Oh hun, such a drama queen.

Valenka

Contributor
CRank: 10Score: 93730

Destructive Creations' 'Hatred' Takes Video Game Violence to New Levels

As gamers, we are not strangers to violence in our favourite forms of entertainment; as a matter of fact, it's present in almost every video game today and a main selling point for the hottest titles. Video game violence has always generated a tonne of controversy, but more often than not, it was discounted as just part of the experience. We saw Square Enix and Crystal Dynamics take the Tomb Raider franchise to new heights with content that provoked an M/18+ rating for the first time in the series that's been around since 1996. However, like most games, the violence was not senseless nor excessive; it was necessary to survive.

Violence in video games is rarely senseless; it typically exists to serve the plot and supplement the gameplay. Rockstar Games' award winning franchise, Grand Theft Auto, is a top contender for open-world violence and the occasional bouts of controversy; the controversy, however, seemed to dull down once Jack Thompson, a self-made famous once-lawyer hell-bent on bringing down the franchise and its company, was barred from practising law. The controversy behind Grand Theft Auto sparked a historical argument in the video game industry: do video games make us commit violent acts? The answer has always been no, despite numerous protests.

In 1997, an American video game development company, Running with Scissors, released a highly controversial and infamous IP aptly titled 'Postal.' In the game, players assume a protagonist that goes in a senseless killing spree who ultimately suffers a mental breakdown and ends up getting captured by the government and incarcerated in an asylum. The game managed to avoid prosecution and secured itself two sequels. Postal is easily identified within the gaming community as "that game," one of senseless violence and mass-murder on a phenomenal level.

Today, 16 October 2014, Polish developer Destructive Creations, has released an announcement gameplay trailer for Hatred, an isometric shooter, quite similar to Postal in size and scope, where you step into the shoes of a cold-blooded psychopath on a mass-murdering spree. Upon witnessing the video, I was immediately reminded of the Postal games, but Hatred takes the violence to new levels. I witnessed innocent civilians crying and begging for their lives as the killer ignored their pleas and stabbed, maimed, executed and machine-gunned his way through different environments. One scene in particular stood out, aside from the introductory scene where the protagonist seems to magically fit several ammunition magazines, grenades and a combat knife into one pocket. Later, as the killer grabbed a woman by the shirt and raised her close to him and shot her in the mouth as she begged for her life. Needless to say, it made me incredibly uncomfortable.

Controversy aside, the game has a unique artistic element to it. The visuals are dark and opaque, illustrating the negative energy and violence in abundance within the game world. The only colour within the game seems to stem from explosions and blood, which has an odd artistic appeal. The graphics, while seemingly dated, are actually mildly impressive. Providing that the entire trailer of Hatred was in fact gameplay, to see simulated clothing behave the way it should when grabbed or manipulated is quite striking. However, compliments aside, allow me to move onward with the point of the blog.

Hatred is inarguably an unnecessary creation derived from developers with no taste for censorship, the politically correct, or even general consideration for the public. Developing a game like Hatred takes balls, but in the end, it's also a stupid move. While the game is virtually a copy-and-paste job from Postal, that does not excuse its presence. It promotes unnecessary and senseless violence in the most extreme methodologies I've ever witnessed in a video game and hides behind the "it's just a game" argument.

Grand Theft Auto is just a game. Hatred is a true-to-form murder simulator and Lord knows that Jack Thompson must be seizing in his office chair as he learns about this upcoming development. In an article released by GameSpot today, the developer behind Hatred has an almost cavalier and nonchalant attitude about their creation.

To quote, "These days, when a lot of games are heading to be polite, colourful, politically correct, and trying to be some kind of higher art, rather than just an entertainment--we wanted to create something against trends," the studio said.

