Recently, a leak of a shark mob for version 1.14: The Update Aquatic was released. Afterwards, Mojang announced that the leak was fake. While this was fine on its own, they then went on to say that sharks would NEVER be added to Minecraft! When I learned about this I was really mad. Sharks are probably one of the most wanted mobs to be added into Minecraft. You'd think they'd add this in since the entire 1.14 update is about the ocean. How could you have an ocean without sharks? Sharks would be a really good addition to the game. It would make traveling the ocean a lot more scary and exciting.
But you might be asking, "Did they give any reasons for this decision?" Well, Helen Angel (The Community Manager[I think that's what it's called], since people were wondering who she is) actually gave an explanation as to why sharks won't be added. Take a look.
"We can't add the shark. There's two reasons why we can't add the shark. Number one, because a lot of shark are endangered, and part of the reason they're endangered is because they're misunderstood. Number two is that we don't want to encourage people to A: go up to sharks ,or B: ummm.. try to ride sharks...err...you know, not necessarily ride sharks, but try to get close to sharks, or C: kill sharks in real life. So, as we all remember what happened with cookies and parrots."
...
WHAT?
Okay, let's break this down.
"...a lot of shark are endangered , and part of the reason they're endangered is because they're misunderstood."
Okay, so what? Just because an animal is endangered doesn't mean you can't add it to a game. Plus, Minecraft has added in some endangered animals before. Take a look at the wolves, who look similar to the gray wolves, an endangered species. And about the misunderstood part, wolves and polar bears are also misunderstood. May I also note that wolves were hunted to extinction in the UK?
"Number two is that we don't want to encourage people to A: go up to sharks..."
Shouldn't taming wolves also make people want to approach wolves in real life? This could also apply to polar bears too. There is an obvious flaw in your logic.
"...or B: ummm.. try to ride sharks-err...you know, not necessarily ride sharks, but try to get close to sharks..."
I'm pretty sure that at a young age, most people are taught that sharks are dangerous creatures that could possibly kill you. Because of that, why would any sane person want to approach a shark? Also, there are in fact ways to safely approach sharks. Take a look at shark cages.
"...or C: kill sharks in real life."
Playing a video game where you can kill an animal doesn't make you want to kill that animal. What about pigs, sheep, cows, chickens, and rabbits? I've never heard about anyone wanting to kill any of those animals after playing Minecraft of all games. Hell, there is literally a game centered around killing sharks(Can't remember the name).
"So, as we all remember what happened with cookies and parrots."
What happened? I never heard anything about a child feeding their parrot a cookie and killing it. The game even tells you that cookies kill parrots by having them die when you feed it to them.
So, overall, this decision is completely nonsensical. All of the points Helen brings up are easily debunked. Sharks should definitely be added into the game, as they would make an awesome addition to the ocean update. I'm not sure whether backlash from the community will cause them to change their minds, because from what I can tell, people are pretty steamed about this. Where do you stand on this? Do you support this decision or not? Do you think that Helen brought up some good points? Let me know in the comments below.
Recently, a leak of a shark mob for version 1.14: The Update Aquatic was released. Afterwards, Mojang announced that the leak was fake. While this was fine on its own, they then went on to say that sharks would NEVER be added to Minecraft! When I learned about this I was really pissed off. Sharks are probably one of the most wanted mobs to be added into Minecraft. You'd think they'd add this in since the entire 1.14 update is about the ocean. How could you have an ocean without sharks? Sharks would be a really good addition to the game.It would make traveling the ocean a lot more scary and exciting.
But you might be asking, "Did they give any reasons for this decision?" Well, Helen Angel actually gave an explanation as to why sharks won't be added. Take a look.
That statement, if I'm to be frank, almost feels like it has tinges of salt over the cookies and parrots fiasco. Not yours though, I mean Helen's. (Whoever the devil they are)
I'm just going to start by saying, have they caught a case of the stupids? The logic in that is so weak on so many levels. As an enthusiast of aquatic life and an fishkeeper, I can safely say that yes, Sharks are misunderstood, and yes, they are suffering at the hands of eastern asians and their "delicacies," such that it has affected populations of the sharks' prey fish.
