Hatred gets an AO rating, second game in history to get such rating for violent content alone

[BarkBarker]

.....the game looks like ass and they think they are doing something righteous by going against some politically correct and safe lean games have been taking....by being juvenile and petty about it like a child.

 

[Recusant]

If this is true- and I've seen nothing yet from the ESRB confirming that it is- it just confirms what I've been saying since the ESRB won out back in... what was that, '94? '95? Anyway, the only virtue ESRB ratings had over the RSAC system was that they gave an age range- what the given age was was totally subjective. RSAC ratings were objective, and while I can't say the system was impossible to corrupt, it would've been a heckuva lot harder- and certainly made it easier for parents to make informed decisions about what their children were being exposed to.

 

[babinro]

Is there gruesome violence against children and babies in this game?

What specifically makes this worse than the rampant violence in say GTA, Postal, Hotline Miami, or even good ol' Smash TV?

If I had disposable income to spare, I'd be tempted to support this game simply out pity for the unfair treatment they appear to be receiving. Granted, I can guarantee you that this game will sell EXTREMELY well relative to the cost. Anything with this much attention is bound to produce a ton of attention by streamers and curiosity.

 

[RavingSturm]

Unless they allow the PC to wear the skins of his victims, collect their skulls or some other really weird and gruesome stuff this title wont really have anything new to offer. Hopefully the basic stuff like the gunplay, cover system, inventory management, gfx options, engine scaling , etc. will be well put together, otherwise this title will be a turd swimming in its own piss.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Is there gruesome violence against children and babies in this game?

What specifically makes this worse than the rampant violence in say GTA, Postal, Hotline Miami, or even good ol' Smash TV?

If I had disposable income to spare, I'd be tempted to support this game simply out pity for the unfair treatment they appear to be receiving. Granted, I can guarantee you that this game will sell EXTREMELY well relative to the cost. Anything with this much attention is bound to produce a ton of attention by streamers and curiosity.

And that is exactly how the developers want you to feel.

People, please, can we stop enshrining this game as some kind of martyr for free speech and artistic expression? The developers know that for every person who rallies against the game there will be many more who support it just to spite the opposition; they are banking on the idea of people supporting this game out of opposition to censorship. This is a completely transparent financial move, no less cynical than anything EA or Ubisoft does.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

And that is exactly how the developers want you to feel.

People, please, can we stop enshrining this game as some kind of martyr for free speech and artistic expression? The developers know that for every person who rallies against the game there will be many more who support it just to spite the opposition; they are banking on the idea of people supporting this game out of opposition to censorship. This is a completely transparent financial move, no less cynical than anything EA or Ubisoft does.

Exactly.

Which leaves me feeling extremely conflicted...who do I tell to fuck off via capital?

The devs for being attention-whoring gits, the reactionary whiners and ESRB brandishing their censorship batons, or myself for even having cared enough about the subject to post in the first place?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Honestly, I don't see why purposeless over indulgent violence can't qualify if literally any full on depiction of sex can. I mean, the industry should also stop treating AO like some kind of disease, but I don't really see why violence alone shouldn't be able to make a game qualify for an AO rating. Also, couldn't you say this game is pretty comparable to Manhunt, the other game that this happened to if I remember correctly?

 

[CommanderZx2]

Did they rate this with a clear mind? GTA V let's me do all of this, as well as brutally torturing someone. How does that get away with an M rating? The torture scene gets some context, but you are not justified in doing it. Just like the MC in Hatred isn't justified. Both games let me mow down innocent people for no reason other than "why not". Why does one get a free-pass when the other doesn't?

Ugh, I'm already getting sick of saying this, but there's a world of difference between a game where you can do all those things and a game where the only objective is doing those things.

OT: Ehh, whatever. It'll be interesting when the reviews come out to see if the fuss was even worth it.

Okay it's about context and objectives then, well the objective of Plague Inc: Evolved is for you to kill all life on earth.

Here's the game's description:
"Plague Inc: Evolved is a unique mix of high strategy and terrifyingly realistic simulation. Your pathogen has just infected 'Patient Zero' - now you must bring about the end of human history by evolving a deadly, global Plague whilst adapting against everything humanity can do to defend itself."

You are literally playing what could be described as a terrorist releasing a man made disease to try and kill all humans.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Did they rate this with a clear mind? GTA V let's me do all of this, as well as brutally torturing someone. How does that get away with an M rating? The torture scene gets some context, but you are not justified in doing it. Just like the MC in Hatred isn't justified. Both games let me mow down innocent people for no reason other than "why not". Why does one get a free-pass when the other doesn't?

Ugh, I'm already getting sick of saying this, but there's a world of difference between a game where you can do all those things and a game where the only objective is doing those things.

OT: Ehh, whatever. It'll be interesting when the reviews come out to see if the fuss was even worth it.

Okay it's about context and objectives then, well the objective of Plague Inc: Evolved is for you to kill all life on earth.

