Hotline Miami 2 Devs Remove "Rape Scene" From Demo

[Eve Charm]

I kinda hate both sides of this one more then the other but mostly I think the dev's need to be ashamed. This part isn't in the demo because it's a major part of the game they say, it's there to cause controversy get attention and in the end sell more copies of the game. Now not to say this shouldn't be in the game, but it shouldn't be the end of the demo, cutting out dramatically.

Really this shouldn't have to be a conversation we should be having over this type of game. A game like the first one easily purchasable and what not. While I do agree that anyone rather be dead then raped is completely and utterly wrong. Also that because you went through something your opinion Doesn't matter any more then someone's that hasn't went through it ((if you know anything about law their is an BIG difference between an witness and an expert witness.))

It's really something we aren't in the right place, the right scene to have an argument about. If they want this in their game, good for them, it's their art and ya it should be protected. But I have to ask, oh where or where, is the GOD DAMN ADULT'S ONLY RATING!

Why do we have this rating if it's not going to be used! Sexual Violence should be a no-brainer for this. This game deserves it from the demo and even tho AO is basically a kiss of death to a game and banned out of countries, Thats how you advertised your game.

We shouldn't have to argue our heads off because really this crap shouldn't be center table, this isn't for kids, this isn't for mature kids, this is ADULT.

 

[Mossberg Shotty]

Again, from the devs themselves:

"We were really sad that some people were so affected by it, because maybe they had been through something like that of their own. Maybe they had a terrible experience of their own that was triggered by the game. That was not intentional at all. We didn?t add the scene just to be controversial. There is a meaning to these two characters. There?s a lot more to them than just this scene.

We removed it for the demo. We?re going to work with it, see if we can fix it. You get a bigger picture when you play the whole game, which is lost in the demo of course."

There are no social justice warriors and no censorship. In including the scene without context the creators jumped the gun in a distasteful way, they realized this and decided to act more responsibly. That's all there is to it.

No censorship? People campaigned to get it removed from the demo, and it worked. In what way is that not censorship? The devs didn't do anything irresponsible by creating their product the way they wanted it be. Rape is a terrible thing, but it happens. And it's irresponsible to look away from the issue and pretend its not real.

But that's exactly what people are doing, it offends them, so they demand it be swept under the rug to accommodate them. If some people find it so hard to deal with, then they shouldn't play the game. This is an unfortunate casualty of censorship, and it makes me sad.

Honestly I thought the developer's were better than this, they shouldn't have caved to social pressure.

There needs to be a mass internet campaign to educate people on what "censorship" actually is. This is in no way censorship; in fact, it's 100% the result of people exercising their freedom of speech. The devs were free to make their game, people were free to speak up and say that they were bothered by the game, and the devs were free to make the change. No one is being forced to do anything.

Censorship is when a government (or, if you want to be more general, anyone in a position of power) restricts speech; aka, they make it so that you are not allowed to say something. Rape victims are not in a position of power, and they are not preventing anyone from doing anything.

This is like, if I asked you politely to maybe help me move my couch, and you responded with "I'm not your slave! Stop forcing me to do whatever you say!"

It just so happens that this instance 'freedom of speech' is telling people what they can't put into their work, which is suppressing the dev's freedom of speech, in a way. I'm not downplaying the importance of freedom of speech, but I think freedom of creativity is just as important.

I think someone already brought up the whole Orwellian angle, so I'll skip that part. But if you think that only government officials or other people in positions of power have the ability to censor something, you're quite wrong. The greying herds of society are the ones who are constantly trying to strike things from the record because they consider something offensive. Yes, rape is an inflammatory thing, and it's a ballsy move to feature a rape scene in a game, but I believe that the developers have every right to make their product as they see fit, and I just have to trust that they'll do it tastefully and for the right reasons.

And for the record, I was going to help you move your couch, but now I just don't know...

 

[Dante dynamite]

Pressured by whom?
If customers said they wouldnt buy the game (or sth. like that which I guess happened) how is that censorship? They cant force them to, but they have the right to express their opinion....or should they be forced to support the game?

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body"

....so no censorship happened. I rest my case.

Clearly you don't understand what censorship is, people applying pressure on an artist to remove content from his art due to their own social and political values is censorship. If people had said they simply wouldn't buy the game then that would have been acceptable and wouldn't have been a call for censorship but a market action based on personal taste, but that certainly wasn't the case and certain people very clearly asked the developers to remove content because it offended them, which is censorship.

