I still don't understand.

Let me guess you are one of those people that care about animals.

Let me tell you there is a difference between hunting an animal for food, resources and trading its pelt for money, and throwing a bag full of unwanted puppies in a river because your pet female dog mated with a male.

As for me I never hurt an animal unless it attacks me and I defend myself and my sister has a pet dog of her own named Belle and I play with her alot.

I'm not talking about real life. I understand people who hunt animals for food and money. But what could you possibly gain from hunting innocent animals in a PC or video game with rifles, assault rifles, machine guns etc except the pleasure of watching animals die? You know people willing to buy virtual pelts?

For resource and money reason have you played elder scrolls or WOW and you kill a wolf and sell its pelt for money or in Monster Hunter you kill a Rathalos to make armor made from its scales.

Also you say pleasure of seeing an animal die yet you say nothing about killing innocant bystanders in GTA or Soldiers in military shooters hell even stomping on a Koopa in Mario games?

Ok, I can also understand killing innocent animals in PC games and video games if killing them = virtual food and virtual money.

Soldiers in military shooters are not innocent animals. Koopa stole your woman.

I think you're taking it a bit too seriously, Iangurmonkey. It's just a video game, for one. And for two, regardless of how cuddly that bear cub looks to you, it's mother wouldn't hesitate to rip you into tiny little pieces if it felt the need to. And that baby elephant's mother wouldn't hesitate to trample you underneath it's feat, either.

Yeah, animals can be cute. But usually the people who pay too much attention to that are the ones that end up getting hurt by animals because they forget that A) Animals have their own ways of communicating which must be respected, like not sticking your face into a strange dogs face, B) Humans are also animals, regardless of what your church tries to teach you, and C) we're still a part of the food chain.

In short; relax, it's just a video game! ;p

Exactly and hell not even the strongest body builder can take down a very strong alpha lion with his bare hands.

I'd bet he could if he received more training than just body building.

Also, I prefer good reasons for hunting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Va9nN0JUwRk#t=280s

If a bear or a elephant is threatening someone"s life then that someone should not hesitate to kill. But just because a bear can rip someone to shreds or an elephant can trample someone, doesn't mean it is okay to just kill them, if that is what you are trying to say. I am relaxed BTW. Just trying to understand the minds of people like Elmofongo and you.

No, that isn't what I was trying to say =) I think the issue is that you're making a mountain out of an anthill at this point. We're not serial killers, rapists, child molesters, or anything else like that, lol. Elmofongo was just talking about adding some more content to a video game, so I really don't think there's much to try to understand here. There are no correlations that I know of between the desire (if you could even go so far as to call it a desire) to want to run around and shoot animals in a video game to having some kind of real life mental issue.

Just out of curiosity, are you a vegan or a vegetarian or something? I'm wondering why you're taking this so seriously since we aren't talking about killing real animals. Furthermore, what if he had said he wished there were more humans in the game to kill? Would you have been okay with that? Would that be better, worse, or the same as wanting to kill animals in a game?

What the fuck is going on in this thread? langurmonkey, you should be glad that hunting games exist. Maybe because of them less people are likely to go out to the woods and kill an animal (not just bits of a code). Maybe somebody will be less likely to go hunting in real life after seeing how boring and pointless it is to kill an animal.

For games only, there's no reason to complain. None animal is being harm when you drive over pinguins and elephants in Carmageddon :D

This. Even if they do enjoy hunting virtual animals, vast majority of people will just stick to that, effectively reducing the number of actual hunters.
Dude, why would you kill innocent infected people, seriously? It's not their fault they're agressive, you should just avoid them, they won't hurt you if you do. I mean seriously, maybe there will be cure for them one day!

Regarding the OP: There are shitty Indie games out there as there are shitty games in all other categories. Games can fail graphically. That's just how it is.

I realize that, however in my argument I concentrate on the visual presentation. As I said, I haven't played the game. I believe that I would enjoy it, but somehow the screenshots don't convince me to buy it ;p
As I stated before, it's not the pixels. Pixels can be beautiful, it's the presentation which looks lazy. I know that it MIGHT be on purpose in the case of this game, like Tarantino's Death Proof is a "crappy" movie on purpose. But here it somehow doesn't work for me.

As you said, DF is free. If I were to sell my product I'd have to invest some more time to make it playable. An incomprehensible interface is worse than any bad graphics ;)
Also...I love DF, although I don't use the ASCII tiles, only the graphic ones.

Nah, that's like saying because of porn less men are rapists or because of violent games less people indulge in mass murders and running amok. I don't think it works that way, and even if it's well-meant, I think it's counterproductive for your argument to draw such direct relations between gaming and real life.

Anyway, I thought this discussion was about crappy graphics, so would it be less problematic if the animals were barely recognizable pixel clusters with unrealistic colors? ;)

To me it's all about visual consistency, artistic design and overall concept. A game can have very minimalistic graphics and still look professional, or feature some top-notch graphics and appear very sloppy and unpolished. Everything has to fit, it's got to have a coherent style that is suitable for what it's trying to achieve.

And if this thread proves anything, it's that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I actually loved most titles that were mentioned here as examples of indie games with crappy graphics, for both their gameplay and their graphics. Most of the time I don't even get how others can despise them for their graphics. I'm having a great time with Knights of the Chalice at the moment, absolutely adoring its colorful pixel graphics and thinking that while not really innovative, the art style is just perfect for what it is, while others are criticizing it as pug-ugly ... And at the same time, I've criticized the graphics of commercial indie games that others loved but the art style of which was too inconsistent and amateurish for my tastes. And I'd agree that there are a lot of copycats who use minimalistic retro graphics for their own sake, thinking it's the hip thing to do if you want to cater to the "indie-lover" audience. But as for which games are the immediate classics and which games are the stinkers, well ... YMMV. :)