"“I decided to go down a path that most developers are afraid to go down,” said the game’s creator, Randall Herman, “to piss these people off by making the most overly offensive game possible to these idiots to prove a point"
And what was the point?
The devs are complete utter morons:
“To everyone that got overly offended. Good, that’s what we were going for. Just wait for our next game we are working on, it’s gonna be way more offensive than this one.”
It's like some moronic schoolkid learned how to code and is now a desperate attention seeker.
Lets stop giving idiots like this the attention they so desperately crave.
But this was exactly what I said would start to happen when everyone was championing the Destructive Creation's game 'Hatred' in the name of creative freedom, freedom of expression, and anti-censorship.
Why all the backtracking now? What happened to freedom of expression, and freedom of creativity all of a sudden?
So is it true afterall that there are some games that should not be allowed to be made?
People can shout about anti-censorship all they want, but when it gets too offensive they will backtrack. Honestly, I don't think there is anything wrong with Valve pulling Hatred from steam. It is their choice to allow which games on their platform, it's perfectly within their rights, and they are exercising their rights here. They just didn't do it before because there was backlash.
The question is, at what point is there a line that is crossed where a game ceases to have "artistic liberty" and just becomes hate speech? I don't know if some games should or shouldn't be made, but I don't think Hatred deserved the support it got. I honestly wouldn't have put the game on steam if I was running valve, but that's just me.
Anyone who is willing to defend the artistic freedom of "Hatred" but condemn this game really needs to take a long look in the mirror and question their intellectual integrity.
People can make whatever game they want. Good luck finding a release channel. Valve are not the US Government, they are a private entity who are allowed to sell whatever they deem fit on their service. They have no obligation to honour this guy's freedom of speech.
As I've said before, freedom of speech and freedom of expression do not mean you can do or say whatever you want and we all have to sit here and listen. Hate speech, incitement, oppressive speech, threats to public security etc. are all limitations on that freedom. This ticks more than a few of those boxes. If this were called "Kill the N****r" you'd all be singing a different tune, and hardly calling this guy an artist.
The real crime however is that this gets pulled and yet hundreds of other as bad or worse games, quality wise, remain on the store. Curation is seriously needed on Steam.
people care less about how one expresses themselves in a private manner, steam is a public service and they have every right to pull games they deem offensive.
this whole freedom of expression nonsense is getting out of hand and common sense doesn't seem to be very common. we live in a civilized society and if you don't want to fit within that society go live somewhere else. nobody cares about attention seekers who are trying to prove some warped point.
I disagree. While Hatred is violent for the sake of it, take off that high contrast filter and its no worse than going on a shooting rampage in GTA 5. The top down perspective and over-the-top violence and destruction further removes it from reality.
This game is literally a troll. It shouldn't exist because it is barely a game and exists purely to offend. Hatred is partly guilty of that, but it still looks like it has actual gameplay and isn't just some homophobic crap that could've been done on flash.
I'm certainly not one to say someone can not make a game they want to make. If you want to make a game knock yourself out put whatever you want into it. That said don't expect to be supported just because you made a game. I believe companies like valve absolutely have the right to choose what kind of content they will support in their store. that is not censoring the content from being created it merely is allowing valve to say we don't want this on our store shelf because it's not what we believe in. They are private company and I think they absolutely have that freedom just like the creators of the game had the freedom to make their game.
Heh, I knew this would happen. See some of you, like moldybread, miss the point. Freedom of expression literally means that yes, you can say whatever you want to. Sorry, that's how it works. You just aren't free from the consequences of what you say. You are not in control of how it is interpreted and "living in a civilized society" does not mean "conditional free expression." That would defeat the purpose entirely. Problem is, there are too many weak people in the world who think they are adults when they aren't. They aren't exactly children either because kids have more emotional strength than everyone that has a real issue with a game like this or Hatred.
Ideas can only hurt you if you let them. This game is only offensive if you are incapable of separating your real self from a piece of fiction. That's the problem. Too many people are "offended" by everything.
Now, does Valve have the right to remove whatever games they want? Sure, it's their store. The issue is, why are they removing it? This game is no more offensive than Hatred. It is more focused, but the premise is the same. Slaughter, death, murder. This is where the double standards come in to play. If someone made their own game about fighting the Japanese in World War 2, it wouldn't be pulled even though the "offended" should think of it as racist. No, it wouldn't be pulled because it's historically accurate and actually happened. Well, so has targeted murder against homosexuals.
