@alex Tweeted several times about this game, and he pointed out that the violence you commit in Hatred really isn't much different from the violence you commit in, say, GTA.

Thing is, I haven't played any GTA games, intentionally. I've started watching a Let's Play of GTA 5 and turned it off shortly into the intro. I own Payday 2 through PS+, but I haven't played it. "It's just a game," but I'm generally disturbed by games that encourage extreme violence toward innocents, especially without any redeeming goal or justification.

It's possible to have gameplay involving unjustified violence against people, but it requires some sort of pressure release valve: a veneer of parody, a slapstick quality, something. Who knows, Hatred must just be the video game equivalent of Funny Games--which everyone should make him or her self watch--but from the trailer that isn't coming through.

I say stuff like this should be allowed to exist. Never censor fiction.

But I will stand by my belief that things like this do influence consumers. Some more than others but I 100% believe violence in video games can alter a man's boundaries and mannerisms.

And that's not just relegated to video games. I think pop radio music does the same with the way they verbally sexualize woman. IT absolutely alters unconsciously how some view woman. Their worth. Their purpose. All this talk about inequality towards woman and I would argue that woman themselves bury their own efforts. You'll have, say, a group of woman fighting how woman are portrayed as sex objects, then witness these pop idols flap their gums off about how much they want it.

Again we can't as a society censor out any media because of all the things that hinders, but there are repercussions. This game could get popular, fall into the hands of the wrong person, get him/her to start thinking in a certain way, then bam. volatile Influence like any other occurrence.

Again, I have no issues with this and think it should exist but don't scoff at its possible influence on individuals. We are all who we are through influence. Positive & negative.

So like other people have said, teenage me used to do this kind of shit in GTA all the time. In GTA3 I easily spent more time murdering people and driving cars around dangerously than I did with the missions. I'd use cheats to give myself full health and body armour, all guns and ammo and then enter a subway, murder everyone and then spend the next hour or so in a shoot out with the police.

I'm not sure coating that with "but that's not the point of that game" makes GTA any better than this game in terms of moral superiority. This game is being upfront about what it is, about what you'll be doing in it. You'll be doing what lots of people do in every open world sandbox anyway and getting score for it. In GTA 1 I didn't even know their was missions. I used to think the point was to just murder your way to unlocking the next level.

I love Hotline Miami, it's probably one of my top 10 games of all time. I don't love it for the story, I love it for the game play. I think the game play of this Hatred game will probably be really bad though if everyone just cowers away from you all the time.

I don't know if I'll play this. Probably not, unless it turns out it's actually really fun, but I'm not going to pretend the subject matter offends me, because it doesn't.

Come on, yall, don't hound Alex. I'm sure he'll talk about it if he wants to. He doesn't need to be pressured by any of us to spend his time on a game he may not care about. If something interesting comes from discussion around it, I bet he, Patrick, and all the other guys might talk about it, but that's ultimately up to them.

Personally, I think we may be stressin a bit much about the promo trailer for a new indie game. I will be curious if it really is just as it seems right now. And if there's more to it, I'm sure we'll have some fun or interesting conversations around it in the future.

People's responses to this game are really intersting. A game that just says "random violence is fun". Does that touch a nerve in gamers? (Note: I'll never play this game, and have no interest in it beyond the reaction it is provoking).

@patrickklepek and @alex may have strong opinions about it now, but I imagine, like most people, they probably want to forget about it fairly quickly.

People can go and buy and play this game if they want. I don't make a judgement on those people. That said, this is the only topic in which I will ever talk about this game.I don't think people are fucked in the head or anything because they might want to try this out and see what it is. But I know I won't be, and I am more than happy to leave this niche game to it's niche market and pretend it does not exist. The same thing I do with rape simulators and violent pornography. Not my cup of tea, but hey, someone somewhere enjoys it and hell, maybe they need it for some reason. Who am I to judge?

But there is nothing wrong with not wanting to talk about this game, even if you have strong opinions. It is a niche game for a small group of people who will enjoy it. That is their thing.

Wow, this looks gross.

Oh well, I can safely ignore it. What will be even more gross is the inevitable censorship campaign to get it banned or some crap.

I'm not entirely convinced this isn't some weird commentary on game violence yet, either. Or Frog Fractions 2.

@reverendk: That's why I had cops as a bullet point. It's one of those professions where, regardless of gender of race - if you're wearing the uniform, you're no longer a civilian; you're an officer whose uniform stands for a certain viewpoint. It's an "us or them" thing, and if you're wearing the uniform, you're one of "them".

And it's not a demarcation of it being acceptable or not. However, it goes from random violence to targeted violence. I'm sure everyone of every race and gender gets mowed down, but every close up in the trailer was either an officer, a minority, or a female.

