Hatred (Videogame)

Yogosan · 23-10-2014 10:49am

Otacon wrote: »

Cool the jets. You seem to be taking this a little personally.

I agree with j_u TBH. If they just wanted to create a game for entertainment, they could have replaced the innocent civilians with zombies or some other type of monster. Instead, they chose to use bystanders as targets.

If they had wanted to make a point regarding the violence we may overlook in other games, they could have - but their own statements say they didn't. If you want a game that explores these themes, give Spec Ops: The Line a go.

Everyone on this thread is taking it personally. If we weren't we wouldn't be here.

Otacon · 23-10-2014 11:19am

Yogosan wrote: »

Everyone on this thread is taking it personally. If we weren't we wouldn't be here.

Have I? I was discussing the merits of the game (or lack thereof IMO).

What is that crap... woopdy ****in doo... the likes of you...

That is what I perceive as taking it personally.

Retr0gamer · 23-10-2014 11:28am

Robert ninja wrote: »

Ignoring all the controversy of the devs (which doesn't effect the quality of a game imo, think Fez), it's actually astounding to see so many people's tails go between their legs and call this game sick or pointless violence. I know dozens of games that are about pointless violence no matter how much they try to dress it up tacked-on plots to give the violence some meaning.

Someone even said that Manhunt had more integrity than this game becauase you were fighting for your survival. Really? If you literally just mute the dude who talks to you in your earpiece the entire thing is about some skinhead killing thugs for fun because he woke up in a hospital bed with nothing better to do.

I'm not defending this game Hatred, though. I think it looks a bit boring (but not entirely low-quality) and is probably just gonna be the fuel all those news channels and helicopter moms needed in order to say video games are the cause of violence - But as a gamer to think it's anything worse than stuff we've already seen is ridiculous. I've been chainsawing people into tiny pieces and then eating them out of bathtubs since fallout 3, sticking anal probes and sucking people's brains out in Destroy All Humans and witnessing corridor walls laced with skin drip with f'ing period blood in Silent Hill 3.

There's a thing called context and tone. It's ok to have violence I feel once you get the context and tone right. GTA is satirical and utterly silly. There's also game slike Bayonetta with stylised violence. It's not mean spirited or just violence for violence sake which this game firmly sits in. It's not designed to make a statement, it's just vile and sick and even if it was designed to get a reaction for marketing it's pretty disgusting that they are using tragic events were people died or were maimed to gain sales. Yes some games over step the boundries, GTAV's torture scene was pretty vile as well and Manhunt is almost on the level of this tripe and isn't even a good game to boot, but there really is no way to defend this game.

Even worse is that this game if it gets picked up by the media has the potential to put back videogame acceptance back into the 90's (although gamergate has done a good job of it as well). It is potentially damaging to the medium it inhabits.

So yeah games like Silent Hill 3 has lots of gory pregnancy imagery but that game is an allegory for pregnancy. GTA is a silly satire that nobosy can take serious. What defense has this game got?

Yogosan · 23-10-2014 11:57am

Otacon wrote: »

Have I? I was discussing the merits of the game (or lack thereof IMO).

What is that crap... woopdy ****in doo... the likes of you...

That is what I perceive as taking it personally.

Ya, in your personnal opinion. I'm not trying to argue here. But to make out that I'm taking it personally and you are not is absurd!

That is what I perceive

Which part of this statement is not personnal!

Anyway, I respect your view of the game. You game and so do I so it's fair we both express our personnal opinions about it. I think this is a similar overreaction to how people got their knickers in a twist about certain lyrics in music in the 80's. Many people in their 20's won't even know about that because it turned out afterwards that lyrics in music do not instill violence and what not.

This interview highlights the exact same mentality people are using to blame video games for violence, which is simply a groundless claim. I consider the rage about this game equally as comical as the rage about profanity in music in the 80's. Much ado about nothing.

The game is a joke in fairness, but at least the devs are honest about their motives unlike the rest of Hollywood and the game industry.