But this is how the free market is supposed to work. How can you have a free market if the consumers aren't allowed to express their opinions/concerns about a product they don't like/find objectionable.

This is how freedom works. People are free to say and do things you don't like/agree with, and you have to deal with it. You are free to say and do things other people don't like, and you have to deal with the consequences. Even if that just means not giving a shit.

No matter which way you slice it, the developers had a choice to keep the scene in or not. Unless you have a crystal ball you don't have definitive knowledge of what would happen if they didn't respond to feedback. They responded in the way they felt was best. It was their decision. It was never yours.

Let's try an experiment:

You, Olikar, should stop posting on forums. I am asking you to stop. I am asking for your content to be removed.

Have you been censored? Are you oppressed? Or are you just as free as you were a second ago to do whatever you damned well pleased, barring breaking already established laws?

Sure its not technically censorship because the government didn't get involved but if large pressure groups come together and start pestering or harassing the creator to change their product that is in a way censorship you can never tell if the creator is changing due to a change of heart or as a response due to large backlash because of a knee jerk audience and nowadays its becoming even worse and more frequent.

A better example would be you got many people to constantly tell Olikar to stop posting and to ask for his or her's content to be removed

 

[Azure23]

You will probably never know a murder victim. You will know a rape survivor. You will probably see multiple rape survivors every day.

I know more murder victims than I do rape survivors.

Because what people tend to forget is that a single murder has many victims.

The Mother and Father that lose a child.
The person that loses a sibling.
The child that loses a parent.
The person who loses a friend.

Not to forget those that may be unfortunate enough to witness said murder. Seeing someone laying on the ground half their head missing severely traumatizes a lot of people.

Sure Murder and Rape aren't the same thing. But don't try and play one up as worse than the other.

Do you honestly believe that it's not the same rape survivors? (by the way I'm glad you knew to use the term survivor instead of victim). I'm not trying to provoke you or anything, I'm just asking because you only addressed murder in your answer, but also implied that it's somehow different for rape survivors.

I've posted several other responses on similar topics, because sharing my experiences can maybe help people understand. I am a survivor of a sexual assault, but what happened to me also victimized the people I care about, my father, who has to live with an ungodly amount of anger every day, so was my mother, who knows that no matter what she does she can't help me deal with it. My girlfriend is a survivor, we give each other strength.

As for the presence of the scene in the demo? It came out of nowhere, didn't seem to be relevant for anything other than shock value, and yet I can still see the value of it. The point of the "movie" levels in hotline miami 2 seems to be that seen from a different perspective, Jacket's actions in the first game were right out of a horror movie. I remember reading the newspaper clipping after the level "decadence" in the first game, it went something like, movie producer found dead in villa, unidentified female abducted from the scene. If I read something like that in a newspaper, I would jump to that conclusion too. So for the purposes of the FULL game and it's narrative, it makes sense. This is the director's perspective of Jacket's actions. But for the purposes of the demo, it seems unnecessary and It did make me uncomfortable, simply because I hadn't thought about it yet and connected it to a context I could understand. In the end I want the artists to include anything that they think will help tell their story, I'll still play it, I love Hotline Miami, but perhaps including that scene without context was in poor taste.

Rape is an incredibly, heinously invasive act, and can be used in media to very powerful effect. But it's so hard to handle well, it's always going to make those of us who have suffered through a similar experience very uncomfortable, but it can have value. So in the end it's a question of balance, is it worth it to include something that powerful that will alienate a portion of your audience? A tragically large portion at that, you won't know it, but you interect with rape survivors everyday, among your friends, coworkers, and family.

 

[wulf3n]

You will probably never know a murder victim. You will know a rape survivor. You will probably see multiple rape survivors every day.

I know more murder victims than I do rape survivors.

Because what people tend to forget is that a single murder has many victims.

The Mother and Father that lose a child.
The person that loses a sibling.
The child that loses a parent.
The person who loses a friend.

Not to forget those that may be unfortunate enough to witness said murder. Seeing someone laying on the ground half their head missing severely traumatizes a lot of people.

Sure Murder and Rape aren't the same thing. But don't try and play one up as worse than the other.

