Hatred: The Game From God

[Phoenixwarrior141]

A simple way would be to have an experienced developer (Who makes standard-ish games) to make the goriest game possible until they cannot make it without having problems.

And by problems I mean the game is so gory they cannot either playtest or develop it without being disgusted.

If they can't do it, the average gamer can't do it.

[Korban3]

I think we're looking at this the wrong way. We're viewing the issue from a fascist ideology. Who are we to limit what people are allowed to depict in media? Who are we to decide what is 'ok' or not? People are free to depict whatever they like in a video game, no matter what it is, so long as they don't trample others' freedom to do the same.

[Endoperez]

I've come across the same sentiment before.

https://cuppyville.wordpress.com/2014/1 ... -decision/

I still don't know what to think about it. Making this, saying this, is not illegal. Making money out of this is legal, but iffy. And, of course, saying some things might be unacceptable but legal.

It is not right to tell people how to create and use car bombs to kill people. If a game is made that is so close to a real tmass shooting that it's comparable, what does it mean for games?

[Ragdollmaster]

People are free to depict whatever they like in a video game, no matter what it is, so long as they don't trample others' freedom to do the same.

Because why, video games aren't real and they're just realistic fantasy depictions? Should we also legalize and unrestrict child pornography, since it's not 'real'? I understand the concern of free speech but the other extreme is no better.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

That post was somewhat inaccurate on the forum side of things.

But yeah, good enough for me.

In other news:

Modding is a thing, Imma get the Unreal Engine 4 license so I can mod POSTAL Redux and Hatred.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

I was browsing the interwebs for good Hatred related reactions. Found nothing.
But, I did find some idiocy:



My reaction went as follows:



Watch the video and you'll understand. There's a lot of "Muh peace" in there.

Yes, nonviolent games can exist.

No, violent games can exist too.

Edit: I should probably state my reasoning, or else I look like an absolute prick:

1: They equate all the fans of the game to "Serial killers" (See beginning).

2: They don't like violent games (Stated by them), so the entire video is them going into uncharted territory by them.

3: The classic "Story" argument. For reasons unknown.

4: The classic "Probably men" statement, also for reasons unknown.

5: Hypocrisy everywhere (Shooters with violence, Hatred is still wrong).

6: "WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!"

[Korban3]

People are free to depict whatever they like in a video game, no matter what it is, so long as they don't trample others' freedom to do the same.

Because why, video games aren't real and they're just realistic fantasy depictions? Should we also legalize and unrestrict child pornography, since it's not 'real'? I understand the concern of free speech but the other extreme is no better.

Child pornography =/= Freedom of speech

It's a really easy balance to obtain. All people are free. All humans have the right to life, liberty and property. Someone can do whatever the fuck they want and I will defend their right to do so with my life. However, the moment they infringe upon anyone's right to the same, I will turn my fire upon them.

Child pornography isn't 'not real' just because it's imagery. Hatred is literally just imagery. Child pornography strips a child's right to liberty and property, and thus is wrong on that alone and those who infringed upon those rights should be punished.

If someone made a game where you play a rapist who is also a neo-nazi and went around raping and killing people, I'd defend it, so long as the developer doesn't actually rape or murder people.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

Game development has 3 rules:

1: Don't over-extend yourself
2: Don't get your hopes up.
3: Everything 18 and older is free game for whatever the fuck you please.

[Ragdollmaster]

Child pornography isn't 'not real' just because it's imagery. Hatred is literally just imagery. Child pornography strips a child's right to liberty and property, and thus is wrong on that alone and those who infringed upon those rights should be punished.

That is true for live action child pornography. What if someone just made an incredibly realistic and graphic simulation of it?

[Endoperez]

It's very hard to discuss child pornography as a n allegory of games when there's such a huge stigma against it, when it's such a sore thing for so many, and a painful memory for some. I suggest we talk about Hatred and what's acceptable using something else as an example.


