OMFG!! "HATRED"!!! Makes "Postal" look like a PG-13 Game! Your thoughts on it ?

Eh, could be interesting if they have enough weird weapons. As for the content...it's just a game.

well it also doesnt even matter if the game is dull, mindless, boring, repetitive, bad, shitty, it just doesnt matters because even then i will play it just to see all the sick shit i can do in this game, hehehe-hohoho-hahaha!

hell i should start another poll: "How often did you already watched the HATRED-Trailer ?" with answer options like "One Time", "Two Times" or "I watched it so often i cant even count!"

well if i count the times i showed the trailer to friends or guys at work, i think i watched this trailer more than 20 times already hehe

everyone just slightly thinking that any videogame encourages anyone on this planet to kill people is the same fucking retarded moron like jack thompson

if anyone on this planet decides to let out his anger on something or someone in the way of killing/murder, then anything could push the button to that, a videogame, a movie, a book, a tv-show, a tv-commercial, the news on tv, shit even the simpsons could push his buttons then, so why not just ban, censor and forbid all those things together ?

some people are a fuckin joke

The Neo-Nazi accusations where dispelled, yes, but the CEO does belong to Polska Liga Obrony, which is against Islams and immigration. I

You bring up a great point, so let's talk about it. Let's talk about the act of killing with absolutely no context. It is hereby my opinion that we should stop playing any and all games with violence ranging from the extreme such as Hatred to innocent games such as Super Mario, because violence is wrong in any form and fashion. It is wrong to kill innocent people in real life just as it's wrong to stomp on turtles. Violence, the very concept of it, is wrong and thus we should not seek it out. We as a human race have always been attracted to violence, but that is no excuse to want to expose ourselves to violence, whether it's a beheading on YouTube, a serial killer slashing people in a movie, or picking up an assault rifle and mowing down people either for points or to progress the narrative.

Knowing what we know, why is it then that we seek out violent video games? How can one group accept that fact that killing innocent people in a side mission is ok, simply because we aren't spending the majority of the time doing just that? Why are we trying to excuse ourselves from killing cops because we apply the adjective "corrupt" to them? Hell, why we even think it's ok to stomp turtles out of their shells and kick them at them? Why do we laugh at Tom for having his tail snapped by one of Jerry's mouse traps? Why do we get a thrill from violence and even laugh at it? Why do we trick ourselves into thinking it's ok?

Simple. We don't want to admit that we're cruel. Yet, we want to enjoy something that excites us, so we use those paper thin rationales to excuse it. "It's okay for me to run over a few people on my way to a warehouse to kill gangsters." "It's okay for me stalk and torture and murder this murderer, because he'd only end up doing the same to me." "It's okay to kill cops who are trying to kill me, because I was doing something illegal. **** them for trying to do their job." Hatred brings the ugliness of us wanting to do horrible things to people front and center, in our faces, something that we can't ignore.

So then it becomes all or nothing. There's no line to be drawn at all. Either you want to play every bit of violent media out there, including rape games, or you don't. You stick to puzzle and farm games because there's nothing bad at all about putting a few pieces into slots and growing fruit and vegetables. You have to sterilize yourself, or completely demonize yourself. There's no middle ground.

That's why I think that you can't excuse context, regardless of how paper thin it is. You have to weigh everything in a game to get an idea of what it's truly about so that you can gauge its influence and impact on actual society. GTA keeps getting compared to this game, yet they are two entirely different beasts. GTA actually has constructive elements in its design. You start out with a character from nothing, and he goes through trying to build himself a better life. GTA IV I particularly liked because Niko was such an interesting character. He started out starting over, but was cursed by a past he could't escape. He killed a lot of people, yes, but he also fought to protect his cousin, his family, his friends. People that meant something to him. If you want to try to reduce things like that by just calling them paper thin rationales in order to kill, then that's what it is, but I know that most people who play GTA do not play it just for rampages. They play it as a total package.

And you're right, Hatred is bringing quite a bit of healthy discourse to the table. That's undeniable. As I said before, I'm glad that there are people who love violent games actually speaking out against it because it forces them to look at what they love to do and makes them feel uneasy about it. They know there's a limit, and I think that kind of self-reflection is extremely important. With that said, I don't think I can start scaling back on the violent games I'm playing (because I'm actually really enjoying The Evil Within) and I will be honest. I do use framework as justification to make myself feel better. If I don't, I can't enjoy my hobby anymore. Again, this is because I don't believe we can simply reduce the subject at hand to a binary right or wrong. I think that's impossible.

