Palmer Sturman: In October of last year a trailer was released that shocked gamers and media alike. It was for, what looked like, an absurdly violent twin-stick shooter made by a small polish developer aptly known as Destructive Creations. Its controversy was linked to the game’s core concept: massacre as many civilians as possible. With media attention focused more and more on real acts of terrorism and mass shootings, the game’s presentation of such wanton violence struck a cord. The game’s title, appropriately named Hatred, is only the second game in the history of the ESRB to receive an Adults Only (AO), which in my opinion is based more on the game’s controversy and not necessarily its content. Hatred’s shock-value propelled its popularity to the frontlines of game’s media coverage with sites much larger than us, presenting a number of differing opinions on the content of the game and how it should be perceived.
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.