Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 illuknisaa wrote:
How does this make it a bad game?

I said it made it a failure, not that it made it a bad game (I'm fairly certain it is a bad game, but not having played it, I wouldn't want to make that judgment-- only that its concept and execution as presented by the devs is boring and stupid). It's trying to pretend not to be political, its devs claiming that they're making it without politics etc, but it's so heavily motivated BY politics that it basically makes the devs either liars or idiots.

tl;dr: it's a game designed as a "blow against censorship" that, in and of itself, makes an excellent argument FOR censorship in the eyes of many people, because it targets specific people and groups of people for unprovoked, gleeful murder; this just goes off of what the devs themselves have said, as they plan on putting specific people they label "SJWs" (Anita Sarkeesian, "women in tumblr shirts", and such-- almost all of them are female, btw, which isn't a surprise as the devs are well known misogynists) as people that they want the player to murder in-game.

It's some random douchebag's murder fantasy, not a professional, intelligently designed game.
"RARGH I'M ANGRY AND I HATE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME I WISH THEY WERE DEAD SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A VIDEO GAME WHERE I GET TO KILL THEM AND THEN ENCOURAGE EVERYONE ELSE TO PLAY AND KILL THEM, TOO!"

Yawn. Grow the feth up, and go make a game with a concept that doesn't suck ass.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I think that the political correctness argument is a pretty solid one.

No. It would be like if I started buying gakky games because they have a nice female protagonist. How stupid would that be, right?

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's the reason why I love Postal 2. It's just different and refreshing to see a game that does not care about the super strong and oversensitive focus on political correctness we currently have.

I completely missed that supposed focus. And I thought Postal² was hilarious. Hatred does not seem hilarious. I will therefore buy Postal² and play it, but not the Hatred. I am not forcing myself to play a gakky game for political reasons, and especially not for such a bad reason as “I want games to try to be offensive for offensiveness sake”.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Granted, Postal 2 did this in a superb way by offending pretty much everyone and everything with overblown gore and blackerthanblack humor

What do you mean? It was slapstick/stupid humor all along. I am sorry, but the game mechanic of pissing on oneself when you are on fire to stop burning is not blackerthanblack humour. Neither is Krotchy. Nor people laughing at you because you are in a gimp suit. Nor cutting random holes everywhere on a voting paper. Nor phrases like “Burn a book, save a tree”.
There was a few dark humor (like, say, recreating the whole Waco siege in-game), but all of it was slapstick. Uncle Dave is having a freaking birthday party in the middle of the siege, for Doom's sake.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Enforced PC is a strong negative impact factor on games and freedom of expression / art

I disagree. I believe any studio with enough confidence and talent to provide an interesting and compelling story that is somehow not PC will have enough confidence to release the game despite some pressure. Can you name any game that was made worse by a decision that was made to make it more PC?

To be honest, in the trailer, the main character says that he will be going to die and his sole purpose is to bring as many people as he can in the grave with him.

It's all about pure, destructive hatred. So it has a theme...even if it is not the more "glorious" one.

Nowadays, crime is cool and killing is fine. You can see it everywhere in games, with wacky justifications. Doesn't make it more appealing to me. Whatever. They are just games. They aren't made for kids and to be taken seriously.

I mean, it's more like Diablo where the enemies are changed into policemen and defenseless civilians.

Can be useful for Catharsis. That kind of thing was actually used a lot in the past in theater...even if the special effects weren't the same.

Anyway, it's not the worth getting offended. Reality should, even when it is sadly not.

What dose PC mean?

Politically correct.

You know, like not saying offensive things in front of people is politically correct, and perfectly fine, but it has got a bad rap thanks to all of the crazies taking things to extremes. Such as renaming things that weren't offensive to anybody in the first place, or teaching wildly inaccurate historical events to kids.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

No. It would be like if I started buying gakky games because they have a nice female protagonist. How stupid would that be, right?

As if there were people doing this... *wink*

 Sigvatr wrote:

What do you mean? [...] There was a few dark humor (like, say, recreating the whole Waco siege in-game), but all of it was slapstick. Uncle Dave is having a freaking birthday party in the middle of the siege, for Doom's sake.

