You can "justify" a tournament where people fight to the death to save their world.
I'm not sure you can do the same with ripping off your opponents limbs, shoving a metal rod down their throat and out the ass, and then charging lightning through it. After you've defeated them, nonetheless. There's an entire layer of violence that is arguably completely unnecessary to anything happening in the game's story.
MKX's violence is ridiculous and over-the-top. It's completely unimaginable that you could do this in real life. And it is designed to be a gory, ridiculous, over-the-top fighting game, from its early days to now.
Hatred was made TO offend, and its violence is more real, as we've experienced shooting sprees, especially lately. And like I said before, the reason for the creation of the game, and the reason for its violence, this is the problem. Hatred's violence *itself* isn't that big of a deal.
If I make Hello Kitty Outer Space Adventure because I want to inflict more meme pain on the internets, the only person that should care is the holder of Hello Kitty intellectual property.
It's neither your job, nor are you well-equipped, to police the intent behind the creators of content that goes out, no matter how inoffensive.
ITT we learn that critiquing media is actually policing
Chief of Critique:God dammit, Polygon, you're a loose cannon! Hand in your gun and your badge!
Polygon: You're crazy, Chief! I get clicks, and you know it!
Chief: That's not the point, and you know it. I've got the commissioner breathing down my neck about your attention-grabbing headlines and use of the politics of the day to generate controversy, not to mention being snobbish about a Rock band presser!
Polygon: That was journalism, damn it!
Chief: Look, I like you, but you're a hot-headed kid. You need a parter to show you how we critique media in this town.
Polygon: You know me, Chief - I work alone.
Chief: Not any more. Presses buzzer Charlene, send in Polygon's new partner.
The Times Literary Supplement enters
Polygon: That stuffy old guy? No way!
Times Literary Supplement: Good afternoon, Officer Polygon. I hope that we can work together to enlighten the public about what's new in the world of both paper based and electronic entertainment.
Polygon: Screw you, old man! I get my ad revenue my way!
Chief: I can tell you guys are going to get along famously - now hit the streets. E3's back in town, and I hear there's a new model of the Xbox in the works.
If I make Hello Kitty Outer Space Adventure because I want to inflict more meme pain on the internets, the only person that should care is the holder of Hello Kitty intellectual property.
It's neither your job, nor are you well-equipped, to police the intent behind the creators of content that goes out, no matter how inoffensive.
How dare you criticize the content of someone's post? They created that content themselves!
The answer is easily. Because criticizing something someone has made is absolutely okay.
MKX's violence is ridiculous and over-the-top. It's completely unimaginable that you could do this in real life. And it is designed to be a gory, ridiculous, over-the-top fighting game, from its early days to now.
Hatred was made TO offend, and its violence is more real, as we've experienced shooting sprees, especially lately. And like I said before, the reason for the creation of the game, and the reason for its violence, this is the problem. Hatred's violence *itself* isn't that big of a deal.
This part specifically:
Hatred was made TO offend
Where does this manifest in the game outside of murder of civilians? Honest to god, I do not want to be some pedantic broken record, but I feel like this would get to the crux of my confusion.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find many real-world spree killings that go down as depicted in Hatred. Hatred may be more uncomfortable due to the nature of its subject matter, but to me it's so ridiculous that it might as well be a grimdark cartoon. When's the last time a lone gunman has managed such sky-high body counts of civilians and law enforcement, or even really looked like its protagonist? The violence is no more real or realistic, even if it's arguably more sadistic.
I feel like you are one of the few people in this discussion so far who has made an arguable point about its allegedly problematic content: its parallels to real-world mass murders. I don't share in the concern for the above reasons, but I think it's fair enough. But everything else thrown at this game has been incredibly vague and non-specific. And I certainly don't feel it's been sufficiently argued where the problem here is; the so-called "reason for its violence". Well, it's to be shocking! Inciting controversy may have some overlap with causing offense, but they are not the same thing. If somebody wants to argue that depicting violence for shock value is offensive... Well okay, but I'd be careful walking down that road.
If you've ever had a field day with blowing up pedestrians in GTA (the perennial obvious example), that's pretty much the same strain of virtual violence this game shares in. The differences in their depictions are pretty much just window dressing to me.
MKX's violence is ridiculous and over-the-top. It's completely unimaginable that you could do this in real life. And it is designed to be a gory, ridiculous, over-the-top fighting game, from its early days to now.
Hatred was made TO offend, and its violence is more real, as we've experienced shooting sprees, especially lately. And like I said before, the reason for the creation of the game, and the reason for its violence, this is the problem. Hatred's violence *itself* isn't that big of a deal.
This part specifically:
Hatred was made TO offend
Where does this manifest in the game outside of murder of civilians? Honest to god, I do not want to be some pedantic broken record, but I feel like this would get to the crux of my confusion.
Then let me enlighten you.
Nowhere in the game.
Yup, that's right.
The thing you gotta understand is that I'm not talking about a murder IN Hatred. Or about the controls of Hatred. Or the plot of Hatred.
I'm talking about Hatred. Hatred itself. The game. The entire package. The fact that it was made. WHY it is made.
You could argue that Hatred, as far as violent games go, is not that bad: it's just a stupid shooter, and I will agree with you, because in my opinion, you are right about that.
