Do you think Valve would ever allow this game on Steam?

[Fork_Q2]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-10-16-epic-requests-its-logo-be-removed-from-civilian-massacring-game-hatred

It don't look like my thing, seems to be trying way too hard to manufacture controversy over it's central gimmick (you just kill innocent people). It looks like that even Valve won't allow the game on the store, if what the publisher says is anything to go by.

Won't lie though, probably would at least give it a go.

Edit: thank you all for your responses.

[Krypto]

I loaded up the free copy of Aliens v Predators GoG gave me last night and I tell you all I did was load up a Predator game and start killing people. They ran in terror when I cloaked myself and they couldn't see what was hitting them. I started to laugh.

I think new school gamers, despite how violent games have gotten since devs have got good at making violence, have gotten soft. They're afraid of what politicians will say. They're afraid of what their mother will find on their hard drive when they get in trouble at school (or when someone does another school shooting). I don't even think gamers want a justification for the violence, I think the problem lies in them treating all games as something gamers play, gamers are the same type of people, and game for the same reasons. That's not true.

People who abhor violent games tend to stick to the Sims and Animal Crossing. Some that like violence, but haven't honed their reflexes settle for strategy games or even pen and paper rpgs. Some people will always be a paragon in Mass Effect, while others, like me, will be tempted to do the Renegade the first time through and will only make good choices if it's "right" or beneficial to my character. That's why I like the Witcher. Others will play the good guy the first time through. Others will live out their violent fantasies as heroes like Link or Marcus Fenix.

Not all games have the same goals. Just like Connect 4 is different from Chess aside from failure and victory. Games tell different kinds of stories if they tell stories at all.

[Fork_Q2]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Krypto:

I think new school gamers, despite how violent games have gotten since devs have got good at making violence, have gotten soft. They're afraid of what politicians will say. They're afraid of what their mother will find on their hard drive when they get in trouble at school. I don't even think gamers want a justification for the violence, I think the problem lies in them treating all games as something gamers play, gamers are the same type of people, and game for the same reasons. That's not true.

There are also far more harder, darker and gritty games a total pacifist could still play that isn't The Sims or Animal Crossing. I don't see people have gotten "soft" at all, there has always been violence in video games and a demand for it, taste in games is not a really good reflection of personality. If anything, the marketing for this game appears to be more troll/kiddie-bait, than aimed at mature gamers. I doubt a single politician has successfully convinced a single gamer not to play a particular video game.

Myself have some misgivings over the idea, and I have played the original Aliens Vs Predator (even the Predator has a code of conduct and honour) & even more violent games besides. This is an little different from nearly all other commercial games before.

[Fork_Q2]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Matthew Sobol's Daemon:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Fork_Q2:

There are also far more harder, darker and gritty games a total pacifist could still play that isn't The Sims or Animal Crossing. I don't see people have gotten "soft" at all, there has always been violence in video games and a demand for it, taste in games is not a really good reflection of personality. If anything, the marketing for this game appears to be more troll/kiddie-bait, than aimed at mature gamers. I doubt a single politician has successfully convinced a single gamer not to play a particular video game.

Myself have some misgivings over the idea, and I have played the original Aliens Vs Predator (even the Predator has a code of conduct and honour) & even more violent games besides. This is an little different from nearly all other commercial games before.

I think the funny thing is that how "mature" a game or movie is tends to be judged on a very mechanical level, without any thought of context. This applies to both official rating systems and how people in general judge media.

For example, (Oh, fine, I'm practically copy-pasting from this article) the the pencil scene from The Dark Knight in put a softer category than half the stuff that goes on in Mortal Kombat, when the former is actually quite horrific and the latter is just goofing around with some red squishy objects.

"What games have a mature attitude to violence? That is, depicts violence with weight and appropriate consequences? Well, very few of them, obviously. The only one that really springs to mind is, as ever, the self-mutilation scene from Heavy Rain, where you have to spend an entire afternoon preparing tools and downing painkillers and it still looks like it stings like a ♥♥♥♥♥."

So what I'm trying to say is (now I'm done using someone else's quotes to sound smart), I don't think this game is "mature". It's just yet another game that shows the standard dumb disregard to the consequences of violence. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, and that there's some sort of deeper message, like maybe at the end you're finally given justification and everyone in-game loves you, and some Spec Ops-esque ♥♥♥♥ happens, but I doubt it.

I think know what you mean, the official ratings exist for concerned parents to make their mind up on how much sexual and violent content is acceptable for their children to be exposed to, not so much about themes or ideas presented. Planescape Torment gets a Teen rating not for it's ponderings on of ideas about free-will and morality, but for the drug / sex references and minor violence.

[Cobol]

Honestly I think you're a Pudding Brain if you play this, This is just a game for PE teachers who want to enact revenge on annoying kids but can only do it In violent videogames.

