I had posted about this one awhile back when it raised a media $hit storm over its content. In the game, you basically play the role of a guy who has lost his marbles and decides to go on a killing spree, gunning down, exploding, lighting on fire, crushing, stabbing, etc. etc. pretty much anything that moves.
The ethical dilemma is obvious. Does this glorify mass murderers and spree killers, or is this a valid form of expression?
Perhaps the most surprising thing so far is that, as a game, it isn't half bad. In essence, its a top-down isometric twin stick shooter, but the graphics are good, the atmosphere is dark and the environment is pretty much completely destructible. There seems to be a modest selection of weapons, and vehicles are operable, as well. Each level is broken down into one or more "missions" ie. kill everyone at a house party, or go to the police station and murder all cowards who are hiding there, etc. The main protagonist (I guess antagonist) looks and sounds like a total tool, though. He is a cross between some heavy metal band groupee and the Undertaker of WWE fame. Although the subject matter is dark and gory, the actual carnage, surprisingly, isn't over the top gory. Yes, there is blood, but there does not appear to be dismemberment, or other over the top viscera.
The actual gameplay is as close to mindless as you can get, but there have been some thought provoking moments. When I first started playing, I actually hesitated in opening fire, but the more I played, the more casual the killing became...perhaps this, in and of itself, is a statement as to the effect of violence in entertainment on our psyche an culture, thereby giving the game artistic or philosophical value.
One interesting thing that separates this game from say, the GTA enterprise, is that here, the only way to play is to kill innocents and the police who are trying to protect them. In GTA, the player is at least given the option of how much collateral damage to cause. In Hatred, if you don't kill, there is really nothing to do...just about the only decision the player can make is to brutally finish off wounded survivors, or let them die by bleeding out.
Anyway, I think its probably a bit over-priced at $19.99, but watch this one for sales. I'm having fun running around causing mayhem.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/341940/ (http://store.steampowered.com/app/341940/)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 02, 2015, 02:00:26 PM
I had posted about this one awhile back when it raised a media $hit storm over its content. In the game, you basically play the role of a guy who has lost his marbles and decides to go on a killing spree, gunning down, exploding, lighting on fire, crushing, stabbing, etc. etc. pretty much anything that moves.
The ethical dilemma is obvious. Does this glorify mass murderers and spree killers, or is this a valid form of expression?
Perhaps the most surprising thing so far is that, as a game, it isn't half bad. In essence, its a top-down isometric twin stick shooter, but the graphics are good, the atmosphere is dark and the environment is pretty much completely destructible. There seems to be a modest selection of weapons, and vehicles are operable, as well. Each level is broken down into one or more "missions" ie. kill everyone at a house party, or go to the police station and murder all cowards who are hiding there, etc. The main protagonist (I guess antagonist) looks and sounds like a total tool, though. He is a cross between some heavy metal band groupee and the Undertaker of WWE fame. Although the subject matter is dark and gory, the actual carnage, surprisingly, isn't over the top gory. Yes, there is blood, but there does not appear to be dismemberment, or other over the top viscera.
The actual gameplay is as close to mindless as you can get, but there have been some thought provoking moments. When I first started playing, I actually hesitated in opening fire, but the more I played, the more casual the killing became...perhaps this, in and of itself, is a statement as to the effect of violence in entertainment on our psyche an culture, thereby giving the game artistic or philosophical value.
One interesting thing that separates this game from say, the GTA enterprise, is that here, the only way to play is to kill innocents and the police who are trying to protect them. In GTA, the player is at least given the option of how much collateral damage to cause. In Hatred, if you don't kill, there is really nothing to do...just about the only decision the player can make is to brutally finish off wounded survivors, or let them die by bleeding out.
Anyway, I think its probably a bit over-priced at $19.99, but watch this one for sales. I'm having fun running around causing mayhem.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/341940/ (http://store.steampowered.com/app/341940/)
I don't know. I watched the video on steam and frankly it escapes me what joy anyone could get from playing. Even if there were a good game beneath it I simply cant understand what someone would get from it ? I am most certainly not one of the prudish crowd when it comes to games films or anything else but this just seems beyond "mindless" fun and without any context seems the very thing that only serves to give ammunition to the video game hate crowd. Each to their own I guess but I would rather play one of the cops hunting down a POS like this than the one being the POS.
People giving it a good rating seem to be going out of their way to point out its not the content or the story of the game that makes it good and those giving it a bad rating seem to be doing the same - which kind of strikes me as missing the whole point of a game in the first place.
Watched the trailer on Steam. No judgment intended and to each his own...but it's way too over the top for my tastes.
And when you see comments like this posted on the steam forum
"No school DLC - 2/10" it only makes me hate it even more.
I mean where is the line - does he visit an elementary school and blow away some kids ?
That was a good write-up, Jarhead. O0
This is the kind of dialogue that the developers of the game would probably argue they meant to encourage. Is there a line? If so, where is it and what constitutes crossing the line? What value, if any, does a game like this have in fostering a conversation about violence in gaming/recreation/entertainment?
Why is a game like this any more reprehensible than say a movie like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Stephen King's Carrie?
On the one hand, I do agree that the entertainment value found in gunning down innocent people electronically, is limited and questionable...however, on the other hand, I don't see this as being any different than the experience ultimately provided by games like GTA and Saints Row. In GTA, you can beat hookers to death. In Saint Row, you can kill innocent people with a giant purple dildo. I don't find Hatred any more taboo in its subject matter.