The problem is that we have a big problem about inclusiveness in games, about social justice, racism, homophobia, transphobia, privilege, etc.. Now, there are crazy people with extreme arguments on all sides, sure, but there is a big social current which cannot be ignored and that people are discussing everywhere. It' a big movement stretching even outside of just the games industry, it's a huge conversation we're having.
The authors of Hatred basically made Hatred to "fight" that whole inclusiveness thing. They stated as much.
Now, you could argue, as I feel you have, that the product, the game Hatred, isn't that bad, especially considering why they made it. Really, if fighting social justice currents was its goal, you could have been a dude in a university that shoots up a gender studies classroom*, to really target a specific audience. Again, I agree, the product they ended up delivering, in and of itself, isn't THAT horrible.
But the point isn't that. It's not about whether Hatred was as bad as the authors made us fear it would be.
It's why it was made. Hatred does not exist in a vacuum, nothing does, and you can't just judge it as a game and nothing else; it was made with a goal in mind. People who are aware of the controversy and who still buy Hatred as a "haha, fuck you PC-crowd" are sending a message to the gaming community, that they oppose the push for inclusiveness to the point of giving their money to some racist guy who made a violent game, just because they want to... show us? I guess?
This is why people in this thread don't like Hatred, yet didn't criticize the game simply for its violence or its shooting of civilians (something you can do in GTA), they criticized Hatred for what it is and represent in our society.
I'd like to note that why I don't like Hatred is more due to its lack of any redeeming value as a medium for edgelords to sate their sadism-boner, but I agree with the things you've been saying too.
I'd like to note that why I don't like Hatred is more due to its lack of any redeeming value as a medium for edgelords to sate their sadism-boner, but I agree with the things you've been saying too.
Well, I don't consider myself an edgelord, but I am not above laughing stupidly when I decide to run over people in GTA when driving around, or during a MK fatality. But I guess that these types of violence are more "silly" than the gritty murders of Hatred for which I don't have strong feelings one way or the other.
The problem is that we have a big problem about inclusiveness in games, about social justice, racism, homophobia, transphobia, privilege, etc.. Now, there are crazy people with extreme arguments on all sides, sure, but there is a big social current which cannot be ignored and that people are discussing everywhere. It' a big movement stretching even outside of just the games industry, it's a huge conversation we're having.
The authors of Hatred basically made Hatred to "fight" that whole inclusiveness thing. They stated as much.
The question you may ask is: why do they do this? These days, when a lot of games are heading to be polite, colorful, politically correct and trying to be some kind of higher art, rather than just an entertainment – we wanted to create something against trends. Something different, something that could give the player a pure, gaming pleasure. Herecomes our game, which takes no prisoners and makes no excuses.
They say they are pushing back against games being forced to be politically correct. You say they are fighting for games to remain racist, homophobic, transphobic, exclusive, etc.
I'm saying there is a wide gulf between these two things, and it's been caused by the constant Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt getting pumped out by Polygon, Gawker and others. It helps to go back to primary sources, Hatred's website, actual developer interviews, and the actual game, rather than the nonsensical misinformation being produced by Polygon. As if their absurd Rockband 4 preview, their deranged Kiss/Kill article and others weren't enough to make you think twice before taking anything they say at face value.
They say they are pushing back against games being forced to be politically correct. You say they are fighting for games to remain racist, homophobic, transphobic, exclusive, etc.
I mean, yeah? Like, being politically correct is just "don't be those things you just listed"
Also who's being "forced" to be politically correct. Last I checked those games are still legal.
Just, a lot of consumers and reviewers think they're bad.
If the goal was to create something that was "just pure gaming pleasure", pure gameplay, with no concern to make it "art", why didn't they make a game like Tetris? Or a SHMUP?
They went with Hatred's theme SPECIFICALLY to fight inclusiveness and fight the ridiculous chimera of "forced PC". They didn't make a statement for "pure gaming pleasure". They made a statement against the long-needed positive trends we are finally seeing appear in gaming.
Plus, they're silly and wrong. They see themselves as fighting the big invading trend that swallowed gaming, while the truth is that the "PC trend" is the tiny one that's fighting the actual market. Colorful games are new? Someone tell the 1980s-1990s! Polite games are the trend now? Like GTA, MK, the millionth FPS, and gang?
Hatred's developers are portraying themselves as some underdog, while they are the opposite. They are as mainstream as mainstream gets.
The "polite" games they so hate and fear, THOSE are the underdogs.
They say they are pushing back against games being forced to be politically correct. You say they are fighting for games to remain racist, homophobic, transphobic, exclusive, etc.
I mean, yeah? Like, being politically correct is just "don't be those things you just listed"
Except the game itself has nothing to say about any of those social issues in actuality. At best, it indulges in gratuitous violence with a healthy dose of nihilistic misanthropy (as far as I've seen, I haven't/won't buy it).
Everything else is people extrapolating from a few statements about political correctness made by some of the devs, and assuming they (and therefore the game) would be racist, trans- & homophobic, etc, then running with that. Gratuitous violence is not homophobia. It is not transphobia. And it isn't racism. It doesn't even really fight inclusiveness in any meaningful way.
The criticism in here has, by people's own admission, moved away from from what is actually in the game (because it's entirely unremarkable), to the devs are guilty of thoughtcrime and should be stopped. And that's not really cool...