Especially as a minority, and especially in a state with concealed carry. For some reason, the thought of someone walking down the park with a death wish, gunning everyone down with an automatic weapon doesn't seem as plausible as someone with a death wish suddenly pulling out a handgun and shooting me in the back of the head and being quite happy because there's one less non-white person in the world.

I think @alex and @patrickklepek should just spend more time talking about the greatness that is Thrasher Presents: Skate and Destroy and it's jamming soundtrack.

@cale said:

@euandewar said:

There's something very 2006 about the way that dude is animated.

More like 2007 if you ask me.

I agree 100%. I thought this was going to be like a teaser for another Darkness game at first (I've just started playing the Darkness 2 last week).

I am skeptical of if there is anything more to this game, but I do think a perspective like @brodehouse's is valid. Despite what the devs may be saying, I think it -could- have something more to it. It would explain a lot of how seemingly disconnected it is. Messages from devs are certainly part of the overall experience. Like in all art, the presentation and framing of that art is part of it. This could potentially be a kind of kabuki theater. I wouldn't put it past a small indie dev like this.

With that said, I also think it's understandable for people to take the developers at their word and judge how it appears. I am open to there being more to it, but that doesn't change my initial reaction. It seems shocking just to be shocking, and the devs seem to think their brand of politics "isn't politics". From the outset, it looks like something that may be genuine and unappealing, but hey, we shall see.

@streetninja said:

@cale said:

@euandewar said:

There's something very 2006 about the way that dude is animated.

More like 2007 if you ask me.

I agree 100%. I thought this was going to be like a teaser for another Darkness game at first (I've just started playing the Darkness 2 last week).

Maybe this is some elaborate P.T.-like game which is really just a teaser for a new top-down Darkness game. It has caught people's attention, and the promotion around it could suddenly take an unexpected turn.

While I might think it was a bit crass, I could perhaps appreciate such a convincing deception.

I like these speculative theories. Accepting it as it appears to be is likely less palatable for a lot of folks than the many potentials we can conjure up. I would put myself somewhat in that camp, as well. This game seems so out there that I bet we'll see many alternative theories about what it really is up until the point it actually comes out.

Man that game looks pretty fucked up

"Player has to ask himself what can push any human being to mass-murder. We provoke this question using new Unreal Engine 4, pushing its physics (or rather PhysX) systems to the limits and trying to make the visuals as good as possible."

I found this statement in particular to be hilarious for some reason.

This kind of smacks of 12 year old. It's like an essay written in junior high, trying to pretend something has depth by vaguely alluding, but actually having nothing worthwhile to say.

@brodehouse: It is clearly intentional, and I think that dialectic art is important (as someone who was an art student before).

Obviously we cannot judge the game before having played it. That said, the marketing campaign right now more about snuff-type level of violence that an insightful look at it. Not that all snuff-y things are bad but... well, you get my point. I'd give Hotline Miami as an exemple of a game that uses the same basic idea in a way that has "something to say" (but I fee like that did not need a sequel).

Anyway, I'm also a dude that tends to hate ultraviolent films, as I don't think a representation of violence, as cold as it is, is enough to denounce it or make you think about it. So I might be too sensitive.

Speaking of Alex's opinion on the game, he made a Storify for easy viewing of his tweets.

I think I'd like to know a little more about this game before I pass final judgement. I like to play and experience all sort of games, so I may have to try this just to see how if feels to play it. I am guessing once you get into the game, it isn't going to feel any different than GTA, Saints Row or Hotline Miami or any other game similar to them.

I imagine the developers giving an interview with IGN and then suddenly the main dev rips off his mask to reveal that he was Hideo Kojima the whole time!

Another example of how just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I think there are two options for this game: Do something like Spec Ops: The Line did and attempt to get the player to take ownership for their actions (which I think doesn't work even when done in a nuanced manner as the devs for that game tried to do).

Second, unabashedly make a murder simulator and cop to it.

I am of the mind that video games in and of themselves typically don't alter anyone's boundaries. Video games, like all other artistic forms, are merely a reflection of society itself. It's like when some people were up in arms over Bret Easton Ellis's American Psycho when it came out in 1991. The book itself wasn't emboldening anyone who wasn't already emboldened to be racist or misogynistic or violent. It was merely encapsulating a very real way of looking at life that people had.

I think, if there is an argument that playing a video game would lead to indulgence in the types of behavior the video game promotes, the opposite - that video games may act as a simulator that keeps the player satisfied enough not to do these things in real life as s/he otherwise might - is also worth considering (and I know that scientists have considered both of these things).

Ha, the Jackie Estacado comparison was exactly my first thought, too.

