Jarosław Zieliński, CEO of Destructive Creations, took to Facebook to speak out against how GameSpot's review of Raven's Cry was rated poorly in part due to in-game racism, sexism, and homophobia.
You can make whatever game you want, that's your right. Howwwwwwever, i sure as hell will not defend that actual work that you have created here. Did you actually think this game would be welcomed with open arms?
Developers can make whatever kind of game they want and critics can critic any aspect of the game they want. That's literally the definition of freedom of speech.
of course it is but my hopes is people buy the game because it's good or ignore it because it's not. if it sells because of the attention it's getting and feeding off of the controversy then that's not supporting freedom of speech, it's supporting ignorance.
And within that definition, we are obviously permitted to critique the critics too. So what's your point? No on is saying Gamestop shouldn't write what they want, they're saying Gamestops writing is trash, which is an opinion their entitled to express too. I think they have a point. Many games say 'Borderlands is racist' or whatever, because ONE character, may have racist tendencies. Since when did it become a problem to write in a bad character? In reality, human beings have a diverse range of charactristics, some people may have racist tendencies, while others may be entirely politically correct. The point is that video games should be encouraged to represent that variance in character. There's a marked distinction between using your game as a platform to promote certain behaviour, merely representing it. A distinction that the gamestop review seemed to fail to understand. With that said, I don't know if Raven's Cry is a good game or not. I haven't played it and its quite possible the rest of gamestops critique rings true. The issue however, is how certain aspects of the critique weren't very well formed. If the author didn't like the plots racist undertones he could have written that they made the experience hard to relate to, or something of that nature. Identifying it as his preference, rather than an objective critism. Personally I don't mind playing a game with racist or sexist characters. It's not as if those are my beliefs, therefore why would it offend me? I know that people can be that way, and in many cases its just an easy way of representing a villain, as villainous. Next perhaps we'll have gamestop criticizing villians for being written as murderous.
Literally doesn't have a proper definition.
@ChronoJoe Its GameSpot* not GameStop. Easy mistake to make.
I just dont like the hypocrisy. GTA V more gruesome than the hatred. I can play GTA V and make Hatred character look like childs play but GTA V got a bunch of 10s and no one went off on it. Welp next time people try to ban videogames these people better not be saying "its just a game". You are for banning games because of what you said about Hatred. Also this is just a game, theres tv shows and movies and even the internet with WORSER things. Make up your minds people
You all realise this isn't about hatred review right? Cause you don't seem like you know that.
@TheShonen: True, somewhat. Given the number of school shootings we've had the last decade plus, this topic falls into more of a grey area - it's not simply black and white like many of you state. If you lost a child in the Newtown massacre, I'm sure your opinions would be different. Youth today are more influential than they've ever been, and when a game comes along that advocates the merciless slaughter of civilians, questions are undeniably going to be raised. Now I deem myself a fairly logical man, I certainly support freedom of speech and the right to own firearms. But at times, it has to be considered whether certain agendas or "acts" of free speech put the general public at risk - especially our children. Will this game influence the most fragile of youthful minds? I'm not sure to be honest. I played a LOT of violent games as a child, and none of them ever made me consider murdering someone. That being said, games are more immersive and realistic today than they've ever been. Add that to the fact that I NEVER played a game quite like this as a kid - a game that CLEARLY toes the line. That's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of many others as well, considering the amount of controversy this unreleased game has already generated.
Two words present an obstacle to your entire post. Proper parenting. If you think your child isn't stable enough, or you haven't done enough preparation for your child to be able to handle it, don't let them near things that could plant suggestions in their mind. That simple.
not really. You can properly parent your child, but you can't keep a leash on them 24/7. At some point he'll go over his friend's house and they'll play that game ALL NIGHT LONG. What then? Are you to barricade your child in his room? Good luck with that.
jc12: Yes really. Proper parenting doesn't begin and end with keeping the game from your child. It also entails teaching your child that games are fantasy, not representative of life, and that if they ever try to do anything even remotely like what they see in the game you'll throttle them into space.
You're going to tell them not to consider violence by threatening to throttle them into space? Not the best start.
I'm going to tell them that considering performing the type of violence that is in a game like Hatred will make me throttle them into space. What would you have me tell them? "Don't do that or I'm going to give you ice cream!!" Children need to know there are consequences to their actions. Their imagination can easily be exploited to keep them on the correct path.
