"Hatred" and Violent Games

I like games like Hatred. We haven't had one in awhile. I remember playing Postal growing up. The idea of going postal is actually a fun one in terms of a game concept - of course in real life it's a lot more scary. I don't really think it has anything to do with desensitization of violence, or being against big-business' interests, or anything like that. As the years push forward, people are growing more sensitive to the concept of senseless acts of violence because of all these crazy real-world scenarios of people doing the same thing, but I think it's important to realize that just because these things happen, it shouldn't impact people's creative visions. Shouldn't let a few rotten apples (crazy people who played videogames or listened to "edgy music") spoil any entertainment for the rest of us.

Again, demonstrate how anyone here is trying to ban the game. Demonstrate how a company refusing to publish it entails banning it. Demonstrate how people complaining about it and calling it sick entails trying to ban it.

None of the people here are advocating banning the game. Not a single person in this thread is proposing legislating this content in any way, which means no one here is advocating banning it. If I'm wrong, then convince me. Explain it to me like a child, how saying that you don't like something and think it's awful necessarily means that you're trying to ban it. It doesn't work like that. It can't work like that. Because you apparently think that people judging the game negatively is awful. And going by your apparent logic, the fact that you think some people are complaining about the game is awful means that you're trying to ban their right to criticize something that they don't like. And no...it doesn't fucking work like that. You demonstrate to me how the people who are complaining about this game are infringing upon free speech, just as I'd have to explain to to how simply not liking people talking badly about the game somehow equates to trying to BAN criticism of the game.

This is not about rights, period. No one here is trying to take away rights. None of the petitions that were posted were even trying to take away rights, they were simply ASKING for a change or refusal of certain content.

So if this isn't about rights, then what the hell are you pissed off about? The only thing remaining is that you think the people complaining about the game have somehow misinterpreted the CONTENT. And yes, they absolutely might have misinterpreted the content, seeing as how they haven't played the game. But, have YOU played the game? Honest question: have you played the game? And, I mean, the FULL game. Have you finished the game and seen it's content so that you're able to interpret it and judge it from an informed perspective? I hope so. Because if not, then you're working on speculation EXACTLY the same as the people who are saying that the game is vile and reprehensible. If you haven't played the game, then how the bloody hell are you in a position to know whether or not the complaints made about the content are actually a correct assessment of the content?

Bottom Line: Stop talking about this in terms of freedom or rights. Freedom and rights have NOTHING to do with the controversy over the game. The controversy over the game is about CONTENT. But since the game hasn't freaking been released yet, practically everyone but the developers who has anything to say about the content is operating on a HUGE amount of speculation and guesses. Which means that NEITHER side is in a position to accurately assess and judge that content. However, even if your speculations turn out to be correct, it's STILL about the content. So stop being intellectually dishonest and frame the discussion about that. If the people complaining about the game's content have misjudged and misinterpreted the game's content, then be intelluctually honest and frame the discussion around that rather than continuing to go on a rant about freedom and rights when no one was freaking advocating taking away freedom or rights. Have some damn integrity, admit that it's about the CONTENT, and then argue that the people complaining about the game don't understand the content.

Okay, so let me get two facts straight.

First, it is your position that causation can't exist absent correlation, and that there is no correlation between the rise in consumption of violent media and the perpetuation of violent crime.

Second, you don't think anything should be done about the theoretical danger of violent media causing real world violence.

Am I interpreting you correctly? If so, it seems like we shouldn't be having a debate then, as I have already concede that it is theoretically possible that violent media can cause people to become violent. I simply contend, as you seem to yourself in the above, that there is no evidence of such a link. In light of new evidence my position would change, but until then it isn't just pointless to take meaningful action to counter this hypothetical threat unsupported by any evidence, but dangerous. A sentiment you again seem to agree with.

If we agree that there is no evidence to support this hypothetical threat, that no action should be taken to counter the hypothetical threat, and that the presentation of actual evidence could change our outlooks, what about my position do you find so dangerous?

Finally: When someone opens an exchange by conceding it is impossible to prove a negative, there is no reason to tell them that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Both statements mean the exact same thing.

@mrgeeezer What is the point of railing against a tiny company almost no one knows anything about releasing content you find distasteful in a market flooded with alternatives? As you can simply choose not to buy it, it seems to me the only reason to get all bent out of shape that it is available for purchase in the first place is because you wish to keep other people from accessing it. Seriously, how does this game being on the market place negatively impact you?

Are you an idiot?

You already said people have the right to tell the developers to not create the game which contributes to censor it.

"None of the petitions that were posted were even trying to take away rights, they were simply ASKING for a change or refusal of certain content."

That's asking for censorship right there.

And you're saying in your last paragraph that noone knows the actual content of the game as of now, YET you still labelled it filthy and repulsive.

I have no problem with people voicing their opinions but that doesn't mean I won't call them dumb for trying to censor it when it has absolutely no negative effects on our society because it's a video game and video games AREN'T HARMFUL.

