Games do not exist in a vacuum, they are not unattached from reality but a mirror to values, culture, taste, public mood etc. It make me sad that the current climate makes people want to play and make a game based on this theme. I don't think I need a psychiatrist but think the people making this revenge porn probably do!
blazier its pretty bad form to state something without backing it up, then when asked about it, replying "google it". its up to you, not me, to provide evidence for your statements.
i agree with easterislannick about the mirror thing.
As an avid escapist and game artist, I'm not seeing anything that would provide a new experience or source of inspiration, which is why myself and a majority of my friends play games, watch movies, read books. To enjoy the break of real norms. Unfortunately this game falls under the been there done that, what's new, what's exciting? The psudo-hype it can gather? Shit, I'll just watch the Kardashians at-least get a laugh from it.
blazier its pretty bad form to state something without backing it up, then when asked about it, replying "google it". its up to you, not me, to provide evidence for your statements.
i agree with easterislannick about the mirror thing.
I provided a relevant source for you in the previous page.
Everyone saying the devs are scum or need mental help, or saying the people who might like or play this are manbabies or need help or are disgusting need to get off their high fucking horse and stop wit the ad hominem attacks and thinking their opinions on morality make them better than others.
It's a work of art, it's made to elicit different emotions. Criticize the work, not the viewer or creator, for fucks sake.
And if you seriously believe that fictional anything might affect people in reality, then you also believe that people are by default; extremely stupid, gullible and violent to a misanthropic manner, which is disgusting and bigoted on a whole new scale.
Everyone saying the devs are scum or need mental help, or saying the people who might like or play this are manbabies or need help or are disgusting need to get off their high fucking horse and stop wit teh ad hominem attacks and thinking their opinions on morality make them better than others.
It's a work of art, it's made to elicit different emotions. Criticize the work, not the viewer or creator, for fucks sake.
no no, the whole point is to not be art. the developers said it themselves, really
These days, when a lot of games are heading to be polite, colorful, politically correct and trying to be some kind of higher art, rather than just an entertainment we wanted to create something against trends.
the difference in other forms of simiple killin entertainment is that in other games, you kill combatants, usually as a means of getting rewarded with progression. what this game controversially states is that killing civilians/noncombatants for no reward other than the means to kill -more- civilians is an acceptable form of entertainment (or even the notion that killing civilians is the 'reward'). and that's stupid
no no, the whole point is to not be art. the developers said it themselves, really
They said higher art, shit like "The Mountain" or "Gone Home", there is a difference. A videogame is art in the same way a book, a movie, a song or a picture is art. It is something created to serve itself and it may invoke certain emotions with others who observe it, it's art.
They said higher art, shit like "The Mountain" or "Gone Home", there is a difference. A videogame is art in the same way a book, a movie, a song or a picture is art. It is something created to serve itself and it may invoke certain emotions with others who observe it, it's art.
which is strange because they ironically loaded the 'simple entertainment' with the political notion of going against a trend
From a one and a half minute trailer where the only gameplay footage shows an isometric action game with fully destructible environments? Sour grapes?
No, I agree with him, the game will probably be shitty. Assuming the entire game reflects a realistic situation where somebody engages in a mass shooting (which appears to be what the devs went for) you will probably end up shooting a bunch of defenseless people and some cops until you eventually get taken out by a police officer or swat member, then game over I guess.
I see people comparing this to CoD/BF/L4D/[insert game with guns here] but this is pretty different due to the fact that basically everybody you are killing is defenseless. If every citizen was for some reason carrying weapons and would attack you as soon as the first shot went out, then this game could be turned into something fun like Crimsonland, but that's not the case.
Violence is generally accepted in games because the game does not focus on it. With CoD, you are invested into a story about a specific soldier or group of soldier. With L4D, you are invested in the survival of you and your friends.
This game on the other hand, focuses strictly on violence, the devs want you to be invested in the violence and I believe the trailer even states that the main character will die at the end of all this (probably either killed by a cop or suicide.)