If my comments seem overly personnal in light of the thread, it's probably because of the absolute idiocy I have seen thrown around on other websites. Most of the people on here merely show disdain for the game which is fine. Its the people labeling the devs as neo-nazis/Islamaphobes and calling for it to be banned that I am against. It's also why I think the whole fiasco is such great entertainment!

Yogosan · 23-10-2014 12:00pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's a thing called context and tone. It's ok to have violence I feel once you get the context and tone right. GTA is satirical and utterly silly. There's also game slike Bayonetta with stylised violence. It's not mean spirited or just violence for violence sake which this game firmly sits in. It's not designed to make a statement, it's just vile and sick and even if it was designed to get a reaction for marketing it's pretty disgusting that they are using tragic events were people died or were maimed to gain sales. Yes some games over step the boundries, GTAV's torture scene was pretty vile as well and Manhunt is almost on the level of this tripe and isn't even a good game to boot, but there really is no way to defend this game.

Even worse is that this game if it gets picked up by the media has the potential to put back videogame acceptance back into the 90's (although gamergate has done a good job of it as well). It is potentially damaging to the medium it inhabits.

So yeah games like Silent Hill 3 has lots of gory pregnancy imagery but that game is an allegory for pregnancy. GTA is a silly satire that nobosy can take serious. What defense has this game got?

It's a game.

gaynorvader · 23-10-2014 12:10pm

I have no problem with this game's uninformed violence. It does look like it commits the greatest crime a video game can commit though. It looks like it'd be boring. Another bland isometric shooter where you have infinite ammo and kill hordes that don't even fight back. Not only that, but it looks like the flow of the game is going to be interrupted every few minutes by a cut-scene showing you kill some random npc. The only think this game seems to have going for it is its violence, and that's not enough to make it a good game.
Maybe I'll be surprised and they'll end up making something playable however.

Robert ninja · 23-10-2014 12:11pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

What defense has this game got?

It doesn't need to defend its for being what it is: A violent video game. The imagery within it are no worse than things I've seen in other games.

GTA is a silly satire that nobody can take serious

But some people do take the violence and imagery serious... the same kind of people who will probably take this game very seriously. I don't take any of it seriously because it's a video game and I honestly think it looks boring so I won't play it. If it had funner mechanics and gameplay I'd consider playing it because that's what these types of games are for. They could easily change it so that all the victims in the game are infected with a dormant virus that will destroy the human race once it awakens and the playable character is the only person who knows about it and is therefore the only one capable of stopping it (by killing them). Or hell, just make them zombies with some blood and exposed brains already on the victims before you go near them... and make them groan a little (hello Dead Rising) That wouldn't change the gameplay or imagery one bit, but would apparently calm everyone's tits about it (except for news reports that still say GTA's silly satire violence is a real problem btw).

People just love to be outraged and act holier-than-thou when stuff like this comes up. You only shoot people in the head in video games when they're a zombie/foreign soldier, very noble of you.

Don't like it, don't buy or play it. I say that to anyone who has any problem with a game, either because the tits are too big, there's too much blood whatever else is scaring them.

Retr0gamer · 23-10-2014 12:32pm

Robert ninja wrote: »

They could easily change it so that all the victims in the game are infected with a dormant virus that will destroy the human race once it awakens and the playable character is the only person who knows about it and is therefore the only one capable of stopping it (by killing them). Or hell, just make them zombies with some blood and exposed brains already on the victims before you go near them... and make them groan a little (hello Dead Rising) That wouldn't change the gameplay or imagery one bit, but would apparently calm everyone's tits about it (except for news reports that still say GTA's silly satire violence is a real problem btw).

