next »

[Faust06]

i think it's a more honest version of most violent games, where they try to pretend the zombies or whatever that you are killing would kill you if you didn't mow them down violently first, and that they have no feelings and their entire life's purpose is to be shot by the player. if anything i think it's a positive step for the legitimacy of games, i wish more violent games would be as honest about what they are really about

i think that as an aside actually *is* why it's controversial; if it were a white guy killing brown people nobody would even get offended by this game, or notice it

Er, well all scenarios are 'pretend', I'm not sure how mowing down zombies, depicted as non-human, is disingenuous whether they mow you down or not (they do), let alone how pegging imaginary targets as innocent people makes shooting them honest. It's a fabricated motivation if that's what you mean, but that isn't a problem, just the opposite. A comparison with games in which the player has the option to kill designated innocents makes more sense because people seem to have a vastly different response to games that don't deliberately tell you to be more of a psychopath but still reward you for it. There are even accompanying dialogue options in some cases (Fallout NV) and nobody cares. But with the stage set with a scenario where the entire purpose is to kill innocents, suddenly it's too much, in spite of the fact that it's not a huge leap from one to the other. So that aspect I could agree is a wake-up call that we've already legitimatized this game before it existed.

As for killing brown people, I think this was argued about Soldier of Fortune or some game like that. I haven't heard of games where your task is "kill them, because they're brown" really. Games like Max Payne 3 for instance just change the backdrop and keep the same premise of shooting gangsters. Problem is the hero is always white. Retroactively, no one would argue that Sleeping Dogs would be better with a caucasian playing the lead, but in pre-production I'm sure they actually have these conversations. It's weird.

People say that its no different from violent games, but violent games are generally ironic in their violence. I rarely seen violence being celebrated, more laughted at or supposed to be horrific.

I think it's just the opposite.

For me Hatred is the kind of game I don't exactly want to play, but I'm happy that it exists because it is the catalyst of a conversation about video games that I think is worth having. Does a game like this encourage or celebrate real-world violence? Is it fundamentally different from other highly violent games, or other games where you play as a villainous character?

The gameplay itself looks dull to me, at least judging by what I've seen of it so far, but I'm looking at how people react to the game with great interest.

Agreed on all points, though I'd hesitate to say I'm glad it exists.

It's quite possible to fight against destructive religions (like Christianity and Islam) while treating the adherents with respect.

It's also possible without respecting their beliefs, proper.

But it's currently very hard to do with Islam -- it usually ends up doing more harm than good. Because racists and xenophobes will co-opt the criticism and use it to fuel hate against the entire group, instead of treating it as an attempt to help those oppressed by the religion.

The racists will sing their tune anyway, whether you criticize Islam or not.

Like culture, religious doctrine/practice/beliefs can change albeit more slowly. It's not the case that Islam is inherently much more socially conservative and patriarchal than other religions, but the cultural climate, due to shit growth in infrastructure, economy and constant strife, is such that it's hard to move forward and in fact, things can move backwards. The world of Islam was once the most progressive. The laws for "not depicting idols" were only introduced in the 14-15th century, and the veil thing was tacked on later as well (according to Karen Armstrong's book Muhammad, they were a sign of high social class, as in visitors did not have the 'privilege' to gaze at Muhammad's wives). A richer Middle-East will make for a more positive climate. That said, Muslims living in the West don't materialize out of thin air - they're from oppressive countries, and hold on to some oppressive views, whether they act on them or not. And they don't vote Liberal, apparently. So Maher was a bit less than half-right, but I don't see it as a major concern. They'll be Westerners like anyone else.

[Dacke]

It's also possible without respecting their beliefs, proper.

Sure, isn't that what I said?

The racists will sing their tune anyway, whether you criticize Islam or not.

Sure, but that's not why we need to "hold back", so to speak. The problem is that we risk emphasizing the racist message, creating more othering and encouraging an atmosphere where racists can get away with more BS. It's like.. I'm sure there were jews who also happened to be bad people in Germany in the 1930s. But given the hateful climate, you would've had to been very careful in publicly putting focus on such individuals because of the volatile, racist atmosphere.

