上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 400

[–]volborg [スコア非表示]  (214子コメント)

This was what all the fuss was about.. kinda silly tbh. i think that Mortal kombat is way more brutal then this game..

[–]Twisted_Fate [スコア非表示]  (63子コメント)

That's because as TB rightly noticed, the trailer was framed in a specific and hyperbolic way, to purposefully cause controversy.

[–]Harrason [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

To be honest, that's pretty smart.

The Mass Media gains a lot from publicizing this because they get views, and the developer gains a lot from the publicity as a result. The only ones who would lose anything are the supporters who pre-ordered this game and then came out disappointed.

I think other companies will be using this as an example, in that they may intentionally cause such controversies in the future in order to drive up sales. Since there's a political agenda behind it there's a high chance that it'll be successful rather than not.

[–]randomdrifter54 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I believe they have been doing this for quite a while. People just don't notice.

[–]ssssarang [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They have indeed. "Trust me, I'm lying" by Ryan Holiday goes into this quite a bit. It constantly happens but because it's "nice" people don't care, but only really notice if it offends them in any way.

It's brilliant marketing work, and consumers won't ever learn (as signified by the rest of this thread thoroughly still influenced by the marketing work), but it's always fun to see it happen.

[–]gotta_ban_them_all [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

The only ones who would lose anything are the supporters who pre-ordered this game and then came out disappointed.

On the other hand, first AO game on Steam. (That is assuming the devs are not lying about the rating, I can't find Hatred on ESRB website at all) It opens doors to a lot of other game that wouldn't have existed even if Hatred itself is mediocre.

[–]ItsMeCaptainMurphy [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

At this point I'm almost positive the devs are lying about the rating, but we'll officially see in two days I suppose

[–]gotta_ban_them_all [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

And in that case it will make Twitch's AO ban funny as hell.

[–]ItsMeCaptainMurphy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Oh, I think the devs for Hatred are geniuses at least as far as marketing goes. They basically danced all this bait out and site after site have bitten hook line and sinker and will look rather stupid - all because why bother to verify?

As far as I know twitch was citing a polygon article as the only proof they need that the game is AO. Not the ESRB, but Polygon. In fact, twitch's "banned games page" lists hatred as being banned only because it is AO, rather than being in the bucket of "games banned for other reasons". It's very possible Twitch is going to have some egg on its face on Sunday.

But they'd hardly be the only place that has overreacted to this.

[–]dustfeather [スコア非表示]  (52子コメント)

And the perpetually outraged media took the bait.

The first time I saw the trailer, the only thing I thought was "meh, looks okay I guess".

I cannot understand how anyone can be outraged or offended by this game.

[–]XANi_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I thought "if it will be just killing innocents it will get pretty boring pretty fast"

[–]Cadoc [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And the perpetually outraged media took the bait.

It's not like "the media" didn't know it was bait. But, they knew it'd get views. Even here, where just about every single comment calls out Hatred for its blatantly obvious marketing strategy, we've had something like 3 - 4 links about it, on the front page, in the last couple of days. That's for a game that likely nobody would even know exists otherwise.

[–]Tactful [スコア非表示]  (43子コメント)

From Keith Stuart at The Guardian:

But the galling thing about this game isn’t its content, which is ridiculously juvenile fantasy violence, but the ease with which Destructive Creations (even the studio name is a cheap gag), has been able to exploit the ongoing culture war between entrenched “hardcore” gamers and liberal critics. Witness the following oft-quoted statement from the studio website:

"These days, when a lot of games are heading to be polite, colorful, politically correct and trying to be some kind of higher art, rather than just an entertainment – we wanted to create something against trends. Something different, something that could give the player a pure, gaming pleasure."

It is so obviously laser-targeted at certain communities of gamers currently feeling marginalised and threatened as game developers broaden their horizons and explore new themes and audiences. It is the cynical appropriation and encapsulation of a million furious games forums comments about “social justice warriors” – feminists, white knights and beta males – ruining the industry by handwringing over sexist tropes and poor representation. Hatred presents itself as a cause, a flag to wave against the perceived over-politicisation of game content. Hatred is making a stand.

But a stand against what? Against a smattering of mainstream Triple A titles that have chosen to contextualise the violence they portray? A stand against small indie studios looking to explore the possibilities of games beyond the madding crowd of military shooters, sports sims and fantasy brawlers? A stand against cultural critics now examining games with the same lenses through which they have viewed movies and music for 50 years?

Hatred is not a rebellious game. It is an isometric third-person twin-stick shooter that adheres to the conventions of that ancient genre with obsequious rigidity. Its understanding of anarchy is a teenager’s bedroom delusion, a comedic supermarket sweep of deadbeat pulp horror cliches. It is the slasher film, the death metal band, of games – providing the same sort of production line viscerality to the kids who think Slipknot and the Saw movies are cool and transgressive. It is as dangerous and provocative as telling your mum you’ve brushed your teeth when you haven’t.

Link to full piece: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/29/hatred-gaming-controversy

[–]kittlekites [スコア非表示]  (19子コメント)

Let me get this straight; It's galling to try to appeal to a subset of gamers expressing a specific sentiment, because he thinks those gamers are being "cynical?" And this quote starts with the word "galling" and ends with "It is as dangerous and provacative as telling your mum you've brushed your teeth when you haven't."

If anything, this just supports the thought that being outraged or offended by this product is akin to being annoyed with the kids who skateboard down your street in clothes you think look stupid.

[–]hotcod [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

He's not calling the gamers cynical but the developers who were looking to exploit the sentiment of that group by playing up aspects of their game. That the game doesn't actually live up to that in reality is what he is calling galling.

