Got to prep that one targeted excuse when someone does make the news for violence.
First incident of a teen hurting someone after this releases, the media will be all over it, ready to submit their already well prepared reports.
Either way, if you wanted this game condemned, don't even mention it. I personally never even heard of it until the media started talking about it so much. Now look at all the free advertising this game is getting.
I support their right to make the game. Do I find it disturbing? A little. I'll just vote with my wallet. I find Taylor Swift music appaling and disturbing as well
Actually, we have. And, since we have been studying violent media for over 2 decades, the conclusion has been just that. Violent video games, books, movies do not make individuals violent.
It isn't straw man at all. Especially when it is backed up with decades of research.
In this case, I will stick with the experts. There are no peer reviewed, scientific studies that show a connection between violence and video games.
However, there are many that show there is no correlation. And that isn't stacking the deck fallacy either. There just aren't any studies that have stood up to peer review that connect violence and video games.
I criticized the author's choice to frame the argument as "if video game violence doesn't affect us..." because nobody is saying that it doesn't affect us AT ALL - nobody is denying that there can be an emotional reaction, such as being offended, outraged, or otherwise upset by the media. That counts as being affected. The argument being misrepresented is the one that both of us stated: That video games do not make us violent.
It's a straw man argument in that 1) the title misrepresents the opposing argument and 2) there are other reasons for someone to condemn a game like Hatred outside of the proven-false assertion that it makes us violent. People can condemn the content for being generally reprehensible, offensive, or morally inappropriate. I'm not necessarily saying they are right, but the author makes no attempt to address these reasons and instead relies on misrepresenting the opposition.
Hopefully that made sense and clarified the misunderstanding.
Don't you see that the research that went into finding out if video game violence makes people more violent applies to other behaviors also?
Research shows that as you say a game can affect someone emotionally but those effects are short term video games cannot make you more violent, angry, sexual, hateful, kind, misogynistic or any other descriptor people may want to throw around.
That means there is no genuine argument against such a game being made, sure it's gross and offensive but without it causing any real world changes it effects no one outside of its audience which no one is forcing anyone to be a part of.
I won't be a part of the audience either as I require a little more sophistication in the art and entertainment but I wont demand someone censor their art because it offends my sensibilities.
The issue here is the idea that some feel that this medium needs to be censored and this article is part of the push back of people who believe in creative freedom, although possibly poorly worded the assertion in the article that there are no real world consequences of consuming such media is very valid and is in no way straw man.
However I do have to question your motives as to you trying to downplay this point, I have to ask do you support censorship?
The game at best would be a scapegoat regarding the silly debate. I don't condemn the game or its developers, but I believe this game would simply cause more controversy.
Yup this game will definitely be used as ammo against the gaming community in the debate on videogame violence. With that being said, I personally don't care. I just won't give them any of my money because the game's premise is stupid.
Don't see how video game violence affects anyone really. But man anyone seen how he had that one guy floating in mid air in the trailer then blasted em lol i wanna try that one day.
That's a good question, and one that has made me really think my stance on video game violence. I now see the error of my thinking. Whereas I used to strongly believe video game violence does not affect anyone, I confess I was wrong. It's not so much the violence as it is the reasoning behind it. Glorifying hatred is disgusting, and I don't care if I'm the only gamer in the world willing to say something about it, I'm going to stand up for what I believe. Too long have I justified wrong in the interest of protecting what I enjoy.
The developers aren't being honest, though. They say that this is a cut-to-the-chase game that doesn't bother with any motives that typically justifies killing in other games. We are to believe that this game skips all the make-up and just gives players what they want, the gameplay itself.
Yet, from the trailer we see that that's clearly not what we get. We get an actual story about a deranged psychopath who is out to carry out crimes that are similar in action and motive to those of very recent mass-killings.
Whether this game should or should not exist is a debate I won't get into now, but please don't let yourself be fooled by developers claiming that they're just making a fun game. This is clearly a game that is made to be as offensive as possible, so that it can get free PR from the media. It's working.
So what? What's wrong with games inspired by real life events? Honestly, I don't get people. For example 9/11 - of course I am sorry for the people who died and felt sad when it happened, but people going crazy about movies/games depicting crashing buildings years after the event, that's just ridiculous.
I did say that I'm not adressing the debate of whether or not this game should exist. I'm however, never a proponent of inhonest marketing, and that's what these guys are doing. It's not like 'politically correct' games like Super Mario Galaxy keep you away from the controller to push its correctness any more than Hatred does the same to push its political incorrectness. I mean, "Just a game" to these guys just happened to be "Elliot Rodger Gone Wild". It was either that or making a driving sim?
I do, however, hope that you can appreciate how traumatic 9/11 and other terrorist events have and can be. You're right that some people probably became too sensitive, but there is a balance. The people who criticised the Mad Men intro were probably too sensitive, but it would still have been in bad taste to make a game called Hijacking Simulator 2001.
