Hatred (Videogame)

richymcdermott

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcIsEcZQrLc

This is Hatred , which I like to call 2014 Manhunt , a game purely marketed and poorly Marketed on shock value , Unneeded violence and this is just going to cause a whole new **** storm about videogame violence.

The trailer looks so crap. should be in the same bracket as Ride to Hell:Retribution for worst videogame ever made.

Retr0gamer

That voice over is embarrassing. It looks like the kind of game that a 12 year old that listens to too much slip knot would love. I'll be ignoring this one, it looks even worse tripe than Manhunt which was awful and reminds me if the equally awful Postal.

YouSavedMyLife

That game looks ****ed up. Who wants to play a character that kills innocents?

Links234

richymcdermott wrote: »

and this is just going to cause a whole new **** storm about videogame violence.

If there's going to be controversy, it's because the game designer is allegedly a neo-nazi. Girlfriend showed me the trailer the other day, and my first impression was "Meh, looks like a Postal clone", then she told me the neo-nazi allegations, and the trailer looked a bit more sinister, even the use of the word genocide.

gonna stick to Hotline Miami for my dose of ultra-violence

super_furry

Everything I've read and seen about it makes it look like a game made by scumbags for scumbags.

Retr0gamer

So they aren't doing it for shock value but because they are a pathetic loser. Makes sense now.

the incredible pudding

Links234 wrote: »

If there's going to be controversy, it's because the game designer is allegedly a neo-nazi. Girlfriend showed me the trailer the other day, and my first impression was "Meh, looks like a Postal clone", then she told me the neo-nazi allegations, and the trailer looked a bit more sinister, even the use of the word genocide.

gonna stick to Hotline Miami for my dose of ultra-violence

He's publicly denied being a neo-nazi or a member of associated extremist far-right groups in Poland. Reports have just proven that he and other members of the team have liked some of those groups on Facebook. It probably does indicate that they're a bigoted group (unsurprising given the horrible, misanthropic nature of the game) but I think some of the accusations are potentially jumping the gun a bit and misunderstand what the groups they support actually represent, which, whilst being largely extremist right-wing horribleness isn't quite the same as Neo-Nazi groups. Not the kind of people you want to run in if you're a minority though and certainly not a group I'd ever support financially or otherwise. Hopefully the press can just ignore it and deny them the publicity they seek from the shock-value of the material.

DoYouEvenLift

Can't really call it the manhunt of 2014 though because at least that game had you killing prisoners for reasons didn't it? You had to try to escape the prison? This ridiculous sh!t appears like it's purely based on mass murdering innocent civilians for no reason, and with no consequences either. Plus it's a top down game so that'll automatically rule it out for a lot of people. Maybe if it was first person a lot more idiots would give it a shot.

Links234

I was careful enough to have said allegedly, but come on, the guy has made possibly the weakest cop-out saying that he doesn't support the groups actions he just likes their page "for the news"? Sure ya do



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

pixelburp

I read about this the other day and had honestly hoped it wouldn't appear here, under the line of thinking that garbage like this doesn't deserve the oxygen generated by discussion, and ultimately will only benefit the maker while dragging the rest of the industry down. It looks irredeemably bad, completely without merit or subtext and if that's true about the designer then it paints the game with a much more sinister, uncomfortable hue.

It should be ignored and forgotten as quickly as possible; it's clearly a 'controversy' in the making if allowed to break loose into the public realm. Games are getting a bit of a pasting at the moment as it stands, what with that other big hot topic floating about (rhymes with flamer-date *wink wink*), I'd hate to see this trash getting picked up by outlets.

dreamers75

Interview with the dev on EG or Kotaku the other day, seems like a bit of an odd ball.

It will sell tho.

the incredible pudding

Yup, I guess he's hardly gonna come out and do a salute or anything to affirm the allegations, maybe he would if he wasn't trying to sell something!

johnny_ultimate

"These days, when a lot of games are heading to be polite, colorful, politically correct and trying to be some kind of higher art, rather than just an entertainment , we wanted to create something against trends. We say ‘yes, it is a game about killing people' and the only reason of the antagonist doing that sick stuff is his deep-rooted hatred."

