New Hatred Trailer

@Jag85: Contextualizing violence is simple. Sex, on the other hand, has become abstract as all hell. No one knows how to define it to the satisfaction of every other party anymore and, therefore, it poses an infinitely greater problem than your bloodiest gore-fest. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: it would be far more likely that a child would emulate Stifler after watching American Pie than he would be to emulate Hannibal after watching Silence of the Lambs.

I have not heard of any such case where Steam denied hosting a game because it featured a sex scene, but I can understand favoring one type of gratuity over another.

To be quite honest, I'm still flabbergasted as to how sex and violence was even formed into a binary. My earliest memory of this chestnut manifesting itself in the media was the Simpsons episode where Marge goes to war with Itchy and Scratchy because its violence encouraged Maggie to pelt Homer with a bat, but her point is--ironically--nullified when she refuses to denounce the nudity of the statue of David (don't get me started on everything that was wrong with this narrative). I have a feeling though that the decision to juxtapose these two abstractions was made at an earlier time.

I disagree, I don't believe moral structure and meaning are derived from ethical contexts in the least. How so?

I am using the term primal here in reference to our base nature as primates. You'd disagree that using it to describe our species and propensity for violence and killing is a fairly accurate vernacular? Sure, primal obviously isn't 100% synonymous with killing in its strictest terminology, but I think attempting to say it plays no (or even a little) part in killing is what is really silly here.

I'm not sure how you got the implication at all. Something can be incredibly complex while primal and I didn't mean to allude otherwise. Are you saying that because we show complexity that goes against the notion that we're primal? I find the simple fact that we still do kill each other according to a variety of convoluted and ideologically founded motivations to explicitly exemplify just how much that there is something other than our complex nature for which is ultimately responsible.

So what would you say that is? If we were honestly all that complex, then why do we continually commit and revel in the most basic and most brutal of actions?

@Pariah-:

Sex is an activity that most adult human beings engage in. Violent murder is not. There seems to be a double-standard in society (or at least in Western societies) where media depicting the violent murder of people is somehow more acceptable than depicting something as normal as a couple having sex. Even equating or juxtaposing them doesn't make any sense, since violent murder is infinitely more abhorrent than having sex. But despite this, depicting violent murder is somehow more acceptable in society than depicting sex.

Many games have been rejected from Steam for sex scenes. In fact, an entire genre has been rejected from Steam for sex scenes: eroge visual novels. Many have been outright rejected from Steam solely for containing explicit sex scenes, even if it's just a few minutes of explicit sex in an adventure lasting dozens of hours. Steam has a policy against any AO-rated games, to prevent sexually explicit content from getting onto the service. But because Hatred received an AO rating, Steam made an exception solely for Hatred. They have an issue with explicit sexual content, but have no issues at all with an ISIS-style mass-murdering terrorist simulator like Hatred. Steam and Gabe are hypocrites.

@MirkoS77:

Animals don't extinguish life just for the fun of it. Animals have a purpose for extinguishing life, whether it's for survival, defending territory, or fighting over a mate. That's what you call "primal" instincts.

Humans are different, in that humans can enjoy murdering just for sport. The animal kingdom has nothing equivalent to gladiatorial arenas where people fight to the death solely for the amusement of spectators. The animal kingdom has nothing equivalent to media depicting violent murder solely for the amusement of viewers. There is nothing "primal" about that. Murder for sport is, by and large, a uniquely human trait.

That is very debateable. Not proof I realize, but there's no proof they don't either.

So far, there has not been any evidence of non-human animals ever engaging in murder solely for sport. Even those dolphin murders don't seem to imply such a thing. However, it is still a pretty interesting story, but the causes for those murders are still being investigated. And it's a relatively recent phenomenon in only a few places in the world. But it wouldn't surprise me if there are exceptions, especially among the most intelligent creatures, like dolphins. The more intelligent the creatures, the more human-like their traits may become. Murder for entertainment is never a "primal" instinct, but something only the most intelligent creatures engage in, especially humans.