The devs are free to make whatever they want and sell it (although I'm guessing this will only sell because of the "controversy") but there's nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in the core game design. I saw a commenter on /r/gaming that wrote out a much better scenario for the game and despite being equally violent, it actually sounded interesting and definitely something that would be worth buying. I can't find the comment right now but the guy basically gave the game an interesting story about morals.
Anyway, despite some of the devs being neo-Nazis, they are still free to make whatever they want even if it pisses everybody off. There are worse games that are made strictly to offend people, Muslim Massacre which was the only game to offend me for example, and there are several games that exist where you rape and potentially kill innocent women.
Game developers can be just as much of insensitive assholes as anybody else, basically nothing new.
you don't have to brainwash/change people in order for your game to be gross. It's a strawman to suggest that 'sjws' are claiming 'violent videogames make you violent' -- we're claiming that yucky speech is yucky and should be discussed.
The game is making a political statement (according to the creators) and discussing the politics is absolutely appropriate.
real art mediums have discussions like this all the time -- aesthetics and ethics are not boring fields. If you aren't interested in discussion about representation or communication via the medium maybe you should 'vote with your wallet' by not posting in the thread.
why are you all still bullying the guy who says meat a lot? AFAIK he literally has a disability and poking at his idiosyncrasies is not productive for anyone.
I'd say that is projection on your part, but who knows, maybe they'll clarify what they mean in some interview, where the english is less borked :P
we wanted to create something against trends.
i mean, it's in the quote and everything. It seems like it was either:
a) a gimmick game relying on a super-edgy statement on political correction by going entirely in the other direction while at the same time fumbling with the notion of entertainment
or
b) it's simple entertainment. the developers want you to believe that killing civilians and the getting in firefights with the police.... so you can kill more civilians later is Simple Entertainment.
those are both not very good messages to send - i suppose it'd be more palatable if the developers didn't look like they did everything in their power to humanize the NPCs, but they crawl, limp, and beg for their lives as you kill them. for simple entertainment, of course.
blazier its pretty bad form to state something without backing it up, then when asked about it, replying "google it". its up to you, not me, to provide evidence for your statements.
i agree with easterislannick about the mirror thing.
Man, the fact is that this whole thing about Japan have been discussed bazillions of times. It seems you don't see the TV, nor international news, it's incredible.
And it's a fact as huge as the Tibet. I'm not going to waste my time googling charts and news for your, because 1: you are being ignorant on purpose, because 2: you are a lazy ass.
Another Polycount user gave you evidence and you ignored it completely, so... sorry if it bothers you to use google.
Let the devs make what they want. You have no words, nor rights over them. The people who developed Outlast did a very good game, very gore, and they had FREEDOM of creativity. Who are you to question their freedom? or whatever they want to develop?. You are nobody really and they will ignore people like you.
They are producing a game because there's a demand.
those are both not very good messages to send - i suppose it'd be more palatable if the developers didn't look like they did everything in their power to humanize the NPCs, but they crawl, limp, and beg for their lives as you kill them. for simple entertainment, of course.
Shadows of mordor has been a big success, and the people want more gore, "moar". It can't be helped. They want the level of gore of films. They are after a more convincing gameplay, more realistic.
And if you seriously believe that fictional anything might affect people in reality, then you also believe that people are by default; extremely stupid, gullible and violent to a misanthropic manner, which is disgusting and bigoted on a whole new scale.
I think they act like the people that are against the bulls festivities in my country. They are moved by hatred towards something they dislike in their minds, and they will never respect the traditions, nor tastes of other people, nothing. They just want to impose their point of views/ideas by force like dictators. The best example are those death menaces to the devs. So... who are the real menace? the gamers of these games and the devs? or these bunch of hateful people?
The whole point is that some people does not have respect, nor tolerance. I don't like too many games, but i don't attack the people who play them, and less the devs responsible of the game.
