Hatred Developer responds to criticisms in Candid interview

You'd think with all the controversy surrounding the uber-violent angle this game has that the developers wouldn't be taking interviews, wanting to minimise their presence. But they're surprisingly straight-faced about it all.

http://automaton.am/articles/interviews/hatred-interview-part-1/

Edit:

Part 2 of the interview is now up:

http://automaton.am/articles/interviews/hatred-interview-part-2/

What's surprising about an attention seeker doing what attention seekers do?

Participating in an interview is now attention seeking?

Guess developers should stop talking to journalists about their games then.

where did I say nobody should ever seek attention? Of course a dev would want to seek attention to his game but with Hatred the game only exists to get attention. Literally everything they've done with it has been done just so they can get attention. People are going to buy it just because it's controversial and thats what the devs wanted from the start.

I fail to see what's so bad about them wanting to get attention for a game they're making and hoping getting sold. Isn't that what any developer wants? For their game to stand out and get attention and therefor higher chance of being sold.

Care to share where you have information that they are just making the game to get attention and not because they actually feel like making such a game.

I would love to see a link to a comment or statement from the developers to that fact, or are we over in a poor opinion by you because you personally dislike the game.

Have you followed the game at all? It's pretty obvious that the game is controversial for the sake of controversy. Why else do you think they would willingly send it in to the ESRB? The creators of Carmageddon tried the same marketing trick back in late 90's only that back fired massively for them, while now with digital distribution it's pretty much risk free.

Not sure why you think I dislike the game, but then again you aren't exactly the smartest person on this board. Not everything is black and white. Just because I can see the obvious marketing strategies they use that doesn't mean I hate them. I would like the game to be good but so far all they've been selling it on is it being too violent for steam and how it pisses people off.

Have you ever considered how strange is that you seem to call anyone who disagree with you and your sometimes pretty insane ideas less intelligent? is it because you have some kind of complex over your own abilities or haven't you yet discovered that its pretty unintelligent to come up with such attacks, and its not the first time i have seen this, it goes again and again in pretty much all your debates with people who disagree with you on a big scale.

And since you are just assuming they are making this game for attention and you probably haven't even read the interview, there is no point in going forward with this debate. But thanks for making gamespot a bit more crappy.

I do't call everyone who disagrees with me stupid. Just you as you lack common sense.

So do you honestly believe that them putting the game up for review by the ESRB wasn't a grab for attention? Are you seriously that naive? Yes i read the interview, they claim there is more to the game then what they've shown, so why don't they show it?

The only reason this game has got any attention is because of it's subject matter and the controversy it's intentionally gained.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

So wait a moment it wasn't you who called someone else several unflattery things like "humanity was doomed" because you disagreed in another thread and that is certainly not the first time.

But sorry the only one lacking any common sense here is you, particular when you still haven't yet discovered that attacking the man and not the ball is losing any debate hands down. It shows a lack of intelligence and any debate skills and the ability to form rational arguments.

Anyways i didn't want this to turn into a mudbath, so for the sake of the other users and myself, if you wish to discuss this further, we can continue this in a pm. Not that i see any reason for it.

But in regards to the game, i am opposite you not so quick to pass judgement on this game, it might be for attention and they will come out with another game which is a whole other ballgame from Hatred or they might actually care about their work and make it because they feel the market is for such a game.

Its also worth considering that they are not actually the ones causing the outcry, perhaps its your side that is out for attention, since its not actually the developers causing the PR outcry, If people just shrugged and left it, its a pretty good bet that it would never reach the PR it has now or the "popularity"

The games marketing focusing entirely on controversy doesn't negate the possibility of it being good. Like I said just because I acknowledge their obvious marketing strategy that doesn't mean I hate them, but it does mean I would rather they find a different marketing strategy (but why would they when their current one has worked so well?)

Yes if people didn't get so up in arms about it then it wouldn't have gotten any attention, that's common sense. My point is that the developers knew people would get up in arms about it and they've been exploiting those people for attention. It's proven to be an effective tactic but it's unfortunate that it gets so much attention when we know so little about the game itself. There are much more deserving games of attention, but nobody like good news, we only ever want to be out raged apparently.

I think I'm done with the whole Hatred controversy. I don't care either way anymore. The game will be out. People will play it. Someone will snap. The game will be blamed. Lawsuits will be filed, and then justly throne out. The next president will waste taxpayer dollars to organize studies that find at best the correlation of video games and violence is inconclusive. A new generation of posters will continue to bicker and bitch over whether or not that is true.

Nothing changes, and I don't have the energy for it anymore.

I couldn't care less about the controversy in respect to my decision to purchase this. I think from a mechanics standpoint it looks very competent, I love isometric shooters, the destructible environments look cool, I don't find the content anymore objectionable than what I do in many other games (just more honest), and I wish to experience this in full scope so I can have a fully formed, valid opinion on a subject that I believe will (and should) hold important relevance in the future of the industry, those who engage in it, and those who don't.

But the controversy it has stirred up has nothing to do with its appeal.

"But remember: Hatred is only a game for adults, and its purpose is not to encourage [people to] do to the same in reality. Only a sick mind can be inspired by the game’s themes."

He also said they didn't expect this much attention. Get over yourself. Buy it or don't buy it. Don't blame it on them for doing something they want to do

Who are you talking to?

You, because it doesn't seem you read what they actually talked about. Looking at what people are saying here it's apparant

And apparently you haven't read anything I said. I'm talking about the marketing of the game, nothing more.

Really the problem is with the people giving them so much attention. The game looks ok, but I don't think a game should be sold on nothing others than controversy, it should stand on it's own merits. Like I said the same marketing strategy has been used before, it's nothing new.

You said this, and it was a response to this

Yes and what's wrong with that? I guess you don't like me calling them attention seekers even if that's what they are, anyone who does marketing is an attention seeker thats the entire point of marketing.

However I do feel that with this game the marketing has made much more of it's image than pretty much any other indie game.

They haven't done the marketing, the news and the media itself have done the marketing

Exploiting the media is what marketing is.

@toast_burner: read their interview, they themselves did not expect it to blow up this much

And how is that Destructive Creation's fault? Are they paying anyone for all this coverage? No. They made a game they genuinely believe in, and it's such a shocking game, that WE'RE doing the marketing for THEM. If anyone's the attention seeker, it's the media, because rest assured, whatever article they put up gets clicks.

I already explained this. Doing stuff like sending it in for review so that it will be rated AO and get more media attention.

I can see your point but i don't think that them sending it in makes them a attention seeker in a bad sense.

If you look at it , its us and the media who are picking this up and discussion it and spreading it all over the net, if you look at Destruction games, all they did was send it as is required if they want to release it on consoles.

So where you are judging it bad, i am not so quick to make this so bad, particular not when you see soooo much crap being released on steam and in general. That are much worse than killing some pixels on a screen.

But we will see, what they do now they have gotten the AO rating. no one are saying they can't release a copy on steam and a dumbed down version on consoles.

I agree. Like I said it is mostly the media's fault, the devs are just doing their job. They need to bring attention to their product and unfortunately we live in a world where controversy gets more attention than talent. I see it as bad because it undermines everything else, a dev can spend years working on mechanics and art but it will be ignored unless it does something questionable.

I should point out that I don't really care that much, it may come across that way due to how I phrased it but that was more in response to what the OP said than anything else. The issue here is nothing more than a minor annoyance.