"not really. You can properly parent your child, but you can't keep a leash on them 24/7" So to you good parenting is keeping them on a leash 24/7? Weird, when I read DragonKnight comment I came to the conclusion that he meant educating them = good parenting. "You're going to tell them not to consider violence by threatening to throttle them into space? Not the best start." Instilling fear of committing a violent act is a great start, considering a child brain isn't fully developed enough to understand an verbal explanation of certain consequences to his or her actions.That may be too politically incorrect or "too hard to hear" but that don't actually make it incorrect.Its reality... something a lot of people shy away from lately
im sorry man, but you can be the best parent you want, but everyone is going to make decisions for themselves. People are ultimately born with or without a conscience, born with or without empathy and or sympathy. If such sentiments are not in place naturally, it will be incredibly difficult if not impossible to install them. You cant make every little decision for someone. You can't censor every impressionable teen from the technology they are now surrounded by every day. If someone is sick, sure they may get and accept help. But you and I both know some will not be receptive. Whether it shatters your preconceived notions or not, its very possible for bad people to come from a good home. Its is illogical and totally ridiculous to dismiss this potentially dangerous issue by assuming good parenting fixes everything. It may fix a lot of things, but its not a 100% fail safe. As such, having a legitimate discussion about this game and its message is important.
And I completely disagree with you jc12. A good parent makes sure to be aware of their child's personality. A good parent takes every opportunity to show their child the experience they have of the world and instill that wisdom in their child so that when the child is alone and in the position to make their own decisions, they make the correct ones or they have the wherewithal to understand the consequences of their decisions. If I as a parent have a child that displays personality traits that would be questionable and stimulated in a negative way by the presence of a game like Hatred, I will do everything within my power to ensure that my child is never around that game, or failing that ensuring my child understands that if he/she ever acts out in an inappropriate manner they will face a consequence so terrible (to them) that they'd shiver in fear before ever attempting it again. IF all that fails, then I move into professional methods. In the end, having a discussion about the game and its message is the wrong move. The game is incapable of doing wrong. It is an inanimate object with no agency upon the world and therefore the developer of said game should not be harassed with shaming language, nor should the game be punished in whatever way the "progressives" would deem necessary. The problem is in the person, not the game. Deal with the people, not the games.
i want to play this game!
Just checked the comments on his facebook page and some people are begging him to add children to kill in Hatred. Wow.
It's disgusting. Frankly, the idea of formally requesting specific demographics to murder in a game is very concerning in general.
The review is not about Hatred. It's about the developers other game, Raven's Cry. I think a lot of people made that mistake. Whoever submitted this used a headline and picture that make it look like this is about Hatred, when it isn't. Very misleading, seems intentionally so.
LOL the games completly broken to the point its unplayable but they go nuts because of the point the scored it down on the racism/sexism etc.. These devs are clearly looking for attention to sell games rather than quality.. Never have and never will buy one of their games. They give indie devs a bad name and make it harder for real quality indie devs to get ahead in the world.
1, of course they'd be annoyed if the game got marked down because o something like that 2, how are they making it harder for indie devs? did any of them say anything like that? do you have anything whatsoever to back that up at all?
I don't like it, so I won't play it. It's such a simple thing.
I totally get his point, but it's still an opinion GameSpot is allowed to have. No matter how crappy you may think it is, they have a right to rate the game how they feel. At least he is making it known that it shouldn't be just accepted that games have to be free of such things by saying this in the first place. Kind of reminds me of a lot of the furor around Django Unchained (2012) and how people were attacking various people attached to it for the use of the N-word. There's a reason it was used, because it makes sense and is appropriate for that time period. If it offends you, then don't see the movie.
I agree. There are plenty of terrible games out there with broken mechanics. That should suffice to keep people away. If they do contain offensive content, a reviewer should be allowed to bring this out, but it should be balanced so that the score isn't driving away people who may not care about potentially offensive content but only want a game with solid gameplay mechanics.
Mate, its a pirate game in the 17th century. It is represented as accurate as possible at least on tat side. Even if the gameplay sucks and the game is broken, they should have put that in the Pros section because they did something right.
After all, there's a reason we have game ratings for content.
Game reviews are not just about mechanics though. At the end of the day it's about how enjoyable the reviewer feels the game is. If a games content is found to be so objectionable that solid mechanics don't redeem it, it isn't unreasonable for it to receive a low score. We crave an objective approach to purely subjective process, but it's truly impossible.
The issue is that more and more reviewers are using irrelevant beliefs as a way to poorly score games. They are bringing their opinions on what they perceive as social problems into how they play, view, or think about a game. Many spend more time on that aspect than they do on the objective aspects of game reviews. When you have to spend so much time saying you don't like whatever game because there's a part where you shoot someone brown, and hardly talk about how the shooting mechanics are top notch, that's a problem in my opinion.