I've repeated this 100 times, you called me out on how many times I've repeated it but you still don't get it.

You think you have the moral highground for opposing the game because you think you are protecting society from harm.

What you are doing is censoring freedom of expression, censoring art for absolutely no valid reasons whatsoever other than "BUT IF A CRAZY PERSON PLAYED THIS GAME HE COULD'VE FLIPPED OFF, WE DON'T WANT THAT, WE MUST DO AWAY WITH THIS GAME" or " OMG THIS GAME OFFENDS ME I'LL HAVE TO WHINE ABOUT IT, NOONE SHOULD PLAY IT IF I DON'T LIKE IT".

Finally, freedom and rights have nothing to do with the game's content but it has to do with people like you who want to suppress it and stop the rest of us from playing it because you think you are helping anything.

You are talking like the game's content is OBJECTIVELY BAD just because you don't like it. The game could as well include baby raping and nazi-honoring or whatever, it's ART if you don't like it you can leave it alone and don't expect anyone to pander to your whining.

All in all, IF YOU DON'T LIKE A HARMLESS GAME, NOBODY GIVES A DAMN, WE WON'T CENSOR IT, GO AWAY, PLAY SOMETHING ELSE.

So basically, you're for censorship when it suits your agenda, but against censorship when it goes against your opinion?

"All in all, IF YOU DON'T LIKE A HARMLESS GAME, NOBODY GIVES A DAMN, WE WON'T CENSOR IT, GO AWAY, PLAY SOMETHING ELSE."

Right. Basically the essence of the "if you don't like it, just shut up and don't buy it" movement. To quote kakamoura, "Are you an idiot?" That's advocating for censorship. By telling them to stop complaining and just not buy it, you're telling them to censor their own speech. Which would be fine, if you hadn't structured your argument around being against censorship. That's hypocrisy. Hey...if people who don't like a game are supposed to just shut up and not say they don't like it, then what the hell are you doing by telling people to stop saying something that you don't like? You're literally advocating for censorship. Which would be fine, if you weren't telling people to stop censoring things.

Also, I never said the game is filthy and repulsive. If you actually read my comments, I have REPEATEDLY stated that I can't judge the game since I haven't fucking played it. The fact is that NO ONE here can judge th game from an informed perspective, since none of us here have played it.

But this IS about content, not freedom or rights.

And we HAVE seen the trailer, so we're all perfectly justified in judging the content of the trailer. In the interest of being fair to all parties, would you like to discuss whether or not the TRAILER is vile and reprehensible? Fair's fair. Let's not speculate. Don't judge the game since it isn't out yet, but we can ABSOLUTELY discuss the trailer from an informed perspective.

EDIT: "The game could as well include baby raping and nazi-honoring or whatever, it's ART if you don't like it you can leave it alone and don't expect anyone to pander to your whining."

I just have to point out that that's not how art works. Art tends to rely on and benefit from discussion about themes and concepts and ideas, rather than a simple "if you don't like it, just stfu and don't buy it" attitude. The creation of art is an expression of themes or concepts or values or ideas, and the discussion generated is an incredibly important part of the process. My biggest issue with you isn't that you don't like what people are saying about art, but that you want them to stop discussing art entirely. And...how does that benefit the artist? If the video game in question is art, if the creators of that game are honestly communicating themes or values or ideas, then don't you think that they MIGHT benefit from hearing the criticism from those who hold their work in low regard? If a certain segment of the audience thinks that the work of art is vile and reprehensible, don't you think that the actual artists could MAYBE benefit from some honest negative criticism? I mean, you're an artist, right? Do YOU want to be stuck in that creative black hole where people hate your art but they just nod their heads instead of saying how much it sucked? Is that your idealized vision of art?

"I never said the game is filthy and repulsive"

Alright, you're just lying at this point.

Bye.

EDIT: holy shit I've never seen this much backpeddling.

And you ARE a complete idiot if you think me telling you to stop trying to censor things is equivalent to censoring someone.

Put your money where your mouth is. I haven't deleted any of my posts, so it'd be pretty easy for you to take a direct quote while also citing the post number.

If I said it, then show me where.

Not for my benefit, but for the benefit of the rest of this community. You know, to show them how much of a liar I am and how they should be wary of me.

post 99 2nd paragraph

inb4 more backpeddling

"The point is that the people complaining about the game think it is repulsive. So they're saying that it's not good to create filth, it's not good to fill your head with shit, and they want companies to stop peddling that trash. Let me ask...why the hell does that bother you so much? People aren't advocating for the removal of rights, they're seeing something that they think is reprehensible and essentially saying the free market should take a stand against reprehensible content. Seriously, what about that is so offensive to you? It almost seems like you want people to stop pointing out when they find something reprehensible, even when complaining about it has ZERO impact on one's right to make it or sell it."

So, yeah...you're talking out of your ass and I never said the game is filthy and repulsive.

