7th place from 2k+ games on Greenlight and it got pulled down from people that won't play the game anyway. How is this ok? Whatever, the game will be released somewhere and the people that want it will buy it. I'm just annoyed by the lack of respect in this matter.

Game gives me chills, I think the trailer for Hatred where you can hear the victims screaming is cringe inducing. It's kind of weird considering I really enjoy playing Payday 2 a game where you essentially shoot at waves and waves of cops. The only difference is if you're skilled enough in most heists you can complete the heists without killing anybody.

It was just to compare them to a right wing party with a focus on anti-immigration. I would have compared them to the Front National to a french, or to the Lega Nord to an Italian; it's not to say they are the same, it's just that you can find them in a similar area of the political spectrum. I'm sure they are of full of not nice people, and even if i were of a similar political mind, wich i'm not at all, i wouldn't associate myself to them. But describing a product (not a person, a product) as "neonazis killing minorities" because of a facebook like of the ceo of a company it's a jump that i find idiotic and that i'm not willing to make

Furthermore, politics and parties are a complex thing, if i don't see a clear association to a specific idea (and a like to a party it's not that in my mind) i'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. In Italy we have a very populist party called Movimento 5 Stelle that is focused on uncovering and (at least in words) fighting the widespread corruption. But they also have very vocal crazy people in their ranks who believe in chemtrails and (i'm not joking) that mermaids are real and are hidden by a scientist conspiracy. So if i see a person giving that party a like on facebook, i'm not sure if it is because they approve of that stance on corruption or they are just some tin-hat wearing nuts who believe in NWO, Bildeberg conspiracies, chemtrails,etc. And i'm not willing to make a clear connection until i see more. That said, yes, the ceo liking that party of facebook (although i don't know nearly enough of polish politics) stinks a lot in my eyes, but going from there to the moral panic and the fear mongering tactics i've seen there is a freaking huge gap.

Steam can do whatever they want since it's a private company, they can ban every Lego game if Gabe Newell didn't like the Lego Movie and would still be fair, i just find it a bit hypocritical since they still sell games with similar "problematics" and i'm a bit worried by the software (book) burning climate some people are easy to fall in

All these war simulators, ahem I mean gloryfiers, are a-ok but a game like this isn't. Figures.

I would not have played this either way but I'm compelled to point out the double standards we employ nowadays. It's okay to kill thousands upon thousands of arabs or russians in an annualized first person shooter which I will not call by name. But when the killing gets too real people get cold feet. Think about it, we're so very much indoctrinated to kill anything that wears a turban, balaklava or ushanka without ever thinking whether this person has a wife or kids at home. A short yelp and a brief red mist that vanishes into thin air marks their last moments on your screen. A sharp contrast with this game with full-blown gore, which represents death more accurately. Ultimately, it's all pixels but the power of imagery especially in videogames should not be underestimated. Some of those fps fanatics grow up to be soldiers, for the wrong reasons.

So why exactly are people rebelling to this game when we've carried out small genocides for over years?

I would personally think that is despicable and would take all my PC download business elsewhere, but yes they have the right to do that if they so choose.

They do not have the right to refuse gay people service or to discriminate against any potential customer since they serve the general public, nor can they choose not to hire/fire someone based on their sexual orientation. They do however have a right to sell what they want to sell and not sell what they don't wish to sell.

fwiw I think recent history ( last couple decades) has shown that if you don't stock a product on some perceived moral high ground, it's usually bad for business. Retail is one of the few sectors in the economy where consumers still do have power because in most cases there still is adequate competition despite the massive consolidation of the last thirty years. Consumers tend to reward merchants that are non-judgmental and let consumers make their own choices. Not always, but it still happens with great regularity. Almost every time I've seen one of these instances the merchant back-peddles within a few years.

e.g. I'd be extremely surprised if Target sticks to their policy regarding GTA V and similar games for very long in Australia given the negative outcry. They risk losing far too much longterm business to competitors if they stick to it.

You're entirely missing the point, and that analogy simply does not work.

In all of the annualized shooters you are talking about, they are just that - shooters. They are war games, two sides of armed combatants fighting one another. In Hatred, the player is tasked with killing unarmed civilians. Both feature killing, but that is about where the similarities end. Equating the two is extremely reductive.

Don't make assumptions..the woman's killing was the first thing that sprang to mind. The whole trailer was repellent if that makes you feel better.

I don't really know the ins and outs of why it got "pulled" off Greenlight, but whatever.

I agree with Jeff (as I already said when this thread first came up on the forums when this game was announced) it's better to judge a game by the game itself and not by what you think the game is by it's PR.

But, I mean, people keep talking about it. Will this be another proof of no PR is bad PR? Probably.

