Feminists & SJW's fail to remove game from Steam

"Feminists and "SJWs" get a lot of flak for pushing an agenda, but how is this any better?" There's no agenda... We just want this game to be able to be released without getting censored. Valve listened and put this game back up. How is it bad that this game is back up on the store?

I've been hearing a lot about the name in itself, but never watched any gameplay footage until now.

Going by what I'm seeing, I feel that game is very mindless and has no point to it, other than just killing innocent people. I don't mind violent videogames as long as there is a valid point to it, like your usual cliche of good guys stopping bad guys, vice versa. But here, it's nothing "I want to kill and destroy everything that I hate." It's like as if some kid imagined this game in his bedroom and somehow got the approval to make it.

I'll be passing up this game in 2015. Very disturbing and very mindless. I'm glad Steam removed it, regardless of who had the power to push that direction or not.

Cool, I've just voted it for green light, I want to see this game on Steam.

it's back, and with good reason, wether you hate it or like it. People deserve to get a chance to buy it

It doesn't even look like a good game

I am still waiting on the pulling evidence out of one's ass evidence that any of this is related to feminist or "SJW". This game is being used as a platform for you and your posse stupid agenda. Yet feminist and "SJW" are the ones who are forcing their agenda. :|

What are you doing? First, you're speculating that sjw's and feminists forced this on Valve, for which you have provided no proof (the two links you provided are circumstantial; there's no link to Valve's decision, nor is there any reason to believe Valve would succumb to such minor pressure). Second, you're speculating that Valve put the game back up, because people complained, for which you have, again, provided no proof. You're speculating based on assumptions you perceive as truth. You're free to believe whatever you want, but making these statements without hesitation or doubt doesn't make any sense. You have no proof, you only have assumptions.

There is an agenda, though. I apologise for making this personal, but you're consistently misinforming people by presenting assumptions and speculation as truth and by only looking at this issue from one viewpoint. I think you're only interested in confirming your own beliefs. You have been consistently looking for any shred of information (not even evidence) that supports your ideas, and you have been continuously posting them on this public forum. You have been dismissive towards most people who questioned your statements, even though they often explained their point in much more detail. Now, you can of course do whatever you want on here, but if you claim you've got no agenda, then all those sjw's and feminists haven't got an agenda either. Face it, you're a vgw. :-P

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat? Did you read that before you posted it? You want to remove a game because it offends you... Don't like it? Ignore it and don't buy it...

@loafofgame: I don't... Valve realized that someone in the office made a mistake and took it down. For someone to be so offended and take it down they have to be an SJW. I want people to vote with their wallets, not by taking something down that offends someone. I don't have an agenda, i am anti-stupid

So you in other words the basis of this thread was pulled out of your ass.

*sigh* No it wasn't, the game was taken down. Gabe even apologized for this bs, it's back because people spoke out. You are obviously content with games being taken down because they offend you, because your opinion is obviously more important than everyone elses

That doesn't prove it's not an agenda. Anyway, there was no mention of offense. I've read the quote. You can SPECULATE about it all you like, but you have no evidence that proves your ASSUMPTION. For someone who is anti-stupid, you're way too pro-stubborn. Why can't you judge things as they are, not how YOU THINK they are? Why can't you look at this and see a multitude of possible explanations, instead of just one anti-sjw one? You can still pick the sjw explanation in the end, but at least you won't come across as biased and prejudiced, because you have actually CONSIDERED other possibilites.

There's just as much reason to believe the theory that Steam and Lombardi's e-mail were hacked by an anti-sjw person, who wanted to pull this game from Steam to create more bad blood between pro- and anti-sjw (because who'd ever suspect an anti-sjw person of doing that?). Once Valve realised Steam had been hacked, they of course quickly fixed everything, but not without creating some fake statement about some in-house disagreement, because Steam being hacked is way worse for their reputation than some vague in-house conflict. Please disprove that theory.

Firstly, there's no evidence for WHY the game was removed, and there's no evidence for WHY it was put back. You are simply making up assumptions.