I have absolutely no problem with violence. You say changing the imagery won't change the amount of violence which is ture. However as I said it's about context and tone and changing the game to be about zombies will change that. I've no problem with the level of violence displayed in the game. I've played and enjoyed far gorier games. My problem with the game is that it's using the tragic deaths and damage done to people at massacres like columbine, virginia tech etc. to market to not only market itself but also seems to be even idolising it (I see no attempt at satire or comment unlike something like super columbine RPG). It's that which makes this a disgusting and vile piece of work.

Professional Griefer · 23-10-2014 12:35pm

Is it a 'arcade' or a full game? If(or when) its cheap I'll probably pick it up, looks kinda fun..

johnny_ultimate · 23-10-2014 12:56pm

Yogosan wrote: »

That is some proper sinister crap, but Call of Duty gets a free pass because they have enough money to market the game as something more meaningful for the likes of you.

Listen, if you want to have a discussion about this do not attribute to me comments I never made. I said nothing of the sort you implied here, and frankly I haven't the time to elaborate on my own response to the complex and often troubling texts that are Battlefield or COD. I can assure you I do not feel they deserve a 'free pass'.

Just to clarify, every game exists in a social and political context. Doubly so this game which consciously uses the imagery and tone that it does. For the developers to deny that and argue it is 'just entertainment' is either ignorant, disingenuous or delusional (I reckon the middle one).

Also, why does every thread were someone voices disapproval or criticism of something turn into an 'everyone loves to be outraged' argument? I'd say an outrage about people being outraged has developed at this point :pac:

Robert ninja · 23-10-2014 12:57pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I have absolutely no problem with violence. You say changing the imagery won't change the amount of violence which is ture. However as I said it's about context and tone and changing the game to be about zombies will change that. I've no problem with the level of violence displayed in the game. I've played and enjoyed far gorier games. My problem with the game is that it's using the tragic deaths and damage done to people at massacres like columbine, virginia tech etc. to market to not only market itself but also seems to be even idolising it (I see no attempt at satire or comment unlike something like super columbine RPG). It's that which makes this a disgusting and vile piece of work.

Then what about military shooters which emulate and sometimes even simulate real battles taken place in history as a form of entertainment. They portray real weapons and locations with accurate names and realistic visual/audio details. They use their authenticity of real military situations and weapons as their selling point - so much so there have been weapon manufacturer licenses in certain games.

Are these disgusting and vile too?

Retr0gamer · 23-10-2014 1:16pm

Robert ninja wrote: »

Then what about military shooters which emulate and sometimes even simulate real battles taken place in history as a form of entertainment. They portray real weapons and locations with accurate names and realistic visual/audio details. They use their authenticity of real military situations and weapons as their selling point - so much so there have been weapon manufacturer licenses in certain games.

Are these disgusting and vile too?

It depends on the context and tone of the game in question. Something like the original Call of Duty which portrays real battles are fine. It's along the same lines of a war film really. Call of Duty 4 as well highlighted quite well how frightening the latest weaponry was and how powerless and fragile the man on the ground feels against them. There's a point to the violence in those games. Some other military shooters that glroify the current aggressions by the US military I do have a problem with, Black Ops 2 in particular featured a character that had his family brutally murdered and was out to use the terrifying faceles drone army of his enemy against them. This was the villian? Those games can be in bad taste but don't even try to argue that they are anywhere near the level of vileness that Hatred represents.

Robert ninja · 23-10-2014 1:34pm

I can respect that. I feel the same way a lot of the time. I just don't personally feel any kind of "vileness" from the trailer of this game and I doubt I'd feel any from playing it either since games don't usually get to me with that kind of brute force strategy of shock and horror. Not to mention there gameplay looks completely unrealistic, hip-firing while running full speed and actually hitting targets consistently, yeah right. The NPCs don't even run that far or anything where as in reality people (in america) would run faster than Usain Bolt if they heard a balloon pop these days. The player seems to able to withstand more than one gunshot while wearing regular clothes. It just looks very "gamey".

