Will Hatred get unfairly treated?

I think that it will probably be shit, but I don't feel the need to rally against it. I think maybe the discussion around it sheds some light on the things that we currently accept and seem to have no problem with that are equivalently bad to whats presented in the game.

Will you ever compose a post that isn't idiotic dogshit, sniper?

This type of game is for the people who try act "cool" and "tough" on the internet, but are the types of guys to slam the breaks of their moms minivan when they see a cop on the other side of the road.

I think many will not even review it. A lot of websites already stated that they are boycotting the game and just a few days ago GOG said they will not allow it to be sold through their service.

Hatred is currently #1 at Gamespot for some reason though.

http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot-50/

Can someone explain to me what's the problem with this game? I saw gameplay and it looked like a normal game same as dead nation

Because many people do not see games as art, unfortunately.

The subject matter is the game's hook. It is literally the only reason why people have bothered to give it a second look. It certainly hasn't expressed any genuinely interesting gameplay ideas.

So yeah, it should be criticized accordingly.

Of course it will.

I don't care about this game personally.

It looks fun. Being naughty, breaking the system, is inherently fun.

It is the design of the game that is art, not necessarily the whats on the surface. There are reasons games like Mario64 and Pacman are in museums. It is the fundamental connection between the user and what is on screen that matters.

So much hatred in this thread. I think the game looks promising so far tbh pixels killing other pixels with some extreme gore and violence, glorious.

And as in all art forms there are a wide variety of reasons why something is praised or criticised. Just look through the National Film Registry. There are films on there just for their imagery, and others for their social context. There are thousands of paintings that are depicting serious issues such as war and poverty, while others are just seemingly random colours splattered on a canvas.

To say what's on the surface doesn't matter or matters less is a rather odd claim. Everything matters, just to some people other parts matter more. So if you can praise a game for it's design, why can you not criticise it for the subject matter it decided to use and how it handled it?

Nothing wrong with the game good sir, the problem is that some people are too sensitive.

The ways of actual criticism don't really exist anymore, at least not in the majority. A game is a game. A film is a film. Just as a good photograph tells a story from one image, a film progresses this by doing so through moving images. A proper film critic will judge the film on the film along. Other aspects factor in of course, but it is the purest sense of the medium that matters. A good game doesn't even necessarily need sound, and if sound is inherent to the play then it should be judged on how it affects the mechanic of the game. For example, Unreal does a good job of using a visual to differentiate different parts of a map for memorization purposes to aid the player without intruding on the actual play experience--that is an intelligent tutorial, vs button prompts, etc.

That seems to be an incredibly narrow minded view. There is no such thing as the "purest sense" in what is subjective. There is no objective reason as to why game design is better than story or any other factor. Deus Ex is often credited as the best game ever made, even though it's tutorial is terrible and the main gameplay mechanics such as shooting are lacklustre even for the time. If you like games for that reason then fair enough, but don't pretend that your view is the correct view. If you like Jackson Pollock then good for you, but I'll be damned if I ever put any of those eyesores on my wall.

Just like how Postal killed gaming back in 97?

not likely, and it will sell gang busters because of controversy.

The media backlash against Hatred has already happened. It's old news now and won't get much larger (unless the game contains something even worse than what's shown in the advertisements)

Does media backlash even harm games? Fox New's crusade against Mass Effect didn't cause any harm, if anything it got more people talking about the inclusion of sex in games and has allowed the industry to evolve more in that area.

GTA killing is almost comical.... in no way is the same thing. This is not intended to be comical, and is quite cringe worthy going by the trailers.

The same thing that happened the thousand other times that happened. Very little.

GTA still exists despite people accusing it of causing shootings, why will any other game be different. Sure this game is more violent than GTA and has a much darker tone and subject matter, but why does that mean campaigns against games will be any more effective? If anything it proves that games are a diverse art form and it is illogical to lump them all together.

I wish people (well, at least an organism) like the TC would wait until the game is actually released and reviewed. It might be good, might be bad. Most likely mediocre. I give absolutely zero f*cks about the controversy.

Game design. Video "game". That is what it is. A videogame is a game, not a book or film. Never heard of Deus Ex being credited as the best videogames of all time. Tetris is one of the best videogames of all time. Strip most modern games to their actual player to screen connection and they actually rather bad.

Whether or not I like Jackson Pollock does not factor into the equation. A good painting goes beyond subject matter.

So you won't play GTA or Bully? You're missing out.

Seriously, when you market a game entirely on the "controversy" it's going to cause, the signal that sends me is that the actual gameplay will be shit.

Dont give an F what theyll write or what people think ... im buying this and ill decide myself if its any good or not.

How is it a straw man argument? Someone didn't play GTA....

Why is it okay to shoot helpless bank tellers in GTA V, as an objective? That's not tasteless?

The difference between GTA V and Hatred is that GTA V is popular, and Hatred isn't. Everyone who makes the argument you're trying to make are being dumb hypocrites, I'm sorry. Anyone who played GTA V has already committed a million virtual atrocities towards innocents. Hatred really isn't anything new. Please stop pretending it is.