For what its worth, I have not seen any children or any schools in the game thus far.
Yeah, can't say I'm a fan of this one, and God help this industry if they do come out with some sick school DLC or mod. The media will go ape-sh*t... ???
God willing, there will not be another shooting spree in my lifetime, or thereafter. However, it would be interesting to follow a lawsuit against this developer if a future killer was found to be in possession of this game and a prolific player, at that.
People have tried to blame murder on rap lyrics, heavy metal music and on games like Doom, etc. To my knowledge, those efforts to link violent crime to media have been unsuccessful. However, as society changes, and acts of meaningless violence become more catastrophic and more common, a change in public perception, and the law, is not hard to foresee.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 02, 2015, 03:21:01 PM
This is the kind of dialogue that the developers of the game would probably argue they meant to encourage. Is there a line? If so, where is it and what constitutes crossing the line? What value, if any, does a game like this have in fostering a conversation about violence in gaming/recreation/entertainment?
Why is a game like this any more reprehensible than say a movie like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Stephen King's Carrie?
On the one hand, I do agree that the entertainment value found in gunning down innocent people electronically, is limited and questionable...however, on the other hand, I don't see this as being any different than the experience ultimately provided by games like GTA and Saints Row. In GTA, you can beat hookers to death. In Saint Row, you can kill innocent people with a giant purple dildo. I don't find Hatred any more taboo in its subject matter.
For what its worth, I have not seen any children or any schools in the game thus far.
Well I guess the point is that in GTA for example the whole thing is set in a context. Sure you can beat a hooker to death, and personally I don't really see the joy in that either, but its part of a story in the game.
In your own write up you say there isn't much else to do but kill innocents and that seems the entire point of the game. Films I think are different in any event as you don't take part in them. you don't decide what happens - they are merely presented for you to watch and either like or dislike.
My main point however is I guess around one word you used. Taboo. I mean things are either Taboo or they are not. If there are no kids being gunned down then why not ? Is it more acceptable to portray the mindless slaughter of adults than kids ? if so then some things ARE obviously taboo and some are not - in which case its not a question of freedom of expression merely a value judgement on whats acceptable or not to any particular person or group of people.
I guess my biggest problem is understanding why someone would think its good given the content ? Using the GTA example - what is someone thinking when they beat the hooker to death if that's what they do, wow that's funny ... wow I really like doing that. I guess its a complete lack of understanding where the enjoyment comes from. Leading a company of paratroopers over a hill in Combat Mission I get. Taking out a bandit in the whitcher three I get. Sticking a gun in an innocent womens mouth and seeing her head explode or for that matter beating a hooker to death with a baseball bat I don't.
As I say - its got nothing to do with sensitivity - but I genuinely worry about the people who built this and thought it was cool.
^Your points and the questions you raise, Zulu are all valid. However, isn't the value we place on a game like Hatred subjective? In other words, you and I may not see much if any value in it, but does that mean another gamer will agree with that assessment? If not, is there any fault with the gamer who finds enjoyment in playing this game, or in engaging in senseless and random acts of violence in GTA? What, if anything, does that say about that individual's personality? I mean, at the end of the day, it is "just a game" and what is the harm in enjoying it from the perspective of a visual, auditory or sensory experience. Perhaps the content is irrelevant and just engaging in combat, watching the environment break apart and seeing how objects in the game world are effected by battle has value from a technical perspective.
For me, the bottom line is does the existence of games like this, or more succinctly, does having the ability to freely develop games like this add anything to our society as a whole? Put another way, is it important to freedom of speech, expression and art, to permit developers to explore digital entertainment that contains this kind of content? Is it dangerous to argue that these games have no value and should be banned?
Unfortunately for us as gamers and as adults the topics this game raises will NOT be debated by the teeming masses of idiots inhabiting the majority of the adolescent gaming world.
For them its all about shock value and for the developers its about branding/money. The fact that this game can be successful is IMO telling (and not in a good way) about our society and our future.
Con
Like Zulu, I've no interest in virtually killing innocent people, but I think (hope) that the vast majority of those who play violent video games do not connect what they're doing with real life.
We had a discussion here a year or so back when some of us were saying we felt bad when we led our pixel-truppen to their deaths. There was a definite split between those who felt that way and those who couldn't see why we should - ie nobody's actually getting hurt, so where's the harm? The same thing would seem to apply in the case of Hatred, GTA, and the like - the majority of gamers can completely disconnect what they're doing in-game from real life, but some of us can't help but extrapolate to reality to some small degree.
What I'm saying is that I think there are those who can't help but find such games repulsive and indeed immoral, and those who genuinely don't. No right or wrong.
At least there's no sex in it. Then the media would REALLY be worked in into a tizzy.
As it stands, yeah, it's in bad taste. Not my cup of tea, but to each his own. Is this game really more horrendous in concept than when we go on a "spree" in games like GTA? At least this one wears what it is on its sleeve.
Yeah - good post JH and discussion.
Guns don't kill people - people kill people.
Games don't make mass murderers. In my opinion, there are conditions out there already wired into individuals. Some will be sent over the edge seeing and playing this, most won't. For some, a game like this will turn on a switch.
I'm not talking about "enjoying" the game. Just a switch that makes them not differentiate between real world and make believe.
