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

[WindKnight]

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'?

The Dev used the trailer to push a lot of buttons to upset and shock people (the trailer focused a lot on executions and made them rather disturbing), who complained about how horrible the game looked, which clued in the 'right kind of people' this would be a good game to buy to p*** off the people upset about it.

Cynical marketing, calculated to strip money from Edgy types. Kinda sad it succeeded as well as it did, but given exactly who will be buying this... don't feel sorry for their lost money at all.

 

[MeatMachine]

Looked stupid then, looks stupid now. Dunno what else to say.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

It's the game equalivalent of clickbait trash designed to incite the very outrage culture that the developers claim they wanted to criticize. It's a weak, pointless game whose only potential is to appeal to gamers who will buy/support/upvote it simply to stick it to authority.

On a lighter note, these Tweets had me laughing pretty hard.
https://twitter.com/CThursten/status/605402007076241408
https://twitter.com/ultrabrilliant/status/605396120202801152

 

[burnout02urza]

I bought a copy to show solidarity, but I'm surprised by how good this game is. It's not a masterpiece, but it's fun and cathartic, reminiscent of Postal without the tongue-in-cheek humor. (There's still a bit of black comedy, though.)

It's pretty harmless, to be honest. The main appeal is in annoying the SJWs, but it's halfway decent.

 

[dragoongfa]

The end, comedy gold...

Edgy the game, not that good but certainly delivers the comedy value and the salt was glorious.

EDIT: Still, it didn't offer any shock value; guess I am back to manhunt 2.

 

[vledleR]

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.

That doesn't make any sense. The AO rating actively restricts the monetary success of the game. It's already banned from some online stores and streaming services, and there is pretty much a zero percent chance of this game coming to consoles because of it.

 

[Bat Vader]

I bought a copy to show solidarity, but I'm surprised by how good this game is. It's not a masterpiece, but it's fun and cathartic, reminiscent of Postal without the tongue-in-cheek humor. (There's still a bit of black comedy, though.)

It's pretty harmless, to be honest. The main appeal is in annoying the SJWs, but it's halfway decent.

Solidarity to what? From what I have seen the developer tries to pass the game off as serious but instead it comes off as an ironic joke. Come on, how can anyone take something so ludicrous seriously? It's controversy simulator.

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.

I don't like it either and just see it as a way to cash in on causing some cheap controversy. That doesn't mean the game doesn't deserve to get made though. If someone wants to make games like Hatred I say let them. It's not really effecting anything and to me makes the developer come off looking like an angsty teen. People don't have to buy the game.

 

[Zontar]

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.

That doesn't make any sense. The AO rating actively restricts the monetary success of the game. It's already banned from some online stores and streaming services, and there is pretty much a zero percent chance of this game coming to consoles because of it.

This is true, which actually makes me wonder, can the ESRB be sued for that? I mean it's not as though there's any content to warrant it being given such a rating, and the only two countries with use the ESRB are ones with a Common Law system, so wouldn't that logically mean that the devs could sue given the rating is a purely to prevent sales and not based on any actual content of the game itself?

And hell, couldn't one do the same in regards to movies due to the tendency for things made outside of the big six to be given higher ratings or refusing to be rated despite their content being the same as studio made movies?

 

[vledleR]

This is true, which actually makes me wonder, can the ESRB be sued for that? I mean it's not as though there's any content to warrant it being given such a rating, and the only two countries with use the ESRB are ones with a Common Law system, so wouldn't that logically mean that the devs could sue given the rating is a purely to prevent sales and not based on any actual content of the game itself?

And hell, couldn't one do the same in regards to movies due to the tendency for things made outside of the big six to be given higher ratings or refusing to be rated despite their content being the same as studio made movies?

I guess it's possible, but Destructive Creations would be morons for doing that. I think they'd lose a ton of support, including mine. Attacking a self-regulatory ratings board is not in the best interest of devs who made a spree killing game.

EDIT: Besides, I'm sure Destructive Creations are more than happy with all the free advertisement from Polygon

 

[Zontar]

This is true, which actually makes me wonder, can the ESRB be sued for that? I mean it's not as though there's any content to warrant it being given such a rating, and the only two countries with use the ESRB are ones with a Common Law system, so wouldn't that logically mean that the devs could sue given the rating is a purely to prevent sales and not based on any actual content of the game itself?

And hell, couldn't one do the same in regards to movies due to the tendency for things made outside of the big six to be given higher ratings or refusing to be rated despite their content being the same as studio made movies?

I guess it's possible, but Destructive Creations would be morons for doing that. I think they'd lose a ton of support, including mine. Attacking a self-regulatory ratings board is not in the best interest of devs who made a spree killing game.

To be honest, I really want someone to sue the ESRB and the MPAA, both have been doing more harm then good to their mediums for the past 20 and 10 years respectively, so someone being a threat to their revenue or very existence because they're playing politics or corporate favouritism when both have a mandate of neutrality is sorely needed.