All of which I can understand as someone who was highly critical of the game as it was being presented to us by the devs. I would have at least had to respected them if they'd delivered on it. Instead we get what is apparently a complete damp squib that seems to have drowned out what little controversy it might have mustered in it's own mediocrity.

In other words no matter where you stand, if at all, on the whole "cultural wars" thing it seems the take away from Hatred is that the dev played both sides of it to drum up PR for an otherwise unremarkable game.

[–]FSMhelpusall [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

If that's the case, then the media are gullible fools who fell for it.

You realize that this mirrors exactly what was done in the 90s, with Carmageddon, Mortal Kombat, the original GTAs, etc though?

Would you blame Netherrealm, etc for it, or the media?

[–]Tactful [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

In other words no matter where you stand, if at all, on the whole "cultural wars" thing it seems the take away from Hatred is that the dev played both sides of it to drum up PR for an otherwise unremarkable game.

Exactly this. It shouldn't matter how you feel about social progressiveness in video games - this dev made a bad game and is selling it on the back of artificial trangessiveness. It's boring at best and disgusting at worst.

[–]Tactful [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

He didn't say "gamers are being cynical", he said the studio behind Hatred is cynical for directly appealing to a very specific slice of the gaming population during the apex of an online culture war.

He is right. It is cynical. This game was clearly made with intentions to rile up, to create controversy, to piss of afformentioned "liberal critics", and to cater to 2edgy4me people who want to "play the game that Twitch banned!" etc.

[–]kittlekites [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

So he is offended by a marketing strategy that is intentionally trying to offend?

Articles like his will probably help this mediocre game surpass sales expectations.

[–]biiirdmaaan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I didn't get "offended" from that article so much as "underwhelmed."

[–]Wazula42 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

If anything, this just supports the thought that being outraged or offended by this product is akin to being annoyed with the kids who skateboard down your street in clothes you think look stupid.

It is. It's just unfortunate that some gamers are so easy to manipulate that all you have to do is go "the MAN doesn't want you to play this game!" and thousands will flock to it, no matter how mediocre it is.

[–]FSMhelpusall [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

That is painfully one-sided.

I do think that it compares to the slasher film, the death metal band. It only remains transgressive for as long as hand-wringing and morally decrying anyone who enjoys them as a deviant to be shunned from society endures. Once that's gone, it's no longer transgressive is it?

Who still considers Elvis Prestley as 'edgy', nowadays?

[–]Tactful [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

What's the other side in your opinion, if this is one-sided?

Do you not think that Hatred is a controversy-baiting game?

Do you not think the people buying hatred will be either buying it because it's banned, or buying it to feel "edgy"? Young kids wanting to play "the game that twitch banned!!!" etc?

The point of the article is that the Hatred devs think they are transgressive, but they aren't. It's just rubbish and nonsense packaged in weak controversy.

[–]FSMhelpusall [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

The other side is that it blames the company and the buyers, trying not to mention a certain controversy by name while alluding to it with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, instead of the media who overreacted to a very meh game.

Ironically, they -are- transgressive though. Not because of anything innate to the game, but when there's a moral panic around it, and people are talking about how terrible it is and how anyone who plays it is a horrid scumbag...

[–]Tactful [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I'm not really seeing this "moral panic". I had a flick through and most of the articles I skimmed said essentially the same stuff.

[–]FSMhelpusall [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

When Twitch changes its rules in the wake of a coming game, that is a moral panic. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be the need to ban it. Consider it censorship, consider it not, a company made a sudden quick decision to change its policies just because this game is coming out.

That, is a moral panic.

You might say they didn't want to be associated with the game by having it streamed... ANd the question becomes: Why? Because, well, there's a moral panic and shaming of those who will play it. And those who will host it, perhaps.

[–]CFGX [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

This is the biggest load of horseshit. DC didn't exploit anything, they literally sat back while the media went FUCKING INSANE over this game and said "yea, ok, we're still here"

The media made a monster, and now they're trying to whitewash their role in it.

[–]BobRossNTV [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

the fact that that quote is actually from the dev just makes this even more of a cringe fest.

i'm not upset that this game is glorifying killing innocent people, i'm upset that they'd make something so shit.

at least unlike Avengers, this is getting lambasted by the public. fuck if the average person would know anything about art, but i guess it takes something being obscene for them to recognize how shit boring and unneccesary violence is.

[–]Kingoficecream [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

gamers currently feeling marginalised and threatened as game developers broaden their horizons and explore new themes and audiences.

Against a smattering of mainstream Triple A titles that have chosen to contextualise the violence they portray? A stand against small indie studios looking to explore the possibilities of games beyond the madding crowd of military shooters, sports sims and fantasy brawlers?

lol, Holy shit that horrible usage of emphasized quotations and weird editorialized narrative. That is not why gamers are feeling marginalized at all. It's more along the lines of a large number of "progressives" having taken it upon themselves to decry gamers (some of whom are already social pariahs) as sexist/misogynist. It's very obvious where the guardian stands on this.

*I'm just going to go ahead and add in that it isn't just sexism, but violence of course as is the case here, that just wasn't the first thing that comes to mind when talking about "marginalized" given some recent events.

[–]Tactful [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

For the first time in the series' history, EA added 11 international Women's Football Teams to the upcoming FIFA 16.

I'm sure you can imagine the online response to this. Lots of young men posting shitty jokes, decrying it as an act of "feminism", complaining about women encroaching on their hobby etc. But there was also a lot of support for this, especially from fans of womens football who were excited to be able to play as women for the first time in this mainstream video game franchise.

