Hatred Reveal Trailer Released, Causes a Stir

[LightyKD]

This game goes too fucking far! Captain Picard says it best!



Sure you can mow down innocents in GTA but THAT is NOT the point of the game, For this Hatred game, the point IS to hurt innocent people and YES we don't need people getting silly ass ideas. This shit and those stupid ass Purge movies are pure garbage, filth and does nothing to add any value to the entertainment industry. THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE! And yes, this game crosses the fucking line!

 

[Foxi4]

This game goes too fucking far! Captain Picard says it best! Sure you can mow down innocents in GTA but THAT is NOT the point of the game, For this Hatred game, the point IS to hurt innocent people and YES we don't need people getting silly ass ideas. This shit and those stupid ass Purge movies are pure garbage, filth and does nothing to add any value to the entertainment industry. THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE! And yes, this game crosses the fucking line!

I see that you're from the "I don't like it so it's not okay" school of thinking - and there I thought people had freedom of artistic expression. The devs aren't hurting anybody in real life, it's just pixels shooting pixels at other pixels.

 

[Edgarska]

Sure you can mow down innocents in GTA but THAT is NOT the point of the game, For this Hatred game, the point IS to hurt innocent people and YES we don't need people getting silly ass ideas. This shit and those stupid ass Purge movies are pure garbage, filth and does nothing to add any value to the entertainment industry. THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE! And yes, this game crosses the fucking line!

But in those other games, you actually have to go out of the way to kill innocent civilians. Isn't that worse?

 

[LightyKD]

I see that you're from the "I don't like it so it's not okay" school of thinking - and there I thought people had freedom of artistic expression. The devs aren't hurting anybody in real life, it's just pixels shooting pixels at other pixels.

There are a lot of things in life I don't like but I don't judge because I get the concept that everyone is different but, THIS SHIT goes beyond that and becomes a public concern. When you have things that are damaging to the public, there is cause for concern. Humanity is already sick enough as is, and we already have a lot of growing pains to deal with as we move through the 21st century. Crap like this is only a step backwards.

 

[Foxi4]

But in those other games, you actually have to go out of the way to kill innocent civilians. Isn't that worse?

Exactly. In GTA, you make the conscious choice to walk up to someone and shoot him/her in the face and the game rewards you for doing so by making the civilian character (that posed no threat to you whatsoever) drop cash. You're actively incentivized to do so - you don't have to, but you can and it's worth it, so you do it anyways.

There are a lot of things in life I don't like but I don't judge because I get the concept that everyone is different but, THIS SHIT goes beyond that and becomes a public concern. When you have things that are damaging to the public, there is cause for concern. Humanity is already sick enough as is, and we already have a lot of growing pains to deal with as we move through the 21st century. Crap like this is only a step backwards.

"I'm not one to judge, but xyz" is a logical fallacy. Either you're judgemental or you're not.

 

[LightyKD]

Look people, grow up and stop defending this shit. You all know it's fucking sick and pointless. It will only serve to give gaming a even worse reputation and we seriously don't need that.

 

[Foxi4]

Look people, grow up and stop defending this shit. You all know it's fucking sick and pointless. It will only serve to give gaming a even worse reputation and we seriously don't need that.

We don't share a common moral compass y'know - to me this is completely harmless and victimless. I don't feel sorry for a bunch of pixels killed in a completely virtual environment, there's no equating this to a real life problem. I'm not saying this isn't shlock, I'm saying it's completely harmless.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

Look people, grow up and stop defending this shit. You all know it's fucking sick and pointless. It will only serve to give gaming a even worse reputation and we seriously don't need that.

This is like a bird's eye view of Rockstar's Manhunt in a perspective.

People love and defend games such as GTA, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Halo, Gears of War and etc so this really isn't that much different. It's a game you kill people.

 

[Hyro-Sama]

Lately? You mean the site wasn't awful at some undisclosed point in time?

Wasn't neogaf the "it" spot for insider gamer information and thus extremely well-respected? Granted, I haven't ventured very far myself so I wouldn't know. It's just what I see others proclaim about the forums.

 

[Foxi4]

Wasn't neogaf the "it" spot for insider gamer information and thus extremely well-respected? Granted, I haven't ventured very far myself so I wouldn't know. It's just what I see others proclaim about the forums.

It was popular, so it became a magnet for insiders and industry people, but it was always filled with morons, just like the rest of the internet - it was just a whole lot of very vocal morons. You know the laws of the universe - the higher the mass the stronger the gravity.

