I do a lot of hiking. Perhaps because I don't have a gun I've learned to actually live with nature rather than go around marking my territory with animal corpses.



Chrono_Cross said:

That he does. Just because you've never encountered a dangerous animal that had its eyes on you, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.



Bankai said:

What do you count as a dangerous animal? Snakes? Spiders? Wild Pigs? Run into them all at some point.

Perhaps it's just an education thing. It's easy to rely on a gun to protect yourself when you're allowed to own one.

@HuntheUniverse - they shoot animals. It might be legal, it might be fun, it might be justifiable. I'm not disputing that.



Chrono_Cross said:

I've never been to Australia but in America there is an overabundance of wild animals. Unless you live in the city, you're bound to run into a wild animal.

Here in the midwest there are: mountain lions, bears (rare), racoons, ferocious hill billies, coyotes, rattle snakes and big foot. Of course, if you were to head into the rocky mountains, then well, I think you can do your own research.

The point is, is that a lot of people are attacked by animals on a global scale. Having a weapon to defend yourself isn't such a bad idea.



JeanLuc_Vaycard said:

Maybe you should contact PETA Waltz. We cant let our children grow up shooting simulated animals! Nevermind the real poaching that is going on around the World. This evil game company must be stopped. Just like violent video games and that blasted rock music makes people more likely to go on a killing spree, this will make children want to go out and shoot Bambi. Lets score a moral victory against shooting simulated animals!



Jaz007 said:

@Bankai We Americans value our freedom including the second amendment (the right to own guns) to our constitution. Gun ownership being legal itself is not a problem if someone really wants to kill people there are many ways to do it. Someone blew up a building by making a bomb with stuff like fertilizer, and if we ban guns criminals will still be able to get them just fine to rob stores, plus did you think of the crimes prevented by law abiding citizens with guns



Philip_J_Reed said:

Guys, this sadly applies to nearly everyone commenting here: this is not a hunting game. While I'm all for open debate, it's pretty irrelevant as there is no hunting in this game. It's a gigantic misnomer, and that's addressed several times in the review! Let's try to stay on topic, because despite the title of this game, hunting isn't the topic.



Ichiban said:

I have a snake in my shed at the moment actually & given the chance, I'd blow its damn head off!
I told my landlord, & he wanted to charge me extra rent for having another tenant!



andregurov said:

If this game encourages someone to take up hunting, they will be sorely disappointed that real hunting has absolutely nothing in common with how it is presented here. If that is Cabela's hook, they are a better advertisement against hunting than we could have ever wished. I would never dream of entering the wild to blast helpless animals away, but I do enjoy it in video games. Does that make me a hunting supporter by proxy?

I would like to see Cabela issue a game similar to Wild Earth: African Safari, where the hunting is limited to photographic stalking. Cabela's does put out some pretty games with decent animal animations, and it would be great to play a photo game that takes advantage of it.



mozie said:

I seriosly doubt anyone commenting is actually going to play this either way, the game is awful, should have received a 2 or 3 max. The narrative (which is written by Andrew Kreisberg, who's penned Fringe & Arrow episodes) is dissapointing as is the awful voice acting and the visuals are low budget to say the least. The game reeks of a forced, rushed out title that no one should have to endure. Play every other Wii U release before this one! (and yes that includes tank tank tank!)



WarioPower said:

These games aren't hunting at all. Out of all the years I've been hunting deer (about 5) I've only seen about 4, which only 1 I got a shot at and missed. That is very different from blasting every living thing you see.



mozie said:

Oh and Gunman Clive should also be removed from the eshop because of its senseless depiction of animal slaughter too! I feel a compelling urge to strangle a rabbit



Robo-goose said:

After reading the first part of the first paragraph on the home page, I decided to check out this review. It was a great article, Reed! I haven't really been interested in FPSs or hunting games, but, well, like you said, this isn't a hunting game! The survival mechanics and adventure mechanics sound appealing. I will probably pick this game up after getting a Wii U.

Bankai- "And possessing real guns DOES encourage people to do stupid things."

Ha, ha ha, with how stupid some people act with their guns, I'd almost agree with you!
I definitely disagree with you, though, because I know gun owners who did stupid things with rocks, sticks, hot wax, trampolines, safety gates, chicken tenders and many other things before having guns of their own. Having a gun doesn't encourage anyone to do stupid things, their own stupidity does that for them, lol! Throwing a chicken tender at the back of your best friend's head isn't something you'd be encouraged to do just because you had a chicken tender, (or maybe you would, I don't know you) and shooting your annoying neighbor's pet rock isn't something you'd be encouraged to do just because you owned a gun. Now, I'll agree that I'm an idiot, but I was one LONG before I had access to a gun!