If you don't like these games because are harmful for your sensitivity, don't buy/play them. Easy, right?. Ignorance makes hapiness, so ignore all you can't stand.
It's always fun to watch "Intelligent" people argue and debate their thoughts towards one another. While "Smart" people just move on with what's logical to do.:poly142:
Shadows of mordor has been a big success, and the people want more gore, "moar". It can't be helped. They want the level of gore of films. They are after a more convincing gameplay, more realistic.
that's very different. gore is a visual feedback and is only used as a tool to realize a concept - in Shadow of Mordor, gore was only used to accentuate the reality of visceral combat. That carries a completely different message when it is used in a different setting, like killing civilians who can't fight back, for one.
Okay, here is a simple question. If you want to play this game, why do you want to play it? What do you see yourself getting from it?
that's a trap question... do you really think the gamers of these kind of games are psychopaths by nature?
I could ask something like, what do you get killing hundreds of orcs in the game shadows of mordor, beheading innocent and poor orcs? what do you get playing games such as COD or sniper elite V3?
I find your question stupid because you already know the answer: entertainment.
All this outrage is going to achieve is a guaranteed financial success. Regardless of what is actually in the shipping game.
To be honest, are these types of games actually selling that well? I remember people talking all the time about Manhunt, Postal and so on, but I don't actually recall seeing anyone play them. Frankly, I won't be surprised if despite the whole controversy it ends up underselling. Games like that have a pretty niche appeal to begin with, so I don't think the controversy is doing them as much favor as we might assume.
>Starting thread for a debate with an answer already, nice. I guess congress is leaking
Fighting old age bigotry (ei: D&D made your worship the devil) with new age bigotry (ei: something is being made for it's own sake and I don't like, hence it shouldn't exist) are the same thing.
You would think with over 600 PUBLISHED games coming out a year (this is not talking about 3rd party, solo published, or small free indie games, which sends that number to almost 900, 300 more then Movies in a year globally), you guys would learn to live and let live at the end of the day.
How is 1 game out of the first published 600 (thats almost 2 games per day) ruining your day? Talk about privilege to feel offended.
As for the usual, Postal had success due to the generation it was in, but at the same time, games like CS and Unreal were in the scene, a one trick pony game cannot, with rehash, last long against competitive games that have longer life spans (ei: Dota).
Also, ManHunt 1 was a success, hence for ManHunt 2, but also remember that politics got involved (censorship for many markets + refused classifications + D2D for PC), but also, ManHunt 2 rehashed the same stuff and felt also somewhat more dry then the first one, which lead to many people seeing it the lesser version of the series, hence lack of interest for future projects from RockStar.
Lastly, that's the entire idea of civilized society.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ~Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Unless the person happens to be someone super special, that is the absolute authority of unbiased analysis of the subject matter without any kind of external influence, dictating what can be said vs. what should never even be talked about because they have the complete unequivocal data that is truth, I don't think anyone should have the right to say WILLY NILLY on whim, what can exist and what shouldn't, they can SAY it if they like, but not under any value of truth.
that's very different. gore is a visual feedback and is only used as a tool to realize a concept - in Shadow of Mordor, gore was only used to accentuate the reality of visceral combat. That carries a completely different message when it is used in a different setting, like killing civilians who can't fight back, for one.
It may be different for you, i don't see real civilians, just puppets/dolls/characters with a certain level of expressions.
In games such as Amnesia or Outlast, you can't fight back... both games are aimed for a type of audience. And then, if we talk about new games, the evil within... wtf! They multiplied the gore experience x1000.
The same with Ryse: Son of Rome, another gore feast, killing clones of the same enemy one after one.
Playing these games does not make you a bad person, nor a psychopath, nor a threat to the whole society. It's foolish, and we must be crazy to think in that corrupted way of thinking. Let's be logical and not so emotional.
Hm, so basically, would people here actually approve of game, even when it would be obvious it would be made with single purpose of spreading racism or things like that?