Obviously I'm not saying we shouldn't criticize Islam (I am right now, very blatantly). But because of the racism and growing post-fascism here in Europe we have to be careful in how we do it. For example, it's a good thing to often point out that the crap found in Islam can and could be found in Christianity throughout the ages (and in several non-religious ideologies, mind you).

[s0]

It's like.. I'm sure there were jews who also happened to be bad people in Germany in the 1930s. But given the hateful climate, you would've had to been very careful in publicly putting focus on such individuals because of the volatile, racist atmosphere.

this is actually part of the reason why criticism of israel is such a difficult and complicated matter

the analogy is a bit bad tho, because there are extremist islamic groups gaining power & influence right now, so its not just about who "happens to be a bad person".

[Tazi]

this hatred shit is hilarious

postal 1 without colors and dark humor, and with forced grittyness, what a great idea


how noone else thought about something great like this, i can't understand

but remember kids, this is just a game "don't try this at home", because that's the line I heared watching Jackass back in 2001

[Faust06]

Sure, isn't that what I said?

Not precisely, but I wasn't contradicting you.

[Netsu]

So if people try to get more support it's usually because they can't get jobs, not because of some nefarious plan to live in poverty using only child support.

In my country, if you're smart you can live much better from government support than from hard honest work. And in western European countries there is more support, not less (although the jobs are paid better too).

But I do agree with most of what you said. The only first hand example of Muslim assimilation I know of doesn't fit your view at all (his problem wasn't racism but the fact that he hated women), but maybe that's just an isolated case. I'd hope so.

[Dacke]

In my country, if you're smart you can live much better from government support than from hard honest work. And in western European countries there is more support, not less (although the jobs are paid better too).

But I do agree with most of what you said. The only first hand example of Muslim assimilation I know of doesn't fit your view at all (his problem wasn't racism but the fact that he hated women), but maybe that's just an isolated case. I'd hope so.

Are you sure about people getting rich on support, is it really a common occurrence among immigrants? Have you looked at proper statistics for Poland? (I haven't so I can't say if you're right or wrong). It is definitely not a common occurrence here in Sweden. Naturally some people will be able to cheat the system a bit, but seldom enough to get rich on it. Those people are usually not immigrants, since you need a pretty decent understanding of the system and the bureaucracy in order to cheat it. Much more money is lost to rich people and corporations who cheat on taxes.

Any big population will contain a significant percentage of terrible people (immigrant or not). People who have grown up in a strongly patriarchal society are more likely to have such terrible ideas. People who are poor and disenfranchised are more likely to isolate themselves, cheat the system and even become criminal. So no, that guy probably wasn't an isolated incident -- but I'm pretty sure he wasn't representative either. Most people would rather do right by themselves. Even more importantly, after a few generations the children will be pretty much fully integrated (apart from markers like skin color). At least if the immigrants are given a chance become part of the society, as with swedes and poles in the USA (who originally had separate villages, churches, petty criminality etc.)

My main message is that even if there are bad apples among immigrants (which there will be, because they're human), the way to fix that is to be inclusive. Either that, or give in to fear. Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hatred. Hatred leads to post-fascism.

[Netsu]

Are you sure about people getting rich on support, is it really a common occurrence among immigrants? Have you looked at proper statistics for Poland? (I haven't so I can't say if you're right or wrong). It is definitely not a common occurrence here in Sweden. Naturally some people will be able to cheat the system a bit, but seldom enough to get rich on it. Those people are usually not immigrants, since you need a pretty decent understanding of the system and the bureaucracy in order to cheat it. Much more money is lost to rich people and corporations who cheat on taxes.

I wasn't talking about immigrants, because we have very little of those here, but about native poles (which I think have a higher tendency for dishonesty than any immigrants we have tbh). And they don't get rich, they just get more money than they would from work. I don't have any statistics unfortunately, just stories.
I've heard from people in Norway that they go under a lot of scrutiny if they are to get help, to make sure they actually deserve it. Unfortunately in Poland, where bureaucracy creep is already disastrous, adding more of it would only make things worse.