Do you honestly believe that it's not the same rape survivors? (by the way I'm glad you knew to use the term survivor instead of victim). I'm not trying to provoke you or anything, I'm just asking because you only addressed murder in your answer, but also implied that it's somehow different for rape survivors.

I've posted several other responses on similar topics, because sharing my experiences can maybe help people understand. I am a survivor of a sexual assault, but what happened to me also victimized the people I care about, my father, who has to live with an ungodly amount of anger every day, so was my mother, who knows that no matter what she does she can't help me deal with it. My girlfriend is a survivor, we give each other strength.

I wasn't implying the only victim of rape is the person being raped. I only addressed murder because those that try to claim rape is worse than murder tend to argue that it's because the victim is dead, not realising that a victim is not just the immediately offended party.

 

[BarkBarker]

Guys....they released a demo of a RAPE.....WITHOUT CONTEXT.......that's just bad planning, horrible planning, AWFUL planning, who thought the unanimously declared sin without possible justification would be good to have without context to advertise their game, I wasn't gonna buy it, but anyone that stupid can't be trusted with my money, GOOD DAY SIR.

 

[Mossberg Shotty]

Again, "telling people what they can or can't put in their work" is protected free speech. That's someone expressing their opinion about something. You're telling people that they can't express themselves this way; you're doing exactly what you're criticizing. You're trying to limit the freedom of expression of the scene's opponents, because it offends you.

I'm not even going to try to assume what level of irony you're operating on. Nowhere did I command the politically-correct crusaders should stop what they're doing, I'm simply pointing out that its an act of censorship. Which it is. But you're right about it offending me. But unlike the out-criers, I don't demand that the world bend to my will, to accommodate my over-sensitivity.

But you want to order the developers not to include something in their product, and then accuse me of oppressing free speech when I point out that it's a completely bullshit thing to do, even when I'm doing no such thing, or telling anyone what they can't say?

You're obviously content to point your fingers in every direction, but the developers have done nothing wrong, and the fact that some people have the audacity to tell them what they can and can't include is sickening.

 

[Dante dynamite]

Sure its not technically censorship because the government didn't get involved but if large pressure groups come together and start pestering or harassing the creator to change their product that is in a way censorship you can never tell if the creator is changing due to a change of heart or as a response due to large backlash because of a knee jerk audience and nowadays its becoming even worse and more frequent.

A better example would be you got many people to constantly tell Olikar to stop posting and to ask for his or her's content to be removed

The article only mentions "considerable criticism". In fact every thread that I have read that echoes with "TEH FEMINAZIS R TAKIN MAH GAYMZ!" has only been in response to criticism. I have yet to hear of an organized "pressure group" being brought up in these discussions of "there is too much sexualization" or "we'd like to see more games that don't just pander to the hetero male demographic". You'd think "pressure groups" calling for banning or restricting games would be prime fodder for the opponents of these criticisms and expressions. Unless you can show me that a "pressure group" has been involved in this particular instance, I don't know how relevant it is.

Relegating criticism as "oppressive censorship" seems to be a very efficient way of shutting down other people's ideas, expressions, and opinions. And, therefore, is ALSO censorship under the broader definition of censorship people are clinging to in this thread.

"You/they cant say that because it might/does lead to censorship."

I don't know how things are "getting worse". Except for actually participating in rape or the murder of children, just about every other despicable human act can be repeated in a video game. *Ever play "Escape from Neverland"? Criticism has come and gone, and you still have your GTA's, Saints Row, and Miami Hotline, etc. which will still have a rape scene according to the last thing any of us has heard from the creators. The only thing that has gotten worse is that thanks to social media you are exposed to more people's opinions, criticisms, and expressions more often.

It's ironic when one side of this debate accuses the other side of overreacting when they are currently tearing up the countryside on a wild horse called "Speculation" screaming things like "What if!?" and "Oppression!"

*Now that I mention "Escape from Neverland" where you play as Michael Jackson using tasers and other "less than lethal" means to capture kids trying to escape from his ranch; I also recall a game where you play as a catholic priest trying to find new and inventive ways to throw parents off of the fact that you are molesting their child. These were fairly low-quality Flash-based games you played on a web browser so maybe they somehow don't count in this context. I dunno.

Whoa calm down and I'm also a little offended by that its only because of social media I perceive that the problem is worse thing and that "TEH FEMINAZIS R TAKIN MAH GAYMZ" thing as well no need to be such a dick about it.

