Hatred (Videogame)

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Sure it's a level headed discussion no problems at all as long as it stays like this!



Well as you say the media didn't pick up on them, it's the media picking up on something and running with it that causes the outrage. You get perfectly legitimate games like Rule of Rose getting a media attention for content they don't actually contain and banned as a result yet games like Persona 3 which feature schoolkids summoning demons by putting an evoker, which looks like a gun, to their head and pulling the trigger. Atlus were pretty surprised it garnered no attention.

It might be that this game slips under the medias radar, however I kind of doubt that.

With all the crap with violence in video games that's been going on recently, which I do not want to reopen here, the outrage surrounding this will be way higher than it would have been. If Ethnic Cleansing was to be remastered say, I'd be fairly certain people would riot, it would be much worse.

I think this will be forgotten in a months time until the release date though

Ok throwing my 2 cents in



As a trailer

It's a bad trailer

it's an awful trailer which does very little to appeal the game.

On one half you have from a game perspective where a lot of people dismissed the game as looking very shallow and you can see this by the comments in this thread before it swung to a discussion on context.

This has nothing to do with the context in the way of how violent it is, but that very little is set up that says there will be gameplay outside of shooting people.

Compare to other early trailers for similar but successful titles such as Grand theft Auto or hotline miami early trailers focus on the aesthetic or world they've built etc. let the players get excited about what the gameplay *could* be like and hopefully genuinely surprise them (as hotline miami did)

If it was only the first half of the trailer I'd be curious about the player's role in the game. Is it going to be like hotline miami where there is no sense of power to our murder spree that we can and will die as easily as any one of the people we are trying to kill? Am I even playing as the mass shooter? Will there be a focus for my hatred or is it just everything? How much variety will there be to the scenario? It could be very distasteful but could there be a chance for dynamic hostage scenarios beyond using people as human shields?


2nd half of the trailer destroys all those thoughts. We are clearly the mass shooter, we clearly are in a position of power and it's pretty much shoot shoot from the get go. it looks boring, repetitive and as someone said after 20 minutes you'll put it down. This is the same issue early GTA games had (before they went 3D) the story missions were not the most interesting so most people in GTA just went on murder sprees, they d*cked around for 20 minutes and then shut it down and played something else. Every GTA since the first one tried to push a dynamic that pulled people away from that sort of thinking (rival gangs in 2 and all the ones since then went with story progression)

Terrible trailer makes it look like a terrible game


As for the other half that makes it terrible is it feels like it's saying nothing, it's taking a potential interesting idea and say's nothing about it, this is again based on the gameplay they are showing. It's selling itself as an fast paced isometric shooter, what does that say about killing sprees?

I feel when one talks about context in a video game, it's not just who or what you are shooting at but how this is all tied together in the mechanics. Again hotline Miami earns the praise because it took the idea of a killing spree and threw the monkey wrench of depowering the player in the gameplay and from that they were able to roll out an entire context built around people who were powerless. Gameplay influences context.

Someone mentioned call of duty and it's ilk. It's an interesting comparison.

I dont really like Medal of honour allied assault, that might get me in a lot of trouble, but it's true, I've never liked allied assault, I've always felt that it was a game that did not sit well with it's gameplay and it's context. I think I described it at the time as flat. A straight line through a series of events which had no real impact on me.

Call of duty (the first and 2nd one) on the other hand is an awesome game, because they redesigned the way levels were designed and how fights were fought.

i think we've seen this joke before:



that actual makes sense from a war pespective. It is pushing a front. Medal of honour allied assault tried fitting a war into something akin to the first map (not as complicated, but still the same basic logic) and in context of a war that didnt make sense, but pushing a single front did and call of duty worked that in gameplay because you were part of a force pushing a front, defending a key location or assaulting an enemy defense. it was war. they also took away the superhuman element from MOH by splitting down the player into multiple roles. You didnt play the same person or even the same nation. GI joe was gone.

