I do understand the distinction that this is a game and a work of fiction/fantasy. But I feel that using whale hunting can lead to desensitization of the issue, even if subconsciously so. I think there's a difference with games where you shoot people as there is already a strong cultural bias against killing other people, so any desensitization there may be more subtle. Would I have a different reaction if you were hunting zozthars on the planet Ursula 23b? Probably. But this game is about whaling for the purpose of selling whale oil, which is exactly what historically led to the current whaling ban. It doesn't 'feel' right or appropriate to me, and though I haven't played the game, the action is presented in a cavalier manner.
For the record, the last time I had this kind of immediate repulsion to a game's premise was Prison Architect, so it's not just about the animals or killing for me. In that game, I felt again that the game was presenting a very callous, one-dimensional view of the modern corporate prison system (and missed a great chance at social commentary) and treats the whole thing in a cartoony way. That felt wrong to me.
I think in both cases, I would say that as a developer if you're going to include topics that are controversial in your game, you should treat the issues with sensitivity and thoughtfulness.
You are of course perfectly right with the cultural bias against killing another human beings, but this doesnt take other factors into account that might actually affect the social outcome of this. Lets say (numbers from my arse) that 1/1000 people playing CoD start thinking that the thrill of the battlefield and murdering is a good feeling., while 1/10 people playing the whale game consider it awe inspiring to take down such a behemoth and might develop the thinking of wishing to be able to do that.
Now you need to take into account how many people actually ARE affected, because obviously the more people are affected by a certain opinion/event, the more likely it is that it will remain in public conscience and form an unwanted social development. Lets say 10,000,000 people playing CoD, while 10,000 people playing the whale game, which would result in 10,000 vs 1000 negatively influenced people.
On top of that, you'd need to consider the chance of this line of thinking actually resulting in unfavorable outcomes. To make it short, I'd say it wouldnt be exaggerated to say that its way more likely that the 10,000 people get their hands on a weapon that can be used for killing, than the 1000 to get into a position of whale hunting or advocating. And then where do we start? Do we ban every form of media that even slightly might give the hint of glorifying a topic and affecting 1/10000 people into thinking something because they were not intelligent to think for themselves?
These are obviously not correct stats and I am no expert (meaning there are probably a million different things factoring into this), but I would definitely argue that the prevalence of Military first person shooters have more impact on public opinion than that whale game, and even though I think everyone should be AWARE of the point you are trying to make, I think people should be allowed to form their own opinion about it without being told they are bad people for playing/enjoying a morally ambiguous piece of media. Same with the prison architect thing, which is a game representation and not meant to be an accurate view on current societal structures and I am sure most people also know how to handle these different types of experiences or keep them apart from the "real" world.
Btw, this does not mean I am dismissing any of your arguments, your line of thinking is perfectly valid and also important to be informed about. I absolutely understand what you mean, its just... that I have some issues seeing these things so strictly black and white, especially in comparison to other occurences of that topic.
The original style would have looked great on Vita.