Firstly I use pressure groups in the business sense

Non-profit and usually voluntary organization/group whose members have a common cause for which they seek to influence political or corporate decision makers to achieve a declared objective. Whereas interest groups try to defend a cause (maintain the status quo), the pressure groups try to promote it (change the status quo).

technically by asking for more females that aren't sexualised you are part of a pressure group and there is nothing wrong with that in fact industries need pressure groups or else they more often then not will act unethically. I commend you for it and agree with you on the women in games thing. (Wasn't there like some sort of organizing of getting signatures to change the demo or something?)

What I mean by its getting worse is that the topic has become to a significant degree toxic with discussions full of all sorts of fighting amongst people and a slew of overreactions such as no offense yourself and even more completely moronic arguments with no one ever willing to come to any form of compromise or agreement. You also see much more social justice warriors jumping at everything for example Hideo Kojima's (did i spell that right?) comment on cosplayers people made a big stink about that if any other metal gear was released during these "troublesome" times it would probably receive just as much shit regardless that it has been doing that sort of things since the beginning. You've got feminazis and NRA nuts crawling out of woodwork making everyone look like assholes and there's like a feminism thread every other day on most gaming websites.

Game creators may think that they can't do what they want due to fear of backlash but that's for many aspects.


Also that "you still have your GTA's" argument is getting old especially since I wasn't talking about anyone taking games away its just the dumbass mentality of never just sometimes letting things be. Not everything needs to turn into a shitstorm this is the problem I mostly have with these discussions they do nothing but make people fight and make the community bitter.

 

[baconmaster]

Sometimes I feel like the only person in the world that WANTS TO SEE WHAT PURPOSE THE SCENE ACTUALLY SERVES BEFORE DECIDING ON IT

I'm so sick of seeing both "you can't have rape in games" (because PTSD is only a problem for rape victims, apparently. Yeah, it's totally not a problem for soldiers or anything) and "they can do whatever because it's art."

Have people complaining about the scene actually played the original Hotline Miami? If not, here's a basic summary: It was brutally violent but at it's core it was questioning that violence and the justification for it in videogames. It wasn't just shocking violence for the hell of it. For now I'm working on the assumption that HLM2 does something similar, so the possibility that this scene truly is important to the narrative as a whole isn't something that should be ignored.

Hopefully the developers don't prove me wrong

 

[NeedsaBetterName22]

Ok, this is bugging me so I have/I] to respond (now that I can formulate a coherent argument about it).

Murder is only murder if it is against the law. But in some places it can be against the law to kill someone in self-defense. In a place like Somalia, there is no effective rule of law, so technically NO KILLING is murder there.

All this points to the fact that "murder" is a subjective term, yet you keep trying to apply it objectively. Morals are subjective as well, so trying to define murder under morality isn't going to get you any closer to objectivity.

Also, your definition of murder doesn't show up in my dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder?s=t

I'm not quite sure if you're bringing this up in the context of the 'differences between killing and rape' scenario, but if that is the case, then rape is only rape if it is against the law as well (thus, examples such as rape as an institutionalized psychological tactic in warfare in the Congo is not immoral or illegal, and I really don't think we want to use that argument). This also applies to your 'morals are purely subjective' argument. Also as an aside I have no idea where you're getting this 'Somalia has no laws' nonsense. Somalia is ruled by numerous warlords and they do enforce a form of conduct that can be considered an (entirely arbitrary) legal structure.

Also, if you're going to argue for a legal structure being the only standard for murder, then you can't pull out a simplistic dictionary definition as an actual objective definition, because as you said, 'morals are subjective'. I really have no idea what you're arguing because these two points are logical fallacies when argued together. Also, you assume that the state is a moral entity and that its laws establish moral principles, which is a whole discussion (and very much a 'chicken or egg' scenario). Assuming that moral and legal principles are one and the same is a leap in logic and the subject of much historical debate.

And you assume the 'morals are subjective' argument when that's been a major philosophical discussion for thousands of years. One argument based on fallacies and assumptions does not discredit this.

I guess what I'm saying is I need further explanation of your argument, because it's completely incoherent at present time. You can argue for a subjective moral standard but you need WAY more philosophical backing and less circular reasoning ('morals are subjective because of laws and laws establish morals therefore morals are subjective' is the new 'The Bible says God is all powerful and the Bible was written by God therefore God is all powerful' apparently).