Here in North America (Canada and the US) we protect people's right to express themselves artistically rather than upholding ancient laws imposing a particular groups sense of "morality" on artists.

And yes, this game is art as much as Doom is.

And what about Hatred is realistic? It's got a black-n-white filter, exaggerated animations and a third person camera. None of those things reflect reality.

This is an extremely slippery slope, though. You honestly can't blame the game as causing someone to go out and kill. It's influential, yes, but no more the cause of shooting someone than simply picking up a gun.

If games can be blamed for causing murder, then they need to be banned outright. Yet, you'd have just as a hard time succeeding in doing that as you would trying to outlaw alcohol. Alcohol related deaths are far, far higher than the number of shooting victims in total that the media tries to attribute to playing games. Yet, it's still allowed because healthy and responsible people drink in moderation.

@khankalili, I know what I said goes against what I just said here, but I was ranting. As much as I hate the idea of this game, I honestly can't deny its right to exist. Still, I hope it never becomes popular, because I don't want opponents to video games having anymore ammo in their arsenal, and this would be a nuke.

It definitely isn't cartoony. If you want to talk about realistic in terms of aesthetics, then no it is not. But it is realistic to some degree in its mimicry. The tone of the game makes the game actually worse than it if it were photorealistic. because the filter represents the mood of the antagonist (still don't understand why people keep referring to him as a protagonist) and paints his psyche on the screen. Every time he pulls a trigger on someone begging for their lives, it instantly makes us think of the many victims of a real life mass shooting.

its nice you showed an u.k. law paragraph but i live in austria, the guys who make hatred live in poland and some here in the usa and god knows where else, so i have no clue how many live in the uk and care for the paragraph you just listed

Did you ever play Twisted Metal Black? Because there was some seriously disturbing content in that game that related directly to serial killers and psychopaths.

You are making a case against a game that is doing nothing new and is only noteworthy because people decided to talk about it. As far as the developers are concerned, and their comments on to why they made this game, you are reading way too far into the game and it's depiction of a nihilistic psychopath.

maria holy mother and the holy ghost jesus christ what in gods name do you actually want ?

do you want us to stop talking about hatred ? do you want that no one buys that game ? do you want developers to stop working on it ? do you want the release cancelled ?

if youre such a good christian and morally perfect, as your posts make you look like, why dont you go help some starving kids in africa, save the whales or actually just DO whatever good things come to your mind rather than coming into a forum arguing shitloads against some frigging game not even being released yet

And there's this whole thing about this magical figure who twists the combatants' wishes at the end. The psychopaths also carry out carnage in weaponized vehicles. The game is one massive fantasy. Hatred is not. It's emulation at its core. It does nothing new, yes, because it does simply nothing at all.

You haven't understood a single thing I've said, which is apparent by calling me a "good Christian." That's laughable.

well if the game does nothing at all then why are you so upset about it and post such an amazing amount of political-correctness-filled articles ?

is it you jack thompson ?

The fact that you asked that question means you haven't paid attention to this thread at all.

And how do we know the entirety of Hatred's action is carried out in the fantasy realm of a psychopath's imagination?

You are really grasping at straws here having only a 1 minute 36 second long video to pull details from.

You're right. We don't have much information about this game, but what exactly else can we expect the game to do? I can imagine him going to schools and hospitals and libraries and day care centers and other towns when everyone is dead in the first. What I can't imagine him doing is going back in time and fighting dinosaurs, or going into space and fighting aliens, or realizing he's being possessed by a demon and then entering the depths of Hell to enact his revenge on Satan and his legions. But again, you are right. We have very little information to go on at this time. I just wouldn't be surprised if what we were shown in the game is all we get.

I probably won't get this game because it just doesn't look fun. But when the first reviews come out (assuming the game does get reviewed and doesn't get canceled) maybe I'll be proven wrong.

The biggest thing people need to consider when defending this game is how the content can be used against gamers in general. Yes, there are violent games out there that have killing but their violence usually has a purpose. Games like Halo and Destiny have you fighting against evil aliens. Games like Call of Duty and Battlefield have friendly troops and mercenaries fighting against enemy troops and terrorists (although some nongamers who criticize the games focus their criticism less on the violence itself and more on claims they're thinly-veiled attempts to recruit teens into the military). Games like Mortal Kombat have you killing men and women who were trying to kill you in (mostly) unarmed combat.

