Topic: hatred

Bravo good sir

I likely wouldn't care to play it, but it absolutely has the right to exist. Just as any other extreme form of media - movies, songs, books - has the right to exist.

Those in favor of censorship should realize there are people that would likely to censor something of yours. There's always something that offends someone, and if everyone agrees a line should drawn, those same people will spend eternity deciding where that line is.

Don't like it, don't pay it any attention to it. Simple as that

I agree, but not putting a game in a store is not censorship. If stores don't want to stock it, if certain platform holders don't want to certify it, that's their choice.

"You can't release this" isn't the same as "I'm not carrying this."

Completely true

I'm in agreement for the most part. I find it's important that we don't start censoring things that make us uncomfortable, but also unfortunate that not a lot of people make it a priority to think deeply enough to determine why it makes us uncomfortable...and whether those are artistic reasons, or in the case of a game like "Hatred", to exploit the base instincts and insecurity of the young male gaming demographic.

That's the difficult line we have to walk.

So...I think if stores want to not carry it on their shelves, then that's how it's always been and a retailer had every right to pull an item they deem unfit for sale. I'm just hoping that governments don't step in and make it a part of law. I always hope people...especially parents...will self censor (but sadly we have like a million SAW and Hostel movies...so no)

I agree. It shouldn't be banned by government. I would like it if no was willing to sell it though, and I think it's a shame that Steam put it back on.

@ Action 51 - So you don't feel left out, I didn't skip your post. Just didn't have anything to add since we're in agreement

Never said I'd force stores to carry it

If that were possible I'd come up with a crappy game and force stores to carry it, then retire early

I'd be content with it not selling much either, and I'd probably be a bit judgmental of whoever finds great pleasure from the game

The fact that the guy who made The Letter probably made more money off that crap than I make in a whole year is the reason I drink.

yeah just looked up a walkthrough of The Letter and that was a nice five minute wtf moment

Doubt they made too much money from that though, at least I hope they wouldn't.

The thing about it though is that if an indie game that's only on PC isn't on steam nobody is going to buy it. So the decision about whether or not it appears there is really the only one that matters and actual government censorship would make little extra impact. As far as government censorship of art goes it does happen and it will keep happening whether people like it or not. And frankly I'd have much less of a problem with them censoring content like this than the sort of things that they have censored in the past. Because this game is pretty vile and tasteless when compared to the stuff that the Australian classification board in particular has refused classification.

......... but at the same time all of this discussion about the game is just giving the devs what they wanted. I doubt any of the people really pushing for this game to be made would have been at all interested if there wasn't the controversy around it.

I'm not opposed to games exploring moral grey areas and I fully support freedom of expression (aside from Westboro Baptist Church nonsense), but if Hatred is as straight faced as it seems I want no part of it and hope it fails commercially.

One of my favorite subversive narratives in games, whether intended or not, is in monster hunter 3. When you have cut up a large monster, likely maimed it by cutting off a few pieces of its body, the creatures will limp away in exhaustion and sometimes I just feel so much sympathy for them. Especially when you consider that these monsters / animals also rear children and are just trying to live. I see nothing like that in Hatred so far, so either the game's just as straight-faced as it seems or, far less likely, they've just horribly misrepresented their game.

No-one's defending this game specifically. We're defending the right of people to make weird stuff if they so choose.
You used the term "reactionary". The definition of which, according to wikipedia, is "a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state in a society". Looking at the history of western society, as well as present societies in less advanced parts of the world, I'd say the urge to censor is undeniably the position of the reactionary.

I really don't get this game. It seems to me like the only reason anyone cares is because it was removed from Steam greenlight.

I don't really think anyone cares about it at all. It's just being used to champion certain principles. If you read the comments by the lead developer, it's clear that their intent is purely to push back against ideas of political correctness, which have obviously become divisive in recent times. I'd wager that most people who are seemingly supporting it are doing so for that reason, as opposed to a genuine desire to play it.

I wasn't aware that the definition of the word was that specific TBH. All I was trying to say was that the people arguing in favour of this game have a particular view about content in general, a view which I agree with more than most. But instead of actually considering the opposing points of view for this particular game they repeat the same old lines because they have their position and that's that. Apparently for some there is no line that can ever be crossed which I think is taking it a bit far.

BTW your conclusion about the group supporting this game being not conservative? I don't think that's quite right. It's a bit of a mixed bag clearly because ideology is like that but generally the arguments I hear supporting this game are the same you read in letters to the editor about "political correctness gone mad". On that PC forum I was talking about I saw the same group of people defending the game as I've seen previously going on rants about how feminists are ruining gaming. It's complex but I don't think it's fair to say that people who put "freedom of speech" above everything are all doing it with progressive motivations.....

Just for the record, I'm pretty conservative, and I support hatred existing.

EDIT: WOW, I really need to read my posts before I submit them.

I think we're talking cross purposes. I was suggesting that a re-evaluation of the term "progressive" was in order. I understand you're using it in the colloquial and popular sense but I was pointing out the fact that given that we never had absolute free speech in the past, as well as the fact that hardly any countries on earth have it at present, supporting absolute free speech should technically be considered a progressive position. And in my own case, I certainly consider it to be (simply in the sense that it would improve society, and I think the evidence is clear that free speech does just that).

That's quite separate from the claim that everyone backing the position is currently doing it for progressive reasons. Obviously not. But I'm not of the belief that it's a good idea to censor things like bigotry, racism, xenophobia etc. I think that ultimately ends up making it worse as well. It certainly makes it more extreme.
Although regarding that video, I don't accept that you can be bigoted against a religion. I think that's an incoherent idea. I think the term "bigoted" only makes sense when applied to immutable characteristics like race, gender, sexuality etc etc. The reason being that a religion isn't just a group of people. It's also a collection of ideas. If you lay down a social protection (which is what a word like 'bigoted' is designed to do, to stop arguments) for a religion, you might well protect a group of people, which is a good thing, but you'll also protect a collection ideas. Which isn't acceptable (for example, because most religious holy books are incredibly bigoted themselves and therefore need to be criticised).

The urge to make a political joke is pretty strong right now...

Was my first thought too lol...

I think this game is alright... In the underground. I mean, You could make a game where you play as Michael Vick (As the lovable ol' dog catcher) and capture, then drown, as many dogs you can find. This too has some meaning about censorship, and also Idolatry. I don't understand the developers principals... If he had any STANDARDS he wouldn't be trying to get this published in this method. I believe it is all a ploy to sell more copies once it is approved (with the help of the screaming Minority), who will more than likely pan or pass over this title once released.