 

[NeedsaBetterName22]

I have to disagree. Rape is forced intercourse/penetration against the will of the target of that force. The will of a/the person can operate and exist independently of the rule or enforcement of law.

The definition of murder on the other hand is dependent on the rule of law. For instance, self defense is considered murder in some areas especially under other considerations, like the "stand your ground" law or it's opposite. In Texas you can use deadly force to defend your property after dark. The neutral term "homicide" with it's varying qualifiers would be a much better "catch all" term for describing the various states in which one person can be found at fault for causing the death of another.

Perhaps a better statement I could have used would be "Morals can be subjective." And indeed I agree that an objective set of morals has been the topic of much philosophical debate over the millennia.

Upon further review, my comments on Somalia were inaccurate and too absolute to be true. However, I still am certain there are areas of Somalia where multiple warlords lay claim where attempts to tease out the "right" justification for a homicide would be easily lost in the noise of all of the violence there. There are areas with "effective rule of law". You are correct there. What I had hoped to be a clear example is a muddy one, but still demonstrates the varying degree in which the law can apply to and define "murder".

Also, if you're going to argue for a legal structure being the only standard for murder, then you can't pull out a simplistic dictionary definition as an actual objective definition, because as you said, 'morals are subjective'. ...you assume that the state is a moral entity and that its laws establish moral principles...

When, where, how did I assume this? I tried to keep my language short and too the point. I can see where that "rubbed you the wrong way/raised red flags". But I don't see where I made that particular assertion. "The state is a moral entity" Legal structure is a standard for murder and certainly not the only one. I do believe that the dictionary is a good place to look for the objective definitions of words. I was not aware that this/these were a dangerous/false assumptions. If the dictionary is not objective then why is it a standard by which academic discourse is measured?

And you assume the 'morals are subjective' argument when that's been a major philosophical discussion for thousands of years. One argument based on fallacies and assumptions does not discredit this.

The existence of the debate and lack of a clear "winner" is my evidence for why morals are/can be subjective. I am certainly not discrediting the philosophical debate, if anything I brought it up, however indirectly.

I guess what I'm saying is I need further explanation of your argument, because it's completely incoherent at present time. You can argue for a subjective moral standard but you need WAY more philosophical backing and less circular reasoning 'morals are subjective because of laws and laws establish morals therefore morals are subjective'

This last paragraph is incoherent. I never said "laws establish morals". You have created assertions I never made, and in a patronizing and dismissive tone, point to them as reasons why you don't understand what I am saying. I will take responsibility for the bit about Somalia and have amended it to the point I was trying to make all along.

Feel free to continue this debate, I feel it is shaping up nicely.

Yeah, I think I'll skip this debate, and just point out why: Your first rape point makes no sense in the context of your larger argument. By contextualizing it on the grounds of will you act as if people are willingly murdered. Also, by making that statement you're stating an objective moral definition, which breaks your whole argument again. Another logical fallacy, mostly likely based on your emotional opinions towards rape. All your arguments in legality towards murder can be equally applied to rape, as what constitutes rape is established by laws and vary between states (Sweden, for example, has completely different consent laws to that of the U.S., and thus grounds its notion of 'willingly' differently). Your own central argument discredits your point.

'The lack of a winner' is also a massive logical fallacy. By using 'lack of a winner' to point to morals being subjective, you're just assuming a winner. Once again, circular reasoning (the 'lack of a winner' shows that moral subjectivity is correct therefore there is a 'winner' because there is a 'lack of a winner').

In regards to the 'laws establish morals' argument, I'm discussing this in the context you offered. You stated that morals were subjective, and then pointed to definitions of murder as an example of how murder is determined by the state, and thus is not objective. However, even in the context of subjective morals, your argument concludes that laws establish or at least reinforce subjective moral standards. You're using this as evidence to back up your point, and then disregard or refuse to support the logical conclusions of your argument.

I'm patronizing largely because I feel you're intellectually dishonest in your statements. You establish definitions, then change those definitions or discredit them in order to state something else, only to go back and validate your previous statement. You also continue to use circular reasoning to back up your points and then cite it as 'evidence'. I'll openly drop the argument in your favour just to prevent you from arguing nonsensical points at me.