And I say that as someone with 0 interest in playing the game or supporting these clowns.
I have not played the game. I'm actually quite surprised that the game has a story mode and that death is a game over state. My first thought from the trailer was that this would be a game about walking into a "stage", like a school or mall, and racking up as many kills before you die. The trailer doesn't show someone getting sky-high numbers of kills or raiding Fort Knox or whatever. Aside from the grimdark protagonist (which most of us see and roll our eyes or laugh, but many people, at least kids from the 90s, would have seen as a real cool dark guy) the trailer looks like a game about actual spree killings. Walking into a public building, killing 20 or so people as violently as possible, and getting killed.
Marketing is not the same as the final product. But that doesn't mean that marketing gets a pass. In fact, marketing is a better metric for determining the intentions of a game, because a trailer can be carefully crafted and public statements are just that--a direct statement of what you want to do. A game may fail to deliver what you wanted it to be about. But when you say what you want a game to be about, that's probably what you wanted it to be about.
They say they are pushing back against games being forced to be politically correct. You say they are fighting for games to remain racist, homophobic, transphobic, exclusive, etc.
I mean, yeah? Like, being politically correct is just "don't be those things you just listed"
Jerry Seinfeld recently came out saying that college campuses are too politically correct, and that the kids there just throw out words like racist and sexist without understanding what those things even are. So he's not going to perform at colleges anymore.
Do you think Jerry Seinfeld is automatically advocating racism, homophobia, sexism, etc, etc?
You can be against political correctness without being for the litany of terrible things.
They say they are pushing back against games being forced to be politically correct. You say they are fighting for games to remain racist, homophobic, transphobic, exclusive, etc.
I mean, yeah? Like, being politically correct is just "don't be those things you just listed"
Jerry Seinfeld recently came out saying that college campuses are too politically correct, and that the kids there just throw out words like racist and sexist without understanding what those things even are. So he's not going to perform at colleges anymore.
Do you think Jerry Seinfeld is automatically advocating racism, homophobia, sexism, etc, etc?
You can be against political correctness without being for the litany of terrible things.
It sounds like Seinfeld is saying colleges are Incorrectly Politically Correct.
They say they are pushing back against games being forced to be politically correct. You say they are fighting for games to remain racist, homophobic, transphobic, exclusive, etc.
I mean, yeah? Like, being politically correct is just "don't be those things you just listed"
No, it's not. That is an assumptive, simple and convenient way to view people who have whatever issues with political correctness. And I feel it illuminates some of the problems some people here seem have with Hatred. You seem to think it's a phobic game for phobes. Why? It's been clearly established there's nothing in the game to evidence this assertion; you are caught up in preconceptions about what people mean when they say "PC".
You have decided that "anti-PC" equals "Be as racist , sexist, and bigoted as you want, bro". That's dishonest - or at least lazy - crap.
The criticism in here has, by people's own admission, moved away from from what is actually in the game (because it's entirely unremarkable), to the devs are guilty of thoughtcrime and should be stopped. And that's not really cool...
By people's own admission? Literally nobody here has said that.
And if you try to force the conversation to just be about what elements are INSIDE the game, you are avoiding part of the conversation. Hatred is NOT just what is INSIDE Hatred.
You guys really need to start reading the stuff we write here before you hammer back the old, tired "There's no acts of -ism INSIDE the game Hatred" line, because you're missing the point, and hard.
The criticism in here has, by people's own admission, moved away from from what is actually in the game (because it's entirely unremarkable), to the devs are guilty of thoughtcrime and should be stopped. And that's not really cool...
By people's own admission? Literally nobody here has said that.
?? You said yourself the problems you have are with things that are "Nowhere in the game". I'm not sure how else to interpret that, frankly...
And if you try to force the conversation to just be about what elements are INSIDE the game, you are avoiding part of the conversation. Hatred is NOT just what is INSIDE Hatred.
And why not (serious question)? Because of what some of the devs said prior to release? Because of how the game was marketed? Because of the Steam controversy? Because parts of the media decided to turn this game into a lightning rod regardless of what its actual content is/was?
I'm genuinely curious what conditions should be met before factors other than the content of a game itself are used to determine what "sins" the game commits.
You guys really need to start reading the stuff we write here before you hammer back the old, tired "There's no acts of -ism INSIDE the game Hatred" line, because you're missing the point, and hard.
Disagreement != missing the point. There's room for legitimate discussion here w/o implying that those who don't agree with you can't read.
Edit: Basically, I'm agreeing w/ Distec's point below. Vague statements about being "anti-PC" are irrelevant if, in the end, the content doesn't validate that claim.
The thing you gotta understand is that I'm not talking about a murder IN Hatred. Or about the controls of Hatred. Or the plot of Hatred.
I'm talking about Hatred. Hatred itself. The game. The entire package. The fact that it was made. WHY it is made.
You could argue that Hatred, as far as violent games go, is not that bad: it's just a stupid shooter, and I will agree with you, because in my opinion, you are right about that.
The problem is that we have a big problem about inclusiveness in games, about social justice, racism, homophobia, transphobia, privilege, etc.. Now, there are crazy people with extreme arguments on all sides, sure, but there is a big social current which cannot be ignored and that people are discussing everywhere. It' a big movement stretching even outside of just the games industry, it's a huge conversation we're having.