But we're digressing from a digression, so yeah... you guys definitely changed my perspective on some things

[Dacke]

Wow, cool. People being able to change their minds in the middle of an argument is one of the most impressing and awe-inspiring things I know. I work a lot on that, trying to be open to new perspectives and being able to change my mind. But it's damn hard and usually takes ages. So kudos to you!

Here in Sweden we've also gotten stricter controls surrounding support. Which isn't necessarily a bad idea if it lets you give more support to the right people. But in practice it has had some very unfortunate side effects. One example: I know a couple of people who suffer from burnout and/or depressions. So they need support, obviously. But in order to get support, they need to do lots of work in order to prove they can't do any work. Catch 22.

[Nillo]

Looks like Hatred has its own store page now. Does that mean this is the first AO-rated game on Steam?

[Dragonmaw]

Yup. Problematic, given that AO games rated that way for sexuality aren't allowed on Steam. It's why devs of games like HuniePop added patches for nudity after release.

[Netsu]

God forbid those poor children see a nipple, that would spoil their feeble minds forever. Better give them games about sprees of brutal murders.

[~Tidal]

It shouldn't be allowed on steam because it is 14 y.o. edgy trash, not because it is violent.

[J-Snake]

Raising controversal content is an effective marketing tool, especially when you are a small dev with a constrained budget. That's all there is to the game. It's not about stretching the boundaries of any medium. It's not about exploring psychology and revealing valuable insights.

[Nillo]

Twitch adds a new rule that prohibits streaming AO-rated games a few days before the Hatred release date: http://blog.twitch.tv/2015/05/rules-of-conduct-update-adult-oriented-games/

[starsrift]

Twitch adds a new rule that prohibits streaming AO-rated games a few days before the Hatred release date: http://blog.twitch.tv/2015/05/rules-of-conduct-update-adult-oriented-games/

I expect that's going to have the reverse effect of its intent, at least as far as knee-jerkery towards Hatred, though I'm surprised such a policy isn't already in place on Twitch.

I mean, any game that relies on as much controversy as Hatred has in order to generate interest can't possibly be good on its on merits or design, and exposing that via Twitch would've let people see just what kind of drek it is going to be.

[Netsu]

Twitch adds a new rule that prohibits streaming AO-rated games a few days before the Hatred release date: http://blog.twitch.tv/2015/05/rules-of-conduct-update-adult-oriented-games/

I expect that's going to have the reverse effect of its intent, at least as far as knee-jerkery towards Hatred, though I'm surprised such a policy isn't already in place on Twitch.

I mean, any game that relies on as much controversy as Hatred has in order to generate interest can't possibly be good on its on merits or design, and exposing that via Twitch would've let people see just what kind of drek it is going to be.

People would watch it for the controversy and violence alone, no matter if the game itself is good or bad.

[Armageddon]

Twitch adds a new rule that prohibits streaming AO-rated games a few days before the Hatred release date: http://blog.twitch.tv/2015/05/rules-of-conduct-update-adult-oriented-games/

Hatred is an indie game, why would they pay the ESRB to rate their game. There is only like two AO rated games and they're fairly old at this point. It's like NC-17 for movies, you can reject the MPAA rating and just release as Unrated, rating boards/systems are a joke.

[starsrift]

Twitch adds a new rule that prohibits streaming AO-rated games a few days before the Hatred release date: http://blog.twitch.tv/2015/05/rules-of-conduct-update-adult-oriented-games/

I expect that's going to have the reverse effect of its intent, at least as far as knee-jerkery towards Hatred, though I'm surprised such a policy isn't already in place on Twitch.

I mean, any game that relies on as much controversy as Hatred has in order to generate interest can't possibly be good on its on merits or design, and exposing that via Twitch would've let people see just what kind of drek it is going to be.

People would watch it for the controversy and violence alone, no matter if the game itself is good or bad.

The point is - if you watch a bad game, is the average twitch viewer going to buy it, as opposed to buying a game relatively blind?
That's what I meant by the knee-jerkery.

[Dragonmaw]

Twitch already had an effective ban on AO content, so it's not like this is a new development. It's just more explicitly codified.