So I don't think games make killers. I think that's already in some people and it gets triggered.
There is a separate issue though - one of numbing the senses. The more you are exposed to something the less abhorrent it becomes.
Just my opinion.
Regarding the game - it's not my bag.
I don't really think its a game thats pushing a boundary as such, its just a title using existing mechanics and filling a need. A need for escapism and ultra-violence, "because its cool". It doesn't really need a context. I'm sure many people who have fiddled about in sandbox worlds, have done just as worse as this game has to offer. Just to "play" in the safety of the virtual world. You can do what you want, because the game mechanics allow you to. I don't think theres a moral judgement on anyone doing anything in a virtual world, if its there to be done.
Obviously you can challenge real world morals and ethics, with certain situations, violently, or sexually, or any other taboo. But as long as it stays in the virtual world, and there is an understanding of the difference between reality and digital fantasy then thats fine. I've been killing things without much context in virtual worlds for many many years. Not all deaths at my hand have been ethically right. But they're confined to a virtual world of escapism.
Looks like a blast to be honest.
The interesting games, tend to pose real world moral dilemmas in a game world, where you actually "care" about the characters involved. This is a dark take on Serious Sam as fas as I can tell. Walk around, like Kane or the Undertaker, and take people out. Boom, boom, adrenalin. Shooty bang bang, time for bed.
Is every stealth kill wrangled over morally speaking in games? Is every collateral damage of that rocket splash damage worried about? Do we actually care what the lemmings do as they dive off the pixellated cliff at our command? Nope. As long as what goes on in our virtual worlds stays in our virtual worlds, we can lob off as many heads, and blow up as many babies as we like. There is no judgement. There is no law. There doesn't have to be a moral code. Just enjoy yourself. Do what you cannot do in the real world. That is what some games are all about. The experience you CAN have, without hurting anyone.
This is just The Witcher, without the boobs, or the colour pallette.
Maybe they'll sell a few more copies by stressing there is no actual heroic context involved? Hopefully the press will get wind of it, and make it more popular than it should be, because of the "forbidden fruit" angle?
At least it don't sound as depraved as... hmmm, what was that game called? Burning Desire.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 02, 2015, 03:21:01 PM
Why is a game like this any more reprehensible than say a movie like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Stephen King's Carrie?
Movie = you watch someone kill someone. you are not the killer.
Games = you control someone who kills someone. you are the killer.
I remember the Call of Duty that wanted you to gun down the innocent people at the Airport. I didn't do it, I just walked through the level without firing a shot. I do think to some point, some of the games do go 'to far' and contribute to de-sensitizing younger Audiences..
I wouldn't let my 19 year old play GTA until he was 16 or 17.. the younger one, I let him play MP but not the main game. I think they've both got pretty good heads on their shoulders, but I over shelter the heck out of them as well. Even though they give you the usual "I know it's not real", still going through the motions in itself to me, is kind of lowering ones standards... GTA I never actually got into it myself, but haven't tried V yet.. IV was a bad port and I don't do consoles.
lol. now if there's some evil opponent like Zombie apocalypse or something, then all bets are off! It's good vs evil!
But seriously, my favorite form of COD was S&D, because I liked the teamwork involved, and I liked the fact that you weren't going to just re-spawn, so you took the game a lil more seriously.
Well, the existence of the game can serve its purpose of provoking discussion without paying them for it. ;)
So let's come to specific comparisons. The reason I've stayed away from organized crime games like GTA and Saint's Row is because I can't tell if there's any way to proceed without oppressing victims. (The only reason I bothered buying GTA 4 on sale was out of some dim intuition that maybe it could be done. But I haven't tried playing it.)
But on the other hand, I don't mind playing Panzer General. As the Nazis. Even if I'm imagining that I'm playing a 'good' Nazi like Rommel (which is surely the intent of the original game, following the career of quasi-Rommel), the fact was that he was still helping support that kind of regime. Or I don't mind playing the Orc campaign in Fantasy Wars -- though in my AAR, as linked in my sig currently, you should be able to tell that given an opportunity I'm going to work in a lot more ethical nuance to the situation.
Or maybe I should say that I distantly mind, but I still do things like that for fun sometimes, even if more often I play better factions.
Most of us love playing PG (or its spiritual remakes), or games where we're on the side of the 'robbers' in cops and robbers. Is this game like playing Codename: Panzers? Or like playing a campaign as some other historical villains (at least in our own personal estimation) who inflicted great tragedy? I wouldn't play a terrorist campaign, but I would be okay playing them against a human in multiplayer.
I'm okay playing Chaos against a human opponent in WH40K (though I play it far from exclusively) or the Necrons or the Orks; but I would rather not play Chaos even in single-player skirmish -- but I'll play as the Orks or the Necrons. And I've played Necron and Ork single-player campaigns, but not Chaos. (If it comes to that, the human teams in that game can be pretty ethically horrible! -- and the Eldar aren't much if any better!) I'm okay playing Tolkien's villain factions against a human player in Battle for Middle Earth (1 or 2), but I don't play them in the campaigns, nor in the skirmishes.
I don't have any clear reason for the distinctions involved. But I know I would never play this game, even for curiosity.
Quote from: jomni on June 02, 2015, 05:19:54 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 02, 2015, 03:21:01 PM
Why is a game like this any more reprehensible than say a movie like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Stephen King's Carrie?
