I think the main issue is that Hatred has nothing really to say. It's just sociopathic behavior trying to hide a very plain game via controversy. Even Hotline Miami 2 took heat for not really having much of a message admist the neon violence this time around.
Unless I missed a big twist (and I'm not about to gamble twenty bucks on that), it's killing innocents for the sake of killing innocents. So edgy.
I think the main issue is that Hatred has nothing really to say. It's just sociopathic behavior trying to hide a very plain game via controversy. Even Hotline Miami 2 took heat for not really having much of a message admist the neon violence this time around.
Unless I missed a big twist (and I'm not about to gamble twenty bucks on that), it's killing innocents for the sake of killing innocents. So edgy.
Exactly. Destructive Creations never wanted to send a message. As I posted earlier:
I think the "counter-culture" here (with Hatred) is trying to counter the culture of political correctness and moral objection. The developers themselves have said they see this big push for games to be "art" and "respected" and yadda-yadda that's been going on, they stated they just wanted to make a game that was just simple fun where you went around shooting people without a deeper message, inspired by postal.
It's not that they wanted to get a point across or wanted to be counter-culture per se, they just wanted to make the game they wanted to make, despite what they felt the current trends and gaming culture are and they knew this would piss a lot of people off thus generating controversy.
That disdain and sanctimoniousness that many critics and detractors have expressed are what have fueled its publicity and probably why we are even talking about it now.
I don't think the controversy was ever really over Hatred, but the fact that Valve let it back on their store.
Tasteless murder sims have been around forever. Remember the Columbine RPG? Hatred itself wasn't really news.
Yes, it seems many people were upset that Valve doesn't try to discriminate and prohibit content on some kind of moral grounds.
Yeah, I do remember that, but I don't think it was ever a commercial product? Was it sold? Pretty sure it was just a freeware game by whoever wanted to make it for fun. (a quick google searched just showed me that it is freeware, my bad)
I think Hatred being news in and of itself is questionable. The original trailer got over a million views in 1-2 days if I remember correctly and several gaming websites posted articles on it at that time before Valve had anything to do with it.
I completely agree there is nothing remarkable in the game itself other than the fact it is a genocide simulator and you don't see those every day.
Soul Sanctum on
0
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
When he says "punk" I think he means a reactionary or counterculture-esque thing.
That doesn't necessarily mean Hatred is as good or worthwhile as punk. They just have similar origins.
The thing that made me think he was referring specifically to the neo-nazi origins of the game was his saying "it may not be your kind of punk." I'll grant that he may not have been thinking of that specifically, but I still feel like Hatred is the opposite of counter-culture. I recognize "I'm going to do something outrageous because I know people won't like it" as punk, I just don't agree that unlimited violence is really in anyway a rejection of the culture, especially the gaming culture. I feel pretty definitively that you can't be "siding with the man", as it were, and still be considered counter-culture.
I think the "counter-culture" here (with Hatred) is trying to counter the culture of political correctness and moral objection. The developers themselves have said they see this big push for games to be "art" and "respected" and yadda-yadda that's been going on, they stated they just wanted to make a game that was just simple fun where you went around shooting people without a deeper message, inspired by postal.
Sadly, they made a game that isn't really that fun, except to people who specifically want that type of game.
I remember someone quoted me a statement some time ago to the effect that it's a fool who doesn't recognize the rebellion at the heart of every conservative. While I do believe that quote is true, I still can't accept "conservative punk" as a legitimate thing, since those two conceits seem opposites by nature. You can't be longing for the way things used to be, longing for "traditional gaming" and still present yourself as "punk" in any way. A traditionalist may think that the rebels (people fighting for equality and equal representation, ie the "politically correct" crowd) are actually somehow running the industry right now, but if that were remotely true there would be a much larger female and LGBT population in the games industry.
Like I said from the start, you can't be counter-culture while also making statements that represent "The Man" (ie the majority, the current cultural paradigm, whatever you want to call it).
I can't make any statements about "punk", because that's not a label I understand.
However, the current "cultural paradigm" in gaming is NOT to make games where you kill people for no reason, NOT to use themes people see as disturbing and antisocial, NOT to intentionally offend the larger of society.
A video game specifically about lynching black people would be "counter-culture" because it does not adhere to the current video game culture, which is for the most part a politically liberal climate.
I believe the misunderstand comes from your standard of political correctness being much different than others.
And I think the same about you, except my perspective is probably clearer as someone who actually has to face the actual climate towards (for example) women in the games industry and in the tech industry. You may think that black people clearly run everything because we can't make video games about lynching them anymore (lols), but then you have a blatant example like Ferguson where it's pretty clear that even though it's a majority black community, they still have little to no power there (most of their governance is white). I don't agree that a "lynch the black people" video game would be "counter-culture", because we have so many recent examples of cops taking black lives over nothing, and being excused by the majority as just doing their job.
I feel you are confusing terrible tragedies that actually happen in real life..... with the current status quo in the video game industry.
If you actually believe that society and, thus the games industry, is racist enough that a game where you do nothing but form a lynch mob and murder only black people.... would be endorsed and not seen as reprehensible and counter to the larger culture.... then well. I guess I have nothing more to say.
This is, apparently, acceptable in the games industry of today:
?
The guy in purple is the bad guy, you play as the guy on his knees. What is the problem with it? I thought it does a good job showing off how vile this guy is. :I
I love how Hatred has exposed the hypocrisy in gamers.
The day before, they're maiming people in GTA and crying over Jack Thompson's bullshit.
The day after the want Hatred banned.