We live in an age of hypocrisy. People want only their freedom of expression to be allowed. They don't understand that the purest form of freedom of expression has always, and will always, be unpleasant. It's meant to be. After all, it was created to ensure that you can say your government sucks and not be sentenced to death for doing so.
You don't have to like this game, but you don't have the right to have it pulled because of that. Simply allow it to die in obscurity and irrelevance for having a stupid message created by a stupid person. If Valve removed this game because of backlash, they are hypocrites. If they removed it because someone at Valve is homosexual, they're childish. I personally think the only reason they should have to remove a game is because it is a badly designed game trying to get away with selling a broken product. They are a business, they aren't there to hold your hand and coddle your feels.
I don't think Hatred targets a single group. I haven't looked into it, but I'm pretty sure it's literally about killing everyone.
This "game" was obviously just targeted gay bashing. If it was named something like "Kill F***ing Everyone" and the objective wasn't to single out groups of people, no one would care. It may be bring out hatred for people (for the lack of a better term), but its fair in its presentation.
Yeah, Hatred is really just indiscriminate killing, but then so is this game. The difference is that you are rewarded with points for killing homosexuals, not anyone else. You CAN kill everyone, but you're encouraged to kill specific people. It's definitely a game made to be purposely antagonistic, and it's stupid and badly made, but those facts are not justification to remove it and at the same time allow games just like it. Double standards.
This has nothing to do with freedom of expression or creativity. No one is stopping these guys from making this game at all. They are perfectly free to make and sell it to however they want to. But steam don't want it in in their marketplace,and that's their right as the owners of it.
You wouldn't be within your rights to insist that waterstone's sells copies of your poorly written, ill thought out, right wing beliefs, so why should valve have to?
If you agree to live within the confides of society or any other ecosystem for that matter you agree to live by the moral and social constraints it places upon you. That's the bargain. You get to live in relative piece, in return you cant just do anything you want.
I don't know whay people can't grasp this basic concept.
As far as Hatred is concerned it's OK because despite being violent its indescriminate You're placed in the shoes of someone who is obviously not the hero even within the game world.
Which is the complete opposite of what this game is doing, singling out a certain group and killing them because you don't like them. Now let's replace Gay people with women, or arabs (no wait that's CoD hur hurr).
Would there be any debate as to whether it was Ok to be on Steam if this was called Lynch the N****** and you played as a member of the KKK making the south safe for white folk. OF COURSE YOU BLOODY WOULDN'T.
You immediately miss the point when you insist on labeling thought based on political positions. Is it outside the realm of possibility that rights are inherent and don't require one to occupy a position in politics to be true? I am neither right wing, or left wing. I deal with matters on an individual scope and interpret their worth in that manner. In that frame of thought I believe you can't say freedom of expression is a guaranteed right if you're going to then make it conditional. Conditions are not freedom.
"If you agree..."
Living in the confides of society doesn't mean that agenda driven politics and the emotional well being of people that are not an immediate part of your life take precedence over your rights. We do not live, or are not supposed to be living, in a world where rights end where feelings begin. Also there is a big difference between SAYING anything you want, and DOING anything you want. Words only have as much power as you give them, actions cause physical change that can be harmful.
"As far as Hatred..."
Justification. Someone could easily make the claim, and have, that this is not ok because it promotes senseless violence. People can, and have, been offended by it because there is no "structure" to the violence. It simply exists. That is a double standard. You're saying it's ok to kill everyone, it's not ok to pick who you choose to kill. Funny, soliders do that every day.
"Which is the..."
How about we replace them with straight white men. Would that be ok? Clearly it would be because countless games do it. Double standards.
"Would there be any debate..."
No there wouldn't be, but not because there SHOULDN'T be. A game like that is disgusting, just like this game is. But just because a thing is disgusting doesn't mean you have the right to prevent it from being.
I found feminist art to be ridiculously disgusting. I saw a video in which a woman stripped naked in public over a large white canvas and shot paint filled "eggs" out of her vagina, the first one being filled with red paint. This was all done in the "name of art." In a "civilized society" you're not allowed to run around nude. It's called indecent exposure. This woman was allowed to do something that made me wretch free from consequence. The why is immaterial. The point is, even though I thought it was disgusting, I only expressed that I thought it was disgusting, not that she can't be allowed to do it because she's naked and her "art" can cast certain bad imagery.
This is the same thing. This game is disgusting. The guy who made it has serious problems, but that doesn't give YOU the right to impinge on HIS right for this game to exist and be sold. How you or anyone else feel about it is irrelevant. Express how you feel about it, don't buy it, but let it die in obscurity, not in censorship.