Movie = you watch someone kill someone. you are not the killer.
Games = you control someone who kills someone. you are the killer.
Respectfully, this obvious distinction is naive and superficial. With respect to film, as an observer/viewer who is deriving entertainment from watching the pain, suffering and death of others, are you not, in some respects, a participant, as well?
Quote from: jomni on June 02, 2015, 05:19:54 PM
Movie = you watch someone kill someone. you are not the killer.
Games = you control someone who kills someone. you are the killer.
No, it's a game - you aren't actually killing anybody.
Quote from: Huw the Poo on June 03, 2015, 12:48:04 AM
Quote from: jomni on June 02, 2015, 05:19:54 PM
Movie = you watch someone kill someone. you are not the killer.
Games = you control someone who kills someone. you are the killer.
No, it's a game - you aren't actually killing anybody.
Just replace "are not" and "are" with "watch" and "play"
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 02, 2015, 06:36:06 PM
Quote from: jomni on June 02, 2015, 05:19:54 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 02, 2015, 03:21:01 PM
Why is a game like this any more reprehensible than say a movie like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Stephen King's Carrie?
Movie = you watch someone kill someone. you are not the killer.
Games = you control someone who kills someone. you are the killer.
Respectfully, this obvious distinction is naive and superficial. With respect to film, as an observer/viewer who is deriving entertainment from watching the pain, suffering and death of others, are you not, in some respects, a participant, as well?
If you read the story of Anne Frank, you are not a participant in the brutality. You can see the horror for what it is. If you act it out in a game it becomes a bit different. People become what they do. Of course most people have executive forebrain function that overrides base instinct. Not all do. I think a game like that could do serious damage to a simple person.
I got saints row as part of a bundle. I hated it, filing it under crap, with a few other games, after less than half an hr.
One time playing CS online there was an unusual 'test'. One player decided to crouch facing a corner like a scared hostage. The manner gave you the distinct feeling they are not a combatant. Therefore the first round you really dont want to shoot them. Of course there comes a point were you will lose the round as time runs out. You decide, for purposes of the game structure, to do it. Next round you are annoyed their 'test' is screwing up the game so there is no hesitation. In fact you say something like F off coward, then knife them. You know the person is screwing up the game for everyone else waiting to get in the next round.
It did make me think about desensitization effects from the game. I had the same struggle with females in martial arts. You feel like shit if you hit them. But you know they are there to learn to protect themselves, and taking it easy on them could get them killed if they really need to fight.
Interestingly i was watching a show tonight about backyard ring fighting in the hoods of Miami. There was one guy that had been a soldier. You can see he is still a decent person with a clean mind. Some of the others had a disturbed look in their eye. My immediate thought was they had murdered somebody or done some serious violent crime. They just look the the soul of a POS. What you do, to some degree, creates who you are. It is what others will like or hate. I remember Gary Gygax in an interview long ago, probably Dragon Magazine in the 80s, said people of different alignments cannot get along. They will hate each other. Good hate evil, evil hate good. His D&D model of alignment was how hesaw the real world. I have often thought of that model, along with better refinements.
I think maybe people that enjoy playing an evil part in a game wish to do it in real life.
I have my own taboo's and set of values. I don't need a body of people telling me what they think my taboo's should be.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 02, 2015, 03:59:56 PM
^Your points and the questions you raise, Zulu are all valid. However, isn't the value we place on a game like Hatred subjective? In other words, you and I may not see much if any value in it, but does that mean another gamer will agree with that assessment? If not, is there any fault with the gamer who finds enjoyment in playing this game, or in engaging in senseless and random acts of violence in GTA? What, if anything, does that say about that individual's personality? I mean, at the end of the day, it is "just a game" and what is the harm in enjoying it from the perspective of a visual, auditory or sensory experience. Perhaps the content is irrelevant and just engaging in combat, watching the environment break apart and seeing how objects in the game world are effected by battle has value from a technical perspective.
For me, the bottom line is does the existence of games like this, or more succinctly, does having the ability to freely develop games like this add anything to our society as a whole? Put another way, is it important to freedom of speech, expression and art, to permit developers to explore digital entertainment that contains this kind of content? Is it dangerous to argue that these games have no value and should be banned?
I take your point JH - and yes I guess there are some people who would get value just out of the pure visceral destruction in the game. I guess I am saying I don't see the content as irrelevant at all and it is in essence how I would derive enjoyment from the game - so yes - I think if you derive some kind of enjoyment from beating a hooker to death in a game it does in fact say something about the persons underlying personality as much as it says something to the character of several people here who have said they have avoided parts of games they don't feel comfortable with.
As far as freedom of speech goes - and I take your point - it has its limits. I am not for banning anything - but if a game suddenly appeared on steam called paedophile simulator - would anyone argue freedom of speech is at all relevant to that ? The game itself may have the best graphics and mechanics in the history of gaming but the people who built it could go die in a car accident for all I care. Some things are just wrong. No argument. Some things live in a grey area between that ... as "entertainment" this probably falls there if I am being generous, though even that I am sketchy on.
As I say - I am not calling for the game to be taken down or banned or anything such like - I am just at a loss to fathom why anyone would want to play it - and that has everything to do with the content - as that
is the game - otherwise it could have been bunny rabbits running around killing carrots and it would have achieved much the same. To me it seems to people who built this are either just sick F*****rs or they said "hey - this will get a lot of press and will make some money" either way its pretty poor.
