Gary Swaby at The Koalition writes: Polish developer Destructive Creations has developed a game about civilian massacre. The aim is to just kill everybody, for no reason at all than to fulfill the blood lust of the main character. This is exactly the kind of game that the media likes to target and blame for programming society. So with that in mind, should Hatred be allowed to exist in the gaming industry when it’s already so judged? We discuss Hatred on this Week’s Co-op.
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.
Per the conversation on the show, I think a developer does have a right to make any type of game they want. However, I would also say that the way in which they present the game needs to be fully thought out before being executed on. At first glance, Hatred looks like a game with no story or reasoning behind the mass killings. If the developer comes out later and gives context and meaning to the actions perhaps that can make a difference but for now I'm not so sure about that.
An interesting conversation about a tricky subject.
Artistically, allow expression as the artist intends. And then freely support/don't support as you see fit.
The instant it gets decided that any given form of media should not exist, it opens the door for a tidal wave of censorship on all fronts.
We have no right to ban any form of art, save that which infringes upon, or exploits the rights of another person.
Why not? It's aimed at adults not kids.