I can't be violent unless I'm defending myself or my family, I've already figured that out. Yeah if someone breaks into my house they're going down but that's the only scenario in which I can imagine myself being violent. Besides I play plenty of games in which I can kill millions with the push of a button (see Civilization 5, Galactic Civilizations 2, Sins of a Solar Empire) so this game is tame in comparison. Even if I play it for a full day I wouldn't rack up a quarter of the bodycount I do in strategy games. Besides there's not even children that can be hurt in Hatred where as in Fallout 3 I can shoot children (even if it does no damage without mods).major_chaos said:
Valve Pulls Controversial Game Hatred from Greenlight - Update
- Thread starter roseofbattle
- Start date
Whilst I am an endless well of overflowing hatred and wrath, but rarely play violent video-games. I've invested 29 hours into Recettear: An Item Shop's Tale, and 10 hours in Magical Diary. If you do not have thoughts of murderous violence before, it's rare that something like this will give them to you, save with a rare few who are mentally unstable from the get go.Xan Krieger said:
Again, I can not stand behind the Saw movies and not this. It'd be hypocritical of me to deny one form of art but not the other. Hyper violence has been in comics for a while now, played for laughs and straight. Hatred has a right to exist on the merit of it's offensiveness being what not to do as firmly as Hamburger Hill. It breaks no laws in and of itself. If it had, say, child pornography I would oppose it as illegal.
Art has the right to offend, it's what you do with that feeling that gives it weight. If you chose not to by it, then it's existence fulfills it's end. But, you should not stop others from buying it.
As I have read through this thread there wasn't a lot of cold hard fact on why this happened (though I'd be happy to be corrected) so I'm going to pose a hypothesis: administrative oversight.
A simple fuck up, an I not dotted, a T not crossed that somehow consigned the game to the denial resulting in some record checking, a few face palms muffling utterances of "Fuck sake" and an orderly return to normal followed up by some mea culpa from the boss. Happens all the time in major businesses and government departments, I see no reason for Valve to be any different.
A simple fuck up, an I not dotted, a T not crossed that somehow consigned the game to the denial resulting in some record checking, a few face palms muffling utterances of "Fuck sake" and an orderly return to normal followed up by some mea culpa from the boss. Happens all the time in major businesses and government departments, I see no reason for Valve to be any different.
You know you're on bad standing when you're borrowing an argument from Ken Ham.Signa said:
We do have the same data. You're pretending there's a slippery slope here. And the best part is, you have to ignore Australia's actual history of censorship to use one of your examples. Like, you literally have to completely ignore relevant data.
Yeah, I'm doing it again. I'm being honest while you are not. When you willingly distort data points, it's not an issue of "interpretation."
Can you demonstrate that this was, in any way, based on "belief?"Strazdas said:
And to recap: you actually believe that every last game in existence should be legally mandated to be carried by stores? Are you really going with that?
It's not "spin," because it's the truth. It's interesting that every time I bring up things like evidence, you try and shift away to "DIFFERENT OPINIONS, MAN!"Signa said:
Sorry, I don't buy your cop-out. Last time, you were demonstrably wrong. This time, you're demonstrably wrong. You can't demonstrate progression. I have demonstrated that this is not progression. That's why you're so quick to rely on "opinion." If prayer is the last refuge of a scoundrel, "opinion" is the last refuge of someone without a cogent argument.
the VP of marketing said: "Based on what we've seen on Greenlight, we would not publish Hatred on Steam. As such we'll be taking it down."Zachary Amaranth said:
Since what they saw on greenlight was one of the most popular games ever, the only logical conclusion is that it was their personal beliefs that circumvented the release.
Yes, where/when possible a videogame store should not refuse to stock a game based on personal beliefs. I can understand a retail store physically not being able to fit the copies or a publisher like Ubisoft refusing to sell via Steam is not stores fault, however this is not the case here.
Save a few glimpses during which he brushes off the memory of his family, Kratos does nothing to show remorse for the things he's doing at all. He kills (and in some places tortures) civilians for simply being there. His violent nature is just as graphic as the protagonist in Hatred as you rip out the eyes of cyclopes with your bare hands. A small cringe of humanity in a sea of depraved killing, and you sport he's better for such a small gesture? He had his revenge by the first game, and just kept on killing after because he could.major_chaos said:
If the protagonist in Hatred feels remorse for killing his family, and doesn't shoot a dog he'd be just as unforgivable as Kratos. Yet God of War doesn't fill you with bile as this game does. Why?
Let us try another game. Destroy All Humans, have you played it?