What if this is frog fractions 2?

Nope. Pass. This game just seems like it's asking for trouble.

Yeah, the comment about games becoming "cheerier and more politically correct" ignores...well it ignores MORE than these two things, but there are only so many hours in a day.

First: a lot of games, especially those outside the AAA sphere are cheerier as a backlash to how "grim" and "gritty" everything got in the 90s/early 00s.

Second, of course: no they aren't. From AAA to indie, there is a TON of darkness and grimness, it's just done, I find, with more verve and nuance. Take a look at Lone Survivor, Last of Us, Max Payne 3, GTA V, or Hotline: Miami.

I honestly can't tell if these devs think there's actually a dearth of "dark" games that they're legitimately trying to fill, or if they're just using that language to try and get noticed.

The concept seems sound, but I wonder if they actually give it proper weight to the fact that what he is doing is wrong or if it's just angst for angst sake.

I certainly will check this game out.

O, you KNOW that the major news networks are gonna have a field day with this one.

I do think games like this can and should exist, but the way they present it is just...I dunno...horrible. Leaves me a bit queasy. I keep reading peoples comments (I'm not pointing fingers guys) that its "no different than GTA" Umm, no. it is VERY different than GTA.

GTA has story, it has satire and juxtaposition. You have freedom to do what ever you please or whatever the game offers you. Yes, you can kill countless amounts of people in GTA but the game never pushes you to do it, tells you to do it, or even reminds you that you can do it, that is left up to the player themselves. This is a game about murdering people. That's it. That is the only goal of the game.

I applaud the people having the balls to make a game like this, however they are stupid to do so at the same time, especially with the things that have happened in recent years. All the developers are doing is giving the major news networks and the people who work to censor/ ban the games that we enjoy the ammo they want to use for their agenda.

In the end though, weather this game comes out or not, I cannot see myself playing this. My 2-cents.

Hey, if you feel like blowing your brains out read the YouTube comments on the ad!

My personal favorite is someone saying they were going to buy the game just because it pissed off some "SJWs". I know YouTube comments are bad, but geez.

I also envision this game being brought up in the next inevitable crime spree that's linked to games. Way to give the people actually who want to get rid of games even more ammo.

Something about they way they are marketing this just makes me uncomfortable. I know that when you boil it down it's no more violent or anything than any other games out there, but the way they talk about it just makes me feel uneasy about in a way I really can't put to words.

Anyhow, go ahead and let them go about their business making it and I'll just move on to find something that is more agreeable for me.

Edit: Oh shit, It would be hilarious if this turns out to be Frog Fractions 2

I was thinking how in most games, especially open world games, one of the things most players try is to subvert regular morality, often to just see if the game will 'let them' or because it's so absurd ("did that option say Kill Yourself? See what- OH FUCK!"). Which made me realize that the protagonist of Hatred is basically Open World Vinny; a kill-crazy psychopath who is only pleased by causing horrifying pain and suffering in the name of pointless mischief.

I wonder if the way to subvert Hatred is to try a no-kill playthrough.

@shortbreadtom: The people who buy a game because they thought it would piss off "SJWs" is exactly who the game is marketed to. The website complains about political correctness in games and says they want to give the player "pure, gaming pleasure". Apparently a game isn't fun unless the protagonist is a misanthrope on a "genocide crusade" (I still can't get over how stupid that sounds).

Yeah, this doesn't sit right with me on so many levels.

If Spec Ops the line has taught me anything, If a game makes me feel uncomfortable on a deep level, the best way to "win" is not play at all.

Hey wow, this is really gross!

Spot on.

I wonder how outraged and dismissive someone would be if they saw the footage of his Sleeping Dogs QL, except with his audio replaced by a 14 year old boy talking about how awesome punching random strangers is.

(note: I didn't make or name this video. It was the first result of me searching for "vinny sleeping dogs" on YouTube)

Or maybe imagine that footage (of him attacking female NPCs only, of course) with some lovely voice over from Anita explaining how this game actually incentivises abuse! In some literal ways, Vinny is the "gamer" that some members of the press loathe.

In this would where so many rail against "progressives" and "SJWs", the irony is that they're all just conservatives now.

Anyway, about this game... I think it just looks kind of boring. The general concept of "hate" isn't much of a framework to build motivation. It kind of worked in Postal because those levels were all pretty small and focused, but this world seems much more open which seems actually like a bad thing. Still, it's hard to frame any opinion from a teaser so I'll wait and see.

I see a lot of people here argue context context context....... Killing is still killing people.

A man who shoots someone out of revenge is no different than a guy who killed an individual for no reason. Still a murderer. Still tried as a murder.