Most of the Postal Dude's comments are. Like, when you disassemble people limb by limb with an axe or decapitate them and he drops one-liners such as "Oh, an edged weapon, let's hope nobody gets hurt!" or sth. Or peeing at burning people (there's an achievement for that!). Or peeing in people's mouths. Or using a cat as a silencer for your shotgun by putting the muzzle in the cat's butt. Over the top, dark humor. Lovin' it.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Enforced PC is a strong negative impact factor on games and freedom of expression / art

I disagree. I believe any studio with enough confidence and talent to provide an interesting and compelling story that is somehow not PC will have enough confidence to release the game despite some pressure. Can you name any game that was made worse by a decision that was made to make it more PC?

 Melissia wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:
How does this make it a bad game?

I said it made it a failure, not that it made it a bad game (I'm fairly certain it is a bad game, but not having played it, I wouldn't want to make that judgment-- only that its concept and execution as presented by the devs is boring and stupid). It's trying to pretend not to be political, its devs claiming that they're making it without politics etc, but it's so heavily motivated BY politics that it basically makes the devs either liars or idiots.

tl;dr: it's a game designed as a "blow against censorship" that, in and of itself, makes an excellent argument FOR censorship in the eyes of many people, because it targets specific people and groups of people for unprovoked, gleeful murder; this just goes off of what the devs themselves have said, as they plan on putting specific people they label "SJWs" (Anita Sarkeesian, "women in tumblr shirts", and such-- almost all of them are female, btw, which isn't a surprise as the devs are well known misogynists) as people that they want the player to murder in-game.

It's some random douchebag's murder fantasy, not a professional, intelligently designed game.
"RARGH I'M ANGRY AND I HATE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME I WISH THEY WERE DEAD SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A VIDEO GAME WHERE I GET TO KILL THEM AND THEN ENCOURAGE EVERYONE ELSE TO PLAY AND KILL THEM, TOO!"

Yawn. Grow the feth up, and go make a game with a concept that doesn't suck ass.

.....

I'm pretty sure if the game is a "failure" it is also bad (because you know, it fails as being a game).

Where does it say it targets specific group of people? I watched the gameplay trailer and the protagonist specifically says that all people deserve to die and in the trailer there is no indication who is sjw and who is not. The majority of victims consist of police officers (who are men btw), men and walls.

The only one who is labeling is you.

The trailer is only the first part of this story. There is a lot more about the game, and it's history then a single trailer. I mean it was defacto banned at one point.

It was from the dev's posts, where they offered up a number of potential targets, most of whom were women and most of whom fit in to feminist, liberal, and other such categories.

And really, "the only one labeling is [me]"? That's not true even in this thread.

Link please.

A quick google search grabs these two:
http://www.gameskinny.com/ei4dm/hatred-community-targets-sjws

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/16/hatred-steam-questions-valve

Melissia wrote:It was from the dev's posts, where they offered up a number of potential targets, most of whom were women and most of whom fit in to feminist, liberal, and other such categories.

And really, "the only one labeling is [me]"? That's not true even in this thread.

Melissia wrote:A quick google search grabs these two:
http://www.gameskinny.com/ei4dm/hatred-community-targets-sjws

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/16/hatred-steam-questions-valve

Link please.

That's people asking for stuff, not developers presenting it.

If people asking for stuff to be done would be illegal, 4chan, Reddit and tumblr would have been shut down years ago.

I never suggested it should be illegal.

Never said that you did :*

The game's a win-win situation. People who want it to play get to play it, and people who hate it or want to profit off its content in order to push an agenda will love it as they can use it to show others how BADBADBAD video games are...and generate money themselves by blogging about it.

Win-win.

 Melissia wrote:
A quick google search grabs these two:
http://www.gameskinny.com/ei4dm/hatred-community-targets-sjws

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/16/hatred-steam-questions-valve

Those are articles about the removal of the game from steam and dont actually say anything about the games views on any target group or audience. It just talks about how the community is reacting.

As usual your links are full of crap and it seems you like to link things either without reading them, or hoping people wont read them.

The first link says the COMMUNITY is asking for SJWs to be targets, and the second one talks about the reasons for steam removing the game.

In my opinion the Devs are simply making a hatred slaughter game because they know there is a large audience for it and because they know it will get attention due to the nature of the game. Its also great timing for them with the interview movie censorship issue.

It will be forgotten soon anyway.

Or in other words, it's an immature murder fantasy game whose authors pretend to be about fighting against censorship, but instead do nothing but give ammunition to people who hate video games-- while fostering a community that attacks the very people who have been fighting against said censorship.

Not the first stupid game for insufferable people. Hardly the last I'm sure.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Those are articles about the removal of the game from steam

The first article shows the responses of the fans of the game to the devs asking for input on who to put in as targets. Given that these devs have given the thumbs up to neo-nazi groups in the past, I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt on this particular issue and assuming they would disagree with this.

