First Look at Hatred - Spoiler: It's not very good

[Lightspeaker]

@Genocidicles: Oh god is that REALLY the ending? Bahahaha.

You know the more I see of the actual cutscenes and stuff of this the more I'm getting the feeling its intended to be a parody. Because that's just so exaggerated its unbelievable. Like that VA and script combined just take the "super super serious grimdark" level up to 11 and then breaks the dial off.

Like its not a great parody, because in terms of gameplay its too much "just being the thing" as Jim Sterling puts it, but the cutscenes do rather lend it a very heavy flavour of being such. It definitely wouldn't be the worst example I've seen.

 

[briankoontz]

What makes this game upsetting to some people is that it doesn't have a layer of heroism or justification to the mass murder - the victims aren't "getting what's coming to them" or even just enemy soldiers.

When a gamer plays a game with monsters, he WANTS to commit genocide against the monsters because that's cleansing the world so that the humans can live in peace and harmony (well, except for murdering each other, but that's never shown within the game world and the player isn't meant to consider it).

What games like Postal, Manhunt, and Hatred do is avoid adding that layer of justification for genocide - the game doesn't provide a reason or even an excuse for the mass murder - therefore instead of being a genocidal hero the game presents a genocidal psychopath.

These games are beneficial in that they help flesh out the difference and meaning in calling a protagonist a (genocidal) hero instead of a genocidal psychopath - that being the manner in which the game (and the protagonist and player) considers the victims. Within the hegemonic ideology of the game industry, monsters are creatures who stand in the way or threaten the ruling order (of the protagonist's civilization, usually pure-blood humans). Their extermination is part of a project of expanding the scope and maximizing the well being of pure-blood civilization, paralleled by colonization projects in the real world, such as the extermination and disempowering of the indigenous populations in the United States, Australia, and Israel.

What games like Hatred do is to make the mass murder not about colonization, but merely about, well, murderous Hatred. It's not about revenge *against* the process of colonization, but merely about "nihilistic despair" or whatnot.

 

[Bombiz]

What makes this game upsetting to some people is that it doesn't have a layer of heroism or justification to the mass murder - the victims aren't "getting what's coming to them" or even just enemy soldiers.

When a gamer plays a game with monsters, he WANTS to commit genocide against the monsters because that's cleansing the world so that the humans can live in peace and harmony (well, except for murdering each other, but that's never shown within the game world and the player isn't meant to consider it).

What games like Postal, Manhunt, and Hatred do is avoid adding that layer of justification for genocide - the game doesn't provide a reason or even an excuse for the mass murder - therefore instead of being a genocidal hero the game presents a genocidal psychopath.

These games are beneficial in that they help flesh out the difference and meaning in calling a protagonist a (genocidal) hero instead of a genocidal psychopath - that being the manner in which the game (and the protagonist and player) considers the victims. Within the hegemonic ideology of the game industry, monsters are creatures who stand in the way or threaten the ruling order (of the protagonist's civilization, usually pure-blood humans). Their extermination is part of a project of expanding the scope and maximizing the well being of pure-blood civilization, paralleled by colonization projects in the real world, such as the extermination and disempowering of the indigenous populations in the United States, Australia, and Israel.

What games like Hatred do is to make the mass murder not about colonization, but merely about, well, murderous Hatred. It's not about revenge *against* the process of colonization, but merely about "nihilistic despair" or whatnot.

Ya but that only applies if any one takes this game(or games like this) seriously which apart from people being angry at it's existence doesn't seem to be the case. I mean did you see then ending? I doubt this game will cause people to re-think justifications for killing or colonization or what ever else you're on about.

 

[Laser Priest]

Holy crap. The snide, judgmental moral posturing on display in this thread is fascinatingly pitiful. We get it guys, anyone who might actually enjoy playing a game like Hatred is a "weirdo" or a potential psychopath. Qualified armchair psychiatry on display here, folks.