Hatred aims to be "something different," and a game that gives players "pure, gaming pleasure," Destructive Creations said. The game "takes no prisoners and makes no excuses," the studio explains, adding that it doesn't plan to shy away from the fact that this is a game about killing people.
( http://www.gamespot.com/art... )

There's an argument pending that I haven't addressed yet. Grand Theft Auto is another [popular] game on the market that, with its open-world elements, allows you to basically do the same thing as in Hatred. You can stock up on weaponry and execute every Peter, Paul and Mary in Los Santos, blow up the streets and cause absolute mayhem. The difference is, the game isn't centred around that and it does not encourage you to do so. Hatred is a game that is centred around senseless and excessive violence and there is nothing to do in the game other than kill, kill, kill.

The difference here is that Hatred goes out of its way to be excessively brutal with its killings and executions and the explicit purpose of the game is to kill innocent civilians and law enforcement, rather than being a diversion or an activity that's actively punishable.

The game has already received a mixed reaction online, with a 50/50 divide between likes and dislikes on the trailer, with a heap of comments both condoning and abhorring the content. Obviously, like anything, the game has a right to exist under freedom of speech. But the question is whether or not it'll do more harm than good to both the gaming industry and its reception as well as society itself. I think the answer is rather obvious.

...and I have to ask: why?

Is there not enough senseless violence in the world today? Why must someone create a video game centred on it? I will admit, I do enjoy my bouts of chaos and mayhem in video games; getting into shootouts with the police in Grand Theft Auto and I did enjoy Manhunt for a period of time. But it wasn't because I was able to just kill people for the hell of it. It was because I enjoy action games to an extent. I wouldn't play Hatred if someone paid me to. Well, I probably would and then go to church and pray for forgiveness. The fact of the matter is, I understand that it's a free world, that people have the freedom to do what they want. If creating a game like Hatred is your desired way of exercising your rights, be my guest. Just don't release it to the public. The same children whom are allowed to play Grand Theft Auto aged well under 17 will undoubtedly have access to Hatred and what then? Columbine? Sandyhook? Boston? Any of these words ringing a bell? Video games are certainly not to blame, but games like this are most definitely influences as they're presented in such a cavalier manner.

I mainly wanted to write this blog to bring attention to the game and share my opinion on the situation, as well as read the feedback from the community.

Drop a comment below and let me know what you think about Hatred, the development team behind it and the foreseeable controversy subsequent its announcement.

thorstein3844d ago

This is a really, really weird take. On one hand you claim that violent video games have their place. Then you say "I wouldn't play [it] if you paid me." Which is the perfect stance.

No one is forcing someone to play this. I remember plenty of controversial games, Manhunt, ThrillKill... but there was a time when games were never rated, and they didn't harm society then.

Unfortunately, after what is a good blog you use the slippery slope fallacy "and what then? Columbine? Sandyhook? Boston? Any of these words ringing a bell? Video games are certainly not to blame, but games like this are most definitely influences as they're presented in such a cavalier manner. "

Video games and their connection to violence has been studied for over two decades. There is no connection. We can finally say that with certainty. In fact, there is the corollary that as games have increased in sales and become even more violent, societal violence has decreased.

However, my real issue here is the idea, no matter how reprehensible you find the material, to censor it*. Mark Twain is attributed as saying, "Censorship is like telling a man he can't eat steak because a baby can't chew it." James Joyce's Ulysses was banned in the USA. No more. No more censorship. Repressing the ideas (especially in artistic realms) is reprehensible in and of itself.

And that is what it boils down to: censorship. Determining what is right for others, without ever giving them the choice to determine what is right for themselves.

I enjoy steak. I don't care if babies can't.

I honestly wish censorship was a criminal offense.

*I am in no way, shape or form, defending any material that does not have consensual participation by those depicted in said medium.

Gazondaily3843d ago (Edited 3843d ago )

Completely disagree.

When a game is made that lets you graphically molest and rape kids then what happens then? Don't censor that? To hell with that. I'd sooner censor it than to pander to the whims of a few psychopaths.

