Hatred and the Catharsis of Violence

[Shamus Young]

Hatred and the Catharsis of Violence

The video game Hatred is bringing the discussion of violence to the forefront again, and Shamus offers some words of advice.

Read Full Article

 

[Dizchu]

Great article, the comparison with GTA was especially refreshing, seeing as many have in the past equated it with Hatred's sadism.

However, there's something about Hatred that I really can't get over. Something that hits particularly close to home. I love death metal, and death metal lyrics are chock full of sadistic themes. My favourite album of all time (None So Vile by Cryptopsy) has songs that depict in detail the satisfaction of instilling terror in the victim as they're dismembered. It (quite poetically) describes the absolute nadir of humanity, and other death metal bands go even further (see the infamous Cannibal Corpse or the dime-a-dozen slam bands that have lyrics that are misogynistic, scatological... just really gross).

But I think the difference in this regard is that death metal lyrics are usually secondary to the music. The music is as extreme as possible, which means the lyrics tend to follow suit. Hatred is all about the sadism with none of the introspection or self-awareness by the looks of it. Death metal bands with gruesome lyrics tend to want listeners to have a good time, have fun in the moshpit etc. Hatred however, just looks try-hard edgy and mean-spirited.

Sorry, I went off the rails a bit there.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

when i first clicked the article, i was all set to make a comment about how Extra Credits already talked about Hatred and Catharsis, just last week i believe, and that it was a lazy topic to choose.

but i was wrong. you had not only personal perspective on what catharsis and simulated violence can achieve, but also took a more laissez-faire approach to hatred's right to exist.

personally, i look forward to Hatred. because i think there is a DIFFERENT kind of catharsis in it: a macroscale catharsis. what i mean is that, looking at your examples, you cite small irritations of modern life: self absorbed passers-by, traffic jams, each representing it's own world, it's own context-less issue that you can that blow up and feel better.

but for some people (myself included) over time, you don't see these problems as individual problems, you see them as part of a greater fucked-up whole. you don't see a traffic jam, you see a world of shallow people driving cars they cant afford to jobs they hate to pay for shit they didn't want, but felt a compulsion to buy because of the state of capitalism and culture enforcing one another. you hate it all, and want it all to suffer.

now, i'm not gonna go on a rampage, but that doesn't mean there isn't a catharsis to be found in aimless violence, it's just not on the 1:1 scale your examples provide.

also, you sorta look like hawkeye in your picture.

EDIT: i did NOT mean to nearly directly quote fight club there...

 

[JSRevenge]

This game concept doesn't appeal to me, and I don't have any illusions that the creators of Hatred are trying to rise to a level of artistry, but I do like the statement that a game like this makes about violence. It doesn't try to provide context or make excuses for the player in support of violence, but does the exact opposite. I think it says something interesting about our culture, and holds a mirror to what it is we do in violent games.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

This game concept doesn't appeal to me, and I don't have any illusions that the creators of Hatred are trying to rise to a level of artistry, but I do like the statement that a game like this makes about violence. It doesn't try to provide context or make excuses for the player in support of violence, but does the exact opposite. I think it says something interesting about our culture, and holds a mirror to what it is we do in violent games.

another fair point. violence is violence, murder is murder. Hatred does away with the pretension of justification, and shows it for what it is. now, that's definitely an over-simplification of ACTUAL violence, but as far as a media portrayal of it, this goes where few others dare to go.

 

[jesusisking]

So in other words in Hatred you play as an actual villain?
That's not too bad when I think about it.

 

[bificommander]

Since Shamus mentioned it: Can I just say that I never got the point of punching the journalist in ME? Most people, both in the story and out, seem to feel she was some kind of evil muckraking paparazi. Why? Cause she asked questions other than "What's it like to be so awesome?" Asking critical questions of high-profile people, especially those involved in events with large casualties, is kind of what a reporter is supposed to do. She asks pointed questions, sure, but she lets you answer them on your own terms, and those answers apparently go on the air unedited. It never sat right with me that everyone (including the reporter herself, once the camera was off) treated this as unacceptable behavior, to the point where you get paragon point for not punching her in the face.

 

[SlightlyEvil]

This game concept doesn't appeal to me, and I don't have any illusions that the creators of Hatred are trying to rise to a level of artistry, but I do like the statement that a game like this makes about violence. It doesn't try to provide context or make excuses for the player in support of violence, but does the exact opposite. I think it says something interesting about our culture, and holds a mirror to what it is we do in violent games.

another fair point. violence is violence, murder is murder. Hatred does away with the pretension of justification, and shows it for what it is. now, that's definitely an over-simplification of ACTUAL violence, but as far as a media portrayal of it, this goes where few others dare to go.