If I were a shallower man, I'd preorder a copy and then come back here to blab about how much fun it will be playing it, just to get a reaction.*







*To clarify my personal opinion of the game: it looks like boring overhyped dogshit, completely undeserving of any of the attention it's been receiving. I won't be buying it anytime soon, so don't go getting your undies in a preemptive bunch.

The irony is just dripping out of this post.

But seriously, if nothing else, this game has some comedic value in how forcefully "edgy" it's trying to be.

I bet someone at that nuclear reactor whatever-the-fuck at the end thought they were really smart when they set that 3 DIGIT PASSWORD. Hell, it's probably a good thing people in this game's deluded little world are dying. They've all clearly never developed past that teenage rebel auto-fellatio phase. Like much of this community

 

[thepyrethatburns]

*shrug* I never thought it would be anything more than a Smash TV clone. The main reason that I wanted it made was to provoke ACTUAL discussion about violence in video games as well as settings/context. Example: Violence that is acceptable against brown people in military shooters or even against white foreigners such as the No Russian scene becomes unacceptable by many critics/commentators when it takes place in U.S. suburban areas with mixed race and gender. In fact, one of the most interesting things about the first trailer was the critic reaction. Lift a Black man up by his coat and shoot him in the back of the head with a shotgun? Meh. Shoot a white woman wearing professional business attire in the face? TOO FAR, MAN!!!!

To be quite honest, I've already gotten everything that I wanted to get out of the game being published. While it may not have created an industry-wide debate over violence in video games, I did get some really good conversations over game violence where, for once, gamers weren't just sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la, can't hear you" or yelling "JACK THOMPSON!!! CENSORSHIP!!!" For that, while I don't care enough to buy the game, I wish the creators well with their release.

 

[briankoontz]

Ya but that only applies if any one takes this game(or games like this) seriously which apart from people being angry at it's existence doesn't seem to be the case. I mean did you see then ending? I doubt this game will cause people to re-think justifications for killing or colonization or what ever else you're on about.

Of course people take it seriously, not in the "OMG our kids will emulate mass murder!" sense but in the concern about stripping away the layer of genocidal heroism that veils the gameplay of most video games. That's what games like Postal, Manhunt, and Hatred have the potential to do. That's the threatening aspect of these games, and why they "need" to be rated AO despite their standard level of violence.

Experienced gamers have killed millions of digital monsters in order to Save the World from monster-encroachment on the "gang turf" of pure-blood humanoid (human, elf, dwarf, etc.) civilization without even realizing the meaning of what they were doing, or just hand-waving it away under the banner of "cathartic fun". Games like Hatred can start to uncover the dominant ideology that is otherwise invisible to gamers.

 

[Hagi]

Pretty much as expected then.

I guess the most amusing thing about the game then remains all the articles saying nobody should want to play the game, which would've been pretty much what had happened was it not for all those articles...

 

[loa]

So it's an unremarkable, boring game.
Golly gee, did not see that coming.

Thankfully, gaming media came to the rescue to shower it in exposure for reasons I will never understand.
We've had this exact same game of (kill stuff, get points) redone over and over since doom, nobody should bat an eye at this concept by now just because it removes all the fluff and doesn't rationalize your mass murdering avatar as some sort of "hero".

And then the deliciously ironic sentiments on how this "sets gaming back", deeply embedded in an article that should be an anachronism now in post jack thompson days.

 

[Mutant1988]

Ya but that only applies if any one takes this game(or games like this) seriously which apart from people being angry at it's existence doesn't seem to be the case. I mean did you see then ending? I doubt this game will cause people to re-think justifications for killing or colonization or what ever else you're on about.

Of course people take it seriously, not in the "OMG our kids will emulate mass murder!" sense but in the concern about stripping away the layer of genocidal heroism that veils the gameplay of most video games. That's what games like Postal, Manhunt, and Hatred have the potential to do. That's the threatening aspect of these games, and why they "need" to be rated AO despite their standard level of violence.