But hey, let's consider the possibility that it was removed because people complained about content, and then put back because people were angry that it was removed. No one knows at this point, but that's at least possible, right?

"it's back because people spoke out"

Hold up a second, dude. Weren't you the one who was just saying that people who are offended by the game's content need to shut up and stop telling companies what to do? So it's bad that the "SJW's" complained until Valve took action, but it's somehow GOOD that the people who want the game complained about its absence until Valve took action? And you have the nerve to say that you don't have an agenda? Again, there's no way that you don't see how much of a hypocrite you're being. You're pretending to advocate free speech, to give all viewpoints a chance of being heard, while in the next breath saying "as long as it supports my agenda." Your position here is "people should be able to say whatever they want, but only if they personally agree with me."

Sure, people deserve to buy what they want, but this is one title I wouldn't want to buy in 2015. Period. There is nothing joyful or exciting in killing innocent people, even if this is completely fiction. At least in games like COD, if you accidentally shoot an civilian during a fight, it penalizes you. That's OK, that's fine. But there is absolutely NOTHING good about murdering folks that don't deserve it. The Japanese have it worst, especially with those rape games out there.

What about GTA and Assassin's Creed games where you run over and shoot innocent peds, or stab innocent guards on rooftops?

Games are fictitious. There is no moral high ground standard in fantasy.

1) Unless you have made up your own definition of censorship, then yes Valve having a game on greenlight and then removing it is censoring, its the definition of the word. Wallmart/Kmart not selling something isent censoring if it was never in their store to begin with. Steam is almost a monopoly and they have huge influence on what games becomes big and which doesn´t , so them removing a game without any other reason then "we looked at it and we decided we dont want that on steam" is censorship.

2) Well, according to Eurogamer "Based on what we've seen on Greenlight we would not publish Hatred on Steam. As such we'll be taking it down," Valve's Doug Lombardi told Eurogamer moments ago. So i don´t know what you take from that but i can only take it as they chose to censor it because they found it to be offensive to steam.

3) Why it was put back.

""Hi, Jaroslaw," it begins.

"Yesterday I heard that we were taking Hatred down from Greenlight. Since I wasn't up to speed, I asked around internally to find out why we had done that. It turns out that it wasn't a good decision, and we'll be putting Hatred back up. My apologies to you and your team. Steam is about creating tools for content creators and customers.

"Good luck with your game.

"Gabe.""

So it looks like a bad decision by someone at Valve and then Gabe stepping in and putting it back.

@Metamania: It's not your place to tell someone else if the game they want to play has a valid enough excuse for it's violent content. The reason Hatred is an important game is because it's making a statement in no uncertain terms that it is OK for a game to be violent for violence's sake. Your type would rather say "this game should not be allowed to be sold until they change the NPCs to zombies or tell me at the start of the game that they are all child molesters."

No game owes you an excuse for why it is violent, and the fact that you think you are entitled to an excuse for why the games you like are violent proves why this game needs to exist and should not be censored. Hatred is violent gaming boiled down to it's core with no plot excuse, no flimsy "satire" or letting you pretend you're a good guy as justification.

1) Censorship is the changing or suppressing of speech. Valve didn't alter the game's content in any way, norr did Valve in any way suppress the developer's speech. Do you know what WOULD be censorship? Forcing a company to support something that they don't want to support.

2) That's just an assumption that you are making. Lombardi said they wouldn't publish Hatred on Steam, he didn't say WHY they wouldn't publish it.

3) All Gabe says is that pulling the game was "a bad decision". He makes no mention of WHY it was pulled or what the basis for pulling it actually was.

Again, does anyone here know why the game was pulled or why the decision to pull it was later determined to be "bad"?

Sure it is. That's called looking at content with a critical eye. Companies get to make the content, but now it's somehow unfair for audiences to judge that content?