However, never did we say that sharks needed to be hostile. That, and, really now, name a single person in your life that would try to swim up to a shark and try to kill one (Even if you did manage to do so without them bolting away long before you got near them or take 'em out before you get chomped to shreds, the strict laws and ordinances would come back to bite you hard). The parrots and cookies thing is an entirely different animal (no pun intended) for several reasons.
I just facepalmed when I read this. We can still kill other people (villagers), dogs, cats, spiders (great for killing bugs), soon to be fish, llamas, chickens, pigs, cows, bats (which if I may add, have a lot of endangered species), and rabbits. Really Mojang?
The logic is... painfully invalid. We've gotten polar bears, which are an even more well-known endangered animals. Unlike Toycat (the speaker in the video) said, this is not a lose-lose situation. If they really want to avoid all controversy, they can just make the shark a danger. Nothing is forcing them to give it a drop. That way you would only kill sharks in self-defense.
Plus, sharks are one of those things that a new player might expect to be in the ocean. Why wouldn't there be sharks?
Thread cleaned up. People, this thread isn't for offering suggestions or ideas for a shark mob. This is for discussing the Mojang employees statement about sharks not being added. If you wish to suggest a shark mob, please post a thread in the Suggestions section.
Sharks don't even need to drop anything (which would make it pointless to attack). This statement feels like its coming from the Love and Hugs Update.
Bats don't drop anything but I still kill them any time I see them because they are annoying. Especially when they spawn while you are constructing something and get in the way
I agree. I miss when Minecraft wasn't influenced on whether something was politically correct or not. Guess it's just something we should have expected from a post Microsoft Minecraft.
I must agree this reads like an attack of Political Correctness™.
Hopefully, the attack is 'acute' rather than 'chronic' and will rapidly resolve without creating permanent / long term secondary problems.
Analysis:
Many parrot, bat, and wolf species are endangered/threatened, as are giant squids and ocelots. [I suspect it would be quite hard to find a type of critter (as oppossed to a specific species) some types of which were not endangered/threatened.]
Logic rating: FLAWED
"they're misunderstood" Again, I'd be hard-pressed to think of an animal (much less a broad type) that [i]wasn't[/i] widely misunderstood in at least some particulars by large numbers of people….
Logic rating: FLAWED
Walking up to a feral pig or cow (to say nothing of the actually wild varieties) or untamed horse is a dangerous activity.
Logic rating: FLAWED
"we all remember what happened with cookies and parrots"
Logic rating: SOUND
Taming parrots with cookies (the nearest in-game equivalent for the "Polly want a cracker" meme) produced some serious (and, IMO, excessively mean-spirited) reaction.
That Mojang may be running scared and have placed the developers in thrall to the "Standards&Practices" types, strikes me as far from impossible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why does everything have to be so stoopid?" Harvey Pekar (from American Splendor)
WARNING: I have an extemely "grindy" playstyle; YMMV — if this doesn't seem fun to you, mine what you can from it & bin the rest.
Realy Microsoft, really?!?! This is terrible logic, just look at wolves!
"...a lot of sharks are endangered, and part of the reason they're endangered is because they're misunderstood..."
Seriously, that is way too vague, not even a reason.
"Number two is that we don't want to encourage people to A: go up to sharks..."
AGAIN, Wolves!!!! You could replace Sharks with Wolves, and it would be the same logic. Guess what? WE HAVE WOLVES.
"...or B: ummm.. try to ride sharks-err...you know, not necessarily ride sharks, but try to get close to sharks..."
Yet again, WOLVES. Going close to wolves in Minecraft has done NOTHING to people in real life. Any smart person would know that video games are very different than real life and that wolves might be dangerous. Do you really think that having sharks in Minecraft would be any different than having wolves?! Do you think that we would be encouraged to actually SWIM UP to a shark, because of our playing Minecraft in the past?!
"...or C: kill sharks in real life."
WHAT?!?!? This implies that you are fine with people killing Wolves, Bats, Cows, Sheep, Parrot, etc. Why is it suddenly stopping you from making sharks?