Unless you want to give it another shot. I mean, jeez...I can't remember EVERYTHING I ever type. Maybe I did somewhere type that the game is filthy and repulsive or morally reprehensible or whatever. I hope not, though, because I like to make a point of not judging things that I haven't experienced. If I messed up and did judge the game without having played it, then PLEASE show me where I did that so that I can make more of an effort to not do that in the future. You see, I actually WELCOME criticism because being aware of my mistakes is actually good.

Sure as shit didn't happen in post #99 2nd paragraph, though. I just quoted it, and I don't see anything in there where I'm judging the game.

So you're now EXCLUDING yourself from the people who complain about the game or want to censor it?

ANYWAY though, we're getting out of hand here.

Clarify your position:

1)Do you want the game to be censored/banned/changed/cancelled?

2) Do you think the game can cause harm of ANY kind? If yes, show proof. If you don't show proof I can discuss or just dodge these questions I'm going to ignore you.

Uh, yeah I'm excluding myself from the people who complain about the game. Like I said, I REPEATEDLY said that I'm not gonna judge it without playing it. If I recall correctly, my first freaking post in this thread was explicitly stating that I can't judge the game since I haven't played it.

I'll judge the shit out of the trailer, though, if you want to discuss that.

1) Not particularly. If someone wants to self-censor it, or if the free market wants to not support it...okay. That's their business and that's part of their first amendment rights. As long as it isn't banned through legislation, then I don't give a shit.

2) I strongly doubt that the game can cause any harm. But, again, it's hard for me to say since I've never played it. However, it's certainly possible that the game includes harmful messages or ideas. But again, I can't say that the game does include such messages or ideas since I haven't played it.

1) I concede causation can't exist absent correlation, yes, and I also concede that present evidence seems to point to no correlation between the rise in violent media and committal of violence. Where I differ with you is that I don't believe that that evidence constitutes absolute proof (as you seem to imply), and that hence we should pay no mind to it. You always have exceptions to general consensus or findings in research, and when we're talking about acts of violence, those exceptions can have drastic ramifications.

2) No I never said this, and believe the complete opposite.

So no, you're not interpreting me entirely correctly. What I'm arguing is that just because there is no evidence does not mean none exists showing that violent media can be linked to violent behavior in rare cases, and that we should not act in a dismissive manner based on that lack of evidence and still take precautions. I'd appreciate hearing how you believe this to be dangerous. Pointless or wasteful is as far as I could go....but dangerous? What exactly is dangerous about it? Do you agree with things such as the ESRB system, parental guidance, mental health treatment and medications? If so, what's the issue? What is dangerous is this attitude:

"Given that western society has become far less extreme at the same time it's media has become exponentially more extreme, seems to me that we should roll our eyes at the pearl clutchers."

Because when that exception rolls around that is fucked up in the head that goes on to consume this violent media, it may be the straw that breaks the camel's back leading to an unstable and horrific action (once again for the Strawman lovers out there--I'M NOT FOR CENSORSHIP). Unless you can assure me that the consumption of violent media will never cause one single maniac to go on a murdering spree, how can you sit there and say that not only should we disregard those who believe such can be triggers to some and wish to take preventative measures, but then further go on to claim those measures to be dangerous? Christ. Isn't it better to err on the side of caution rather than toss it to the wind? Why is it so objectionable to admit that maybe violent media holds the potential to cause violent action, and that steps should be taken to guard against that possibility? What is the problem here?

Finally: don't preach to me the manner in which I present my argument. You've patronized to me twice now and I'm sick of it. Stop doing it or this will end.

I juxtapose these two statements absent the rest for a reason. My very first words to you were that it is impossible to prove a negative. It is something I have repeated over and over. I have said over and over that the point of contention between us is theoretically possible, but that there is no evidence to support it. You are arguing against a straw man of your own creation. If you want to end it, feel free.

As for the only bit that isn't irrelevant: Unless you can assure me that the consumption of violent media will never cause one single maniac to go on a murdering spree, how can you sit there and say that not only should we disregard those who believe such can be triggers to some and wish to take preventative measures.

First: What preventative measures do you actually support? If meaningful action is off the table, what is left?

Second: Charles Manson's murder spree was inspired, in part, by This song. Notice the complete lack of any call for a race war or ethnic cleansing in it's lyrics? Manson found them there anyway. He convinced other people that they were there as well, and their faith was strong enough that they took the lives of innocent people in his name.

It is extremely dangerous to take action against an artistic work just because an insane person identifies with it, or sites it as inspiration for the horrors they unleash. Violent murderers bent upon slaughtering the innocent don't interpret things the way the rest of society does. Music, classic literature, religion, philosophy, and political ideology of every sort has been sited as the inspiration of horrific atrocity.

This is possible because insane murderers see things where they are not. I can not assure you that the consumption of any media, violent or otherwise, will never be sited as justification for a murder frenzy, People generally see what they want to see, and insane murderers want to see some pretty messed up stuff. That is why you take action against insanity, instead of the work of artists.

In short: Art doesn't cause maniacs to kill people. The cause is insanity.