Here's the game's description:
"Plague Inc: Evolved is a unique mix of high strategy and terrifyingly realistic simulation. Your pathogen has just infected 'Patient Zero' - now you must bring about the end of human history by evolving a deadly, global Plague whilst adapting against everything humanity can do to defend itself."

You are literally playing what could be described as a terrorist releasing a man made disease to try and kill all humans.

Considering a terrorist couldn't decide how it evolves and they mwntion no such thing I'm pretty sure you're just inserting one for the convenience of your argument.

Especially since you don't even bother to acknowledge that Plague doesn't show violence in the same manner I can't really think you're arguing in good faith at all with that example. I would think it isn't hard to realize that how said violence is handled in the game could have a difference.

Also how can you seriously start with the word context and ignore the glaring differences between Plague and Hatred? Like how death is carried out. Ah what am I even saying, with that terrorist think thrown in what quality of argument should I even expect. Btw as far as Google goes the only thing I've seen of terrorists in that game is from a guy who had a bunch of custom scenario plays of the game.

 

[CommanderZx2]

Did they rate this with a clear mind? GTA V let's me do all of this, as well as brutally torturing someone. How does that get away with an M rating? The torture scene gets some context, but you are not justified in doing it. Just like the MC in Hatred isn't justified. Both games let me mow down innocent people for no reason other than "why not". Why does one get a free-pass when the other doesn't?

Ugh, I'm already getting sick of saying this, but there's a world of difference between a game where you can do all those things and a game where the only objective is doing those things.

OT: Ehh, whatever. It'll be interesting when the reviews come out to see if the fuss was even worth it.

Okay it's about context and objectives then, well the objective of Plague Inc: Evolved is for you to kill all life on earth.

Here's the game's description:
"Plague Inc: Evolved is a unique mix of high strategy and terrifyingly realistic simulation. Your pathogen has just infected 'Patient Zero' - now you must bring about the end of human history by evolving a deadly, global Plague whilst adapting against everything humanity can do to defend itself."

You are literally playing what could be described as a terrorist releasing a man made disease to try and kill all humans.

Considering a terrorist couldn't decide how it evolves and they mwntion no such thing I'm pretty sure you're just inserting one for the convenience of your argument.

Especially since you don't even bother to acknowledge that Plague doesn't show violence in the same manner I can't really think you're arguing in good faith at all with that example. I would think it isn't hard to realize that how said violence is handled in the game could have a difference.

The ESRB sees nothing wrong with the violence and specifically stated they didn't like the context. If all the violence was exactly the same, but was optional and not the goal then they wouldn't have gotten an AO rating.

Therefore I am pointing out the double standard where you have other games where the very context is to maximise killing, but lacking in the gore.

 

[The Lunatic]

Also how can you seriously start with the word context and ignore the glaring differences between Plague and Hatred? Like how death is carried out. Ah what am I even saying, with that terrorist think thrown in what quality of argument should I even expect. Btw as far as Google goes the only thing I've seen of terrorists in that game is from a guy who had a bunch of custom scenario plays of the game.

Oh, no, he's actually right, there is a mode in Plague Inc in which you release a weaponised virus.

So, it's either Terrorism, or an act of genocide by rouge state, take your pick.

 

[Joseph Shrike]

So...the Hatred devs are upset at a private company, Steam, and a self-regulatory agency, being the ESRB, because both find their game's content offensive. So, effectively, groups that have no requirement to support Hatred don't want to, likely because they feel as if attaching themselves to the game will affect their bottom line and/or views of them and the industry.

Welcome to capitalism, Hatred.

It IS the only time I've ever heard of a game described as a 'genocide crusade'. SO that's pretty cool.

 

[scotth266]

Now they're giving it an AO rating, which I've never seen legally obtainable.

It's actually quite easy to obtain AO ratings, it's just that nobody bothers making the games that would merit them - mostly because every retailer in the US refuses to carry AO titles, making it a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

However with recent titles pushing the envelope of what merits M rankings vs AO rankings (GTA 5's torture scene coming to mind) it may not be that far off when we see the stigma against the AO rating drop - it was always sort of a silly rating to begin with, as M is supposed to be for people 18 and up and such people are already old enough to view titles that merit an AO ranking.

 

[Leoofmoon]

And that is exactly how the developers want you to feel.

People, please, can we stop enshrining this game as some kind of martyr for free speech and artistic expression? The developers know that for every person who rallies against the game there will be many more who support it just to spite the opposition; they are banking on the idea of people supporting this game out of opposition to censorship. This is a completely transparent financial move, no less cynical than anything EA or Ubisoft does.

Exactly.

Which leaves me feeling extremely conflicted...who do I tell to fuck off via capital?

The devs for being attention-whoring gits, the reactionary whiners and ESRB brandishing their censorship batons, or myself for even having cared enough about the subject to post in the first place?

Ok 1 this is not censorship they simply gave it a rating for the level violence, Censorship would imply tat something had changed from the original cut and had been taking away or edited in some way.