I guess also what I find difficult to understand is that with a knowledge of what it would take to code and build something like this - why would you expend ALL that effort on a subject such as this and not something else.
I'm surprised that so many people draw a significant distinction between film and gaming as entertainment. That one finds it acceptable to watch and enjoy a movie with senseless violence, but unacceptable to play a game with the same content is contrary and illogical, in my opinion. The difference is merely psychological and artificial. The example of reading the Diary of Anne Frank raised by Bigglesworth is incompatible to the discussion. Nobody reads the Diary of Anne Frank to be entertained, and if you do, you are a Nazi. People read a book like that to be educated.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that Hatred is "just a game" and anyone who simply casts it aside as worthless garbage and who labels anyone who plays it as a twisted psychopath is being overly judgmental and perhaps a little arrogant in their subjective assessment. Ok, you play complex WWII simulations, that doesn't make you better than someone who enjoys games like Hatred, GTA or Saint's Row. All of them, even the WWII ones, are just games. Playing anyone of them does not make you a better, or worse, person in real life. You will be judged as a person based upon your actions and accomplishments in the real world, not in a game.
Additionally, casting judgment on any game is dangerous in my opinion. There is not as much of a difference as you might think in taking the position that these games are valueless and nobody should want to play them, and taking the position that they should simply be banned. This logic is a dangerous slippery slope. It's far too subjective and extremely susceptible to ones personal politics. Maybe all games that have any violence should be banned? Maybe all games that have guns should be banned? Once you start thinking this way, the flood gates come ever closer to opening, and once that pandoras box is opened, it is almost impossible to go back.
the distinction seems clear to me - watching a film has no involvement from me, the director already decided what to show, what i would see - that little girl getting blown up wasnt my decision, it was his
playing the game, ive got the rocket launcher, it is my decision to blow up the little girl noone elses
Quote from: undercovergeek on June 03, 2015, 07:28:11 AM
the distinction seems clear to me - watching a film has no involvement from me, the director already decided what to show, what i would see - that little girl getting blown up wasnt my decision, it was his
playing the game, ive got the rocket launcher, it is my decision to blow up the little girl noone elses
Yes - I pretty much agree with this. There are several films I have watched that I have come away with an uncomfortable feeling - not schlock horror stuff - I generally find that boring but other things perhaps ones you wouldn't expect would leave you with a feeling like that - and its never myself I feel dubious about for having watched it but always WTF is in the mind of the guy who made it made up.
Its completely different to a game where I take part in it.
I can think of one film about a mass shooting (fictional) I have seen where I watched - but was never on his side. In fact I was waiting to see how he got killed rather than all those he killed. It wasn't a bad film - quite good actually - but you can watch a film and not enjoy it. I think schindlers list is a fantastic film but I would never claim to enjoy it - but I would find a "game" about say getting as many people into a Gas chamber in the shortest possible time abhorrent.
The point is we are talking about a game here. To win it you have to want your character to succeed otherwise it aint no game. Films are watched as a dispassionate observer. And I would say the same about a film as a game in any case - if you enjoy a scene where a hooker is being beaten to death - there is something wrong with you.
Quote from: undercovergeek on June 03, 2015, 07:28:11 AM
the distinction seems clear to me - watching a film has no involvement from me, the director already decided what to show, what i would see - that little girl getting blown up wasnt my decision, it was his
playing the game, ive got the rocket launcher, it is my decision to blow up the little girl noone elses
I agree...the distinction between a movie and game experience is significant. Games, unlike movies, are a participative activity.
It is also your decision to watch, or not watch the movie...again, I feel you are all creating a significant artificial distinction in order to justify your participation in one medium, and not another. Just my opinion.
Look at it this way...Charles Manson was guilty of murder, without ever actually murdering anyone. Plenty of "witnesses" have been found guilty of heinous crime, without ever having actually pulled a trigger or committing an affirmative act.
The point I am making is philosophical, and perhaps somewhat academic, but it is still worth considering given the confines of the discussion.
After having this debate years ago at Gamasutra (was the only somewhat conservative voice in the debate) I have learned a few things. Sane people are not going to use a game as an excuse to kill people. On the other hand, I am left to wonder if games could be a form of incitement for borderline sane people. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that. For that reason, still to this day, I would not participate in the development of a game or mod that depicts violence against human beings for merely shock value.
For the people who think an ultra-realistic Sandy Hook simulator is A-OK, just think about it in the hands of a borderline sane child in a school where he/she is constantly ridiculed for being different. Just think if that child has access to firearms. Do we want games out there that could possibly be pushing the wrong people over the edge? Not that I am saying a game would be a decisive factor in a situation like that, but I certainly wouldn't want a person like that playing a murder simulator.
I am all for creative freedom, but like anything else in life people must exercise restraint.
Quote from: Swatter on June 03, 2015, 09:16:13 AM
For the people who think an ultra-realistic Sandy Hook simulator is A-OK, just think about it in the hands of a borderline sane child in a school where he/she is constantly ridiculed for being different. Just think if that child has access to firearms. Do we want games out there that could possibly be pushing the wrong people over the edge? Not that I am saying a game would be a decisive factor in a situation like that, but I certainly wouldn't want a person like that playing a murder simulator.