They have a right to rate a game the way they feel but when their points is stupid and ignorant then they need to revise their reviews. Rampant racism, sexism, and homophobia were all available in 17th century. The guy is just looking for clicks for his review. Journalists are becoming more and more disgusting every day. They should seriously issue an apology for being ignorant.
I read the review. They mentioned the racism and sexism a small handful of times. Most of the review was spent talking about how broken the game was.
And Reality Pump isn't know for their writing ability. Two Worlds was beyond bad. But way to stand up for a crap game. This has nothing to do with realism, the writing is crap. Throwing in the edgy stuff doesn't somehow make you historically accurate. You all are as bad as those SJW's you claim to be disgusted with. Blatantly defending crap because you can't handle different opinions. There's something to be said for treating subjects like racism and sexism with some damn respect instead of throwing it some half-assed cookie-cutter. Sorry, I'll let you get back to being incensed over a bad game getting a bad review.
Exactly alien. Outside of the social view, the game is still crap. Lets just ignore that and claim Gamespot is biased over a few mentionings of the social aspects the writer hated. If the writer found it relevant to be mentioned, then that's his call. It's HIS opinion, and HIS thoughts. Contrary to what certain ppl have posted here, reviews are NOT designed to be objective. Get real. The reviewers job is to review a product based on his OWN experience and build cadence with his audience, so they trust his word. I think Jim Sterling is a hack, so I dont watch or read what he has to say. Its that simple. Does it make Jim less credible? Only to me. Just move on and stop defending just for the sake of it. If you wanted to defend a broken game, AC Unity needed you a couple months back, lol.
Well this topic is seriously more complex than meets the eye... Especially when you consider that Hatred wants to define what is permissible in a Review while claiming to be the Champions of Free Speech; they want to practice free speech but attack those who are actively practicing it. The fact that we don't immediately call them out for hypocrisy is troubling. Free Speech isn't just for those publishing hate.
I would claim both equally hypocritical in that case. They cite issues with racism, sexism, and homophobia, but how often does GameSpot take offense with the fact that 99% of a game could be just mindlessly killing things? Somehow, acting out violently in a game world is okay to them, but hearing someone say something suddenly becomes offensive? In this, I think both parties are sharing their viewpoints as appropriate. Both are utilizing their Freedom of Speech.
Hatred devs are just getting ready to cry foul at every negative review. These guys don't care that the game they're defending is bad, which should tell you a lot about their priorities. @Christopher Well it was 50% since the game is a buggy mess. Furthermore, this is Reality Pump, every line of dialog in Two Worlds is offensive because it so terrible. This is no different. Sure bring these issues up in games, but have a little respect for them by not doing a crappy job. But its apparently crossing a line to expect decent writing from those who want to touch on those issues.
I agree, although I find it a little silly in this case. The issues he raised are the least of this games problems. It is comically bad. It is about the level of quality of Ride to Hell. I am also really weirded out that you changed your name.
Not sure if y'all know this, but Raven's Cry is sitting at a 30 on Metacritic. Criticism including there being tons of bugs and that it's not fun to play. Here are the other points Gamespot made: - Constant crashes, including a bug which kills all game progress - Frame rate is choppier than the seas your ship sails on - Combat is broken at worst and button-mashing tedium at best - Stilted voice acting makes community theater seem like the Royal Shakespeare Company So yeah. Sexism was one point on a huge list of one reviewer. I guess the SJW agenda is pretty relentless, huh?
So it sounds like, basically, it's a pretty terrible game where the devs are trying to cover up their incompetence by being 'edgy' - hoping they kick up some fuss and get the 'cool kids' to buy it to spite the 'SJWs'.
Absolutely their playbook from day one with Hatred. It will sell a boatload with this method, however bad it is - it's (now huge) target market will say it's just the SJWs in the media trying to silence the devs. It's kind of.. Clever.
@mixelon Yup! If anything, the SJWs have helped Hatred more than anyone else. They're the ones bringing attention to it, which I suspect Hatred would not be able to garner on its own merits. Look at Hatred. Then look at Alienation. Then back to Hatred. This is what pure gameplay looks like when you're actually aiming for pure gameplay, and not shock value. http://blog.us.playstation....
He has a valid point. GTA 5 get a free pass on it's racism, sexism and over the top violence while everything else is bad taste? Gamers can vote with their wallets but game reviewers should be called out for their phony moral compass. Those people are the real scums because I freaking hate the moral police. Just a few months some idiot slammed Breach and Clear because the only available police action is to kill. Are you serious? It's was a squad tactical combat game where if you don't shoot the bad guys, they kill your team members.
Wasn't it GameSpot's own Carolyn Petit who lambasted GTA V for its supposed sexism and misogyny? People were outraged over the "low" score of 9/10.