I don't really like what the games looks like from the trailer, but I can't deny that it is effective as horror. The things being shown that you supposedly do are genuinely horrifying. It's probably a scarier concept to me than most horror movies these days that aren't actually scary.

I have to play the game, though, because very few else will. I feel I can be pretty objective when I look at it and then write about it.

If nothing else I have to counter the subjective review Polygon will probably give it. Not that that's necessarily bad, but much like Postal I feel this game deserves a fair shake. I believe I can do that even if no one cares when I do.

It is quite possible this game will be vile worthless trash, but we won't know that unless we've played it. I kind of wish they at least went with more of a "playing the serial killer" approach. I am very worried that it's just a killing innocent people simulator which, while could be interesting commentary, probably won't be used that way. I'm just speculating now.

That's where I'm coming from. Hatred is basically an entire game of No Russian from MW2.

And that isn't allowed? One mission is the cutoff?

It's allowed, it's just repulsive and makes the world a shittier place.

@stryker1121: You haven't played it!

@spraynardtatum:

Is there something I'm missing? Dev says Hatred's about 'pure gameplay' and the clip shows all I need to know. Seen too much joking on chans about Brevik, et al going for 'high scores' in mass shootings. A game like this fuels that grotesque, cynical mindset, even if it doesn't lead to more shootings directly. There's no reason for Hatred to exist outside of 'just cuz.'

@stryker1121: Can't argue with how the game looks. I don't know if games like this fuel a mindset or just provide a disturbing outlet.

@spraynardtatum: It's weird the kind of audience this has drawn. I mean, there is definitely an audience for it. I would post some of the comments from the Greenlight page, but they're apparently too inappropriate for the forum. Which I can understand; it's pretty unsettling.

A guy was just telling me today about how the developer is interested in strong mod support, and some people were considering modding it to emulate the Norway attack by Anders Breivik. I guess that's something folks can do, but it's a bit creepy when people describe their excitement for it with such zeal.

I don't think any game is going to turn someone into a hateful, potentially violent person, but it certainly seems like there are plenty of people like that who may find the idea of this game appealing. It's a curious topic to consider, and as games continue to get more realistic and expand as a medium, it's likely a topic we're going to have to think about and discuss even more.

i don't buy the derision (aka those who say the only reasonable position is to 'wait-and-see') some are expressing to those who are dismissive of the product. granted, no one knows what the final product will say, nor how it plays. however, i think it's fair to draw some reasonable conclusions based on how the devs are positioning the thing. let's not forget- this is a truly independent product- arguably even moreso now that steam has declined to do business with them. they don't have a publisher, a license-holder, or marketing-spend to dictate how this game is positioned. so it's the devs that are in complete control of their image- and the most recent trailer and copy on their website paints a fairly vivid picture of what their intentions are (pure gameplay, mega violence, counterculture, etc).

the devs are free to do what they want- there's nothing illegal about this, and i don't think it's right to exist can nor should be challenged. however- this thing was never going to be acceptable to the mainstream, so why would they expect it to be sold onthe most mainstream (and COMPLETELY GATED) pc platform?

best case scenario: this is all some sort of artistic social commentary on the boundaries of what is permissible in entertainment. but even then- what a contrived and frankly unoriginal thing to express- AND IT'S TURNED OUT SO WELL BEFORE.

As stupid and childish as this game looks, I don't know that I feel good about Valve just denying it. I guess they are in their rights to remove it, right? Still sucks.

Censorship shouldn't be happening on a platform that features some of the biggest scams of the year.

The difference is that in MW2 the No Russian mission is supposed to be shocking and repulsive. You can play that entire mission without shooting a single person. That violence is used to establish (although in a really ham-fisted way) that the bad guy deserves to be hunted by the protagonist. In Hatred the violence is glorified, the goal of the game is to kill innocents, we're forced to listen to the ranting lunatic as if his ideas are meaningful. The way the camera angles itself to capture the goriest details to show innocent people being brutalized is reminiscent of snuff porn.

This game is meant to attract nihilists, psychopaths and extremely disturbed people. I don't see how a normal person could enjoy something so repulsive.

@rollingzeppelin: I dunno man, people watch Saw and torture porn movies, I guess they find them interesting in some way, or they wouldn't.

The bigger question is if Valve should outline some kind of moral guidelines for what they accept on their service, and they have. And it's their right, I think everyone understands that, but don't pretend that a company taking moral positions is good just because you agree with them.

If they removed something YOU found was wrong to remove, would you still defend them so vehemently? Maybe such a thing doesn't exist... or maybe you still would defend them? Who knows. Just something to think about.

The devs had a bad day when making this game the office dog had taken a dump on the floor and now know their mistake. So have gone back to the drawing board and changed a few things.

@johnsonvillebratwurst:

That was debunked a million times over. The only thing the CEO did was liking something in facebook without realizing what it was since the neo nazi page in question posted a bunch of biased news about stuff going on the middle east.

