Why couldn't Australia ban Hotline Miami 2 due to the buckets of blood decorating every room you leave behind? I heard the Aussies got their Mature rating nailed down and can't simply refuse classification but are they not banning hyper violent games anymore?
That's actually what the R18+ rating explicitly allows, but what people failed to catch or realize is the small fine print on other things. For example you can be refused classification here for:
Gratuitous sexual violence: The alien tentacle anal penetrator from Saints Row 4, anal probe/depictions of rape as in South Park and so on.
Positive use of drugs: The alien drugs from Saints Row 4 (however ridiculous), calling drugs real world names and showing them having positive effects (State of Decay) with no negative side effects (this is how Fallout 3 gets away with it).
Hotline Miami got banned under the first one and it's very debatable circumstances.
All the blood and gore in the world will just get you slapped with an R18+ rating, it's those two things specifically that cause problems here.
Personally, I favor a very free and open marketplace of ideas, but that means more than just allowing for the legal side of things; it can also mean using my dollars and my words to support unusual, niche, or controversial titles.
.
This isn't meant as a gotcha question or anything, but are you planning on purchasing Hatred?
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Personally, I favor a very free and open marketplace of ideas, but that means more than just allowing for the legal side of things; it can also mean using my dollars and my words to support unusual, niche, or controversial titles.
.
This isn't meant as a gotcha question or anything, but are you planning on purchasing Hatred?
I'm not, because it looks super boring to me (plus, judging by the Greenlight figures, it probably doesn't need my help at this point). I do really like that Steam reinstated it, though, and I hope to encourage that behavior by choosing to buy games from them more often than I have in the past.
Why couldn't Australia ban Hotline Miami 2 due to the buckets of blood decorating every room you leave behind? I heard the Aussies got their Mature rating nailed down and can't simply refuse classification but are they not banning hyper violent games anymore?
Hyper violent games weren't generally the problem. The issue is drug use linked to positive in-game effects (such as Morphine in Fallout having a beneficial effect on the character), and sexual violence (such as the anal probe in South Park the Game).
Parties were held when we finally got the R18+ rating, but unfortunately, the reality is that all it's meant is some MA15+ games getting relabelled R18+, while other games are still getting refused classification.
All these "this-ain't-censorship" arguments thrown about in this thread feels like déjà vu.
Well, that's what happens when people keep calling things that aren't censorship censorship.
No I don't.
+10
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited January 2015
So I am still looking for actual verification from other sources at the moment, but it would seem from statements on Hatred developers forums that Hatred has managed to earn an AO rating from the ESRB, which may compromise its ability to get on steam. Steam has refused to carry AO rated games before, so it will be interesting to see what happens now.
So I am still looking for actual verification from other sources at the moment, but it would seem from statements on Hatred developers forums that Hatred has managed to earn an AO rating from the ESRB, which may compromise its ability to get on steam. Steam has refused to carry AO rated games before, so it will be interesting to see what happens now.
I'd bet they're claiming they got an AO as a way to cover their ass. But I doubt they submitted it to the ESRB. Lets face it, about the only thing that would earn that rating would be graphically depicted sex. Plus, it costs money to do it and if the argument has been they're such a small dev that not being on Steam would hurt them, why spend the money to get a rating that would prevent nearly every store from carrying it.
And sure, maybe they take the feedback from the ESRB to re-cut and re-submit for the M. But again, that costs money and indie devs simply don't bother with that.
So, yeah. I think it's a false claim. And really stupid. They're probably doing it in the same way porn claimed the XXX rating. (In short, X was real and XXX wasn't. However here, AO is real and the ESRB probably wouldn't like it much if somebody started using their IP to sell a game.)
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
edited January 2015
I can't open the links on my phone, but the process to getting rated is here: http://www.esrb.org/publishers/index_notloggedin.jsf
You can probably check the fees for initial rating and appealing such, see if it lines up with your supposition
Edit: Nevermind, I'm dumb. Requires login provided by esrb
This newly streamlined service will first be put into use for downloadabple games available from a number of computer and video game platforms including Xbox LIVE Arcade, PlayStation® Network, PlayStation® Vita, PlayStationTM Certified devices, Nintendo® eShop, Wii Shop ChannelTM and Windows 8,with other digital content aggregators, online game networks, streaming and download services to follow.