I am all for creative freedom, but like anything else in life people must exercise restraint.
This is where sound parenting comes into play. Adults have a responsibility to regulate what their children watch and play. Just like movies come with a rating system, games do too. I don't think anyone would argue that a game like Hatred should be played by a 10 year old. These games are for mature adults, just as 'R' rated movies are for people over the age of 18. You can't even view the Hatred store page unless you enter your birth date and acknowledge that you are an adult over 18 years of age.
I've seen parents buying GTA for their adolescent children, and I find it shocking. Games like this should not be played by young children. They require a level of understanding and maturity that most children do not yet possess. This, however, is a failure of parenting that cannot be blamed on the producer or developer of the content. Parents have a responsibility to be educated about what kind of material they hand over to their own children.
So, if I'm an adult, if I'm mature, if I'm a psychologically balanced, law-abiding individual, what is wrong with playing a game like Hatred? As long as one is able to distinguish reality from fantasy, what is the harm? The argument that this material should be prohibited because some people are incapable of making this distinction is unacceptable to me. Just as some people are not responsible enough to drive an automobile, you wouldn't ban autos for everyone...
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 03, 2015, 02:52:18 AM
I have my own taboo's and set of values. I don't need a body of people telling me what they think my taboo's should be.
Agreed.
O0
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 03, 2015, 09:26:17 AM
...
So, if I'm an adult, if I'm mature, if I'm a psychologically balanced, law-abiding individual, what is wrong with playing a game like Hatred? As long as one is able to distinguish reality from fantasy, what is the harm?
...
I guess the harm is not everyone
isa mature, psychologically sound, law-abiding adult.
I'm with you - I'm not for a game being banned. A banned game (nae - anything banned) gets legendary status and doesn't actually stop it getting to those who want it anyway.
So I'm with you - but I was just pointing out that everyone is different. That same statement actually goes to those who think it something should be banned...not everyone is the same
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 03, 2015, 06:08:58 AM
You will be judged as a person based upon your actions and accomplishments in the real world, not in a game.
well that is not 100% correct. you are judged at least by the community build around that very game or (participants in a MP match) by our actions in the game ...achieving a total victory in a complex wargame, mastering a plane in a flight sim, endurance finishing a RPG, teamplay in a shooter (versus spankilling, camping, etc) ...it may tell something about the persons character too
concerning movies and game
you are also judged by the choice of movies and games and especially the reaction/opinion to 'the content' you got exposed there.
so Hatered is 'bad taste' in my eyes
if a killing-spree game really lower the threshold to violence in real life situation depends IMHO on the deepness of immersion. (the isometric game play i have seen so far from Haterad on YT is not immersiv for me, are there cut-scenes of finishing moves with overther shoulder look or POV cam?)
a personal example:
if i play chess i never feel sorry for a peasant lost (maybe i am angry about myself for a bad decision) but i somehew feel sorry for the pixeltruppe- crew bailing out of my Zug of 4 Panthers when i stupidly had them ordered in the open and they got wasted in 30sec WEGO by some Russian assets in CM:RT level of immersion is key, there might be (simple) people out there were a certain level of immersion is able to trigger to toughen that person against the exposure to blood, gore, mayhem they inflict.
The military is trying this, but you need a Oculus Rift, plus full movement tracking, ...and maybe some future 'smell-evaporator' too...
Just wait for the media shite-storm to show up about this game, once the next mass shooting occurs. If there's something the news loves more than a good natural disaster, it's that.
I dont like the idea of banning a game. I dont like the idea of creeping cultural decrepitude either. When i think of America at it's finest I think of the new colonies. When I think of the movie Colors (bloods vs crips gangland warfare) I think the area ( the hoods) have become a cultural wasteland.
Movies have always had influence over culture. They become part of collective memory. I would bet games have a much stronger effect due to the interactivity. I do not think, for the vast majority, a game would create a killer. I do think it shapes how people think, what they think is normal culture.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 03, 2015, 10:49:28 AM
I would bet games have a much stronger effect due to the interactivity.
That has never been proved...and people have
really tried to prove it, too.
I'm absolutely in agreement with Jarhead on this. We cannot start banning art - and games are art, I will argue that until the heat death of the universe - because some find it offensive. That is something that some of history's most tyrannical and despicable governments did. If games, especially games such as Hatred, were clearly shown to be harmful in some way then of course I'd start to entertain other ideas...but that simply hasn't happened, ever, and games have been under intense scrutiny for a long time.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 03, 2015, 01:48:46 AM
I think maybe people that enjoy playing an evil part in a game wish to do it in real life.
I 100% disagree with you on this. Can you cite anything at all, or is it just a gut feeling? I generally play the good guy, but if the story is strong enough I'll be quite happy to play the bad guy. That Star Wars MMO is a good example of this...everyone I know who has played it is in agreement that by far the best story is the one you play when you are a particular Sith class, so that's the one I picked when I had a go at the game.
As an aside, I think stuff like reality TV shows, contemporary pop music, Disney films etc are far more detrimental to our collective consciousness than games like these. They are the biggest causes of "creeping cultural decrepitude" (excellent phrase!) we face, dulling the senses of all and sundry to ensure nobody ever complains about anything and not getting involved in politics. Let me kill a few people in a game to let off steam after I've finished writing another angry letter to my local representative, trying to make the world a better place!
Check this out.