To be fair, I could make a movie that's nothing but a giant rape fantasy for potential pedophiles, and as long as it doesn't actually include any child porn then it's still "okay" for me to make it. However, that doesn't make the movie "important". Making something offensive solely because you can is actually pretty infantile. That's just shock art. There's no rule that art shouldn't be shocking, but shocking just for the sake of shocking is a quick path to irrelevance. The shocking work that's important and which remains relevant over time is the work that actually has some underlying thematic importance beyond "woo hoo, look what I can get away with."

No one said the game shouldn't be allowed to be sold.

@MrGeezer: Maybe you should look in a dictionary, because you clearly don't know what censorship actually means. If you tell someone they can't display a piece of art in your gallery because you find it offensive, you have censored them. It doesn't matter whether you are the only gallery or one of dozens. Sometimes censorship is necessary (for example, if you own an art gallery that is meant to be "family safe"), but the same standards must apply to everything on display. Valve does not make a point to censor violent games, and in the case of Hatred, it was very clearly targeted because of its controversial "anti-political correctness" theme (the letter from the Valve staffer who initially banned the game seemed to imply as much).

Valve is not a mom and pop toy shop. They are a service that sells games for adults to adults. Banning Hatred was inconsistent with their policies towards violence and political themes. As Valve's customers we most certainly have a right to complain and lobby them if a game was banned to the rules being applied in a way that is unfair and blatantly inconsistent, given that the Postal games are on Steam.

@MrGeezer: "Sure it is. That's called looking at content with a critical eye. Companies get to make the content, but now it's somehow unfair for audiences to judge that content?"

You're certainly welcome to judge it, but if you are going to act like a cheerleader when it is getting banned or censored, you are going to get called out on it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean people who want it shouldn't be able to buy it on steam.

"To be fair, I could make a movie that's nothing but a giant rape fantasy for potential pedophiles, and as long as it doesn't actually include any child porn then it's still "okay" for me to make it. However, that doesn't make the movie "important". Making something offensive solely because you can is actually pretty infantile. That's just shock art. There's no rule that art shouldn't be shocking, but shocking just for the sake of shocking is a quick path to irrelevance. The shocking work that's important and which remains relevant over time is the work that actually has some underlying thematic importance beyond "woo hoo, look what I can get away with.""

Child pornography is illegal. We already have obscenity laws regarding the sexualization of children, so I don't know why you think that this is in any way relevant to a violent video game. There is in fact rape-themed pornography though, and it is legal to sell at the places where hardcore pornography is sold. What is the appropriate venue for a game like Hatred to be sold, if not Steam? Steam has never censored or banned a game for violence before, and the only reason people can justify banning Hatred is "I don't approve of the game's premise, since you play as a bad person and that makes me offended."

"No one said the game shouldn't be allowed to be sold."

Sure, just because you don't want it on Steam, that is totally different! Just like the SJWs in Australia only wanted GTAV banned from Target, and totally didn't go after Kmart next!

Full Definition of CENSOR

transitive verb : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also: to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages> See censor defined for English-language learners »

So, yeah. Valve didn't censor the game. They didn't alter any of the game's content, they didn't suppress the developer's ability to publish the game. Simply not supporting a game is not censorship, otherwise Wal-Mart would be guilty of censorship every time they stop selling an old game in order to make room for new stock.

Also, no one at Valve has ever stated why the game was initially removed, you're still making assumptions at this point.Outline the specific reason that the game was pulled, and how that clashes with their official policy.

@Metamania: it's a game, with 1's and 0's, there is no morality. In the multiplayer of COD you play for points to get upgrades, you kill people just for that. In GTA V, you can run over hundreds of people. In Postal you can do some terrible shit. How about the latest walking dead season. One guy bashes another guy's face in.

Don't pick and choose, because it's in every game that you might like.

@loafofgame: Someone was offended by this game, and they took it down. Valve realized it was stupid and put it back up. What's so hard to believe about that? Feminists and SJW's have failed to take this game down. We don't know if this person was a feminist, but at least they were an SJW

Why do you keep bringing up SJWs and feminists when you are yet to provide a single piece of evidence that they were responsible for it initially being taken down?