Why are people comparing this to 'Hatred'? It'd be virtually the same to compare it to GTA. In its sometimes gruesome and pointless violence, both of these games do not discriminate or single out any particular group of people as a target to your (*ahem* your character's) rampage.
***Anyone who is willing to defend the artistic freedom of "Hatred" but condemn this game really needs to take a long look in the mirror and question their intellectual integrity.***
I will say that Hatred at least isn't a targeted attack at a specific group of people.
I support their rights to make these games, but I won't support the games themselves. I also support Valve's right to remove them for whatever reason they see fit.
"Heh, I knew this would happen. See some of you, like moldybread, miss the point."
i see i've become your number one fan.
"Freedom of expression literally means that yes, you can say whatever you want to. Sorry, that's how it works."
no it isn't. the point you missed is the game has been pulled. so tell me again how you can say whatever you want.
"You just aren't free from the consequences of what you say. You are not in control of how it is interpreted and "living in a civilized society" does not mean "conditional free expression." That would defeat the purpose entirely. Problem is, there are too many weak people in the world who think they are adults when they aren't."
really? this is about how strong you are compared to everyone else? lol. you see, once again you miss the point. steam is run by valve and they, not you and your impressive strength, can dictate what is allowed on their store.
"They aren't exactly children either..."
more rhetoric about nothing.
"Ideas can only hurt you if you let them. This game is only offensive if you are incapable of separating your real self from a piece of fiction."
will you just stop. this isn't about my feelings, it's about social acceptance. get it through your head. nobody cares what people say in their private lives, steam is a public site and they will do what's best for their image. do you just argue for the sake of arguing?
"Now, does Valve have the right to remove whatever games they want? Sure, it's their store. The issue is, why are they removing it?"
because of public pressure. just like public pressure to keep hate groups from roaming the streets and promoting racism and hatred.
"This game is no more offensive than Hatred. It is more focused, but the premise is the same. Slaughter, death, murder. This is where the double standards come in to play."
again, it is about social acceptance created by society. don't like it go live in china.
"We live in an age of hypocrisy."
nobody is stopping anyone from doing things privately. society will dictate what is acceptable. don't like it move somewhere else.
"They don't understand..."
more rhetoric just to keep saying the same thing.
"You don't have to like this game, but you don't have the right to have it pulled because of that."
they, valve, have every right to pull it. open up your own digital store, do what you want. feel the backlash but keep it on your store. accept the backlash and possibly loss of customers all to prove a point. go ahead, let's see how well your digital store does hosting all these games of expression. it's so easy for you to just vent and not be accountable isn't it? not invest yourself and put yourself out there. valve knows the credibility of its site would take a hit. yes they could keep the game up but why would they? it is not good for public image, get it?
"Simply allow it to die in obscurity and irrelevance for having a stupid message created by a stupid person."
why allow it to fester and create a bad image when they can just pull it and be done with it? you really think millions will now put up their banners and stop supporting steam because they pulled this game? you know nothing about marketing and running a business. all you know is how to critique and point fingers.
A line should be drawn. Do they have the right to make the game? And was it right to make the game? So the IDEA of killing homosexuals is to be accepted as their right, acting out the fantasy of killing them digitally is to be accepted because it's their "freedom" to do so, but killing them for real is unacceptable. Society needs a cold hard reality check. It's not right to make a game like this, or one killing Christians, or Jews, or blacks, or whatever.
Whatever their "rights" are, they're itrelevant, society should outcast people like them. Just like the lady in Texas that expressed her "right" to have a funny drawing contest of the prophet Muhammad , and then a couple Isis radicals decided to express their right to protest by taking guns to the exhibit and trying to splatter brains everywhere. People lost their lives for this dumbass ladies "freedom of speech".
Anyone that blindly allows and endorses freedom of speech Of this kind deserves what's coming, it's natural selection I suppose. This guy exercized his right to freedom of speech, and the LGBT community is gonna politically hang him for it. That guy will never be heard from again.
hatred was more about killing everything. this is more of a hate crime driven game. most top down shooters have you kill everything with no need for story. i would even care if they made a hostile game but a game focus on stuff like this is wrong. they do have the freedom to make it tho.
do you remember a rockstar game called state of emergency. you killed everybody in the game. what if i made a game called kill a b!t<hes, or black people, or jews. get it theres a difference. we are all created equal so we can all die together the seem more like hatred. even though i dont want the game but i get that its senseless killing, just like what most do in open world games when we are bored.
