Wolfire Games Forums

Endoperez wrote:So you don't know Valve's stance, but oppose it?

Yes.

I didn't know the thread had 1k+ pages. Link?

http://steamcommunity.com/discussions/f ... 095469621/
And getting more by the minute.

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:

EPR89 wrote: You should really start reading what people are writing because this has been addressed, just like the censorship point.

No it hasn't. You're grasping at straws.

A store deciding not to sell a specific product is not censorship. Especially if it is a private store. Valve can sell and not sell whatever they want, for whatever reason. We have brought up some of them here. Just because you don't want to accept them and rather be pissed about it does not make it censorship.

Again. Read my refined view.

Alright, then.
Thanks for outright telling me that you are not interested in other opinions.
Saves me and some other guys a lot of time.

I'm out.

I'm still wondering why you keep posting this stuff if you only want to read your own posts, though.

I read through the last page of posts, not a single one talked about Valve's decision to pull the game being rational despite the fact it's a stupid business decision.

It's like not wanting more bacon when you already have tons of bacon.

Replace bacon with "Money and happy fans".

Yeah, a company making business decisions to define its public image is pretty stupid, I guess...

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:I read through the last page of posts, not a single one talked about Valve's decision to pull the game being rational despite the fact it's a stupid business

2 to 3 posts out of 50 or so showed some support for Valve's position.

I saw one guy talking about EU anti-trust laws! Yes, that exactly!

Valve needs to make their criteria public and stand by them. Unfortunately it might mean Steam will stop selling certain types of violent games. They will be sold by other online stores. GamersGate the store might not want to touch Hatred because it'd make them the butt of GG jokes, but GoG is consideting Hatred it seems.

"I don't understand what you just said even though literally everyone else does, so I'm going to assume it doesn't make sense and you're grasping at straws"

You should join a debate team when you get to high school, it might speed up the process of realizing how stupid every post of yours is

While you're at it you might want to take a statistics class because you seem to think a lot of random insignificant numbers and figures actually matter without taking into account selection bias and a slew of other very basic and obvious factors.

I had a nice lunch break discussion about this. Some people thought Hatred is bad and Valve had the right to not have it in Steam, some thought Valve is too powerful and has too strong of a stranglehold, one guy was saying that if a big name like EA had published Hatred it'd be on Steam no questions asked, and so on. Comparisons were drawn to a movie called The Massacre or something (not a movie person so I dunno), to Mafia 1 (where you were a normal person dragged into violence), to GTA games, and so on.

Notably absent on the discussion: feminism.
Notably absent on the discussion, with one exception: GamerGate.

That is, no one thought feminism had anything to do with the issue at all. We talked about the business point of view, dev point of view, consumer point of view and so on. None of us thought it was about feminism trying to stop something (even when some of us thought the game was worth stopping, or Valve was going too far).

GamerGate only came up at one point, as my answer to this question:

Why is this causing such a big ruckus now? What has changed that this one decision causes so much discussion online?

Anyone have any ideas? As said, I think it's the same angry mob of gamers that's been causing a commotion for the last few months.

EPR89 wrote:Yeah, a company making business decisions to define its public image is pretty stupid, I guess...

Given how gamers feel about Steam and how non-gamers will probably never touch it, nothing is lost by bringing it onto the store.

Endoperez wrote:

2 to 3 posts out of 50 or so showed some support for Valve's position.

Irrelevant. I was talking about whether they mentioned the percentage of people who want to purchase it and how any capitalist would be shitting their pants at the amount of money they gave up, and the amount of people (Hatred supporters or not) they pissed off.

They didn't commit business suicide by any stretch the imagination, but they certainly didn't do the sane thing to do when you want to make more cash money. Especially with sales coming up.

Valve needs to make their criteria public and stand by them. Unfortunately it might mean Steam will stop selling certain types of violent games.

So the consumer loses out again

They will be sold by other online stores. GamersGate the store might not want to touch Hatred because it'd make them the butt of GG jokes, but GoG is consideting Hatred it seems.

Sweet.

Speaking of GamerGate, they have a steam curator page. Weird.

Endoperez wrote:I had a nice lunch break discussion about this. Some people thought Hatred is bad and Valve had the right to not have it in Steam,

Sensitive people

some thought Valve is too powerful and has too strong of a stranglehold, one guy was saying that if a big name like EA had published Hatred it'd be on Steam no questions asked,

Go on...