The backlash against GTA was much larger than that of Hatred, and was the primary tool of an infamous lawyer who attempted to create laws banning violence in video games. So if you apparently won't support a game if it creates ammo for crazy people to abolish games, then how come you support a game that is more responsible than any other game for helping fuel those dumb arguments?

And how is that even relevant? Do I really need to remind you of what you said?

Basically what I'm getting at is I personally will not support a video game that will provide the propper ammo to the people who would see this hobby of ours abolished. I won't do it. Neither should you.

Are you completely oblivious to the controversy surrounding the GTA series? Even if you don't kill any civilians you have to kill cops, and are you really going to argue that killing cops is not bad? Sure you can argue that Hatred crosses the line while GTA merely sits on it, but where the line is drawn is subjective. The outrage about GTA is no less valid than the outrage against hatred. The only difference is where they draw the line.

Put it this way, if they stay away from the subject matter, the game will lose all of it's appeal. If the entire purpose of the game is violence, shouldn't the game be judged, considering the violence it contains? Personally, I don't see the harm in hurting pixel people, it is liberating and usually more preventative than provocative.

You can apply that to anything. Movies, music, even books. Get off your high horse and quit treating video games like they're anything more precious. Mark Chapman was inspired by "Catcher in the Rye," and he killed John Lennon.

John Lennon also inspired hippies to spit on war heroes who helped Vietnam become a better place, and he sung about peace.

Think about it.

I think it looks fun. One of the few PC games that has me interested. I'm hoping it comes to consoles as well but I'll probably buy it on PC first.

From a business perspective it makes perfect sense. Currently the media is full of recently out of university 20 something hipsters trying to stop woman from showing legs and being anything that can be construed as anything other than socially equal. .

Annoy them, free advertizing. Money bags.

That's weird. How did you skip the entire intro of the game where you're forced to murder dozens of innocent people? There's nothing wrong with that?

@Motokid6 said:

@uninspiredcup said:

@Motokid6 said:

@clone01: So you support devs who are purposely trying to cause trouble and controversy in video games? Not trying... Depending on it. I don't. Simple as that.

From a business perspective it makes perfect sense. Currently the media is full of recently out of university 20 something hipsters trying to stop woman from showing legs and being anything that can be construed as anything other than socially equal. .

Annoy them, free advertizing. Money bags.

But I'm right.

According to the developers, Hatred is a response to political correctness in gaming. “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,” read the initial press release. “Something different, something that could give the player a pure, gaming pleasure.“

"Many can call us 'attention whores,'" Zielinski continued. "Well, we try to get world's attention to our product and as you can see — it worked perfectly. ... We wish to thank all of our haters and all upset press for a great marketing campaign they've done for us.

It all depends on if there is a game, not just subject matter to be reviewed. At this stage, it doesn't look like much of a game.

Looks like a game designed solely for controversy made by neo-nazis so it'll get treated as "fairly" as it deserves. In any case it looks pretty damn bad.

Day 1 purchase for me. I think it will get 7 or 8 on GS if reviewed.

Why are they scumbags? What they're doing isn't even shocking. They're remaking a game that has already done before multiple times. You're the ones giving them attention by pretending this game is anything shocking compared to what we've already been playing as gamers. It's not their fault you guys aren't tuned into what's going on in gaming. You're practically soccer moms. "Shock value" has always been a part of gaming. Mortal Kombat, GTA, Manhunt, Postal, etc. all became hugely popular for pushing the boundaries of what we considered to be normal in a videogame.

Given the standards already set...Hatred isn't even pushing any boundaries. It's just Postal, but with better graphics. Remind me...why should anyone give a shit?

Don't those two underlined contradict one another? You want the game cancelled, but you're against censorship? Or am I misunderstanding you?

If someone decides to go on a shooting rampage, they were obviously so fucked up in the head LONG before Hatred even entered the picture, and rest assured, with Hatred out of it it their actions still would've occurred eventually. Be it by the shunning of friends, the cold shoulder of a girl they were interested in, not taking their meds and not seeking professional help, and a thousand other combinations going through a sick person's mind, it would've happened.

Are people really so simplistic that they believe that Hatred can turn some totally normal, Mr Rodgers whistling dixie into a raving, mass murdering lunatic after powering Hatred up and giving it a whirl? This is how the media portrays it. It's used solely as a scapegoat without taking into numerous other underlying contributory variables that hold much more relevance as to why someone acted that way. Again, if something like Hatred makes someone take such an action they have to already be very mentally unstable and again, if it didn't do it, something else would've. These people are ticking time bombs with triggers in the world all over the place.

I may be seen as a dick for saying this, but personally I place far more high a value on the principle of free speech and no censorship (with precautionary measures put in place the best they can) and am willing to see these terrible atrocities as the necessary cost to be burdened to live in such a democracy, rather than live in a state of totalitarianism that tells me what I can and cannot partake just to safeguard the relatively few from an unfortunate fate. I don't want a founding principle of this country to be compromised, and I am very grateful there are people in our government who understand that that principle far transcends what Hatred represents and needs to be protected, even if the blood of innocents flows upon it from time to time.