So, their supposed AO rating may be more plausible than previously thought.
I know it costs something for the rating. Either $1k or $10k, but I might be mixing up my fees and to whom they were supposed to be paid. Also, it was six or seven years ago. Still, why announce 'AO'? Nobody will want to sell it because of the baggage it brings. Even if the so-called age difference is 17 vs 18.
Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency.
If there would be no sex in the game, then just how much violence is there? Plenty of M games came out with gory dismemberment and even more are practically nothing but violence. Searching the ESRB itself only returns 'Hatred Calculator' and it's got an E for whatever it is.
Ok syphon pointed out to me this is a "fake" rape in a way and you can skip it, but I'm still a bit squicky on the whole thing. As a consumer of popular culture in america I'm not really comforable with how sexual violence is rearing its head up in all forms of media as some kind of go to shock factor.
"fake rape"? Does the camera pull back to showcase that his belt merely slipped, he tripped, and they're vigorously trying to get their footing back in a fashion that merely seems to be sexual violence?
I mean, I have no dog in this particular fight; I haven't played Hotline Miami 1 and probably won't be getting #2, as the former just isn't my kind of game.
But without context, I'm not sure how this is remotely congruous with the 'protagonist'... oh, wait, unless the protagonists are despicable people.
And yes I'm aware of the issues surrounding elevating sexual violence above other forms of violence. Simply seeking clarification here in this specific example.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Ok syphon pointed out to me this is a "fake" rape in a way and you can skip it, but I'm still a bit squicky on the whole thing. As a consumer of popular culture in america I'm not really comforable with how sexual violence is rearing its head up in all forms of media as some kind of go to shock factor.
"fake rape"? Does the camera pull back to showcase that his belt merely slipped, he tripped, and they're vigorously trying to get their footing back in a fashion that merely seems to be sexual violence?
I mean, I have no dog in this particular fight; I haven't played Hotline Miami 1 and probably won't be getting #2, as the former just isn't my kind of game.
But without context, I'm not sure how this is remotely congruous with the 'protagonist'... oh, wait, unless the protagonists are despicable people.
And yes I'm aware of the issues surrounding elevating sexual violence above other forms of violence. Simply seeking clarification here in this specific example.
Its a stage scene for like a movie or something according to syphon I believe. I dunno he played the game I did not.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So it's not actually part of the game? The protagonist killing 5 people before 'getting his rape on' is just part of a movie scene and then everyone gets up and heads to craft services?
I'd do more searching on my own, want to keep objectionable google searches down for the last few hours of the day.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
So it's not actually part of the game? The protagonist killing 5 people before 'getting his rape on' is just part of a movie scene and then everyone gets up and heads to craft services?
I'd do more searching on my own, want to keep objectionable google searches down for the last few hours of the day.
Looks like. It's like the tutorial in the game, and it's a movie set, and the director calls cut and sends everybody home at the end.
So it's not actually part of the game? The protagonist killing 5 people before 'getting his rape on' is just part of a movie scene and then everyone gets up and heads to craft services?
I'd do more searching on my own, want to keep objectionable google searches down for the last few hours of the day.
But yes, the first scene of the game is just a movie.
Also, as you address in your last post, the protagonist likely isn't a good person, but that's okay, because not all protagonists should be good people, and it is very harmful to art to suggest they ought to be.
The point of the movie is to give the main guy of the first game the Hollywood treatment and make him out to be a sociopathic serial killer instead of a slightly less sociopathic serial killer
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
More than 44 years of topless pictures of women in The Sun could be coming to an end.
.....
Sources at the newspaper told The Guardian that the feature has already been quietly dropped, potentially marking the end of a tradition which has been branded a sexist anachronism by campaigners.
I wonder what the sales trends for Sun's been over the last few months?
I know at least one venue refuses to sell it based on the contents of Page 3, maybe this was a growing trend?
But I cannot prove that you are right within the context of art any more (or less) definitively than somebody else can prove within the context of art that they are right not to like, say, curse words.
Nonsense. Art can be instructive, explanatory, and educational. Art exists within the context of our knowledge and culture. I can conclusively say racism is bad and wrong. I can conclusively say that art promoting racism is promoting something wrong. And unless they're pioneering some amazing artistic advance I'm fine saying that art is not worth supporting.
And somebody else can conclusively prove that, say, art promoting drug use is wrong.