The authors of Hatred basically made Hatred to "fight" that whole inclusiveness thing. They stated as much.
Now, you could argue, as I feel you have, that the product, the game Hatred, isn't that bad, especially considering why they made it. Really, if fighting social justice currents was its goal, you could have been a dude in a university that shoots up a gender studies classroom*, to really target a specific audience. Again, I agree, the product they ended up delivering, in and of itself, isn't THAT horrible.
But the point isn't that. It's not about whether Hatred was as bad as the authors made us fear it would be.
It's why it was made. Hatred does not exist in a vacuum, nothing does, and you can't just judge it as a game and nothing else; it was made with a goal in mind. People who are aware of the controversy and who still buy Hatred as a "haha, fuck you PC-crowd" are sending a message to the gaming community, that they oppose the push for inclusiveness to the point of giving their money to some racist guy who made a violent game, just because they want to... show us? I guess?
This is why people in this thread don't like Hatred, yet didn't criticize the game simply for its violence or its shooting of civilians (something you can do in GTA), they criticized Hatred for what it is and represent in our society.
I'm not sure a lengthy response is required at this point, because I feel like we're hitting a hard wall and our disagreements are just going to have to stand. I likely differ sharply from your view that there are any significant social justice problems with gaming, or what people mean when they use terms like "PC". I say likely because I think a big problem with these discussions in general are all the preconceptions about those things people bring to an argument, and for all I know I may agree with you more than I realize. But those are weighty enough topics without completely blowing apart this can of worms. Also, I think you have fairly summarized my position on the game itself, so cheers. Although I do mildly resent the accusation that I have not read your posts or have missed the point. I just don't think the point has much substance to it.
I consider myself to be of a fairly pragmatic bent. The devs' stated intentions of being anti-PC, which I resubmit are entirely vague and meaningless without any more specificity, are pretty much irrelevant to me if the product isn't actually harboring anything offensive. Yes, Hatred was made (or possibly retooled during development, I dunno) to ruffle some feathers in gaming, but I feel like some critics are pretty much ruffling their own without any assistance. You can call it childish or reactionary but that's still far and away from anti-inclusive. As a reason for it to exist, I don't see what's wrongheaded about it. And while products aren't made in a vacuum, an insistent focus on context can completely confuse what a product is versus what one thinks or projects it to be. I think all the arguments about The Witcher 3's "POC Problem" is a good and recent example of that.
They say they are pushing back against games being forced to be politically correct. You say they are fighting for games to remain racist, homophobic, transphobic, exclusive, etc.
I mean, yeah? Like, being politically correct is just "don't be those things you just listed"
Jerry Seinfeld recently came out saying that college campuses are too politically correct, and that the kids there just throw out words like racist and sexist without understanding what those things even are. So he's not going to perform at colleges anymore.
Do you think Jerry Seinfeld is automatically advocating racism, homophobia, sexism, etc, etc?
You can be against political correctness without being for the litany of terrible things.
Seriously man. Appeal to authority. That's what you're going with.
If you're going to employ logical fallacies you could at least put some effort into not making it so transparent.
The criticism in here has, by people's own admission, moved away from from what is actually in the game (because it's entirely unremarkable), to the devs are guilty of thoughtcrime and should be stopped. And that's not really cool...
By people's own admission? Literally nobody here has said that.
?? You said yourself the problems you have are with things that are "Nowhere in the game". I'm not sure how else to interpret that, frankly...
Well, it seems you've already interpreted it as "the devs are guilty of thoughtcrime and should be stopped". Again, literally nobody here has made that claim.
They say they are pushing back against games being forced to be politically correct. You say they are fighting for games to remain racist, homophobic, transphobic, exclusive, etc.
I mean, yeah? Like, being politically correct is just "don't be those things you just listed"
Jerry Seinfeld recently came out saying that college campuses are too politically correct, and that the kids there just throw out words like racist and sexist without understanding what those things even are. So he's not going to perform at colleges anymore.
Do you think Jerry Seinfeld is automatically advocating racism, homophobia, sexism, etc, etc?
You can be against political correctness without being for the litany of terrible things.
Seriously man. Appeal to authority. That's what you're going with.
If you're going to employ logical fallacies you could at least put some effort into not making it so transparent.
Appeal to authority would have been me saying "Jerry Seinfeld said this, he's right."
What I said was, Jerry Seinfeld shared a similar statement as the developers of Hatred. Do you also think he's as sexist, racist, etc as you claim the developers of Hatred are? Why or why not?
They say they are pushing back against games being forced to be politically correct. You say they are fighting for games to remain racist, homophobic, transphobic, exclusive, etc.
I mean, yeah? Like, being politically correct is just "don't be those things you just listed"
Jerry Seinfeld recently came out saying that college campuses are too politically correct, and that the kids there just throw out words like racist and sexist without understanding what those things even are. So he's not going to perform at colleges anymore.
Do you think Jerry Seinfeld is automatically advocating racism, homophobia, sexism, etc, etc?
You can be against political correctness without being for the litany of terrible things.
Seriously man. Appeal to authority. That's what you're going with.