From what the trailer of Hatred has shown, you're just killing for the hell of killing and you're not only targeting law enforcement but innocent bystanders. While I can't speak for other countries, here in the US this game, no matter how disturbing to many, will most likely fall under the First Amendment. My problem with the game isn't some scenario that it will be used as a "murder simulator" like people who think first person shooters drove the guys who committed the Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, or Dark Knight Rises shootings will claim. My problem is it will just bring more negative attention on the gaming industry, causing even more lawyers, parents, and politicians to go on crusades to get violent games banned.

There are a lot of disgusting things out there that the First Amendment says is okay. The Westboro Baptist Church has the right to protest homosexuals and the funerals of servicemembers because of it. However, companies who don't think it's worth the bad press will avoid doing stuff that can affect their bottom lines. If the game has no effect on us then I really don't care how violent it is. On the other hand, if this game causes companies to tone down violence because of pressure from politicians and special rights groups then it's effects went beyond the people who played it for the hell of it.

I'm not going to get into the debate of this game possibly influencing people doing these kind of acts in real life or not. I'm just looking at it in a "How does it make me feel?" kind of way. It's not just the purpose and mentality of the main character nor is it just the graphical detail of the violence that I find disturbing, it's also the behavioral and emotional detail as well. For instance seeing that woman and hearing her beg for her life as he casually and cold-bloodedly shots her in the head is very unsettling. Sure there's other games that are pretty violent but the way it's all put together in this game just seems so wrong.

Yet that is precisely what you are doing. You are saying, "Ok, I accept this because reason X, but I don't accept this because reason Y." That's binary, isn't it? As you said, then it becomes all or nothing and no line to be drawn. I'm not sure exactly what you are arguing here or the point you wish to be making because you seem to be contradicting yourself a bit. No offense or anything, I'm just a bit confused.

To save me the trouble of quoting you twice, you say in response to Foxhound below, "Every time he pulls a trigger on someone begging for their lives, it instantly makes us think of the many victims of a real life mass shooting."

So I ask you, do you say this as something to be seen to be commended or not? Would you prefer that we play games that don't make us question such an action and consider the ramifications? In this sense, I find that not only does Hatred have a right to exist, it NEEDS to exist to make ourselves turn inward and examine exactly why we so revel in virtual violence as we do and our attempt to rationalize and excuse it. The way I see it, Hatred holds a hell of a lot of value in what it demonstrates and brings to the table, just not in the way many people are willing to see, and I view it as a game that is vitally important to help our medium evolve and grow if it is to be taken seriously. Personally, I very much want to experience it, because I want my limits to be confronted in a more difficult manner, and believe it's important for everyone to experience it to help them do the same, making them become uncomfortable massacring hundreds for once. The more I think on it, the more I am coming to appreciate what the developers are doing, even if my reasoning may not align with their intention or PR statement as for why they're creating such a game.

This game doesn't look like it's for me. However, the thing about games like this is it lets people get out their aggression. There are reasons why crime and murder rates are down to historic lows. This isn't how the media will look at this, though. The gaming industry doesn't need another situation where the politicians get their panties in a twist. It will only lead to another Jack Thompson trying to F up our hobby.

yeah it was way cheesy, But when hes shooting that shotgun and the door frame is falling apart, looked pretty damn good.

You can rest assured reviews for this will be almost unanimously negative and not based upon the merits of the mechanics or gameplay itself but simply the content. I suspect this will garner a majority of 0s across the board, competent game design or not.

I'm against the majority consensus here and think that the game's content will actually prove to be a benefit to gamer's reputation more than anything. From what I've seen so far across the net, the majority of gamers wish to have nothing to do with this. There will be boycotts, petitions, and the like speaking out against it (many are already emailing Epic asking them if they can take their engine out). Just as Fred Phelps and the WBC's extremist message of hate ultimately proved to strengthen the gay rights movement, I think Hatred will do more in speaking out against in-game violence due to the reactions it produces from gamers themselves.