Lol Carolyn Petit? The token cross dresser on the team? I'm pretty sure all he's there for is too incite controversy (and therefore hits) with his SJW reviews.
Leave the social BS out of the reviews. However if the game is just not good then it is not good.
It is not good,but let's be honest here,coming from a website who used to have employees like Carolyn Petit as a reviewer who's a feminazi doesn't strike me as "shocking". Lots of Gamespot employees have social issues man,it's not even funny,keep that crap out of game reviews ..!
Political correctness has nothing to do in reviewing a game. Or a movie, tv series, books etc... It just proves that the person reviewing the game do not think games is on equal terms when it comes to entertainment as movies,tv series etc.
no, it seems you don't think games are on equal terms to movies and books. movies and books are allowed to tackle social and political issues and be criticised, and praised, for them. this going on about how those issues should have nothing to do with gaming is just treating games as childrens toys. if games are going to be seen as an art form, the way movies and books can, they have to be able to be judged on more than just the technical aspects. do movies get judged solely on whether the camera is in focus, the sets are realistic, and the actors didn't flub their lines? do books get judged on whether they have spelling mistakes and correct grammar? judging a work as having sexist, racist or homophobic content isn't political correctness, it's not tyrannical feminazis, it's not some sjw crusade, it's one person giving their opinion. why is it anytime these issues are brought up it's all, sjw this, feminazi that, and white knight the other? you truly believe anybody who does has some agenda against gaming? or are you guys the ones who have an agenda? one that aims to keep gaming the way you like. where what you want is all that is allowed. i dislike the whole concept of this game, personally i think it's pretty repugnant, but i'd defend it's right to exist, whether it offends or not. and i'd defend the right of a critic to to voice his, or her, opinion on that work, whether that also offends or not.
However taking off points for any sort of sexist, racist, homophobic or "not politically correct" content is an issue. Especially when that content is used to add to the world building. If he were to mention the fact that the game worked to build its characters as truly terrible people, then that would be criticizing and describing it. However he simply took off points because "OH NO THEY SAID THE C WORD". Look at recently Django Unchained controversy.
people should be allowed to make what they want how they want
they are - within the law. people are also allowed to not like what they don't like.
Keep your personal agenda to yourself, just review the F game, is that so difficult to understand? Sites like Gamespot, Kotaku, Polygon, Rock Paper Shotgun should leave, disappear for good, these people are harming games with the SJW agenda, these people criticized GTA because of the three male protagonists, for example.
i believe he did review the game. Gamespot isnt the only place that said its trash. How about you try not to be one dimensional.
I hate reviews, if its a big name game they let bugs/glitches that break the game pass. But if its not a big name game, they just bash it (not saying every game they do, but most). I don't go by reviews, I go by what I enjoy and is playable.
Its not about big games name. Its about if the copy is free and/or publisher's bonuses and all those goodies
But.. Everyone hated Ravens Cry. Pretty much everything about the damn game. I'm pretty sure the "social" stuff is a tiny element of its terrible score, even from GameSpot.
Gamespot.......LMAO, lost all credibility when they started sacking people because of differing opinions, i will buy HATRED for me and my acquaintances
wtf this review isnt even about Hatred its a completely different game by the same dev. what a misleading article. should be used to it by now i guess.
That was a great read and so true that man stood up for not just him and his game but every gamer and deveoper out there wanting to explore art in any means. Now can anyone tell me is Hatred available for preorder in the US yet?
You Hatred sheeple make me laugh. Like, you don't even care about "quality", you just want to make people you don't even know angry lol. Exploring art...LOL, you all are a riot. Acting like he took a "stand", ha ha. Ooo, I bet you're gonna get mad if Hatred gets any thing less than 100%? Because "art", man. Art never sucks.
No sir its just a video game I couldnt care less what review it gets. That's not going to decide for me what it gets and I didnt make the game so a review does nothing for me. I don't understand where you get that I a Hatred sheeple want to make people angry? I could give a sh!t what anyone thinks. I got an opinion as much as you do. Pretty much that is where it ends there and their is nothing more too it. I wanna play something dark and gritty so what? You're realy playing this out to be like some kind of personal thing. You enjoy you're video games and I will enjoy mine.
As far as i see it, the killing is indiscriminate, meaning it rules out racism, sexism etc... EVERYONE dies EQUALLY!
when will man learn that all races are equally inferior to robots
When the A.I becomes self-aware...
I want to play this game. I don't have a PC for it though.
GameSpot has already gone full SJW, so this stuff shouldn't be a surprise. If a game goes against their ultra liberal, feminist ideology they will dock it points.
Most of the review addresses the game's game play problems. Did you even read it? That said, just curious, do you like women?