Will Hatred get unfairly treated?

I really don't get how this game is considered very shocking at all. I have seen gameplay videos of this game and it's not the worst thing ever made I mean there are other video games that are more shocking this and even they don't offend me at all. And the fact that it got a AO rating is also a joke it's not that gory I mean other games such as Mortal Kombat or Soldier Of Fortune are way more gory then this game and they got a Mature rating so why does this game get a AO. Many games have you kill civilians so what makes Hatred the worst of the worst then?

Check out this gameplay video where this person makes a good point about this "so called controversial game"

No it's really f'ed up.

I hope it fails in both critical reception and in sales.

sigh... I know Game of Thrones I've read the books actually way before you were born with the knowledge of the TV series. I knew you will eventually mention niche Japanese games that don't even feature realistic graphics just anime shit. I'm not claiming a ban. I should have rephrased what I said. I was saying people won't allow that kind of game I was talking about even game designers. And the people you talk about hailing the rapists? Are they the majority? I'm talking about cultural wide phenomena like GTA. You're always spouting niche audiences.

Instead of tackling my argument that movies, books, etc. don't require participation you're just singling out the "video games are special" statement. It's clear you have nothing to go against my argument. Persuade me that you can play a video game with just watching or reading something. lol Can it be called a video game? Blinding yourself from this fact lol

BTW, I don't even know what being a puritan is as I'm not a Westerner.

it'll get 11/10

Is it though?

oh look, turns out it is a shitty game, no surprises there.

Game is completely banking on its controversy for sales.

First paragraph: The fact that it has a niche audience means people, including game designers, allow it to exist. And yes, Jaime is incredibly popular among both fans of the series and fans of the show.

Second paragraph: I am not claiming that video games are not interactive, I am claiming that video games don't need special prohibitions placed on them because they are interactive.

Finally: If you are rolling back the ban claim, there isn't much reason for the debate to continue, is there?

Total biscuit's video pretty much confirms my expectations of this game. It's a competent but not great twin-stick shooter. It has nice aesthetics and cool destruction, and isn't overly shocking beyond what we've already seen a million times. Yet again it's just the gaming media showing yet again it's THEM who need to grow up and get past these imagined controversies and stop trying to preach their shoddy and inconsistent morals.

Some people in this thread are big time hypocrites. Hating on this but you lot will quite happily praise GTA (another murder sim) to high heaven.

Case in point.

The game is average on all accounts. The gameplay is average, the graphics is average, and even the amount of violence is average. Indeed, the violence in all other AO games are significantly worse than Hatred, and even many M games are more violent (i.e. GTA).

Thanks to media clickbait shitstorming, Hatred has so much more publicity than it ever deserves and will sell through the roof of the studio's initial projections.

Super Columbine RPG had way below average violence, it was even made in RPG maker. That didn't prevent their being outcry against that.

Why is it so hard to understand that there is more to it than just simply what has more gallons of blood on screen?

@uninspiredcup: i doubt it, seeing how the journalism state currently is withing the industry

Reviews are allowed to judge subject matter. It's up to the reviewer. If you don't like that kind of review, move on to another. I'm sure some people out there will appreciate these kinds of reviews. Just because you don't like that style doesn't mean everyone shouldn't do it.

@toast_burner: Don't confuse clickbaiting journalism with outcry (public disapproval). From both perspectives of violence and subject matter, I have found a lot more M-rated games more capable of offence than Hatred. I mean, GTA 5 even had full-blown torture gameplay where you use adrenaline shot to keep your victim from dying too quickly.

There is no outcry against Hatred, since it doesn't even have enough offensive content to generate one. However, it was a nice target for bored journalists, and as a result Hatred got a truckload of free advertising.

People were getting offended by this before the click bait articles. Why is it so hard to accept that not everybody's idea of what's acceptable and what's not may be different to yours? Just because you aren't offended does not mean it can't be offensive to anyone else. I don't find it offensive but I can see why some people will, just like how I can see how some people will find GTA offensive or Super Columbine RPG offensive.

Why don't you get off your high horse and look at things from other peoples perspective?

Can people please stop saying it has an AO rating? That's not true, the ESRB hasn't rated it yet.

@Aljosa23: haven't they? Long ago I thought.

Nope. The developers just put an AO rating on their site for marketing reasons I assume. If you search Hatred on ESRB.com it yields no returns.