Dawg Fight
In a crime-plagued neighborhood near Miami, brutal, bare-knuckled backyard fights give young men a chance to earn money -- and self-respect.
http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/80045932?trkid=13462047
Keep in mind this is a real neighborhood, not a movie set. So what happens when good for nothing kids see something like this? They probably want to copy it, imagining they will have a sense of power by being 'bad ass'. That is really why many young men do all kinds of stupid shit right? It is their chance to pound their chest like big gorilla.
Walking back from the tangent, the reason it is probably difficult to pin down the effect of negative media on individuals is the individuals know it is socially unacceptable to be seen enjoying evil shit. They know the giant foot of society already wants to kick their ass. They try to hide their fucked up nature. The statistical summary result is all around to be seen in inner cities all over. Is it a place you want to bring your family? Hell no.
Nothing good will come of a game like Hatred.
Quote from: Huw the Poo on June 03, 2015, 11:05:28 AM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 03, 2015, 01:48:46 AM
I think maybe people that enjoy playing an evil part in a game wish to do it in real life.
Sorry Mr B but I think not only is that a ridiculous thing to assume, but a dangerous one too.
The problem with the statement is that you have said it in an all encompassing context and that's not going to be the case. You are forgetting the very important (and real) point which is the definite line between real and fiction.
I can quite easily play a game where I pull an innocent man out his car and then jump in his car and drive off - perhaps even giving him a slap - ala GTA. However, I would most definitely NOT do that in real life and I most certainly do not think it's an acceptable thing to do. Nor do I even wish (deep down) to do it.
It's a game. There's a huge difference and it's the lack of defining game from reality where the problem lies. I could play GTAV until I was 80 and I still wouldn't want to pull someone from their car and steal it.
These problems are not caused by games or films or any other media. They are already manifesting themselves in individuals imo.
Desensitisation? That's a different matter. Even then, though, I think individuals have the wherewithal to understand the difference between real life and fiction.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 03, 2015, 11:45:36 AM
Quote from: Huw the Poo on June 03, 2015, 11:05:28 AM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on June 03, 2015, 01:48:46 AM
I think maybe people that enjoy playing an evil part in a game wish to do it in real life.
Sorry Mr B but I think not only is that a ridiculous thing to assume, but a dangerous one too.
The problem with the statement is that you have said it in an all encompassing context and that's not going to be the case. You are forgetting the very important (and real) point which is the definite line between real and fiction.
I can quite easily play a game where I pull an innocent man out his car and then jump in his car and drive off - perhaps even giving him a slap - ala GTA. However, I would most definitely NOT do that in real life and I most certainly do not think it's an acceptable thing to do. Nor do I even wish (deep down) to do it.
It's a game. There's a huge difference and it's the lack of defining game from reality where the problem lies. I could play GTAV until I was 80 and I still wouldn't want to pull someone from their car and steal it.
These problems are not caused by games or films or any other media. They are already manifesting themselves in individuals imo.
Desensitisation? That's a different matter. Even then, though, I think individuals have the wherewithal to understand the difference between real life and fiction.
I do not assume it. Like I said, most people have executive frontal cortex function that controls what they do.
It is not a math function of input results in output. It is a shift of understanding of how the world works. For most people a few seconds of 2 idiots 1 cup, has them scrambling to turn it off. Why? you don't want to believe people operate like that. But once you have seen or played all kinds of screwed up shit, it opens up as a possible reality. It is probably not the reality you pick. It is still out there. How did US politics become so negatively polarized? Actors in it know that by presenting a greater extreme to the public, their perception of reality shifts. You cant pretend that is not real because there is no study to cite, just like you cant pretend inner cities are not shit holes. Glorifying gangsta is a fast path to has been nation.
Quote from: JasonPratt on June 02, 2015, 06:35:24 PM
I don't have any clear reason for the distinctions involved. But I know I would never play this game, even for curiosity.
I agree. I found killing mountains of Orcs distasteful in Shadow of Mordor. After a week of that, I wanted to play an Orc. Similarly (to extend my gripes about simulations being focused on racking up scores) if I had to play a game where Joe Average slaughters mountains of people, I would prefer to kill the Average mass killer -- I mean just for some variety for Chrissakes. I don't get the direction that lots of games take in just piling on more and more similar events. It's not slaughter per se that I find tedious -- I definitely enjoyed it in FarCry 3 -- its more the implied interest in amassing similar events from a more or less fixed point of view.
Quote from: spelk on June 02, 2015, 05:14:22 PM
As long as what goes on in our virtual worlds stays in our virtual worlds, we can lob off as many heads, and blow up as many babies as we like. There is no judgement. There is no law. There doesn't have to be a moral code. Just enjoy yourself. Do what you cannot do in the real world. That is what some games are all about. The experience you CAN have, without hurting anyone.
But why do those things, even in a virtual world? Why is it fun? Why are some games all about this stuff?
Because there is a market/audience for it.
Quote from: Father Ted on June 03, 2015, 12:53:46 PM
But why do those things, even in a virtual world? Why is it fun? Why are some games all about this stuff?
A lot of games are exactly the same, even if you're usually the "hero" dispatching "bad" guys. I'm not about to tell people what they should or shouldn't enjoy. You can ask the same about pretty much any genre. Why is it fun to simulate war, as everyone on this forum loves to do? Why is it fun to manage a football team, which is surely more like a real-life job than a game? It's all subjective, innit.