And to be honest, after re-watching the trailer it actually looks like it could be fun if they keep working on it. But if the trailer is all they've got then yeah probably skipping it. Dude looks like Jackie Estacado btw

Taylor365 · 23-10-2014 1:46pm

Links234 wrote: »

I eh, read playboy for the articles, yeah that's it, for the articles.

I read this is a Mayor Quimby/JFK tone of voice

TerrorFirmer · 23-10-2014 2:03pm

Actually looks surprisingly good visually.

It actually looks more or less like a modern take on the original Postal game to me. That was a pretty fun game back in the day, and that got some seriously bad press as well. Postal 2 was one of the most depraved games I'd ever played up to that point, arguably still is. Totally over the top, offensive, vulgar, crude, racist...but a huge amount of fun.

Would be slightly concerned over the inevitable Daily Mail 'this is what the kids of today are playing' angle though.

Yogosan · 23-10-2014 2:07pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Listen, if you want to have a discussion about this do not attribute to me comments I never made. I said nothing of the sort you implied here, and frankly I haven't the time to elaborate on my own response to the complex and often troubling texts that are Battlefield or COD. I can assure you I do not feel they deserve a 'free pass'.

Just to clarify, every game exists in a social and political context. Doubly so this game which consciously uses the imagery and tone that it does. For the developers to deny that and argue it is 'just entertainment' is either ignorant, disingenuous or delusional (I reckon the middle one).

Also, why does every thread were someone voices disapproval or criticism of something turn into an 'everyone loves to be outraged' argument? I'd say an outrage about people being outraged has developed at this point :pac:

Sorry about that. I just find it unfair how these independent developers are being portrayed on gaming sites, while triple-A game developers who do have sinister views and use torture, war and whatever else to sell a game get a free pass. You said the developers of the game are proud of the murderous aspect to it, and while it was certainly planned to use the shock factor to sell the game, they are honest about that and the lead developer doesn't sound proud of it at all, in fact he criticizes people like me for not condemning the game!

"Hatred takes the excuses away from us and asks us to enjoy the sin out there in the open. We will not do it.

A request to bare our animal souls in front of ourselves is a step too far. The fact we cannot do it is a gift, one that allows us the realization that we're not as corrupt and empty as we subconsciously feared we were. And thus a lot of people will not buy and play Hatred, feeling disgust just looking at the game's title. However, and I guess that is the key here, I don't think it is Hatred we really despise.

It's the realization that we are surrounded by people who do not have enough basic decency to be hypocrites. People who have no moral compass, no empathy, who refuse to acknowledge that no, it's not 'just a game.' With their cold realism, motion-captured animations and hair-raising screams, the creators of Hatred go all the way to make sure it's not just a game, but an experience.

We don't want to acknowledge the ugly truth that there are people out there whose idea of fun is to press the shotgun barrel against the face of a terrified woman –- and pull the trigger."

Digital Solitude · 23-10-2014 2:14pm

Its not vile to the same extent as Ethnic Cleansing, which was literally a game by Neo-Nazis, about genocide on Latinos and African Americans, who even made monkey sounds when you shot them.

Even Custer's Revenge is worse than this in my book, but the massive media coverage around gaming now is making out this to be the worst thing ever

I'm not defending Hatred, but I will play it solely to see does it meet its expectations

Yogosan · 23-10-2014 2:19pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It depends on the context and tone of the game in question. Something like the original Call of Duty which portrays real battles are fine. It's along the same lines of a war film really. Call of Duty 4 as well highlighted quite well how frightening the latest weaponry was and how powerless and fragile the man on the ground feels against them. There's a point to the violence in those games. Some other military shooters that glroify the current aggressions by the US military I do have a problem with, Black Ops 2 in particular featured a character that had his family brutally murdered and was out to use the terrifying faceles drone army of his enemy against them. This was the villian? Those games can be in bad taste but don't even try to argue that they are anywhere near the level of vileness that Hatred represents.

6 Days in Fallujah, a game which took realism and historical accuracy very seriously got shelved because it reflected badly on America, even though US troops who fought in Iraq actually helped make the game!

