Hatred: The Game From God

Anything else
User avatar
Ragdollmaster
Posts: 2343
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:49 am
Location: Island of Lugaru

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Ragdollmaster » Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:19 pm

Phoenix, you don't always need a comma preceding 'but.' That's only necessary if it's at the beginning of an independent clause. Or is it a dependent? I don't know, it's been a while since I had to do any English classes, engineering keeps me busy with more important subjects.

As a rule of thumb, I scored perfect Writing & Reading scores on the PSAT and SAT, so if I'm writing seriously, it's most likely correct. When you take those tests, compare your scores to mine and see where you stand.

As a secondary rule of thumb, I'm a busy man and sometimes I don't care enough to proofread forum posts that I write in literally five seconds. When you have a job or college courses, you might understand why.

Finally, as a tertiary rule of thumb, only an idiot thinks that pointing out a typographical or grammatical error is somehow a valid point in a discussion.

Now go back to your corner and continue assuming that nobody agrees with your inane drivel because... I don't even remember what your reasoning behind this is, really. You're smarter than everyone else, I suppose? Or maybe we're just all biased because of the evil feminazi-controlled media? I don't know. I don't really care either.
There are basically no differences between killing soldiers at war and killing innocent people
Image

User avatar
Korban3
Posts: 4146
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 9:14 pm
Location: 42nd St E, Hell

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Korban3 » Sat Dec 27, 2014 10:01 pm

Ragdollmaster wrote:
There are basically no differences between killing soldiers at war and killing innocent people
Image
Image

There is, in fact, a really big difference.
It's called the Non-Aggression Principle in civil circles and it's called the Rules of Engagement and Standard Operating Procedure in military circles. For the most part, you're usually going to engage enemy combatants after they've engaged you. CoD does a really poor job of depicting life as an enlisted modern war fighter. They have way too much cool stuff and not nearly enough sitting around, jacking off on post and drawing dicks on the wall for it to represent real military service.

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Endoperez » Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:02 am

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote: Don't act like Hatred is somehow evil because instead of twenty soldiers, it's twenty innocent people.

The differences are barely worth talking about.
In the real world, only one of those is a war crime.

In games, it's the difference between killing a human-shaped playthings who keep attacking until they are dead, feeling no pain, and killing a simulacrum of a human that acts out its pain and terror.

User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:31 am

Endoperez wrote:
Phoenixwarrior141 wrote: Don't act like Hatred is somehow evil because instead of twenty soldiers, it's twenty innocent people.

The differences are barely worth talking about.
In the real world, only one of those is a war crime.
The difference is that war crimes aren't what dictates what's, you know, ethical.


In games, it's the difference between killing a human-shaped playthings who keep attacking until they are dead, feeling no pain, and killing a simulacrum of a human that acts out its pain and terror.
In Hatred it's the first one. A human shaped toy that only ACTS like it feels pain, and acts out on programming. Not even smart enough to attack in self defense unless told by code to do so.

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Endoperez » Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:39 am

An NPC enemy is programmed to attack until it dies so the player has fun.

An NPC innocent is programmed to show the emotional signs that make the player feel bad.

Neither are real. They don't need to be real because games are only interesting for what they do to the players. Here's what I wrote on this thread on the 14th:
I'll also add in something off-topic - I once saw an argument about the position of orcs in fantasy literature. This guy was saying that it's racist to write creatures that are always evil because you could have imagined them as beings with free will. That real people can be racist toward fictional things and it's comparable in some way to real-world racism...

I'm just saying that the virtual enemies are not the thing we should feel sorry for, but it's always about the player(s) reactions to the events in games.
If you won't give a shit about the people you kill, the interest should be in why you won't give shit, not in 'who' you kill.

User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 3:20 am

Endoperez wrote:An NPC enemy is programmed to attack until it dies so the player has fun.

An NPC innocent is programmed to show the emotional signs that make the player feel bad.
In Hatred it's different though.

In normal games it's:

An enemy NPC is programmed to attack the player for challenge and fun, so the player can be told these are the bad guys.

An innocent NPC is programmed to hide and flee from the bad guys the player knows they are the good guys.

In Hatred it's:

Enemy NPCs are for challenge

Innocent NPCs are for target practice, as an optional side objective as something to kill.

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Endoperez » Sun Dec 28, 2014 3:33 am

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote: In Hatred it's different though.
No it isn't. Hatred is the same as CoD.

... ?

User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 4:59 am

Endoperez wrote:
Phoenixwarrior141 wrote: In Hatred it's different though.
No it isn't. Hatred is the same as CoD.

... ?
I shoulda phrased that differently.

I meant that the innocent NPCs in the games fulfill (That's how it's spelled?) different purposes (Hatred they're target practice, in CoD they're a set piece to indicate who the bad guys are). Even the results of killing the innocent NPCs in Hatred and the hostile NPCs in CoD are the same:

You killed a guy.

The context is different, but that matters little in the end.

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Endoperez » Sun Dec 28, 2014 5:07 am

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:Even the results of killing the innocent NPCs in Hatred and the hostile NPCs in CoD are the same:

You killed a guy.

The context is different, but that matters little in the end.
I just argued that it's more important how the player reacts (context) than what happens in-game (an ai is playing dead).

The in-game results are similar, but I think Hatred is wrong because it might encourage the sort of mindset where it doesn't matter what you do or who you hurt. The mindset you are demonstrating.