I know its not a straightforward issue. Where do you draw the line? Its tricky. But a blanket acceptance to this stuff in the name of 'freedom of expression' is missing the point.

LightofDarkness3843d ago

If I may play devil's advocate here, what is "the point"?

DragonKnight3843d ago

@Septic: If you choose to censor one theme, you choose to censor all of them. If you don't choose that, then you forfeit the right to consider games as works of art with the freedoms to express any themes that work of art wishes to express.

Graphic molestation and rape of children exists in books, movies, and paintings, etc...

One is not psychopathic for creating those themes (because they actually happen in real life), nor are they psychopathic for defending the right to create those themes.

And no, "blanket acceptance" in the name of freedom of expression is not missing the point. Especially when the point you're trying to make is highly subjective and circumstantial.

To quote a famous saying: "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

gangsta_red3843d ago

I have to agree with Septic.

Everyone is claiming freedom of expression and speech but what happens when that freedom directly clashes with just plain morality? As people where do WE draw the line?

Yea, I am all for freedom of speech and expression, but do I want some guy standing in front of my kid's elementary school graphically talking about how he f*ck*d his dog and claiming it's art because he has polaroid pictures?

@ Dragon

"One is not psychopathic for creating those themes (because they actually happen in real life), nor are they psychopathic for defending the right to create those themes."

I HIGHLY disagree with this statement. Maybe I am reading it wrong but just because stuff happens in real life doesn't make it okay and definitely doesn't mean it's okay to make a video game out of it and call it freedom of speech.

People who perform molestation and rape against women and children ARE psychopaths and just because they appear in books/films doesn't make it any less of a fact that these are sick individuals. I dare anyone to try and defend the rights of those specific themes.

I like my share of violence, I love horror movies and I have seen my fair share of graphic movies (Inside, Martyrs). But the horror movies I enjoyed had a theme and a plot and wasn't just gore for the sake of it. This particular game just looks to want to stir up some controversy just so they can get their name out there.

Bimkoblerutso3843d ago (Edited 3843d ago )

The issue has ALWAYS been where we draw the line. I think even people like Dragon would draw the line just shy of people getting directly mentally or physically abused in the name of "art."

Take something like child pornography, for instance. It is technically art and would therefore fall under "blanket acceptance of freedom of expression," even though children are being actively abused to create it.

Or take the various forms of "snuff" art. Is there really any mentally stable person out there that would defend artistic expression even past the life of another human being?

So (almost) everyone has lines that they draw for this stuff. Don't try to give us this "holier than thou" bullshit because your moral line bends a little further than ours.

MrPink20133843d ago (Edited 3843d ago )

Freedom of expression is such a gray area. There has to be some moral code to go where consequences must also take place. If a game is about murdering innocent bystanders that should be allowed under freedom of expression but there should also be consequences for those actions. For the main character to go on a killing spree just for the fun of it what's the point in making such a game when all you are doing is decensitizing the criminal act?

We're programming people to become numb to everything. Look at what has happened to social interactivity online. When you don't have a face or an actual person to acknowledge they become just another faceless person which leads to no accountability. That's why we have so many people say whatever the hell they want online and hide behind this so called freedom of expression. "I have a keyboard, therefore you are going to have to read whatever I want to send out there. It's freedom of expression, don't like it too bad so sad."

Uhh, no. That doesn't work in every day life talking to people face to face. So why should it become accepetable online?

If this game is just about killing people just for the sake of it what freedom of expression are you trying to portray other than I can make any game I feel like? Looks to me the game creator is just looking for attention by trying to break boundaries.

DragonKnight3843d ago

@gangsta: Yes, you are reading that wrong. I'm saying that the themes happen in real life, and that expressing said themes in a game is A)Not condoning it, B)Not telling you to go out and do it in real life, and C)Doesn't influence anyone's thoughts towards thinking they can do that.

