"Hatred" and Violent Games

Has this ever happen to you? You listen to a specific genre of music because that's your thing or because it speaks to you. Then slowly you notice that the sound is being mixed, the intensity turned down, key aspects are missing while other aspects are over done, collaborations with individuals outside the genre and artists who don't want to identify themselves by that genre. You start to ask "WTF is going on with "xxx" music?" and that's when the new artists, their labels and radio say to you "what is (your) music really?". That's how you know big business has taken over what you love.

Hatred is the kinda game where you are obviously detracted by it premise but more that there is the fear that we might like such a game if made to play it. Games like Hatred are not "big business" friendly or meets "big business" new vision of gaming. Whats funny is, like with all targeted content, the core audience remains the key buyers in the industry but marketing and publishing goal is 10 - 30% extra who aren't the core and they are will sabotage everything that makes a game good just to make the "numbers" better.

Right now we are at a crossroads. "Big business" is fed up with us, the core customers. We have still have to much influence over the industry. Sure we are irresponsible with it but when "Ms Maple Estrogen Filled Adventure" doesn't sell it makes facts like "female gamers are larger in number than male gamers" sound like BS. The industry is trying to tell us who we are, how we should think and how we should act so that . Hatred is not the flowery side of gaming that they want to market. The sugar coated lie they sell when in the end the truth is that there are violent games. Gamers play like violent games. Violent games are as much a part of gaming as any "squeaky clean" game. They can desensitize the violence in Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed or GTA etc but games like Hatred are there to remind you that what we play is indeed violent. You cant mainstream that truth.

The desensitization of violence has nothing to do with corporations. It probably has more to do with the 100s of game whose primary selling point is gore. The videogame industry is based around violence. I think the outcry against Hatred is more the community saying we're over this stupid bullshit which is inherently different than what Jack Thompson's goal was.

We have underground movies like Irreversible for example. A super authentic but very important movie about rape, violence and revenge. Showing the true side of how it is in reality. Despite the controversiality about this movie. It was a huge success because of the message it sent to the viewers.

We need games like Hatred too. I'm sure the developers have a message in there as well. But maybe not. It would be still an honest game though.

Personally, I think Hatred has more in common with a movie like Jackass than Irreversible. Hatred doesn't have any substance.

@hxce: Unfortunately, the message in Hatred isnt to show the brutality of violence, rape, or murder. It is to say we're edgy and violence is fun.

@Minishdriveby: I speak for the message in that movie not the violence itself mate. We haven't played hatred yet so we don't know what they actually want us to see.

It's the same if we judged Irreversible by just watching a short trailer of only the rape and fire extinguisher scene. We'd miss the point of the movie entirely.

Edit: I also want to add that if you haven't seen the movie Martyrs (which is another French masterpiece). You should look into that. It could easily be interpret as another mindless movie about torture. But it's much bigger than that. The message in that movie had my jaw drop because it was so philosophical.

We can't be sure but even the developers of Hatred are people like you and me. I'm sure they have their own esthetic aproach how to "justify" the voilence even in that game, believe it or not. But I could be wrong of course.

Well given the goal of the developer is that, "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. Something different, something that could give the player a pure, gaming pleasure." I would say the comparison is extremely inaccurate.

The developers said that? Gosh I haven't read that. Feel free to link me the source of that article so I can have a proper read. But if thats the case. Then I can understand why people get upset by this game. I had higher hopes about this dev team.

It's on the developers website under "games"...

http://www.destructivecreations.pl/

@Minishdriveby

"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. Player has to ask himself what can push any human being to mass-murder."

Haha! I was hoping it to be much bigger than just another Postal. Guess I was wrong based on this information then. :P

While I agree that it's wrong to judge the game or movie based just on a trailer, let's not forget what a trailer is actually supposed to do.

I mean, Hatred could be more clever or nuanced than people are making it out to be. I think I read a quote from the developers stating that it's entirely possible to complete the game without committing a single act of violence, which (if true) would at least potentially be sort of clever by illustrating that the game isn't the problem, it's the gamer that's the problem. Again...not sure how true that is, it might be bullshit. But I guess it's possible, and it's not fair to judge the game based on a trailer.