[Cobol]

Opprinnelig skrevet av RootCookie:

Opprinnelig skrevet av The 12th Doctor:

Honestly I think you're a Pudding Brain if you play this, This is just a game for PE teachers who want to enact revenge on annoying kids but can only do it In violent videogames.

Would you try to stop them?

Probably, I can see why people like GTA and it's more balanced there but this game is just sadism and is more likely to do harm than good.

[Cobol]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Matthew Sobol's Daemon:

Opprinnelig skrevet av The 12th Doctor:

Probably, I can see why people like GTA and it's more balanced there but this game is just sadism and is more likely to do harm than good.

It could be worse. Like if the message is that you're really doing everyone a favor by freeing them from their uninteresting lives or something.

I mean, it's one thing to let people live out their darkest fantasies, it's quite another to tell them it's the right thing to do.

It's games like these that makes Germany have that rule where Videogames can't depict Humans Killing Humans.

http://tf2wiki.net/wiki/German_version

I have to say I don't blame them but It's likely a step too close to mollycoddling.

[Kitai]

why wouldnt they they allowed manhunt on steam and that game is as violent as this game

[Cobol]

Opprinnelig skrevet av RootCookie:

Opprinnelig skrevet av The 12th Doctor:

Probably, I can see why people like GTA and it's more balanced there but this game is just sadism and is more likely to do harm than good.

What sort of harm do you think video games could cause?

How is this different from lets say a movie about a serial killer, would you stop people from watching that movie?
What about documentaries on crimes teaching people how to get away with murder?
Should we ban all documentaries?

I just want to know where you draw the imaginary line from your beliefs and other people's freedoms of choice.

Freedom of Choice also means people can choose to say something should not be chosen, much like how Freedom of Speech lets people who say ridiculous things still be freely ridiculed by people who say thay are stupid.

And yes, Videogames CAN cause harm as much as a dangerous book or a film and but are slightly different like the example in this comment below.

Opprinnelig skrevet av Matthew Sobol's Daemon:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Velocity514:

why wouldnt they they allowed manhunt on steam and that game is as violent as this game

Because you can't judge a game purely by "how much violence/blood there is" with no regards to context.

Case in point, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_Cleansing_(video_game)

[Krypto]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Fork_Q2:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Krypto:

I think new school gamers, despite how violent games have gotten since devs have got good at making violence, have gotten soft. They're afraid of what politicians will say. They're afraid of what their mother will find on their hard drive when they get in trouble at school. I don't even think gamers want a justification for the violence, I think the problem lies in them treating all games as something gamers play, gamers are the same type of people, and game for the same reasons. That's not true.

There are also far more harder, darker and gritty games a total pacifist could still play that isn't The Sims or Animal Crossing. I don't see people have gotten "soft" at all, there has always been violence in video games and a demand for it, taste in games is not a really good reflection of personality. If anything, the marketing for this game appears to be more troll/kiddie-bait, than aimed at mature gamers. I doubt a single politician has successfully convinced a single gamer not to play a particular video game.

Myself have some misgivings over the idea, and I have played the original Aliens Vs Predator (even the Predator has a code of conduct and honour) & even more violent games besides. This is an little different from nearly all other commercial games before.

I'm not sure what dark gritty games a pacifist could play, share an example if you can. I disagree that how you play games doesn't show your personality. You are who you are--or several versions of yourself--and how you play a game shows your personality. When I used to play more chess in person, that's how I got to know people. That goes the same for other table top games like rummy, dominoes, and Uno. Video games aren't somehow special.

While games have indeed gotten more violent, gamers are more worried about what non-gamers think was my whole judgment for the use of "soft." My frame of reference as a 30+ year old is the worse games used to get was Mortal Kombat, but not that level of violence is in shooters like Wolfenstein: TNO and Gears of War minus the childishness of ripping off heads with the spine attached. A game like hatred is geared only towards adults as the violence isn't meant to be over-the-top, but to look real, like mature horror movies, not the ones where one's head is splatter like a balloon with a hammer.

Heavy Rain was a good example as far how games have gotten in making you uncomfortable with violence. Being a kid that was around when Mortal Kombat was released, this is pretty much where I wanted games to go as far as not holding back. Some movies have to hold back to keep their R rating which is okay, but there is also movies that feature real sex either to shock or for artistic expression and torture for the same reasons. Porn is also similarly not shown in common theaters, but available for adults who choose to satisfy that desire to see not just ordinary sex, but violent and disgusting sex. The only line that is drawn is actual murder. Video games don't have that problem unless someone makes a game where the outcome is tied to a real murder.