@toast_burner: So... elucidate your thoughts. What exactly do you find Hatred offensive? It would also be helpful if you provide some other comparable games which you find offensive in the same way.

I thought I would find the game offensive, then I played it and find it to be a specimen of "average".

I don't find it offensive but clearly some people do. There can be multiple reason as to why, maybe they had friends or family killed by a spree killer, maybe they just don't like the idea of innocent people dying even if fictional. There reasons aren't even relevant, the fact is that some people find it offensive and if they want to think it's offensive then they are just as entitled to do so as you and I are to think it's not offensive.

Like I said before Super Columbine RPG is not very violent yet is often listed as one of the most offensive games ever made. Surely you can see why? So why can't you see it with this? Obviously something that covers a subject as sensitive as spree killing is going to offend people.

I don't care about the subject matter. I would play a game where you're a terrorist whose job is to blow up bunch of kids, if it has interesting gameplay. I don't care about bunch of random pixels on the screen. They're not humans and never were. I can tell the difference, but sometimes I feel that the people who take offence in these kind of games, can't tell the difference.

Yes, people are allowed to be offended for any reason they want. Similarly, people are allowed to think other people are getting offended for stupid reasons, or venting faux outrage because they want to feel morally superior to something absent justification, for any reason they want.

I mean come on, if someone really has a problem with spree killing video games, maybe they should stop searching for spree killing games in obscure locations, and then maybe try to avoid spreading it's name everywhere ensuring it gets a much publicity as possible...? At the end of the day everything people are saying about this game was said about the original GTA. It isn't like this tactic is even secret. Straight from the wikia:

Controversy

The game, with its violent subject matter, generated a great deal of controversy. However, this was deemed to be intentional, and was the first game known to have been publicized in such a way. Take-Two Interactive, the publishers of Grand Theft Auto, hired publicist Max Clifford to generate an aura of controversy about the game in the local media. As a result, politicians stepped into the fray. Whatever the impact on game censorship and the perception of video gaming, the publicity worked - the title was hugely successful simply because those attempting to ban the game were inadvertently generating publicity for it. This has been a known and recognized phenomenon of violent video games ever since its release.

And yeah, GTA had you killing tons and tons of innocent civilians. Running them over in huge chains was a great way to earn the points needed to progress.

only because the devs were told they would get an AO rating, so they did not submit it.

Which is funny because Twitch banned AO games with the intention of banning Hatred but since the game was "not rated" they had to make a list of games to ban and they put it there.

No, big difference.

GTA has more of a comical feel to it.

This feels more like Columbine.

@MakeMeaSammitch: Fucking bullshit and you know it. So you're telling me that killing in GTA is all fine and dandy because everything is bright and colourful yet because Hatred has a gritty Noire theme its bad?

You can play GTAV as the same thing. We all have done it.

That's an over simplification, but yes, Hatred is a much darker creepier murder sim.

I can't see anybody buying this but weirdos.

So don't pay a bunch of money to play it. Doesn't mean others should not enjoy it, or that the game should be specially restricted in any way. People say GTA V feels like an excuse to abuse women who are already downtrodden. You say it feels like a comedy. Neither of you are right, neither of you are wrong. It would however be wrong to kick GTA V from marketplaces, ban it from stores, ban it from streaming services and so forth because some people feel like it is an excuse to abuse women, kill cops, run down the innocent, and in general rampage over a city so helpless it can't even keep a criminal in jail.

If you think Hatred is far worse then GTA V then that is cool. The folks who disagree hold your perspective in the exact same regard as you give those who sign petitions to ban GTA.

@kittennose: Well said. Exactly correct.

Watched the total biscuit's preview of this game. I seriously don't get the controversy around this game. I saw Danny playing postal earlier and this game way too similar to postal. Its just like a remake of postal with modern graphics.

"Over simplification? Dude stop with the BS. The only difference between murdering someone in GTA and someone in Hatred is the colour scheme. I can walk around Downtown LS carrying a hatchet looking for fat people to kill if I want, tell me how GTA is different from Hatred.

I think you need to be pretty creepy to enjoy someting like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT0-OL_71yU Like I said there's a big difference between this and other violent games.

If you can't tell the difference, then I assume you fall into the category of "weirdos".

You're the one saying they are different, I want to know what the differences is between them are... come on, we're waiting...