HOWEVER...the trailer is pretty disgusting. And seeing as how trailers are generally intended to show off some of the selling points of the game or movie...you see where I'm going with this. We can't judge the game yet, but we have seen a trailer. And based on what they put in there to make people interested in the game, it's hard to find it too unreasonable for people to look at the trailer and be against this. If the trailer is completely misrepresenting the game, then that's probably a case of should have made a better trailer. Either way, it's still totally fair for people to be complaining about SOMETHING (if not the game, then at least how the trailer represents the game).

The outcry around Hatred is a whole bunch of people trying to make it so that others are unable to purchase games they find objectionable, instead of allowing consumers to do that for themselves. Thompson may have used other methods, but they have the same goal.

At the end of the day it all comes down to one thing: If the fact that some indy game exists gets you bent out of shape enough to complain, be it Hatred, Depression Quest, or Flower, then you have issues and the internet shouldn't listen to you. In a world where thousands of games come out every year such people are just looking for something to complain about. The very worst possible thing that could happen to them is that they go a few days without finding something to be outraged about.

Haha! That would be the most brilliant thing if they did that.

Exactly. A trailer is just about the promotion.

I agree with everything else you said as well.

I think the methods are what's really important here, rather than the agenda.

I mean, let's have a bit of perspective here. Compare the backlash against Hatred to the backlash against The Interview. In one case it's basically "please don't show release this, because I think it's sick", and in the other case it's basically "do not release this or we are going to fucking destroy you."

I think that's a pretty goddamn big distinction, but that's just me.

Let's digress from Hatred for a minute and look at The Interview situation. We have an agenda, and a method of achieving that agenda. The agenda is "we don't want this movie to be seen", while the method is "we will threaten to destroy those who show it." Is the agenda really the problem here? Personally, I don't think so. If North Korea had simply started a petition asking people to speak out against the movie, would this have even been a problem? I don't think so. The problem is not the agenda, the problem is the method which was used to achieve that agenda. Once a game or movie is pulled, one could easily use the method of threats of violence in order to demand that the movie or game be put back up for release.

I know that some people have been trying to frame this Hatred situation as a battle for free speech, but I say **** that. Free speech was never in jeopardy because the METHODS never amounted to anything more than complaining and griping and writing petitions. That's fair game, even if you think that the person with the opposite agenda is an idiot. That's just a natural consequence of having free speech: people get to complain for or against an agenda, and either reason or the free market can win out in the end. That is not a threat to our liberties. And in light of recent events involving the North Korea movie, this Hatred game bullshit is looking a lot more fucking petty. Many gamers like to think that the backlash against Hatred is a problem, but look at this from a different perspective. If the people who had a beef with the Interview movie had used the same METHODS as the people who had a beef with the Hatred game, then there wouldn't have been a problem (even if both of their agendas were basically the same).

Other games paint violence as fun, it's seen everywhere, and that is what is so dangerous about them. It's a dangerous message to send. Hatred does more in its depiction of violence to show brutality than 99% of the games out there and it disgusts people because of it. If it didn't, there wouldn't be such an uproar and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Shouldn't that be to its credit?

The methods are important and interesting, but ultimately immaterial for anyone but law enforcement. If someone crosses the line they are a criminal. Absent that, they are just a doof with issues. Perhaps it can be argued that there are breeds of doofs more dangerous then others, but I do not fear doofs in general. They are largely ignored by everyone they are not pandering to.

As for the rest: I will never turn a bunch of people lobbying an organization to pull a partnership from another into a free speech issue. For that you would have to debate the person I quoted, not me. I am all about the power of petition and being heard. If Gabe had not stepped in, I would have countered their efforts with a letter about how I was blowing money on Amazon's holiday sale instead of Steam's. As he did intercede in the interest of expression, I sent a letter about how I am blowing extra money this Steam Sale because of the glory that is Gabe.

Hatred really is a very stupid looking game, but as I have said in many a thread, I want every game on Steam. Let the users decide what is worth their money.

Two guys go out tonight with the same agenda. They want to have sex with a woman. Guy #1flirts awkwardly and does the standard "pickup line" routines, while guy #2 finds a woman, points a gun at her head, and says that he's gonna blow her fucking brains out if she doesn't have sex with him.

I think it's sort of a stretch to say that "The methods are important and interesting, but ultimately immaterial for anyone but law enforcement."

That is not to say that the inability to see a dumbass Seth Rogen comedy is equivalent to being raped. What I am saying is that the forcible suppression of free expression due to penalty of violent death isn't quite "immaterial for anyone but law enforcement."