Nah I don't like the idea of pushing people to fit a certain agenda. People differ in tastes, one likes rainbows in games, another one likes blood on walls in games. So why would you cater to only the first one and neglect the second one. Sure each developer makes a game as he wants but forcing them to censor their games is a really bad move imo. You can't just go like 'I have this idea on what humans should like and if you don't agree fuck you'. Let people enjoy what they want. Even if there was a Hijack simulator 2001, so what? You find it distasteful then ignore it. Others who weren't affected that much might like it.
Yeah I know you weren't talking about banning the game but I'm on a rant xD I don't see what they're doing wrong with the marketing. Sure it's obviously inspired by mass shootings but so what? As I said, what's wrong with games inspired by real events? The last mass shooting isn't that recent either. It's not offensive, it simply doesn't suit your taste. Call of duty games come out annually while wars are currently going on, no one complains about that.
Right. Somehow you know that I'm against banning the game, yet you construct your entire argument as if I wanted to have it censored.
It's perfectly reasonable to criticise something we don't like. People thought the movie After Earth sucked, and the world criticised it accordingly. That's what going on with Hatred. I never suggested we'd either censor or ban the game. People do actually take offense of something without experiencing it first hand. That's the world we live in. Therefore, they voice their frustrations about games like the hypothetical Hijack Simulator.
Yes, Call of Duty games come out even though wars are going on, but are there Call of Duty games being made about current wars? No. You know which Call of Duty game people would complain about? The Call of Duty game where you play as ISIS or Taliban, shooting US citizens. People aren't reacting to Hatred because there's violence in it. They're reacting to it because it's too much like what they've seen in the news. And because it conjures up images that most people don't like being reminded of.
Your point that the last mass shooting wasn't that recent is so incredibly uninformed. There have been over a 100 attempted SCHOOL shootings (imagine how many out of schools) in the United States since 2010, most of them leaving people dead or injured. The last mass shooting was in May of this year (Elliot Rodger). This is something that's happening before and while the game's being developed, so let's please agree on the fact that it doesn't get more recent than this.
But all of that was to respond to the unrelated stuff you wrote. My concern was with the developers being inhonest, and that point still stands. Is Hatred really all about being fun, or is it intentionally provocative? The developers says the first thing, but the answer is quite obviously the latter. Is it okay for games for to be provocative and should we give Hatred a chance before we condemnd? Since you obviously thought I answered that anyway, I'll just go ahead and say yes. The developers aren't honest about it, though. That was my point.
If this be ban for big offense violence kill everyone peoples than GTA V. GTA V kill enemy yes, Manhunt kill enemy yes, kill zomble And MW2 so just wars lol. Gta v funny joke than Hatre screw kill.
I personally am getting bored by the hero save the world/hero save the chick concept. 90% of games are like that. Diversity is never a bad thing and I actually always wanted to play as the bad guy as well. I don't know much about Hatred, but being a bad gay in a story exploring the psychological background sounds neat to me.
There's just a line that shouldn't really be crossed. What next? rape games? child abuse games? nah I dont think Hatred should be defended at all, I really think this game should not be allowed to be sold to anyone.
I quite like video game violence but I do need that 1 thing that disconects me from what I'm killing, I dont care if its orcs, androids, terrorists or aliens but I will never enjoy mindless slaughter of innocent people, or should I say videogame characters that are portrayed in that way.
Hatred is just too similar to tragedies that happen in real life, these are incedents that leave families messed up for the rest of their lives. I'm sure I'm not the only one that felt uncomfortable playing the torture scene in GTA V or the 'No Russian' section of CoD: MW2. Stuff like this, we just dont need it.
More games like ICO and Journey, less games like Hatred.
I somewhat agree with what you've said. I briefly wondered myself if this game was about being a crazy pedophile that captures children, would this game get as much defenders about freedom of speech and all that. I am not saying that Hatred shouldn't exist, it revolves violence which is the most digestible offense within most cultures but let's not pretend like a ceiling shouldn't exist for what can be released to the public.
You are right beerzombie, silly me to forget that XD and it was a poor example in my part but if it the game was about killing kids specifically I doubt it would have the tug of war we are seeing now.
What also bothers me is that Hatred feels way too much like cash in on recent events than a game with actual depth behind. But we'll have to wait and see after release because I could be wrong and the story could actually be good.
Actually Beerzombie is wrong. There was a recent court case in which a defendant had virtual child pornography, no actual minors being used. See Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition.
"The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. ... The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or actions and any resulting child abuse. Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it might encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct."
I see you used the slippery slope logical fallacy here. The right wing in the USA uses this when trying to prevent two people that love each other from getting married. They say, "What's next? If you let gays marry, then pedophiles will rape children."
It is saying one thing that is completely unrelated will happen because of another thing.
If you don't like this game or its content, then that is great, don't play it or buy it. But why should I not get to play it because it bothers you?
That is a line that should never be crossed. I shouldn't have my art censored because you find it offensive.
I am also very much anti-censorship, but in my opinion if you enjoy games like this there is something wrong with you no matter if you call it art or spin it any other way that makes you feel better about it, sorry.