So cute!
I don't think the controversy was ever really over Hatred, but the fact that Valve let it back on their store.
Tasteless murder sims have been around forever. Remember the Columbine RPG? Hatred itself wasn't really news.
Yes, it seems many people were upset that Valve doesn't try to discriminate and prohibit content on some kind of moral grounds.
Do you think Valve doesn't do this on a regular basis? Or are you under the delusion that Steam isn't a gated distribution service?
"Discriminate." Hahaha.
I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that games are not allowed on Greenlight based on their themes. (unless of course they are pornographic or violate US law)
If you have any articles or links which show this, I would love to see them.
Discriminate
verb
1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality
3. to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate
If Valve had not allowed Hatred on their service merely on the grounds they found it offensive that would, by definition, be discrimination.
Soul Sanctum on
0
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
'gamers' huh
I don't think anyone here wants Hatred banned? Disregarded, more like.
And there is a difference; GTA is a multifaceted game with controversial set dressing. Hatred is exactly what it looks like on the surface. One has more merit than the other. ;P
I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that games are not allowed on Greenlight based on their themes. (unless of course they are pornographic or violate US law)
Wait, why no pornographic? You have an example RIGHT there of Valve banning games from their store on moral grounds. That's dictionary discrimination right there.
If you have any articles or links which show this, I would love to see them.
Dude, it's called Greenlight. Countless games never make it on Steam because they don't pass certain requirements, be it quality, blatant IP theft, or poor taste. Yes, people vote in the games, but Valve has the final say. You don't see games putting racism or such in a positive light on Steam (or most store shelves) because people find it morally repugnant.
Also uh, surely under that definition of discrimination Valve saying no to Hatred wouldn't be it?
Considering it would be on Hatred's own merits (or lack there of) as opposed to a blanket 'no violent games' ban or whatever. Steam has plenty of violent games.
I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that games are not allowed on Greenlight based on their themes. (unless of course they are pornographic or violate US law)
Wait, why no pornographic? You have an example RIGHT there of Valve banning games from their store on moral grounds. That's dictionary discrimination right there.
I would have to chalk that up to the puritanical nature of the USA in general and how from a business standpoint, pornography is usually a lot more complicated and dangerous.
I agree, I feel they should allow adult games on the system, however Valve probably doesn't want to deal with the possible loss in sales they might incur from minors or those who do not approve of such material being abundant on their services.
Sadly sexual material is whole other can of worms in the USA.
If you have any articles or links which show this, I would love to see them.
Dude, it's called Greenlight. Countless games never make it on Steam because they don't pass certain requirements, be it quality, blatant IP theft, or poor taste. Yes, people vote in the games, but Valve has the final say. You don't see games putting racism or such in a positive light on Steam (or most store shelves) because people find it morally repugnant.
I would hardly call that a "gated distribution service" more like a monitored distribution service to protect from abuse, lawsuits, government involvement, etc. That's like saying Facebook is a "gated" social network, despite the fact that anyone can join it, just because Facebook doesn't allow blatant porn, scams, hate groups, harassment, etc
I still have yet to find any articles where a game was removed from Greenlight for anything other than obvious reasons. Any game can be Greenlit if it won't land Valve in some kind of trouble.
However saying: "We don't want your violent game." when you're sitting on a mountain of violent games is the height of hypocrisy.
Also uh, surely under that definition of discrimination Valve saying no to Hatred wouldn't be it?
Considering it would be on Hatred's own merits (or lack there of) as opposed to a blanket 'no violent games' ban or whatever. Steam has plenty of violent games.
"3. to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate"
They would be differentiating and singling Hatred out from all the other violent games where you kill innocent people.
No it really isn't. You're just seeing violence and not looking at how violence is presented and handled. Violence in Saving Private Ryan is different than violence in Hot Shots: Part Deux. How violence is handled, via the narrative and (in games) mechanics, send their own messages.
In Team Fortress 2, it's violence against two groups of violent mercenaries handled in a cartoony manner where there's no real consequence since people just respawn. In Fire Emblem it's much more serious despite being much more sanitary: dead characters don't come back. Violence here has consequences.
Hatred is just a spree shooter that I guess is kinda nihilistic in that it really has no message besides to shoot people. While I'm sure police or whatever try to stop you, they're just a natural enemy instead of GTA where they're an avoidable threat and Payday where shooting innocents can bring more heat on you.
Stop seeing it as just "violence" and think a bit more critically about the media you consume.
No it really isn't. You're just seeing violence and not looking at how violence is presented and handled. Violence in Saving Private Ryan is different than violence in Hot Shots: Part Deux. How violence is handled, via the narrative and (in games) mechanics, send their own messages.
In Team Fortress 2, it's violence against two groups of violent mercenaries handled in a cartoony manner where there's no real consequence since people just respawn. In Fire Emblem it's much more serious despite being much more sanitary: dead characters don't come back. Violence here has consequences.
Hatred is just a spree shooter that I guess is kinda nihilistic in that it really has no message besides to shoot people. While I'm sure police or whatever try to stop you, they're just a natural enemy instead of GTA where they're an avoidable threat and Payday where shooting innocents can bring more heat on you.
Stop seeing it as just "violence" and think a bit more critically about the media you consume.
I think critically about a great many things, thank you. Even if I didn't I don't see how that would be any business of yours.
Yes, I agree, presentation and context are important. However I see many games and series already on Steam like Postal, L4D, Hotline Miami, Kane and Lynch, The Darkness, Saints Row, Carmageddon, Killing Floor, etc that are already super violent and "immoral". Framing the violence as "ohh they're just zombies/mobsters/nazis" to me, is a small justification.