Reviews can and should take into consideration the content of the game. In many cases the content can affect how you can enjoy the game because if it is too over the top it may hinder your ability to enjoy it. For example, take the best game ever made and add the requirement to kill crying babies or rape women and most people would be too sick to take any enjoyment in the gameplay. My opinion is that if the game isn't canceled or seriously altered most game review sites (including this one) will simply refuse to review it altogether rather than give it a review, good or bad. You might get a few, like how Wired reviewed Super Columbine Massacre RPG! when it came out but the rest will probably look the other way.

I wouldn't use the consensus of other gamers who are verbally expressing their disgust as a sign of it being a good thing. Among us, we know that most of us don't want it. However, people who aren't gamers and blame violent games on real violence aren't going to pay any attention to the critics. They are going to pay attention to the people who proudly brag how they can't wait to play the game and paint all of us as sadistic monsters who can't wait to blow a begging woman's brains out. Think of it like how most troops in the military condemned the Abu Gharib torture but people who were anti-military put all of their focus on the ones who were happy to indulge in it or even simply praised it while ignoring the critics of the incident who said the offenders were scumbags.

No offense taken. I'll admit, I'm not as good at debating as I used to be, so sometimes I don't get my thoughts out clearly. As for the X and Y, that isn't binary. It's scaling. Think of drinking. I mentioned excess many posts back, so I'll revisit. Violent video games are like alcohol. We all love to drink, yet we all have our limits. Some just like to drink a beer or a glass of wine. Some drink to get buzzed. Some go over the top and drink until they puke and pass out. They drink to excess. We can be fans of drinking and still not be cool with people drinking to excess because of negative things such as acting unruly or getting behind the wheel and driving or even dying of alcohol poisoning. So by me saying I like X but won't play Y, that is not binary. This is me saying, "Hey, X is my limit." Binary would be me not touching alcohol, because if I did, I'd have to drink to excess as there would be no such thing as moderation. Is that clear(er) now?

As for your last paragraph, I think it is healthy to be challenged, and this game is certainly doing that. It's making us examine just why we love violence. I believe I already gave my answer on that, though. The question is a very uneasy one for us to ask ourselves, because if we're serious about answering it, then ultimately we have to admit that all forms of violence are wrong. None of us are capable from turning away from it completely, though. So instead of simply not playing violent video games, we cling to context to make us feel better about it. I'll admit it's a weakness, even a contradictory one. Hatred even embarrasses us. It makes us feel guilty. It's done a far better job of that than any amount of GTA ever has. So you're right. Hatred does hold value in that regard.

its my thread so of course i pay attention to it, i just dont pay attention to each and everyone of your hilarious posts because youre not just plain lucas, youre just plain a hyprocrate and i am not the only one figuring that out regarding your anti-hatred-crusade here

My "crusade" has been about me establishing my limits, and you should have been paying attention to my posts, because I said this in my very first reply here.

Let it be made. I just hope it doesn't sell.

I also said this.

the game does have a right to exist. Although I'm not going to picket its release, I will continue to express my right to vocalize against it.

I've never called for the game to be banned. Not liking the game and not agreeing with what the game's trying to do is not the same as wanting it banned. That would be a crusade.

But let me ask you this question again, since you shied away from it the last time. Answer it please, honestly.

where do you draw the line exactly? If the game made you kill babies, would you kill them? If it made you rape old women, you would you rape them? Would you pick up a shotgun and go into an elementary school and kill as many children as you can hoping for a kill streak? Would you even try to rape one of the dead school children?

I'm sure you have a line. I'm sure you have some kind of limitation. But let me make one thing perfectly clear. If you think I'm being a hypocrite (not hyprocrate) and you answer no to any one of these questions, then you yourself are a hypocrite too. If you answer yes to any of them, then that disturbs me.

Apparently these guys are kind of nazies and that dampens my desire to pay them any money.

The rumors of them being neo-Nazis were squashed, but the groups they do belong to certainly don't paint them as any friendlier. Honestly, it doesn't matter what Hatred is trying to accomplish as a game. The fact that it's made by generally hate-filled people makes it pure filth.

Pretty much my sentiment. And sorry about the hyperbole ;)

I agree.

No apology necessary. I wouldn't call it hyperbole, because you were just going off misinformation.

Anyway, I would just like to state that as much as I am in disagreement with the game, I am genuinely interested to see the game released and see what kind of reception it gets. I'm curious as to what reviewers have to say about it, how it will sell and who exactly buys the game. I know it won't do very well here in the states because of its mimicry of mass murders that's plaguing our country. I'm also curious to see if politicians will move in and try to ban the game. It actually would be a very important game to defend video games' right to be protected under the first amendment.

