WarpZone said:
Don't know if this thread is "dead" or not but I've never really had someone ask for my opinion and as an egomaniac I felt compelled to respond.
I honestly don't have a concise answer for what would make this game Postal done right. My whole stance on Postal is entirely subjective because I don't know the truth behind the game. (When I say Postal I am referring to 1 and 2, the Running With Scissors games, Postal 3 was a mess that RWS has even gone on to disown because of extraordinary circumstances that prevent RWS from really having any ability to fix their own product, haven't played Postal 3 and probably wont unless it is available legally for free).
I think to best answer the question, I have to explain what I feel mad the Postal games click for me. First of all, I have always been interested in controversy, as a kid I would read about controversial games and M rated games and hold them up as these awesome things because my parents wouldn't let me play them. The rare times I did get to play them, I held them in the highest regard because they were a forbidden fruit, I think this is similar to how people look back nostalgically on older games, I did the same for games that I was told I wasn't mature enough to play.
Given this stance on games, I always thought the Postal series was interesting. Both games had been released when I learned of them and reading through info on them always intrigued me. I remember reading how Postal 2 was the end all most violent game ever, the absolute worst of the worst and the kind of corrupting influence that would destroy the souls of anyone who played it. Then I would look at screenshots (this was before Youtube) and think this game really doesn't look any different from GTA3 (the other evil one at the time). From this understanding, I interpreted Postal 1 and Postal 2 thusly (and still do, although it is more refined)
Postal 1, the original from the 90's seemed like a game that basically said "Fuck you" to anyone who hides behind children when faced with something they didn't like. It was controversial when shown at trade shows, it had politicians and lawyers up in arms before release, and the entire game was essentially about killing people. The game was a series of isometric levels where the only objective was to reduce population by a certain percentage. (Later, I learned you only had to shoot enemies, the info available at the time implied you had to kill everyone, while you really only have to kill people who attempt to kill you). Postal 1 was full of dark imagery and you essentially were a member of the "Trench Coat Mafia," you killed people because you hated them and voices/demons told you to. As a game, it wasn't very fun, but the idea of a game where you played a truly evil man was interesting.
Postal 2 on the other hand was, among other things, about the reaction to Postal 1, as well as the "save the children" mentality that Postal and other games inspired at the time. Postal 2 was much more complex as a game and will take a bit more time to explain. Again, this is my understanding of the game and is entirely opinion based. Postal 2 attacked several issues relating to society and games at the time. The first aspect that it covered was basic US culture at the time. The game contains insensitive depictions of other cultures, such as suicide bombers that look like Bin Laden, rednecks addicted to firearms and rape, tree-hugging hippies who kill book readers, police brutality, cats/dogs being served as asian food, family values groups who shoot people for making violent games, etc. And while this seems like an attempt at being mean toward the groups involved, I always took it as a jab at how media represents these groups. I haven't met very many (or any for some) of these groups being mocked but the ones I have met do not fit these descriptions. I have met "tree hugging hippies" and gun loving rednecks and police officers and none of them has acted this way around me. The most well known of these interpretations in Postal 2 was the terrorists all dressing looking like Osama, having anthrax WMD launchers that made people vomit blood and die slowly etc. I never saw this as the game developers saying "Yeah, this is what those people are like." I would watch the news circa 2003 and see pundits clamoring to be as critical of Muslims as possible but maintain a minor tone so as to not appear out-right racist. And I viewed Postal 2's interpretations as the kind of thing that these people would produce if they didn't have to maintain that slight sense of dignity. I felt this sort of mockery of society was implied to all of the exaggerated groups depicted in the game. I mean you can literally find the WMDs the world went to war over, infiltrate a taliban sleeper camp, and kill hundreds of caricatures of Osama Bin Laden.
Another important aspect to Postal 2 was the mockery of censorship and the legal trouble Running with Scissors faced following Postal 1. Postal 2 has a difficulty setting named after the senator who tried to get Postal 1 banned, this gamemode has all weapons replaced with non-lethal tasers. In this vain, Postal 2 was also the first game to court a certain mantra for me, the good or evil playthrough. Other games had done this before but it was the first one for me and I still think is one of the most interesting examples of how player input affects game content. The one thing that Postal 2 holds over you the entire time is that you, the player, do not have to kill anyone the entire game. Violence happens all around you regardless but it is entirely possible to go through the whole game without spilling any blood. The splash screen when booting the game says "It's only as violent as you are." and I always found that fascinating. This aspect ties in to one of the ingame quests, where you have to ask people to sign a petition called "Make whiny congressmen play video games." I have always wanted to make someone who believed games make people violent play Postal 2 and the moment they attack another player, ask them why they were such a violent person? The game slants everything against you to make not attacking others extremely difficult, it gives you huge amounts of weapons and almost every objective leads to a shootout, but it never explicitly requires you to participate, you can always just walk away. The game will mock you at the end if you play the game this way but it is always an option.