If you're going to employ logical fallacies you could at least put some effort into not making it so transparent.
Appeal to authority would have been me saying "Jerry Seinfeld said this, he's right."
Ah, so you're just asking a question. My, it's like I'm on FOX News. How exciting!
What I said was, Jerry Seinfeld shared a similar statement as the developers of Hatred. Do you also think he's as sexist, racist, etc as you claim the developers of Hatred are? Why or why not?
If I must reply to this asinine inquiry, I'll just defer to YoungFrey.
Chris Rock basically said the same. Make what you will of that. Namrok's inquiry is fair; if you think being politically correct means being anti-bigotry, then it would follow that anybody who's anti-PC is a bigot, or at least is just looking for an excuse to say and act out bigoted things. Chris Rock? Maybe. Seinfeld? For a guy who jokes about airplane food, I'm having trouble seeing it.
I figured it was common knowledge that the term "Politically Correct" has always been intended as a pejorative. "Incorrectly Politically Correct" is just pedantry, not to mention a mouthful.
Can I at least provide an alternate definition to what you're using? Perhaps from Google?
po·lit·i·cal cor·rect·ness
noun
noun: political correctness; noun: political correctitude
the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend this some universal definition that everybody goes by when they use the term. But isn't this is a far more fair and charitable explanation of it? Isn't this just a better and healthier place to start a discussion from instead of leaping straight into accusations of coded -isms? Can we withhold the charges of vulgar personal deficiencies until the person speaking actually betrays them?
The point I'm driving at, is that you know Seinfeld. If he comes out swinging at excessive political correctness, you give him the benefit of the doubt. You've never known him to be a terrible person. You might not agree with him, but you aren't going to accuse him of anything either.
Everything you know about Destructive Creations is misinformation being spread by Polygon. You have zero reason not to extend the same benefit of the doubt you extend to Seinfeld to Destructive Creations.
The devs specifically said they were against political correctness
not a small group of people misusing social justice concepts or anything, just political correctness as a whole
that's an unambiguously shitty position
The point I'm driving at, is that you know Seinfeld. If he comes out swinging at excessive political correctness, you give him the benefit of the doubt. You've never known him to be a terrible person. You might not agree with him, but you aren't going to accuse him of anything either.
Everything you know about Destructive Creations is misinformation being spread by Polygon. You have zero reason not to extend the same benefit of the doubt you extend to Seinfeld to Destructive Creations.
Buh? I don't have to give Seinfeld jack. This is not a dichotomy and the options aren't saint or horrible person. I can think he's being stubbornly insensitive depending on his reasoning which, looking it up, he very much is.
Also, you have no idea where any individual poster has gotten their information about Destructive Creations from.
Well, it seems you've already interpreted it as "the devs are guilty of thoughtcrime and should be stopped". Again, literally nobody here has made that claim.
Alright - aside from the "and should be stopped" I still think everything else I've said is perfectly fair, since we/you're discussing "why (we think) the game was made", and what its purpose is, and not the things it actually does/depicts.
The devs specifically said they were against political correctness
not a small group of people misusing social justice concepts or anything, just political correctness as a whole
that's an unambiguously shitty position
When people talk about "political correctness" as a whole, they are most likely referring to the "excessive" part of the quote I provided in my previous post. It's right there in the definition of the term. There is no Good Political Correctness because the expression itself has been intended as pejorative since its inception. Things may get hairier beyond that, but I don't see that particular stick budging any time soon. I've just never heard the term used in any positive fashion. And this is a personal guess here, but I'm betting a lot of people DON'T like using it because it opens them up to call-outs, mockery, and some weird guilt by association with the far right.
Now, would you like to change that? Do you think it's worth crafting that distinction between Good/Bad Political Correctness? That's cool! Go for it. But until then it is ambiguous unless you take the time to investigate what is actually being said, rather than get set off by glib use of buzzwords that could mean a variety of different things dependent on the listener's past exposure and experience.
What I'm seeing is a lot of words cobbled together to spin this as the devs having said something other than what they actually said. Like, yeah, it's technically possible they meant something else, but the words they chose had a fairly clear meaning and in the absence of evidence that they simply made a mistake (as well as the fact that they've had plenty of time to clarify if that was what happened if that was the case) I suggest we stick with things that are, y'know, actual things as opposed to baseless speculation.
Terms change and people use them differently. The term "social justice" which, if you pick apart the words one at a time, should be completely positive (like political correctness) tends to be used in a very negative way, referring to whatever people think is going "too far". For example, if I were inclined to use the term "social justice" to refer to an overreaction, I might be talking about those who say that any big-boobed female character is sexist, regardless of how her character is portrayed. But someone else might think "social justice" is advocating for the existence of more playable female characters at all, which to me is a good thing but to the person using the term is "political correctness".
All this to say, I may use PC to pejoratively refer to something silly and over the top. Someone else may use it to refer to a perfectly positive trend that *they* think is silly and over the top. Perhaps someone who chooses to publicly endorse Nazi webpages might do such a thing. Who knows.
Just to put some of the statements you're all arguing semantics over in a bit of context:
The answer is simple really. We wanted to create something contrary to prevailing standards of forcing games to be more polite or nice than they really are or even should be.