For example:

It isn't illegal to make a game that's similar to another game. An innovative game spawns copycats. Doom created shooters. Game mechanics can't be patented or protected.

It is still "wrong" when we see a "lazy", "unimaginative", "hack" games that succeed and widly surpass the game they're copying. Threes the paid app is the original 1024 and 2048 and all those other games. Ridiculous Fishing (Ninja Fishing), the Desktop Dungeons clone, they happen all the time.

How can they be wrong, when they're not illegal? The developers do have the right to do games like that. They're just "using their free speech" to talk the language of fun, and share it with others. Repeating what others say isn't wrong.
And yet, being a copycat IS wrong.

Is it wrong only if it causes economical harm?
Does that mean that an action can be right, then turn wrong if it becomes viral, then turn right again if the viral meme moves on to find the original source?

[Ragdollmaster]

I think it's a valid comparison. No, a violent video game is not nearly as bad as child porn, real or simulated. But I disagree with the sentiment of "we can show and market whatever we like no matter what the content is, as long as nobody is hurt by its production." Freedom of speech is important and too many restrictions and regulations on creative media are akin to censorship, I don't feel like the opposite extreme is much better.

I'm not saying such content shouldn't exist at all of course, but it is very well known that media can have an effect on your behavior whether you're aware of it or not. For instance, listening to high-tempo music while driving makes people drive faster and more recklessly. Going on a killing spree in GTA or whatever won't turn you into a killer, but in the future as games continue becoming more and more realistic, and as virtual reality becomes a mainstream and games become graphically indistinguishable from reality, will it still be acceptable to have such gory depictions of violence? At a certain point, even if you're aware that it's "just a game," your subconscious loses the ability to distinguish reality from a simulation. I'm sure it is entirely possible for a super-realistic simulation of violence to have negative psychological effects. This may not be an issue today, but it will be. Hopefully it will be addressed before some kid gets from PTSD from playing Call of Duty 26 on the Oculus Rift 4.

[Endoperez]

Kids can have nightmares from playing modern urban racing games. "mommy, the brakes don't work! I didn't stop! The car hurt them!" Just like kids can have nightmares about movies ir books. I had a nightmare when I was ten or so where I had accidentally covered a planet in cancerous biomass of flailing arms, staring eyes, weird patches of hair and cannibalistic, hungry, moaning mouths eating it all.

That doesn't mean that book shouldn't have been written and published. Unless Hatred is the VR game that goes too far, the possibility of such games existing in future isn't a reason to speak against it.

I'm starting to lean towards 'Hatred is disgusting and distasteful, but shouldn't be banned for it'. I'm still not sure if there is another reason to ban it. It would be fine for Valve to not sell it, by 'ban' I mean having actual laws against games like it.
We have ultra violent books and movies, so we have to allow games too. If we ban something from games, it must be banned from all visual media, or all interactive media, or all media period. It shouldn't be games alone.

[Korban3]

I see your point Ragdoll, but I disagree. Offending people isn't morally wrong or illegal. Who cares if it's an eerily realistic simulation of child porn? It's a victimless crime that could potentially take a healthy chunk out of the real child pornography market. Sounds alright to me.

I don't support his gray area bull shit. I support freedom. All of it, for everyone. I don't waffle around, well it's ok, but only this way and this much and at only this time of the day. Freedom is freedom.

[Ragdollmaster]

I see your point Ragdoll, but I disagree. Offending people isn't morally wrong or illegal. Who cares if it's an eerily realistic simulation of child porn? It's a victimless crime that could potentially take a healthy chunk out of the real child pornography market. Sounds alright to me.

I don't support his gray area bull shit. I support freedom. All of it, for everyone. I don't waffle around, well it's ok, but only this way and this much and at only this time of the day. Freedom is freedom.

That's fair, I don't think society at large will get that liberal in the foreseeable future unfortunately.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

You regenerate health from executions, just a thought.