The implications of this also go beyond CONTENT. Yes, this is probably some superficial stupid comedy that no one would have cared about in five years if not for recent developments. But the precedent applies. A foreign country bullied us into suppressing our speech by threatening to attack us. What happens next time when it's not just a stupid disposable comedy and actual lives are on the line? Want to make a report about rampant rape, misogyny, and female genital mutilation in X country? You know, something that would potentially SAVE LIVES if it came to light? Well, too bad. Someone from that country threatened violence, so...now can't show the shit.

This shit has huge ramifications, and it is not just immaterial for anyone but law enforcement. For all that people bitched about Hatred, Hatred is entirely 100% consistent with freedom of expression. You might not like what people are saying about the game, but that doesn't matter for shit.

"If the fact that some indy game exists gets you bent out of shape enough to complain, be it Hatred, Depression Quest, or Flower, then you have issues and the internet shouldn't listen to you."

Great. I have the right to have issues, so **** anyone who has a problem with that. THAT'S how free speech works, and that is NOT a real problem. All that means is that I'm a stupid asshole, and you shouldn't worry about that because stupid assholes have the right to free speech just as much as anyone else. Now, if I were a stupid asshole who threatened to destroy you unless you catered to my demands, THEN there's a big fucking problem. And no, that's not just immaterial to anyone but law enforcement.

POSSIBLY.

But again, I think it all comes down to implementation. To me, the game looks like sick and worthless trash, but I can't say that's what it is without spending time with it. Likewise, it absolutely MIGHT be making a commentary about violence as fun. But just as I can't criticize the game without experiencing it, I can't defend it without experiencing it either.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the game turns out to be like.

But yeah...someone in another thread mentioned that the game was important for having the balls to be violence for the sake of violence. I took issue with that. For starters, once your primary goal is to go as far as you can just for the sake of going that far, that's usually a symptom of "shock art" that lacks any actual important content. If the goal is just to go as far as you can within the bounds of the law while enraging people on a superficial level, that tends to be the "outrage of the month" type of deal. You get your 15 minutes of fame, people get pissed off and argue about it for a little while, then the next outrage comes along and you're entirely irrelevant.

But you bring up another good point. Violence for the sake of violence, or violence as fun, isn't even a new or novel concept. That's already what a HUGE number of games are already doing, and have been doing for years. Yes, we can bring up stuff like how Doom is okay because the violence served a noble purpose (that is, saving Earth from being destroyed by the evil forces of Hell). But if we're being honest, isn't that story just a bunch of bullshit? The real attraction was killing the living shit out of everything that crossed your path, the "hey, they're demons and they're evil" angle is really only there to make the primary purpose more PC. The real goal is to simply kill everything that moves.

And this is common with an absolute SHITLOAD of games. Yes, I realize that there are exceptions, but to a very large degree video game stories are simple as shit. You have a bad guy. You have a good guy. You win when you make enough of the bad guys die. And...that's the gist of it. Even many of the most highly acclaimed games follow this structure, and there's a reasonb for it. Video games, to a very large extent, are ALREADY about violence for the sake of violence, and killing anything that moves. This ceases to be an inherently important concept simply because it's already so widely accepted.

Now, granted, the Hatred game might be able to make some new or important statement about how that kind of mindless violence is already so widely accepted. That's a real possibility. I'm just saying that the mere existence of the same kind of mindless violence doesn't necessarily mean that the developers have anything important to say ABOUT that kind of mindless violence.

But hey...at this point, who knows? the game is probably gonna get finished and released, so in fairness we should probably just hold off on our speculations and assumptions and wait to judge the game until after it's been released.

Yeah has nothing to do with the conversation. Unless you explain how either Steam or the Hatred Devs are putting a gun to people's head, I am not going to indulge the creepy.

They AREN'T putting a gun to anyone's head, which is the entire point. They're just politely asking. Which might be slightly annoying to someone who doesn't have the same agenda, but means absolutely ****-all in the grand scheme of things. People are getting upset about this Hatred thing because some people had the nerve to be upset at the content and start a petition, while the actualk REACTION to the Hatred outrage considted of Valve putting the game bck up after it was down for like a day. And look...no one got hurt. The game got taken down and then was very quickly put back up again without any force being applied. A whoile lot of outrage over NOTHING.