 

[FAST6191]

I was always under the impression that neogaf was tolerated in the same way that the guy down the pub that always has something that fell off the back of a lorry.

Anyway I just just got done listening to a radio show as I read a comic, now I will go read catcher in the rye as I listen to my heavy metal and rap music playlist, hopefully I will still be awake to IM my online friends as part of their dungeons and dragons game.

 

[Densetsu]

Why is it that games like RapeLay and Ethnic Cleansing are condemned by the vast majority of gamers, but when a game like Hatred comes along, it's fine by most people?

Most of the games that I play involve plenty of killing, but the kills are (mostly) justified. In Resident Evil, you're killing things that are trying to kill you. In The Last of Us, you kill to survive. In Metal Gear Solid, you're killing to prevent political disasters and save the world. In Hatred, the entire point is to kill as many innocent people as possible, and the developers even go out of their way to show the fear and suffering of the victims as they let out a visceral groan of pain as they're being stabbed multiple times in the chest, or plead for their lives before being brutally executed.

I just have to wonder, where do we draw the line on what is considered acceptable for a game? Mass genocide isn't any more acceptable than rape and racism (crimes which, by the way, do not even necessarily involve killing the victims). My guess is that the issue with RapeLay and Ethnic Cleansing, is that they are targeting only specific groups of people (women and minorities, respectively), whereas Hatred does not discriminate? So is killing ok as long as it's not a targeted killing? We wouldn't bat an eye at senseless killing, but if someone engages in a natural, biological act with a non-consenting woman or calls a black person the n-word, suddenly he's the epitome of evil.

What if an Al-Qaeda simulator/RTS were released, where you play a terrorist mastermind modeled after Osama Bin Laden and you had to use your resources to recruit children, train them, buy weapons and airplanes to wage war on "infidels?" Would that be an acceptable game?

Just playing devil's advocate, here. Personally, I wouldn't mind checking this game out once it's released, but I can see where other people are coming from when they oppose this game. I just think there has to be a stronger defense for this game than "it's just pixels." I certainly wouldn't use that argument against, say, the families of the victims of the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

What if an Al-Qaeda simulator/RTS were released, where you play a terrorist mastermind modeled after Osama Bin Laden and you had to use your resources to recruit children, train them, buy weapons and airplanes to wage war on "infidels?" Would that be an acceptable game?

Depends on the character development, storytelling and voice acting as well as the gameplay mechanics, of course.

It's weird how people here feel offended by this game and yet go and play GTA to kill innocent people whether by running them over or shooting them plus hookers too.

 

[FAST6191]

Why is it that games like RapeLay and Ethnic Cleansing are condemned by the vast majority of gamers, but when a game like Hatred comes along, it's fine by most people?

Most of the games that I play involve plenty of killing, but the kills are (mostly) justified. In Resident Evil, you're killing things that are trying to kill you. In The Last of Us, you kill to survive. In Metal Gear Solid, you're killing to prevent political disasters and save the world. In Hatred, the entire point is to kill as many innocent people as possible, and the developers even go out of their way to show the fear and suffering of the victims as they let out a visceral groan of pain as they're being stabbed multiple times in the chest, or plead for their lives before being brutally executed.

I just have to wonder, where do we draw the line on what is considered acceptable for a game? Mass genocide isn't any more acceptable than rape and racism (crimes which, by the way, do not even necessarily involve killing the victims). My guess is that the issue with RapeLay and Ethnic Cleansing, is that they are targeting only specific groups of people (women and minorities, respectively), whereas Hatred does not discriminate? So is killing ok as long as it's not a targeted killing? We wouldn't bat an eye at senseless killing, but if someone engages in a natural, biological act with a non-consenting woman or calls a black person the n-word, suddenly he's the epitome of evil.

What if an Al-Qaeda simulator/RTS were released, where you play a terrorist mastermind modeled after Osama Bin Laden and you had to use your resources to recruit children, train them, buy weapons and airplanes to wage war on "infidels?" Would that be an acceptable game?

Just playing devil's advocate, here. Personally, I wouldn't mind checking this game out once it's released, but I can see where other people are coming from when they oppose this game. I just think there has to be a stronger defense for this game than "it's just pixels." I certainly wouldn't use that argument against, say, the families of the victims of the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings.

What would make it invalid to use against such people? Perhaps it might be insensitive but I would still argue that is more in the general sense.

Similarly
http://www.infectonator.com/ ?