Nah probably not. I would wager they could show certain drugs in certain contexts are wrong but that'd be about it. But hey if they're able to actually show that go ahead.
Not necessarily a redeeming quailty, but one I acknowledge can be important. I feel it's important there be space for the controversial. Even on a milder note, today's Halo is yesterday's Murder Simulator teaching our young to kill. Today's tasteful nudity is, in another time, a horrid breach of morality. Shutting th doors on all the stuff that offends or disturbs us, I think ultimately hurts us.
The rest of you have made interesting posts which I will try to get to after work. Particularly Dresden. Apologies to leave some hanging, I always forget how much time these threads take.
It can be is extremely different from "you understand why we must support controversial art." We should support controversial art if it's worthwhile, not just because it's controversial. Controversial means nothing without, once again, context.
I don't think so. Controversial content can be important, but is not necessarily important for that reason alone. It follows that we leave room for such content to exist, assuming that the net balance will be on the whole good for humanity. I feel this process is absolutely essential, it ensures that important content is not culled for failing to appease the majority or certain powerful minorities. And at the very least, it brings about public discourse which I also find to be of great value to our society
edit : plus, by definition controversial content means that there are people both for and against it.
There's always people for or against something. That's a meaningless statement.
In reference to art, it's not meaningless at all. If there is significant resistance on both sides of an argument about any given piece of art, it becomes more important that the art not be denied whatever platform it has obtained. Most importantly, because it affirms that art will not be censored or suppressed simply because a majority or set of minority gatekeepers deem it to be worthy of censure. Last but not least, because it recognizes the the sheer variety in human taste and understanding, allowing for people with tastes not entirely mainstream the freedom to find or establish niches.
I don't care if there's a significant number of people who want to see a woman raped.
Their taste is demonstrably hurtful and I would be more than happy if Steam decided not to sell the games they wanted. I would in fact consider Steam right for doing so.
You could say the same thing about people wanting to see humans killed or tortured, but hey, we've got plenty of those getting prime time advertisements as we speak. I'd be interested to see what justification you have for separating depictions of rape from depictions of graphic torture and death.
This is, I think, a personal or ideological thing for you. There's no leg to stand on beyond "I find this to be bad and therefore it should not be" and I shouldn't have to elaborate how ridiculously abusable that argument is.
Edit: I should note I blame no one for avoiding images or ideas they find distasteful, we all do this and it is our right. I only take issue here with individuals or groups who attempt to push these preferences onto others and control the things they see and experience.
You're trying to push your preference on to others right now by advocating what you want to see on Steam. You're doing the exact thing you're demanding others not do.
I'm also perfectly fine with Steam opting not to include graphic violence or death in the games they sold. It'd be pretty dumb to get hung up about it.
More than 44 years of topless pictures of women in The Sun could be coming to an end.
.....
Sources at the newspaper told The Guardian that the feature has already been quietly dropped, potentially marking the end of a tradition which has been branded a sexist anachronism by campaigners.
I wonder what the sales trends for Sun's been over the last few months?
I know at least one venue refuses to sell it based on the contents of Page 3, maybe this was a growing trend?
But yes, the first scene of the game is just a movie.
Ah. From the initial description, it sounded like the level was on a movie set (but 'real'), rather than being a movie, if you catch my drift.
Also, as you address in your last post, the protagonist likely isn't a good person, but that's okay, because not all protagonists should be good people, and it is very harmful to art to suggest they ought to be.
Luckily I never suggested such a thing, to make sure we're on the same page here.
But I have no interest in playing a character that commits sexual assault, so even with my lacking interest, that'd be flat veto territory for me. I'm glad to hear that's not actually the case.
I'm fine with dark themes, characters, and events in my entertainment, but that's not something I generally classify as 'entertainment'.
Then again, it's also part of why I didn't enjoy the movie Kids, but I wouldn't push to craft legislation that'd prevent such things from being made. That said, I'd be entirely happy with not giving them money, telling my friends/family not to bother seeing it, and not giving a shit if a local theater chose not to show it during a 20th Anniversary Special Edition Re-Release because of content they disagreed with, to bring it back full circle.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
That was by far one of the most pointless things I have ever actually read.
Edit: Let me TL:DR it for everyone.
Question: Did you make a violent game?
Answer: Yes.
Q: Did you really make a violent game?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you absolutely sure you made a violent game?