Thats why call of duty worked as a war game (and why call of duty 3 didnt)

Interesting the way medal of honour plays but with the context changed ala supernatural stuff is pretty much Return to Castle Wolfenstien and I f*cking love Return to Castle Wolfenstien cause that gameplay works there. I feel empowered but what I'm fighting is also empowered and escalates with me, the levels are complex but I am a nazi killing monster on the march through those corridors so it doesnt feel odd going alone into those mazes. it works with wolfenstien, it didnt work with medal of honour. Call of Duty smartly changed the gameplay mechanics to suit the new context, not a big change, but enough to depower the player to shift it away from being superhuman and made the gameplay suit a war.

they carried some of that over to modern warfare but it was modern warfare 2 where whoever was doing the great level design left cause it went to sh*t there and all the gi joe superhuman crap started leaking back in.

Which brings me to a great comparison. "No Russian" in modern warfare 2. Another bit of violence that drew a lot of criticism. Again my criticism is not the context of playing a terrorist shooting up an airport of civilians. But that it felt like no thought was put into the design of it. The level is walk from A to B shooting nothing more. They could and in my opinion should have actually put thought into the actual level itself and the result would have been a stronger narrative segment.

Which is the issue here, they are doing a game about being a mass shooter and it plays like geometry wars.

kunst nugget wrote: »

If you like the look of it, buy it. If you don't then ignore it. Seriously, there's very little else to be said about it. Like COYVB said, banning it is a pointless exercise.

It's PC-only, there's no way of effectively banning it any more than they could ban that Japanese rape game. Even if it doesn't get Steam distribution or a BBFC/PEGI rating, it'll get online distribution somehow.

People in this thread seem to be totally unaware of what context means for violence. Even ignoring this particular game, how can people not see the difference between a game that has you kill 10 hostile enemies and a game that has you kill 10 fleeing civilians? Or the difference between a game where killing civilians is possible and a game where killing civilians is the entire goal. Also, I'm not sure what world everyone's been living in but games like GTA, Manhunt and Call of Duty have courted plenty of outrage and controversy over the years, they absolutely did not any sort of "free pass".

To me, it looks a bit "ow the edge" right now. Especially with the long-haired, trenchcoated lead character, it really just makes me think of an angry 15 year old's fantasy. I think a game like this could even work if it were made to explore the mind of a spree shooter but it really doesn't look like they're trying to do that. The devs also seem to be flip-flopping about a bit with what they're trying to do, going from "our shock-value marketing paid off!" to "what's the big deal? It's just a bit of fun" so it's hard to know what they were going for here.

so is this pc only ?

http://www.vg247.com/2014/12/17/gabe-newell-apologises-for-pulling-hatred-from-steam-greenlight/

Wow, what a man! Awesome.

^ They won't because it's old. You could stream Harvester 24/7 and nothing would be done despite the gaming showing things like...

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Decent article on the game here:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/garwulfs-corner/13982-Hatred-Makes-You-Look-In-the-Mirror-to-See-Meaning

The violence is graphic, gory, and disturbing.

Is it? The execution scenes from the Biscuit video seemed like tame versions of the executions in TLOU's multiplayer.

gizmo wrote: »

Twitch haven't just banned the streaming of Hatred, they've banned the streaming of any game rated AO in the US.

Now, while some may claim this is directly targeting Hatred, it's not quite as simple as that. What needs to be considered is the fact that, upon release and with the exception of Manhunt 2's intermittent availablity, Hatred will be the first commercially released "mainstream" game to carry such a rating in the US. With that in mind, I imagine it's more a case of it just being the first time it's really come up, especially with the coverage it's received, for sites such as Twitch.

It's by a small indie team from Poland, and its (IMO undeserved) AO rating & digital release classify it as non-mainstream.

Incidentally, it is only the second released game after Manhunt 2 to receive an AO.

I wish the dev all the best.
Not gonna play it though, looks boring.