Neogaf bans discussion of Hatred.

If I had a popular website, I would ban talk of random games like "I am bread" just to watch people go nuts.

@flameboy84: The 'proof' of the developers being in lieu with neonazi ideologies was that the lead designer liked a facebook post of a neonazi-run website. He henceforth apologized and said he did not know the news outlet he liked was run by neonazis and retracted his like. He explained in detail that he hates neonazis because the gestapo had killed his grandfather. He's furious that news websites ran a story about them being nazis. More circumstantial 'proof' is one of the designers having a swastika tattoo and another designer being sighted at a nationalist (not neonazi) rally.

This is really not any different than the harrasment campaigns we've seen in the last month. It's just as easy to call someone a neonazi as it is to call journalism corrupt, both of them inciting venom and rage. NeoGAF is only adding to that fire.

As someone who thinks that Hatred looks putrid, I think this is kinda messed up. There's a lot of games with morally objectionable content, so to randomly draw the line here when it comes to discussion feels more like they are trying to tap into a zeitgeist.

@trafalgarlaw: I'm sure you've been visiting GAF a lot to prove your theory about the site?

@trafalgarlaw said:

Y'know, I think having a swastika tattoo is maybe a pretty good indication that someone is a neo-nazi.

@conmulligan: I was going to say. I don't think that's really "circumstantial" evidence.

again, different story. american history X is a well constructed (fictional) document about a neo nazi movement, the people and their actions. it doesn't _promote_ their values and ideas. you should've said "jud süß" or movies from leni riefenstahl if you wanted to make your point, because they are, at least here in germany, forbidden to show or sell to the public (without a legal permission anyway).

i also don't want online meeting places for nazis, antisemits, terrorists or you name it. you can have places for discussion about them, but not for them. as someone said earlier: the discussion and the moderation work would be a nightmare. and because we still have huge problems regarding video games, it's better to dismiss the "discussion", because it would only end in promoting the game and gamer circle-jerking.

(also: i'd love to see a poll where gamergate supporters are being asked if they would like to play hatred. just out of curiosity.)

@conmulligan: I haven't seen the actual proof for that claim. Let's humor that one of the devs have one. Would a single neonazi (out of group of a dozen iirc.) working on a game make the game itself bad or toxic?

@sor_eddie: Because it's a private forum where the owner and mods have decided that moderating the shit shows those kind of topics turn into isn't worth the effort. So I have absolutely no problem with it. I wonder if the people complaining about this here are members of GAF, if not, why care about it? I'm also not a fan of threads whining about another forum.

You're giving the devs too much credit. They came out themselves and said Hatred is about 'pure gaming pleasure,' not tackling hypocrisy of games like Uncharted that coat mass murder in a veneer of light-hearted fun. Hatred, from what I gather, is a simple thumb in the eye of so called political correctness. There's no statement here other than, 'Go forth and kill."

@muttersometaxicab: I have no theories to prove, just relaying that there is no undeniable proof either way.

one more reason not to go neogaf.

I'd say a single neonazi, coupled with everything they've shown about the game so far makes its toxicity a very real likelihood. But whatever, nobody's saying they can't make the game (some might be saying they probably shouldn't, but that's neither here nor there) - the question is whether Valve opts to sell it, which is ultimately their call to make.

"Our site creator has celiac disease, so all discussions of "I Am Bread" are forbidden. Any bread or cupcake related discussion will result in an immediate ban without warning on this site.

@karkarov said:

As a mod how much, "not fit for public consumption" commentary would you expect around a game like Hatred? Enough that the run up to its release and shortly thereafter will require constant mod attention?

I'm just asking because I imagine that the oversight a topic like that would require is pretty big for the level of actual quality discussion it would inspire.

@stryker1121 said:

So? A creators' intention should have no bearing on the analysis done by other people. That's what the entire "Death of the Author" philosophy is about in literary criticism. Just because you disagree with a creator personally on whatever grounds does not mean the art in question should be dismissed out of hand. Whether intentionally or not, the creators of Hatred have sparked a wide range of debates and a wide range of reactions. This is a game; a tiny, insignificant game with what looks like a budget of fifty dollars and a hand job that has somehow provoked emotional, visceral reactions from most everyone that has come in contact with the idea of it. This is something other artistic mediums salivate at the chance to cover and dissect, and instead the enthusiasts and art appreciators among us would rather sweep it away and pretend the game--and the questions it raises--don't matter.

I'm sorry, but saying "it is what it is" is lazy. This is a piece of art that I think is worth engaging not because it promotes an idea or because it has something to say, but because it expresses what this medium can do better than any other; provoke introspection through the tools and mechanics presented to a player. Hell, even choosing whether or not to play it is saying something about the player. I think if we want games to be art, Hatred and anything like it have to exist, and we as appreciators of art need to engage with it. Running away from the discussion does nothing for anybody.

@oldirtybearon: Yes this game deserves as much informed analysis and interpretation as anything else. But, if most of the content on a forum is about how the game doesn't deserve to exist or how the people who don't like it are prudish hypocrites, then is the potential of a strong discussion worth the moderation time that the shitty responses necessitate? I would say that one great piece does make it worth it, but the strong introspective takes don't usually arise out of forum chatter. They almost always come from long form blogs, essays, and reviews. So, I think you will still get the critical analysis of Hatred if you remove the forum squabbling. The people who want to do a real academic look at that game will do so without needing a forum thread.

@oldirtybearon: FWIW i edited 'it is what it is' to a 'thumb in the eye of so-called political correctness.' Don't mistake me, though. Never did I say Hatred is not worth discussion. I do disagree about an artist's intention having no bearing on the discussion surrounding the art. Once a piece of media's in the wild, it's going to be measured, dissected and weighed by the public at large. Intention is part of that, and Hatred's intention has been clearly stated by the devs. It's foolish to eliminate that piece of it as part of the wider topic, as there are those trying to ascribe some sort of message to a game that for all intents and purposes has none.

All this controversy surrounding Hatred is exactly what the developers wanted. All this does is generating more and more attention. I had completely forgotten that this game even existed and I'm sure most others did too. Now it's everywhere, the Streisand Effect is in full force right now. Silly people.

If you want to talk about Neogaf's rules and decisions, you should probably do it over there.