You began our exchange by pointing out you can't prove a negative. Then it moved to causation/correlation, to which you eventually said your "seems to me we should roll our eyes at the pearl clutchers" statement which is what I took issue with and have been arguing against ever since. You cannot seem to stay on-topic, it's extremely tiring, and I'm getting to ends with your apparent inability to focus on what we're discussing.

"Unless someone has credible evidence that the game Hatred will cause people to harm others no action should be taken to prevent or limit it's creation and distribution."

Not a position I took.

"It is extremely dangerous to take action against an artistic work just because an insane person identifies with it, or sites it as inspiration for the horrors they unleash."

Not a position I took. Point out to me either if I did.

"Second, you don't think anything should be done about the theoretical danger of violent media causing real world violence."

All of your above statements are completely off-base to what I've been posting. Where in God's name are you getting the first two?? They are refutations to positions I never took (don't talk to me about arguing against my own strawmans when that's exactly what you've been doing in numerous posts), and the third is a blind, clueless assumption for which I have absolutely NO idea where you got it from as I said nothing of the sort. In fact, the implication of my refutations to you should've clued you in to me feeling the exact opposite. Even in your above response which (aside from the question on preventative measures) has little to do with what I posted prior. I've also had to repeat myself over and over and over, and you still seem incapable of remaining within the realm of pertinent argument.

I agree the ultimate cause is insanity, and that's what I believe needs to be addressed when I talk about taking precautions (of which are the ones I pointed out to you above.....ESRB, parental guidance, mental healthcare). Are those not meaningful actions? You are making the false assumption that because I believe violence has the potential to be triggered from violent media that I somehow wish to implement actions against it in the form of censorship. Our entire exchange is not about censorship at all. I've never once said this or even alluded to it, on the contrary I've made a post to you and another user explicitly stating my feelings against such a thing which apparently was overlooked or simply ignored.

The focus of my argument is not that art causes people to kill, that we should censor it due to that chance, or against the point that it's impossible to prove a negative, it's that absent evidence showing any relation between the cause/correlation of violent media and violent action, we should not then be careless in continuing to take preventative measures regardless (again, not against the art, but those consuming it), as you seem to advocate not doing with your "seems to me we should roll our eyes" comment.

At this point I can't help but feel you're intentionally trolling me just for kicks.

@MirkoS77: There's NOT absence of evidence. We KNOW and it has been proven that video games DO NOT CAUSE HARM in the real world.

I'll link you to a recent Gamespot article I was reading 5 minutes ago but you can literally google "do games cause violence" and you'll find million results refuting it.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/violent-video-games-dont-lead-to-increases-in-viol/1100-6422421/

But the most important thing, imho to note is that IT CAN HAVE THE OPPOSITE EFFECT, and I quote:

"What were some of the most surprising findings of your research?

By far the most surprising finding was that violent video games were negatively related to aggravated assault and homicides. This really surprised me. However, after this discovery we replicated this finding examining violent movies. It turns out, like violent video games, the popularity of violent films is inversely related to violent crime."

Yes it actually might benefit society if more politically incorrect and violent and disgusting video games are made.

And it is not surprising really. I bet we've all played GTA in here and I really doubt any of us engaged on killing sprees because we can distinguish between entertainment and reality. We can distinguish between pixels and real human beings.

And before you say "yes that might be true for us but you'd be surprised how many people can't distinguish the difference"... YOU ARE WRONG and every study we've ever conducted on video games prove you wrong (unless there are other factors coming into play like mental illnesses).

PEOPLE CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN VIDEO GAMES AND REALITY and that's why "fantasy" violence does not translate into real life violence. It just does not. Your average person will not be influenced negatively by video games.

There's no buts or ifs, THERE ARE NO HARMFUL EFFECT CAUSED BY VIDEO GAMES, fullstop, the end.

There's no reason to take any preventive measures and waste our taxes on censoring video games because it doesn't do anything, it doesn't help anything, it doesn't prevent anything, it doesn't fix anything.

So you can say what gets pulled or not just because people get offended?

Dude, you have equated rolling your eyes at someone with a definitive statement that the opposing view point is backed by absolute proof, despite the fact that I have said several times in several different posts, both before and after the statement, that no negative can be proven. Trust me, I know how you feel.

As for the rest: The ESRB and parental guidance keeps games out of the hands of children. It does nothing to keep them out of the hands of the insane. That leaves mental healthcare as the only preventative measure you support. If you actually think the phrase "Roll our eyes at the pearl clutchers" means "Mental healthcare shouldn't be a thing" then you should seek some.

Merry Xmas and such.

#1. Yes it is okay for the first two games to be on there and I explained the difference between them and Hatred. As for Manhunt, it has not been sold on Steam or by most retailers. It was also completely banned in several countries.

#2. You mean other than basic psychology? Many things can trigger an

#3. Its not a fact that congress has been blaming violent video games for acts of violence in real life and already talked about passing laws several times in the past? Are you serious? LOL Where have you been pretty much since I the day I was born? This has been going on forever with one of the most infamous cases being the Columbine shooting, where politicians were blaming Doom.