2. Yes they are shooting to be offensive and yeah people are responding to it because... well... there dumb, people have been flipping out about this game since day one and shouting from the roof tops about this games "sick filth!" and you know what that makes people want to see it they want to see why people are so disgusted by it.

you what this game to die? Stop talking about it.

 

[CommanderZx2]

And that is exactly how the developers want you to feel.

People, please, can we stop enshrining this game as some kind of martyr for free speech and artistic expression? The developers know that for every person who rallies against the game there will be many more who support it just to spite the opposition; they are banking on the idea of people supporting this game out of opposition to censorship. This is a completely transparent financial move, no less cynical than anything EA or Ubisoft does.

Exactly.

Which leaves me feeling extremely conflicted...who do I tell to fuck off via capital?

The devs for being attention-whoring gits, the reactionary whiners and ESRB brandishing their censorship batons, or myself for even having cared enough about the subject to post in the first place?

Ok 1 this is not censorship they simply gave it a rating for the level violence, Censorship would imply tat something had changed from the original cut and had been taking away or edited in some way.

2. Yes they are shooting to be offensive and yeah people are responding to it because... well... there dumb, people have been flipping out about this game since day one and shouting from the roof tops about this games "sick filth!" and you know what that makes people want to see it they want to see why people are so disgusted by it.

you what this game to die? Stop talking about it.

It is censorship, because the ESRB knows that no retailer or console distributor will sell games with that rating. Also the gore and violence in Hatred is no worse than many other games in the past that didn't get the same AO rating. They specifically gave it the AO rating to make it almost impossible for the developers to sell it.

 

[Leoofmoon]

And that is exactly how the developers want you to feel.

People, please, can we stop enshrining this game as some kind of martyr for free speech and artistic expression? The developers know that for every person who rallies against the game there will be many more who support it just to spite the opposition; they are banking on the idea of people supporting this game out of opposition to censorship. This is a completely transparent financial move, no less cynical than anything EA or Ubisoft does.

Exactly.

Which leaves me feeling extremely conflicted...who do I tell to fuck off via capital?

The devs for being attention-whoring gits, the reactionary whiners and ESRB brandishing their censorship batons, or myself for even having cared enough about the subject to post in the first place?

Ok 1 this is not censorship they simply gave it a rating for the level violence, Censorship would imply tat something had changed from the original cut and had been taking away or edited in some way.

2. Yes they are shooting to be offensive and yeah people are responding to it because... well... there dumb, people have been flipping out about this game since day one and shouting from the roof tops about this games "sick filth!" and you know what that makes people want to see it they want to see why people are so disgusted by it.

you what this game to die? Stop talking about it.

It is censorship, because the ESRB knows that no retailer or console distributor will sell games with that rating. Also the gore and violence in Hatred is no worse than many other games in the past that didn't get the same AO rating. They specifically gave it the AO rating to make it almost impossible for the developers to sell it.

Yet in this day and age of digital distribution who give a shit? Hell GOG could pick them up if they wanted, there are hundred of of ther retailers besides Steam and Origin or hell the game has so much hype behind it it could be released on it own with a $60 fee and I am sure people will buy the hell out of the game. I am not gonna play this game and I most likely wont even see videos about it because I am that not interested on this game, people are making a big huff over NOTHING.

 

[MerlinCross]

Yet in this day and age of digital distribution who give a shit? Hell GOG could pick them up if they wanted, there are hundred of of ther retailers besides Steam and Origin or hell the game has so much hype behind it it could be released on it own with a $60 fee and I am sure people will buy the hell out of the game. I am not gonna play this game and I most likely wont even see videos about it because I am that not interested on this game, people are making a big huff over NOTHING.

Big Huff = Free marketing. Even without an AO rating I doubt any store would actually carry this game. I'm also wondering what the digital stores will do now that it as this rating but even if they decline to sell it, they could just sell from their website no problem.

Myself I don't care for the game, though I wonder if it's modable. Wonder what else you could do with the game engine.

 

[Little Gray]

Its not really all that surprising and from what I have seen it is exactly what were asking for. While the rating does not make any sense when compared to games that have done this before such as postal I support it solely because of how the developers were acting. If you do nothing but scream "look at me, look at me I'm all edgy and controversial" like a four year old throwing a temper tantrum then you should not be surprised when the people you are annoying turn around and ***** slap you.

 

[Don Incognito]

It is censorship, because the ESRB knows that no retailer or console distributor will sell games with that rating. Also the gore and violence in Hatred is no worse than many other games in the past that didn't get the same AO rating. They specifically gave it the AO rating to make it almost impossible for the developers to sell it.

That is not censorship. Not in any meaningful sense of the word.

The ESRB is not a government agency.

The ESRB can not force the developers to change their game.

Game retailers have a right to stock or not stock any merchandise they choose. They are under no obligation to stock Hatred, whether it is rated AO or M or E.

This is how capitalism works. Stop throwing around "censorship" where it doesn't belong.

What happened to The Stick Of Truth in Australia? THAT is censorship.