I just showed you the link, and that a SJW took it down is obvious. Feminist is yet to be shown though. But it doesn't deny the fact that people have tried to stop this game from being sold

"You're certainly welcome to judge it, but if you are going to act like a cheerleader when it is getting banned or censored, you are going to get called out on it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean people who want it shouldn't be able to buy it on steam."

This goes both ways dude. You're certainly welcome to say that people shouldn't complain about the game being sold, but if you are going to act like a cheerleader when people complain enough to get it put back, you are going to get called out as a hypocrite. Free speech goes both ways. Just because you like it doesn't mean that people who don't like it shouldn't express their disapproval.

"Child pornography is illegal. We already have obscenity laws regarding the sexualization of children, so I don't know why you think that this is in any way relevant to a violent video game. There is in fact rape-themed pornography though, and it is legal to sell at the places where hardcore pornography is sold. What is the appropriate venue for a game like Hatred to be sold, if not Steam? Steam has never censored or banned a game for violence before, and the only reason people can justify banning Hatred is "I don't approve of the game's premise, since you play as a bad person and that makes me offended."

Yeah, that's why I expressly clarified "as long as it doesn't actually have child pornography." Regardless, what you said there doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying. You're claiming that the game is important because it's violent for the sake of violence, and I'm saying that that's the exact kind of content that tends to be deemed superfluous and unimportant. I'm not even talking about the "appropriate" venue for the game with that statement, I'm saying that the kind of art that you're describing tends to be shit. The novelty of "look what I can get away with" tends to fade pretty fast, and if there isn't anything of substance beyond the initial shock then people dismiss it as infantile trash. This precisely why it's hard to become a respected novelist by throwing in a bunch of dirty words and filthy sex. Lots of great art is shocking, but when someone calls you a "shock artist", that's an insult. What they're implying is that your work has no substance and you're throwing in shock just because you can and you've got nothing else to add.

"Sure, just because you don't want it on Steam, that is totally different! Just like the SJWs in Australia only wanted GTAV banned from Target, and totally didn't go after Kmart next!"

I think that customers have a right to not support businesses that do things that they don't like. If I decide that I'm going to stop giving money to a company because I don't approve of something that they're doing, you're damn right I should be entitled to tell them precisely why they're no longer getting my business.

You mean a petition that barely anyone signed? That's not evidence.

And how is it obvious? The more obvious answer seems to be that it was a poor business choice. Companies choose not to be associated with other companies all the time. There was nothing significant about this.

Then why would they take it down? Someone was offended and they put it back up because it makes sense. It makes them money and people want it...

1) Wrong, censorship isn't just in terms of speech, its pretty stupid to even claim that is the case.

• Moral censorship is the removal of materials that are obscene or otherwise considered morally questionable. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale, especially child pornography, which is illegal and censored in most jurisdictions in the world.^[3][4]
  

So i hope you get the idea now.

2) i read what he said and clearly when he mentions "we saw what was on greenlight" means the game and how it is, it doesnt mean that Hatred´s developer made anything against the TOS or there was anything to that sort.

3) Again read 2 and then you have your answer.

I just told you why they would have taken it down. Steam has standards (sort of) they don't sell games rated AO.

When I said speech, I was referring to "content". Same as when people talk about "free speech" they're including games and movies. They don't literally mean "just the words that come out of your mouth."

Umm... wouldn't the people that removed the game be saying just that?

No all they're saying is that they don't want to sell it themselves.

Well, then how can you even claim that what steam did wasn't censoring if you use speech as a general term. You hopefully can see that a game is that developers "speech" its their 5cents on something. And when you then take just how big and powerful a platform steam is then it should be as clear that it is censorship.

VALVE, and no one but Valve, removed the game. Can you show me a link where anyone at Valve stated that the game shouldn't be allowed to be sold?