You already mentioned Postal. Apparently from what I've read and watched, this really IS an updated version of Postal. Down to the protagonists motives or lack thereof.
http://youtu.be/uxgoLk2NCh4
The only real difference is that the original Postal, despite them trying to depict the protagonist as disturbed, comes off like a joke, but that could just be time sensitive because it's an old game. Like they want you to laugh. I know it starts off with people shooting back, but he's likely went on a rampage even before the game began. The police are at his house. People can only go down half-way when you shoot them, then you could point your gun to the back of their head to finish them off or they could be squirming on the ground holding their necks bleeding.

If this is a game with levels, it's almost impossible for people to not start shooting back as the game goes along. The cops are already shown fighting back, next thing, the military will come. This wasn't stated to be an outright mass-murder simulator, so if it's a game where the difficulty progresses, it'll likely end up exactly like Postal 1.

[Fork_Q2]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Krypto:

I'm not sure what dark gritty games a pacifist could play, share an example if you can.

Sure; Deus Ex, Planescape Torment, Scratches, Barrow Hill, Dark Fall - and pretty much nearly every modern horror or adventure game.

I disagree that how you play games doesn't show your personality. You are who you are--or several versions of yourself--and how you play a game shows your personality. When I used to play more chess in person, that's how I got to know people. That goes the same for other table top games like rummy, dominoes, and Uno. Video games aren't somehow special.

I'm not really sure what about playing chess, rummy, dominoes or Uno says about the player. Nearly everyone plays chess, from university professors, stockbrokers, rappers and actors. Seeing that the games I play are anything from Kickstarted indies to AAA sports games on the consoles, not sure if a common theme could be picked out at all, other than "I just like lots of games".

While games have indeed gotten more violent, gamers are more worried about what non-gamers think was my whole judgment for the use of "soft." My frame of reference as a 30+ year old is the worse games used to get was Mortal Kombat, but not that level of violence is in shooters like Wolfenstein: TNO and Gears of War minus the childishness of ripping off heads with the spine attached. A game like hatred is geared only towards adults as the violence isn't meant to be over-the-top, but to look real, like mature horror movies, not the ones where one's head is splatter like a balloon with a hammer.

Gamers getting defensive about video games from non-gamers is hardly new. Roger Ebert pissed off an lot of gamers by saying video games aren't art years ago, other critics have weighed in since and before. Critiques and counter-critiques on video games like Doom, Duke Nukem and Quake are as old as those games.

I guess when the game comes out, we can see for ourselves how the violence is depicted, but to be honest, it still seem very "video gamey" from the trailer.

You already mentioned Postal. Apparently from what I've read and watched, this really IS an updated version of Postal. Down to the protagonists motives or lack thereof.

Yeah, it does seem like it, like a spiritual successor to that game. But it is worth nothing that even Postal's developers stepped away from that direction in the subsequent Postal games.

[Krypto]

Those games for pacifist you mention feature violence. That would be the people I was talking about who like violence, but haven't honed their reflexes to play first person shooters.

...and yes, just like I said since I've played Chess with rich kids to people who've been in prison, HOW they play tells about their personality, not what they do in life. What you play and how you play it says something about you, doesn't mean you fit into a predefined stereotype. I mostly play shooters whether I realize it or not, but I love RPGs, would like to play more strategy, etc etc. I stay away from fighting games like Street Fighter, especially online, because even though they're pretty, I've never trained myself to play them well. You may like a lot of games, but you play what you want and how you like.

And gamers never cared about what anyone said other than thinking they were out of their minds--but then again the internet wasn't a thing back then, so people responding to what was said on TV was pretty much unheard of. You'd never hear about it anyway because they didn't put it on the news. It was pretty much one-sided unless your teacher asked you what you thought.

Postal 2 and 3 might have tried to be humorous, but that was pretty much backing down from controversy like I've been talking about. Don't get me wrong, I don't want games to become like dark internet porn, but I would like a game to not hold back when it could make the game better. Pretty much like any medium from books to movies. Not all movies or TV shows can afford to take art first, but luckily we have show like Spartacus, Game of Thrones, and Dexter because they pushed the boundaries as far as cable tv could go. I just want games to allow themselves to be what they are.

Point is, what I was talking about before is pretty much not going to happen because while Postal shocked the world, I'm not sure if it changed anything. I'm kind of too lazy to research whether gaming in general changed after it. The one game we know ushered in a new level of violence was Mortal Kombat, then Doom was the poster child for 3d AND violent shooters. Maybe the creators of Hatred will succeed, maybe they'll have made just be another game.

What I do remember is games coming under attack from the conservative media and Postal may very well have been backlash against what was being said at that time.

[Naedmi]

I don't know. I have been playing Lucius and that game has some pretty gruesome deaths. I lost my appetite after the one guy got his head sawn in half. They are just saying all of this to get more attention, since it has already been allowed on Steam (as Postal).