A:Yes
Q: JOURNALISM
More than 44 years of topless pictures of women in The Sun could be coming to an end.
.....
Sources at the newspaper told The Guardian that the feature has already been quietly dropped, potentially marking the end of a tradition which has been branded a sexist anachronism by campaigners.
I wonder what the sales trends for Sun's been over the last few months?
I know at least one venue refuses to sell it based on the contents of Page 3, maybe this was a growing trend?
The Sun caused me great confusion as a teenager. The early morning tedium of my paper route was enlivened by reading the serialised Asterix and Judge Dredd cartoons in the daily newspapers but also by sneak peeks at page 3, which triggered my (at that point unrecognised) interest in feminist issues. This of course clashed wonderfully with the dawning realisation that I was also gay and that page three was causing feelings that rather complicated my feminist outrage.
I'm summary, good riddance (though a hearty thanks from my 13 year old self)
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
In the UK, tabloids are still considered newspapers.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
In the UK, tabloids are still considered newspapers.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
They're not as bad as American tabloids, which would probably fall under the heading of a "gossip mag" like Hello or Take a Break.
Don't get me wrong, they're still terrible publications suitable only for lining a birdcage, but they pretend to have serious stories like how comedian Freddie Starr once ate a hamster or Elton John had sex with rent boys and removed the voice boxes of his dogs. You know, proper hard hitting journalism.
Getting rid of the tits on page 3 is a step in the right direction - now they should get rid of the tits writing the stories.
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
+3
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Good to know that everything in the world is fine and doesn't need reporting upon, otherwise The Sun (and their sister publication The Times who have been reporting on this non-story) could be considered scum-sucking shitbags for taking up time on this publicity stunt and getting people riled up about "censorship".
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
0
Options
WarcryI'm getting my shit pushed in here!AustraliaRegistered Userregular
Not that anyone cares, but I'm usually a big advocate of stupendous violence in video games. I'm also Australian. You might see the dilemma.
In my opinion, Hatred is pretty much worthless. It's dumb, in bad taste, and is clearly a shitty poke at the 'progressive' crowd. Hotline Miami , on the other hand, I find much more enticing. Why?
It's the gameplay. Hatred is basically about picking low-hanging fruit. It's bullying, in video-game form. You do unspeakable things to innocent, mostly defenseless people. You play as a complete and utter psychopath.
Hotline Miami also puts you in the shoes of a psychopath. But it gives you enemies that can one-shot kill you with a fucking baseball bat.
Everything is out to kill you, because in Hotline Miami, you are facing hitmen and mobsters. It's about prevailing in the face of totally overwhelming odds, and taking pleasure in your martial supremacy.
Hatred seems to have been built with the eternal fantasy of the frustrated and impotent male aggressor as its template. It doesn't even try to give you a challenge.
It's not about the perverse thrill of slamming into a crowd in GTA and laughing at the ridiculous physics engine as hookers explode in a cloud of flailing limbs.
Go out and shoot innocent people, not because you as the player decided to, but because you, as the character, feel wronged somehow by the world and decide to take petty revenge on people for your own failings. Literally walk up to the mum of three kids doing her shopping, and put the gun in her mouth in HD. That's not about enjoying violence. That's crossed the line into utterly malicious, irredeemable evil.
I'm going to be very interested in seeing what happens when the game is released, people shoot up schools and neighborhoods and people have the temerity to call the developers on their bullshit. Or that maybe, just maybe, they have a responsibility to society, just like everyone, not to encourage that sort of evil.
And they picked one hell of a political climate to do it in.
I honestly wonder how difficult it would be to mod GTA into feeling like Hatred. Making everything black and white and adding voice clips of people shrieking in mortal terror and pleading for their lives would just about do it, right?
I'm going to be very interested in seeing what happens when the game is released, people shoot up schools and neighborhoods and people have the temerity to call the developers on their bullshit..
You do realize that this is the exact same argument that Jack Thompson has used for like 20 years, trying to legislate the violent video game market, right? Spreading the myth that violent video games promotes real violence in teenagers? Even though the past 20 years has utterly busted this myth, as real world violence has fallen by half in that time frame.
Posts
That's actually what the R18+ rating explicitly allows, but what people failed to catch or realize is the small fine print on other things. For example you can be refused classification here for:
Gratuitous sexual violence: The alien tentacle anal penetrator from Saints Row 4, anal probe/depictions of rape as in South Park and so on.