Anyway, what I meant was that no one in this thread has said that the game shouldn't be allowed to be sold. I could have been more clear on that, but I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant since I was replying to someone who was directly accusing someone else of saying that the game shouldn't be allowed to be sold.

Wow. You are very inaccurate and incorrect when it comes to your statements.

As someone else already, I NEVER said that this game cannot be sold. All I said is that it should be taken off shelves. Also, I said that people can buy this game all the way. Don't you dare sit there and try to twist my words to fit your foolish agenda on me. I won't tolerate such bullshit.

And I don't care what Hatred is trying to accomplish. Fact is, it is a mindless, violent videogame. There is no clear goal or objective in mind with any validity to it. I've played a ton of videogames that require violence as the answer to reaching the end goal; Doom as a marine killing monsters to get the hell out alive to the Diablo games in which you are tasked to save the world from demons and must destroy them. Let's be reasonable. Is there anything good coming out of Hatred? No! Going around and killing cops and innocent people who've done NOTHING WRONG to the asshole in the game is the wrong thing to do. Now, I can understand it if it's like a revenge thing against a bad guy that truly deserves death, but in a videogame or in a movie and maybe in real-life too, depending on the situation. But in a videogame where you're some mindless killer that just wants to kill everybody because he hates "the fucking world", as he puts it? Mindless bullshit. I don't care what the game is trying to do...as in, what do you call it..."violent for violence's sake?" Absolutely not.

Games like Mortal Kombat, Primal Rage, Diablo, Grand Theft Auto, Call Of Duty, etc etc. There's a reason for all the violence that's needed in the game. But not Hatred. If people like you stand up for this game, then shame on you. I'm all for violent videogames being a form of representation in terms of art, but this isn't it.

Also, I'm well-aware of other games, such as Assassin's Creed or GTA, that give you the option that kill innocents or not. But I choose not to. In fact, do you know how hard it is to be evil for me in Fable? VERY. And maybe it's because of the lessons I've learned from my own family, from friends that make the wrong choices, to watching realistic TV shows (like the First 48) and seeing how people that commit stupid crimes in real life get thrown into prison for a long time or even life. I don't know, but I just choose to have a higher morale ground.

So killing innocent people for money is better than killing people for fun?

Payday is entirely about you shooting innocent cops so that you can get some money. In GTA you play as a drug dealer/hit man who kills innocent people so that he can afford a luxury house. Kane and Lynch has you shooting innocent people while also going psychotic.

So why can't we have a game where you play as a killer who isn't in t for financial gain? There are tons of books and films about murderers so why can't we have games?

Like I said, because Valve never altered the content (such as blacking out names, or blurring a face or a nipple) and never prevented the game from being made or sold. Legislation would be censorship, as that IS preventing it from being made or sold (such as your example of child pornography laws). Taking the game and altering it to make it more palatable would be censorship (I suppose that removing blood from the SNES version of Mortal Kombat would be an example). Simply refusing to be associated with it is not censorship.

Or let's put it this way. I think that Lars von Trier made an R rated cut of Antichrist by removing a few scenes. THAT is censorship (though in this case, the artist is censoring himself...no one made him cut anything). However, Wal-Mart refusing to stock the NC-17 version of the movie is NOT censorship. They did not alter or suppress the movie in any way, they simply decided to stay the hell away from it.

But now that I think about it, arguing whether or not it's censorship is sort of a moot point. Just because something is censorship doesn't make it bad, and just because something technically isn't censorship doesn't mean that's good. Whether or not it's "censorship" still sort of has nothing to do whether or not the game should have been pulled, just like how uncensored free speech doesn't mean you should have said it.

I'm not denying the possibility. I'm just questioning your willingness to claim truth based on speculation. To me that shows severe bias. Offense was not mentioned. No reason was mentioned. You can interpret the words that were used, but that doesn't change the fact that there's no direct evidence. You're not even considering that. To you, it's simply obvious and true.