The truth is that there are a large number of video game enthusiasts out there who do feel threatened when things like EA adding women players to FIFA happen. They feel outraged. This isn't some conspiracy, this is a fact.

The problem with this whole "culture war" is that no matter what I or you say, people will frame it however they want. You've framed it as "progressives decrying gamers". Did some socially progressive people write some articles about how the definition of "gamer" was broadening? Yeah of course they did. But does that disqualify the countless people who rage and comment every time a major studio takes an action seen as "progressive"? No, it doesn't, those are real people posting those comments, people who are genuinely angry about women being featured in FIFA.

But, to be blunt, talking about these 'issues' has become really boring to me. Luckily I have the luxury of being able to close this tab, not respond to comments, and watch the rest of S4 of Bob's Burgers which is a fun show I'm enjoying a lot.

[–]FSMhelpusall [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Because FIFA is totally a game marketed to the core gaming demographic.

about how the definition of "gamer" was broadening? Yeah of course they did.

And about how core gamers are the scum of the Earth, to the point that one of them (Ian Miles Cheong, EiC of Gameranx) has come out and apologized for it?

[–]OdysseusOfIthaca [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I heard literally zero negative comments about the addition of females teams beyond "I probably won't play as them because I don't follow women's sports".

[–]minutman [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The first time I saw this game and commented: "This game will get repetitive and boring quite quick, I hope they have more then what was shown."

[–]HappyRectangle [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I cannot understand how anyone can be outraged or offended by this game.

Few people are.

What got people outraged was when it was taken off steam, and some ill-defined censorship brigade got blamed.

[–]entity2 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I thought to myself "This looks pretty childish, but the actual gameplay looks better than it has any right to be". But, after watching a few Lets Plays, I see it's pretty mediocre stuff bundled with some pretty awful design decisions.

[–]FirstTimeWang [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I thought the fuss was about a game focused on deliberately targeting police and unarmed civilians.

[–]dustfeather [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

i think that Mortal kombat is way more brutal then this game..

Yep, there is a reason why MKX cannot be bought in Germany on Steam.

This is what it looks like when you go to the german MKX Steam page: http://i.imgur.com/jbAMmu8.png

Whereas Hatred is absolutly fair game here. If even Germany is fine with Hatred (and they usually ban everything on sight that is "too violent") then some people really need to rethink their morals.

[–]Rlivs [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Hatred is available because it hasn't gotten an age rating. It can only be banned if they submit it to the BPJM.

[–]dustfeather [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It can only be banned if they submit it to the BPJM.

Nope, that is not correct. The BPJM can act independently and they can ban media before it gets released.

A good example would be Dead Rising 3. Even though Capcom actually never released the game in Germany and never intended to do in the future, the BPJM still put it on "Liste B" which means it is very likely to get banned.

Sources:

http://www.schnittberichte.com/news.php?ID=6515

Both of the other Dead Rising games are banned in Germany, it is illegal to sell, advertise and publically show those games.

Which means that the Dead Rising series is BY FAR worse than anything Hatred has to offer.

[–]Rlivs [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah, I should have said until they test it.
It hasn't gotten an age rating yet. Thats why it is still available. Wouldn't surprise me if they ban it if they bother to test it.
Dead Rising is a much bigger release, thats why they cared about it. They probably don't even know Hatred exists.

[–]tr0nc3k [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

What TB is forgetting is that context matters, even when it comes to violence.

Doing a fatality in MK is not the same thing as cold bloodedly shooting someone's brains out after they yell "please no, I have a family".

They are both needless fantasy violence, but one can have a much deeper emotional impact (hits home so to speak) and the other one you just dismiss outright as silly game violence.

It's a thinner line one would expect.

[–]Toribor [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah absolutely. Exploding gory demon guts are absolutely different than shooting up civilians. Context is so important.

I think games like this can be a good safe way to vent frustration, but I definitely see why visuals like this end up on the news and older people freak out about video games brainwashing their grand children.

[–]RyanBlack [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Both are fantasy violence. Both games you use a controller to move a character around and to kill other graphics on the screen.

If you can't separate fictional violence from reality, regardless if the context is darker, then there are deeper issues at play here than the content of the game.

[–]ifandbut [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yes, but as TB also pointed out, the people you are killing in Hatred are nothing more then pixels. The civilians have no character development, they just spout the same lines over and over again. No different then whacking a old lady in the face with a baseball bat in GTA.

Context matters, as you say. Which is why it is alot more impactful when a show like Game of Thrones kills off (or rapes) a major character that you have seen develop over hours of screen time.

Killing nameless NPCs? Not that impactful.

[–]jschild [スコア非表示]  (126子コメント)

It was never about the brutality but the targets.

[–]cloud7928 [スコア非表示]  (113子コメント)

Which are the same in GTA or Saints Row.

[–]jschild [スコア非表示]  (110子コメント)

Not at all, you can, but that is most definitely not the main goal of the games.

[–]LordSwedish [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

That argument hold so little weight. I want Rockstar to investigate how many players have never gone out of their way in order to kill civilians in GTA V. People drive down beaches to run over civilians, when someone wants to have a shoot out with the cops they blow up random cars with people in them (essentially exactly what Hatred is) and if you're driving down the road and there's a biker in the way I guarantee you 99% of players will run them down.

You're not forced to but everyone does it so it doesn't really matter. Civilians and police officers are being gunned down by players for entertainment, I'm not saying this is bad but you can't hold them to different standards.

[–]TheKingOfToast [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Are you kidding? I downloaded a mod so I could know by speed so I could obey the speed limit. I stop at red lights and stop signs. I bumped into a car once and spent twenty minutes trying to figure out how to leave my insurance info.