I think they are proving an interesting point. If you offend certain other groups people cheer saying its a noble act of freedom of expression. But when its their own sensibilities being offended, then its a horrible thing that should be banned, freedom of expression be damned!
It shows how hypocritical people can be, and that being offended is really used to gain power over other groups
You don't have a right to say or do anything you want. Those freedoms protect you from arrest or censorship by the state, and only when it is not hate speech, slander, incitement and many other limitations too numerous to list here.
There is no artistic merit to this, and stop pretending there is. This is no better than any hate propaganda targeted towards a minority or protected group. You don't really understand the responsibility that comes with your freedoms if you regard this as an artistic piece worthy of preservation and defence.
"You don't have a right to say or do anything you want."
Wrong. You do have the right to say anything you want. You don't have the right to just go out and kill someone, so technically you're right that you can't do whatever you want. Freedom of expression is literally the right to say whatever you want and not be imprisoned for it, you aren't free from how people take it though.
The artistic merit of this game is that it is the expression of the artist. That's literally all it has to be. It's a stupid game, purposely antagonistic and coming from a stupid person, but you don't get to say there is no artistic merit just because you don't like it.
LightofDarkness, Howard Stern or Opie and Anthony have rendered your comment erroneous. They are just some of the most hate filled, obscene talk shows in existence.
In the first place, obscenity is not a crime punished under law. It's far too subjective and it's like literally saying "F you" will land you in jail. Defamation is something that can damage a person's livelihood and involves making false claims, that's why it's punished, not because it's a disagreeable form of expression. Incitement falls under the "except sedition" aspect of the right of free speech. Freedom of expression is a right guaranteed except when trying to be seditious. That's a common clause in all charters that have such a right and incitement can be interpreted as being under that thought.
Sure you have the right of free speech, but the people you directed your free speech toward, also have the freedom to tell you how dumb it is/ was - and even sue your ass if they want -, after all, they are free too.
@Septic Don't get all the disagrees. What are they disagreeing with? I don't see the point either. I think anyone who spews out so much hatred and puts so much effort into it reaching as wide of an audience possible are attention seekers and have serious mental health issues. That this game went up and got to exist on Steam for two days is odd to me.
In America, if you're half white and half black, you're still considered black. Heck even if you're 25% black and 75% white you are still considered black.
So no... not like Obama. He is also only really Christian in name only, goes to church on christmas once a year as tradition, not that I would have a problem with that or anything.
Just don't know why you mention Obama. You just trying to say both sides of politics is intolerant?
Hatred is just about killing people. Its a hollow and purposefully brash game whereas this is intentionally offensive to the point of promoting homophobic behavior. As shallow as hatred is it deserves to be on Steam this, however, doesn't.
You do realize that the Hatred devs outright admitted that the whole reason they made that game so offensive was so they could get attention, right?
You can't act like that is in any way better. So what, Hatred is okay because you kill EVERYONE and not just one group of people? Don't you see that its all the same? Either way the game is forcing you to kill people for absolutely no reason other than the character's HATE.
Sure, this game found a way to be more offensive by targeting one specific group, but it doesn't make Hatred any more justifiable.
People said it when all the Hatred hype was going around. Yes, there is a limit to what should exist before being censored. People used a rape sim as an example of something that should not exist, but i think this is a fine example also.
Not only did I not get offended by this game, it did in fact not piss me off at all. These "devs" actually made me laugh, hysterically, at their ridiculous amount of stupid.
The reasoning gave for the creation of this game is just so. gat. damn. DUMB. LOL. I can't even express how hard I laughed at this guys moronic statements.
There is no "point", no deeper meaning or anything, just craving attention. And it's absolutely amazing how obvious they made it. Septic summed it up perfectly anyways.
I have to admit, as offensive as it is I started laughing the second I saw the title. The existance of a game called "Kill the Faggot" was so retarded it was beyond my comprehension.
And LOL at the devs. It's like they're saying they made a game where you kill gay people to fight bigotry against gays or something lol.
That's the exact reaction people should have had. To laugh at these morons and let their game die because of how stupid the idea is and also because it was poorly made, not this "oh no, this game is killing fictional people with a non-existent sexual orientation (because non-existent people can't have a sexual orientation), let's rage and get the game pulled" mentality.
Yes the devs are homohaters and indeed morons. Mike if you call this "freedom of expression" and "frreedom of creativity" than there is something wrong with your way of thinking
This game is made to make one group, gay people look like scum and there is a reason to beat the heck out of cous there gay and "sick"
My point was that when I called out 'Hatred' as a game that did not need to be made. I was ridiculed and accused of being against freedom of expression and creativity etc etc.