Your logic is full of holes, Microsoft, please add sharks. All of these reasons are bad and EASILY punched through. What is the real reason you are not? If this is it, then it is terrible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yes, I see you, zombie. No funny business. Raaauuuggghhh.......
Is the goal of minecraft to be a fun game, or to protect people, protect animals and save the world?
If the second option is true, there are much more game features that pose a risk and need to be redesigned. Few examples:
Children might think that a bucket of water is saving them from death if they pour it out of the window before they jump.
Children might think they do not have to eat that while sailing.
Children might start killing cows to make a leather armor. (Maybe the solution would be spawning hostile PETA or Greenpeace mobs when player kill animals or walk in leather)
Children might try to dig through the floor to get diamonds.
Children might think that they can demolish the walls of a house and the roof will not fall on their heads.
Would not it be better to let Minecraft be just a fun game and add sharks? Oceans in Minecraft are very boring and hostile mobs outside ocean monuments would make them more interesting.
This perfectly illustrates how ridiculous of an argument Mojang is trying to make.
What happened? I never heard anything about a child feeding their parrot a cookie and killing it. The game even tells you that cookies kill parrots by having them die when you feed it to them.
When parrots were first added they were tamed using cookies, which of course have chocolate, which of course are poisoness to birds. There were plenty of threads on reddit demanding this to be changed to seeds to that kids don't get the idea to feed their birds chocolate because that's what birds in Minecraft eat.
The "Don't feed parrots chocolate!" splash and the cookies killing parrots thing was was added after the back lash.
When parrots were first added they were tamed using cookies, which of course have chocolate, which of course are poisoness to birds. There were plenty of threads on reddit demanding this to be changed to seeds to that kids don't get the idea to feed their birds chocolate because that's what birds in Minecraft eat.
The "Don't feed parrots chocolate!" splash was added after the back lash.
The parrot thing was a real problem, but it was completely different than what we have now. Mojang was wrong on their part for thinking it was okay to not research the health risks of feeding an animal the item it is tamed with in game. However, there is no issue like that that is automatically added by adding a shark.
You know, it's not like kids are going to swim after sharks and kill them with tridents. It's totally different from parrots, which can be found in your neighbourhood petshop.
Well, I think both the parrot and shark issues are ridiculous cases. Minecraft has been developed as fun game with no ambition to be realistic and at some point somebody started to feel a strong social responsibility. You know for example feeding dogs with bones might not always be safe for dogs and no one cared about it. It is up to the parents to explain to children that not everything they can do in the game they can do in real life. And until the children are old enough to understand it, they should not play games. An exception may be educational games that try to be as accurate as possible but this is not the case of Minecraft.
BTW: In our country we recently had a real case when kids entered a construction site, demolished part of a wall and built a part of wall a few meters away. So do not tell your kids "Turn off Minecraft and go play out"
I think the parrot case was an issue. It's a lot easier to feed a parrot the cookie you got in your lunch box than to feed a dog the remains of another animal.
Recently, a leak of a shark mob for version 1.14: The Update Aquatic was released. Afterwards, Mojang announced that the leak was fake. While this was fine on its own, they then went on to say that sharks would NEVER be added to Minecraft! When I learned about this I was really mad. Sharks are probably one of the most wanted mobs to be added into Minecraft. You'd think they'd add this in since the entire 1.14 update is about the ocean. How could you have an ocean without sharks? Sharks would be a really good addition to the game. It would make traveling the ocean a lot more scary and exciting.
But you might be asking, "Did they give any reasons for this decision?" Well, Helen Angel (The Community Manager[I think that's what it's called], since people were wondering who she is) actually gave an explanation as to why sharks won't be added. Take a look.
...
WHAT?
Okay, let's break this down.
Okay, so what? Just because an animal is endangered doesn't mean you can't add it to a game. Plus, Minecraft has added in some endangered animals before. Take a look at the wolves, who look similar to the gray wolves, an endangered species. And about the misunderstood part, wolves and polar bears are also misunderstood. May I also note that wolves were hunted to extinction in the UK?