So then you don't necessarily need a redeemable protagonist, and repugnance is subjective. So what we have here is moral outrage rather then a legitimate claim against art. To say that a game has nothing redeeming it would be to make that claim on first hand experience. Going back to the God of War game, all it took to cause you to not see him as as much of a monster is that he felt bad once about murdering his family in cold blood and maybe that one girl you can't remember.major_chaos said:
a. They run down civilians all the time in Twisted Metal. In the first game I ran over Santa Claus.major_chaos said:
b. I didn't get that from the trailer. From his own words his death will be as meaningless as the deaths of those he's killed.
c. And, using the same argument you yourself chose to use to defend the Interview, we don't know. We don't know what happens at the end of Hatred. We don't know if the killer finds redemption, or burns the whole world like Kratos. Until you do, speculation is all you have, and the feeling of dread at the for seen. Hatred makes you feel repulsed, unhappy, and grimy by it's very existence. That makes it good art, a terrible premise, but good art as you felt something.
"Some things belong on paper, others in life. It's a blessed fool who can't tell the difference."-Madeleine. That is a quote from the movie Quills. Have you seen Quills? An excellent movie, about the Marquis De Sade for which we have the word Sadism. The quote is an exceptional one, as, it makes light to the terrible things that was written down on paper as fiction. Escapism doesn't always have to be good.major_chaos said:
Quills said:
If no one tries to kill the "murderguy" in Hatred it'd be a very boring game indeed. You'll have adversity in that game as you do in Smash TV, but this game takes it one step farther as you are actually worth killing. Smash TV influenced many games after it's creation. I wonder what kind of games Hatred will inspire.major_chaos said:
No, you don't do you? Alas, this will be the hardest thing to explain, but let us try. It isn't about the existence of the game, but the experience of it and how you feel about it. If sat in front of Hatred, will you gun down the masses? Will you pull the trigger to see what is at that gruesome end? Even turning off the game before the opening credits roll and deleting the game is a choice, and reflects on you as a person. That inevitable choice is what matters in art, and your choice is to deny all other choices. That is unforgivable.major_chaos said:
"Man chooses and makes himself by acting. Any action implies the judgment that he is right under the circumstances not only for the actor, but also for everybody else in similar circumstances."- Franz Adler.
Hatred is simply the execution of the absurd, an escapism into raw emotional loathing, but what you do with that, how much of it you can stomach, even how you handle the information after all makes you what you are. Like all art it is allowed to exist because it does, for better or worse is all on the observer to conclude. You have no right to decide that for them.
(This again has to harken back to the fact that it has to be legal in the first place. Banksy is a good artist, but his art is still when you get down to it vandalism.I appreciate and applaud his work when done legally, but when not, I will not be ignorant for when he gets caught and fined.)
As long as the experience is wholly represented, as half completed works shouldn't go to public.
So we should self censor before someone else censors us? BRILLIANT!major_chaos said:
Also his neighbours? What? Does he take pictures of his neighbours, digitalizes them and import them to the game and paste their faces on the npcs?
No he doesnt, he plays a virtual person going on a killing spree, killing virtual people with virtual weapons. Not a single thing of that is real and he knows it.
Heck! Any sane person knows fully well what is real and what is fiction. You pretty much just told the guy that you dont believe he is sane because you worry about his way of blowing off steam.
But yeah.. back in the day it was the beatles turning kids violent, then it was heavy metal, then it was comics, then it was movies, then anime... and now its games.
Anyone remember DnD turning kids into satanists? Man... we sure have alot of those around.. they made a bloody movie or two about it too! It was an epidemic i tell you! So many satanists...
All the while through all of this the violent crime ratings go lower and lower and yet people cant seem to stop quipping and worriying about how this or that is evil because it "offends" them or "unsettles" them.
If you dont like it.. dont play it.
No one has ever commited a crime as a direct result of a game. Infact people who go on killing sprees consume alot less computer games then other people according to police findings. (atleast thats something TB and crew claimed in their latest Co optional podcast)
This game does not affect you personaly in any way or form, yet you want forbid people to play it because somehow your morales are offended.
Im sorry but you dont get to decide what media people can and cannot consume just based on what you like or dislike.
Let me make it clear:
You have absolutely no scientificall or other empirical proof that video games, any type of video games have any negative effect on adults. And this game IS for adults.
And if kids play it then you should take it up with those kids parents because they are not doing their job.
You know I don't normally respond to quotes on posts I made a week ago, but you missed the point, so i'll bite.Karadalis said:
We should show some damn self control before we validate every negative thing ever said about our hobby.
Not being on steam =/= banned, just stashed away in its little dark corner of the internet like the lazy shock value "columbine simulator" flash games it owes most of its DNA to.
Good thing I never played the "games cause violence" card then. You totally missed my point, which was that this kind of game attracts a kind of person I want nothing to do with, not that it chaneges people or causes crime or any such Jack Thompson bullshit
No, evidence points to the target audience being bitter angsty teenagers and people with the mindset thereof.