Then we get this. To be clear, this is another game that I do not think needs to be made at all. The devs can use their creativity and freedoms to innovate and make a game that is exciting, fun, and accessible. Heck they can even make a game that addresses issues to sexuality and gender - if it is actually exploreing and addressing those issues.
But to use all that time and resourse just to make a game for the sole purpose of offending... for me that is the defintition of a game that doesn't need to be made.
Freedom of Speech snd Freedom of Expression doesn't mean you should say and do whatever comes across your mind. It's there so you can decide between what you should and shouldn't do.
There are some people in this world that don't go on killing sprees simply because it's illegal.
"Freedom of Speech snd Freedom of Expression doesn't mean you should say and do whatever comes across your mind."
You're wrong, thats exactly what it does, it "warranties" that you don't get punished for expressing your opinions and points of view, the problems is that we now live in the age of political correctness or better called social marxism so essentially nowadays freedom of speech only works if you share a common and politically correct view/opinion.
Free speech and expression isn't a one-way street where you get to spout foolishness and no one gets to call you out on it. If someone puts an opinion out into the public sphere and people find it idiotic, they have every right to call it nonsense.
Basically, the impression I get from you is that don't want free speech and expression -- you want your special snowflake opinion to be heard, but never challenged.
@StevenSeagul so basically you're saying that people should be pushined for their opinions and way of thinking and that they should think in the same way that you do or they should be pushished? Isn't that facism? Isn't that what every single country through history has been figthing against?
@Thryhring I think you're taking my comment out of context. I'm specifically talking about punishment not calling someone out, i'm talking about those who go as far as making some people lose their jobs just because they don't like their opinions. I'm all in for freedom of speech and debate but I don't support in any way those extremists who ruin people's life because they have a different opinion.
If an employee makes a public statement, it *absolutely* reflects on the employer. So the employer has every right to respond by firing and distancing themselves from said employee.
Free speech being protected means you can and should be able to say what you want, but it's never meant you should never face any consequences after spreading nonsense.
No one should be imprisoned or physically harmed for the making of this game -- that would indeed be heinous. But if, for example, I owned a company and one of my employees picketed with the Westboro Baptist Church, I would *not* want their garbage on my doorstep and would absolutely fire them, and I'd have every right to. And I would certainly have the right to keep them on as well, but my customers would have the right to take their business elsewhere if I did not.
@Thryhring That's not true although that's how people perceive it nowadays. Personal opinions made out of the business do not reflect the employer or the company intentions however people does take it in that way which leads the employer to fire the employee.
One example is GTA V being banned from Kmart and Target in Australia, a minority group of feminist threatened to boycott and whatnot those 2 stores and the managers decided to ban the game. Was this a good move from the managers part? Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't, in my opinion they should have made an study to determine if the game would have affect the store sales or not and make a decision based on it. But at the end of the day a minority group decided for a whole country what they should consume (in those stores) and what not.
It shouldn't work in that way and it actually didn't work in that way until this trend started around 10-14 years ago, thats why in my first comment I was talking about political correctness.
"it "warranties" that you don't get punished for expressing your opinions and points of view" Wrong, it solely protects you from the government, and allows you to say whatever you please (within a few rules i.e. yelling fire in crowded places like movie theaters ect.), no one can take that away, but that doesn't mean others won't offer some sort of consequence.
Really? None of you got this upset over hatred which was a mass murder simulator... Yet once something's homophobic that's crossing the line... Yeah okay then.
Yeah that's where I find this a little different, I don't like Hatred either, but it depicts undiscriminated violence whereas with this its hate is obviously more focused and discriminating. Either way I think both games are horrible, solely produced for shock value and media coverage with little actual artistic merit.
So would anyone have a problem with a game called Kill all Straights? People get to worked up over stupid stuff. It's a game. My sister is gay, and she laughed when she heard about this game.When she came out to the family we told her that we love her regardless of how we personally feel about it. I personally don't like it, but it's her body and her life, and I'm still her big brother regardless. But if I say I don't like homosexuality, people call me a bigot or a closet homosexual when I'm just expressing my feelings on the subject. My sister knows I don't like it and I know she's gay. As long as she doesn't try to force her views on me, and I don't force mine on her we get along just fine. I don't understand why both camps can't just accept the others feelings and beliefs. If people have the right to be gay(and they do) then other people have the right to feel that homosexuality is...I don't know...wrong. Should we kill all Faggots? No, but I've been killing straights for years in videogames so I don't see what's so bad about a game that has the player killing homosexuals. It's a crappy videogame people, not some deep commentary on social issues.