#4. Actually, there is no such thing as free speech on the internet. It looks like its time to educate another person who clearly knows nothing about the actual law. The 1st amendment only protects you from the government creating laws that prevent you from speaking on public property. It does not cover the private sector in any way. Meaning businesses can decide what you can and cannot say. That includes websites like twitter, youtube, steam, etc.... There are very few sites online that have unrestricted free speech. That is a fact. Secondly, my point had nothing to do with free speech. I was talking about their marketing being questionable because it is.... The primary audience they are clearly trying to target here with their marketing scheme is a very volatile group in the first place. They aren't targeting gamers as a whole here, they are going for the perpetually enraged conservative male gamer. The "Political Correctness" comment is a big clue there. ;O)

#5. Ah he denied it so it must be false right? People always admit to everything. ;O)

There are two problems with your post. The first is that we often don't know a person has serious mental issues until its too late. Now granted, if its not a video game that sets a person off, something else probably will but I'd rather it be something else. That way we don't have congress going after all video games with any amount of violence. And keep in mind who has control of congress right now. A group that has gone after video games many times in the past. The same group that blames video games every time there is a mass shooting. ;O)

Actually, you have no "right" to play violent video games. Some of you seem to be really confused about what is and is not a right in this country. What you have is a privilege and it can be taken away from you if they choose to do so.

@MirkoS77 said:

#1. The rules clearly state that your game must not contain offensive material.

#2. That doesn't change the fact that the game encourages you to kill innocent people. Other games do it. To make matters worse, the game portrays you as a the "good guy" in the story.

#3. We have also never had anything quite like this and I believe this will lead to even worse games being released. When a society constantly has incidents of violence on a large scale, people will find a scapegoat for it. We have come dangerously close to seeing games targeted by congress in the past but there was always that "the games don't encourage you to kill innocent people" defense for most games. As I pointed out, you can't use that defense for Hatred. It absolutely encourages you to brutally murder civilians and if this game becomes popular, it would be the perfect target for Congress. It would be so easy to get most of the country behind them by just pointing to this game.

"Besides, from the amount of uproar and outrage this title has caused within the gaming community, this game's release could turn out to become one of the strongest tools in favor of demonstrating that gamers are not basement dwelling sociopaths ready to snap but in fact are healthy-minded, sane individuals."

Unfortunately it goes both ways... There is actually a lot of support for the game too, which just justifies that stereotype about gamers in the minds of regular people.

"Not liking something and consequently choosing not to support it is one thing, but demanding its censorship so as to preclude others from playing it is on a whole different level that needs to be fought against with all we can muster. It's imperative that this game sees the light of day, no matter how distasteful you and others find it."

So basically, you have an "anything goes" policy for games? So you think its okay for games about rape to be made next? Killing children? Raping children? Where do we draw the line?

Do whatever you want but just remember that when Congress goes after violent video games as a whole, I tried to warn you.

So many wrong assumptions here that i have to say something.

1) Ehmmm, no Hatred is no more violent than Postal 1+2 and many other games that are already on steam. So what Gabe did was point out that Steam is not a hypocritical place.

2) Here you seem to be trying to make gaming the cause, which is wrong. What you have is a correlation between violent video games and violent behaviour, but this can be seen with many things. Violent movies, Violent tv-shows, 7´clock news, violent music, violent Books, religion, politics....etc... or simply random things. After all Hinckley tried to kill Reagan to impress Jodie Foster and John Lennon's killer had a copy of Catcher in the Rye. So yes a violent video game might trigger someone mentally unstable, but video games are no worse than a million other things might be to the mentally unstable.

3) What a load of bull here, first of all America isn't the world, so for most of the gaming world it doesn't matter one bit what they decide to ban or not ban in America. With that said though, The house would never be able to break the 1st amendment and there have already been a supreme court ruling and Video games is protected under the 1st amendment. So you might want to read up on Brown v. EMA ;)

But sure retailers can decide not to sell games and some do, but its all misguided and its a very very slippery slope towards censorship. And censorship in any form is bad and should be fought.

4) The reasoning behind 90% of the violent games on steam is questionable but its just a game. And Hatred are no worse than the games that have been mentioned again and again.

5) And that report was thrown out as pure nonsense, so what do you want to archive by mentioning it?

So gaming won't suffer because games like Hatred comes around, like games didn't suffer because Call of Duty, Postal, GTA or any number of violent games came around.

I have no idea why I'm responding since you have absolutely no clue how this shit works.

First of all, me playing video games is my right. If you think otherwise, you can go jump off a cliff, I don't give two shits.

Second, I don't give a shit who's in control of congress, my rights are not to be infringed in any way, mainly because I am not American.

Thirdly, I wish all nutjobs were set off by video games just so people like you could realize how much shit I DON'T give and that I'll continue playing video games because nutjobs are nutjobs and have nothing to do with me.

