Lunar Templar said:
TLDR; It's not the violence it self that got this game an AO rating, it's the context those violent acts are being carried out.
All righty. So now we're arguing for ratings to give more weight to context (which can be interpreted in a few different ways here, regardless of the developer's stated intent, and can vary greatly in terms of how 'bad' people view it) rather than content.
Cool. I do hope ya get how slippery that particular slope is.
Allow me to be a bit hyperbolic here to illustrate a point:
Plague Inc. - The goal is to create a super virus to wipe out man kind. Violence isn't illustrated, but the implication of a virus/disease or what have you with the killing potential to take out humanity is horrific in and of itself. Even the word "plague" conjures images of Black Death or Ebola and their associated
results.
Under the current ESRB system, it'd receive an E or E 10+ due to the lack of violence actually being depicted. Context is irrelevant without content, it seems.
As for a more pertinent example:
The Manhunts - Both 1 and 2 are rated M. Both feature violent murders. The point of them, or at least the first, is to murder your way through a conga-line of enemies for the delight of a snuff film producer, in an effort to escape.
That's the context. To me? That's just as bad as what Hatred's swinging around.
So we've got a precedent set. Horrific violence with an equally horrific context is A-Okay...but just not
this context, because it's apparently been "unilaterally" decided that said context is just
too far beyond the pale.
What you're doing by rating from a point of context is making a value judgment that not everyone shares. The trailer for this game and the idea behind it does not sit right with me. It made me kind of ill to see it, with respect to the context...but then, I have similar feelings about Dead Space and any other ultra violent title where vivisection and jiggling organic bits flopping about, ruining the upholstery, is the norm.
TL;DR - Arguing from a point of context, while helpful in some circumstances, is not at all the direction a ratings system needs to head in. It opens them up to a bit too much subjectivity, whereas, basing it purely on content provides at least some modicum of objectivity.
(A reminder: I don't like the game. I don't like violence for violence's sake, and I don't like the stigma associated with an AO rating. That said? Most games, including Hatred, are just not realistic enough for me to genuinely interpret them as "adult's only."
Now...the Saw/Hostel movies? God yes. Those are some convincing make-up effects, damn it...I still get a flash of that one guy's legs snapping and getting crushed, in gory detail, by a fuckin' trash compactor. Ugh. Not even sure how I stumbled on that. Channel surfing can be a terrible thing.
It was rated R, by the way.)
The fun thing here is that, despite all of the controversy that engulfed Postal and Manhunt at the time of their creation...they look downright tame now, because the graphics just haven't aged well and, even at the time, weren't very good.
Hatred is the same damned thing. It doesn't look realistic. It's got a damned filter over it, for fuck sakes, and the premise is so over the top as to be teetering on parody.
In 5 years, this will just be another blip on the controversy radar that we'll all look back on, shrug, and issue a collective "Meh."
"