That is, no one thought feminism had anything to do with the issue at all.

They are both right, and wrong.
The core of the issue isn't that games like Hatred are being made, it's the fact that these games don't have a right to exist in the eyes of some people.
The pretentious assholes generally follow 3 tenants and that is:
1: Games should be representative of gamers.
2: Games should be deep, meaningful and discussion worthy experiences.
3: Games that fail the second tenant, should be destroyed.

And yes, this is what most of the comments regarding Hatred seem to be when I browse the comments.

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote: how any capitalist would be shitting their pants at the amount of money they gave up, and the amount of people (Hatred supporters or not) they pissed off.

They didn't commit business suicide by any stretch the imagination, but they certainly didn't do the sane thing to do when you want to make more cash money. Especially with sales coming up.

Money isn't the only king.

Following the biggest money isn't sanity, but greed. You have to balance greed against other things, such as ethics. I'm sure you agree that game industry could use more ethics.

Valve needs to make their criteria public and stand by them. Unfortunately it might mean Steam will stop selling certain types of violent games.

So the consumer loses out again

Possibly, if there's no new marketplace, but I think it's better that the consumers lose, than that the developers lose. The consumers only lose their entertainment, after all. The developers might go bankrupt and lose their jobs, which is obviously much worse.

Speaking of GamerGate, they have a steam curator page. Weird.

FemFreq has one too. What's so weird about a group - sorry, I obviously mean an individual using the name of a group without representing the group as a whole - having one?

Endoperez wrote:I had a nice lunch break discussion about this. Some people thought Hatred is bad and Valve had the right to not have it in Steam,

Sensitive people

We're talking business here. Don't you think it'd be insensitive to force Valve to publish all games on their platform without them having a say on it?

The core of the issue isn't that games like Hatred are being made, it's the fact that these games don't have a right to exist in the eyes of some people.
The pretentious assholes generally follow 3 tenants and that is:
1: Games should be representative of gamers.
2: Games should be deep, meaningful and discussion worthy experiences.
3: Games that fail the second tenant, should be destroyed.

And yes, this is what most of the comments regarding Hatred seem to be when I browse the comments.

1. Actually people are rather famously AGAINST this stereotype. The whole "gamers are dead" extragavanza was about the gamer stereotype being old-fashioned in a way that fails to take into account how all sorts of people play gamesnow, and that games industry should be for and represent the society at large instead of just the stereotypical gamers.

2. Yes, absolutely! It would be amazing to have games like this! At the moment most of what we have is the equivalent of summer movies and popcorn flicks and some violent/gore/softcore stuff.

All games don't to be that, but I'd love to have access to games that are AAA-quality AND meaningful. I can't remember when I last played a game that I could have a great discussion about. I could probably have a better discussion about Gone Home without having ever played it, than I could discuss, say, Team Fortress 2. Barring work, of course - design and art and all that stuff. Technical stuff. Talking about game design and that stuff is quite different from having a friendly discussion about each participants' respective thoughts.

3. That's Jack Thompson, and.... I'm drawing a blank, here... Let's see there's that Polygon article about Hatred oh it's just "who thought this was a good idea?!"... Maybe GTA V oh I guess not they say glamourizing torture is crossing the line. Maybe the Target banning thing oh wait they didn't care about the game's plot.

Nope, I can't draw any reasonable connection between a game not being a deep and discussion-worthy and in that it should be destroyed.

Endoperez wrote:
Money isn't the only king.

Following the biggest money isn't sanity, but greed. You have to balance greed against other things, such as ethics. I'm sure you agree that game industry could use more ethics.

How is it greedy to give the consumers what they want, the developers a platform to sell their product and make some cash in the process?

That seems like a universal victory for all involved.

Possibly, if there's no new marketplace, but I think it's better that the consumers lose, than that the developers lose. The consumers only lose their entertainment, after all. The developers might go bankrupt and lose their jobs, which is obviously much worse.

But they would lose their jobs if you pull the game as well.

We're talking business here. Don't you think it'd be insensitive to force Valve to publish all games on their platform without them having a say on it?

Somewhat.

1. Actually people are rather famously AGAINST this stereotype. The whole "gamers are dead" extragavanza was about the gamer stereotype being old-fashioned in a way that fails to take into account how all sorts of people play gamesnow, and that games industry should be for and represent the society at large instead of just the stereotypical gamers.

