Hatred

[amandachen]

At least it don't sound as depraved as... hmmm, what was that game called? Burning Desire.

[jomni]

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.

[Tuna]

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.

[JasonPratt]

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.

[Jarhead0331]

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?

[Huw the Poo]

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.

[JudgeDredd]

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"

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

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.

[JudgeDredd]

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.

[Zulu1966]

^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.

[Jarhead0331]

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.

[undercovergeek]

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

[Zulu1966]

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.

[Rayfer]

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.

[Jarhead0331]

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.