[–]kittlekites [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

It's the main goal of individual missions within the games, like Rampages.

Indie games have a history of taking individual parts of bigger budget games, focusing on them and selling them at a lower price as an individual element. There's nothing "new" about this game, even the genre (top-down shooter) is one of the oldest in gaming.

[–]jschild [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

No they aren't - in the rampages in GTA 5, you are attacked by swarms of armed people who will kill you if you do not fight back.

[–]Pylons [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Even in the past games when you're shooting people you shoot gang members. I feel like a lot of people don't remember this. Rampages were about shooting gang members and blowing up vehicles.

[–]carl_super_sagan_jin [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

gta 2 says something different. hatred is nothing but gta2 kill frenzies: the game.

you collected the skull emblem and went on a rampage against innocent pixel people.

[–]cloud7928 [スコア非表示]  (66子コメント)

If you argue that killing civilians in a game is wrong it shouldn't matter what the main goal is. You can do it in both games so why apply some sort of double standard? You can always make your main goal in GTA to kill as many civilians as possible.

[–]apmihal [スコア非表示]  (31子コメント)

One allows you to kill civilians while the other requires it to progress in the game. I think that's a wide enough distinction to not consider it a double standard.

[–]Gurip [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

there are missions in SR that does exatly what you said.

[–]Wrathneer [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

The difference is that those are optional and you don't have to do them to progress. Its the entire point of Hatred. I agree its dumb to get all upset about this game, but its not a double standard or anything. You can progress in SR and GTA without killing a single innocent person, in Hatred its the entire point of the game.

[–]Gurip [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

You can progress in SR and GTA without killing a single innocent person

not true in SR.

[–]doctorsawbones [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

Doesn't Trevor have missions where he goes into a fit of rage and kills everything around him and you have to get so many kills to win?

[–]Tactful [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Those are optional side missions, and the wider context of those missions is debatable. It's not clear if he actually murders civilians, and within the context of those optional side missions the enemies themselves are attacking you en-masse.

Besides the fact that GTA V doesn't require you to complete those missions to progress through the main story, the game contextualises those missions in a way that makes it more about Trevor's madness and surreality.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure lots of smart people could tell me why it's problematic, it's just not the same as the core gameplay and narrative of Hatred.

[–]johnydarko [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

The rampages are optional, and none of them are civilians, they're rednecks attacking you for being Canadian, clowns who are after you for insulting them, etc. They're all trying to kill you, they're not innocent bystanders.

[–]Gurip [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

hate to break it to you but rednecks are still civilians.

[–]Valnar [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think the main point he was making was the "trying to kill you" part.

[–]Fagadaba [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The point is that they're not innocent; they're actively trying to kill you and you have to defend yourself. Unlike in Hatred, where only the police(from what we've seen) are trying to stop(read: kill) you.

[–]offspringftw [スコア非表示]  (14子コメント)

I still fail to see the problem with a game like this. Nobody is forced to play it

[–]Tactful [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

But nobody is forcing people not to play it?

A bunch of articles saying "this is disgusting, dumb, empty, don't waste your time playing this nonsense" isn't censorship.

[–]offspringftw [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

What are you talking about. There are literally a shitton of people trying to ban this game. Twitch has literally introduced a rule to disallow AO games specifically to deny the game from being streamed.

[–]brownsfantb [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Not allowing something to be streamed is not censorship. Twitch isn't trying to stop people from playing the game, just not letting people play it on their site.

[–]Tactful [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I'm sure there are a few people who would like games like this to be banned, yes, and back in the 00's Jack Thompson wanted GTA to be banned. So what? Since the dawn of entertainment and art there have been moralistic critics who want to ban things they deem unsuitable for public consumption. This is not a new phenomena, not even in this medium - but it's a vocal minority.

For instance, I think this game is dumb as hell, but I don't think it should be made illegal to purchase and play.

Twitch is an advertiser-orientated streaming service trying to cater to an audience of 14-24 year old young men, so they made the decision to ban adult content. It's a business decision - the people at Twitch aren't trying to actively ban this game due to some internalised sense of morality, they're trying to protect their business platform from revenue loss due to advertisers pulling out because nobody wants their advert for a keyboard or a soft drink rolling before a game segment where school attendees are murdered.

[–]Wazula42 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Are they banning it or are they refusing to stock/portray it? Is my Star Trek bondage erotica being banned because Target won't sell it and the local newspaper won't write about it?

[–]rockstarfruitpunch [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There aren't a shit ton of people trying to ban it - there are a shit ton of people disgusted by it.

[–]payne6 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Ding ding ding ding.

Seems like the main issue is people find this game disgusting or wrong. Then don't play it. No one is forcing this game down your throats. It got decent hype so of course people like TB and streamers are going to play it. I rarely watch streamers but I would probably watch one play this game out of morbid curiosity.

it just bothers me how games like Saints row, GTA, Postal 1, get a free pass but hatred is getting banned from certain digital stores.

[–]Spyger [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So if it isn't the main objective of the game, it's fine?

Whinnie the Poo Adventures! Rated E for everyone! Now with extra bonus mission: Donkey Show

The optional/main objective logic just doesn't hold up when you think about it for 2 seconds.

[–]niknarcotic [スコア非表示]  (31子コメント)

There's a clear difference when the game makes it the main objective to kill innocent civilians compared to when a game with a somewhat realistic physics engine fills a city with innocent civilians where you drive and run around inbetween storyline missions that don't involve killing innocent civilians.

[–]anoobitch [スコア非表示]  (16子コメント)

One of the main objectives that you have to do in GTA is to brutaly torture a guy for a piece of information. Is that okay?