Positive use of drugs: The alien drugs from Saints Row 4 (however ridiculous), calling drugs real world names and showing them having positive effects (State of Decay) with no negative side effects (this is how Fallout 3 gets away with it).
Hotline Miami got banned under the first one and it's very debatable circumstances.
All the blood and gore in the world will just get you slapped with an R18+ rating, it's those two things specifically that cause problems here.
This isn't meant as a gotcha question or anything, but are you planning on purchasing Hatred?
I'm not, because it looks super boring to me (plus, judging by the Greenlight figures, it probably doesn't need my help at this point). I do really like that Steam reinstated it, though, and I hope to encourage that behavior by choosing to buy games from them more often than I have in the past.
Parties were held when we finally got the R18+ rating, but unfortunately, the reality is that all it's meant is some MA15+ games getting relabelled R18+, while other games are still getting refused classification.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Well, that's what happens when people keep calling things that aren't censorship censorship.
I'd bet they're claiming they got an AO as a way to cover their ass. But I doubt they submitted it to the ESRB. Lets face it, about the only thing that would earn that rating would be graphically depicted sex. Plus, it costs money to do it and if the argument has been they're such a small dev that not being on Steam would hurt them, why spend the money to get a rating that would prevent nearly every store from carrying it.
And sure, maybe they take the feedback from the ESRB to re-cut and re-submit for the M. But again, that costs money and indie devs simply don't bother with that.
So, yeah. I think it's a false claim. And really stupid. They're probably doing it in the same way porn claimed the XXX rating. (In short, X was real and XXX wasn't. However here, AO is real and the ESRB probably wouldn't like it much if somebody started using their IP to sell a game.)
You can probably check the fees for initial rating and appealing such, see if it lines up with your supposition
Edit: Nevermind, I'm dumb. Requires login provided by esrb
Edit2: Huh. Actually looks like esrb started a no-cost ratings service for purely digital download games in late 2012.
So, their supposed AO rating may be more plausible than previously thought.
I know it costs something for the rating. Either $1k or $10k, but I might be mixing up my fees and to whom they were supposed to be paid. Also, it was six or seven years ago. Still, why announce 'AO'? Nobody will want to sell it because of the baggage it brings. Even if the so-called age difference is 17 vs 18.
If there would be no sex in the game, then just how much violence is there? Plenty of M games came out with gory dismemberment and even more are practically nothing but violence. Searching the ESRB itself only returns 'Hatred Calculator' and it's got an E for whatever it is.
I'm shrugging, then. Even if true, it's still a shitty bullet point.
vice.com/en_se/read/an-interview-with-the-makers-of-hatred
@Preacher @syphonblue
"fake rape"? Does the camera pull back to showcase that his belt merely slipped, he tripped, and they're vigorously trying to get their footing back in a fashion that merely seems to be sexual violence?
I mean, I have no dog in this particular fight; I haven't played Hotline Miami 1 and probably won't be getting #2, as the former just isn't my kind of game.
But without context, I'm not sure how this is remotely congruous with the 'protagonist'... oh, wait, unless the protagonists are despicable people.
And yes I'm aware of the issues surrounding elevating sexual violence above other forms of violence. Simply seeking clarification here in this specific example.
Its a stage scene for like a movie or something according to syphon I believe. I dunno he played the game I did not.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'd do more searching on my own, want to keep objectionable google searches down for the last few hours of the day.
Looks like. It's like the tutorial in the game, and it's a movie set, and the director calls cut and sends everybody home at the end.
See this link, that I posted a few pages back: http://www.devolverdigital.com/blog/view/hotline-miami-2-australian-classification
But yes, the first scene of the game is just a movie.
Also, as you address in your last post, the protagonist likely isn't a good person, but that's okay, because not all protagonists should be good people, and it is very harmful to art to suggest they ought to be.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I wonder what the sales trends for Sun's been over the last few months?
I know at least one venue refuses to sell it based on the contents of Page 3, maybe this was a growing trend?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Nah probably not. I would wager they could show certain drugs in certain contexts are wrong but that'd be about it. But hey if they're able to actually show that go ahead.
You're trying to push your preference on to others right now by advocating what you want to see on Steam. You're doing the exact thing you're demanding others not do.
