PETA Goes After MARIO?

Super Mario 3D Land was released for the Nintendo 3DS on Sunday, and critics have almost unanimously called it great, some even going so far as to grant it a perfect score. One group, however, is so upset with the game that the only score they're willing to give it is 5 blood spattered baby animals out of 5.



And IGN's comment section went crazy.
(source)

Yes sir, the complaint comes from animal rights group PETA, which stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Despite the fact that their name should really be PFTETOA, PETA has been around a long time fighting for animal rights. That fight sually takes the shape of red paint getting thrown on celebrities who wear mink shawls. So what's their beef with Mario, who hasn't worn a mink shawl since the Mario Party 4 launch party? Maybe they've taken issue with all the turtles he has crushed beneath his boots over the years.



He missed the empathy mushroom in World 3-2.
(source)

No, PETA's actual complaint is much weirder. The group is upset over the Tanooki suit, saying that if Mario took place in real life, he'd would be wearing the fur of a skinned, um, tanuki. I would argue, though, that the ethical ramifications of Mario's power-ups would be the least of our worries if the Mario universe was real.



I would probably just avoid Compton all together at this point.
(source)

PETA went so far as to create a Mario themed platformer of their own - Super Tanooki Skin 2D. You can play it here, but feel free not to. It's really bad. And that shouldn't be a surprise, as making a video game is way outside the job description of a political action group. It's like an MMA fighter trying to paint a sunset.



You keep trying there, champ.
(source)

I genuinely don't understand PETA's motives here. Chances are, they aren't legitimately angry at a cartoon man who turns into a cloud and throws fire at plant monsters. Perhaps PETA is full of people who see everything through the lens of animal abuse. Then, when some mid-level PETA PR director's son asks for Super Mario 3D Land for Christmas, he can't help but take the opportunity to talk about his cause. This is called being a crank, and it can infect any topic and automatically makes the crank the worst person at any party.



"You're REALLY not watching Breaking Bad?"
(source)

But what other reasons could they have? Do PETA's biggest financial contributors write bigger checks when they take up a big pop culture-based attack campaign?



"Hopefully this helps convince Nickelodeon to stop drowning squirrels."
(source)

The only other option I can see is that PETA is grasping for publicity. But this kind of campaign damages their credibility, doesn't it? How seriously can we take PETA's campaign to stop lipstick injections into the eyeballs of endangered baby tigers if they treat it with the same severity of a cartoon plumber's mistreatment of animal-shaped pixels?

Why do you think PETA is attacking Mario? Or rather, do you think Mario deserves the attacking? He has punched a lot of Yoshis in the back of the head. Let's figure this out in the comments.

 

Check Out Which Mario Power-Up Would Most Help You Out With The Ladies!