So you can't really justify how one game goes about it compared to another. Hatred is just less filtered & sugar-coated, which in effect makes your tummies bubble. But you run over pedestrians for no objective reason in a game like GTA, rest assured you're taking part in what essentially is the same thing. Don't lie to yourselves.

I'll reiterate what I said before though, I totally think something like this could warp someone through influence, but thats the same in any media (Ex: female sexualization in popular radio music, even by woman themselves!). You can't censor out of fear!!!! The world will continue to revolve regardless.

I really don't understand the panic around here by what "damage" this could possibly cause the industry. Science has sided with us. The Supreme Court has sided with us. Nothing is going to happen. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing this game does is replace Postal 2 as the zombified horse talking heads like to cart out and beat every time a violent video game issue comes to national media attention.

So some recent controversy has had certain tools claiming that violent video games caused recent bad things to happen. So what? They literally had to redefine what the word "aggression" means in order to make those pathetic arguments. If this game actually helps them get wider viewing of those claims, any media outlet that isn't a farce will immediately explain what "aggression" means and what those studies actually show.

Personally, I don't really have a problem with this. It's unlikely that it will cause any controversy. The fears that an actual real life shooter may one day have their computer/console searched after a murder(s) with the game installed really isn't unlike someone panicking about "incoming Ebola epidemic that can't be stopped!" When I sit here and TRY to find a reason to be afraid of video games a deranged person has played, I'd be more concerned with FPS games that use real life weapons. (Not that I'd support censoring them, just me trying to imagine myself as your average older American with no knowledge of video games)

I'm curious to see where that game goes. It doesn't look fantastic, and I don't necessarily appreciate the look of the main character (I used to look a lot like him and people looking like that get a bad rep without trying too hard), but I can't say the violence really offends me. I've played plenty of violent games before. And not all of the "people" I have killed in games have been "the bad guy" so whatever.

Besides, video games still lacks in certain areas creatively that I wish they would explore more. Not everything needs to be justified. For all it's worth, maybe this is the full version of the old classic GTA thing you did where you got your wanted level up and see how far you survived. Except without everything else in the game. And turn it into a rouge like and you spawn again at the house and do it all over again.

Or maybe it's just a shitty story justifying this guys Hatred of all those humans and their ordinary life. Whatever the case may be, I'm curious.

@voysa_reezun said:

I couldn't agree with you more.

@gnatsol: I quite disagree. A movie like "The Tribe", that shows back to back prostitution, a rape scene, an abortion scene and five murders can show those and still have something to say out of it. A movie like "Drive" will be stylised and detached in a way that change the perception of the violence. At the opposite, something like "The Human Centipede 2" just expects you to shock and/or amuse you with stupid violence. At the end of the day, what is problematic with the trailer is not the violence itself but the tone in which it is portrayed.

Look, I don't try to defend a game like GTA as something highly moral, I think those game have a bunch of moral problems. Even Spec Ops has a bunch of issues on that level. We need to talk about violence in videogames. Hatred just seems childish and quite stupid.

It really isn't about the violence here, it's about how juvenile it looks. Especially the way it presents itself in the trailer. That dialogue is hilariously immature and stupid. Then it shows him gunning down innocents and shooting a woman in the mouth.

@truthtellah said:

I imagine the developers giving an interview with IGN and then suddenly the main dev rips off his mask to reveal that he was Hideo Kojima the whole time!

"Hatred" could really be a collabo between Kojima Productions and the Frog Fractions guy! Those pranksters!

Most titles that include immoral objectives choose to by default to do something that in essence makes everything right morally right. Hatred, most people are assuming, will not. I see that as creative choice, as unpopular as it is, and creativity should in no way be censored.

You can go a whole bunch of ways to portray murder but all directions lead back to the fact that you have associated yourself with murder, and in most cases have virtually commited it. And it should all be fine since whats our main argument when people call games in general too violent?

They're just games.

So over the top that I laughed. Clearly going for shock value. No big deal.

That exist in a society and can portray complex ethical or moral problems. I'll never argue that someone that plays a violent game will take a gun and go kill people, that does not mean you should go on and portray any act of violence without any responsabilities.

I won't answer much more as I don't want to recreate a debate that have been discussed countless time. The "they're just games" argument is simply not something I agree with.

This is going to get so much attention in the media, that it's going to sell.

I actually agree. Games do have influence in popular culture, which in effect makes them more than just games.

I was just stating was the comment argument is. Nice dialogue. :)

I wasn't a big enough dope to think this was interesting when I was 14, much less a decade later.

Plus, it looks like an isometric twin-stick kind of game, which is almost as appalling as the premise itself.

This is what Jack Thompson and over-protective parents think all violent games are like.