"Yes, putting things simply, we are developing a game about killing people. But what's more important is the fact that we are honest in our approach. Our game doesn't pretend to be anything else than what it is and we don't add to it any fake philosophy.
"In fact, when you think deeper about it, there are many other games out there, where you can do exactly the same things that the antagonist will do in our project. The only difference is that in Hatred gameplay will focus on those things. I also do believe that we're pretty straight forward about this on our official website. Plus hey, you've got to remember that Postal was first and still is the king of the genre. "
Is straight from the horses mouth.
Basically 'we want to push against Social justice stuff but we're not political because we pretend to have a justification for the violence'.
Which is kinda contradictory.
Also reading these guys statements makes me depressed so sorry if there's shit in the bottom half of the interview putting the opening section in a better light than it initially portrays itself.
I think it's hilarious when comedians who make a living saying controversial things that piss people off get pissed off by people who want them to be more politically correct. It's like, what's your beef here? Is it that you're angry that some people want you to stop saying some stuff? In other words, you want them to stop saying that they don't like the stuff you're saying? So you don't like what some people are saying? Because that's all they're doing, Jerry! They're just using their words! Words can't hurt you! Right? Because if words could hurt, then maybe you should shut the fuck up sometimes. But your entire fucking career is predicated on the idea that you can say whatever you want and it's okay. So maybe when the people you piss off use their own words to tell you that they're pissed off you should realize you don't really have any real ground to stand on, right? Because right now all I hear from Seinfeld is "I'm offended that you're offended," which is just the latest variation on "I'm offended that..." and clearly Seinfeld thinks that being offended is just a crock of shit, so...
Posts
I'm not sure you can do the same with ripping off your opponents limbs, shoving a metal rod down their throat and out the ass, and then charging lightning through it. After you've defeated them, nonetheless. There's an entire layer of violence that is arguably completely unnecessary to anything happening in the game's story.
But I'm okay with it, and so is its audience.
Hatred was made TO offend, and its violence is more real, as we've experienced shooting sprees, especially lately. And like I said before, the reason for the creation of the game, and the reason for its violence, this is the problem. Hatred's violence *itself* isn't that big of a deal.
If I make Hello Kitty Outer Space Adventure because I want to inflict more meme pain on the internets, the only person that should care is the holder of Hello Kitty intellectual property.
It's neither your job, nor are you well-equipped, to police the intent behind the creators of content that goes out, no matter how inoffensive.
Chief of Critique:God dammit, Polygon, you're a loose cannon! Hand in your gun and your badge!
Polygon: You're crazy, Chief! I get clicks, and you know it!
Chief: That's not the point, and you know it. I've got the commissioner breathing down my neck about your attention-grabbing headlines and use of the politics of the day to generate controversy, not to mention being snobbish about a Rock band presser!
Polygon: That was journalism, damn it!
Chief: Look, I like you, but you're a hot-headed kid. You need a parter to show you how we critique media in this town.
Polygon: You know me, Chief - I work alone.
Chief: Not any more. Presses buzzer Charlene, send in Polygon's new partner.
The Times Literary Supplement enters
Polygon: That stuffy old guy? No way!
Times Literary Supplement: Good afternoon, Officer Polygon. I hope that we can work together to enlighten the public about what's new in the world of both paper based and electronic entertainment.
Polygon: Screw you, old man! I get my ad revenue my way!
Chief: I can tell you guys are going to get along famously - now hit the streets. E3's back in town, and I hear there's a new model of the Xbox in the works.
To be continued...
How dare you criticize the content of someone's post? They created that content themselves!
The answer is easily. Because criticizing something someone has made is absolutely okay.
This part specifically:
Where does this manifest in the game outside of murder of civilians? Honest to god, I do not want to be some pedantic broken record, but I feel like this would get to the crux of my confusion.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find many real-world spree killings that go down as depicted in Hatred. Hatred may be more uncomfortable due to the nature of its subject matter, but to me it's so ridiculous that it might as well be a grimdark cartoon. When's the last time a lone gunman has managed such sky-high body counts of civilians and law enforcement, or even really looked like its protagonist? The violence is no more real or realistic, even if it's arguably more sadistic.
I feel like you are one of the few people in this discussion so far who has made an arguable point about its allegedly problematic content: its parallels to real-world mass murders. I don't share in the concern for the above reasons, but I think it's fair enough. But everything else thrown at this game has been incredibly vague and non-specific. And I certainly don't feel it's been sufficiently argued where the problem here is; the so-called "reason for its violence". Well, it's to be shocking! Inciting controversy may have some overlap with causing offense, but they are not the same thing. If somebody wants to argue that depicting violence for shock value is offensive... Well okay, but I'd be careful walking down that road.
If you've ever had a field day with blowing up pedestrians in GTA (the perennial obvious example), that's pretty much the same strain of virtual violence this game shares in. The differences in their depictions are pretty much just window dressing to me.
Then let me enlighten you.
Nowhere in the game.
Yup, that's right.
The thing you gotta understand is that I'm not talking about a murder IN Hatred. Or about the controls of Hatred. Or the plot of Hatred.
I'm talking about Hatred. Hatred itself. The game. The entire package. The fact that it was made. WHY it is made.
You could argue that Hatred, as far as violent games go, is not that bad: it's just a stupid shooter, and I will agree with you, because in my opinion, you are right about that.