"The team at Atomic Games interviewed over 70 individuals, composed of the returning U.S. Marines, Iraqi civilians, Iraqi insurgents, war historians, and senior military officials, and learned the psychological complexity of the battle."

The fatal mistake they made was trying to be accurate. A large, talented, and ambitious company closed down in a matter of days.

It's noble that you would rather see games and art in general serve as an education but people who took a similar stance that you have on this game managed to close down a studio who wanted to create an accurate representation of war in the Middle East, war crimes and all.

When I say a similar stance, I don't mean you want this game banned, I mean that developers shouldn't have to cave to pressure from any group of people because of their artistic direction (Even if you think this lacks any artistic merit at all), as was the case with 6 Days in Fallujah.

It seems reasonable to want this game banned. I understand why people would prefer it was, but that leads to games like 6 Days in Fallujah and other uncomfortable truths getting covered up for the same reason. It's not worth it.

Generic Dreadhead · 23-10-2014 2:30pm

Yogosan wrote: »

but Call of Duty gets a free pass because they have enough money to market the game as something more meaningful for the likes of you.

Woah there nelly, you're making a lot of assumptions about what we all like, understand, accept and find meaningful.

logik wrote: »

That part when he puts the gun into the womans mouth is a little to much...

I will be avoiding this one for sure.

It's like that horror movie about 6 years ago where he kills a guy while making him look at a pic of his family, Do Not Want. There's horror and then there's just deliberately upsetting/$hit storm creating for the sake of it. I guess some people find that kind of thing morbidly interesting, but not me

Yogosan wrote: »

Everyone on this thread is taking it personally. If we weren't we wouldn't be here.

Incorrect :pac::pac::pac:

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's a thing called context and tone. It's ok to have violence I feel once you get the context and tone right. GTA is satirical and utterly silly. There's also game slike Bayonetta with stylised violence. It's not mean spirited or just violence for violence sake which this game firmly sits in. It's not designed to make a statement, it's just vile and sick and even if it was designed to get a reaction for marketing it's pretty disgusting that they are using tragic events were people died or were maimed to gain sales. Yes some games over step the boundries, GTAV's torture scene was pretty vile as well and Manhunt is almost on the level of this tripe and isn't even a good game to boot, but there really is no way to defend this game.

Even worse is that this game if it gets picked up by the media has the potential to put back videogame acceptance back into the 90's (although gamergate has done a good job of it as well). It is potentially damaging to the medium it inhabits.

So yeah games like Silent Hill 3 has lots of gory pregnancy imagery but that game is an allegory for pregnancy. GTA is a silly satire that nobosy can take serious. What defense has this game got?

I agree with this. It's a shallow "look at me" game which is nothing more that a feature in some Machizmo run down of "top 10 games which were banned in most countries"

Yogosan wrote: »

I think this is a similar overreaction to how people got their knickers in a twist about certain lyrics in music in the 80's.

I consider the rage about this game equally as comical as the rage about profanity in music in the 80's. Much ado about nothing.

The game is a joke in fairness, but at least the devs are honest about their motives unlike the rest of Hollywood and the game industry.

WTF is this about? So absolutely everything is ok and should just be accepted and not debated cause you know..... The Exorcist and some 80's songs.... the worlds gone to $hit now so no point crying over spilt milk? :rolleyes:

Yogosan wrote: »

6 Days in Fallujah, a game which took realism and historical accuracy very seriously got shelved because it reflected badly on America, even though US troops who fought in Iraq actually helped make the game!

Newsflash: "America takes overly patriotic stance on thing" - more on this story as it develops

I don't feel this games deserves the attention we've given it, nor do the Devs, nor does the subject matter.
But that's juts my opinion.
Even the discussion on this thread is just a good ole fashioned "justified violence" vs "unjustified violence" thread.... and we already have a GTA forum :pac:

Retr0gamer · 23-10-2014 2:54pm

Yogosan wrote: »

It seems reasonable to want this game banned. I understand why people would prefer it was, but that leads to games like 6 Days in Fallujah and other uncomfortable truths getting covered up for the same reason. It's not worth it.