Shouldn't taming wolves also make people want to approach wolves in real life? This could also apply to polar bears too. There is an obvious flaw in your logic.
I'm pretty sure that at a young age, most people are taught that sharks are dangerous creatures that could possibly kill you. Because of that, why would any sane person want to approach a shark? Also, there are in fact ways to safely approach sharks. Take a look at shark cages.
Playing a video game where you can kill an animal doesn't make you want to kill that animal. What about pigs, sheep, cows, chickens, and rabbits? I've never heard about anyone wanting to kill any of those animals after playing Minecraft of all games. Hell, there is literally a game centered around killing sharks(Can't remember the name).
What happened? I never heard anything about a child feeding their parrot a cookie and killing it. The game even tells you that cookies kill parrots by having them die when you feed it to them.
So, overall, this decision is completely nonsensical. All of the points Helen brings up are easily debunked. Sharks should definitely be added into the game, as they would make an awesome addition to the ocean update. I'm not sure whether backlash from the community will cause them to change their minds, because from what I can tell, people are pretty steamed about this. Where do you stand on this? Do you support this decision or not? Do you think that Helen brought up some good points? Let me know in the comments below.
dont look at this
That statement, if I'm to be frank, almost feels like it has tinges of salt over the cookies and parrots fiasco. Not yours though, I mean Helen's. (Whoever the devil they are)
I'm just going to start by saying, have they caught a case of the stupids? The logic in that is so weak on so many levels. As an enthusiast of aquatic life and an fishkeeper, I can safely say that yes, Sharks are misunderstood, and yes, they are suffering at the hands of eastern asians and their "delicacies," such that it has affected populations of the sharks' prey fish.
However, never did we say that sharks needed to be hostile. That, and, really now, name a single person in your life that would try to swim up to a shark and try to kill one (Even if you did manage to do so without them bolting away long before you got near them or take 'em out before you get chomped to shreds, the strict laws and ordinances would come back to bite you hard). The parrots and cookies thing is an entirely different animal (no pun intended) for several reasons.
I just facepalmed when I read this. We can still kill other people (villagers), dogs, cats, spiders (great for killing bugs), soon to be fish, llamas, chickens, pigs, cows, bats (which if I may add, have a lot of endangered species), and rabbits. Really Mojang?
Figured it was time for a change.
The logic is... painfully invalid. We've gotten polar bears, which are an even more well-known endangered animals. Unlike Toycat (the speaker in the video) said, this is not a lose-lose situation. If they really want to avoid all controversy, they can just make the shark a danger. Nothing is forcing them to give it a drop. That way you would only kill sharks in self-defense.
Plus, sharks are one of those things that a new player might expect to be in the ocean. Why wouldn't there be sharks?
Check out my suggestions! Here is one of them:
Sharks don't even need to drop anything (which would make it pointless to attack). This statement feels like its coming from the Love and Hugs Update.
Thread cleaned up. People, this thread isn't for offering suggestions or ideas for a shark mob. This is for discussing the Mojang employees statement about sharks not being added. If you wish to suggest a shark mob, please post a thread in the Suggestions section.
- sunperp
I've never killed something in a video game and wanted to kill it in real life afterward. It would take a pretty twisted mind to do that
I don't thinkSuper Mario hasn't forced the turtle population to suddenly plummet. Though other things have.I've also never wanted to dog fight after playing pokemon.
Edit: Taking out the uncertainty. It hasn't. I just always write in uncertain terms for some dumb reason
It almost feels like it's just an excuse to not go the extra mile and add sharks. Oh wait...
Check out my suggestions! Here is one of them:
Bats don't drop anything but I still kill them any time I see them because they are annoying. Especially when they spawn while you are constructing something and get in the way
Animals no one ever asked for in Minecraft:
-Squids
-Bats
-Mules
-Donkeys
-Llamas
I'm gonna excuse polar bears and parrots because they are at the very least cool, but even them are unnecessary tbh.
The one animal the entire playerbase agrees should be added:
-Sharks
All they need to do is adapt the shark from mo' creatures, like they did with horses.