Violence fetishism is something inherent in western culture in my opinion and all the attempts to differentiate it, to me, are delusional and somewhat hypocritical in many instances.
Hatred looks like the gaming equivalent of someone dressing in black, wearing upside-down pentagrams and blasting slayer albums at 3am in the morning. Someone compared it to Metalocalypse and I think while it's sort of similar the difference is Brendan Small was parodying metalheads dumb enough to think that sort of look makes them edgy. Hatred's devs actually think they're being rebellious but the only reaction their kind of packaged rebellion is worth is an 'Oh, you'.
Destructive Creations are very tongue-in-cheek and don't take themselves seriously judging from their Facebook and Twitter pages.
They've been very cordial, good humored, and irreverent towards themselves about the game and accusations.
So I feel it very much is like Metalocalypse in that Brendan Small loves Death and Heavy Metal, is a musician himself and parodies the whole subculture not out of disdain or to be satirical, but out of admiration and love for it.
While its somewhat refreshing to hear that the developer of Hatred actually approaches aspects of their game and how it is perceived with a sense of humor,* I feel like genuine comparisons that one would draw between it and Metalocalypse end there. The game itself seems pretty humorless and transparent in what its about from everything I've seen. If anything it has less pretensions about itself than the "torture porn" genre of movies, which in a way is sort of admirable in that it gets right to the point and doesn't pretend like its anything more than what it sets out to be. There are people who from a distance might conflate Hatred and Grand Theft Auto as senseless killing spree simulators, in the same way that from a distance one might conflate Hostile and The Devils Rejects as being one in the same, but the differences and intents of these various pieces of media become clear to anyone willing to examine any of them beyond a cursory glance.
If I were to compare Metalocalypse to a video game franchise I would say its more similar to something like Mortal Kombat. Both approach violence in a comically over-the-top way and are self aware yet have ridiculously nuanced and serious mythologies to them that are intent on worldbuilding (far beyond what either one calls for as a fighting game and as a cartoon). The amount of blatantly fun and silly bullshit in the Krypt (Kan-O's, Cooking With Scorpion) is similar to the DVD extras for a season of Metalocalypse (extended versions of Nathan Explosion reading Shakespear for a celebrity Book On Tape and outtakes of Skwisgarr's scene in the Thunderhorse video). Its also easy to see that Ed Boon's passion for fighting games is as legitimate as Brendan Small's passion for death metal. The way both have taken some heat from a subset of their fanbases by playing against expectations in one way or another is also interesting/humorous. Early on there were some fans of Mortal Kombat who strictly wanted the serious fighting game element and rolled their eyes at the inclusion of things like "Babalities." On the opposite spectrum, recently Dethklok has received some flack from fans who are strictly there for the Spinal Tap element and criticized The Dethalbum III for being much more serious in nature.
And as an aside, do you mean that Brendan Small loves this Death? I wouldn't be surprised if that were actually the case being the genuine fan of metal that he is (Death is pretty good too, although certainly harder to approach than Dethklok itself to more casual metal fans). He affectionately referred to Mastodon who he toured with as his "Mastapals" on Comedy Bang Bang, which I found quite amusing.
* I wonder how much of that is legitimate and how much of it is a sort of defense mechanism and way of downplaying things for the public though. They really only have a couple options in terms of how to approach things from a public relations perspective and they are surely smart enough to know that the other approach they could take wouldn't do them any favors.
After jumping on the SJW bandwagon and femsplaining that all rape depictions are always problematic, TheMarySue got a bunch of their "reporters" together to circlejerk(fist?) about how they're all morally superior and that there will be consequences.
Clickbait is clickbait and ad revenue is ad revenue. Dollars to donuts they will be reporting on the next game of thrones rape, regardless. Even though they are forthrightly admitting that all of their criticisms of the show up until now have acted as promotional material.
In other words, assuming that gawker and themarysue can be considered roughly equivalent in the quality of their "reporters", we have to assume that they have full knowledge that they are effectively promoting Hatred for free.
I mean, just how much hypocrisy can a readership take? Bandwagoning social justice warrior media has a memory like a goldfish, sure. I wouldn't hold my breath that they know what the problem is, even if their readership *eventually* gets the memo...
But can someone please describe to me the mental gymnastics that are involved in not painting anyone who swallows this wholesale as... well, using the word "retarded" would be an insult to the mentally handicapped. Even *they* can understand when they're being made fun of sometimes.
We're not turning this thread into some ridiculous sjw/anti sjw clusterfuck. Go somewhere else if you want to do that.
+5
MichaelLCIn what furnace was thy brain?ChicagoRegistered Userregular
I've heard of Hated once prior to this week and had no idea there's been any coverage on it.
Considering I'm typing this from Panda Express, at least I made one good decision this week.
I think the main issue is that Hatred has nothing really to say. It's just sociopathic behavior trying to hide a very plain game via controversy. Even Hotline Miami 2 took heat for not really having much of a message admist the neon violence this time around.
Unless I missed a big twist (and I'm not about to gamble twenty bucks on that), it's killing innocents for the sake of killing innocents. So edgy.
It's about the password to the nuclear power plant being 666.
I think the main issue is that Hatred has nothing really to say. It's just sociopathic behavior trying to hide a very plain game via controversy. Even Hotline Miami 2 took heat for not really having much of a message admist the neon violence this time around.
Unless I missed a big twist (and I'm not about to gamble twenty bucks on that), it's killing innocents for the sake of killing innocents. So edgy.