6 Days in Fallujah wasn't covered up. Konami the publisher backed down due to them not figuring it wan't worth the investment especially when the pres backlash started from the likes of the Daily Mail.

Digital Solitude wrote: »

Its not vile to the same extent as Ethnic Cleansing, which was literally a game by Neo-Nazis, about genocide on Latinos and African Americans, who even made monkey sounds when you shot them.

Even Custer's Revenge is worse than this in my book, but the massive media coverage around gaming now is making out this to be the worst thing ever

I'm not defending Hatred, but I will play it solely to see does it meet its expectations

So just because there werer games before this that was vile disgusting pieces of work excuses this game somehow?

Yogosan · 23-10-2014 2:59pm

Cormac... wrote: »

WTF is this about? So absolutely everything is ok and should just be accepted and not debated cause you know..... The Exorcist and some 80's songs.... the worlds gone to $hit now so no point crying over spilt milk? :rolleyes:

The exact same debate occurred over the Postal game and Manhunt and continues to rage over GTA as you said and nothing came of it, just as nothing will come of this. I'm saying that people can complain about the potential harm this game could cause all they want, using the exact same excuses the idiots use in the Zappa interview, but GTA, Postal and a plethora of movies and music have proven that the potential harm does not exist.

Newsflash: "America takes overly patriotic stance on thing" - more on this story as it develops

Well that hilarious quip totally justifies censorship!

Newsflash: "the British and Irish were equally responsible in getting it shelved."

Yogosan · 23-10-2014 3:11pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

6 Days in Fallujah wasn't covered up. Konami the publisher backed down due to them not figuring it wan't worth the investment especially when the pres backlash started from the likes of the Daily Mail.

Is that all you have to critisise from my post? The use of an ambiguous phrase like 'covered up', despite the use of the less ambiguous 'shelved' beforehand? I must be getting through to you I guess!:pac:

So just because there were games before this that was vile disgusting pieces of work excuses this game somehow?

In my opinion YES! Because none of the bad things that people said would happen if those games got released actually came to fruition. The only thing that happened was a crap game got released and some people probably wasted money on them. What's so bad about that? Is that price alone worth censorship?

gizmo · 23-10-2014 3:24pm

Yogosan wrote: »

Sorry about that. I just find it unfair how these independent developers are being portrayed on gaming sites, while triple-A game developers who do have sinister views and use torture, war and whatever else to sell a game get a free pass. You said the developers of the game are proud of the murderous aspect to it, and while it was certainly planned to use the shock factor to sell the game, they are honest about that and the lead developer doesn't sound proud of it at all, in fact he criticizes people like me for not condemning the game!

"Hatred takes the excuses away from us and asks us to enjoy the sin out there in the open. We will not do it.

A request to bare our animal souls in front of ourselves is a step too far. The fact we cannot do it is a gift, one that allows us the realization that we're not as corrupt and empty as we subconsciously feared we were. And thus a lot of people will not buy and play Hatred, feeling disgust just looking at the game's title. However, and I guess that is the key here, I don't think it is Hatred we really despise.

It's the realization that we are surrounded by people who do not have enough basic decency to be hypocrites. People who have no moral compass, no empathy, who refuse to acknowledge that no, it's not 'just a game.' With their cold realism, motion-captured animations and hair-raising screams, the creators of Hatred go all the way to make sure it's not just a game, but an experience.

We don't want to acknowledge the ugly truth that there are people out there whose idea of fun is to press the shotgun barrel against the face of a terrified woman –- and pull the trigger."

Actually that quote is from Adrian Chmielarz from an Engadget piece about Hatred. Chmielarz, as you can see from the piece, was the founder of People Can Fly (now Epic Poland) who developed Bulletstorm, a game which came in for quite a bit of criticism when it was released.