Why is the context irrelevant? Context matters! It helps us now how others would react, and then we can compare our own actions and emotions to those of others in a similar context. Context is a useful tool.

User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 6:08 am

Endoperez wrote: I just argued that it's more important how the player reacts (context) than what happens in-game (an ai is playing dead).
I disagree. I think that the player reaction is irrelevant when they are easily swayed to commit mass murder because the game told them the victims were the "bad guys".
Meaning, we should take those reactions with a hefty grain of salt based on how reactions are easily swayed.
I say this also because I'm trying to argue that Hatred isn't evil because in a philosophical sense (Ignoring the players for a second) the results are the same, yet the other games aren't considered evil. Meaning either Hatred isn't evil, or CoD IS evil.
The in-game results are similar, but I think Hatred is wrong because it might encourage the sort of mindset where it doesn't matter what you do or who you hurt. The mindset you are demonstrating.
Aren't you in a similar mindset in CoD though?

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Endoperez » Sun Dec 28, 2014 7:06 am

Words can easily be twisted into lies, but we don't just ignore them.

Similarly, while our reactions and emotions can be manipulated, we shouldn't ignore them OR the manipulation. Games and movies manipulate through visuals and camera angles and game mechanics.

If player reaction is irrelevant, you are ignoring both the subjective experience of the player and the design (manipulation) of the developers. What's left is just a part of the game, not the whole game.

In CoD you shoot everything that moves, but you don't murder people. There are scenes where the player has to 'pull the trigger' and shoot someone who can't fight back. People react to that differently even when they were massacring soldiers in the same game moments before.

www.metalgearinformer.com/?p=15709

User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 4:35 pm

Endoperez wrote:Words can easily be twisted into lies, but we don't just ignore them.

Similarly, while our reactions and emotions can be manipulated, we shouldn't ignore them OR the manipulation. Games and movies manipulate through visuals and camera angles and game mechanics.
I was getting at this:
Philosophically, the results of killing the two NPCs are the same. And the player's reaction is irrelevant when all's said and done. Since they are from an outside watching in, not the other way around.

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Endoperez » Sun Dec 28, 2014 5:02 pm

Philosophically, you are totally wrong.

If there's an inside and outside to games, then the outside is what can be sensed of it, and the inside is what can be imagined of it. That means that the player's reaction is the only "in".

Plus, if player reaction is irrelevant, then you are ignoring both the subjective experience of the player and the design (manipulation) of the developers. Those are very importany parts of games.

User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 5:35 pm

Endoperez wrote:Philosophically, you are totally wrong.

If there's an inside and outside to games, then the outside is what can be sensed of it, and the inside is what can be imagined of it. That means that the player's reaction is the only "in".

Plus, if player reaction is irrelevant, then you are ignoring both the subjective experience of the player and the design (manipulation) of the developers. Those are very importany parts of games.
I think you're missing the point.

We're arguing whether CoD is as evil as Hatred. So we have to ignore the player's reaction.
My argument is "What are the differences between killing someone in CoD, to killing someone in Hatred?". I'm ignoring the technical and reactionary parts, and context for the sake of review. Hence the term "Philosophical".

Since I'm not arguing what the player's reactions are, or anything about context, I'll ignore those parts. My point being:

"The general result is the same after killing someone in either game: Someone is dead. So Hatred isn't anymore evil then Call of Duty, where you kill equal amounts of people with a somewhat flimsy context and zero fucks given about your actions."

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Hatred: The Game From God

Post by Endoperez » Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:22 am

I see now, I think.

You seem to have defined evil like so:

'A game is evil if a human character dies in it.'

That happens in several games. They should all be evil.

I disagree with your definition of evil.

However, if I accepted, I would agree with your conclusion.

--------------------------------------------------------

What I'm saying is basically the old 'can a tool be evil' argument, plus a bit of the 'if a tree falls in the wood and no one hears' paradox.

A gun, a sword does not kill on its own. It needs someone to use it. It is the user who is evil, if innocents die, not the weapon.

A game is a tool, not the actor. However, it's a tool with such a defined usage that if you use it, it can do one of a predefined set of things. A killing weapon, a torture machine, that can only be used for one, evil purpose... It is either a tool for evil, or useless.
That's how a tool CAN be evil - when using it is automatically evil.

If an evil thing happens, but no one was harmed, and there's no sign of it afterwards, did it really happen? If a game is left to run and lemmings keep dying, is it evil? Using your argument, it would be. All those gifs of stick figures dying, looping endlessly, are evil... How silly. If I put a hidden computer somewhere to replay billions of stick figure deaths, it wouldn't make me any more evil.

I've not fully defined evil, for this argument. Defining evil is hard. However, I have an example of what is evil, and why playing Hatred is evil:
I believe that enjoying the sight (illusion or not) of helpless humans crying for help as 'you' shoot and kill them is evil, and the more you enjoy the killing and the targets' virtual pain and the more immersive the illusion is, the more evil it is.

In most shooters, the gameplay, the challenge, team play or kill streaks effects and announcements or frak stats are also a big part of the enjoyment. They are innocent enjoyment, so while those games might give someone the evil, murderous satisfaction that marks Hatred, that is not the ONLY way to enjoy most games.

As far as the tool analogy goes, that makes CoD a sports rifle - a tool that has several uses, only some of which are evil.

If Hatred could be enjoyed without killing representations of unthreatening, innocent humans, it wouldn't be evil. Everything points to that not being a consideration for the devs, so I call Hatred evil.

Post Reply