This is only one of the statements posted on the matter on the dev's site.

My grand-grand father was killed by Gestapo. Some members of my family were fighting against nazi occupation in the polish underground army called "Armia Krajowa". My forefathers suffered greatly because of totallitarian regimes, so who the fuck would I be if I'd truly support any of nazi activists? People give "likes" on Facebook all the time, even if they don't know what is exactly behind this or that fanpage. I did the same. Suddenly it makes me neo-nazi, great, have fun you stupid ass haters. Learn some history first, because when I read about "polish death camps" it makes me disgusted. You don't know shit about our history and you fall easily to false propaganda. The hateful title I'm working on (where virtual character hates virtual characters), doesn't have any connection to what I truly believe and think, there is a real-life outside, you know? Maybe you should try it? I will never ever again respond to any of those accusations, this is my ultimate statement."

I'm surprised things like this and the GTA V ban haven't seen that much discussion on the site. It's really weird that one way or another Jack Thompson is finally getting what he wanted.

This doesn't seem right, pretty sure I tried that and your team turns on you for not shooting people.

I find funny how spot on the movie 21 jump street was about today's teens and new age hipsters. Whats the difference between some crazy religious right wing fanatic saying gay people are corrupting society and Pokemon are demons and people censoring or speaking against its release?

I dont know if the game will be good or if i will buy it, but the creators have all the right to release the product and the people who want it, to buy it.

...and valve to say, "thanks, but no thanks."

and they're not even obligated to justify it. imagine if they were trying to release to home consoles- it would be a non-conversation, as microsoft and sony wouldn't even make it through the elevator pitch without saying "nuh-uh, sport."

What happened to the stance "it's just a video game, it's not real people dying or getting hurt." What makes this game any different? It has a story and goal, commit simulated murder in a video game. What's wrong with video game murder/massacre if it's not real? If it's not your taste don't buy/play it.

This game is showing me who some people really are. Replace the people with zombies and this would be some ho-hum indie game. Anyone mad at Apple about Papers, Please and happy about this is a hypocrite. I can almost guarantee most of the same people will be rooting for our favorite snarky mass murderer when Uncharted 4 comes out.

@quemador: They have the right to make it and release it and people have the right to buy it but Valve is under no obligation to sell it. Getting your game on the steam store is not an inalienable human right.

Something reminiscent of snuff porn and actual snuff porn are very different things. For starters, one is illegal and one isn't. Plus, a game called Hatred is most likely supposed to be shocking and repulsive even in its glorification. The glorification of it adds to the repulsiveness and rightfully should. It's definitely going to be a very very divisive and disturbing game. I think it gets a little dicey when you say things like "I don't see how a normal person could enjoy something so repulsive" because you're now denigrating anyone with an interest of the game as possible psychopaths. And for the record being a nihilist is not a bad thing, it's just different and might not be the best way to make friends.

Some very nice people love watching some real fucked up shit. Is the act of participation and the glorification where that becomes not okay? I can see how a game like this could be dangerous in the wrong hands, someone who has bad wiring may glean some disturbing points from a product like this, but I can say that about a lot of accepted popular entertainment. I'd actually argue something like Dexter is worse than something that is so strongly set in its evil aesthetic. Dexter is supposed to be a good guy. You're supposed to be on his side because he kills the "right people". He's a serial killer and you're rooting for him in every episode. I wouldn't say that Dexter shouldn't exist though (besides season 3, and 6-8 because they sucked).

"Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable."

I find this article rather interesting, especially considering who the author is...

There's no need for that: if they released the same exact gameplay trailer with a statement along the lines of "this game is supposed to make the player reflect on the awful depths of the human soul and on the unapologetic act of murder and how we mindlessly perform it countless time in videogames where it's often rewarded..." we would have been submerged by an infinite amount of articles on this "thought provoking indie game" and "artistic intent" and blablabla. I would honestly bet on it

Better yet, instead of a single statement at the beginning they should have put out the same exact trailer but during the gameplay the action should stop for a moment in various key parts (like the infamous shooting a girl in the face with a 9mil one) and display short sentences in a black screen narrated by a french dude with some classical music background for added artistic emphasis, things like:

-"why is killing killing?, or is it?"

-"I'm a mirror of myself, until I'm no more"

-"sometimes I feel like screaming to the void, and the void screams back at my face"

-"I pull the trigger and it goes boom"

@korlic: Why considering the author? Alexander has never once come out in favour of censorship, and feminists disagree sometimes. She also likes GTAV, she just thinks it's a bit stale. Criticism =/= censorship.

@onarum: only if at the end you get a shot of the french narrator wearing a black turtleneck, staring at the camera in complete silence in an empty room except for a chair and an ashtray with a lighted cigarette almost finished (all still in b&w, of course)

(i laughed more than i should have at "i pull the trigger and it goes boom" :D)

@cagliostro88 said:

But of course, I wouldn't have it any other way.