Some other points about Postal 2 were how it was fairly self-aware of it's own opinion. Certain NPCs are running with scissors employees and while it is random whether or not civilians carry firearm,s RWS models always carry the two major weapons, the Assault rifle and shotgun. They will shoot anyone who attacks them, even the player, but will not engage the player for committing crimes towards others. This pokes fun at the image being placed on RWS, people condemned the game for being a violent murderous fantasy for psychopaths and while I felt it wasn't, the game devs mocked themselves by portraying themselves as the very thing they were being called. This was less prevalent in the original Postal 2, the expansion pack definitely laid it on heavier when you party at the CEO's house and he has an armory in his basement.
Finally, from a political standpoint, Postal 2 mocked both sides vehemently. It picked on liberal stereotypes by having hippies and "save the children" people being just as violent as anyone else, and it picked on conservatives with taunts and jabs thrown at the NRA and the army being deployed to slaughter the Osama lookalikes. The main character is undefinable as a character because he throws around comments against both sides, he jokes about the second amendment if you kill enough innocent people, he calls the various special interest groups names, he personifies a heavily lapsed Christian and someone who is entirely bound to his wife despite hating her guts, etc. The game makes fun of everything but never really promotes a certain agenda aside from have fun. A real psycho could play the game purely to fulfill violent fantasies or enact violence on certain groups, but the game never really judges you or picks a side. It criticizes the war on terror while also representing most middle easterners as terrorists, all it does is say that everyone is awful.
Okay, now that I have got that off my chest, I should probably answer your question about how "Hatred" could be Postal done right. Well, first off, I have watched the trailer since my first post and I am actually intrigued by the game. I think that there are two important ways the game could be more "postal done right," but I still sort of hope it does its own thing and makes it work. First off, I feel "Hatred" could essentially be Postal 1 but in the modern age. Hope to fix the various problems that made Postal 1 so hard to enjoy. The idea of a game wherein you simulate someone going Postal is still very prevalent, these occurrences haven't become any less common since Postal 1 was released.
If the game takes a more Postal 1 tone, I think it would be postal done right if it didn't break character AT ALL. I understand a lot of people want it to be self aware but I personally think it shouldn't, it should take the idea as seriously as possible. A lot of responses I have read seem to imply that they aren't interested because it looks like another game that takes its self to seriously, but I personally don't know of any games, other than maybe Postal 1, where you played the actual bad guy. Every game I have ever played, and I have played some dark games, has some minor hints at the player character actually being an antihero. The grand theft auto series has always done this. Claude/Tommy/CJ/Niko commit various evil acts, but within the narrative of the game, they are being told to do this by someone else. (Sandbox play doesn't count in my opinion because like in Postal 2, it is only as violent as you are) In GTA, you might be out murdering cops, but you are doing it because a mob-boss said to, or you are trying killing gang members, but only to save your friends from a corrupt policeman. In none of these games have you ever been acting on your own behalf with the express reason being to commit an evil act. I haven't played GTAV yet but I have watched some bits online and Trevor appears to be the comedy psychopath. Maybe I am wrong in thinking that he is not being forced into his actions but even so, he makes jokes at certain points that undermine his actions. The other series that rivals postal as violent murder simulators is Manhunt. You aren't the badguy in Manhunt. In Manhunt one, you play a man who was about to be executed by the state for unspecified crimes but instead you are forced to participate in a snuff film. You commit grisly murder but only because you are trying to put an end to the evil director who forced you into it. You still have a moral leg to stand on. Manhunt 2 makes it grayer but you still maintain a certain moral high ground. You were experimented on, you had your life taken from you and your violence is a result of a more evil man's attempt at creating a being without a conscience. Your violent actions are justified in that the character performing them has been mentally altered to act as an actual psychopath, Daniel Lamb is his own victim, his alter ego killed his family and he seeks revenge essentially against himself for the actions.