I'm also very curious about how the ESRB will rate it. Because of its extreme message of hate, would that be enough to label it an AO? I have to be honest and say that I don't see much worse in the violence it portrays to earn an AO over an M. If there was any kind of sexual assault, than it should definitely get an AO, but if it's nothing more than just shooting people, an M is fine. However, if people really want to ban this game without infringing on its first amendment right, than an AO would be the kiss of death. It would never, ever touch the consoles in that form, and any major digital distributor wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. I think the game would pretty much ban itself.

I wonder what Rockstar thinks of the game. I'm really interested in hearing what they have to say about it. If any publisher's going to pick this game up, it would have to them, the Kings of Controversy. They did, after all, make killing innocent people en masse popular.

What Hatred is trying to accomplish as a game is obviously free PR, just take a look at this thread, allready 3 pages. Like i said earlyer, this game is made only to get that attention it has gotten and it will sell even if it`s a crappy game. Mostly teenagers will buy this game btw.

you may have said "the game has a right to exist" but i remember you also said something like "i hope no one buys this game" which i dont understand, where is your problem that someone else buys this game ? what makes you feel better if no one would buy this game ? does it makes you happier when no one buys this game ? why ? why is it of importance for you if this game sells or not ? do you think this shitty planet is a better place when no one buys a game like hatred ???

...i never shy away from any question, but i do not read everything when i get the idea its only some hypocrate going onto his personal crusade, so i am now to answer your question regarding the line you asked me about:

there is one thing i really hate on this planet, that is something i hate even more than cruetly within humans, that is animal cruetly, cruelty done by humans against animals, nothing enrages me more,

Now as former cat owner i know what its like to raise an animal and taking care of it, i never ever hurt an animal, i didnt even beat one and i never will, BUT...in every game where i got the option to kill an animal, i killed some and i didnt killed them becaues i liked to kill them, i just killed them because the game gave me the option to do it besides the fact that i mostly behave like a badass in a game giving me the option to do so, so if you ask me if i would kill children/infants/women/etc., if a game gives me the option to do so....i wouldnt hesitate a second to nail the little fucker....just for the sake of being a badass in a game which i think is funny, i dont take any game serious, and you shouldnt as well.

..btw do you guys remember DEUS EX the first one ? there was a scene in some toilet with some homeless kid selling some infos away there, the little shithead was pretty big mouthed and i didnt liked him, now when he decided not to give me the infos for free, i pulled out the gun and shot him....to my surprise i really killed the little bastard, i thought the game wouldnt let me do that but it was really possible to kill that kid....and i just laughed, i didnt laugh because i killed a little kid, i just laughed because i play a game where i get the option to be as bad to kill a kid, the bad and the evil is fascinating for me...in fiction only, so no matter which game i play, if i have the option to be one badass motherfucker you can bet i am the one

so when it comes to games, i dont have any limitation i am afraid, its just a game after all and i always know the difference and i always know who i am

I say that I hope it doesn't sell, because I don't think it's a type of game that needs to be popular. Have you heard of the Westboro Baptist Church? They are an extreme sect of Christian zealots that protest homosexuality. Their message is nothing but hatred to homosexuals and homosexual supporters. They even picket funerals of military veterans based on the fact that our government allows homosexuals in the military. They're a putrefying group of hate mongers, and the world would be better off without them, BUT, they have the right to speech and I have to acknowledge that. I can't do anything about that, just like I can't do anything about preventing Hatred from coming out. However, I can certainly say I don't like what Hatred is about, and even wish that it never takes off sales wise. I don't know how else to explain that simple concept to you.

Would you play a game, actively seek out a game, that involves nothing but animal cruelty? This isn't about a story mission like in Assassin's Creed 3 where it forces you to hunt. This is a game about stalking domestic cats and dogs, capturing them, and then inflicting as much pain as you can until you decide to cut up their stomachs and throw their innards around the floor. You probably wouldn't, would you? You hate animal cruelty so much, so I know you wouldn't want to play that game if that's all it's about. You even said when you killed an animal in a game, you didn't do it out of enjoyment.