 Melissia wrote:
Or in other words, it's an immature murder fantasy game whose authors pretend to be about fighting against censorship, but instead do nothing but give ammunition to people who hate video games-- while fostering a community that attacks the very people who have been fighting against said censorship.

No I think they simply want to make money. Like most people who work.

In fact here is what the devs think in an interview.

The only anti SJW thing he even comes close to is considering changing the skin colour options to shut up a certain portion of people.

http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/11/06/9552/interview-hatred-creative-director-jaroslaw-zielinski

 Sigvatr wrote:
Never said that you did :*

The game's a win-win situation. People who want it to play get to play it, and people who hate it or want to profit off its content in order to push an agenda will love it as they can use it to show others how BADBADBAD video games are...and generate money themselves by blogging about it.

Win-win.

I suppose that is one way of looking at it. Anita "lifelong gamer" Sarkeesian is probably rubbing her fething hands together with glee, she will doubtless make a video about it, get a million views, and add a few thousand more dollars to her already bulging pockets.

I cant argue with that logic. The weirdos get to play a game they like despite the fact I think its fething weird, its not my place to tell people what to play, and one thing I have always abhorred is hypocrisy. I might be averse to the game myself, but its not my place to say what should and should not be available, Im a libertarian.

And the SJWs will enjoy it, because they can slap each other on the back because they opposed it together.

And the sharks that make videos about feminism and such can make a profit too.

Being wholly neutral I suppose I cant argue with that, if only for the tax revenue from game sales, subsequent rage videos and their many rebuttals, and advertising.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Banking on GamerGaters that are desperate to fight against “SJW” and “political correctness”.

What the feth has this got to do with #GamerGate?

Bloody hell Hybrid, are you going for some sort of "Biggest Troll on Dakka 2014" award that the rest of us don't know about?

Yup, that's a very good point of view.

The game itself will likely be pretty bad, but I'll give it a shot at least before buying. Maybe it has some redeeming qualities like a fluid gameplay or something.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What the feth has this got to do with #GamerGate?

To say that there is a ton of overlap is an understatement of galactic proportions.

This couldn't be a more clear cut case of "Don't like it, don't buy it", yet we still have the usual suspects trying to place additional meaning upon the game that simply isn't there.

 Melissia wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What the feth has this got to do with #GamerGate?

To say that there is a ton of overlap is an understatement of galactic proportions.

You're reaching and attempting to draw conclusions that simply aren't there for no other reason than you misunderstand #GamerGate and want to find some new lie to smear it with.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You're reaching

No, I've just read the comments in the steam forum.

And wish I hadn't. I should really know better than to read anything in a Steam forum, but be that as it may...

Oh, wow. You read the comments section on [literally anything]. That's some major league concrete proof there.

nomotog wrote:
I mean it was defacto banned at one point.

Not quite. It was removed from Steam by a member of Valve despite receiving many, many greenlight votes. when Gaben found out, he immediately reversed that decision. Calling it 'banned' (defacto or otherwise) adds a level of drama that simply isn't there.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh, wow. You read the comments section on [literally anything]. That's some major league concrete proof there.

The fact that the game's community is something around ninety percent (yes, an exaggeration) misogynistic #GG activists is proof enough for me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Banking on GamerGaters that are desperate to fight against “SJW” and “political correctness”.

What the feth has this got to do with #GamerGate?

Bloody hell Hybrid, are you going for some sort of "Biggest Troll on Dakka 2014" award that the rest of us don't know about?

I think they are using GG as code word for a specific type of gamer. You know for good or ill, accurate or off the mark, GG has this as a meaning.

GG is SWJ for SWJs kind of.

Their thought is kind of a interesting bit because I think part of what they are saying is that hatred might be less of a game and more of a play piece for a larger debate about games and how games should react to social issues. I said before hated feels like a very old game and part of that seems to be because it comes from an older mentality that games can do whatever they want and poof the meaning or the sensitivity because you know games and freedom and such. Well in the mean time you do have people who are looking at games and how they fit into things. You know treating games like they matter and so what they do matters.

I mean is anyone interested in hatred as a game more then as a social event?

 Melissia wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What the feth has this got to do with #GamerGate?

To say that there is a ton of overlap is an understatement of galactic proportions.

You already have repeatedly shown that you did not (want to) understand Gamergate.