Thoughts on that game that Gamespot can't seem to shut up about: Hatred

Hey, everyone. It’s been a while since I’ve posted a blog (year and few days, actually). I’ve had a weird year since my last post filled with both positive and negative experiences. But I’m not really here to talk about them. Instead, I’m here to talk about mass murder. Or, rather, simulated mass murder.

So I’m sure that many of you have seen the release of the trailer for a game known only as Hatred. It features graphic violence, the murder of innocents and all around chaos, all rendered in the (pretty) Unreal Engine 4. Reaction to it has been pretty mixed, but the headlines are calling the game “brutally violent” and many feel that the gam isn’t fit to be made (there are, of course, people on the other side, which is something I’m going to be talking about). I’m not going to bother linking the trailer for a few reasons, chief among them being that I’m lazy as hell.

Anyways, my initial reaction was similar to the headlines. “This game’s awful, totally unnecessary, needlessly brutal, (fill in with any other negative adjective).” After all, in the wake of such tragedies as Sandy Hook, does the world need a game that puts players in the shoes of a man who wants nothing more than to wipe out every human he comes in contact with (thankfully, there were no children in the trailer, but it’s anyone’s guess as to whether or not the finished product will include such a heinous act)? And, to be sure, the game is shockingly realistic in its depiction of the killings.

But that got me thinking about some of my favorite media. One of my favorite and most played game series of the last generation was Borderlands, a game that was all about killing your enemies in a non-serious atmosphere. One of my favorite movies of 2013 was You’re Next, a slasher that depicted the massacre of a family (and a seriously badass chick fighting back). My favorite book of last year was This Book is Full of Spiders, a comedy horror novel that features exploding bodies, physically deformed zombies and a high number of gory deaths described in detail. I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend these to people, though. Borderlands is a fun, funny shooter that is insanely addicting. You’re Next is an almost perfectly executed (no pun intended) slasher movie that flips genre conventions on their head and makes you want to cheer while you watch. This Book is Full of Spiders is the incredibly well written sequel to John Dies at the End (another really terrific read) that is both hilarious and horrific, and sports a cast of truly well written and interesting characters.

Then, this past summer, I played one game almost obsessively for a good while. That game is Hotline Miami. For those that don’t know, Hotline Miami is something of a top down Contra. You play as a masked man and are charged with going to different places to kill a group of mobsters in some pretty brutal ways. The game’s graphics are 8 bit, but you still see things like decapitations, eye gouging, immolations and eviscerations in pretty explicit detail (and those are just the scripted death scenes- the non-scripted ones in play are arguably worse). And I think that most people who have played it will agree when I say that it’s just awesome (and goddamn, when’s that sequel coming?).

Now, the enemies in Hotline Miami aren’t necessarily innocent. They are Russian Mobsters, and while the player doesn’t see them do too much, it can be safely assumed that each one you kill has more than a little blood on their hands. Still, you don’t know who these people are, and yet you kill them in ludicrously violent ways (there’s even a mask that increases the amount of gore). I love the game because of its twitchy, reflex based gameplay, its awesome electronic soundtrack, the stylish graphics and, yes, the gore. However, the game’s story is actually quite contemplative. Without getting into too much, the events of the story can make a person sit back and think “huh” when it comes to the matter of violence. The nature of violence, the brutality of violence and, as evidenced when one character tells the protagonist that “Nothing you will do from here on out will have any meaning,” the total futility of violence. It’s thought provoking while also being fun to play. And I’ve played it a lot.

Now, I think it’s safe to say I like violent media. Granted, most of the media I like has more than just violence going for it, as in there’s substance of some kind behind it. Still, there’s a rush I get from playing something like The Darkness 2 and completely annihilating my enemies in gruesome fashion. But I don’t think I’m a violent person. I’m mortified by things like the journalist decapitations in the Middle East. I die a little inside whenever I hear about a mass shooting. The last time I got in a “fight,” I still had daily recess.

But the fact remains that a lot of the games I like feature violent murder of some kind. And this game, Hatred, features it in spades. Now, the question I’ve been pondering is this: how shocking should this game really be? I’ve killed armies upon armies of enemies during my gaming career, and some of this killing happened in more kid friendly games (one of my favorite games as a kid, Wind Waker, features the villain getting a sword through the head- albeit in a totally bloodless fashion, but still). But I think about a game like Grand Theft Auto V, where the world is yours, essentially. The series is sometimes jokingly referred to as a hooker murder sim. While the games do, in fact, have clear cut objectives and storylines, you can still commit acts of wanton genocide if the feeling should arise. Now, I know, there’s a major difference between Hatred and GTAV in that in GTAV, you aren’t encouraged to murder civilians. But what’s the penalty for doing so? You sometimes get the cops on your tail and more often than not you can outrun them in a matter of minutes before everything is reset. But in the game, you still kill a huge amount of people. Hell, there’s even the infamous torture sequence where you actively participate in acts like waterboarding to get information. And there’s never any kind of repercussion for this beyond Trevor, the torturer, saying “Torture’s bad, kids.”

So, no, GTAV doesn’t actively encourage you to kill innocent civilians, but it doesn’t exactly discourage it either. And, yes, the game is presented in a much more humorous, satirical way than Hatred is, but the fact remains that both games allow you to murder innocents for no other reason than the fact that you feel like it. The difference is that Hatred is brutally honest about the fact that it’s asking the player to commit horrible acts.

Now, I’m in no way defending an act like a mass shooting. I think they’re heinous, insane, and if I had my druthers, no such act would ever happen again to anyone in the world. But it’s so easy to forget in video games that you are actively murdering other members of the human race. Most of the time it’s because it happens so much, and the enemies are so often faceless, that you stop viewing it as a reprehensible act. Plus, the story often gives context to what you’re doing. Take, for instance, Far Cry 3, a game I thoroughly enjoyed. You murder humans in a multitude of ways in that game, but it’s done to liberate the island that they’ve taken over. But the fact remains- your main objective is to fight brutal violence with brutal violence.

In Hatred, your main objective seems to be to fight the general populace with brutal violence. And this is seemingly done in a totally straight way, without any elements of satire or farce. You are actively executing people who really haven’t done anything wrong besides exist. And this leads me to my question of why this shocks people. How many games are there where the enemies you’re fighting have done something to personally hurt the protagonist? There are a lot, but more often than not the one committing the act against the protagonist isn’t a group, but a single person leading a group. This is getting muddled, so let me get straight to my point- how many virtual people are just following the orders they’ve been given?

Take Call of Duty. A lot of the games pit you against a terrorist threat, but sometimes you have to infiltrate a heavily guarded compound of some sort. How many of the guards are just working joes who are trying to earn a buck by being a guard? And yet, the player murders them while barely blinking an eye. There’s a tangible sense of “other” ness that occurs here. The same can be said about those characters to yours, but the question I want to ask is exactly how many people in those games deserved the fate they got?

Basically, games always try to justify murder and, while we’re playing, they more often than not succeed. When I’m playing something like Max Payne 3, I don’t bother to think about the gangster that I just shot. Instead, I prefer to think about getting to the goal and cutting down anyone who gets in my way. Games are so good at making us dehumanize our enemies, that when Hatred was released, people were mortified. The guy the protagonist just shot in the trailer wasn’t Faceless Goon number 4416, it was a man who presumably has a wife, house, and probably a kid. The woman the protagonist just stabbed could have been in the early term of her first pregnancy. You get my point. The game is being brutally honest about the fact that it is a game about murder. It’s not saying it’s a nice thing, it’s not saying that people should behave this way. It’s saying that this is a game about killing fellow humans, and it wants you to know that fact and nothing else.

By taking away this sense of other- ness that so many games have, Hatred has certainly pushed a lot of buttons. I can only imagine what will happen once a main stream news source gets wind that a game about shooting anyone and everyone is being released. It’ll be like the controversy surrounding GTAIII on steroids.

Here’s something else to consider, too: How many games are there where you can be a straight up bad guy? I love the two Knights of the Old Republic games and have played on both the Light Side and the Dark Side. And I won’t lie, I love messing around with Dark Side powers. But I’ve only just now remembered some of the things you can do in the game. There’s a moment in KOTOR2, when you first arrive on Nar Shadda. A beggar runs up to you and asks for just a few credits to feed his family. You have the option of killing this man, and I have in fact done this before. I want to say that I didn’t enjoy it, but a very secret part of me relished being the bad guy for once. As sick as that might sound, exploring what it’s like to be evil is something that a lot of people enjoy, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many games like KOTOR2, where you can be a total sociopath.

The above example isn’t really different from some of the things you can do in Hatred. It’s just presented in a less bloody, T rated way. Hatred is unapologetic about allowing the player be the bad guy. It’s almost a paradox, much like in the game Hotline Miami. Someone who would pick up and play Hatred will likely enjoy it, even though they know they shouldn’t simply because the acts that are happening onscreen are truly horrendous.

Now, I’m not saying Hatred looks great. Hell, I think it honestly looks like a generic as hell top down shooter, just with some shock value thrown into the mix and because of that and my large backlog I have no interest in playing it. And I’m also not saying that the developers are intending to stimulate discussions about video game violence (judging by how one of the devs responded, it sounds like they’re going for nothing more than shock value). But I do think that any work of art (and I hold video games to be an art form, no matter how reprehensible some of the content might be) is smarter than the artist, and that meaning can be pulled from somewhere that the artist didn’t expect. Hatred may portray some of the worst acts a human can be capable of, but, really, how many other games do the exact same thing? The context is totally different, but the fact remains that, while Hatred probably won’t ever see the light of day and honestly doesn’t look that good to begin with, it can stimulate thought about the medium that we all love and partake in daily. So before you jump on the Hatred Hate Train, consider the idea that all this is stuff you’ve probably seen dozens of times before. And I’m not condemning violent games, either. I’ll probably play Hotline Miami at least two more times until the sequel arrives (and in that case you can bet I’ll be playing the hell out of that game). But I am saying that, despite the subject matter, Hatred has some worth and that worth lies in its ability to get people thinking about the entertainment medium they might not always think critically about.

I didn't read everything but based on what you've said, you've made me realized how screwed up the entertainment industry has become. Violence has become commonplace in videogames and we are starting to get desensitized to such things. After all what is the difference between killing an innocent and killing a person that the game tells you isn't innocent. (Btw there isn't really such a thing as the correct side in a war. Both sides are fed propaganda that justifies their fight.) That's why I like stealth games that let me play in a nonlethal manner. I understand it's just a game and I should just chill out but there is no doubt that the influence of violence in the entertainment industry has an adverse effect on people. (Not in the sense that it turns us into serial killers.)

And yeah idk why people were so shocked, though I must admit the woman pleading for mercy and getting shot in the face was hard to stomach. I think the fact is they decided to go out of their way and show these bits in a trailer as if they were glorifying these acts.

An example, the game Outlast. The Whistleblower DLC. Man that dlc is beyond sick... way more sick than what's in this game. But I don't think the devs went out of their way to display all that in the trailer.

I read your whole posts, and you bring up good points, but I just would like to reply to one. The main issue that seems to be at hand with Hatred is incentive. Where's the rationale for killing these people? What have they done? They are innocents. Other games give motive, whether it be Drake in Uncharted selfishly murdering hundreds for his own fame and greed, self-defense, or what have you. For some reason, greed and fame is a OK motive, self-defense is an OK motive, yet unadulterated hatred absolutely cannot be. Why not? I made another post in another thread, so I'll just C & P here to save me the trouble:

There's many people out there in the world that have fantasized at some point of raiding a gun store and going postal on the masses. Probably the majority of people at some point in their lives have done so, because not only can such an action be seen as injustices perpetrated upon them in their entire life rectified in one fell swoop, but it's also a power fantasy, twisted as that is. These are emotionally driven motives that hold no basis in reason. If you're a healthy minded individual, there's no reason or rationale that justifies such horrific behavior such as indiscriminate slaughtering of innocents, but since when has actions borne of emotion been dictated to us by reason or logic?

And that's exactly what this game feeds upon; pure emotion, i.e. the title "Hatred" is entirely fitting and gives all the reason for the game to exist and motive for the protagonist that it requires. If I look at Hatred from a logical or moral standpoint, it sickens me. If I view it from an emotional one however, I can somewhat more relate to it even though I know it's still wrong and abhorrent. It is a fantasy I think many have humored but only at worst in a morbid, joking sense at the end of a bad day. Gunning people arbitrarily down in the street is destroying all the perceived injustices of the world to the individual committing it even if those being murdered had nothing to do with it. The emotional feedback and justification is being fed to the perpetrator in their mind, the innocents are simply a manifestation of those injustices and a means to an end, a cathartic release in the sickest and most destructive of acts. This is why spree killings happen against random people. A sane person can recognize this fact and sees people as blameless individuals, an insane one cannot differentiate from the collective and assigns blame to all, and therein lies the danger. But I think if you are able to make that distinction and hold a healthy mindset, doing something like this can be selfishly justified, just not on grounds any sane person would believe to be morally or logically sound, me included.

All that said, from what the trailer showed, this looks to be pretty over the top in its portrayal of violence. It doesn't disturb me because from what I saw it comes off as utterly comical and laughable. In fact, that's what I did watching the trailer, it was so absurd, when in reality RL violence makes me want to vomit. But really, who hasn't at some point entertained psychopathic fantasies for those that have done us wrong throughout our life? And why can't we project that fantasy onto a harmless medium and let a little steam off from the assholes we encounter in everyday life as long as we know better and never take it a step further? I don't find it to be indicative of a sick mind to find enjoyment in something like this necessarily when looking at it emotionally if they pretend those in game are those they wish retribution upon that have wronged them in RL and got away with it. In the end, we are all only human, and emotions drive but do not discern.