Meanwhile, a goddamn foreign country was apparently respoinsible for illegally hacking a company and releasing sensitive information, and then subsequently threatening us with VIOLENT ATTACKS if we don't vomply with their demands and remove the movie that they hate. THAT is an attack on our freedoms, with the promise of an attack if we don't comply, yet we're still whining about this freaking video game in which the the only outrage consisted of basically politely asking to remove it.

Again...f***ing gamers, man. I don't think I'm ever going to understand this community and their priorities.

@vinion2000: It's already proved that violent games have no correlation to real wold violence. It's even shown it's therapeutic aswell

while I don't plan to play Hatred, it is nice to see a game that really doesn't care what people think of it. I feel like Hatred is a game made by people who like to play games with complete violence and nothing else. I don't think that the developers really care what people think of the game or how they view it, they just love big, brash, and violent games, and enjoy making them regardless of what publishers or the other people may think. They know there will always be someone to play and enjoy their games, and they respect that, and make the game they want to make and play. I again will say that I have no plans to play Hatred, for the simple fact that it just doesn't appeal to me as a player, but the way that its going out on its own and being its own experience without big publisher influence, is a rare and respectable thing to do

Um, dude, there are things a lot more important then the Interview going on as well. People all over the world are starving and dieing of easily treatable illness, and if you sat down with them and tried to explain how a hack in response to a movie was super important they would laugh or weep at you.

Don't judge. Whatever your passion is there is always something more important going on, as you most likely have first world problems. If you think the conversation is stupid, leave. No one is impressed with how much time you spend telling others they are wasting their own.

Firstly, if you don't understand how forced suppression of free speech through the use of violent threats gives people an incentive to use tactics that actually get people killed, then you need to think a little bit harder about that.

Secondly, I'm not the one who started this discussion. If you want to act like the situation involving this game is important, that's fine, but it's perfectly valid for someone to respond by pointing out how trivial that shit actually is. You might not agree with that opinion, but it's sort of odd to suggest that people with a differing opinion should just stay out of the topic. If that's the case, why even make the topic? Is the point to have a discussion, or is the point for like-minded individuals to all get together and pat each other on the back for agreeing with each other?

I've been wondering something for a while. If video games truly have no negative effect on our youth, then why we do we have a rating system? When a young kid shoots up a school, and people try to blame it on video games, why are we so quick to point out that it was the parents' fault for buying them an M-rated game? Where do kids even get the idea to shoot up people were it not for violent media?

The inconvenient truth is, violent video games are damaging. That's why we have the rating system to make it harder for children to buy these games and play them. That's why we encourage parents to monitor what they're children are playing, and if they are OK with letting their kids play violent games, the parents are explaining to them the rights and wrongs.

Could it be that there's no correlation of violent video games and real world violence BECAUSE many parents are doing adequate jobs of making sure they're raising their children properly? If kids were never raised properly to understand the difference of fiction and fantasy, I think we would be seeing different results.

I don't think anyone will change their mind upon playing this if the trailer turned them off, at least from what I'm hearing from the developers (on the forums they're saying how much more brutal it will be than what it showed). Maybe playing it will change a few peoples' minds, but I find that doubtful, even if the gameplay is solid itself. I would agree at this point that it does seem to be shock for shock's sake. Someone mentioned that it might be possible to finish the game without firing a shot. If that's the case, I think this would stand as more of a social experiment than anything else, and it would be an interesting endevour.

As per the bolded underlined, this has been my issue with those that take issue with Hatred. It's NOT a new concept, it is as old as gaming (or any other form of media) itself. In a way, I find what Hatred is doing is refreshing, and it's not due to the content, it's because it (whether intentional or not) seems to strip things down to their barest and most primal form to expose what we seem to find enjoyable. I find it a bit disingenuous to attempt to deny that many of us do revel in the enjoyment of violence, full stop. Nobody is constantly reminding themselves of context when gunning down people in games. Context is simply a key to the door of our moral quandaries. I find the TC made a really great point here in saying,

"Hatred is the kinda game where you are obviously detracted by it premise but more that there is the fear that we might like such a game if made to play it."

I find this to be an incredibly astute, insightful and true statement, and it more than likely lays at the heart of what so many find objectionable about something like this. We're afraid we might actually enjoy it, and such a self-realization holds the potential to make a lot of people very uncomfortable. I'm not saying for all of course, but I wouldn't discount the possibility that some who stand so vehemently against such material are actually the ones that wish/can to relate to it the most, but would never admit as much. Like closet gays who revolve their life around hating gays because they themselves are.