Now admittedly doing their jobs right wouldn't exactly be that hard for the MPAA, they just have to see what rating Canada gives a movie and use that (since Canada uses the same rating grades with the same theoretical criteria and same age requirements, but almost never gives out an R rating for something that isn't a horror movie because movies that deserve an R rating are an endangered species), but I can't see how the ESRB being put in a situation where it's forced to rate games based on content instead of politics (which, let's face it, is the only reason Hatred isn't rated M) and also forced to give game content ratings using the same scale other mediums use instead of it having the strictest rating system of any medium is anything but a bad thing.

Hell, at this point I'm almost willing to support the idea that the government be the one to give out ratings, because as bad of an idea that is it's hard to imagine them gaming the system to try and censor content for not being part of the studio system or having the "wrong" type of content more so then the self-censorship committee we have now.

 

[WhateverDude]

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.

I feel a bit stuck to, tbh. I thought no one would buy an obviously shit game over the controversy, but they did. What faith I had in people not making stupid decisions has been reduced.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I feel a bit stuck to, tbh. I thought no one would buy an obviously shit game over the controversy, but they did. What faith I had in people not making stupid decisions has been reduced.

I'm not surprised. Most developers work on a project because it inspires something in them. They've got something to say, a theme to explore, or at least a gameplay mechanic to present to the world. We buy their games for the same reasons.

Aaaand then there's honestly immature types who feel the need to endorse anything that has a chip on its proverbial shoulder - and Hatred has Mount Rushmore hanging from its collarbone.

"Yeah, I bought the Controversial Thing! I feel so edgy! I'm gonna tell all my friends how edgy this Controversial Thing is, and if they don't agree, they're total loooooosers!"

One of my relatives is kind of like that. I asked him what he thought about Hatred. He'd gone down from his pre-release bated-breath excitement to being rather underwhelmed.

"It's okay, I guess. I thought there'd be, like, more gore. I thought it'd look better."

It's an indie dev working off of an AAA engine for the first time. I told him to adjust his expectations accordingly.

 

[thehorror2]

I think Jim Sterling (Thank God For Him) has it right. They (the dev team) KNEW they were making a mediocre game, so they advertised it in the most controversial way possible, because they were SURE they'd get noticed and get a lot of sales just for that reason.

 

[KoudelkaMorgan]

I don't care that its a violent game, purely for the sake of violence and controversy. I do care that its mediocre.

If you are going to incite public outcry over something, you might as well make something that is awesome. If they went and made a game that was total unabashed murder-porn, and made it the sickest most fucked up game you've ever conceived of...and it was actually fun and had amazing characters and genuine talent behind it then it would blow our minds.

Most would probably still avoid it for the same reasons, but at least they would have a legitimate audience and a wider exposure to media outlets because there would be ACTUAL people playing it in large enough numbers to warrant reporting. As it is I have only heard of a handful of critics even bothering to subject themselves to playing what is obviously a waste of their time.

 

[cleric of the order]

The worst thing a game can be is mediocre.
The controversy and the message overshadowed the piece itself.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

I'm actually kind of hoping the aftermath of this game's release and all the people comparing it to Postal ends up driving sales for Postal. Not because I think that's necessarily a good game (the second one sounds like it's the only good one in the series), but because it's at least a better game and it would be both hilarious and poetic justice if someone who didn't even have a stake in any of this crap wound up getting a lot of free money out of it.

 

[Mutant1988]

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.

That doesn't make any sense. The AO rating actively restricts the monetary success of the game. It's already banned from some online stores and streaming services, and there is pretty much a zero percent chance of this game coming to consoles because of it.

Or you know, I think it should be sold unrestricted by retailers and then ignored by the target audience due to it's mediocrity and condescending and exploitive marketing.

Not a fan of the AO rating - I believe in adults being able to police themselves (And their children). But of course, it's at the discretion of the retailer if they want to stock a game or not. I just don't think it should be based on inconsistent and obnoxiously moralizing ESRB ratings.

Also, it's not "banned". ESRB has no legal authority to ban anything. That's a voluntary decision on part of the retailers.

Me not wanting it to be rated AO is simply as to not give the developers free publicity, pretending to be "edgy" and market itself to people that want to stick it to the man. I find that obnoxious as all hell. I'm not against Hatred because it's immoral, but because it's stupid, shallow and cynically marketed - Void of moral and any purpose except to cash in. It looks absolutely mediocre too, which affirms my view that it's just a cheap cash in.

 

[baddude1337]

Seems like it's pretty poorly optimized and has surprisingly high system requirements for a top down game.

I saw Jim Sterling's squirt on it, it looked like mindless fun, but not for 14.99, and definitely overhyped and marketed on it's gore and themes, which really aren't don't look any worse than other games, notably GTA.

The guys dialogue seems unintentionally hilarious also.