It's about the password to the nuclear power plant being 666.
I remember someone quoted me a statement some time ago to the effect that it's a fool who doesn't recognize the rebellion at the heart of every conservative. While I do believe that quote is true, I still can't accept "conservative punk" as a legitimate thing, since those two conceits seem opposites by nature. You can't be longing for the way things used to be, longing for "traditional gaming" and still present yourself as "punk" in any way. A traditionalist may think that the rebels (people fighting for equality and equal representation, ie the "politically correct" crowd) are actually somehow running the industry right now, but if that were remotely true there would be a much larger female and LGBT population in the games industry.
Like I said from the start, you can't be counter-culture while also making statements that represent "The Man" (ie the majority, the current cultural paradigm, whatever you want to call it).
It's been my experience that most people think that the system is against them. Everyone loves an underdog, and everyone wants to be one. In reality it really depends on what cultural sphere you are in. As someone who most would label a conservative, essentially every gaming thread or article I read uses "conservative" and "liberal" as substitutes for "evil" and "good". In this very thread were insinuations that violence and misogyny are trademark elements of conservatism (which is pretty hurtful to me, as a conservative who, like almost every other person on the planet, does not consider myself as being for violence or against women). In that sense I would say that in the gaming sphere, "The Man" would be liberalism. But that's not to say that conservatives are oppressed or discriminated, and I know that in many parts of the world, obviously including the US, when the people in these gaming threads walk down the street, they are outnumbered by and even oppressed by people labeling themselves as conservative. In the age of internet echo chambers and how small our world is, I would say it's entirely possible for someone to be both counter-culture and "the man". In recent gaming kerfuffles, it certainly seems to me like both sides think they are the underdog.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I remember someone quoted me a statement some time ago to the effect that it's a fool who doesn't recognize the rebellion at the heart of every conservative. While I do believe that quote is true, I still can't accept "conservative punk" as a legitimate thing, since those two conceits seem opposites by nature. You can't be longing for the way things used to be, longing for "traditional gaming" and still present yourself as "punk" in any way. A traditionalist may think that the rebels (people fighting for equality and equal representation, ie the "politically correct" crowd) are actually somehow running the industry right now, but if that were remotely true there would be a much larger female and LGBT population in the games industry.
Like I said from the start, you can't be counter-culture while also making statements that represent "The Man" (ie the majority, the current cultural paradigm, whatever you want to call it).
It's been my experience that most people think that the system is against them. Everyone loves an underdog, and everyone wants to be one. In reality it really depends on what cultural sphere you are in. As someone who most would label a conservative, essentially every gaming thread or article I read uses "conservative" and "liberal" as substitutes for "evil" and "good". In this very thread were insinuations that violence and misogyny are trademark elements of conservatism (which is pretty hurtful to me, as a conservative who, like almost every other person on the planet, does not consider myself as being for violence or against women). In that sense I would say that in the gaming sphere, "The Man" would be liberalism. But that's not to say that conservatives are oppressed or discriminated, and I know that in many parts of the world, obviously including the US, when the people in these gaming threads walk down the street, they are outnumbered by and even oppressed by people labeling themselves as conservative. In the age of internet echo chambers and how small our world is, I would say it's entirely possible for someone to be both counter-culture and "the man". In recent gaming kerfuffles, it certainly seems to me like both sides think they are the underdog.
My use of "conservative" in the sense of this conversation is just in terms of the way I described it in the post you are quoting - the conservative element is the element that likes the way gaming used to be, the way gaming still is to a large degree, conservative in the sense of "Let's not move in that other direction, because I liked the direction we were moving in before." Traditionalist. I know it feels odd to a lot of people to think of gaming as having a traditionalist movement, and that to be in line with that specific type of traditionalism you would go towards more sex, more violence, more misogyny as the base point. Especially if you've been in gaming as long as I have, and used to play games in a much more primitive form where violence didn't even come into play - ie that certain people's traditionalism is, maybe, "90s gaming" or "2000s gaming", when gaming has been around so much longer than that.
People who think that progressivism is somehow the dominant thought in gaming are people who have very little tolerance for any change at all. 5% more talk about progressive ideas feels like "everyone is talking about it.", because you're used to 0% talk about that kind of thing. This is the kind of thought process that has been infinitely studied, by the way. For example, it's been found that most movie crowd scenes are majority male, something like 3 men to every 1 woman. And the underlying reason for that is that people perceive a room with 30% women and 70% men to be equal amounts of both genders; a room with 50% men and 50% women is perceived to have more women in it than men. All of our perceptions are skewed in this way, and thus make the white dudes of the world feel like if they aren't getting more than 70% of everything, then they are somehow getting less than what they deserve. Thus the sense of victimhood coming from majority, feeling like they're rebels for "taking back" their rightful 70%.
When he says "punk" I think he means a reactionary or counterculture-esque thing.
That doesn't necessarily mean Hatred is as good or worthwhile as punk. They just have similar origins.
The thing that made me think he was referring specifically to the neo-nazi origins of the game was his saying "it may not be your kind of punk." I'll grant that he may not have been thinking of that specifically, but I still feel like Hatred is the opposite of counter-culture. I recognize "I'm going to do something outrageous because I know people won't like it" as punk, I just don't agree that unlimited violence is really in anyway a rejection of the culture, especially the gaming culture. I feel pretty definitively that you can't be "siding with the man", as it were, and still be considered counter-culture.