That they happen in real life means that the expression of said themes isn't something created out of nothing by an individual, meaning their mental state isn't necessarily one of a psychotic person simply because they made a game that features graphic and explicit themes.

I don't understand how so many gamers in one breath can say "violence doesn't affect real life" but when that violence is changed ever so slightly to be violence against an animal or a child, then somehow that's the line that should never be crossed. A life is a life, human, adult, or not. So the double standards people employ are ludicrous.

Any theme that doesn't cause direct harm to someone falls under freedom of expression and should not be censored. You don't have to like it, you don't have to expose yourself to it, but you don't hold any right to say that a line has to be drawn as to what can be expressed so long as that expression isn't at the expense of another's life or well-being. And no, fictional characters don't count.

If you draw a line, you'd better draw it everywhere. You don't get to have your cake and eat it to when it comes to freedom of expression. You're either all in, or you're totally out.

mechlord3842d ago (Edited 3842d ago )

@Septic

For a moment here, lets remove games from the equation. Think about all other forms of media and how in those, the acts that in a game are the ultimate horror are accepted. What is wrong with that picture?

@gangsta_red

"
I like my share of violence, I love horror movies and I have seen my fair share of graphic movies (Inside, Martyrs). But the horror movies I enjoyed had a theme and a plot and wasn't just gore for the sake of it.
"
And there my friend, is your problem.

Is violence less violence because apparently there is a motive for it? from who's point of view?

If i like your violence_level +1, what i'm i?

If that makes me a loony, does that make you a loony -1 ?

These things are absolute: to kill is to kill, violence is violence.
You either accept it wholly or you negate it wholly.

Stuff like self defense, justifiable violence are myths invented by our society so that somehow we could try to tame the animal inside.

Everything from there onward is sociology, psychology and sciences we don't want to discuss in a forum like this.

MEsoJD3842d ago

Why should games be treated any differently than other forms of entertainment like movies and books? I'd rather have an artist create whatever they want and have consumers vote with their wallets. Also like movies, there's a rating system in place.

zero_gamer3842d ago

It's not like I even want to play this game, but like you ask, where do you draw the line? I think Jack Thompson and you would be on one page about something.

reaperofsouls3841d ago

you have to draw a line somewhere!

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3841d ago
Deadpool6163843d ago

I'm going to have to disagree. I totally remember eating steak when I was a baby. It was AWESOME!

Valenka3843d ago (Edited 3843d ago )

I can definitely see where you're coming from, thorstein. True, no one is forcing anyone to play this game or any others for that matter. The point of my blog, though, was to highlight the game itself and ask the obvious questions.

In the second paragraph, I address the fact that video games are not responsible for real-world crimes. Sure, a murderer could be influenced by what he experienced in a video game, but the video game itself is never to blame.

The topic of censorship is a...varied one, for lack of a better word. I think its safe to say that if you bring it down to a vote, it'll be a 50/50 divide. I, however, must side with you. Censorship serves no positive purpose. In the United States, the Constitution states we all have freedom of speech. What it should say, is "freedom of speech until you offend someone."

Your argument is perfect: "no one is forcing someone..." is the perfect response to all things involved with censorship.

A game is too violent? No one is forcing you to play it. A movie is too sexual? No one is forcing you to watch it. A song is too vulgar? No one is forcing you to listen to it.

That's the problem with the world today. People would rather completely destroy something that offends them instead of just ignoring or avoiding the offensive material.

Getting back to my blog for a final moment, though, what I was trying to illustrate by remembering Columbine, Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing was the simple idea that this game may almost certainly influence another tragedy. Does that make it to blame? No, not really.

But I can't help but question this game's need for existence.

mechlord3842d ago

@thorstein

I wish i could agree with you 1 million times. your post gets at the center of all this and nails it perfectly.