The problem is that we have a big problem about inclusiveness in games, about social justice, racism, homophobia, transphobia, privilege, etc.. Now, there are crazy people with extreme arguments on all sides, sure, but there is a big social current which cannot be ignored and that people are discussing everywhere. It' a big movement stretching even outside of just the games industry, it's a huge conversation we're having.
The authors of Hatred basically made Hatred to "fight" that whole inclusiveness thing. They stated as much.
Now, you could argue, as I feel you have, that the product, the game Hatred, isn't that bad, especially considering why they made it. Really, if fighting social justice currents was its goal, you could have been a dude in a university that shoots up a gender studies classroom*, to really target a specific audience. Again, I agree, the product they ended up delivering, in and of itself, isn't THAT horrible.
But the point isn't that. It's not about whether Hatred was as bad as the authors made us fear it would be.
It's why it was made. Hatred does not exist in a vacuum, nothing does, and you can't just judge it as a game and nothing else; it was made with a goal in mind. People who are aware of the controversy and who still buy Hatred as a "haha, fuck you PC-crowd" are sending a message to the gaming community, that they oppose the push for inclusiveness to the point of giving their money to some racist guy who made a violent game, just because they want to... show us? I guess?
This is why people in this thread don't like Hatred, yet didn't criticize the game simply for its violence or its shooting of civilians (something you can do in GTA), they criticized Hatred for what it is and represent in our society.
*this is the point in the conversation of shooting schools and gender studies where, as a Québécois, I feel obligated to link to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/École_Polytechnique_massacre
Well, I don't consider myself an edgelord, but I am not above laughing stupidly when I decide to run over people in GTA when driving around, or during a MK fatality. But I guess that these types of violence are more "silly" than the gritty murders of Hatred for which I don't have strong feelings one way or the other.
They say they are pushing back against games being forced to be politically correct. You say they are fighting for games to remain racist, homophobic, transphobic, exclusive, etc.
I'm saying there is a wide gulf between these two things, and it's been caused by the constant Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt getting pumped out by Polygon, Gawker and others. It helps to go back to primary sources, Hatred's website, actual developer interviews, and the actual game, rather than the nonsensical misinformation being produced by Polygon. As if their absurd Rockband 4 preview, their deranged Kiss/Kill article and others weren't enough to make you think twice before taking anything they say at face value.
Just, a lot of consumers and reviewers think they're bad.
They went with Hatred's theme SPECIFICALLY to fight inclusiveness and fight the ridiculous chimera of "forced PC". They didn't make a statement for "pure gaming pleasure". They made a statement against the long-needed positive trends we are finally seeing appear in gaming.
Plus, they're silly and wrong. They see themselves as fighting the big invading trend that swallowed gaming, while the truth is that the "PC trend" is the tiny one that's fighting the actual market. Colorful games are new? Someone tell the 1980s-1990s! Polite games are the trend now? Like GTA, MK, the millionth FPS, and gang?
Hatred's developers are portraying themselves as some underdog, while they are the opposite. They are as mainstream as mainstream gets.
The "polite" games they so hate and fear, THOSE are the underdogs.
Everything else is people extrapolating from a few statements about political correctness made by some of the devs, and assuming they (and therefore the game) would be racist, trans- & homophobic, etc, then running with that. Gratuitous violence is not homophobia. It is not transphobia. And it isn't racism. It doesn't even really fight inclusiveness in any meaningful way.
The criticism in here has, by people's own admission, moved away from from what is actually in the game (because it's entirely unremarkable), to the devs are guilty of thoughtcrime and should be stopped. And that's not really cool...
And I say that as someone with 0 interest in playing the game or supporting these clowns.
Marketing is not the same as the final product. But that doesn't mean that marketing gets a pass. In fact, marketing is a better metric for determining the intentions of a game, because a trailer can be carefully crafted and public statements are just that--a direct statement of what you want to do. A game may fail to deliver what you wanted it to be about. But when you say what you want a game to be about, that's probably what you wanted it to be about.
Jerry Seinfeld recently came out saying that college campuses are too politically correct, and that the kids there just throw out words like racist and sexist without understanding what those things even are. So he's not going to perform at colleges anymore.
Do you think Jerry Seinfeld is automatically advocating racism, homophobia, sexism, etc, etc?
You can be against political correctness without being for the litany of terrible things.
It sounds like Seinfeld is saying colleges are Incorrectly Politically Correct.
No, it's not. That is an assumptive, simple and convenient way to view people who have whatever issues with political correctness. And I feel it illuminates some of the problems some people here seem have with Hatred. You seem to think it's a phobic game for phobes. Why? It's been clearly established there's nothing in the game to evidence this assertion; you are caught up in preconceptions about what people mean when they say "PC".
You have decided that "anti-PC" equals "Be as racist , sexist, and bigoted as you want, bro". That's dishonest - or at least lazy - crap.
By people's own admission? Literally nobody here has said that.
And if you try to force the conversation to just be about what elements are INSIDE the game, you are avoiding part of the conversation. Hatred is NOT just what is INSIDE Hatred.
You guys really need to start reading the stuff we write here before you hammer back the old, tired "There's no acts of -ism INSIDE the game Hatred" line, because you're missing the point, and hard.