I think the "counter-culture" here (with Hatred) is trying to counter the culture of political correctness and moral objection. The developers themselves have said they see this big push for games to be "art" and "respected" and yadda-yadda that's been going on, they stated they just wanted to make a game that was just simple fun where you went around shooting people without a deeper message, inspired by postal.
Sadly, they made a game that isn't really that fun, except to people who specifically want that type of game.
I remember someone quoted me a statement some time ago to the effect that it's a fool who doesn't recognize the rebellion at the heart of every conservative. While I do believe that quote is true, I still can't accept "conservative punk" as a legitimate thing, since those two conceits seem opposites by nature. You can't be longing for the way things used to be, longing for "traditional gaming" and still present yourself as "punk" in any way. A traditionalist may think that the rebels (people fighting for equality and equal representation, ie the "politically correct" crowd) are actually somehow running the industry right now, but if that were remotely true there would be a much larger female and LGBT population in the games industry.
Like I said from the start, you can't be counter-culture while also making statements that represent "The Man" (ie the majority, the current cultural paradigm, whatever you want to call it).
I can't make any statements about "punk", because that's not a label I understand.
However, the current "cultural paradigm" in gaming is NOT to make games where you kill people for no reason, NOT to use themes people see as disturbing and antisocial, NOT to intentionally offend the larger of society.
A video game specifically about lynching black people would be "counter-culture" because it does not adhere to the current video game culture, which is for the most part a politically liberal climate.
I believe the misunderstand comes from your standard of political correctness being much different than others.
And I think the same about you, except my perspective is probably clearer as someone who actually has to face the actual climate towards (for example) women in the games industry and in the tech industry. You may think that black people clearly run everything because we can't make video games about lynching them anymore (lols), but then you have a blatant example like Ferguson where it's pretty clear that even though it's a majority black community, they still have little to no power there (most of their governance is white). I don't agree that a "lynch the black people" video game would be "counter-culture", because we have so many recent examples of cops taking black lives over nothing, and being excused by the majority as just doing their job.
I feel you are confusing terrible tragedies that actually happen in real life..... with the current status quo in the video game industry.
If you actually believe that society and, thus the games industry, is racist enough that a game where you do nothing but form a lynch mob and murder only black people.... would be endorsed and not seen as reprehensible and counter to the larger culture.... then well. I guess I have nothing more to say.
This is, apparently, acceptable in the games industry of today:
?
The guy in purple is the bad guy, you play as the guy on his knees. What is the problem with it? I thought it does a good job showing off how vile this guy is. :I
I remember people complaining about the rude things random mooks call Catwoman in Arkham City right before you kick their heads in.
Villains acting like villains is totes problematic, yo.
On the one paw I'm all for people being able to create games like this because freedom of expression is important. On the other I wish I were smart enough to know how to create a game that would make people love and care about themselves and each other a lot more. That and still have it be as fun to play as games like GTA or Team Fortress 2.
I remember someone quoted me a statement some time ago to the effect that it's a fool who doesn't recognize the rebellion at the heart of every conservative. While I do believe that quote is true, I still can't accept "conservative punk" as a legitimate thing, since those two conceits seem opposites by nature. You can't be longing for the way things used to be, longing for "traditional gaming" and still present yourself as "punk" in any way. A traditionalist may think that the rebels (people fighting for equality and equal representation, ie the "politically correct" crowd) are actually somehow running the industry right now, but if that were remotely true there would be a much larger female and LGBT population in the games industry.
Like I said from the start, you can't be counter-culture while also making statements that represent "The Man" (ie the majority, the current cultural paradigm, whatever you want to call it).
It's been my experience that most people think that the system is against them. Everyone loves an underdog, and everyone wants to be one. In reality it really depends on what cultural sphere you are in. As someone who most would label a conservative, essentially every gaming thread or article I read uses "conservative" and "liberal" as substitutes for "evil" and "good". In this very thread were insinuations that violence and misogyny are trademark elements of conservatism (which is pretty hurtful to me, as a conservative who, like almost every other person on the planet, does not consider myself as being for violence or against women). In that sense I would say that in the gaming sphere, "The Man" would be liberalism. But that's not to say that conservatives are oppressed or discriminated, and I know that in many parts of the world, obviously including the US, when the people in these gaming threads walk down the street, they are outnumbered by and even oppressed by people labeling themselves as conservative. In the age of internet echo chambers and how small our world is, I would say it's entirely possible for someone to be both counter-culture and "the man". In recent gaming kerfuffles, it certainly seems to me like both sides think they are the underdog.
My use of "conservative" in the sense of this conversation is just in terms of the way I described it in the post you are quoting - the conservative element is the element that likes the way gaming used to be, the way gaming still is to a large degree, conservative in the sense of "Let's not move in that other direction, because I liked the direction we were moving in before." Traditionalist. I know it feels odd to a lot of people to think of gaming as having a traditionalist movement, and that to be in line with that specific type of traditionalism you would go towards more sex, more violence, more misogyny as the base point. Especially if you've been in gaming as long as I have, and used to play games in a much more primitive form where violence didn't even come into play - ie that certain people's traditionalism is, maybe, "90s gaming" or "2000s gaming", when gaming has been around so much longer than that.
People who think that progressivism is somehow the dominant thought in gaming are people who have very little tolerance for any change at all. 5% more talk about progressive ideas feels like "everyone is talking about it.", because you're used to 0% talk about that kind of thing. This is the kind of thought process that has been infinitely studied, by the way. For example, it's been found that most movie crowd scenes are majority male, something like 3 men to every 1 woman. And the underlying reason for that is that people perceive a room with 30% women and 70% men to be equal amounts of both genders; a room with 50% men and 50% women is perceived to have more women in it than men. All of our perceptions are skewed in this way, and thus make the white dudes of the world feel like if they aren't getting more than 70% of everything, then they are somehow getting less than what they deserve. Thus the sense of victimhood coming from majority, feeling like they're rebels for "taking back" their rightful 70%.