[–]niknarcotic [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

And it was included with the incentive for the player not to enjoy it. Pure social commentary. The game alluded to how pointless and wrong the killing due to racial profiling by a government agency was, too.

[–]poobly [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

They couldn't've made that more clear if they ran a continuous banner during the scenes. If people missed the deeper meaning they probably aren't aware of current events in any way.

[–]Tactful [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I actually thought that segment (and a lot of others) were too heavy-handed and in-your-face in GTA V. It was like... "oh great, I have to torture a brown dude using QTEs because the government is bad wooo".

[–]Valnar [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They also specifically allow the player to skip that scene.

[–]Valnar [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They also specifically allow the player to skip that scene.

[–]ch4ppi [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Personally I would have prefered them to have this scene to be a cutscene, because it was a pretty boring part to play. With that being said.

Is that okay?

Yes it is. Because it was not in the game for the sake of it. It had some narrative in the story and it is really hard to argue that it would surprise anyone that Trevor would do sth. like that. You are playing a character and this is part of the story.

[–]Pylons [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There was a lot of backlash against that mission.

[–]zcen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You make it sound as if game direction is going to heavily influence user behavior. If I want to kill some innocent civilians, it doesn't matter if the game prompts me to or not; I'll just do it on my own.

In fact, making the innocent populace a target just further separates it from reality because it just seems like any other horde mode.

[–]Tavarish [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

What physics engine has to do with it? It makes killing innocent civilians more fun and rewarding for you or what is the point of mentioning it?

[–]EyebrowZing [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I've seen several Skyrim playthroughs done this way.

[–]Thysios[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

Isn't it worse if people kill them for fun instead of killing them for an objective.

[–]ironmaiden947 [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Why does that matter??

[–]PeteyDonklage [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Just to preface, I literally have no interest or moral quandary with Hatred whatsoever.

What "matters" to some is the difference between contingent and necessary objectives, in terms of completion. In order to complete (e.g.) Saints Row 3 you don't have to kill any civilians. You are, however, able to kill them beyond the game's necessary completion objectives. Your finishing their game and fulfilling their win conditions is, by design, detached from the moral issue of murder (if one exists) because it puts agency into the hands of the player and away from the game's win conditions.

Hatred is different in that virtually every win condition in the game necessitates civilian casualty. Murdering "innocents", whatever that means here, isn't contingent to the player's inclinations, it's a part of progressing in the game.

Whether or not this is a cause for concern is completely up to the user and their dispositions. I personally don't really give a shit.

[–]Gurip [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

there are missions in SR that ask you to do exatly that.

[–]I-See-A-Darkness [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Still in GTA I drive down sidewalks to avoid traffic with people bouncing off the hood of my car and that game looks way more realistic.

[–]__________-_-_______ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

i think the "fuss" is more about the plot.

its murder people because you hate them.

I dont get it either but i think thats why some people are in uproar about stuff, when they have absolutely no clue about the other violent games out there, mortal combat being, probably, the most violent one, and has been for many years

[–]ch4ppi [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

I dont think you can compare the two. Violence must be judged with context in video games. In MKX the violence is not the point of the game. The point is a rather deep fighting game that has brutal graphics.

Hatred is a game where the point is to do very sensitve violent things wihtout having any depth to it. It never goes behind "shooting innocent".

And this is the point where you can't compare it to GTA, too. GTA has incredible depth to it. You can do a massshooting of civilians, but this is not the point of the game.

[–]charlie4lyfe [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Except the sections where it it's the point of the game. It also, having not played hatred but seen a video, probably feels a lot more satisfying in GTA than hatred.

[–]ninjyte [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

The violence isn't the point of MK, but the gore is still presented in a somewhat gratuitous way with fatalities and brutalities and stuff.

[–]ch4ppi [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well yes, but the whole thing was never about the degree of violence. There are enough violent games on the level of Hatred or even more explicit games out there (MKX is one of them). The context in which violence happens is the deciding factor in this.

Personally I think the game is disgusting, not because of the violence. It is disgusting to me, because the intended edginess with which the developers sell the game is just so plain and obvious. It is disgusting to me to play a game which makes you a sociopath without any reflection on the character you are playing. (Here is for example a difference to GTA). And in the the end I find the pointless killing of "innocent AI" in a game unpleasing, when there is nothing else to it.

[–]Comafly [スコア非表示]  (18子コメント)

All I see is an awesome isometric engine and destruction system being utilized for a really mediocre game.

[–]Getzageddon [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

It is a first effort from a new studio, I think they'll make enough money off of this that we could perhaps, see a more polished sequel.

[–]Wrathneer [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Honestly, as a first game for a studio its pretty impressive. And its a $20 game. If you are into mass murder games that's not bad. Seems like it would be a fun game to mess around with when you are bored or want to relieve some stress.

[–]Carighan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

A mediocre twin-stick implementation of what everyone does in any GTA game ever.

[–]riomhaire [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

It's not isomeric it's just a camera in a 3D environment at an angle

[–]Wrathneer [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Isn't that exactly what isometric means in games?

Edit: Got it thank you.

[–]5teamedbuns [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not exactly. Isometric projections do not have objects become smaller in the distance, basically a car at 10 feet will be the same size as if it is at 1000 feet. Parallel lines also do not converge.

here is a wikipedia article that explains it better.

[–]marekkpie [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Mostly semantics but an isometric engine would only know how to render in an isometric view, rather than be a fully realized 3D engine that just uses a fixed camera angle.

[–]levirules [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Isometric perspective requires an orthographic (someone correct me?) projection. In other words, stuff in the distance is no further away from stuff that's closer.