I agree. I miss when Minecraft wasn't influenced on whether something was politically correct or not. Guess it's just something we should have expected from a post Microsoft Minecraft.
I must agree this reads like an attack of Political Correctness™.
Hopefully, the attack is 'acute' rather than 'chronic' and will rapidly resolve without creating permanent / long term secondary problems.
Analysis:
Many parrot, bat, and wolf species are endangered/threatened, as are giant squids and ocelots. [I suspect it would be quite hard to find a type of critter (as oppossed to a specific species) some types of which were not endangered/threatened.]
Logic rating: FLAWED
"they're misunderstood" Again, I'd be hard-pressed to think of an animal (much less a broad type) that [i]wasn't[/i] widely misunderstood in at least some particulars by large numbers of people….
Logic rating: FLAWED
Walking up to a feral pig or cow (to say nothing of the actually wild varieties) or untamed horse is a dangerous activity.
Logic rating: FLAWED
"we all remember what happened with cookies and parrots"
Logic rating: SOUND
Taming parrots with cookies (the nearest in-game equivalent for the "Polly want a cracker" meme) produced some serious (and, IMO, excessively mean-spirited) reaction.
That Mojang may be running scared and have placed the developers in thrall to the "Standards&Practices" types, strikes me as far from impossible.
LOL, what the heck is this thing with Parrots and cookies? That sounds like the dumbest controversy ever.
Search "Minecraft parrots cocoa OR cookies"
Here are a couple of the more moderate links;
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/z4jgmw/minecraft-community-rocked-by-parrot-poisoning-controversy
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/05/no-more-cookies-for-minecrafts-parrots-following-complaints/
Sadly, it has lots of competition :^) ….
Can not be. Sharks should be thrown in Minecraft, there are no big enemies in the ocean, and there should be more
Realy Microsoft, really?!?! This is terrible logic, just look at wolves!
"...a lot of sharks are endangered, and part of the reason they're endangered is because they're misunderstood..."
Seriously, that is way too vague, not even a reason.
"Number two is that we don't want to encourage people to A: go up to sharks..."
AGAIN, Wolves!!!! You could replace Sharks with Wolves, and it would be the same logic. Guess what? WE HAVE WOLVES.
"...or B: ummm.. try to ride sharks-err...you know, not necessarily ride sharks, but try to get close to sharks..."
Yet again, WOLVES. Going close to wolves in Minecraft has done NOTHING to people in real life. Any smart person would know that video games are very different than real life and that wolves might be dangerous. Do you really think that having sharks in Minecraft would be any different than having wolves?! Do you think that we would be encouraged to actually SWIM UP to a shark, because of our playing Minecraft in the past?!
"...or C: kill sharks in real life."
WHAT?!?!? This implies that you are fine with people killing Wolves, Bats, Cows, Sheep, Parrot, etc. Why is it suddenly stopping you from making sharks?
Your logic is full of holes, Microsoft, please add sharks. All of these reasons are bad and EASILY punched through. What is the real reason you are not? If this is it, then it is terrible.
Yes, I see you, zombie. No funny business. Raaauuuggghhh.......
This perfectly illustrates how ridiculous of an argument Mojang is trying to make.
Check out my suggestions! Here is one of them:
When parrots were first added they were tamed using cookies, which of course have chocolate, which of course are poisoness to birds. There were plenty of threads on reddit demanding this to be changed to seeds to that kids don't get the idea to feed their birds chocolate because that's what birds in Minecraft eat.
The "Don't feed parrots chocolate!" splash and the cookies killing parrots thing was was added after the back lash.
The parrot thing was a real problem, but it was completely different than what we have now. Mojang was wrong on their part for thinking it was okay to not research the health risks of feeding an animal the item it is tamed with in game. However, there is no issue like that that is automatically added by adding a shark.
Check out my suggestions! Here is one of them:
You know, it's not like kids are going to swim after sharks and kill them with tridents. It's totally different from parrots, which can be found in your neighbourhood petshop.
I think the parrot case was an issue. It's a lot easier to feed a parrot the cookie you got in your lunch box than to feed a dog the remains of another animal.
Check out my suggestions! Here is one of them: