@MirkoS77 said:
I'm with you pints.
I don't get it either. As I've said before, it's not as if people are saying, "I'm having fun killing pedestrians in GTA because I'm trying to climb a criminal empire!" (real admirable goal that completely justifies the slaughtering of innocents) or "I'm killing all these pirates because I'm in pursuit of untold treasure!" (because we all know $$$ is worth more than a human life). So what if it's not the main goal of the game, I wonder? What relevance does that have on the actual enjoyment people gain from indiscriminate killing?
Yea, no. People don't find FUN in the context, it is merely the door to ethical placation. It is not the reason we consume violent media. We are a very primal species and a base part of us revels in brutality and Hatred is just being honest. It does not hand us some half-assed "justification" for atrocity, but one that fits far more into the context of the action that it portrays: Hatred. Only hatred can justify the actions that so many partake in under the veil of varying context in so many other games, and it's refreshing to see Hatred identify its core. Yet for some reason, if that's acknowledged,
I don't think the issue here is so much context as it is people being confronted with something inherent in their nature they just don't want to recognize. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go bash in some more heads with a lead pipe.....but in context, mind you.
It's really not that nuanced of a thought, comparing games as if one violent game to another is created equal is completely ignoring how games handle this shit.
If I'm not mistaken it wasn't that long ago we had some giant essay battle between the finer aspects of MGS5's combat vs The Last of Us, and you focused entirely on how the core combat+the context of the situation created a reaction out of you, that the deeper and more varied action of MGS5 couldn't possibly compete with.
So just sticking to that, there is context to be had in a lot of ways. Killing something in Bayonetta vs Hatred comes down to Bayonetta having far more sophisticated gameplay. Ditto if we just bring this down to shooters. It could be more content in GTA, it could be a grander spectacle in GTA, it could be as simple as when you go postal in GTA, it's you the player that gets to do it, not some douche in the story the game devs created. It's a level of freedom the game doesn't provide, a level of nuance, depth, or excitement that just isn't there. Taken at face value it looks like a very basic twin stick shooter whose saving grace is violence/some try hard dark fest.
Now plot=context, again why would none of this matter? There are plenty of people that play GTA specifically for the characters Rockstar created (gross I know, but humor me for a second), John Marston or the cast of GTA 5's sequences are created out of the cheep thrill of recreating Unforgiven, Heat, Dirty Harry, what have you. It's violent yes, brutal yes, but one that works effectively in its narrative logic. A plot that focuses entirely on a flawed human being, and then makes an attempt to do something with it. One of them fails at it (GTA 5) the other actually has a pretty effective ending (Red Dead Redemption). Likewise things like Mortal Kombat, Dishonored, and company are hardly comparable, they are so over the top, absurd, and ridiculous both in concept, tone, and execution that to derive anything reflective from it is straight up jive. The day you get the ability to teleport because of some ancient wizard ghost you tell me Dishonored reflects something about a person, beyond that it's big stupid fun. It's Bad Boys 2.
Hatred can get its props for willing to push the envelope all it wants, any artistic medium needs people that are willing to turn that dial as far as possible. There is nothing inherently wrong with building a game around the notion that you want the player to feel uneasy, unsettled, disgusted even. Spec Ops the Line tried that, difference being Spec Ops made a genuine attempt to say something. This? is going to be some psychopath goes off on a bunch of innocent people with a good chance it has very little to say about people who shoot up schools, or people who play violent games (spec ops had a whole lot of preachy shit to say in that regard), or violence in media, or guns, or violence, or what have you. A psychopath going on a killing spree (which most games don't actually depict, in most cases it's a crime drama, swash buckling pirates, everything is under the guise of fantasy, the grit is different, and if we want to go there; are you really going to tell me right now the violence in hatred isn't significantly different from how violence is being depicted in The Last of Us?) should actually be handled with some grace, because it is a serious subject, it shouldn't be handled lightly, yet the game is.
It's a superficial experience without any depth to it or even an attempt to add any depth to it. Acting like it's no different than GTA, Spec Ops, or what have you, when it clearly is, is a naive way of looking at something. It's a gross misunderstanding of the different ways violence itself can be depicted in media. If someone genuinely finds that game fun? Idgaf, no harm no foul there, carry on. But, as someone who routinely thinks video game stories are mostly laughable, even I would argue that acting like what Hatred is doing with its "so weak, so fragile, they don't deserve a natural death" darkness of my soul, try hard tripe vs what Rockstar does is downright insulting.
Beyond I genuinely think the game looks like shit, and life's too short for shitty games. I'd much rather have my money spent on a game that you know doesn't give me the impression that I think it sucks.
Log in to comment