Additionally, many of the rationales games give me, whether it be searching for treasure out of greed in Uncharted, competing to succeed in a criminal enterprise as in GTA, or anything in between, is not that much different from simple hatred when taking intro consideration that lives will be taken in the end. Considering the gravity of murder, those reasons do not make a world of difference. Do they not all stem from selfishness in the end? And ultimately, in the end, it's just a game which makes it even less of a big deal.

I read the post, and I do agree with a number of points.

As for my thoughts, I think the reason some may see this as shocking is because of unsuccessful attempts to find reason in the all the violence and try to convince themselves that people can't actually enjoy such mindless killing.

The only real difference from a lot other violent games though (and one that I personally welcome) is that it doesn't try to offer any wishy-washy sort of bullshit justification for the players actions. And like you said, GTA is pretty much exactly the same kind of game depending on how you play it. You can literally at any time boot up the game and decide you want to do nothing but shoot innocent people and blow shit up.

Of course there's no justification at all for that (why should we need any though?). People just do it because they can and feel like doing it.

And you know what? I'm ok with that. Because at the end of the day, I know that most are still capable of differentiating between pixels and real life people.

@MirkoS77: You bring up some good points about the motive. Even in a T rated game like Uncharted, you're still mindlessly murdering hundreds of individuals and it's for greed! But the fact that they are viewed as bad guys and the game is (relatively) bloodless makes it okay in the eyes of just about anybody. The fact that the only real motivation in the game Hatred is pure emotional response is probably what makes it so disturbing to people... This in spit of the fact that there are tons of games where you don't even really have the choice of playing as the good guy (like the two Darkness games- both awesome but Jackie Estacado is not a nice guy). Maybe people don't want to admit that we all have some really awful thoughts at some point in our lives. I'm personally not interested in Hatred (it sounds like they're doing it all purely for shock value rather than actually saying anything of merit) but there have been plenty of games before where you play as someone out for themselves and isn't afraid to murder anyone and everyone to get what they want.

@Celldrax: Yeah my whole point is that even though this is really disturbingly realistic (as realistic as a game can get anyway) we still have seen things like this before and the outrage that this game is getting honestly comes off as a bit hypocritical. The difference between this game and something like, say, Borderlands is that it's not really hiding what it's all about.

I'll again C & P a response from another thread. Sorry, I'd just be repeating myself:

After thinking on this a while, I find it's refreshing to see a game be upfront and honest with its source material instead of give us some shallow, transparent context to go on so as to make us feel good about going on just as bad genocidal rampages. What sends a worse message: that it's perfectly acceptable to slaughter many, many people because the protagonist is searching for treasure, or attempting to climb a criminal enterprise, etc, or that someone is slaughtering innocents out of hate or because they wish to? Especially when the former violence is highly censored while the later is explicitly not? What sends a more acceptable (and hence dangerous) message about violence here? Nearly all games today trivialize murder. Hatred doesn't. It makes no concessions for what it entails and the extreme nature of it. What astonishes me is that people are perfectly OK with mass killing in games as long as they are handed paper thin rationales simply there to be able to do nothing more than justify it, yet this game, which makes no apologies and confronts us with what we're really dealing with, should be discouraged and frowned upon?

What?

It's about time to view the action of murder in gaming for what it truly represents, context or no. Let's confront it, not sugar coat it and start complaining when it's not. Let's not pretend to hide the most horrific of acts behind bullshit context to belittle it so as to then be able to deem it acceptable and fun. I find that to be a FAR more dangerous a message to send to people than what Hatred is doing. That it is causing so much uproar amongst gamers is very healthy and good to see. In fact, this game may go to help combat the stigma of gamers being anti-social, psychopathic minded losers. It could turn out to be a huge unintentional advocate for anti-violence in gaming.

Doubtful, but perhaps this is the real goal of the developers? Regardless, Hatred makes a large statement in its distinction from other games in its portrayal of violence, and it is creating healthy discourse about a subject in gaming that should be discussed in how far the line can be stretched until it is crossed. If I can't appreciate or respect this game in any other way, I can for that at least.

....as if one bigass thread about hatred isnt enough....

@turtlethetaffer: More like book, do I get paid to read this?