[–]Beckneard [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I was thinking of buying it but honestly it looks pretty lame. The combat looks really uninteresting and it seems like every death animation is almost the same. Considering all the fuss I was expecting at least something flashier. This game is gonna get sales based on notoriety alone.

[–]Xet [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

I'm surprised at the lack of gore. There's not a hint of dismemberment outside of the occasional stomping of the head in executions. The blood effects are also honestly underdone.

I feel like they could've gone much further with the violence aspect.

[–]holladaddy [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I mean... volume of gore isn't really the reason this game is so violent.

[–]theB1ackSwan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Maybe, but the game was already chugging along. I don't know if it could have afforded to go into more gorey detail without first getting some of the basics down.

[–]rindindin [スコア非表示]  (67子コメント)

The game looks playable but fairly mediocre. What was all the big hubbub about? GTA and Saints Row had the player run around smacking people with dildos.

What was the controversy here?

[–]Slick424 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I think it has more to do with the render sequences of the the first trailer.

The game was marketed as not just violent but outright sadistic. Most hyper violent games make it cartoony and unreal where hatred gone to the most shock value.

The trailer of Hatred looked more like "120 days of sodom" than "human centipede"

[–]TTKB [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I think it was a combination of two things:

  1. The way the trailer presented the game. Made it look like a top-down shooter version of Postal but without the supposed repercussions. Even in Postal, the game ends with the guy getting caught and thrown in an asylum - that's the canon ending, having the chaos be stopped. So people freaked out over that.
  2. The majority of gamers have never justified games like Postal or Hatred before. We justify GTA and Saints Row because there's a story focused around other ideas and you don't have to go around destroying society. I think it's the basis of anyone's defense whenever they hear someone who's never played GTA talk about "that game where you kill hookers": That's not what the game is about, there's more to it. Hatred?... eeeeeeeh, it's just about killing.

So the controversy should have been expected.

[–]retroracer [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

i think it's more about the context of the violence than the violence itself...you're playing as a mindless spree killer mowing down civilians.

[–]Cyrotek [スコア非表示]  (57子コメント)

The controversy was that this is basically the first (internationaly known) game where the main target is to kill as many civillians as possible.

[–]just_a_fluke2 [スコア非表示]  (30子コメント)

except its not the first game to do that. Carmageddon did it in the 90s, Postal did it in the 90s, then plenty of other games made it into a side-objective, such as Saints Row and GTA.

[–]LeerooooyGaaaankins [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I would guess that most of the outspoken critics of Hatred never played Carmaggedon or the original Postal. It fits in well with the genre of 90's shock games, it just has better graphics.

[–]Wrathneer [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Either that or they spoke out about those games as well.

[–]DeusPayne [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Postal, Carmageddon, and I'm sure countless other would like to have a word with you.

[–]PeteyDonklage [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

countless others

Let's be real, there aren't really that many at all. There are some but it's a fairly unusual objective.

[–]tehvolcanic [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And neither of those games were without controversy when they first came out.

[–]zcen [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

What's the controversy? Kill x to finish y objective has been a staple of video games for a LONG time.

Sure the targets are "civilians" but in reality they are just computer models in a video game. If you cannot separate reality from fantasy that is your problem and Hatred isn't the only game where you can get these same types of experiences.

edit: Also, like I said in another post it doesn't matter what your main target is. If you want to kill civilians you are going to do it regardless of the objective, like in any GTA or Saints Row game.

[–]lsaz [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The controversy is that GTA and SR actually had an interesting or maybe just fun storyline, depending on your tastes.

this game story revolves entirely on killing inocents which to be honest is fuckin stupid and uninteresting, seems like something my 14 year old version would buy.

[–]oozekip [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

So basically, if you want a great top-down, ultra-violent game with a striking aesthetic, then... Well, Hotline Miami is still the way to go, isn't it?

Here's a quick list off the top of my head of better games that do this level (or more) ultra-violenvce than Hatred: Postal 1&2, Hotline Miami 1&2, Manhunt 1&2, Mortal Kombat, GTA, heck, the content here isn't even that much more gorey or violent than Payday.

It's not a "bad" game, it looks utterly mediocre, but if you want ultra-violence, there's much better games to get that fix in.

[–]SamuelEnderby [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm surprised it's isometric. The black and white with color highlights looks pretty cool but I feel like it could have been taken farther. E.g. blood has color but it's this dark modern movie blood. Works ok when it's on the screen but in-world, on the ground, it barely stands out. Maybe should have gone with brighter 70s movie ketchup blood instead.

Color seems to be associated with mayhem (explosions, blood, police lights), presumably because it's the only thing Hatred-guy enjoys at this point. So maybe also have the whole world gradually gain color as you rack up some kind of combo meter to show Hatred-guy is having a good time? Might motivate players a little because so far there seems to be not enough of a point to do anything in this game. Little challenge, mediocre gameplay, no humor, nothing... Which brings me to my next point:

I get that they're riding the "there is no context to the violence" wave but it just makes the game uninteresting to me. I get that it can be seen as a statement but that's only interesting to look at for like five minutes. Dude goes out, starts killing. So there is that. Now what? The point's been made. What changes if I kill 5000 instead of just 50?

On the other hand, the game already provides too much context! Hatred-guy clearly states his mission, i.e. to die and to take as many people with him as he can. That's not "no context, lol" or "holding a mirror up to the player" in the way that you could say that if a player chooses to go on a murderous rampage it's his own idea. There IS context, there IS a reason to kill: Hatred-guy explicitly states it - it's just that the reason here is a despicable one.