Gotcha. I was thinking of liberal and conservative in the political sense rather than progressive vs. non-progressive. I definitely agree with you that progressivism is far from being dominant in gaming, and I'm all for more of that.
I thought all their remarks were perfectly in line with what a bunch of criminals would say to a woman aggressor who from their perspective wears a costume that they would probably describe as fetish gear. We're talking about things said from the lowest of the low in Gotham. Its not like Catwoman is a victim here either given that what follows after these remarks is you promptly beating the everliving hell out of them (assuming you are adept at the combat, of course). The things said were appropriately distasteful but I don't recall ever thinking that they had gone too far given how much worse the comments could have been (and its good that they didn't go there).
And speaking of worse, to get things back to Hatred, I was skimming through the Quick Look comments and apparently this is a line of dialog gruffly spoken by the "protagonist" in the game: "Birds of a feather die together." Again, a line of dialog that made it through to the final product is birds of a feather die together. This damn game apparently doesn't even take itself seriously. :P
I think i've been gradually losing my patience with the misogyny, homophobic, and transphobic shit in the games industry for so long, I just don't find any of the usual excuses by the priveledged even worth listening to. To me all of it ends up in the sea of white-noise horseshit that makes up the background of Queer lives.
From what I've seen, it takes itself very seriously. It just has a horrible, self-serious script that was written by morons.
Video Games™ in a nutshell.
In the majority of cases, I would have to agree.
You're probably right in saying the majority are poorly written. But of course, if you ask the internet, everything is poorly written. Whether it's a discussion of movies, games, or books, there's bound to be at least one person who wasn't fond of it, and since they tend to deliver that opinion as fact (Well, sure, Mass Effect/Lord of the Rings/ Wheel of Time has a emotionally moving story...if you're into childish nonsense I guess...) it sort of discourages people from actually saying they like stuff. Cynicism tends to be better received.
None of that applies here, though, because Hatred's dialogue, at least in the trailer, is really, really bad.
I think i've been gradually losing my patience with the misogyny, homophobic, and transphobic shit in the games industry for so long, I just don't find any of the usual excuses by the priveledged even worth listening to. To me all of it ends up in the sea of white-noise horseshit that makes up the background of Queer lives.
That's cool 'n all, but I don't know what any of those things have to do with Hatred.
I think i've been gradually losing my patience with the misogyny, homophobic, and transphobic shit in the games industry for so long, I just don't find any of the usual excuses by the priveledged even worth listening to. To me all of it ends up in the sea of white-noise horseshit that makes up the background of Queer lives.
That's cool 'n all, but I don't know what any of those things have to do with Hatred.
I guess my point is that the same people who defend games that glorify violence against minorities, are the type that tend to look away when shit happens to minorities in real life. It is no coincidence that the main character of hatred is a White, Cis-gendered straight dude. Don't try to write this off that I don't know these things for sure, the game was made by Neo-Nazi supporters and they have openly stated the game is a response to the recent push of inclusiveness in the games industry. The main character is a perfect little slot for every nerd who has wanted to "show those feminists what's up" or " deal with those sensitive minorites", to fit himself in. This game is the perfect example of the boys club nerds have made the industry into. It has every fucking thing to do with Hatred.
Posts
Unless I missed a big twist (and I'm not about to gamble twenty bucks on that), it's killing innocents for the sake of killing innocents. So edgy.
Exactly. Destructive Creations never wanted to send a message. As I posted earlier:
It's not that they wanted to get a point across or wanted to be counter-culture per se, they just wanted to make the game they wanted to make, despite what they felt the current trends and gaming culture are and they knew this would piss a lot of people off thus generating controversy.
That disdain and sanctimoniousness that many critics and detractors have expressed are what have fueled its publicity and probably why we are even talking about it now.
Tasteless murder sims have been around forever. Remember the Columbine RPG? Hatred itself wasn't really news.
Yes, it seems many people were upset that Valve doesn't try to discriminate and prohibit content on some kind of moral grounds.
Yeah, I do remember that, but I don't think it was ever a commercial product? Was it sold? Pretty sure it was just a freeware game by whoever wanted to make it for fun. (a quick google searched just showed me that it is freeware, my bad)
I think Hatred being news in and of itself is questionable. The original trailer got over a million views in 1-2 days if I remember correctly and several gaming websites posted articles on it at that time before Valve had anything to do with it.
I completely agree there is nothing remarkable in the game itself other than the fact it is a genocide simulator and you don't see those every day.
?
The guy in purple is the bad guy, you play as the guy on his knees. What is the problem with it? I thought it does a good job showing off how vile this guy is. :I
"Discriminate." Hahaha.
The day before, they're maiming people in GTA and crying over Jack Thompson's bullshit.
The day after the want Hatred banned.
So cute!
I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that games are not allowed on Greenlight based on their themes. (unless of course they are pornographic or violate US law)
If you have any articles or links which show this, I would love to see them.
Discriminate
verb
1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality
3. to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discriminate
If Valve had not allowed Hatred on their service merely on the grounds they found it offensive that would, by definition, be discrimination.
I don't think anyone here wants Hatred banned? Disregarded, more like.