@medafaded: nope skimmed couldnt find tl;dr now for the finale:

@sabretooth2066: That thread is more on general thoughts. This is more about its depiction of violence and how the fact that its "controversial" seems to bring out the hypocrisy of gaming.

@notorious1234na: Tl: DR.

Don't be so quick to instantly hate this game because there are tons of well received and respected games that feature mass murder in the context of the story. Instead of just dismissing it, use it to stimulate discussion about the video game medium. Also, as a disclaimer I honestly think the game looks meh but it's been raising some interesting questions.

@MirkoS77: I'm also hoping that instead of people jumping on the "shut this game down" train it at least stimulates larger discussion of the medium. Although I'd say it has about a 10% chance of actually being released considering it's likely to get an AO rating.

For me it's not just the lack of purpose or the reasoning of the main character for the violence that I find disturbing it's also the realistic details that bother me. It's not just the graphical detail but also the behavioral details as well. The way that woman sounds and looks like when she begs for her life and the cold-blooded nature of the main character just casually shooting her in the head just makes me feel uneasy. Sure other games may be pretty violent as well but the way everything in this game is put together just seems wrong to me.

@Archangel3371: Let me clarify that I'm not trying to say the game is anything other than shock value. That's what it seems like, especially since the devs pretty much said that the only reason they made the game was to be politically incorrect. This also seems to be a bit tasteless considering recent mass shootings. But I do think its existence stimulates discussion. But I do agree, when I initially watched it I was pretty shocked.

That's ok and I'm not trying to cast any judgment on other people I'm just pointing out reasons why what I saw bothered me. I do think it's important to look past the immediate visual image into some of the subtle emotional underpinnings of realism in games. Voice-acting and mannerisms have also improved in games along with graphical fidelity that can give games a more realistic feel.

@Archangel3371: That makes sense. I will admit that there aren't many games where you get people begging for their life.

If anything, the developer will release it through their website. I myself doubt Steam will carry it. There's too much hardwork and investment put into it so far for them to just throw away, and enough people out there that would pay for it to make it worthwhile to release.

Wait wait wait wait wait.....Did I just read from many different posters comparing Uncharted to Hatred? Wait wait wait, so all those dudes I shot in Uncharted were innocent people? LOL, "right". Last time I checked those guys were out there to kill Drake with guns and grenades--not some random dude who decided to take stroll in the forest. The problem is the context of the kill. Are you telling me that a man who shot two guys dead in his house to protect his family is the same and equal as a man who is a serial killer? They both killed right? How about a soldier who killed vs a man who killed his friend over money. Of course it's not the same! Stop, just stop. COD, earning a buck...........

The real issue here is actually--should this game get released and made because of the context? The answer is yes. Developers should be able to release any games that they want to create. Whether you like the controversial killing of the game or not, they should be able to release this game. Buying it or rejecting purchasing it is entirely up to you as the gamer.

@cdragon_88: Did you read any of what I said? Because more often than not, the context given in games is flimsy or wrong to begin with (I love Borderlands but the motivation behind the characters in the first game at least is completely greed and nothing else). At least skim what I wrote.

Anythings better than fucking Destiny. They could talk about a mars bar wrapper and I'd be happy.

Yes, I read your whole wall of post and understood everything you said. You are arguing about how flimsy the context is to justify murder. Why? That's not even the point. That's not what makes Hatred so controversial. It is not how flimsy a context is. The whole point of it is: what IS the context. You admitted Borderlands as for greed. COD for saving the world from terrorists. Now tell me, what is the context of Hatred..............Exactly, stop trying to sugarcoat it. It is what it is. The context of the games are different--doesn't matter if you think it's flimsy or not. It is set in stone that the context of those two games are exactly what it is: greed, terrorists. For Hatred: well, you already know what it is. I've played Borderlands 1 myself--noted that I did not beat it. However, I don't recall shooting massive loads of people who just decided to take a friendly stroll into the desert. Last time I checked, I shot and killed folks and/or things that had weapons that were trying to kill me. What does Hatred have? Helpless folks with no way to defend themselves but submit to the brutal killing of the protagonist--if you can call him that. Again, is the man who shot and killed two men to protect his family, the same as a serial killer? In your case yes, considering that you can determine that his context would be "flimsy" because he had rubber bullets in his house. I already pointed this out already in my first post. So, the real question is, did "you" read my post.

@cdragon_88: Did you miss the ultimate point being that it should stimulate discussions of violence in games? I don't believe I ever said murder in self defense is the same as murder for the sake of it, but think about popular games like GTA where you can (and many players do) murder innocents just because.