So much for the narrative. But even in game-play there is too much contextualizing happening with these mini-missions like Cleanse the Police Department. Presumably, a player who's having fun killing things would do that automatically. Why make this a mini-mission if the entire point of the game seems to be that there is no context other than wanting to murder?

It's like the game goes too far with its point and sacrifices being interesting as a game you'd want to play, as opposed to a game that just exists. But simultaneously it doesn't go quite far enough with it to be artistically "pure".

And re: the buzz surrounding this: People should have just let this fizzle. It doesn't seem worth the outrage at all.

[–]iNarr [スコア非表示]  (28子コメント)

Gotta be honest, the worst part about this game Is the constant bickering that surrounds it. Whether it's people saying that Hatred will incite mass shootings, or the opposite camp pretending like it's "basically just a bunny farming simulator," the game just seems to draw the hyperbole out of people.

At best, this game could have used its so-called "edginess" to spark meaningful discussions about how we perceive violence in today's society. But instead we're left with people shouting these hyperbolic opinions as loudly as they can.

[–]xXxdethl0rdxXx [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

people saying that Hatred will incite mass shootings

Ironically, the accusation of hyperbole is hyperbolic in itself. Nobody is saying that it will trigger mass shootings, they're saying that it's incredibly tasteless and promotes a violent gaming culture.

[–]iNarr [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Nobody is saying that it will trigger mass shootings

If we want to get really pedantic, I don't see how you can say that statement isn't hyperbolic either. There's no way you can substantiate that claim.

Anyway, let's not stoop to that level. The point is that there isn't a whole lot of subtlety to these discussions. People are either strongly for or strongly against this game, and both camps often make claims that seem absurd.

[–]xXxdethl0rdxXx [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I see where you're coming from, and while it's good to consider both sides, I don't really see how the "anti-Hatred" side is absurd? Has there been anything beyond "this game is garbage and props to storefronts who don't sell it"?

Seems like a false equivalency to me, but I may just be out of the loop on where things are.

[–]Brian175 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It would go against it's reason for being to try to be deeper.

[–]LycaonMoon [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I mean, Destructive's statement about them "taking a stand" is cringey as fuck, but we are in a very divided community right now, in some circles.

Just like how some games are obvious bait for certain demographics, this is obvious bait to edgy fucks and people who follow GamerGate.

[–]iNarr [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

and [Rule 17].

I'm having a whoosh moment here. There are only 16 rules in the sidebar...what do you mean?

[–]LycaonMoon [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Huh, there was a "no GG" rule last time I checked.

Edit: They removed it.

[–]jikijiki [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Imagine the potential this style of gameplay + the physics could have:

  • You could do a tactical, squad based game like XCOM
  • Horror game, think Alien Isolation

[–]gyrferret [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Gore, blood, and violence are not what caused this game to be the butt of controversy; it's the main theme of the game.

It is still considered voyeuristic and uncommon territory to exact willful harm on the innocent population for the sake of the game. While on could argue that games like Grand Theft Auto and Saints Row allow you to enact acts of brutality on "innocents", that is not the main focus of the game. It is presented as an option, but the game moves on independent of your completion of that.

Anyway, what I would argue is that killing in those games is presented in a humorous context rather than for the sake of killing. In games like Saint's Row, you kill for the humor of how the weapons you are using work; In Postal you kill for a lot of the same reasons.

But Hatred seems to be going for killing for the sake of killing. That's what makes this game different in my head.

Full disclosure, I am not the biggest fan of Total Biscuit, so this is my argument to why other mediums are allowed to get away with this type of thing: because other mediums do not allow for the immersion that games present. In film, books, audio, you are on a linear path, and the decisions that are made are not in your control. Ultimately, the author, director, etc. is responsible for pulling the trigger on that gun, you are not.

This game immediately reminded me of the film Rampage, which wasn't the best movie ever, but was about a guy shooting up a town spoiler. You were along for the ride if you chose to be, and you were not ultimately responsible for whether the main character killed civilians or not. That's not the case with games. The locus of control is entirely on the player, which is why I think that games are held to a "higher standard".

But in another way, I do agree that games shouldn't "evolve" past a certain top. As I said above, there is something incredibly voyeuristic and taboo about running around shooting at the population at large. Whether we like it or not, we are always going to be curious about things that are "off limits" in society. That's where hatred comes in, and that's why it exists. This game exists to provide a visceral look at a reality that 99.999% of the population will never experience.

[–]insef4ce [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

In film, books, audio, you are on a linear path, and the decisions that are made are not in your control.

But in Hatred all the decisions are made for you and you are on a linear path. The only thing you have under control is how long it takes for the "story" to progress.

Killing people in GTA is like

"Hey you could be doing something else but you DECIDE for yourself that right now is the time to kill innocent people. You won't get any reward other than watching people die but well go along if you want to, you sick little psychopath"

Meanwhile in Hatred it's just:

"Kill x people to get to the next area"

[–]SpikeRosered [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

The only thing this game could have done to make it actually offensive and horrible is if it really focused on the murders and we got to know the victims before they were murdered and saw that they were innocent people.

From what I see it's just an arcade shooter. The people may as well be zombies.

[–]Snapdad [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Austin Powers had a good take on this https://youtu.be/hD3w_VdTG30

[–]SpikeRosered [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I find myself thinking that a lot when I play modern videogames. I'll be playing Borderlands and think

"What series of decisions brought this man to join an insane desert bandit gang and want to be shot in the face so badly?"

[–]crookedparadigm [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Gotta hand it to the devs. They perfectly hit their target of taking a relatively mediocre game and generating tons of attention and sales by doing just enough to whip the right people into a media frenzy are now comfortably riding that publicity wave.