On a side note, it's great to see that you guys are having a debate without all the usual mud-throwing/flamewars you get from most crowds. Seeing an arguement that isn't full of name-calling and snarky comments (for the most part) is really refreshing. Nice to see some class.



MagicEmperor said:

I think I'll just stick to eating beef, pork, and other meats over playing this game, thanks. Yeah, yeah, I know, not hunting. But... I'm out of comments!



C-Olimar said:

As Phillip has stated, this isn't a hunting game. It's basically Call of Duty with animals. Ergo, it's a much less offensive game, since human lives are more valuable than animal lives.

However, good point @Bankai about Cabela's sponsorship. I'd never heard of them, but I'm against hunting. I think it exists to make small, insignificant people feel better about themselves.

I'm not going to get into the ownership of guns debate because it really isn't an issue for me, being English.



misterquin said:

@WingedFish Dude. There are many more games where you're shooting PEOPLE

If this game is morally wrong, then what does that say about every single other game where you're killing PEOPLE?



WarioPower said:

@C-Olimar What you just stated about hunters is mostly false. Many hunters, including me, go hunting to enjoy nature and bond with friends and family. I don't know anyone who hunts to "make themselves feel bigger".



OorWullie said:

@MrNiceGuy "To enjoy nature" by hunting and injuring/killing wildlife in THEIR natural environment so to bond with like minded friends and family all the while breaking animals bonds with their family by cowardly slaughtering their parents or calfs.Culling is an acceptable and necessary requirement,hunting to enjoy nature and bond with family is sick and fundamentally wrong!But I guess thats the difference between us and the many in the US,common sense!



Schprocket said:


2nd amendment was written when guns were muzzle-loaders and the fledgling US had no army to speak of, relying on militia. That argument's getting old...

P.S imagine The Matrix lobby scene if Neo only had muzzle-loaders....



MAB said:

Well the people that work for Cabela have families to feed and bills to pay while trying to survive in a manufactured maze like the rest of us putrid resource sucking earthlings



WarioPower said:

@OorWullie You obviously didn't understand what I was even saying. When you hunt, you enjoy the outdoors whether you get anything or not. Also, many hunters, at least where I live, are actually quite environmentally concious. You guys have a very distorted and false impression of hunters.



AmishThunder said:

@Bankai What about games involving psychotic turtles that must be stomped and kicked into other turtles? What about games where you have to kill other humans? If you try to take your pseudo-moral high ground on video games, what games do you play? Pinball and pinball? Of course, some of those tables objectify women, so you should avoid those too.



SteveW said:

Huh? You need to try the Wii version, this one blows the Wii graphics away... any playing it with anything other than the Wii Zapper is a waste.



EaZy_T said:

This game sounds horrible... in a technical sense.
If it were an actual hunting simulation, then it would have been a lot better.

Just think of the beautiful locales that the Wii U could render, ones that you could appreciate because you don't "run and gun" like in this title.

I look at a hunting simulator the same way I would one for one depicting a sniper; not much action, mostly stalking and waiting for the right moment to shoot your target.



Bass_X0 said:

Ergo, it's a much less offensive game, since human lives are more valuable than animal lives.

Shooting animals for sport is equal to shooting children. Neither can defend themselves or even want to participate in the hunt.

Shooting adults in a war game? Well, thats just justified. Its war and both sides know the stakes of kill or be killed.



Jaz007 said:

@OorWullie there are idiots and people with common sense in your country and the U.S. Am I calling people Thailand people idiots? No I'm not so don't call U.S. people idiots please.



OorWullie said:

@MrNiceGuy I understood perfectly what you said.You go out with your family to enjoy the outdoors and if you come across any animal on the way you'll kill it then have a crack about it.I used to be engaged to an American girl who studied in Syracuse and she had some friends who stayed out in a farming community.We went and stayed with them for a few days and they went our hunting everyday and couldn't understand why I didn't want to go out with them.Most of the houses I was in had several weapons on display on the walls and others had mounted displays of their biggest victims.Everyday they came back,all they would talk about was the hunt.There was a group of around 25 of them that went out and they were aged from 10-60.The way they talked about how great it is when you "blow the stupid f'rs head off first shot" is what has gave me my impression of many hunters.Its more about the thrill of the hunt than any other reason.I know a few in the UK too and they are of exactly the same mindset.With all that said it is ingrained in your culture so there can be no way to convince you of what the vast majority of the world thinks of your gun laws.