The key problem with this sort of argument is that there is an extremely thin line between "holding up a mirror to the nasty aspects of our society", and simply exemplifying those aspects. I don't see much of an indication of who the spree killer is, what drove him to this act, why he hates so much, what he thinks these people did to deserve this. In short, nothing I've seen indicates any actual commentary going on. Compare Hatred to the film Falling Down. In that film, we know what pushed "D-Fens" over the edge, and he is portrayed as both a psychopath and as a sympathetic character.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

Since Shamus mentioned it: Can I just say that I never got the point of punching the journalist in ME? Most people, both in the story and out, seem to feel she was some kind of evil muckraking paparazi. Why? Cause she asked questions other than "What's it like to be so awesome?" Asking critical questions of high-profile people, especially those involved in events with large casualties, is kind of what a reporter is supposed to do. She asks pointed questions, sure, but she lets you answer them on your own terms, and those answers apparently go on the air unedited. It never sat right with me that everyone (including the reporter herself, once the camera was off) treated this as unacceptable behavior, to the point where you get paragon point for not punching her in the face.

you obviously missed something along the way... you need to replay the games. she twists the narrative, turns your answers to mean something entirely different, and overall engages in Fox News-esque "reporting". she wasn't doing hardball reporting, i'm all for that, she was doing sensationalist 24 hour news cycle bullshit.

 

[ShenCS]

Since Shamus mentioned it: Can I just say that I never got the point of punching the journalist in ME? Most people, both in the story and out, seem to feel she was some kind of evil muckraking paparazi. Why? Cause she asked questions other than "What's it like to be so awesome?" Asking critical questions of high-profile people, especially those involved in events with large casualties, is kind of what a reporter is supposed to do. She asks pointed questions, sure, but she lets you answer them on your own terms, and those answers apparently go on the air unedited. It never sat right with me that everyone (including the reporter herself, once the camera was off) treated this as unacceptable behavior, to the point where you get paragon point for not punching her in the face.

Would like to echo this sentiment. I was quite shocked to find out punching her was not just an option, but a recurring one. She always gave rather pleasant and hopeful reports on my Shepard.

 

[JSRevenge]

another fair point. violence is violence, murder is murder. Hatred does away with the pretension of justification, and shows it for what it is. now, that's definitely an over-simplification of ACTUAL violence, but as far as a media portrayal of it, this goes where few others dare to go.

The key problem with this sort of argument is that there is an extremely thin line between "holding up a mirror to the nasty aspects of our society", and simply exemplifying those aspects. I don't see much of an indication of who the spree killer is, what drove him to this act, why he hates so much, what he thinks these people did to deserve this. In short, nothing I've seen indicates any actual commentary going on. Compare Hatred to the film Falling Down. In that film, we know what pushed "D-Fens" over the edge, and he is portrayed as both a psychopath and as a sympathetic character.

Again, not defending the game, nor suggesting knowledgeable artistic commentary on the part of the developer, but a game like this and an article like Shamus' make me realize that you don't exactly see any baby carriages -or hell, even average people- in GTA games. With that said, if you're going to make is possible to kill someone that's not unlikable, you might as well really go for it, or so goes the slippery slope.

 

[CaitSeith]

Why Hatred is suddenly being mentioned now? Extra Credits made a video about it last week, and now an Experienced Points article today. The last I heard about it was that it had been temporarily pulled from Greenlight, and that was 5 months ago. What did I miss?

OT: I really don't mind Hatred. But I find its controversy fascinating.

 

[CaitSeith]

This game concept doesn't appeal to me, and I don't have any illusions that the creators of Hatred are trying to rise to a level of artistry, but I do like the statement that a game like this makes about violence. It doesn't try to provide context or make excuses for the player in support of violence, but does the exact opposite. I think it says something interesting about our culture, and holds a mirror to what it is we do in violent games.

another fair point. violence is violence, murder is murder. Hatred does away with the pretension of justification, and shows it for what it is. now, that's definitely an over-simplification of ACTUAL violence, but as far as a media portrayal of it, this goes where few others dare to go.

I think it goes to where Fox News and documentaries about school shootings do. A lot of people simply don't want to go there.

 

[Namehere]

Just want to say, that was a wonderfully nuanced appraisal. I'm afraid there's no question in my mind, just from the different aspects between GTA and Hatred that you pointed out, the game deserves to exist.

I will say that Hatred seems to be very simple and going for a very defined point. It isn't broad, it isn't over arching, it seems to be right in your face. This itself is interesting if also likely to be a turn off for most people. So far, I should add, it isn't on my 'must have' list.

 

[flying_whimsy]

"traffic jams are still annoying and it feels good to "solve" one in GTA using a grenade launcher"

That's probably one of the funniest things I've heard in relation to GTA.

OT: That was a really good article. The points were well thought out and I appreciated more open discussion about it rather than outright condemnation. It's almost embarrassing for gaming that it took that many words to state that hatred is not the same as gta and why.

I'm still on the fence about hatred: it really isn't my cup of tea, but then again I can't even play a renegade shepard. I think my issue with it is that I can't quite wrap my head around it: it feels like a missed opportunity to really explore the phenomena of rampages. It feels like all shock and no substance when it could have been dark, gripping, and disturbing at a far deeper and more interesting level.