I hate mass murderers. I live in Denver, a metropolitan area where at least THREE of the most famous mass murderers have happened. The Chuck-E-Cheese shooting in 1993, the Columbine shooting in 1999, and Century 16 shooting in 2012. So, if there's any reason why I wouldn't want to play a game where ALL I do is mass murder, then I have plenty good reason for doing so. Still, I on seldom occasion, will mow down some innocent people in a video game like GTA, as you said, to feel like a bad ass. The thing is, I wouldn't spend my ENTIRE time with the game doing just that, just like you wouldn't spend the ENTIRE time in Assassin's Creed 3 hunting animals and skinning them. Do you see what I'm saying here? Limitations.

There is nothing wrong with limitations, and having them doesn't make you a hypocrite. If you still call me a hypocrite, I'm afraid I have to call you one as well. And you still didn't answer my question about rape. Would you rape women and children if the game lets you, just for "the option to be one bad ass motherfucker?" Let's say it's just once, out of morbid curiosity because it's a side mission. Now then, let's say a game is made where ALL you do is stalk and rape women, in the most horrific way possible. Would you actively seek out that game to play it just to be "one bad ass motherfucker?" Do not lie to me and say you would, because you wouldn't. NO ONE would. You need to take a game seriously some time, which is my entire point.

Surprisingly for me, I found the trailer to be quite disturbing. The premise is just... really fucked up. I know you can make general comparisons to other games that I've played and had no problem with, but there's just seemingly no real story or point to this game other than brutally murdering innocent people that have disturbingly realistic reactions. This is exactly the kind of shit the media will eat up and use to demonize video games altogether. I think whoever is making the game obviously knew this would generate some sort of reaction, but I wonder if they even considered that it could further the stigma of violent video games.

But I'm not one to be too sensitive over these sort of things. I find it almost sickening, but I don't particularly care if it gets banned or whatever. From non-emotional standpoint it looks like a bland game that I wouldn't even consider playing.

Postal had a pretty cool concept behind it. For the most part, you are given mundane tasks, with the option to go on rampages. Theoretically (again, for the most part) you could complete the game without doing anything immoral or illegal.

I can understand the analogy, but it doesn't quite hold up if you are attempting to demonstrate shades of grey. Have you murdered in games before? That would be considered, by your analogy, to be the far extreme of alcohol use......puking, pass out drunk. Having a sip of wine is analogous to getting a simple slap on the face. Taking a virtual life is as far as alcohol use can extend, and if you do it in one game yet find Hatred objectionable and taken too far, that is a double-standard because the action is the same. It is no longer a matter of degrees in execution or gravity once that virtual trigger is pulled, the only things separating it in the case of Hatred are its more honest, brutal portrayal and context you may find uncomfortable. But once you've killed in games you've already shown how far you are willing to go, what you deem tolerable, and it then it does becomes binary and therefor hypocritical to say, "I'll do X killing, but not Y killing".

Found this in another forum. Love these.

@MirkoS77 said:

@JustPlainLucas said:

No offense taken. I'll admit, I'm not as good at debating as I used to be, so sometimes I don't get my thoughts out clearly. As for the X and Y, that isn't binary. It's scaling. Think of drinking. I mentioned excess many posts back, so I'll revisit. Violent video games are like alcohol. We all love to drink, yet we all have our limits. Some just like to drink a beer or a glass of wine. Some drink to get buzzed. Some go over the top and drink until they puke and pass out. They drink to excess. We can be fans of drinking and still not be cool with people drinking to excess because of negative things such as acting unruly or getting behind the wheel and driving or even dying of alcohol poisoning. So by me saying I like X but won't play Y, that is not binary. This is me saying, "Hey, X is my limit." Binary would be me not touching alcohol, because if I did, I'd have to drink to excess as there would be no such thing as moderation. Is that clear(er) now?

As for your last paragraph, I think it is healthy to be challenged, and this game is certainly doing that. It's making us examine just why we love violence. I believe I already gave my answer on that, though. The question is a very uneasy one for us to ask ourselves, because if we're serious about answering it, then ultimately we have to admit that all forms of violence are wrong. None of us are capable from turning away from it completely, though. So instead of simply not playing violent video games, we cling to context to make us feel better about it. I'll admit it's a weakness, even a contradictory one. Hatred even embarrasses us. It makes us feel guilty. It's done a far better job of that than any amount of GTA ever has. So you're right. Hatred does hold value in that regard.