You would have to pay me money to play that game. It looks so bad and boring with no real plot.

And here in lies the point. The contrast in how people are exposed to these two paradigms' affects their ability to compartmentalize one dynamic over the other: even the mere consideration of violence is shunned and punished (be it reasonable or not) while sex--in all of its neologistic forms--is commercialized and glorified. Therefore, the former is far less likely to influence character and behavior than the latter. To wit, this disparity in influence tends to make people nervous with regards to what kind of meanings or endorsements are made in reference to sex.

Prior to American Pie, the phrase "having sex with a pie" carried no meaning for anyone because it's physically impossible to "have sex" with an inanimate object since it lacks the functional organs required to carry out the act in any fruitful capacity. Despite this fact, viral exposure to the contents of this film have bypassed the sterility of pie-loving in favor of legitimizing the phrase's intent as an expression of "sexual" context if not an orthodoxy of intercourse. Next thing you know, the concept makes the rounds, and the word "sex" has added another esoteric practice to its repertoire, further obscuring the word's actual and intended meaning. More mainstream cases of Twentieth Century neologisms are "oral sex" and "anal sex", which were previously, and exclusively, identified as forms of "sodomy" before varying media outlets started playing word-games (see also: third waver feminists inventing the disparaging acronym "PIV", a phrase developed in an effort to distinguish the meaning of the term "sex" from its action, effectively de-normalizing the legitimacy of males and females using their physiology in tandem and identifying such a coupling as an unideal alternative--amongst a plurality of alternatives--of sexual intercourse). Violence, by comparison, is not subject to the same moral relativistic pitfalls as sex since such behavior isn't actually allowed outside of gaming anyway. Keeping this in mind, is it really so shocking and unreasonable to acknowledge that consumers don't trust those media outlets to identify and depict sex according to a definition that everyone agrees with?

I didn't say, "moral structure is derived from," I said "moral structure derives meaning in." That's a really big difference.

We're not primates. We're homo-sapiens. Either way, there is no intuitive connection to a propensity for killing.

Again, primal means to be fundamental, basic. If you're trying to say that you were originally alluding to a nature of complexity, then "primal" was a poor choice of words.

The fact that we kill for ideological or sociopathic reasons is exactly what makes us complex. Your original attempt to conflate "primal" with killing would only remotely hold up if it referred to killing according to necessity.

This is false. Cats kill for sport. They do not need to kill, not do they need to eat. It is instincs; hunting has become a game.Sometimes they hunt for mice and deliberately let them go as they they are no sport. Other times: they will kill them, and simply leave the body without consuming it.

I bought it for pure novelty reasons, I have a feeling it will get pulled at some point in time and wanted to secure my copy in the event that it does, it also looks entertaining and possibly even fun.

Mice are a different species. Cats don't murder their own species for sport.

Just as well there doesn't appear to be any female nudity in it or we'd all be screwed.

My god...... I actually agree with you on something!

This game looks like trash... the theme seems abit to "out there" for me.... bit like those certain rape-related Japanese porn games.... When GTA does it... its parody, and doesn't feel like its literally trying to convince me I'm burning an innocent woman alive...

This on the other hand..... why.......

@MBirdy88: It's the system wars that keep us apart....and the anger that binds us together.

I'm not sure why anyone is bothering giving this the time of day when Hotline Miami 2 is coming out in 8 days, especially if you want a good game that revolves around violence.

Better Soundtrack
Better Art
More nuanced story

The title of the game should be Butthurt though it might be fun to play.

I do want to reply to this, but I've just had medical treatment today that's made me all sick and doped up and cloudy. I'll feel better on Thursday, Fri.

Would you mind elaborating on the underlined distinction?

And yes, we are classified as primates.