Violent games won't turn a non-violent person violent. It's not that this game should be condemned. They are free to create whatever they want. But that doesn't change the fact that many hardened gamers, myself included, find the imagery disturbing, and thusly, not entertaining.
I prefer my ultra-violence to be unrealistic, as I use games to escape... I have no use for realistic violence, especially when my goal is to kill innocents.
All lot of the arguments condemning Hatred are very similar to the ones that were made about Mortal Combat and GTA which also had critics saying that there's a line that shouldn't be crossed.
Maybe because some of those people are now parents and now matured but they are still wrong. the game looks stupid. killing just to kill makes no sense to me unless it has a good reason. Plus I doubt Ms or Sony will allow this on their console.
Wouldn't it be less about the reason for killing (story) and more about the gameplay.
It is a game after all, even if the premise is offensive and themes lacking from a story point of view, wouldn't good gameplay make it at least an ok game.
I hope all the sites denouncing the game before even playing it refrain from reviewing it as well. It's now clearly impossible for them to give it an unbiased review.
If it were found out that Leonardo Da vinci was a pedophile would that make his work suddenly bad or offensive.
But it does effect us, just not in the way that the article means. Do video games make people more violent? I dont think so. People's like or dislike of violence is already there before they pick up a violent video game. Also, violent movies and tv shows have existed for a very long time, you dont hear then get the blame that games so.
However, this game could definitely effect all gamers because it has the potential to effect the video game industry. Just wait until big media outlets like Fox and MSNBC get their hands on this. The violence in video games debate could very easily, and probably will get resparked to the extreme, just like when the Mortal Kombat came out.
At the end of the day, the video game industry has fought hard to become a legitimate form of entertainment, and this game has the potential to set that back by 10 years or more.
How will this set back video games, there will be some news stories and some moms will get butthurt. It's not like this is going to cause some kind of legislation to censor or ban games. This game is genius. These guys saw that violent games and school shootings were getting all kinds of free press and the thought "hey, lets make school shooting, the game". This game is already getting tons of free publicity and will only get more when it releases. No one will remember it exists a month after it comes out. It's not going to affect anything other than getting these devs paid and that's great.
You condemn a game like this simply because it glorifies hatred for no reason. That is almost as bad and in some ways worse than glorifying for a stupid reason such as having a prejudice for race, religion, political or social ideology, or country of national origin. In addition violence in video games just like in any other medium can affect someone, but it doesn't drive you to main, kill, or otherwise truly be someone other than you are already. However, it might give you ideas.
yes there a violent games lots of them, but almost all of them is always the path of good vs evil, this hatred game or whatever is called is not based on that is just based on killing innocents and for me that messed up, how somebody spend their time developing something like this ?, the only thing that comes to mind about these devs is that they have some serious mental issues.
Somebody would say GTA is about that but get your facts right, in GTA is up to you to go on a rampage an kill everyone, on this hate game the main idea is killed innocents, so fuck$#$ed up!
I guess the dev Crew should have twisted the story just a lil bit? Maybe like he was on some new government experimental drug that builds up so much hate and........ Makes everyone look like zombies through his eyes?! Maybe then it would be ok? Cause I really didn't see anything that hasn't been in a game before...
Looks like the story is freeking everyone out more than what you can do in the game.. I can understand some ppl feeling disgusted by the game because no one would ever want someone to actually do that but my question would be.... Why do movies get a pass?
The games story has to be very strong so I hope the trailer isn't the way everything starts and turns into just random acts for no good reason, like if he ends up in a mall give that a good reason as to why he's really there not just " oh there's a mall" ..
If the game has a strong story and good gameplay, if it comes to consoles I might give it a try.. I am perfectly sane and would never do some crazy shit like that in real life.
I can't speak for our neighboring countries for their levels of crime and violence. But save for the war torn Middle-East and crashing parts of War-torn Africa, no other country in this world have as bad a reputation of cultural senseless gun violence as bad we do have here in the US. And this game clearly depicts and characterize those type of people and hate-filled thinking & ideology that do actually exist here. This game does just fuels that fantasy off random mass-killing wannabe's that has too easy access to guns & ammo somewhere someday will do or at least want to do.
Because people are bored.
Nobody said video game violence doesn't affect us. They said video game violence doesn't make us violent.
But good job kicking things off with a straw man argument there, chief.
The game at best would be a scapegoat regarding the silly debate. I don't condemn the game or its developers, but I believe this game would simply cause more controversy.
Don't see how video game violence affects anyone really. But man anyone seen how he had that one guy floating in mid air in the trailer then blasted em lol i wanna try that one day.
That's a good question, and one that has made me really think my stance on video game violence. I now see the error of my thinking. Whereas I used to strongly believe video game violence does not affect anyone, I confess I was wrong. It's not so much the violence as it is the reasoning behind it. Glorifying hatred is disgusting, and I don't care if I'm the only gamer in the world willing to say something about it, I'm going to stand up for what I believe. Too long have I justified wrong in the interest of protecting what I enjoy.