You know I see all these cries of "oh god censorship" but what people are failing to realize is that if Valve doesn't want this game on their service, then they are allowed to pull it from their service. These developers can sell their game through their own website if they wish, but ultimately valve has final say as to what goes on their service. Also the game looks like hot garbage.

More to the point, I believe Leigh's come out in the past few years (either on twitter or on her personal blog) claiming that she did not align herself with feminism earlier in her career.

Actually, here it is. It's an article on Bayonetta 2 and her reflections on her writings on gender in previous years. People change. Surprise!

Getting back on topic...I think people using the arguments "if you put French ambiguity...or if you just replaced it with zombies" are missing the point that this game appears to do neither of those things. Sure, if there was some metaphorical context inserted in the trailer (Hey, it may be in the game?) that's meant to give the player pause to their actions, the game might seem less repulsive. Hell, it might even fit above the extremely low bar for intellectualism in video games. But that doesn't appear to be the case, and that theoretical universe where Hatred is just another "ho-hum indie game' doesn't exist. People are allowed to judge the game's preview material and determine whether or not it disturbs them. I'm not really surprised that it seems to disturb a great deal of people.

spot on, and context is EVERYTHING. the zombie hypothetical is particularly poor, as zombies are effectively not human- they don't feel pain, they don't experience fear, and they don't have a sense of self-preservation. in other words, nearly no one directly empathizes with zombies. Hatred's 'targets' are in fact, almost directly opposite- bystanders who presumably don't want to die and/or be mutilated- so it's a very poor substitution indeed.

@a_cute_squirtle: If it's me to who you are referring with the "french ambiguity" the only reason the french angle came up was onarum making fun of my comment and me going with it carrying it further in a 50's french intellectual (existentialist?) spoof :D my initial point was kinda different, it was about the presentation mattering more than the actual footage. And it works both ways, a certain audience (you have proof in a screenshot of the steam forum posted here earlier today) would not be clamoring for this game if it wasn't for the "politically incorrect" stance and following reaction of the game media.

@mellotronrules: I'll play devils advocate, it's a video game. There is no emotion of pain from a computer generated object created to resemble a human life form. That "pain" you see is code. If we say video game violence doesn't lead to real life violence why are we having a discussion about bystanders who don't want to die. It's all a game and doesn't impact my mental state, right?

As far as I know Steam also doesn't sell Rapelay or any Porn games in general. They don't sell games rated AO. This looks like a game that'll be rated AO. I see no problem here.

@morelikelames: I'm mainly talking about the part where Jeff basically backs down from his position of taking down Hatred from Steam is dumb, because he heard some hearsay and rumor about one of the developers being a neo-nazi (which is ridiculous, and there is barely any credible evidence to that fact) and when confronted by people who believe that idea, Jeff was just like: "Wait yep, that's fucked up, never mind."

He switched his position on rumor and then started to complain that he said something that caused political outcry and got tweets from all sorts of people. I'm just like, dude, stick with your guns and stop complaining when you get shit on for it. It was just kinda lame to me.

@byterunner: Whoops. I'm sorry. I was irritated by the response he got with what he initially said and just assumed you were referring to that. We're probably pretty much on the same page.

Its just like a griindhouse videogame, BOOBS, BLOOD, GORE, CONTROVERSY, BUY IT

People are obviously free to think whatever they want of the game itself, but I'm sick of hearing "Valve has the right to do it, so whatever." That's not an argument. It's not a justification or defense of anything. It's just a factoid. Yes, very good, you stated Valve has legal rights over what is distributed on their marketplace. Good for you. It means fuck-all when you're arguing on the merits of it being removed or not.

I honestly don't care that much about whether or not Valve has the right to remove it or not. I just like that they made a stupid edgy trailer to try to drum up controversy and it blew up in their faces.

I have the sneaking suspicion that some GG people latched onto this game with stupid motives so thus the anti-GG people just could not let that bury itself so they needed to make a big kerfuffle out of all of it and then you get all of this. The internet has this annoying way of twisting even some dumb uber gore indie game into some kind of political dick wagging. People arguing so far as to state emphatically just what type of person would play this game. The game that hasn't even been released and all we really know about it comes from two short trailers. Extrapolate on that all you please if that's important to you but why would you?

Digging into the developers motives by internet gumshoes. Conflating supporting Steam in its decision to full support of censorship. Its Tomodachi Life all over again. Its GTAV in Australia. Its every motive of every developer, every option included or not included in a game, its every devs Twitter being scoured to see "which side they're on". At some point this industry is going to need a Rally to Restore Sanity ala John Stewert before all the fun gets sucked out of it.