Everybody here taking jabs at this are solely doing it because in their view this is too much. Props for that assumed Mark Twain quote. It killed it.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3841d ago
nX3843d ago

Just don't support / buy it.
I don't have a problem with it's existence but I'm not keen on rewarding humans for developing a mass murder simulator that lets you commit massacres on civilians. That's not how I want humanity to become.

Nicaragua3843d ago

"Hatred is a true-to-form murder simulator"

Only if murder now occurs in an isometric view and can be committed by waggling your thumbs in opposite directions.

Its not simulating anything, and anyone who feels encouraged to murder someone based on a game like this is just as likely to feel encouraged to animals to train for intercontinental fighting tournaments after playing pokemon - ie, a complete fruit loop.

annoyedgamer3843d ago (Edited 3843d ago )

I am going to go off base for a moment here. Alot of folks in society have been tricked by the media into thinking places are becoming more violent. I have even run into some Europeans and Australians say they will never come to the USA because they are afraid of being "gunned down" in the streets. I couldn't really tell them they were mislead because they would rather belive what they see on TV. The media is collaborating to create a mass paranoia in order to aid the governmental clamp down on the people's rights.

I am not endorsing the game rather adding in another angle that should be considered. If anything this game is bad because it aids the media's cause.

Just imagine if the government made shady propaganda game aimed at portraying games as violent serial killer training grounds, that said title would not look much different than the game at question.

Show all comments (24)
40°

The weird hand-drawn physics-based puzzle game "Micromega" is soon coming to PC via Steam

"The Paris-based (France) indie games publisher and developer COVEN, are today super thrilled and happy to announce that their surreal hand-drawn 2D physics-based adventure/puzzle game "Micromega", is soon coming to PC via Steam." - Jonas Ek, TGG.

50°
9.0

Review - Blue Prince (PS5) | WayTooManyGames

WTMG's Kyle Nicol: "Even if you aren’t a fan of roguelikes, Blue Prince feels much more like an elaborate puzzle box. There’s a satisfying feeling in making it further than you did before, finding clues to a puzzle, then stumbling onto another piece of that puzzle a few runs later. Blue Prince is certainly one of the most interesting games of this year. It takes a fairly novel concept in a roguelike puzzle game, adding elements of deckbuilding and base crafting. It all comes together for a gameplay experience unlike anything else out there today."

Read Full Story >>
waytoomany.games
160°

Days Gone Original vs Remastered – Is The Visual Upgrade Worth Revisiting?

Days Gone Remastered is now available, and if you’re looking to find out how it compares with the original PS4 version, read ahead.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
Cacabunga2h ago

Huge difference i must admit, but not sure i would notice without 2 screens next to each other.

Not getting this game still, i want a new game and im tired of remasters

Muigi2h ago(Edited 2h ago)

It’s $10 and there are plenty of games out there for you.

Flewid6381h ago

Then its not a huge difference?

Fishy Fingers2h ago

Settings > Graphics > Change preset from medium to high.

Remastered.....

Flewid6381h ago

You're forgetting 30fps to 60fps

Tedakin2h ago

Sony is now remastering games with 71s on metacritic.

Bathyj2h ago

Like that's a judge of anything
This game got scored before it was released.

andy852h ago

Days gone is 85+. It got heavily marked down at launch for bugs where as others get a free pass for that. It's a fantastic game.

andy852h ago

I spoiled myself by modding this game on my PC. Genuinely one of the best looking games I've ever seen. Whilst this remaster looks nice it just doesn't compare to that sadly. It shows the effort that these remasters could put in if they wanted

REDGUM2h ago

I so hope this game or DLC for those of us who own the original sells well.
Ive said it before, its an underrated game for sure & was unfairly judged upon release.
Please try this game if you haven't already.

For those who say 'i won't purchase digital only' you can pickup a hard copy for 5 bucks here in Australia, then add the DLC and you have a superb game for $20 or so.

Give it a shot, tell me I'm wrong After completing the game.

Game on gamers.

Show all comments (14)