 

[Densetsu]

What would make it invalid to use against such people? Perhaps it might be insensitive but I would still argue that is more in the general sense.

So are video games that glorify rape considered ok because they're "just games" and "not real?"

I'm asking, "where is it ok to draw the line" as to what is considered acceptable and not acceptable in video games? Admittedly, I have no answer for that question myself, but I'm curious to hear other opinions.

"It's just a game" doesn't make for a strong argument. I want to understand the line of thinking behind what makes people consider certain violent acts in video games "acceptable" and others "not acceptable." I don't know, maybe my question is out of the scope of this discussion.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

There are people who enjoy the rape games and that doesn't make them bad people by any stretch, it's not worse than those who play games about murdering/torturing people, so just deal with it as these games are for the sole purpose of being fun and something you wouldn't do in real life.

I find it fun to crash planes on buildings or bomb cars but would I do it IRL? No.

 

[Haterbait]

Can we have a poll to see how many people are OK with this type of game and which ones aren't? That way I can then formulate my own opinion based on the results. The only alternative, I suppose, would be to somehow cobble together an opinion of my own based upon how I actually, truly feel. That doesn't always seem to go over to well with certain folks though.

 

[Ryukouki]

So are video games that glorify rape considered ok because they're "just games" and "not real?"

I'm asking, "where is it ok to draw the line" as to what is considered acceptable and not acceptable in video games? Admittedly, I have no answer for that question myself, but I'm curious to hear other opinions.

"It's just a game" doesn't make for a strong argument. I want to understand the line of thinking behind what makes people consider certain violent acts in video games "acceptable" and others "not acceptable." I don't know, maybe my question is out of the scope of this discussion.

Denny-kun that sounds like a kind of question I would ask in an article.

 

[FAST6191]

I'm asking, "where is it ok to draw the line" as to what is considered acceptable and not acceptable in video games? Admittedly, I have no answer for that question myself, but I'm curious to hear other opinions.

Do computer games or games in general have any notable differences, as far as this debate is concerned anyway, when compared to other means of information conveyance commonly used as entertainment? I am really not a fan of censorship and about the only times I would probably consider something would be if it taught things that could readily be adapted into something of mass non specific casualties in the present or near future -- it always amuses me when they block the making of thermite on TV for instance, though other things might be harder to consider as lab/high end machine shop grade gear makes it further than it once did. Otherwise it is probably the old "I may not care for what you but the option to be able to say it is one I will argue for" bit.

On the glorification thing I am still not convinced this game is a glorification of mindless violence, as such the other stuff, if not covered by the above, would then back in the abstract.

 

[Foxi4]

So are video games that glorify rape considered ok because they're "just games" and "not real?" I'm asking, "where is it ok to draw the line" as to what is considered acceptable and not acceptable in video games? Admittedly, I have no answer for that question myself, but I'm curious to hear other opinions. "It's just a game" doesn't make for a strong argument. I want to understand the line of thinking behind what makes people consider certain violent acts in video games "acceptable" and others "not acceptable." I don't know, maybe my question is out of the scope of this discussion.

Here's how I see it. Those are completely virtual scenarios - no one gets hurt in the process, ergo they're completely harmless. I don't see why a violent game or a game that depicts an illegal activity should be frowned upon more so than movies or books depicting the exact same thing, this is a matter of freedom of expression. Enjoying video games depicting murder is not equivalent to a crime in real life, and arguing otherwise is dangerously close to pulling the thought crime card.

If I were to say where the line is, I'd say it's wherever you want it to be. Nobody's forcing those things down your gullet, y'know - vote with your wallet. If there's a market for games like Hatered, games like Hatered will be made. If there's a market for games like RapeLay, games like RapeLay will be made. It's really that simple and no different than exploitation cinema, for instance.

I often hear that games like this might inspire people to carry out their wicked fantasies in the real world, and I have a problem with that line of thinking. If a video game is all it takes for someone's brain to snap and go on a killing rampage or get out there and rape someone, that person should already be in a closed institution as-is. There's always going to be black sheep in the herd and there'll always be triggers that make those black sheep snap, but I don't think we should live in fear that we might upset the insane minority. Most people out there are sensible enough and distinguish between reality and fiction, why would games be exempted from the same artistic freedoms cinema, literature and even music have enjoyed for centuries?