Experienced gamers have killed millions of digital monsters in order to Save the World from monster-encroachment on the "gang turf" of pure-blood humanoid (human, elf, dwarf, etc.) civilization without even realizing the meaning of what they were doing, or just hand-waving it away under the banner of "cathartic fun". Games like Hatred can start to uncover the dominant ideology that is otherwise invisible to gamers.

I don't see games promoting genocide as much as they take the concept of conflict (Central to all narratives) and boil it down to it's most basic form - Which is violence. Why? Because it's the easiest to create player interactions for.

What exactly makes you say that they promote genocide anyway? Because genocide doesn't equal just killing a lot of people. Genocide is the systematic mass murder of a specific race or ethnicity - Or at the least, of ones that differ from your own. If that's not the motivation, then it's "just" mass murder.

Any specific game you're thinking of where the goal is to explicitly wipe out a species, race or ethnicity? Preferably one where the side being opposed to the one the player support wasn't trying to do the exact same thing. Because I think you're stretching a fair bit when you equate player kill counts to games promoting genocide. Motivation and context matters.

Hatred isn't rated AO because it raises a discussion anyway. It's because it's tasteless juvenile garbage. If it had a point to make it's a bit late to the party - Because Postal already did that years ago.

I dislike Hatred because it's made by people that tried to piss people off for the sake of publicity and made for people that want to piss people off for the sake of self-gratification. There's no deeper meaning to it than that.

It shouldn't be rated AO anyway. It should just be ignored as to not give the developers the gratification of monetary success for such a poor effort and to deny the juvenile audience it's marketed for the satisfaction of feeling that they're pissing others off.

 

[Karadalis]

Seriously, changed all the civilians to Zombies and the only place i'd be censored is Australia.

That'd be because there's a world of difference between murdering zombies for points and murdering innocent civilians for points. This whole idea of a "misanthropic genocide crusade" personally makes me feel uncomfortable, but despite that, I hope you find enjoyment when you play Hatred.

Actually there isnt... the NPCs remain NPCs.. the "world" of difference is that the npcs in this game run away from you, not at you.

There is no connection, no meaningfull interaction with the npcs before you kill them.

Infact their deaths lack any sort of impact at all, not only that but you just gun them down, its not like you torture them slowly to death.

Honestly the violence we see here isnt any different from a Saints row or GTA... kept for the gray camera that makes the red blood stand out in contrast. And that you actually have more interesting things to do in those other games... wich shows that simply gunning down people is not really that interesting to gamers in the end.

The game achieves to not pull anyones heartstrings despite using so much "violence" against "innocent people"

Hell the torture scene in GTA 5 had people flinch more then any level of this game.

 

[tzimize]

Wish I understood what they were saying.

"GermangermangermanHatredgermangermanTrenchcoatgermangermanClippinggermanSlowdownsgerman."

But yeah, looks pretty uninspired.

Oh, and the dialogue. "You smell of weakness you ****", "I'm a man of hatred and disgust." Too edgy for me.

At least the environment destruction looked decent.

Heheh. Yeah, way too much edge.

This game would be interesting if they managed to press a decent story and an at least half-way interesting character in there, seems its just gonna be blind violence, no humor and no point.

I'll try it, but with Witcher 3...it might be a long time away

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

So it's a remake of Postal with the fun parts removed, with Madworld's colour scheme minus the somewhat interesting framing device and is actively perpetuating negative stereotypes of gamers?

Why is anyone NOT saying 'fuck this game'?

 

[kasperbbs]

I like the art style they went with, but the game itself doesn't seem all that interesting. I'll save my money and go on a killing spree on GTA V if i feel like playing something with mindless violence for the sake of violence.

 

[Edl01]

Seriously, changed all the civilians to Zombies and the only place i'd be censored is Australia.