Right so. Set phasers to ignore.

degrassinoel

I like the style of it tbh, isometric with killcam cutscenes. Seen worse in other games. But i'd probably skip it if it's just your man going around killing for the sake of it.. ye can do that in lots of games anytime ye want and it gets boring after 20 minutes of hilarity.

What i didnt like was that it immediately reminded me of the trenchcoat mafia of Columbine infamy. I get the whole anti-hero thing but it's a step too far when you're reminded of the needless massacre of defenseless and innocent people. Wether he's a neo-nazi or not i dont think it's morally right to ever make light of such a tragedy through a game.

Felt the same way about that 'bomb gaza' game.

Digital Solitude

Its out there to create a shìtstorm, isn't it called propaganda in the video description? Being Isometric is probably a lot cheaper to develop, and a lot easier to run, giving more resources to making the graphics as gruesome as possible.

Thus adding to the shìtstorm

DoYouEvenLift

dreamers75 wrote: »

Interview with the dev on EG or Kotaku the other day, seems like a bit of an odd ball.

It will sell tho.

Only in countries it doesn't get banned

degrassinoel

Australia will never see it anyway, that's for sure

How Soon Is Now

To be totally honest im actually quite interested to see where this will go now.

Ill be keeping an eye on this! Be surprised if it doesnt get watered down somewhat before release though. Any mention of what platforms its for?

i just seen there pc

Potential-Monke

I was just about to post a thread on this. Saw it the other night and only remembered it now. Funny thing is, if you slapped GTA onto it and gave it a reason for the mass killings, there wouldn't be as much of an outrage. I think it looks good, but the voiceover is terrible, and it seems to be causing controversy for the sake of it.

Yogosan

The animations and art style are alot better than many isometric zombie shooters I've seen in the past. They must be a fairly talented bunch working on it. Also pretty smart idea to use the whole 'kill innocent people' theme to incite faux outrage on the internet in order to boost popularity. The faux outrage is particularly hilarous considering the excessive violence in cinema over the last century, let alone the fact that you could do this in every GTA for the last 20 years, and numerous other games.

The youngsters working on this must be in tears laughing at the reception it has gotten.

Anyway, it may be void of a good story, but if the mechanics are solid and the gameplay is fun, I might pick it up, but I doubt it as there are so many other good games coming out soon.

Credit where it's due, it looks alot more polished than the isometric shooters that came before it. Just replace "innocent computer pixel people" with "Guilty computer pixel zombies" and you have yourself a fresh new game!

Pixelbastardo

This is much worse than Manhunt in fairness. In manhunt you were fighting for survival, it was kill or be killed. This game Hatred is mass murdering, kill every innocent you can, for no reason other than a crazy person snapping.

Yogosan

Hahaha, the devs are delighted! Fair play to them.

Hello to all of you!

Those were a long, long few days since our trailer relase. We feel obligued to write down this post to report how things are going and to set some light on a few things. First of all we have to quote: "well, that escalated quickly!". We knew that our reveal will cause some ****storm, but never expected it to be so huge. We wish to thank all of our haters and all upset press for a great marketing campaign they've done for us. A week ago, we were a little company from the middle of nowhere, just some guys making some game. Today everyone heard about "Hatred" and us. All thanks goes to those who were trying to harm us (with no desired effect, what a pity). On the other hand - we didn't expect that much of support and we weren't aware of how many people are out there, who think like us and who will entitle themselves as our dedicated fans. We want all of them to know: we won't stop, we won't change what this game is going to be and we'll deliver the best game we can to all of you!