1: You misinterpret me. I meant that the "Progressive" pompous pricks thinks that games should be artsy so gamers can seem artsy by proxy.
2: That is horrible.

2. Yes, absolutely!

...

It would be amazing to have games like this! At the moment most of what we have is the equivalent of summer movies and popcorn flicks and some violent/gore/softcore stuff.

I read this and ended up frothing at the mouth and twitching in a pool of my own jizz, piss and blood on my chair while images of a dystopian future flashed in front of my eyes while said eyes and ears were bleeding massive amounts of blood onto the floor below my chair.

I was dead for 30 seconds.

Anyways, what's so bad about what we have now?

3. That's Jack Thompson, and.... I'm drawing a blank, here... Let's see there's that Polygon article about Hatred oh it's just "who thought this was a good idea?!"... Maybe GTA V oh I guess not they say glamourizing torture is crossing the line. Maybe the Target banning thing oh wait they didn't care about the game's plot.

Nope, I can't draw any reasonable connection between a game not being a deep and discussion-worthy and in that it should be destroyed.

You misinterpreted me again. I meant that the pretentious gamers want games that aren't artsy and meaningful to be destroyed because they aren't.

UPDATE:

It's back!

Re: greed

You are asking if wanting to make money is greed. Obviously it is. It could be both sane and greedy. I think in this case it might be unethical and greedy.


Re: devs losing jobs.

Look at this from the viewpoint of a company who has to decide if they want to spend, say, a million dollars developing a violent game. Will they be able to sell it on Steam? I have no idea.

If a game is done and can't be sold, it's a very, VERY bad thing for the company. If the company decides to do a different game that is more profitable, it's business as usual. I was talking about the companies who are starting new projects, not those currently working in a hyper-violent game, but it wasn't clear enough and I apologize for that.

Hatred seems to be back on Greenlight. Will it stay there? Will my game get on Steam if it doesn't have huge support? Will it get dropped if there's a big loud noice against it? What's going on with Valve and why aren't they telling me how they decide these things?

Re: misinterpretations

I have never seen or heard about these pretentious pricks who demand that all games submit to their wishes and become 'artsy'. Never.

Where could I find one, and do they ride unicorns?

Seriously, I have NEVER come across a SINGLE person saying that all games should be art games. I've made artsy games with people who make art games, and then we played Towerfall and made a Dark Souls -esque jam game.

I like many of the things we have now, but I want something new and different. Papers, Please is new and exciting. Gone Home and Dear Esther and That Dragon, Cancer are paving way for new games that are emotionally powerful. Soon they will be surpassed in everything from mechanics to style, and they'll be the first ones of a genre that hadn't yet taken shape. I'm seeing the first Arkanoids, the first Pac-mans, Asteroids, the Rogue of roguelikes being born. It's exciting!
The Ur-quan Masters is Asteroids with world map and early-90s adventure game dialog system. It's the precursor to Mass Effect. Gone Home and Dear Esther have FPS elements, but I don't know when we will see the game that does to them what UQM did for Asteroids.

I have seen people who seemingly want to destroy art games, and demand that all games should be banal. You often give that impression... For example, you just said that me liking the idea of a game you don't like makes you physically ill.

Video games (or interactive software to be more inclusive) are an extraordinary medium that can be used to convey much more than any other medium out there.

Why would video games only touch a small percentage of our wide emotion spctrum ? Why couldn't they atempt to cover some of the most negative parts down there ?

Sure, going for brutal murder seems a bit too easy and i'm sure there are ways to convey, say, loathing, disgust or even remorse without going for a mass murder simulator.
As players of this game, these would probably be among the feelings that you would be expected to feel while playing. At least, if you're not already desensitised by the thousands of people you killed in other games which are required to achieve an arbitrary goal imposed by the game mechanics or the meta game (achievements, hi score, unlockables ...). In a sense, they're right when they compare with other shooters where you pile up bodies without thinking too much ...

I personally felt bad when watching this trailer and this got me interested in the game.
A game unlike many others where you get to reflect on what YOU did as a player because here, you can't blame the character, he is doing exactly what he wants so unless you ... don't shoot at all ...
It doesn't matter that the protagonist is a murderer, what matters is what you feel when playing.
If you give up by disgust, then think about why you didn't in other games where the main character isn't a blood-lust murderer. It's not that easy to explain but at least you get to think about it...