Your little brain is "confused", nothing else.

1) SInce the game is on steam, clearly no rules are broken.

2) The game doesn't encourage you to kill innocent people, it encourages you to click on pixels. If you can't distinguish between these, you have mental issues.

3) The congress will not go after video games as video games are protected under the first amendment. This is just your little excuse to back up your lust of censorship.

4) Why would anyone give a shit about gamer stereotypes, unless they are a fucking tool.

5) Games about rape SHOULD be made AND kill children AND raping children and they wouldn't negatively impact anyone sane or anything sane in any way. There is no line to be drawn in art. If you don't like it, find another hobby.

No it's not

It's back on GL therefore it doesn't break any rules.

Being on Greenlight doesn't mean it will be on Steam.

It doesn't break any rules.

Steam has a rule against games that are too violent.

I wasn't claiming it broke the rules of greenlight. So far you've repeated the same old tired argument and refused to add anything meaningful to the discussion. Sorry if this is all too hard for you.

And? or are you really trying to claim that GTA, Payday 1+2, Postal 1+2 and many many many more games are not as violent as Hatred.

No they're not. The closest I can think of is Manhunt 2 which steam refuse to sell for being too violent.

Right.

Happy holidays.

1) That's an entirely subjective criteria, and Steam allows games such as Postal to be allowed, which I'm sure many would find more than "offensive".

2) Presumptions made on inconclusive evidence (i.e., a trailer). Let's wait until its release.

3) There will always be scapegoats. Sure, we've seen games come close to be targeted, but have they ever been successful? Don't you understand that this is a much bigger issue at hand than Hatred?

Yes, I have an "anything goes" policy for ANY form of expression, as you talk about where to draw the line in what games should be able to be released.....I ask you, if you censor Hatred or games of its ilk, where exactly is the line to be drawn in censorship? What these disgusting games portray is utterly insignificant to the freedom allowed to allow them. I will never agree with censorship of any form whatsoever no matter the content, because that content is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I can't even fathom such a mind frame, tbh.

And you do whatever you want, but when those actions taken against these games ultimately fail (as they always seem to do), well....there you go.

Of course not because shooting someone in the face with a shotgun is different when your name is Hatred or its not violent at all to take it and put a cat on it as a home made silencer, not to forget smashing in their brains with a shovel and take a leak on their face. And lets not forget GTA´s Tooth scene or other various fun stuff.

What does that tell you? It's censorship. Let me guess, you probably think it's alright for feminists to take down GTA V from stores aswell?

No, you're wrong. Nothing that is game related has triggered anyone. If that were true, millions would be killing each other... People know the difference between a game and reality. If that person can't. Then they're the fucking problem...

Yet none of these have passed. No evidence, fact, research or correlation has been linked. Face it, you have nothing.

You're expressing your free spech right now... "Volatile group"? What the hell are you on about? Again, you have nothing to back this up with... "they are going for the perpetually enraged conservative male gamer." Are you kidding me? /Facepalm

Oh, so you can link any of them to this, even though the link explains it?

I can already see what Hatred's sequel will look like...

ISIS Simulator 2014, where we get to play ISIS terrorists mass-murdering Iraqi Shiites.

And then the next sequel...

Nazi Simulator 1938, where we get to play Nazi soldiers mass-murdering Polish Jews.

1) Or god forbid your interpretation of the rules is incorrect as it is subjective. Now if you want to say your opinion is on a higher moral standing then a guy who probably has decades of life experience on you, be my guest but be aware of your reflection of ignorance, seriously shouldn't you be past the "BUT DADDY I KNOW EVERYTHING" stage?

2) To censor games based on the possibility of "triggering" someone is absolutely asinine. The warnings are there, it's the individuals responsibility to know what's appropriate or not. Hatred is ridiculous violence and probably would have been been in obscurity if a certain over dramatic stink wasn't made about it. It's dumb violence, and honestly if you think that's the only game with that kind of violence, let alone media, then your opinion is virtually useless in this discussion. By your standards if mortal kombat was introduced today, it would be banned, and should be. Considering the critics have gone as far as download child porn to spam on 8ch, I guess you'll see a mass murder more likely by a social justice warrior desperately trying to prove a point for his cultist brother and sisters. Which by the way would not be a gamer issue. The thing is you have such an erection to these conclusions that games have direct impacts on gamers, that they cannot distinguish morality, much like critics of atheism. I grew up on Command and Conquer games, even battlefield, 3 generations of my family on both sides are military, yet I did not join the service. I didn't want to, I have no interest in real life for guns, I am the very contradiction of your assumptions. Also you know, science kind of took care of it for me, I'm sure that's been thrown in your face more than enough times though.