[Fork_Q2]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Krypto:

Those games for pacifist you mention feature violence. That would be the people I was talking about who like violence, but haven't honed their reflexes to play first person shooters.

A pacifist is someone who would not engage in violent acts, not wanting to be presented with acts of violence isn't the same thing as being a pacifist. As long as you can get by without hurting anyone, that to me sounds like a game they could very well play.

...and yes, just like I said since I've played Chess with rich kids to people who've been in prison, HOW they play tells about their personality, not what they do in life. What you play and how you play it says something about you, doesn't mean you fit into a predefined stereotype. I mostly play shooters whether I realize it or not, but I love RPGs, would like to play more strategy, etc etc. I stay away from fighting games like Street Fighter, especially online, because even though they're pretty, I've never trained myself to play them well. You may like a lot of games, but you play what you want and how you like.

What exactly then, does my choice of games tell you about me? Honestly, not very much. I put more hours into Skyrim then any other game, I don't really see how that reflects on me aside from maybe I like walking an lot? I'm not even a big a fan of high-fantasy.

And gamers never cared about what anyone said other than thinking they were out of their minds--but then again the internet wasn't a thing back then, so people responding to what was said on TV was pretty much unheard of. You'd never hear about it anyway because they didn't put it on the news. It was pretty much one-sided unless your teacher asked you what you thought.

Newspapers existed, gamer magazines existed, gaming forums have existed almost my entire life, and every popular opinion piece published then about games is downloadable today, so yeah, the dialogue has almost always been out for anyone to read.

What I do remember is games coming under attack from the conservative media and Postal may very well have been backlash against what was being said at that time.

It could be a backlash or a cash-in on controversy, the way Hatred is marketed sounds more like the latter. The furore over the first GTA was actually almost entirely astroturfed for instance:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-10-22-gta-max-clifford-made-it-all-happen

[Dendrobates Tinctorius]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Krypto:

And gamers never cared about what anyone said

what

[Krypto]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Fork_Q2:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Krypto:

Those games for pacifist you mention feature violence. That would be the people I was talking about who like violence, but haven't honed their reflexes to play first person shooters.

A pacifist is someone who would not engage in violent acts, not wanting to be presented with acts of violence isn't the same thing as being a pacifist. As long as you can get by without hurting anyone, that to me sounds like a game they could very well play.

...and yes, just like I said since I've played Chess with rich kids to people who've been in prison, HOW they play tells about their personality, not what they do in life. What you play and how you play it says something about you, doesn't mean you fit into a predefined stereotype. I mostly play shooters whether I realize it or not, but I love RPGs, would like to play more strategy, etc etc. I stay away from fighting games like Street Fighter, especially online, because even though they're pretty, I've never trained myself to play them well. You may like a lot of games, but you play what you want and how you like.

What exactly then, does my choice of games tell you about me? Honestly, not very much. I put more hours into Skyrim then any other game, I don't really see how that reflects on me aside from maybe I like walking an lot? I'm not even a big a fan of high-fantasy.

And gamers never cared about what anyone said other than thinking they were out of their minds--but then again the internet wasn't a thing back then, so people responding to what was said on TV was pretty much unheard of. You'd never hear about it anyway because they didn't put it on the news. It was pretty much one-sided unless your teacher asked you what you thought.

Newspapers existed, gamer magazines existed, gaming forums have existed almost my entire life, and every popular opinion piece published then about games is downloadable today, so yeah, the dialogue has almost always been out for anyone to read.

What I do remember is games coming under attack from the conservative media and Postal may very well have been backlash against what was being said at that time.

It could be a backlash or a cash-in on controversy, the way Hatred is marketed sounds more like the latter. The furore over the first GTA was actually almost entirely astroturfed for instance:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-10-22-gta-max-clifford-made-it-all-happen

There are games where you may not have to commit violence and still witness it, but those are still people who enjoy violence. My mother would never play a horror game (watches action movies, but tends to avoid horror movies), but she'd play Wii Sports. That's a game with no violence. From the first time someone played Resident Evil, you can tell the difference between interactive horror and movie horror.

I can't remember if I ever spoke about pacifists in specific at the start and I'm too lazy to look, but I'm pretty sure I said something like, there are games for people who don't like violence and games for those that like violence in heroic form and violence for those without the reflexes to play shooters.

Why would your choice of games say anything specific about you? What are you looking for meaning out of life? No one said what it "says" about your personality has to be mapped to anything in specific. No stereotypes like I said.

Like I said, you never saw gamer responses to what was said about games in the media. That includes newspapers, Electronic Gaming Monthly and GamePro.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. Doesn't matter what games cash in on, it's all about finding an angle to make money. Otherwise they wouldn't sell them. Zelda cashes in on the kid crowd and the adult wanting a timeless, ageless adventure.

I'm aware of GTA causing controversy for marketing. That's kind of the point of any game being shocking.