Primal also can mean "powerful; base". Those can co-exist with complexity without contradicting it, so my choice of it was suitable. I did not feel the need to allude to a nature of complexity because I figured that a given. Aside, why must we kill out of necessity to be viewed as primal? What about primal relegates it solely to the realm of necessity when viewed within the context of killing? You seem to be viewing all these terms and definitions in strict, mutual exclusivity.

I'd argue the opposite: the fact that we kill for incredibly complex reasons is exactly what demonstrates how primal we really are. If anything, our species' advancement and age of reason has only seemed to exponentially magnify and accelerate our potential towards our own destruction.

So maybe it's not our complexity that's the real driving impetus that causes us to kill each other. Perhaps those are simply evolved means to justify and rationalize a powerful base drive.....that primal propensity....to do so.

Grand Theft Auto gets away with it not because it's context but because it's financially a goldmine.

The same people bashing this in reviews will be the same people who praised games like Grand Theft Auto 4 which involves holding a woman at her will while she pleads for her life. Moral crusaders with paper thin ideals flicked on whatever is most self serving.

Moral structure dictates how we think and behave towards one another. As a particular moral structure is applied to a larger community, it develops a culture with a set of customs accompanied by concepts and meanings from an emerging etymology. That arrangement can't work the other way around.

No. Humans are not classified as primates. Researchers left that theory in the dust ages ago when they found too many base letter discrepancies in our genomes. The more popular evolutionary theory attached to the development of humanity involves arboreal ancestry. Regardless of what you think we're related to however, it doesn't complement your understanding of the term "primal".

There is no inherent connection between "prime" and "complex". In terms of meaning, they are opposed to one another. The onus is on you to make a connection between the two in this instance, and not to assume that because something is prime, that-that makes it complex.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the way you're phrasing the situation sounds a tad simplistic.

Financial success in a free, consumer-based market is a reflection of cultural acceptance. Not artificial validation.

Reviewers and critics who are a part of the same SJW culture that despises GTA know that they have to adjust fire when it comes to writing GTA reviews because they know those games are so popular and have become cultural staples. Otherwise, they'd seem out of touch. Even though Petit gave GTA5 a AAA score, his bitter and persnickety footnotes raised eyebrows and pissed people off.

You get to shoot people in this game with a gun.

Is that an argument?

another average TB shooter....

Might pick it up depending on Steam reviews. I grew up on Postal. Next-gen postal? Sign me up.

hopefully this crap fails

those low minded people playing this are the cause of real life killings.

What's socaity?

Also, old thread is old.

I want this game to do well just to shut the haters up. The sub-sect redditor, toxicity, muh emotions, white knight community we have needs a kick in the fucking balls.

I for one support artistic vision, even if it's an ultra violent slaughter fest. Censorship needs to go the way of the unicorn, if you don't like the game just don't bother with it.

@walloftruth said:

@lglz1337 said:

hopefully this crap fails

those low minded people playing this are the cause of real life killings.

and you got some on this board

what in the hell...

there are alot of unstable minds lurking around to get their fix

this is their gateway

what are you basing this on?

have you seen the trailer ?

this is the devil at work

but if this is your type of gaming go on not gonna waste my time discussing this type of crap

Oh lord...

This is just ridiculous, but i'm pretty sure if Satan was making video games, he wouldn't have to go through GreenLight on Steam

@lglz1337:

and guns kill people by themselves, right?

It's not. Don't have any interest in playing it

ridiculous yes

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-10-16-epic-requests-its-logo-be-removed-from-civilian-massacring-game-hatred

I don't see what that has to do with anything

it has to do with this brain fuckery the devil is trying to do with little kids with crap parents

and epic doesn't want a lawsuit when colombine tpe fo shit happens

The devil?

That's not the "devil's" fault, that's the parents fault.

I can't imagine that you're serious though

and the devil tries to capatilize on that

This game makes me feel sick and yet I want to play it.

you can't be serious

already giving this game to much attention

the devil tries to f*** me now