That'd be because there's a world of difference between murdering zombies for points and murdering innocent civilians for points. This whole idea of a "misanthropic genocide crusade" personally makes me feel uncomfortable, but despite that, I hope you find enjoyment when you play Hatred.

What is that difference? They're both just computer code at the end of the day. A bunch of 1's and 0's. They're not really people, just objects of a screen.

It's not as if anybody will be convinced to go and kill anyone because of this, just like nobody is going to play GTA and then go out and steal a car. So why is everyone trying so hard to censor it.

OT: I love this games Aesthetic. It succeeds in appearing genuinely dark and gritty and not just brown like almost every other game that tries to do this. I really hope a good game comes around soon that looks similar so I can actually buy it.
Honestly despite the fact I do believe the amount controversy around a video game about fictional nameless people being gunned down is utterly silly, I won't spend a penny on this game on the account of it being a mediocre video game.

 

[OhNoYouDidnt]

What is that difference? They're both just computer code at the end of the day. A bunch of 1's and 0's. They're not really people, just objects of a screen.

With that kind of reasoning, anything can be trivialised. "At the end of the day, humans are just walking bags of water!"

And I really don't know where you got the idea from that "everyone" is trying to censor Hatred. All I've seen is some people saying that it makes them uncomfortable, and lots of other people going "You're not allowed to say that!! I'm gonna buy it out of spite now, to stick it to the censor man!!"

Exercise of free speech is not censorship, regardless of whether or not you agree with said speech.

 

[Edl01]

What is that difference? They're both just computer code at the end of the day. A bunch of 1's and 0's. They're not really people, just objects of a screen.

With that kind of reasoning, anything can be trivialised. "At the end of the day, humans are just walking bags of water!"

And I really don't know where you got the idea from that "everyone" is trying to censor Hatred. All I've seen is some people saying that it makes them uncomfortable, and lots of other people going "You're not allowed to say that!! I'm gonna buy it out of spite now, to stick it to the censor man!!"

Exercise of free speech is not censorship, regardless of whether or not you agree with said speech.

I wasn't saying you(or anyone else complaining about it on forums) were trying to censor it, I'll admit I was being hyperbolic however I was referring to Twitch not letting people Stream it, GOG refusing to sell it, Steam(temporarily)pulling it from Greenllight and many news sites covering it in such a ridiculous light that the above services would feel forced into doing said actions.
I even said I won't buy it.

In regard to your first point I honestly feel it is a false equivalent. You're comparing real live humans to simple pieces of code. They have no family, no friends, no actual life that you're taking away because they are just a collection of numbers. What you're shooting in Hatred may look like people, but they really couldn't be further from the actual thing.
However looking back on my original post I find this is a rather pointless argument. The debate really does come down to a difference in Ideology, which I highly doubt either of us are going to change. I believe that killing pixels shaped like people is no different from killing pixels shaped like zombies and you clearly disagree.

 

[OhNoYouDidnt]

snip

That's all fair enough! Hatred is a very divisive game, that much is clear, and it is indeed pointless to continue arguing about this. So... Let's not bring hatred (har. har. har. I'm so funny) to this discussion. Agree to disagree and all that.

 

[blackrave]

Why is anyone NOT saying 'fuck this game'?

What's the point SAYING it?
You either buy it or not.
There were tons of people saying "fuck this game".
It just brought free publicity for this game.

I personally defend right for this game to exist, not that it is a good game (I don't know, it isn't out yet)
If it'll end up good, I'll play it, if not, then not.
Simple really.

 

[McMarbles]

So it's a remake of Postal with the fun parts removed, with Madworld's colour scheme minus the somewhat interesting framing device and is actively perpetuating negative stereotypes of gamers?

Why is anyone NOT saying 'fuck this game'?

Because blowing money on mediocre crap really sticks it to them essjaydubyas. Supposedly.

I don't feel stuck to. Does anyone else? I know you're out there.