In the end, even if it wasn't the developer's intention to create discourse about such material (and from their PR statements as to why they made such a game, I doubt it was), nevertheless it has. In that sense I think it deserves recognition and has a place in gaming despite so many finding it abhorrent.

Because young children might not understand this properly, it's the same with movies... Stop blaming games... They even had a massive research involving 10 000 kids and games showed to have no fucking effect. TV even had a more negative effect... Stop making facts up and look at what the research tells us time and time again. There is just some content that is not suited for children.

Again stop it with making facts up

Many parents have no clue what their children are playing. But you don't see kids shooting people up, you know why? Becuase they are games... Even children know the difference between Mario they see on screen and the real world. If your assumption would be true, then everyone would be out killing each other. Which is bs

When did I make up facts? I'm sure I used a lot of things like "could it be" and "I think" and "I've been wondering". This is theoretical. The only thing I said that could be taken as a fact is that violent video games are damaging, a fact that YOU backed up by saying "young children might not understand this properly" and "There is just some content that is not suited for children." Exactly why a rating system is needed, because they can be damaging to kids who are still developing. They need less violent media when they're that young, because their brains are still forming an understanding of fantasy and fiction. I'm not saying that games CAUSE violence in kids. Games alone aren't a big enough factor for that. However, a kid who isn't developing correctly CAN BE influenced by violent video games. To say that violent media has no negative effect at all is ... well, irresponsible.

Hatred being put on steam shows that the lobbyists are getting weaker. Older gamers may remember a game called thrill kill which was finished and set to be released on PS1 before it got pulled for being too violent.

The fact that they tried to pull Hated, and failed is a win for gamers. The loss for gamers will be when Hatred gets released, turns out to be a completely shitty game, and people buy it in droves because of the controversy surrounding it.

But didn't that game receive an AO rating (or whatever the equivalent rating was at the time). Also, that was a console game, not a PC game. So while I remember the game that you're talking about, I don't think the situation is ENTIRELY comparable. I mean, apparently AO games aren't allowed on Steam. Sure, you can release any game on PC, but it doesn't have to be allowed on Steam and it DEFINITELY doesn't have to be allowed on consoles. If Hatred gets an AO rating, and ESPECIALLY if it had gotten an AO rating and had been a console game instead of a PC game, I'd expect it to become just as dead as Thrill Kill.

Firstly, no one in nations that have challenges like starvation, mass death from treatable illnesses, and a lack of potable water care about troubles with a particular movie. You think the issue is important, bully for you, trillions living without the luxury of first world problems disagree. No one with first person problems gets to win the "There are more important issues!" game.

Secondly, say whatever you like I give advice not commandments. No one however is impressed with how much time you are spending telling people they are wasting their time. It is not an industrious activity.

So...like...do you have any idea how many artists and reporters and writers and filmmakers and musicians have made work about how shitty things are in this or that place?

You say that the real challenges are things like starvation and mass death from treatable illnesses. Okay...now suppose you're someone who is trying to tell the world about those challenges. Now suppose that you've got hard proof of that shit, indisputable evidence of just how bad things are, but no one is willing to show it because they're afraid they're gonna be bombed.

Do you now see how this isn't about the goddamn movie at all? **** the movie, dude. It's not about the movie. INFORMATION is one of the most valuable things there is. People live and die based on information being given or withheld, this is some serious shit. Possibly THE most serious shit, considering that the human species has survived and prevailed in large part due to our intelligence and ability to learn. Information is one of the most valuable things we have, and this is an attempt to control it and block it by threatening death and violence.

Again, you seem unable to distinguish between the agenda and the tactics. The agenda is to stop the movie from being seen, but **** the movie. The movie was probably shit anyway. What is of absolute critical importance here are the tactics. And how threatening death and violence as a means to control INFORMATION cannot be tolerated, because otherwise that gives anyone an incentive to commit further acts of terrorism any time there's information that they don't want to be known. This time, it's just a dumbass movie. Next time, it might be a totalitarian regime committing actual goddamn genocide, and preventing the reality of genocide from being presented by making a few threats.

People in nations that have problems like rampant starvation are the ones who should be the MOST concerned about this, because they will actually live and die based on how information is transmitted and who it is transmitted to. Here in the USA, it's at least possible to pretend that this shit is just a "first world problem" because we aren't the ones starving and getting slaughtered and dying from preventable disease because the people who control the information have a vested interest in resisting change.