3) You're jumping to conclusion based on being naive. If you really think that media had any kind of that impact, movies would have destroyed society. Yes video games are more interactive but back when movies were introduced, they were INCREDIBLY interactive by those generations standards. How many kids pretended to be power rangers, super hero's in general? Those are the types of influences you had, yet by your logic, we should have multiple mass murders based on movies. Even disregarding all that your "end solution" is even more ridiculous, if anything we'd just pull an Australia and just ban specific games from the USA, like china with V for vendetta. I'm sorry but your paranoia is unfounded and your suggestions completely ridiculous and clearly the result of skimming and echo chambering.

4) What to stop with this stupid politically correct crap that people have been shoving down our throats? "WE NEED GIRL ASSASSINS, WE NEED GAY CHARACTERS", where Anthony burch has admitted that he's FORCED those characters for a narrative for representation? Quick question, any homosexuals inspired to come out of the closet after playing Mass Effect? No? You know why, because we could care less. This entire use of video games as a narrative to create "critical thinking" is nothing more than idiots who took worthless degrees and are trying ot make a profit off of them.

5) Oi, learn to read, he has no affilation and the spin that you read was an allegation because he liked a facebook page. Nice try though. I mean, that's all really people like you can do, present a fraudulent argument based on assumptions, claim it as fact then go character assassinations to discredit an opinion of your opposition so even if you're wrong they look bad.

Sorry about the Wii U doesn't seem to have any ultra violent games on the horizon. I mean seriously, take off the tin foil hat, everything is going to be okay.

1) Steam's rules prevent explicit sexual content... but explicit violent mass-murder and hate speech promoting genocide, those are perfectly acceptable, apparently.

2) There are laws preventing hate speech in almost every developed nation. There is a fine line between free speech and hate speech.

3) Naive comparison. Movies don't promote genocide like this game does.

4) Another naive comparison. There's a big difference between a gay agenda and hate speech promoting genocide. In no way are the two even remotely comparable.

5) The creator liked a far-right organization. That says a lot about his political stance. It's not surprising at all he made a game about genocide, considering that's the aim of the organization he liked.

And sorry that your adolescent "ultra violent" games need adolescent "ultra violence" to make up for their childish garbage gameplay.

Have to correct you a bit here.

3) This games does not promote genocide, genocide is the systematic extermination of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group. In Hatred you hate all equally not to mention that doing a "brevick" or "columbine" is far from genocide. But nice scare tactics and distortion of words.

5) No, the CEO didn´t like a far right organization, he pressed like on a group that do have some questionable practices like going around at nightclubs and defending polish women against certain muslims. But from that and until being a neo-nazi is a long long way which is why you won't see many of the more mainstream media touching on the story since its based on a simple like and a misunderstanding in translation.

So nice try with your distortion of facts.

So... just because a game's ultra violent, it can't have good gameplay? You're being presumptuous here. Hatred could very well be a solid game mechanically. We won't know that until someone writes up a detailed preview.

No offense, but I'm not going to be bothered to read any of that unless it's formatted into proper paragraphs.

Why the fluff are people saying this game advocates genocide? I mean I adore, to bits and peaces, many games in which the player actually commits literal genocide. I also adore games in which you play as the bad guy. Most of these games tend to be strategy games, but that doesn't change the fact that you engage in acts like genocide and other horrific atrocities all the time in video games. In two of my absolute all time favorite games, Galactic Civilizations and Sins of a Solar Empire you actually progress by committing planet wide atrocities. Both actually have special racial bonuses that center around ending all life on an entire planet.

In GC2 you poison the entire atmosphere of planets to wipeout all life, human, animal, plant and so forth, making landing troops upon them unnecessary. Heck, now that I think of it you can destroy suns and actually wipe out entire solar systems full of densely inhabited planets. In Sins of a Solar Empire they actually take it one step farther. As a bonus for selecting a particular race you gain the ability to sacrifice an entire planet of your own people in order to inflict massive damage against enemy invaders.

Fluff me in the goat asp, the more I think on the strategy genre, the more examples I come up with. In some of the games with demonic races you actually do some pretty twisted stuff. In Alpha Centauri you do stuff like put down completely justified worker riots by mind stapling people and unleashing hoards of alien worms on your enemies that makes them claw their own eyes out in terror. And don't even get me started on the Warhammer series. Someone could probably spend an hour listing the atrocities one commits in that series without actually scratching the surface.

Point is: Hatred treads zero new ground. Games in which you play as someone evil are nothing new. Games in which you unleash horrific violence presented in much higher fidelity then Hatred are nothing new. If you disagree pull up youtube and watch a video of all the fatalities in the latest Mortal Kombat. The atrocities you commit in Hatred are extremely minor next to those you commit in an endless series of strategy titles. I would say that the only new thing that Hatred does is fly a middle finger in the face of pearl cluchers, but that is pretty much the entire marketing strategy behind Saints Row, MK, and GTA.

Mostly to me it seems that the only thing unique about Hatred is that it is made by a studio tiny enough that the pearl clutchers stood an actual chance in their campaign to kill it. Thank goodness Gabe laughed them off.

You know what, I will post the video that should put this debate to bed. Nothing in Hatred can touch:

So what would be wrong with that? If people want to buy it, let them... I wouldn't... You're using the slippery slope argument when there is no evidence that these games are going to be made...