In the context of the piece, that quote means something very different than what you've implied.

Personally, I found a few scenes generally unsettling and it most certainly doesn't come under my definition of "pure, gaming pleasure", as their website states. That being said it has as much of a right to exist as any game. I, however, won't be playing it for the same reasons I won't ever watch A Serbian Film.

Retr0gamer · 23-10-2014 4:03pm

Yogosan wrote: »

Is that all you have to critisise from my post? The use of an ambiguous phrase like 'covered up', despite the use of the less ambiguous 'shelved' beforehand? I must be getting through to you I guess!:pac:

Nope, just trying to correct you there. The way you said it was that it was shelved because people didn't want a realistic depiction of war where it was actually publisher trouble. It would also go against the success of op flash and ARMA.

Yogosan wrote: »

In my opinion YES! Because none of the bad things that people said would happen if those games got released actually came to fruition. The only thing that happened was a crap game got released and some people probably wasted money on them. What's so bad about that? Is that price alone worth censorship?

I never mentioned anything about 'bad things' happening, you're putting words into my mouth. As I said again, just because the game was released doesn't make it right. I also mentioned nothing about censorship either, something I'm totally against. It doesn't meant I can't think some released material such as the Hostel series aren't vile.

Yogosan · 23-10-2014 4:24pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Nope, just trying to correct you there. The way you said it was that it was shelved because people didn't want a realistic depiction of war where it was actually publisher trouble. It would also go against the success of op flash and ARMA.

Some people didn't want a realistic depiction of that particular battle in that particular war. Because that particular battle in video game form would likely make many young people realise that what their soldiers actually get up to on foreign soil. To my knowledge, ARMA and Flashpoint are renowned for being realistic military sims. But not realistic milatary sims that portray American soldiers as terrorists which is what Fallujah, in particular was all about.

I never mentioned anything about 'bad things' happening, you're putting words into my mouth. As I said again, just because the game was released doesn't make it right. I also mentioned nothing about censorship either, something I'm totally against. It doesn't meant I can't think some released material such as the Hostel series aren't vile.

Fair enough. Sorry about putting words in your mouth, but as you mentioned tone and context before, I hope you can forgive the mistake, as lack of tone and context is pretty much what causes 99% of disputes on the internet!

degrassinoel · 23-10-2014 4:28pm

..and in games like 'Hatred' too it seems :P

Yogosan · 23-10-2014 4:30pm

gizmo wrote: »

Actually that quote is from Adrian Chmielarz from an Engadget piece about Hatred. Chmielarz, as you can see from the piece, was the founder of People Can Fly (now Epic Poland) who developed Bulletstorm, a game which came in for quite a bit of criticism when it was released.

In the context of the piece, that quote means something very different than what you've implied.

Personally, I found a few scenes generally unsettling and it most certainly doesn't come under my definition of "pure, gaming pleasure", as their website states. That being said it has as much of a right to exist as any game. I, however, won't be playing it for the same reasons I won't ever watch A Serbian Film.

Oops, I saw the name Chmielarz thinking it was the dev Zielinski who was mentioned prior. What were the odds they'd both have Z's in their name!

Generic Dreadhead · 23-10-2014 4:32pm

Yogosan wrote: »

Oops, I saw the name Chmielarz thinking it was the dev Zielinski who was mentioned prior. What were the odds they'd both have Z's in their name!

In Poland? Or just in general :pac:

Digital Solitude · 23-10-2014 4:34pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

So just because there werer games before this that was vile disgusting pieces of work excuses this game somehow?

I said I wasn't defending the game, there are worse games that didn't cause as much of a stir because of media coverage. That was my point

Yogosan · 23-10-2014 4:37pm

Cormac... wrote: »

In Poland? Or just in general :pac:

First they take over Ireland, now they take over the internet!

Hatred (Videogame)

Comments