No offense dude, but you really seem to have a very poor understanding of exactly WHY free speech is so important. It's not because that movie looks cool and it sucks if I can't see it. It's because information is one of the most powerful tools we have (if not THE most powerful tool), and allowing that information to be controlled or suppressed through threat of violence sets a precedent where we encourage people to use the same tactics to shut down anything they don't want to be heard. This time, it's a dumbass movie. Next time, it might be shutting down the release of a documentary or news article about genocide or slavery or rampant other human rights abuses. control and suppression of information actually kills a SHITLOAD of people, dude.

@JustPlainLucas: i played GTA when was 11, i managed to realize it was a game...

You also have to ask yourself if the standard for AO has changed. Thrill Kill was released on the black market and I played the game(and it was terrible for the record) and the fact is the game was not nearly as violent or edgy as Hatred appears to be.

You need to stop ignoring the things I'm saying. Obviously, you were developing correctly. The kid who killed his grandmother because she took away his Grand Theft Auto, however, wasn't.

And how has that any correlation of video games? It doesn't, what if she had taken a toy away? Or shut of the TV? Or taken away the movie? GTA is the most popular game, don't blame this on that game. Because again, there is no freaking proof that games cause violence. You are implying that

I am not blaming the game per se. Again, I never said the games CAUSE violence. I say they can have an EFFECT on troubled youth. I don't think the kid would have killed his grandmother if she turned the TV off or taken away his toy or whatever. If he was playing with Legos, he might have just thrown a fit or a tantrum, but because he was playing a violent video game that involves shooting people, he was already inclined to want to shoot his grandmother out of rage. Again, NOT SAYING GTA MADE HIM DO IT, but it certainly had a negative effect. Honestly, where do you think the kids even GET the idea to shoot people?

@ justplainlucas

If you took every video game, movie and other outside source of entertainment away from kids disturbed people would still get the idea to do bad things from any number of outside sources including their parents, the news, history class and many others.

Evil people do evil things, it has been this way as long as man has existed, the difference is nowadays we have idiots who try and attribute their misdeeds to completely irrelevant things(ie: rap music, violent games) because in this f'ed up society there is no such thing as personal responsibility. The fact of the matter is no form of entertainment causes people to behave badly, it is just a convenient excuse that morons use rather than try and address the real issues that are rampant in our society, especially the breakdown of families and parental involvement in their kids lives.

And AGAIN, I'm not saying games CAUSE violent behavior. I can easily say, though, that those more prone to violence shouldn't be playing violent games, just as those prone to alcoholism shouldn't be around alcohol. That's all I'm saying, that games can have a negative affect on the wrong individuals.

the thing is if you took games away from those prone to violence then they will draw their inspiration from a different source of entertainment, and isolating individuals from all forms of violence is impossible. I don't disagree with you that games can have a bad effect on certain people, the reality is ANYTHING can have a bad effect on the right person, and if you are the type of person who is prone to violent behavior the answer is to get psychiatric help to work through your issues, not isolate yourself from anything that can potentially inspire violence.

I didn't say it was unimportant. I said trillions without the luxury of first world problems are as dismissive of your passions as you are of others. I am not talking about the movie, I am talking about your effort to derail the thread, and your insults. If you want people's thoughts on the Interview Scandal, try making a thread about it and asking people, instead of invading other people's threads, trying to derail them, and insulting the people who are discussing other things.

I will let you get your last rant out uncontested, but if you are actually inclined to talk about the subject of this thread, please feel free!

This game will most likely be a moneygrab, kids and teenagers will buy into it because they think it's "cool" to have it and to play it. The marketing strategy behind this game is really good though, the devs knew this sort of game would cause havoc on the internet and with that they just become one of the most talked about games on the internet. When that is said it's going to be a shitty game, just wait and see.

It looks surprisingly mechanically competent when I look at the trailer, content aside. There's physics and destructible environments shown, and a isometric shooter using keyboard and mouse controls really isn't that hard to screw up. The simplistic, static perspective leaves little room for error unless the developers are incredibly inept. It's not like they have to deal with camera issues, A.I. (everyone will be running away screaming aside from the cops) or any other dynamic variables.

Pretty straightforward and simple. It'd be like screwing up Tetris in a way, though to be fair I've seen that happen so who knows.

There is no desensitization of violence.

Clicking on pixels is not violent.

