Hatred

[Jarhead0331]

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/

[Zulu1966]

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/

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.

[Rayfer]

Watched the trailer on Steam. No judgment intended and to each his own...but it's way too over the top for my tastes.

[Zulu1966]

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 ?

[Huw the Poo]

That was a good write-up, Jarhead. O0

[Jarhead0331]

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.
 

[steve58]

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... ???

[Jarhead0331]

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. 

[Zulu1966]

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.

[Jarhead0331]

^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?

[Con]

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

[Father Ted]

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.

[SirAndrewD]

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.

[JudgeDredd]

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.

[spelk]

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?