Jaz007 said:

@Bass_X0 I have no earthly idea how you can honestly say the life of a rabbit is as valuable as a child's, I really don't. A child's life is much much more valuable than any animals life, and animals like bears, tigers, and packs of wolfs are not defenseless (not saying its ok to go out and hunt because they are not defenseless) and some would kill you without being provoked at all. (Still not saying wether it's ok) A humans life is much more valuable than an animals I don't see how you could believe otherwise.



OorWullie said:

@Jaz007 I'm actually from Scotland but live in Thailand.Mate I never called anyone an idiot and would never do so.But this whole mindset that it is fine to hunt animals for sport because its fun is barbaric and has no place in any modern society.



Jaz007 said:

@OorWullie Gun laws have nothing to do with hunting laws, you can still hunt with a bow, so gun laws are not the problem here, it's hunting laws you should be talking about here and last I remembered nobody goes hunting with an AK-47.



WarioPower said:

@OorWullie Well, I don't know what to say about that. Personally, my family and I aren't as crude about animals as those hunters you were with. My father taught us to respect nature and not abuse it. Part of that is keeping the deer (or whatever other people hunt) from overpopulating and starving in the winter or causing problems in town and whatnot. Sure some hunters maybe very crude about hunting, but please don't judge all hunters like that, as that simply isn't true.



OorWullie said:

@Jaz007 That is true but the 2 kind of go hand in hand.The easier it is to obtain gun licenses then the easier it is to hunt.You wont go hunting with an AK-47 but you will go with a hunting rifle that would be much easier to obtain in the US than anywhere in he rest of the western world.



OorWullie said:

@MrNiceGuy Well that is a different thing,I did say in my first post that culling is an acceptable and necessary requirement but hunting for sport is not the same thing.



SteveW said:

People are taking this way too seriously, it's a game and no worse than most others, I bet most of you would have no problems if GTA 5 comes to the Wii U.



SteveW said:

@Bass_X0 - this is a survival game, if you were lost and all the animals started to attack you I suppose you would just lie down and say eat me because I don't want to hurt you?



OorWullie said:

@SteveW I'm not bothered by this release,like you said its only a game.It was a few of the comments that bothered me



NintyMan said:

I see that there are people who think it's a travesty that there's video games about killing mass numbers of animals but are fine with video games about killing mass numbers of human beings. Hypocritical much?

If it convinces someone to become a ruthless poacher, then that's the person's fault because the person is probably mentally ill and can't think rationally.

For the record, I used to play a couple of games in this series starting with the first one on PS2, and that one really was about hunting. The second one on Gamecube was like this one with a story mode, but I haven't played a game in the series since. And I'm definitely no animal hater because I played them.

This is just a video game, and a video game more about survival than actual hunting. That means that you are the hunted and not the hunter. That's a big difference.



HuntheUniverse said:

Hunting, with a liscense, is used to control animal population. Any other kills, without a liscense, over the liscense's limit, or out of season, is poaching.
Same goes to those hunting tigers, that is poaching, not hunting.
I see a lot of you confusing poaching and hunters, and I just want to point that out.

Also, remember, the man is an intelligent soul and possessing free will, but the animal is a soul guided by instinct.



SteveW said:

What does frontal lobes have to do with anything? besides... deers have them.

I don't own a gun and if I did, I could not shoot an animal except in self defense... but this is a video game so anything goes!



The_Fox said:

I'm not a huge fan of hunting myself, but properly regulated it does serve an important role in the control of animal populations. I do find it depressing that several people here have a warped view of hunters.



SteveW said:

I dunno... seems more like they are just keeping enough animal population around so they will have something to kill later. That's why they can't shoot the females, they need those babies around to kill later...



WarioPower said:

@SteveW It's either you shoot them and they die a quick death or else they die a slow painful death from starvation in the winter due to overpopulation. Which would you rather have?



Bankai said:

I meant what I said before. please keep your comments in this thread on the topic of the game and/or the review, you've more than had your say about everything else — TBD



PuzzleMaster7 said:

Well, that esculated quickly.
Also, I feel sorry for @Philip_J_Reed. This whole comments section was just a debate regarding about hunting while nothing being mentioned had anything to do with the review itself. Somedays, it must really be a pain to be an editor.



Will-75 said:

All these comments, LoL - It's just a game you dont get a riffle when you purchase the game . HaHaHa, LoL

Leave A Comment

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