I can understand the analogy, but it doesn't quite hold up if you are attempting to demonstrate shades of grey. Have you murdered in games before? That would be considered, by your analogy, to be the far extreme of alcohol use......puking, pass out drunk. Having a sip of wine is analogous to getting a simple slap on the face. Taking a virtual life is as far as alcohol use can extend, and if you do it in one game yet find Hatred objectionable and taken too far, that is a double-standard because the action is the same. It is no longer a matter of degrees in execution or gravity once that virtual trigger is pulled, the only things separating it in the case of Hatred are its more honest, brutal portrayal and context you may find uncomfortable. But once you've killed in games you've already shown how far you are willing to go, what you deem tolerable, and it then it does becomes binary and therefor hypocritical to say, "I'll do X killing, but not Y killing".

Found this in another forum. Love these.

The act of killing is impossible to scale, you're right about that. But that's not what I'm scaling. I'm scaling the amount and context of which I'm killing. As I've said several times, if we strip context, it ALL becomes bad. If you killed a turtle in Super Mario, it's the same as killing an innocent woman in Hatred. Of course, that's a ridiculous statement to make, unless you really feel it's an X and Y deal. In that case, we're all hypocrites.

I have a question for those who use context in defense of why they find Hatred so vile while other games are not?

Does context explain where we gain the pleasure from while playing violent games, or ingesting any form of violent media? Are you saying to yourselves, “Hey, I’m having fun massacring these pirates because I’m in the pursuit of treasure!” while playing Uncharted, or “Hey, gunning down these cops/innocents is exhilarating because I’m doing so in self defense and the pursuit of climbing up a criminal enterprise!” while playing GTA? No, that is nothing but a door to be opened by those that need to feel content in their behaviors, behaviors that are (in the end) just as abhorrent as if that context were absent. They are simply foundations present for nothing more than to do their best to placate our moral quandaries so as to be able to enable us to excuse and get down to what we really find enjoyable.

It is disingenuous to attempt to act or imply that the only reason we can find pleasure in violence is because there’s a valid or morally justifiable reason to do so. No, we find it interesting because deep down it is a significant and primal part of what makes us who we are. Don't throw context my way to apologize for your choices while finding it proper to condemn mine when we are ultimately feeding off the exact same demons. I will play Hatred, you won't. But neither of us should pretend to stand upon higher ground here, and to attempt to presume moral superiority under the guise of conditions is, imo, a tad cowardly and intellectually dishonest. Let’s not masquerade or try to ignore the discomforting reality of what we enjoy by dressing it up under the shallowest of pretenses and then deem it suitable to judge others using it. This is the height of hypocrisy because context is not the ends, it is simply the means.

Why can’t we just stop bullshitting ourselves and admit that we love violence for no other reason than violence's sake? This is what I see so many objecting to. Why? I have no trouble admitting as much, because this is a truism (not to say in RL, it sickens me there, but in fiction and media I find it quite engaging), and I have no objection to this game existing because it needs to to help bring this fact to light and make people examine why they are perfectly capable of advocating it under certain circumstance, yet not in others, when point in fact the visceral acts we all partake in in every medium out there is not all that dissimilar and the pleasure stems from the same place…..and that is not entirely in the context, but the violence in which it resides.

*1 No i wouldnt.

*2 depends on the game mechanics, if there are funny quicktime events, a great mission design, difficulty levels, achievements and cool graphics, id probably try the game

in my opinion animal cruelty is worse than cruelty on humans, humans are in general anyway a worthless species destroying this planet, the other lifeforms living on it and themself alltogether so it doesnt bothers anyone else in the universe if our species goes to hell one day

I sincerely hope you can hack the heads off children with a machete or kill peoples beloved pets.

Being a pedophile cannibal clown would be the ultimate game but people would probably bitch

1) Ok. So we've reached an agreement. We both have limits. You will not play a game solely to kill animals, just as I won't play a game solely to kill innocent people.

2) You'd try a rape game, provided that context was more than just raping for the sake of raping, or if it was in some kind of comical manner. Hmm.. sounds like my argument against Hatred.

So.. it's okay to kill humans because it's worse to kill animals. That sort of sounds like the same logic you tried to use against me to call me a hypocrite for playing GTA but not wanting to play Hatred. I really, honestly hope you get what I've been trying to say this entire time now.