This should not be a video game and neither should hatred.
This medium has come along way and I love the way it has progressed for developers to create a game foundation based on many things that inspire them and for us all to pick & choose whichever fits our preference as fun.
At the same time I can say my opinion on what I think of them, agree or disagree does not matter, this is the consequence of freedom of expression with entertainment and I for one would never give money nor pirate to play any game like this.
As far as I'm concerned if I don't see a headline about KTF or hatred then they simply don't exist as games, the developers who create these thrive off controversy only because that's the only recognition anybody can give them when there's nothing else to offer.
That or maybe I don't know what fun is, or maybe I'm too sensitive, or maybe these are just stupid ideas...
It's frightening to read these comments. So many people are against freedoms they take for granted. They don't understand that freedom must have as few limits as possible because it is a slippery slope; today you campaign against Hatred and Kill the F****t but tomorrow some Jack Thompson types succeed in banning games like GTA, which are less offensive than the previous two but still considered controversial. Then what's next? The feminists get their way, gay agenda, racial minorities do too, etc, next thing you know, My Little Pony is the only available game in our society, but this goes deeper than games, unfortunately.
Once one right, freedom of speech, is reigned in, the rest fall. There's morons against the right to bear arms right now and you're all working together to ruin America. You have no idea what you're bringing down upon this country and I hope I am dead by time the s*** hits the fan.
TL;DR: This is more than about games, but the principle of the matters. Our rights must not be infringed due to subjectivity.
Uh, yeah, feminism really is about equality. You can tell yourself otherwise for whatever reason, but a little homework on your end would support my claim. Feminism is like Christianity where there's a message that often gets muddied by intolerant radicals. You're thinking of "fem-nazis". Those are the ones who believe in feminine dominance. Feminism is about equal opportunities and treatment for women.
Your comment was pretty redundant, but I encourage you to offer something substantive next time. If you don't believe anything I said, *you* tell *me* what feminism is.
"Ideal" feminism would be about equality.... ...current feminism is an exercise in sophist hot-headedness.
The Gay Agenda is not good, because it seeks to surpass tolerance and institutionalize homosexuality as a *NORM*. ....whether or not you tolerate it; and whether you believe in God or Evolution - homosexuality is not normal.
Minority worship is a waxing bad too, since disproportional representation leads to many more inequalities for both the minorities and the majorities.
Personally, I firmly believe that America was F*CKD the moment the Brady Laws went into effect.
I'm no woman, but what exactly is "ideal"? Defined by whom? Men? Women make noise and, of course, non-women don't like it because it challenges patriarchy. If you take the time to discuss what feminism is about with any civil and rational woman, they will tell you it's about equality; frankly, it's complete bull we don't have that yet. Same goes for people having a harder time getting jobs because they have ethnic names. Women are still fighting against that today. Cartoons, games, sitcoms, etc. have mostly condemned racism (comedies or dramas withstanding in moderation) and yet sexism is still pretty bad across ANY of those mediums. Then again, I'm probably preaching to people who scream, "go make me a sandwich!" when hearing a female voice over their mics in a game match. Oh, and while homosexuality may not be "the norm", there's growing evidence suggesting it is the product of both biological and social factors. Variation in either are quite common...so yeah, normal.
@JonathanACE,
In order of links:
one of those shirts appears sexualized; the other basically says, "I'm feminist and you probably hate it." Either way, it sounds like we're suddenly against freedom of expression. Strange how that works.
"No" totally means "no" and "yes" can turn into a "no" if someone changes their mind. We're not entitled to anyone's body so if someone changes their mind, so be it. Suddenly we can't? The argument can be made that men can be framed in these cases, but the argument can also be made that men get away with it pretty frequently too. Then again, who says it's a man and a woman?
I agree that is silly. Feminism like all things should be allowed to be criticized.
Last bubble, but I'll use it to say the apparent lack of empathy here is bad. Don't pretend to know what feminism stands for and bash it because it's incongruent with your conveniences. Yes, you will get crazies. There will be women who act entitled to more than men. But those are about as deviant from the cause as ISIS is from Islam. How is this so hard to understand? Feminism is, in reality, a civil rights movement. Minorities, women, and homosexuals are all grossly discriminated against in modern society. If you're ignorant to that, you must live a very nice life.