But to my knowledge, no (commercial) game has ever taken the mindset of someone truly evil who acts evil purely because of their own reasoning. I think that if Hatred is literally a game about a man who starts killing people because he hates them and wishes for his own life to end, that would be an interesting concept that deserves a place in the medium. Films/Books have explored this concept before commercially, but no game has ever really done this to this level.
If Hatred was just that, a game about killing others as a last act before death, I think it could make for a great concept that would open up interesting debates about games, humanity, guns, what ever. My only fear is that the game will try to make a point. If the game makes a point, I think any logical debate about the ideas behind it would be secondary to whatever point it was trying to make.
This is where my Postal 2 impressions come in. Postal 2, as I described, seemed to try and avoid choosing sides by mocking both sides. However, many people interpreted it as racist or trying to make some kind of overall point about the various people it depicted, especially the Osama Bin Laden lookalikes. If Hatred as a game did make some point, like had a certain objective of eliminating only a specific demographic or anything that the a reasonable person would interpret as being a direct point, I feel that the game would have missed its opportunity. Admittedly, a game where you murder innocent unarmed people will bring about people arguing over certain issues, like guns, but that will be argued regardless. If the game directly takes a stance, it will be less fun to think about as a topic for debate because it would specifically endorse a stance. That doesn't invalidate it, Spec Ops could be seen as a heavy criticism of modern military weaponry, but it does steer the debate toward that field. If Hatred doesn't make any other points other than "You play as a guy who kills others," it might lead to a big debate over the related issues, like mental health, society, maybe guns, etc. So to summarize, I think it would be Postal done right if it stuck to the idea behind Postal 1, you play a man going Postal. Do not acknowledge the murder simulator argument like Postal 1 did, do not attempt to appear neutral by attacking both sides like Postal 2, just be a game about being an evil man committing a violent act. Don't have a good ending or a final boss fight with a corrupt policeman or have some commentary on police brutality or militarism, just be about a man being evil to humans. Even if the game isn't fun to play, it could at least be interesting for being the only commercial game where you play the true villain.
Edit: Upon rereading what Warpzone asked of me, and now that I have seen the trailer, I honestly don't have an answer as to what they could do to make it a game. I honestly don't think a direct remake of the Postal formula of "Kill everything" would be very fun. I think the point of the game would be best if it was simply the thing the trailer implies it is: Hatred. We have a massive amount of simulator games now, why not let this be the end-all Massacre simulator, no agenda behind it besides kill people and try and keep killing until someone stops you. The more I think about it, the more I think that as a game, the more poignant point the game could make would come at a drastic cost to gameplay because doing nothing but killing people without any other aspects would become boring. The idea of making it into Last Stand type of mode where you have to scavenge and hold out while performing combos or something would definitely make it more fun, but it would also obscure the ability to debate about the game. My current thought would be, assuming the game is just kill until you die, have a mode where there is some more options, like gather resources, craft weapons, score points or do combos or gain XP, etc, but also have a mode where there is no HUD or mechanics other than just "Kill until you die."
As for how it makes you feel while playing, I think it would be interesting if the game went for the kind of feeling I get playing the bad ending path in some games. Make part of the challenge of the game being required to do violent things to proceed. Make part of the difficulty be the player's own conscience telling them that they should stop playing. This probably cannot be done though since without any real backstory, we immediately ignore any real investment but if they pulled it off it would be great. Like how because I like the characters in Fallout 3, I cannot bring myself to play a truly evil character because that would involve the quest where you blow up a major city, killing many likable characters. If the game made me feel that way, that would be an amazing accomplishment but that might not be possible if all we know is the PC is evil and all the people you are out to kill are just targets.
Even if the game devs thought, lets just make a violent game to get publicity, I don't really care as long as they made a game that expresses an interesting take on violent games. While making a violent game for attention might be profitable, it doesn't make you rich since you attention doesn't equal huge amounts of money. If the game is awful and boring and then asks me for 60 dollars, I wont play it. And maybe a few thousand people will but after taxes and everything else, that still isn't much money. I think that if I were in the shoes of this developer, my endgame would be to make something new, and a game where the only objective is to kill people for the sake of killing them is definitely a new or at least unexplored idea.
Making it a fun video game sadly probably means compromising on any real artistic statement but then again I found Postal 2 lots of fun while others saw it as repetitive garbage so lets see what happens. Worst case scenario, its another crappy game to throw on the pile.