Many can call us "attention whores" - well, we try to get world's attention to our product and as you can see - it worked perfectly. But there are some true attention whores out there, who are trying to imply that we are neo-nazis and some other stupid stuff. Do not believe everything you read on the web, especially written by no-name pathetic bloggers or some unhappy guys commenting around the web. From all of the ****storm upon us, that was the only thing which really made us pissed-off, because it's simply too much. I've been told that it would be best for all members from my team who were accused of such things to write down his statement and publish it. So here we go:

"My grand-grand father was killed by Gestapo. Some members of my family were fighting against nazi occupation in the polish underground army called "Armia Krajowa". My forefathers suffered greatly because of totallitarian regimes, so who the **** would I be if I'd truly support any of nazi activists? People give "likes" on Facebook all the time, even if they don't know what is exactly behind this or that fanpage. I did the same. Suddenly it makes me neo-nazi, great, have fun you stupid ass haters. Learn some history first, because when I read about "polish death camps" it makes me disgusted. You don't know **** about our history and you fall easily to false propaganda. The hateful title I'm working on (where virtual character hates virtual characters), doesn't have any connection to what I truly believe and think, there is a real-life outside, you know? Maybe you should try it? I will never ever again respond to any of those accusations, this is my ultimate statement."
J. Z.
"Nazi Germany is responsible for killing 6 milion people in Poland. Half of them were Jews, half of them Polish. My family suffered many losses during the World War II. Anybody accusing me for being a follower of said ideology should really think twice before doing so and consider reading some books on the topic. This is basic history knowledge really and also happens to be a very personal matter for me. I am not a neo-Nazi nor a fascist and it is utterly disgusting to be called this way. And I have to say it’s really surprising for me how somebody from the United States especially can have troubles understanding such simple and universal values as patriotism, honoring one own national symbols and caring for the future of his own country. Values like pluralism , democratic opposition and the right to manifest one own views shouldn’t be called ‘the lack of tolerance’. Finally regarding my attitude towards gays let me just say that I have a few gay friends that I deeply respect as people and have no problem with their sexual orientation."
M. K.

"In response to repeated allegations against me, I’d like to state that I’m opposed to all totalitarian ideologies. The t-shirt that I’m wearing on our team picture refers to National Polish Army troops, that in 1945 refused to lay down arms and continue fighting against the new invader, to regain independent Poland. They did so because they’ve rightly anticipated Soviet security service repressions against Polish already demilitarized army. I would also like to emphasize that until the year 1945 those troops were actively fighting against the Third Reich occupation. Those soldiers are Polish national heroes and as such deserve commemoration. Just as much as American troops that lose their lives fighting against terrorism. As to organizations that profiles I follow, they refer to the patriotic and libertarian tradition, and not to the totalitarian ideology."
J. S.

There is one more thing - accusing Hatred to be some kind of racist game. What the hell is wrong with you, people? The Antagonist is killing everyone equally, race doesn't matter (it's randomly generated for all NPC's), sex doesn't matter (it's random too), so you can call it the most tolerant game, promoting equality. Here everybody dies.

BTW: We've established our official forums, you can see the link above, on the menu bar.

Jarosław Zieliński

DoYouEvenLift

Yogosan wrote: »

Hahaha, the devs are delighted! Fair play to them.

Lol cheeky and well played to be honest

degrassinoel

pretty effective marketing lol

I still wont be buying it if it's anything like what i'm assuming it's going to be like.

Yogosan

degrassinoel wrote: »

pretty effective marketing lol

I still wont be buying it if it's anything like what i'm assuming it's going to be like.

It is very satisfying when the very people lambasting the game are the ones doing the most to promote it. Reminds me of the woman who kept buying out a shops supply of death metal t-shirts in order to stop children getting their hands on them!

As the devs said, before the backlash they were an unknown irrelevent studio in Poland. Now thanks to a bunch of over sensitive pansies, desperate for people to be as sensitive as they are, they have launched the game into uncharted territory sales wise.

Do people out their really live in such fear as to think that this game is going to cause mass violence? Irrationality like that is what causes violence. The people complaining about this game are probably the very same people who are afraid a Muslim is going to murder them in the morning.:rolleyes:

johnny_ultimate

Disapproving of violent game = you're probably Islamophobic? That's a fun leap!