I see no difference and thats why I'm wanting to know why GTA gets a free pass as where as this has been thrown to the dogs. This is not a case of which game is better. The premise of both games are the same, you murder people.

Honestly not trolling, but outside of the developer's mission statement how is this different from walking down the street in GTA and shooting people as they run away screaming "help me"? Yes you're given the freedom to choose not to do it in GTA, but most people do it without a blink of an eye. I'm not saying Destructive Creations made a quality product, but I think at times we give current industry standards a little too much credit, or try to rationalize why something that isn't inherently different is to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Good fucking lord! "GTA is not a murder sim".. I've some shit in my time but **** me this takes the biscuit. What is the main premise of GTA? Killing people and stealing cars.... What is the main premise of Hatred? Killing people and blowing up cars... They are the fucking same and if you can't see that then you are beyond help.

As for bringing up GTA, I can replace that with Saints Row, Sleeping Dogs, hell even Crackdown...

Oh no I'll definitely be the first to compare the gameplay in Hatred to Hotline Miami. I think it's a shitty Hotline Miami clone. I don't understand why were only talking about Hatred and trying to shelter all our other violent video games as being exempt from this commentary.

The premise of GTA is not to murder people. You CAN murder people but that is not the premise. The premise is to work your way through a criminal underworld or strike it rich. In the course of doing that, you do end up murdering people. But that is different than Hatred whose premise is indeed to murder innocent people. You can go through most GTA games without killing innocent civilians (tho I will submit that you cannot beat a GTA game without killing cops; that being said, it makes sense since you're a criminal). Not to mention that GTA IV attempts to have a conscience. I know that's just one game and it's debatable whether the game was successful at that, but anybody says with a straight face that GTA IV and Hatred operate in the same "spirit" is deluding themselves.

You're making a pretty big assumption here. I play through GTA games (not so much out of moral righteousness; just not interested. I play GTA for the missions and to cruise around R*'s intensely atmospheric cities) and never kill civilians and I know other people who also don't kill civilians.

That you're given the option not to murder is a fundamentally important difference. It has everything to do with GTA being a crime simulator (tho it's not realistic enough to be a simulator, I'll use the term) and Hatred being a murder simulator. In GTA, the option to kill civilians is a way to make the living breathing world more believable. In Hatred, it is the premise of the game.

Not to be rude, but I can't for the life of me understand why some of you are not seeing this distinction.

They don't operate in the same spirit, but you're still able to gun down innocents while they scream for mercy and run away in GTA.

You can do the same thing in Red Dead Redemption as well yet I don't think anybody would compare that to Hatred because the premise of RDR is to create sphaghetti Westerns and the option to kill people is simply part of making a convincing world. It's much the case with GTA, though GTA does try to be more "shocking" than RDR does. Still, GTA is not going for the premise or atmosphere that Hatred is, which is why people won't look at you funny when you say you play GTA but would if you said you play Hatred.

Comparing Hatred with Crackdown is downright loony IMO.

Again, you are pretending very different games are the same without acknowledging big differences in context and intent.

Well, to be fair, gamers are just as capable of being as hardheaded, stubborn, and dense as anybody else.

I'd guess the desire to defend it comes out of a misguided war against political correctness and an anxiety on part of the people that enjoy stuff like Hatred but feel the need to justify it by disingenuously comparing it to titles that have garnered mainstream acceptance.

I think this is the true controversy. I think everyone is trying to feign shock and disgust because this game is about a topic that has been known to blame video games for everything. I'm not defending Hatred. I think it's an obnoxious rouse of a game that's playing off prior controversy to sell copies; however, I think the community and industry as a whole is scorning this game but refusing to reflect about current trends in violence in video game culture. As we've gotten closer to release and more footage as been released of people playing the game, there really hasn't been anything shocking in the footage other than mowing down a crowd of people. It's not even a novel concept in the medium. I think the violence in The Last of Us and Hotline Miami is much more grotesque than Hatred, and there deserves to be enlightening conversation about those games and their use of violence. Yes, the concept of Hatred is terrible, but the execution of the game is extremely bland. It's a bland game in all aspects that's getting coverage because the developer knows how to pull strings and make people defensive about something they cherish. They played us off the fear that the media will attack the community using this game as evidence during the next incident. They played us off the idea that this was one of the few ESRB games to be rated AO due to violence although now there is no information of the rating. They played us off announcing this game during the controversy within the industry that was happening late last year.