Uwe Boll did some movies (Rampage, Assault On Wall Street) that are pretty much about massacring large numbers of people (Rampage moreso). Yes, I sat through both of them. Why? I don't know. I might occasionally harbor a secret desire to go all Car Wars on the idiocy on the roads around me, but I'd never actually do that. I was actually surprised more than anything that an Uwe Boll movie kept my attention for more than 5 minutes.
I think a major part of the appeal of this kind of thing is how horror movies appeal to us...slasher flicks, serial killer movies, that kind of thing. Sure, it's not everyone's cup of tea, and sure, horror aficionados are not wanting to go out and emulate this, but there's something about putting yourself in that mindset that is...I don't want to say appealing, for fear of sounding like a sociopath. If you understand where I'm coming from, then you understand what I mean. If you have empathy, then mass killings, you just don't get it how someone can go postal like that. Maybe you want to understand why. I don't know.
From the standpoint of this game, I've heard bad reviews, saying how buggy it is and also how repetitive it is. If there's not more to it than just mowing down people randomly, it's not my cup of tea. If there's a point to it, then that MIGHT be appealing (the point, not the mowing down).
It's difficult to elucidate thoughts on a game like this. If you say you want to try it, some will see you as a psycho. If you say not, you're falling into the larger crowd most likely. Personally I'm not interested, just because of the poor/mixed reviews I've seen so far.
For the record, I played Postal and Postal 2 for maybe 10 total minutes between the two of them, just to see what the big deal was. I didn't like either of them.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on June 03, 2015, 01:20:27 PM
From the standpoint of this game, I've heard bad reviews, saying how buggy it is and also how repetitive it is. If there's not more to it than just mowing down people randomly, it's not my cup of tea. If there's a point to it, then that MIGHT be appealing (the point, not the mowing down).
FWIW, I have not really noticed any game stopping bugs. It is certainly repetitive, however, and I find myself playing in very short bursts.
Its not really just running around gunning unarmed people. There is a strong law enforcement response and serveral civilians are armed, as well. Furthermore, civilians have a habit of sometimes picking up weapons from the fallen, so there is always actual combat taking place.
Again, I'm playing the game more as an experiment, and not because I'm deriving any satisfaction from it. I also am impressed by the physics and the destructible environments. In many ways, it is an artistic game.
I never said games like Hatred should be banned, I simply said I would never create such a game (from a developers perspective). I do think it is wrong to make games like Hatred, but that's just my opinion. I think developers are definitely stepping into a grey area potentially fraught with dire consequences for shock value and the money that draws.
I remember watching a movie some years ago (forget the name) where a kid gets a computer game by mail from a less than reputable source (turns out to be some sort of supernatural bad guy). The game was some underground murder simulator, which explained the shady vendor. Anyway the kid boots up the game and plays a mission where you sneak into a guys house and kill him. The strange twist comes when the kid's neighbor (he finds out the next day) was murdered and he begins have flashbacks of having committed the crime. Due to supernatural forces in the case of this movie, the line between fantasy and reality become blurred to the point where he couldn't tell the difference. Was he just playing a game or was he really out there killing people?
In the future, perhaps 20-30 years, extremely realistic simulations will probably be commonplace. Its not far-fetched to suggest the above scenario could happen due technological means. Even with more prosaic technology, I know gaming binges can seriously screw with your mind (any binge really).
The only thing I know for sure is that there will be more massacres where innocent children will be gunned down by high powered rifles. To me, our culture really needs to get a grip on its violent undercurrents, but how you would do that I don't know.
Quote from: Swatter on June 03, 2015, 02:09:03 PM
In the future, perhaps 20-30 years, extremely realistic simulations will probably be commonplace. Its not far-fetched to suggest the above scenario could happen due technological means
Already happening...
Eurogamer's take on Hatred.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-06-04-hatred-review
Quote from: spelk on June 04, 2015, 02:18:32 AM
Eurogamer's take on Hatred.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-06-04-hatred-review
While most of the reviewers criticisms of the actual gameplay are valid, I think he is being overly harsh in his prose, most probably because of his obvious dislike of the concept. I expect most reviews will read like this one, but more so because of an inherent disdain for the subject matter and what the developers may or may not be trying to accomplish. I mean, he seems to be attacking the developers personally through his overt dislike of the game. The manner in which the reviewer belittles the game and the developers, in my opinion, betrays the fact that the review is based more on a subjective aversion to the game's concept, not the actual gameplay itself.
In essence, It's an average twin stick shooter with some interesting environmental, physics and graphics effects. Overall, I'd rate it 5 out of 10. I don't see any reason for the negative hyperbole though. From a gameplay perspective...I've played worse.
I think part of it is based on the antagonistic way the devs marketed this thing. They jumped full force on the 'CONTROVERSY!' button because they seemed to realize that the game itself was pretty bog standard. That included a lot of shots at games press and how the game was 'too real' or 'too much' to be reviewed fairly, which whipped up the usual brigade of Internet idiots into a froth. Now the game is out, it turns out that it's nothing close to 'too much', and it's time for return fire.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 04, 2015, 06:27:53 AM
The manner in which the reviewer belittles the game and the developers, in my opinion, betrays the fact that the review is based more on a subjective aversion to the game's concept, not the actual gameplay itself.
I expected no different from Eurogamer.