I'm also perfectly fine with Steam opting not to include graphic violence or death in the games they sold. It'd be pretty dumb to get hung up about it.
So do these constant one line posts where you never actually justify anything you say.
It was inevitable.
Ah. From the initial description, it sounded like the level was on a movie set (but 'real'), rather than being a movie, if you catch my drift.
Luckily I never suggested such a thing, to make sure we're on the same page here.
But I have no interest in playing a character that commits sexual assault, so even with my lacking interest, that'd be flat veto territory for me. I'm glad to hear that's not actually the case.
I'm fine with dark themes, characters, and events in my entertainment, but that's not something I generally classify as 'entertainment'.
Then again, it's also part of why I didn't enjoy the movie Kids, but I wouldn't push to craft legislation that'd prevent such things from being made. That said, I'd be entirely happy with not giving them money, telling my friends/family not to bother seeing it, and not giving a shit if a local theater chose not to show it during a 20th Anniversary Special Edition Re-Release because of content they disagreed with, to bring it back full circle.
That was by far one of the most pointless things I have ever actually read.
Edit: Let me TL:DR it for everyone.
Question: Did you make a violent game?
Answer: Yes.
Q: Did you really make a violent game?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you absolutely sure you made a violent game?
A:Yes
Q: JOURNALISM
The Sun caused me great confusion as a teenager. The early morning tedium of my paper route was enlivened by reading the serialised Asterix and Judge Dredd cartoons in the daily newspapers but also by sneak peeks at page 3, which triggered my (at that point unrecognised) interest in feminist issues. This of course clashed wonderfully with the dawning realisation that I was also gay and that page three was causing feelings that rather complicated my feminist outrage.
I'm summary, good riddance (though a hearty thanks from my 13 year old self)
Violence is one thing.
Nudity is another.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
In the UK, tabloids are still considered newspapers.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
They're not as bad as American tabloids, which would probably fall under the heading of a "gossip mag" like Hello or Take a Break.
Don't get me wrong, they're still terrible publications suitable only for lining a birdcage, but they pretend to have serious stories like how comedian Freddie Starr once ate a hamster or Elton John had sex with rent boys and removed the voice boxes of his dogs. You know, proper hard hitting journalism.
Getting rid of the tits on page 3 is a step in the right direction - now they should get rid of the tits writing the stories.
Yeah they're more sensationalist, right-wing-ish, populist papers with lots of editorials and political gossip.
They're basically the print version of Fox News.
Oh, that cheeky paper! Such cards!
Good to know that everything in the world is fine and doesn't need reporting upon, otherwise The Sun (and their sister publication The Times who have been reporting on this non-story) could be considered scum-sucking shitbags for taking up time on this publicity stunt and getting people riled up about "censorship".
In my opinion, Hatred is pretty much worthless. It's dumb, in bad taste, and is clearly a shitty poke at the 'progressive' crowd. Hotline Miami , on the other hand, I find much more enticing. Why?
It's the gameplay. Hatred is basically about picking low-hanging fruit. It's bullying, in video-game form. You do unspeakable things to innocent, mostly defenseless people. You play as a complete and utter psychopath.
Hotline Miami also puts you in the shoes of a psychopath. But it gives you enemies that can one-shot kill you with a fucking baseball bat.
Everything is out to kill you, because in Hotline Miami, you are facing hitmen and mobsters. It's about prevailing in the face of totally overwhelming odds, and taking pleasure in your martial supremacy.
Hatred seems to have been built with the eternal fantasy of the frustrated and impotent male aggressor as its template. It doesn't even try to give you a challenge.
It's not about the perverse thrill of slamming into a crowd in GTA and laughing at the ridiculous physics engine as hookers explode in a cloud of flailing limbs.
Go out and shoot innocent people, not because you as the player decided to, but because you, as the character, feel wronged somehow by the world and decide to take petty revenge on people for your own failings. Literally walk up to the mum of three kids doing her shopping, and put the gun in her mouth in HD. That's not about enjoying violence. That's crossed the line into utterly malicious, irredeemable evil.
I'm going to be very interested in seeing what happens when the game is released, people shoot up schools and neighborhoods and people have the temerity to call the developers on their bullshit. Or that maybe, just maybe, they have a responsibility to society, just like everyone, not to encourage that sort of evil.
And they picked one hell of a political climate to do it in.