At risk of spending more time talking about this game than I want to, my issue is how tone deaf the developers appear to be about their own game. 'Just entertainment'? No. They are making a game that makes a radical cultural and political statement, influenced it seems by their own worldview and politics. They are taking advantage of incredibly loaded and sensitive imagery. And it will feed into a wider dialogue about violence and games. By their own admission, however, they have nothing of note to say about any of that, and are making a mindless (if very possibly technically, aesthetically and mechanically competent) 'genocide' (again, their words) shooter. It is an absolute waste.

Hotline Miami is a hyperviolent game that nonetheless cleverly comments on violence, its impact on the protagonist and also the player's role in it all. This - and I'm going by the developer's own statement here - has no such ambitions. It exists to shock, offend and exploit - I'm more apathetic to it than anything, though, TBH, and would be inclined to ignore it rather than feed into the inevitably toxic discussion that has already surrounded it (sadly, I have already failed). Nonetheless, the developers to their credit are most definitely not tone deaf when it comes to marketing and publicity, but ultimately seem consciously and strangely proud to make a game that is artistically hollow and ignorant of or at least indifferent to its own implications.

Yogosan

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Disapproving of violent game = you're probably Islamophobic? That's a fun leap!

At risk of spending more time talking about this game than I want to, my issue is how tone deaf the developers appear to be about their own game. 'Just entertainment'? No. They are making a game that makes a radical cultural and political statement, influenced it seems by their own worldview and politics. They are taking advantage of incredibly loaded and sensitive imagery. And it will feed into a wider dialogue about violence and games. By their own admission, however, they have nothing of note to say about any of that, and are making a mindless (if very possibly technically, aesthetically and mechanically competent) 'genocide' (again, their words) shooter. It is an absolute waste.

Hotline Miami is a hyperviolent game that nonetheless cleverly comments on violence, its impact on the protagonist and also the player's role in it all. This - and I'm going by the developer's own statement here - has no such ambitions. It exists to shock, offend and exploit - I'm more apathetic to it than anything, though, TBH, and would be inclined to ignore it rather than feed into the inevitably toxic discussion that has already surrounded it (sadly, I have already failed). Nonetheless, the developers to their credit are most definitely not tone deaf when it comes to marketing and publicity, but ultimately seem consciously and strangely proud to make a game that is artistically hollow and ignorant of or at least indifferent to its own implications.

The developers have themselves been called 'Islamaphobes' AND neo-nazis. Who knows what else they have been called. Even though they probably had little intention of getting people to reflect on violence in video games they have succeeded.

What is that crap about 'influenced by their own worldview'? They are influenced by the public the game developers and film makers before them who use violence to promote their mediums. That is just common knowledge. At least these guys have the honesty to admit that. What is the justification for killing innocents in GTA? "The characters are funny", "it's cartoonish" (Like Hotline Miami), "they game isn't about killing innocents, you can also torture people and play golf". Well woopdy ****in doo, give Rockstar the Nobel Peace Prize.

Take a look at a Call of Duty dev openly suggesting brainwashing people through bombardment of constant advertising in order to convince them to put soldiers into schools in order to "combat the threat of terrorists on our front door". 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.

ZiabR

Read an article about this on EG alright and the video is just a little to extreme. I am playing games 24+ years and this is the first game I thought to myself "what the hell is the point in this game". It just seems overly violent. That part when he puts the gun into the womans mouth is a little to much...

I will be avoiding this one for sure.

Robert ninja

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.

Duggy747

This game definitely won't be vanishing into obscurity, someone in the media will pick it up and do a piece on it to use as an easy representative of violence in gaming, that this is the standard of games children play.

The devs will get exactly what they want in terms of exposure.

Otacon

Yogosan wrote: »

What is that crap about 'influenced by their own worldview'?...

Well woopdy ****in doo, give Rockstar the Nobel Peace Prize...

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...

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.

Yogosan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

johnny_ultimate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?