And why not (serious question)? Because of what some of the devs said prior to release? Because of how the game was marketed? Because of the Steam controversy? Because parts of the media decided to turn this game into a lightning rod regardless of what its actual content is/was?
I'm genuinely curious what conditions should be met before factors other than the content of a game itself are used to determine what "sins" the game commits.
Disagreement != missing the point. There's room for legitimate discussion here w/o implying that those who don't agree with you can't read.
Edit: Basically, I'm agreeing w/ Distec's point below. Vague statements about being "anti-PC" are irrelevant if, in the end, the content doesn't validate that claim.
I'm not sure a lengthy response is required at this point, because I feel like we're hitting a hard wall and our disagreements are just going to have to stand. I likely differ sharply from your view that there are any significant social justice problems with gaming, or what people mean when they use terms like "PC". I say likely because I think a big problem with these discussions in general are all the preconceptions about those things people bring to an argument, and for all I know I may agree with you more than I realize. But those are weighty enough topics without completely blowing apart this can of worms. Also, I think you have fairly summarized my position on the game itself, so cheers. Although I do mildly resent the accusation that I have not read your posts or have missed the point. I just don't think the point has much substance to it.
I consider myself to be of a fairly pragmatic bent. The devs' stated intentions of being anti-PC, which I resubmit are entirely vague and meaningless without any more specificity, are pretty much irrelevant to me if the product isn't actually harboring anything offensive. Yes, Hatred was made (or possibly retooled during development, I dunno) to ruffle some feathers in gaming, but I feel like some critics are pretty much ruffling their own without any assistance. You can call it childish or reactionary but that's still far and away from anti-inclusive. As a reason for it to exist, I don't see what's wrongheaded about it. And while products aren't made in a vacuum, an insistent focus on context can completely confuse what a product is versus what one thinks or projects it to be. I think all the arguments about The Witcher 3's "POC Problem" is a good and recent example of that.
/final2cents
If you're going to employ logical fallacies you could at least put some effort into not making it so transparent.
Well, it seems you've already interpreted it as "the devs are guilty of thoughtcrime and should be stopped". Again, literally nobody here has made that claim.
Appeal to authority would have been me saying "Jerry Seinfeld said this, he's right."
What I said was, Jerry Seinfeld shared a similar statement as the developers of Hatred. Do you also think he's as sexist, racist, etc as you claim the developers of Hatred are? Why or why not?
If I must reply to this asinine inquiry, I'll just defer to YoungFrey. I'd want more information on what he's referring to before I draw any firm opinions on the matter.
I figured it was common knowledge that the term "Politically Correct" has always been intended as a pejorative. "Incorrectly Politically Correct" is just pedantry, not to mention a mouthful.
Can I at least provide an alternate definition to what you're using? Perhaps from Google?
I'm not going to sit here and pretend this some universal definition that everybody goes by when they use the term. But isn't this is a far more fair and charitable explanation of it? Isn't this just a better and healthier place to start a discussion from instead of leaping straight into accusations of coded -isms? Can we withhold the charges of vulgar personal deficiencies until the person speaking actually betrays them?
The point I'm driving at, is that you know Seinfeld. If he comes out swinging at excessive political correctness, you give him the benefit of the doubt. You've never known him to be a terrible person. You might not agree with him, but you aren't going to accuse him of anything either.
Everything you know about Destructive Creations is misinformation being spread by Polygon. You have zero reason not to extend the same benefit of the doubt you extend to Seinfeld to Destructive Creations.
not a small group of people misusing social justice concepts or anything, just political correctness as a whole
that's an unambiguously shitty position
Buh? I don't have to give Seinfeld jack. This is not a dichotomy and the options aren't saint or horrible person. I can think he's being stubbornly insensitive depending on his reasoning which, looking it up, he very much is.
Also, you have no idea where any individual poster has gotten their information about Destructive Creations from.
(I agree with him myself but my not wanting to play Hatred and questioning it and its creators isn't based in political correctness anyway).
When people talk about "political correctness" as a whole, they are most likely referring to the "excessive" part of the quote I provided in my previous post. It's right there in the definition of the term. There is no Good Political Correctness because the expression itself has been intended as pejorative since its inception. Things may get hairier beyond that, but I don't see that particular stick budging any time soon. I've just never heard the term used in any positive fashion. And this is a personal guess here, but I'm betting a lot of people DON'T like using it because it opens them up to call-outs, mockery, and some weird guilt by association with the far right.
Now, would you like to change that? Do you think it's worth crafting that distinction between Good/Bad Political Correctness? That's cool! Go for it. But until then it is ambiguous unless you take the time to investigate what is actually being said, rather than get set off by glib use of buzzwords that could mean a variety of different things dependent on the listener's past exposure and experience.
All this to say, I may use PC to pejoratively refer to something silly and over the top. Someone else may use it to refer to a perfectly positive trend that *they* think is silly and over the top. Perhaps someone who chooses to publicly endorse Nazi webpages might do such a thing. Who knows.
Is straight from the horses mouth.
Basically 'we want to push against Social justice stuff but we're not political because we pretend to have a justification for the violence'.
Which is kinda contradictory.
Also reading these guys statements makes me depressed so sorry if there's shit in the bottom half of the interview putting the opening section in a better light than it initially portrays itself.