If you think people who'd enjoy Hatred would be keen on going on a massacre or two, you're wrong.

The community is FOR hatred or at least AGAINST banning it.

Either you really can't distinguish between video games and real life or you're just clueless.

Video games do not cause violence.

You're analogy is flat out stupid and I won't even explain why.

In the last decades, with the rise in popularity of video games, violence among younger people has gone way down.

Your claim that video games can have negative effect on individuals is pulled right out of your ass and there has NEVER been a single thread of scientific research to back this up.

You can easily say that but you are easily wrong.

Just going to stop you there. For at least the third time in this thread, I'm not saying they cause violence. Also, I bolded a word you left out in your reply to me. If you honestly think that a mentally disturbed aggressive individual should be self-indulging in violent media, then I simply must say that's irresponsible thinking.

@hxce: Damn right. i watch heaps of Horror films, even Serbian Film haha, listen to heaps of Death Metal ( all Metal in general), and so on. My point is im a very calm person, even when im very drunk, i just dont get angry to that point.

If i get pissed off at work or just have a bad day, i put on some sort of dark or violent entertainment on and i feel fine after that. I do smoke some bud as well ;D

I've been talking about the subject plenty, and as I've repeatedly said, any outrage for or against the Hatred game is irrelevant and inconsequential. We've been through this before and each time it's same shit, different day. This video game is not the least bit important, the outrage over it is not the least bit important. It'll get its 15 minutes of fame due to controversy and then everyone will quickly forget about it as soon as the next moral outrage comes along.

And this point is pretty ridiculous. Sure, video games are pixels. But, so is child porn on the internet. A pretty illustration of a sunset is pixels. A photo of a dead dog is pixels.

If it was just about the fact that it's pixels, then there'd be no reason to seek out new content since we've already got enough pixels. There'd be no reason to hate it, because it's just pixels, but there'd also be no reason to LIKE IT because it's just pixels.

The point is that whether it's just pixels or not, people don't see it as just pixels. People think about it in terms of what those pixels represent. When people play a game and have to pick someone's pocket in order to steal the key to the safe, they think of it as a key, they think of it as a safe, and they think of the act as a theft. This is actually one of the very reasons people play games in the first place. Games work as fantasy or escapism or wish fulfillment in large part BECAUSE the pixels aren't JUST pixels. They're embodiments of concepts or values, of hopes, dreams, and fears. The reductionism that you're doing is like trying to defend an insulting statement by saying, "pfft, it's just words." And that doesn't really work. Not if you ever hope to defend any game. I mean, if it's just a bunch of pixels, then you could just throw in random meaningless noise and who can complain? But it doesn't work that way. Games (and here I'm talking about the good games) actually work because the pixels actually mean something. And once we establish that the value is in the meaning rather than the mere fact that pixels are pixels, then it's really easy to see how people condemn or defend certain content. They aren't reacting to the pixels, they're reacting to the statements, values and ideals which are expressed by those pixels. And those things easily extend beyond the actual game, movie, or book. Those things actually affect how real, totally sane people act.

And if you don't believe me, then I don't think you've been paying attention. Propaganda films have resulted in upswings in military recruitment, nature documentaries and other environment-based programming have influenced public opinion on those matters. When the Harry Potter movies came out, there was an increase in animal rescue services having to rescue or euthanize owls from people who somehow thought that a goddamn owl would make a cute and badass pet. And after Jaws hit it big, we tried to sweep the oceans clean of sharks.

That doesn't mean that games are going to make someone murder people. However, CULTURE influences people to a huge degree, and entertainment content such as video games, movies, and books play into this. Pop culture is culture, and video games are among the most pervasive pop culture around. Even to this day, whenever there's a cop fatally shooting an unarmed suspect, you're inevitably going to get a certain number of people condemning him for not "just shooting the suspect in the leg" because movies and games somehow convinced him that that shit actually works. That kind of stuff wouldn't happen if fictional content was unable to influence real and totally sane people because it's just pixels.

You are viewing this under the assumption of a healthy mindset. People who are sick in the head are......well, sick in the head. They literally cannot distinguish between one or the other. You call them clueless, others call them "mentally ill". That's not something to so easily discount. Don't think just because you can make that determination that everyone else can, even if it's just pixels, or a movie, or a song, or even a picture.

A crazy person would still be crazy without violent games. Plenty of violent crazy people form their fixation on the Bible and then go out and kill. So should we ban the Bible?