@Jag85:

1) Then don't use the service if you don't agree with the rules. I don't agree with retarded websites who post lies for clickbait, that's your consumer right to make that choice. When you have the CEO of a company who represents consumer appreciation, maybe you should reevaluate your position. The game offends you? Don't buy it. You think it's shit? Don't buy it. Your argument would hold some validity if there was actually a study that showed games have a significant influence towards behavior, but they really don't. All of it is really conjecture and straw manning video games as a source of the problem.

2) Probably should read the legal definition and/or learn middle school fucking vocabulary. What "group" is being harassed to incite violence? You may live in a developed nation but public education did jack shit for you, that's for sure.

3) Do you know what 'naive' means? Also, how old are you? How many examples do you want of movies actually advocating mass murder, rape, cannibalism and every taboo known in existence? God Bless America comes to mind, How about Southpark where you have to kill Nazi zombie Fetus'? How about command and conquer zero hour that uses almost every racial stereotype you can imagine? The more you talk the more irrelevant I find your opinion to be based on how uneducated it is.

4) Who was equating the two? The purpose of the game was to actually go "**** it, let's shock people", so far it got to the point where you want to essentially wipe it from existence because you can't handle it. By your logic and standards 90% of the horror genre would probably be erased.

5) I'll be completely honest with you, I have never, ever, had someone other than a social justice warrior directly wish for me gas'd, or be a victim of genocide. It's disgusting really, and he liked it for entirely different reasons and for you to actually equate the republican party as "Neo Nazi's", is fucking juvenile. And no, before you go on about how "oh you're right", I'm a registered independent, I go with common sense not party lines.

Way to prove a point brat, RIGHT to attempted character assassinations. Honestly I didn't even know about the game until you pissbabies made a deal out of it, "wah wah this offends me because I'm afraid of consequences of people unable to identify fucking fiction". Yeah well worse games have been out, especially in Japan and they've had NONE of those impacts, at all. I don't like the game, it's not my type of game, I don't plan on purchasing it, but actually being an adult who actually deals with real life functions besides fighting "patriarchy" & the analysis of gender studies (lolworthless) don't have a want or need to censor it. It's completely acceptable in the format, which although crude, is clearly fucking satirical and isn't a boot camp to "how to genocide". I know your parents raised you to be an entitled brat but the world isn't going to bend over backwards and close every mcdonalds because it's one of the leading causes in obesity.

How about:

• Witcher 2
• Dragon Age when that was there
• Mass Effect
• Max Payne 3
• Duke Nukem Forever
• Age of Conan
• Leisure Suit Larry
• GTA IV
• Saints Row The Third
• Dante's Inferno

They all have nudity...

None of them have explicit sexual contact. Do you come from a very prudish country or do you not know what explicit sexual contact means?

3) The very trailer itself uses the word "genocide" to describe the game. There's nothing to "distort" here, unless you're suggesting the developer is a liar.

5) The group's ideology is the "cleansing" of a certain religious group from their nation (even though that religious group is barely even 0.1% of Poland's population).

1) I don't use the service.

2) Like I said above, the trailer itself refers to the game as "genocide". Maybe if you actually had a public education, you'd have better listening skills.

3) Yet another naive comparison. Killing Nazis and promoting genocide against innocent civilians are nowhere near the same ball park.

4) I don't want to wipe it from existence. But I have zero sympathy for anyone actually voting for this piece of garbage on Steam Greenlight.

5) When did I say anything about the Republican Party? Do you even know the difference between "right-wing" and "far-right"? You might want to learn some basic Politics 101.

The only "worse" games from Japan are rape games, which, again, are nowhere near the same ball park as genocide against innocent civilians. As far as violence is concerned, Japanese games haven't even reached GTA's level of violence, let alone Hatred.

I said explicit sexual content, not just nudity. Explicit sexual content would be the kind of stuff you'd see from Japan, which are banned from Steam for explicit sexual content (even if it's just a few consensual scenes), yet the same Steam has no issues with releasing ultra-violent genocide simulators. Hypocrisy at its finest.

@Jag85 said:

@Jacanuk said:

Have to correct you a bit here.

3) This games does not promote genocide, genocide is the systematic extermination of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group. In Hatred you hate all equally not to mention that doing a "brevick" or "columbine" is far from genocide. But nice scare tactics and distortion of words.

5) No, the CEO didn´t like a far right organization, he pressed like on a group that do have some questionable practices like going around at nightclubs and defending polish women against certain muslims. But from that and until being a neo-nazi is a long long way which is why you won't see many of the more mainstream media touching on the story since its based on a simple like and a misunderstanding in translation.

3) The very trailer itself uses the word "genocide" to describe the game. There's nothing to "distort" here, unless you're suggesting the developer is a liar.

5) The group's ideology is the "cleansing" of a certain religious group from their nation (even though that religious group is barely even 0.1% of Poland's population).