[–]victorXvictory [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Destructive Creations aware that noone will care about them or this game without their successful marketing.

I won't even be surprised if they actually paid people to condemn this game and write articles about how violent this game is. It has been done before with other games and it works very well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWlrJq8yi2w

Watch this video if you want more similar examples.

Well played Destructive Creation. I'm not even mad.

[–]Getzageddon [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think you overestimate the amount of money and power these people have. I think they're eastern european, which would sort of complicate their ability to contact and suborn western journalists.

Whether you want to call it proportional or not, plenty of people are very much outraged over the game, including no small amuont of redditors. But you know, the egos on people these days, they're afraid of nothing more than being "tricked" so they see conspiracy in everything. They've found a niche by tweaking people's noses and defining themselves as counter-culture, is that any worse, or even much different than what say Family Guy or South Park do?

I love that the grand fruition of their evil plan is getting them to buy a low-priced game with no DLC or F2P model. Clearly these guys are masterminds.

[–]JoshyLee [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You really don't have to pay people who work in games media to get outraged at stuff.

[–]CreamNPeaches [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Controversy sells games. GTA and mortal kombat are perfect examples of that.

[–]Extradaemon [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Kind of weird how TB spends a lot of the video ranting about games press like it's a single entity and he isn't part of it.

[–]AgeMarkus [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Turns out it's a mediocre game with a very effective viral marketing campaign that pandered to the anti-PC crowd. Who could have seen this coming?

[–]Skurph [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The reason the GTA comparisons don't work is simply tone. GTA is a satire top to bottom, it's clear to anyone playing it. The way Rockstar frames that game makes the rampages and innocent deaths a lot less bothersome, maybe something is to be said about that but it certainly speaks to why the game isn't as "offensive" to our moral sense.

Hatred seems sincere, it's brimming with angsty teenage hate and cynicism. The dialogue of the main character reads like it's out of the manifest of an actual mass murderer. There doesn't seem to be an ounce of self-awareness at how dumb it is, and that's a little concerning, it's intentionally marketing itself to kids who feel disenfranchised and in a sincere manner.

The murder and death is not the disturbing part of Hatred, it's the seriousness the game treats itself with.

[–]crash__bandicoot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I will say, the gameplay looks boring but the graphics are great. I think it looks very pretty...or dark...or ominous...whatever descriptive word works. I think they did a good job making it look really good, and I'd be excited to see if they use this setup for future titles that provide better gameplay.

[–]Chesney1995 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well played by whoever it was marketed this game. All that media "hype" because of the trailer and it's just another top down shooter.

[–]Upvote_To_The_Left [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

this is a MUCH betetr lets play/impression of this game. he treats it like a GAME. not some evil super violent horrible plague that it's being sold as. its a GAME. thats it.

[–]shoulder_elephant [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I hate modern social media. This is a perfect example of big fuss for no reason, all thanks to professional angry people on the internet.

[–]Forss [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I actually thought it looked pretty fun with all the destruction and whatnot. It looked like the cops used tactics and coordinated their attacks and taking cover seemed to be a viable tactic.

Playing on a higher difficulty, taking advantage of cover and planning your escape routes could make it more interesting than I think TB gives it credit for. The levels do seem way too long for such a savepoint system. Should be a permanent save for completing an objective.

[–]Derpsti [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

It's kinda sad that people keep going on how "mediocre" it is or something as a response/overcorrection to all the overreaction that has been had so far.

The game looks fun, and I'm looking forward to it coming out soon.

[–]MarikBentusi [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Well it's not like TB's judged it like that without merit, he's talked about how the core game is repetitive and unengaging and how visuals and physics help it crawl out of that hole a bit.

[–]Endyo [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Surprisingly, TB has a pretty similar view in this video as the response I had yesterday to seeing the 20 minutes of gameplay:

Well if nothing else it looks fairly nice, though I think the black and white aesthetic helps that in that textures don't have to be all that great, however the effects and lighting are all good. The guy playing and talking is super annoying though. We get that you have to express your reaction to the violence but repeating it over and over for 20 minutes isn't really a great plan. Still, there's nothing special here. It's an isometric shooter where you shoot things. That's the only objective. You're given quests to shoot things. You pick up things that shoot. It's really banking on shock value to be appealing outside of everything else, that's still pretty apparent. It is a game and clearly the developer took some effort to ensure it's playable (I'd venture to say the control issues were player-based), but it looks like something that would lose its luster in the first hour... It's good to see that all of this ridiculous and pointless media coverage over an AO rated indie game is at least about something that is actually a game and not some glorified 'art piece' like the majority of controversial "games." It just looks like a shined up bargain bin indie game though that normally you'd see bundled with half a dozen others of the same general quality.

So little separates this game from any other game where you're shooting hordes of things from an isometric perspective that really the only thing that's worth noting is how thoroughly the media is covering it. This developer probably loves it though. He'll make more from media freaking out (imagine if CNN or someone picks this up) than he would have ever made if it was the same exact game but the enemies were zombies or monsters. In fact, if this was a game about shooting literally anything but normal everyday humans, we'd never even know it existed.

[–]Robert237 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

What kind of PC will this need? Can't be too demanding right? I want to play this and don't think that it will be a PS4/XO title anytime soon

[–]tanjoodo [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Well, TB said it's running at ~35FPS on his $6000 PC on low.

Needless to say it runs badly.

[–]lobehold [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

This game is the same as something like the Goat Simulator - sell a game mostly on a ridiculous premise to generate buzz and sales.

The media took the bait not because they don't understand it is a bait, but because it brings viewership/pageviews, bait or not.

Simple really.