And there is a difference; GTA is a multifaceted game with controversial set dressing. Hatred is exactly what it looks like on the surface. One has more merit than the other. ;P
Dude, it's called Greenlight. Countless games never make it on Steam because they don't pass certain requirements, be it quality, blatant IP theft, or poor taste. Yes, people vote in the games, but Valve has the final say. You don't see games putting racism or such in a positive light on Steam (or most store shelves) because people find it morally repugnant.
Considering it would be on Hatred's own merits (or lack there of) as opposed to a blanket 'no violent games' ban or whatever. Steam has plenty of violent games.
I would have to chalk that up to the puritanical nature of the USA in general and how from a business standpoint, pornography is usually a lot more complicated and dangerous.
I agree, I feel they should allow adult games on the system, however Valve probably doesn't want to deal with the possible loss in sales they might incur from minors or those who do not approve of such material being abundant on their services.
Sadly sexual material is whole other can of worms in the USA.
I would hardly call that a "gated distribution service" more like a monitored distribution service to protect from abuse, lawsuits, government involvement, etc. That's like saying Facebook is a "gated" social network, despite the fact that anyone can join it, just because Facebook doesn't allow blatant porn, scams, hate groups, harassment, etc
I still have yet to find any articles where a game was removed from Greenlight for anything other than obvious reasons. Any game can be Greenlit if it won't land Valve in some kind of trouble.
However saying: "We don't want your violent game." when you're sitting on a mountain of violent games is the height of hypocrisy.
"3. to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate"
They would be differentiating and singling Hatred out from all the other violent games where you kill innocent people.
In Team Fortress 2, it's violence against two groups of violent mercenaries handled in a cartoony manner where there's no real consequence since people just respawn. In Fire Emblem it's much more serious despite being much more sanitary: dead characters don't come back. Violence here has consequences.
Hatred is just a spree shooter that I guess is kinda nihilistic in that it really has no message besides to shoot people. While I'm sure police or whatever try to stop you, they're just a natural enemy instead of GTA where they're an avoidable threat and Payday where shooting innocents can bring more heat on you.
Stop seeing it as just "violence" and think a bit more critically about the media you consume.
I think critically about a great many things, thank you. Even if I didn't I don't see how that would be any business of yours.
Yes, I agree, presentation and context are important. However I see many games and series already on Steam like Postal, L4D, Hotline Miami, Kane and Lynch, The Darkness, Saints Row, Carmageddon, Killing Floor, etc that are already super violent and "immoral". Framing the violence as "ohh they're just zombies/mobsters/nazis" to me, is a small justification.
Violence fetishism is something inherent in western culture in my opinion and all the attempts to differentiate it, to me, are delusional and somewhat hypocritical in many instances.
Difference of opinion.
But yeah I agree it's a difference of opinion and we're not going to get much further from here.
While its somewhat refreshing to hear that the developer of Hatred actually approaches aspects of their game and how it is perceived with a sense of humor,* I feel like genuine comparisons that one would draw between it and Metalocalypse end there. The game itself seems pretty humorless and transparent in what its about from everything I've seen. If anything it has less pretensions about itself than the "torture porn" genre of movies, which in a way is sort of admirable in that it gets right to the point and doesn't pretend like its anything more than what it sets out to be. There are people who from a distance might conflate Hatred and Grand Theft Auto as senseless killing spree simulators, in the same way that from a distance one might conflate Hostile and The Devils Rejects as being one in the same, but the differences and intents of these various pieces of media become clear to anyone willing to examine any of them beyond a cursory glance.
If I were to compare Metalocalypse to a video game franchise I would say its more similar to something like Mortal Kombat. Both approach violence in a comically over-the-top way and are self aware yet have ridiculously nuanced and serious mythologies to them that are intent on worldbuilding (far beyond what either one calls for as a fighting game and as a cartoon). The amount of blatantly fun and silly bullshit in the Krypt (Kan-O's, Cooking With Scorpion) is similar to the DVD extras for a season of Metalocalypse (extended versions of Nathan Explosion reading Shakespear for a celebrity Book On Tape and outtakes of Skwisgarr's scene in the Thunderhorse video). Its also easy to see that Ed Boon's passion for fighting games is as legitimate as Brendan Small's passion for death metal. The way both have taken some heat from a subset of their fanbases by playing against expectations in one way or another is also interesting/humorous. Early on there were some fans of Mortal Kombat who strictly wanted the serious fighting game element and rolled their eyes at the inclusion of things like "Babalities." On the opposite spectrum, recently Dethklok has received some flack from fans who are strictly there for the Spinal Tap element and criticized The Dethalbum III for being much more serious in nature.
And as an aside, do you mean that Brendan Small loves this Death? I wouldn't be surprised if that were actually the case being the genuine fan of metal that he is (Death is pretty good too, although certainly harder to approach than Dethklok itself to more casual metal fans). He affectionately referred to Mastodon who he toured with as his "Mastapals" on Comedy Bang Bang, which I found quite amusing.
* I wonder how much of that is legitimate and how much of it is a sort of defense mechanism and way of downplaying things for the public though. They really only have a couple options in terms of how to approach things from a public relations perspective and they are surely smart enough to know that the other approach they could take wouldn't do them any favors.
Case in point:
http://www.themarysue.com/game-of-thrones-rape-discussion/
After jumping on the SJW bandwagon and femsplaining that all rape depictions are always problematic, TheMarySue got a bunch of their "reporters" together to circlejerk(fist?) about how they're all morally superior and that there will be consequences.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago.
http://www.themarysue.com/we-will-no-longer-be-promoting-hbos-game-of-thrones/
Oh. So those first empty threats were empty?