Most games take for granted that they're "only games" thus you "fire and forget". Even in kids games where foes disappear in sparkles and smoke puffs.
What if one of the characters comes at you and hits you in the face calling you a fucking murderer with tears in their eyes ?
What if you or your character start to feel that you're doing something wrong ?
Some games try addressing this like "Spec Ops : The Line" and I give Kudos to the devs for pulling this out although I found the shooter parts very tedious and boring at some times. I'm still not sure if it was intended but I do recommend it somehow.

Anyway, I don't care much about this game "yet" other than the interesting thoughts it brings out about our media as a whole. I'll probably play it anyway to see if they did in fact pull off what they're claiming and I hope this makes other devs think a bit more about death, murder and consequences in their next shooters other than "you killed my friend, i'm gonna kill you".

TheSlider wrote:Video games (or interactive software to be more inclusive) are an extraordinary medium that can be used to convey much more than any other medium out there.

I disagree. Games have more interaction between the work and the player. This results in more interpretation. This means that games as a medium are worse at exactly and precisely describing the author's intention, but better at creating a subjective experience.

That means games convey in a different, but not superior, way. Is more focus on the subjective interpretations 'much more', when it comes as a loss in the objective interpretations?

...................................................



As for Hatred... Yes, Hatred could be framed that way. It would make it more interesting. The developers say that it's pure entertainment without any philosophy, though. When you say that, how can any encouragment of interpreting the game's message be anything but lip service? How can murder as entertainment be compared to murder the crime, and should it?

"Yes, putting things simply, we are developing a game about killing people. But what's more important is the fact that we are honest in our approach. Our game doesn't pretend to be anything else than what it is and we don't add to it any fake philosophy."

http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/69949 ... -interview

And from their own site:

"Something different, something that could give the player a pure, gaming pleasure. Herecomes our game, which takes no prisoners and makes no excuses. We say ‘yes, it is a game about killing people’ and the only reason of the antagonist doing that sick stuff is his deep-rooted hatred. Player has to ask himself what can push any human being to mass-murder. "

Endoperez wrote:Re: greed

You are asking if wanting to make money is greed. Obviously it is. It could be both sane and greedy. I think in this case it might be unethical and greedy.

I fail to see how being greedy in this situation is bad. Unless you think everyone should dislike the game and anyone who doesn't is bad. In which case.

"Go fuck yourself"

Re: devs losing jobs.

I meant that by pulling the game you hurt the devs in one way or another.
And thus, they could lose their jobs.

Re: misinterpretations

I have never seen or heard about these pretentious pricks who demand that all games submit to their wishes and become 'artsy'. Never.

It happens.

Where could I find one, and do they ride unicorns?

Here's one now!

Seriously, I have NEVER come across a SINGLE person saying that all games should be art games.

They exist.

I've made artsy games with people who make art games, and then we played Towerfall and made a Dark Souls -esque jam game.

You're one of the few.

I like many of the things we have now, but I want something new and different. Papers, Please is new and exciting. Gone Home and Dear Esther and That Dragon, Cancer are paving way for new games that are emotionally powerful.

And Hatred is going to shoot them all up and pistol whip the remains. Gamers should be doing the same thing.

But nope, all games need a message. All.

Because fuck FTL.

Soon they will be surpassed in everything from mechanics to style, and they'll be the first ones of a genre that hadn't yet taken shape. I'm seeing the first Arkanoids, the first Pac-mans, Asteroids, the Rogue of roguelikes being born. It's exciting!

And watching them get shot up like the millions of cops in Hatred will be just as exciting.

It'll be a nice dose of reality for those who follow them.

"You're eyes are opening for the first time.

It hurts doesn't it?"

The Ur-quan Masters is Asteroids with world map and early-90s adventure game dialog system. It's the precursor to Mass Effect. Gone Home and Dear Esther have FPS elements, but I don't know when we will see the game that does to them what UQM did for Asteroids.

To my knowledge none of them have gameplay.

. For example, you just said that me liking the idea of a game you don't like makes you physically ill.

Because it did. These games are what's cancer to the medium. Nothing else.

Ever wonder why I give Extra Credits so much shit?

Because their pretentious, idiotic assholes.

And art games are:

Unproductive, 'artsy' crap, that makes people into pretentious assholes.