In case you want a textbook definition, (via Google) feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." Bam. Feminism is about equality. If you want to expose yourself to the worst advocates who don't understand what it is (like the "Christians" who think it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals because "the bible condemns it" meanwhile divorce rates are through the roof for reasons beyond "immorality") then fine. I'm sure all of the disagreeing statements are from males, and I get that you don't like your fellow human fighting back against ages of oppression, but open your minds for a moment and have some empathy. Try understanding what it's like for others unlike yourselves. If we were equal, I wouldn't be asking you to and THAT is why feminism exists: to equalize.
And before you ask regarding equality with women, if a feminist woman hits men, they can either walk away or hit them back, though I don't believe in domestic violence.
****TL;DR: Feminism is about equality. Google it.****
And that's all I'll say on this subject. If you still disagree, oh well. Your disapproval of my words just might hurt my feelings. Doubtful, but it's worth a shot.
This spiraled out of control, but yeah, that's it.
Although I didn't approve of the game, they should have left it in there. Let people vote with their wallets. The dev had a right to make whatever game he wanted and Steam shouldn't had pulled it.
I wish there was a game where they get stoned to death(just kidding)but honestly they're not born of the other sex.JUST f*kin accept ur gender and don't change it.Homosexuality is very wrong.Homosexuals are corrupting this world.What ignorant people...they're abominations that are bringing the human race back to the stone age.Remember how the mighty Rome have fallen? but to remove the game is the right decision,both this and hatred are mindless games who put u in the shows of sick murderers who kill for fun
And how exactly are we corrupting the world? I see straight people doing a great job of that on their own. I'm so tired of being the scapegoat for all the world's problems, when just about every problem in this world can be traced to heterosexuals. You are just a lazy thinker.
While I don't at all agree with the premise of Hatred and wish it was never made, I have come to terms with it being around. We're on a slippery slope.
In GTA, you can kill hoards of people...but that's not the objective of the game. It's an undertaking you do whenever out of boredom. Hatred rewards that sort of indiscriminate killing and demands it in gameplay.
This "game" however is targeting a specific group meant to be incredibly offensive and it doesn't even ease up on the very malapropos title (seriously, "f*****"? Grow up, developers).
In short:
GTA = optional mass killing Hatred = indiscriminate mass killing This "game" = targeted mass killing
Be wary of how much attention you're willing to give these games. It would not surprise me if games become more genocidal and then people will complain about freedom of expression there.
Why does it even matter that a game like this is even offered? As the gaming public has claimed over and over, games don't lead to violence. Yes? That's the claim, right? So who cares that a "game" is made that has some ridiculous game play theme? It's not going to lead someone to go out and hunt down gays/lesbians, right? What's it matter to everyone here who doesn't approve of it? They can just NOT BUY it, yes?
The thing is, we're on a gaming site reading gaming news. We will assume game violence has no effect because we may not be personally affected, but let's consider some of the research. To say our aggression levels aren't affected by media is a bold statement. Some empirical studies you might be interested in reading...
Amer's study does suggest that levels of aggression have decreased with time, but it doesn't mean it isn't still worrisome. All I'm saying is it's highly presumptuous to think games don't lead to violence. For some, sure. For most, perhaps. But it doesn't take many. Bandura's study is interesting in that children are highly impressionable. Obviously, children shouldn't be playing these types of games, but that doesn't stop the ten-year-olds we've all probably heard in Metal Gear Online or Call of Duty from getting their hands on it.
Not to have you lean one way over another, but I think there's more evidence for aggression through other models than not that we can learn aggression from. I would imagine an interactive medium would present some concerns, but let's wait for definitive evidence.
Valve is a private entity and it's completely within their rights to pull any games which they deem inappropriate. If the developers want to create garbage, they can sell it on their own website. Nobody is telling the developers what they can create, simply where they can't sell it. It's like an art museum refusing to display a painting smeared with feces that some idiot calls "art".
Don't know why you got the disagrees. This is absolutely true. Valve is a company, and as such, is responsible for whatever shows up on Steam. What it curates represents it, whether directly or indirectly. As you said, the devs have every right to make and distribute the game. However, Valve is not bound by anything to HAVE to accept the game.
I don't believe the decision of Valve to host it is the main issue in these comments. It's the people on here saying the developers have no RIGHT to make a game with this type of theme.
In effect, they are stating an individual's human right to free thought and expression no longer applies, when their thought or expression is contrary to perceived morality.
From what can be seen, the game violates no other person's inalienable rights, that is it does no physical harm to any one person, nor does it make any libelous claims against gays/lesbians, etc.