The argument that a given game is is a distasteful glorification of something negative is invalid at its core, especially if you abstract the problem. I for instance don't like olives - I think a misplaced olive can spoil the whole meal, they're disgusting, but I'm not going to push for a global ban on olives because I'm well-aware of the fact that lots of people enjoy olives. I won't ever eat olives, but I won't work towards depriving other people of the right to enjoy them. Gamers enjoy violent video games, it is legal to publish violent video games and regardless of whether I find a given violent game appealing or not, that game has a right to exist on the market.

 

[Densetsu]

There are people who enjoy the rape games and that doesn't make them bad people by any stretch, it's not worse than those who play games about murdering/torturing people, so just deal with it as these games are for the sole purpose of being fun and something you wouldn't do in real life.

I find it fun to crash planes on buildings or bomb cars but would I do it IRL? No.

Let's take it a bit further, then. Would you condone a game that involved child pornography? Perhaps you wouldn't enjoy a game like that, but what if something like that were accessible to people who do enjoy that kind of material? Would still you say "let them enjoy it if that's what they like?"

Can we have a poll to see how many people are OK with this type of game and which ones aren't? That way I can then formulate my own opinion based on the results. The only alternative, I suppose, would be to somehow cobble together an opinion of my own based upon how I actually, truly feel. That doesn't always seem to go over to well with certain folks though.

I'm not sure that it's possible to add a poll without creating a new thread, unless one of the supervisors can do it.

p1ngpong?
raulpica?

I am really not a fan of censorship and about the only times I would probably consider something would be if it taught things that could readily be adapted into something of mass non specific casualties in the present or near future -- it always amuses me when they block the making of thermite on TV for instance, though other things might be harder to consider as lab/high end machine shop grade gear makes it further than it once did. Otherwise it is probably the old "I may not care for what you but the option to be able to say it is one I will argue for" bit.

I can respect that.

Here's how I see it. Those are completely virtual scenarios - no one gets hurt in the process, ergo they're completely harmless. I don't see why a violent game or a game that depicts an illegal activity should be frowned upon more so than movies or books depicting the exact same thing, this is a matter of freedom of expression. Enjoying video games depicting murder is not equivalent to a crime in real life, and arguing otherwise is dangerously close to pulling the thought crime card.

If I were to say where the line is, I'd say it's wherever you want it to be. Nobody's forcing those things down your gullet, y'know - vote with your wallet. If there's a market for games like Hatered, games like Hatered will be made. If there's a market for games like RapeLay, games like RapeLay will be made. It's really that simple and no different than exploitation cinema, for instance.

I often hear that games like this might inspire people to carry out their wicked fantasies in the real world, and I have a problem with that line of thinking. If a video game is all it takes for someone's brain to snap and go on a killing rampage or get out there and rape someone, that person should already be in a closed institution as-is. There's always going to be black sheep in the herd and there'll always be triggers that make those black sheep snap, but I don't think we should live in fear that we might upset the insane minority. Most people out there are sensible enough and distinguish between reality and fiction, why would games be exempted from the same artistic freedoms cinema, literature and even music have enjoyed for centuries?

I'm aware that these issues have been tackled in movies and books for a long time, and I agree with you--why shouldn't they be addressed in video games?

Among other factors, I think video games get the shaft when it comes to censorship because of the word "game." So people view it as a "plaything," and by extension, whether they realize it or not, they subconsciously associate playthings as being "for kids." The word "game" really holds the medium back in terms of what kind of material people are willing to address in that medium. The general public is of the opinion that "[insert controversial topic here] does not belong in games!"

I think "video games" as a concept has evolved far beyond being "just a game," and "video games" as we know them should probably be called something else at this point. But due to convention, the name will probably stick for the forseeable future.

The argument that a given game is is a distasteful glorification of something negative is invalid at its core, especially if you abstract the problem. I for instance don't like olives - I think a misplaced olive can spoil the whole meal, they're disgusting, but I'm not going to push for a global ban on olives because I'm well-aware of the fact that lots of people enjoy olives. I won't ever eat olives, but I won't work towards depriving other people of the right to enjoy them. Gamers enjoy violent video games, it is legal to publish violent video games and regardless of whether I find a given violent game appealing or not, that game has a right to exist on the market.

But you're comparing olives to something much worse. There's nothing controversial about olives. If you hate them, that's a harmless personal preference. But murder is universally viewed as a heinous act against humanity. I'd question the soundness of someone's psychological profile if they enjoyed killing. For example, if I met a cop who "enjoyed" killing bad people, I don't think that's someone I'd want to be friends with.

But I get your point. I don't disagree with you that violent games have a right to be on the market.