Clickbait is clickbait and ad revenue is ad revenue. Dollars to donuts they will be reporting on the next game of thrones rape, regardless. Even though they are forthrightly admitting that all of their criticisms of the show up until now have acted as promotional material.
In other words, assuming that gawker and themarysue can be considered roughly equivalent in the quality of their "reporters", we have to assume that they have full knowledge that they are effectively promoting Hatred for free.
I mean, just how much hypocrisy can a readership take? Bandwagoning social justice warrior media has a memory like a goldfish, sure. I wouldn't hold my breath that they know what the problem is, even if their readership *eventually* gets the memo...
But can someone please describe to me the mental gymnastics that are involved in not painting anyone who swallows this wholesale as... well, using the word "retarded" would be an insult to the mentally handicapped. Even *they* can understand when they're being made fun of sometimes.
Considering I'm typing this from Panda Express, at least I made one good decision this week.
It's about the password to the nuclear power plant being 666.
This reminds me of an old strip:
So edgy.
It's been my experience that most people think that the system is against them. Everyone loves an underdog, and everyone wants to be one. In reality it really depends on what cultural sphere you are in. As someone who most would label a conservative, essentially every gaming thread or article I read uses "conservative" and "liberal" as substitutes for "evil" and "good". In this very thread were insinuations that violence and misogyny are trademark elements of conservatism (which is pretty hurtful to me, as a conservative who, like almost every other person on the planet, does not consider myself as being for violence or against women). In that sense I would say that in the gaming sphere, "The Man" would be liberalism. But that's not to say that conservatives are oppressed or discriminated, and I know that in many parts of the world, obviously including the US, when the people in these gaming threads walk down the street, they are outnumbered by and even oppressed by people labeling themselves as conservative. In the age of internet echo chambers and how small our world is, I would say it's entirely possible for someone to be both counter-culture and "the man". In recent gaming kerfuffles, it certainly seems to me like both sides think they are the underdog.
My use of "conservative" in the sense of this conversation is just in terms of the way I described it in the post you are quoting - the conservative element is the element that likes the way gaming used to be, the way gaming still is to a large degree, conservative in the sense of "Let's not move in that other direction, because I liked the direction we were moving in before." Traditionalist. I know it feels odd to a lot of people to think of gaming as having a traditionalist movement, and that to be in line with that specific type of traditionalism you would go towards more sex, more violence, more misogyny as the base point. Especially if you've been in gaming as long as I have, and used to play games in a much more primitive form where violence didn't even come into play - ie that certain people's traditionalism is, maybe, "90s gaming" or "2000s gaming", when gaming has been around so much longer than that.
People who think that progressivism is somehow the dominant thought in gaming are people who have very little tolerance for any change at all. 5% more talk about progressive ideas feels like "everyone is talking about it.", because you're used to 0% talk about that kind of thing. This is the kind of thought process that has been infinitely studied, by the way. For example, it's been found that most movie crowd scenes are majority male, something like 3 men to every 1 woman. And the underlying reason for that is that people perceive a room with 30% women and 70% men to be equal amounts of both genders; a room with 50% men and 50% women is perceived to have more women in it than men. All of our perceptions are skewed in this way, and thus make the white dudes of the world feel like if they aren't getting more than 70% of everything, then they are somehow getting less than what they deserve. Thus the sense of victimhood coming from majority, feeling like they're rebels for "taking back" their rightful 70%.
I remember people complaining about the rude things random mooks call Catwoman in Arkham City right before you kick their heads in.
Villains acting like villains is totes problematic, yo.
Probably the worst was
Gotcha. I was thinking of liberal and conservative in the political sense rather than progressive vs. non-progressive. I definitely agree with you that progressivism is far from being dominant in gaming, and I'm all for more of that.
I wasn't even the evil stuff they talked about doing I heard folks complain about though.
It was just them calling Catwoman insulting/misogynistic names.
And speaking of worse, to get things back to Hatred, I was skimming through the Quick Look comments and apparently this is a line of dialog gruffly spoken by the "protagonist" in the game: "Birds of a feather die together." Again, a line of dialog that made it through to the final product is birds of a feather die together. This damn game apparently doesn't even take itself seriously. :P
Daaaaaannnng.
In the majority of cases, I would have to agree.
You're probably right in saying the majority are poorly written. But of course, if you ask the internet, everything is poorly written. Whether it's a discussion of movies, games, or books, there's bound to be at least one person who wasn't fond of it, and since they tend to deliver that opinion as fact (Well, sure, Mass Effect/Lord of the Rings/ Wheel of Time has a emotionally moving story...if you're into childish nonsense I guess...) it sort of discourages people from actually saying they like stuff. Cynicism tends to be better received.
None of that applies here, though, because Hatred's dialogue, at least in the trailer, is really, really bad.
That's cool 'n all, but I don't know what any of those things have to do with Hatred.
I guess my point is that the same people who defend games that glorify violence against minorities, are the type that tend to look away when shit happens to minorities in real life. It is no coincidence that the main character of hatred is a White, Cis-gendered straight dude. Don't try to write this off that I don't know these things for sure, the game was made by Neo-Nazi supporters and they have openly stated the game is a response to the recent push of inclusiveness in the games industry. The main character is a perfect little slot for every nerd who has wanted to "show those feminists what's up" or " deal with those sensitive minorites", to fit himself in. This game is the perfect example of the boys club nerds have made the industry into. It has every fucking thing to do with Hatred.