A line should be drawn. Do they have the right to make the game? And was it right to make the game? So the IDEA of killing homosexuals is to be accepted as their right, acting out the fantasy of killing them digitally is to be accepted because it's their "freedom" to do so, but killing them for real is unacceptable. Society needs a cold hard reality check. It's not right to make a game like this, or one killing Christians, or Jews, or blacks, or whatever.
Whatever their "rights" are, they're itrelevant, society should outcast people like them. Just like the lady in Texas that expressed her "right" to have a funny drawing contest of the prophet Muhammad , and then a couple Isis radicals decided to express their right to protest by taking guns to the exhibit and trying to splatter brains everywhere. People lost their lives for this dumbass ladies "freedom of speech".
Anyone that blindly allows and endorses freedom of speech Of this kind deserves what's coming, it's natural selection I suppose. This guy exercized his right to freedom of speech, and the LGBT community is gonna politically hang him for it. That guy will never be heard from again.
It's no wonder people are slowly and purposely getting their "freedoms" whittled down to nothing. If you don't understand what the concept of what a "true" freedom is, don't run your mouth when the law starts infringing on it.
I personally don't like the idea of someone making something like this, but you know what, he is in every right to create it and sell it if there is an audience to buy it. AND OF COURSE, Valve has every right to not offer it if it is something they don't want to approve to sell. Their call... their right to make that call. However, it is censorship. It's funning how so many SJWs here decry the evils of other censorship in the name of freedom, then come right back around and champion this type of censorship.
The thing is, it's up to steam when it comes to this situation. They could have kept the game, but I believe they made the right choice by taken it off. Steam has an image they don't want to tarnish with offensive garbage.
Of course, this doesn't mean the guy can't release his game, he could do so on his own if he wants to.
Steam has every right to take this game down. They make the rules after all. And I agree with their decision for sure.
I don't agree with Steams decision. It makes sense; however, on a PR standpoint. It should be up to a person to determine if a piece of media is offensive or not. Personally I wouldn't have gotten the game, because it doesnt seem like an entertaining game.
who are you asking? because most of the n4g audience or the gaming generation of past few years in general remembers gaming and gamers as it is today, a bunch of ungrateful disrespectful narcissists and self-entitled fanboys who adore remasters and recycles.
what's left of the older generations especially the golden age will soon disappear forever.
humbly speaking, i'm very proud to have lived and experienced the beginning of everything and very grateful i wasn't born into only remembering how gaming is today.
In my opinion this game is dumb and obvious troll bait. But does it deserve to exist? Why not, if you don't like it don't play it. If the game is bad then people will forget about and it will fade away. Absolutely nobody is going to get hurt from this game or any other.
I totally disagree with this game let me get this point across but Postal series is still on STEAM.. This is the problem for me. You cannot allow 1 set of offensive games but not another. The guy did this to make a point he said but all this does is bring more attention to the wrong side of video gaming which there is very little of. STEAM for as great as it is doesnt vet games because it claims freedom of speech or whatever but in reality we all know its because it saves them money to not do it. Then if enough people complain about it they remove it meaning WE do STEAMs job for them. I love the STEAM platform I have valve behind it for being lazy and only caring about cash I think the fact theres been no Portal, hl3 etc.. proves they only care about the almighty dollar.
"“I decided to go down a path that most developers are afraid to go down,” said the game’s creator, Randall Herman, “to piss these people off by making the most overly offensive game possible to these idiots to prove a point"
And what was the point?
The devs are complete utter morons:
“To everyone that got overly offended. Good, that’s what we were going for. Just wait for our next game we are working on, it’s gonna be way more offensive than this one.”
It's like some moronic schoolkid learned how to code and is now a desperate attention seeker.
Lets stop giving idiots like this the attention they so desperately crave.
I wonder if the people who supported hatreds right to be up would support this?
New low, kill dozens of people next time and then reveal to the world your next game then.
Not only did I not get offended by this game, it did in fact not piss me off at all. These "devs" actually made me laugh, hysterically, at their ridiculous amount of stupid.
The reasoning gave for the creation of this game is just so. gat. damn. DUMB. LOL. I can't even express how hard I laughed at this guys moronic statements.
Actually, yes I can: http://www.reactiongifs.com...
There is no "point", no deeper meaning or anything, just craving attention. And it's absolutely amazing how obvious they made it. Septic summed it up perfectly anyways.
Doesn't seem like the $100 entry fee for Greenlight is enough of a quality control.