 

[WindKnight]

Since Shamus mentioned it: Can I just say that I never got the point of punching the journalist in ME? Most people, both in the story and out, seem to feel she was some kind of evil muckraking paparazi. Why? Cause she asked questions other than "What's it like to be so awesome?" Asking critical questions of high-profile people, especially those involved in events with large casualties, is kind of what a reporter is supposed to do. She asks pointed questions, sure, but she lets you answer them on your own terms, and those answers apparently go on the air unedited. It never sat right with me that everyone (including the reporter herself, once the camera was off) treated this as unacceptable behavior, to the point where you get paragon point for not punching her in the face.

Its not so much she's asking pointed questions as she's straight out being Fox News, with every question pointed and loaded to make you look bad.

Having said that, never found the punching option that appealing in any of the iterations, and I LOVED that 3 lets you win her over with a paragon interupt.

 

[tzimize]

What it all boils down to is, will it be any FUN?

I'm looking forward to trying this, if only because most games put you either in the hero-chair, or the "villain"-chair (like overlord/dungeon keeper).

It will be interesting to play as a terrible murderer. Personally I have a lot of trouble simply playing a renegade-Shepard...so I doubt the game will speak to me, but it will be interesting to try it at least. I doubt it will have any staying power for me though.

About the kids...well...I'm a teacher, so I work with kids a lot. I get the impression that kids are usually a lot smarter than most people give them credit for, and that they have a pretty decent grip on both morality (more than a lot of adults tbh...just TRY to split a chocolate bar without measuring the cm/inches/what have you...) and reality.

What they lack is perspective on consequences. This is really one of the only places adults have to teach them. Make them think about what happens, not only IMMEDIATELY when you do something...but maybe consider the long-term consequences.

Personally, I made wooden swords when I was young. And wooden guns. I played doom on my 486 without my parents knowledge. I've played carmageddon, every GTA, CS, Mortal Kombat...hell more or less every violent game you can think of.

I've only fired a gun a few times in my life, and I dont care for it. I dont own one, and I probably never will. I've never been in a fight, nor do I want to. I abhor violence, I've never even been in the military.

Most adults have a VERY good grip on what is reality, and what is not. Morality is also widespread. Kids are the same. As long as kids are thought to think, letting them play with (toy)guns, virtual or not, is no problem at all.

My 2?.

 

[UberThetan]

Great point, well put, as usual.

I'd like to mention that there's more than one kind of catharsis to be had here, though. The other being the physical kind, where it's just fun to interact with the game world and have it react in logical ways, both expected and unexpected. GTA might not make me feel bad about shooting innocent bystanders (because they're assholes) but ultimately whenever I went on a rampage in GTA, it's because I wanted to push the craziness of the in-game possibilities to their limits.

When I played the first Postal, I did so because I'd seen a double-page ad for it in a magazine and it looked absolutely great. I didn't care about the fact that the whole concept was being a homicidal maniac - in fact, I'd argue that Hatred is more of a sequel to the original Postal than Postal 2 in that there's little reason to go on a rampage other than the rampage itself. You just went around killing people in various locations. In the end I got bored of it very quickly though because mechanically it didn't click for me. It wasn't fun to play.

If Hatred manages to pull of a very reactive world with gunplay that is satisfying and rewarding, then the catharsis from having a reason to kill all those people might end up being secondary to the catharsis of playing a really smooth, well made shmup-of-sorts.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

What it all boils down to is, will it be any FUN?

I'm looking forward to trying this, if only because most games put you either in the hero-chair, or the "villain"-chair (like overlord/dungeon keeper).

It will be interesting to play as a terrible murderer. Personally I have a lot of trouble simply playing a renegade-Shepard...so I doubt the game will speak to me, but it will be interesting to try it at least. I doubt it will have any staying power for me though.

About the kids...well...I'm a teacher, so I work with kids a lot. I get the impression that kids are usually a lot smarter than most people give them credit for, and that they have a pretty decent grip on both morality (more than a lot of adults tbh...just TRY to split a chocolate bar without measuring the cm/inches/what have you...) and reality.

What they lack is perspective on consequences. This is really one of the only places adults have to teach them. Make them think about what happens, not only IMMEDIATELY when you do something...but maybe consider the long-term consequences.

Personally, I made wooden swords when I was young. And wooden guns. I played doom on my 486 without my parents knowledge. I've played carmageddon, every GTA, CS, Mortal Kombat...hell more or less every violent game you can think of.

I've only fired a gun a few times in my life, and I dont care for it. I dont own one, and I probably never will. I've never been in a fight, nor do I want to. I abhor violence, I've never even been in the military.

Most adults have a VERY good grip on what is reality, and what is not. Morality is also widespread. Kids are the same. As long as kids are thought to think, letting them play with (toy)guns, virtual or not, is no problem at all.

My 2?.

speaking only to the point of renegade shepard, i don't think that's a failure on your part, i think that's a failure in the game structure and narrative. i love the idea as playing as the villian, but the way they built mass effect, the renegade options don't at all feel right with the larger narrative, so it feels unnatural to play renegade shepard, because as much as they'd like to make it OUR story, it's still about shepard, and it's hard to believe that he would do those renegade options. i, like others i've discussed this with, only did the renegade playthroughs as a novelty after completing what felt like the more canon story, the paragon path.