GG3 writes: "At least appears functional, so there are no issues there.
What’s becoming less cute to deal with is the way Hatred is handling its marketing campaign."
A game about killing people.
This game was just gratuitous violence. I don't know why it was rated AO. It's no worse than a GTA killing spree, Hotline Miami, or even the 'No Russian' COD mission. Reminded my of a weaker Dead Nation except no zombies.
I'm surprised Switch is getting this and PlayStation/Xbox isn't. The game was basically Postal with better graphics and more realism.
A look at five games that gamers loved but most critics hated.
Advent Rising is another good example. It got panned by critics but it has a good story and I enjoyed playing it. The graphics are dated, the enemies all look the same, but it was made in 2005 so what do you expect? I wish they made the sequel so I could finish the story but I think the critics killed it off.
Joanna Mueller writes: "Since the 1980's, video game advocates have been arguing for the protection of games as a medium of free speech. Frankly, I consider myself in that camp, but just because a game can push against the boundaries of common decency doesn't mean it should. Especially if the developer is just hoping to ride the wave of pearl clutching controversy to the bank."
Nothing wrong with pushing for controversy, but the game still has to be worthwhile. Lots of games in the 90s showed that.
Because the novelty will eventually wear off and the audience will eventually wise up.
So what? If there's a market for something then why should anyone care if it gets filled, as long as it's not something illegal? You can dislike so-called "edge lord" games all you want (in fact, you can like or dislike whatever you want, full stop) but even if games like Hatred are just trying to take advantage of anti-SJW backlash to make a quick buck, the fact that they exist at all is important in a culture that's becoming increasingly puritan and censorship orientated. Art is supposed to push the envelope. It's supposed to make you think. And even if all a game makes you do is think about why certain people are so desperate to ban it.
Good article.
Now about that trailer above, never seen it before and that was bad, no not cool 'bad' just freaking pathetic bad.
it's unfortunate too, take off the bird's eye view, put an interesting story with a whole different concept to go along with these graphics and you could have something worth buying, but you don't, you have that.
I have to disagree with this article. The developers are 'dicks' for releasing the game early to the fans that already paid for it? And this is supposed to be bad? How? Just because someone pre-ordered the game doesn't mean they are going to love it, let alone defend their purchase. What about publishers who do not allow gaming sites to post review scores early? Isn't that just as much of a 'dick' tactic as it doesn't allow for gamers to read a critique before they make an investment. I can understand the writer of this piece not liking Hatred and wanting it to just go away. But the amount of salt in this article is just too much. Stop trying to malign the developer for rewarding the people who backed their product. You clearly aren't one of those who pre-ordered the game. So what does it matter to you? Are you afraid that the swarm of insincere positive reviews will make the game sell in the millions? I honestly had a luke-warm interest in this game until the likes of you tried to convince me how horrible it was. I now intend to purchase Hatred. Thank you. :)
" I mean, no one wants to pre-order a game that sucks, right? You'll want to hold on to every shred of hope that the thing you were so eager to pay for isn't bad, because it makes you look bad. "
This sounds an awful lot like one of the reasons why fanboys exist; not all of us are able to afford every video game console - so those whom can only have one and not another would put their purchase on a pedestal while labeling the competition as inferior.
But Hatred isn't massive investment to a typical gamer by any means - it costs less than most titles out there. If it ends up being complete garbage, I don't think those who pre-ordered it would be so afraid to admit that they made a bad purchase that they would overcompensate by flooding the internet with glowing reviews; this isn't a $400-$500 gaming console. We all buy bad games, it happens.
I did not pre-order this game. The barrier you speak would never have applied to me. What the developer is doing is simply a gesture of thanks to those who saw an interest in a product, who were able to look passed all the noise and negative press and make a decision on their own.
Wouldn't this bias hold true for any and all pre-orders then? Incentives. Bonuses. Extra skins and maps. Consumers are consistently incentivized to order a product long before it is reviewed - let alone even released. Is there no bias there? Wouldn't consumers lean towards speaking positively about their purchase, especially if you had pre-ordered it, paid in full, and received some extra content? You don't want to 'look bad', so of course you are going to defend it - this is the argument that you are making after all.
Kickstarter offers rewards to backers. Beta access. Extra backer-only content. Would this not generate a bias as well? And Kickstarter projects aren't even guaranteed to be released, let alone have any obligation to stick to their original pitch or concept. Why is Hatred and what it is doing - releasing the title a mere three days before the rest of 'shlumps' get to play - being singled out when countless others have been conducting similar activity for years?
Rob zombie in hatred the movie jk.love the trailers they put out. the game reminds me of when you stop giving a fuck about doing story/missions in GTA and just want to murder everyone in your way.
Glad to pass on this...IMO!