Again, the links you provided are circumstantial. If you really think, without any hesitation, that Valve pulling the game was caused by the petition, then I don't see why you would oppose the same kind of reasoning when it comes to violence and videogames. "Look, these people shooting in real life were also shooting in this videogame. There must be a connection." Doesn't make sense, does it? Well, it's the same reasoning as: "Look, these people complained about this game and now Valve pulled it. There must be a connection." It doesn't make sense. UNLESS you provide direct evidence. Which you haven't. Until then, you can SPECULATE, but you cannot claim truth.

I can't help but feel that you can't look at this issue without your initial thought being 'SJW!'. That's bias. And when you go presenting your bias as truth on forums, then I'd say you're most definitely expressing an agenda. Edit: which is totally fine, by the way.

I think the reason why people have a problem with this game specifically is because the end goal is to kill people en-masse. It's basically a Sandy Hook simulator, or an Aurora Colorado simulator. I'm positive that if someone made a movie that featured a guy shooting little kids in a school, and that was the only point to the film, people would have the same reaction that they're having to Hatred.

While I think it's totally fair for people who find a problem with the game to complain about it or refuse to support it, I personally would rather withhold judgement on the actual game seeing as how I haven't played it.

I mean, it's easy to sum up something with descriptions such as "psycho kills as many innocent people as possible" or "asshole finds community of racists, murders them with magic", but in most cases that's not being entirely fair to the source material.

This is the same as the people who think that Valve simply pulled the game because it's violent. Even if it was pulled for being violent, that's probably an oversimplification. Was it SPECIFIC instances of violence that they had a problem with, or just violence in general? Was it JUST violence, or was there an element of racism (or something else equally repugnant) that makes it more than just another violent game?

I don't know, but once it comes to making specific claims about the actual game, I would rather not make assumptions. I mean, I'll make enough assumptions to state that I'm not interested in playing the game, but beyond that it's hard for me to really judge the game either way. Hell, supposedly it's possible to finish the game without committing a single act of violence (though I don't know how true that is), so it's at least possible that this game is actually more than just a murder fantasy and is actually trying to make a commentary on gaming culture and the mindset of the gamer.

I don't know though, because it still looks so fucked up that I don't want to waste my time on it.

And Payday is a North Hollywood Shootout simulator. Why is killing people while robbing a bank better than killing people at a school or shopping centre? You're still killing (fake virtual) people. The only difference is one game gives you points and the other puts a little dollar sign in front of your score.

Now don't get me wrong I understand that somethings can be seen as tasteless, but saying that the reason it's bad is because the character isn't motivated by money seems rather silly to me.

It's not so much the motivation of the characters as the images the game evokes. I agree that it's hypocritical, but as a society, we're fine with movies like Heat, that tell a story, and are crime-dramas. What Hatred is doing, it's like making a game about flying a plane into a building, and releasing it a month after 9/11. Its goal is to shock people, not to tell a story or entertain.

I get your point though, we absolutely hold double standards when it comes to violence in different forms of media. But still, this game just leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

While I think hatred is a bit of an immature game and don't plan on playing it, I don't think it should be removed overall. As far as I can tell it's just a mass murder simulator, but that really isn't harming anybody. I'm not going to go off on some sort of anti gender rant here, because this really in't the place to do so, but I just think that people should be able to play and make whatever games they want, it's the consumers choice not to buy them. The themes and meaning of games are open to interpretation, and if you feel that you disagree with the game, then don't buy it, but don't make that choice for other people by forcing it to be pulled from retail. If enough people don't like it then it wont be successful and you ill have won anyway, just let people make up their minds on by themselves

Valve's decision has nothing to do with feminists and SJW's. The game is very controversial if you look at the game. There are other things that probably made it easier to remove the game from steam. Valve does not want their public image to be hurt so they are not going to support this game.

I can base it off the recent GTA incident in Australia and general disposition of third wave feminists and SJW's. I've seen it up close and in general. People who are offended by games are in fact SJW's and don't want the art to be what it is; Free speech.

I don't have an agenda, i dont want games to be censored, period