I dunno, like for all media, i think there are things that don't think belong in either games, or movies or any other media. I don't think racism or anything like that, should be passed on as ok, because it's really all about having fun.
ace-angel:
i dont get this
am i only allowed to talk about games that i like?
i do belive, that we think very differently about this matters, and discussing them will bring some clarity to people who are open for it.
im intersted in games. the culture, the industry, the games themselves. talking about them lets me affect the direction we are heading as a culture, however miniscule.
and i think this stuff is as important now as ever, considering that games are behind compared to other mediums.
To be honest, are these types of games actually selling that well? I remember people talking all the time about Manhunt, Postal and so on, but I don't actually recall seeing anyone play them. Frankly, I won't be surprised if despite the whole controversy it ends up underselling. Games like that have a pretty niche appeal to begin with, so I don't think the controversy is doing them as much favor as we might assume.
Yes, they do. Postal 2 was released in 2003. Running with scissors has continued to make content for that game and keep their doors open for 11 years with that title.
Financial success doesn't mean making hundreds of millions of dollars for studios of this type, it means keeping the doors open the staff paid and the content flowing.
Moral outrage is the fuel of these studios, you defang these operations by ignoring them. Getting someone to notice you made a game is one of the biggest hurdles small developers face today. Remember that.
Apparently ignoring Hatred is not option for click-bait gaming websites, because even without a marketing budget and just a tasteless trailer its going to make money for websites like Polygon. They need your clicks, they need your outrage, they NEED Hatred the game.
Haha, they totally copied the DOOM logo. They're clearly trying to link the controversy surrounding DOOM at launch wth this one. I don't think zenimax will like that. Especially since zenimax sued mojang over the use of the word "scrolls."
This game just makes me really uncomfortable. Will not buy.
Also, I'm fearful of public perception of games industry and our image when the general media picks this up.
It may be different for you, i don't see real civilians, just puppets/dolls/characters with a certain level of expressions.
In games such as Amnesia or Outlast, you can't fight back... both games are aimed for a type of audience. And then, if we talk about new games, the evil within... wtf! They multiplied the gore experience x1000.
The same with Ryse: Son of Rome, another gore feast, killing clones of the same enemy one after one.
Playing these games does not make you a bad person, nor a psychopath, nor a threat to the whole society. It's foolish, and we must be crazy to think in that corrupted way of thinking. Let's be logical and not so emotional.
Amnesia and Outlast limit your ability to fight back because they are horror games, as in, you play them and the developers want you to jump in your chair or be afraid even after you shut the game down. The devs of Hatred could have made a similar experience if you played the game in the eyes of one of the victims of the shooting, but instead you're the killer in this game.
"Excessive violence" isn't always a bad thing in games (but it can definitely turn some people off of a game). I've been playing The Evil Within a lot for the last week and the violence is both a positive and a negative thing. When I sneak up on an enemy and do a stealth takeout where the protagonist pulls a knife out and stabs a monster in the head, it feels great because I just eliminated something that was a huge threat to me. When I'm running from that asshole with the chainsaw and I run out of stamina and he grabs me and cuts my head clean off, it feels terrible and even provides a lingering feeling of shock when you shut the game off to go do something else.
Violence "shock" in games depends entirely on how it occurs and why it occurs. If the main character in Hatred actually had an understandable reason for wanting to kill people and I actually cared at all about him, then the game would probably be seen in a less negative light. The game isn't out yet so it's not fair to make an assumption that the story will be non-existent, but the trailer and devs' "message" on their site gives the impression that there will be no story other than "I hate this world and want to go out with a bang."
That being said, there's nothing wrong if you like playing games like this. There's a guy on my team currently that loves the Postal franchise and he's the most normal guy I know. This game seems to be something you play for 25 minutes during your lunch break, but I'm guessing nobody wants to be known as "the psycho that has fun killing innocent people" at the office. People are quick to judge, after all.
Hm, so basically, would people here actually approve of game, even when it would be obvious it would be made with single purpose of spreading racism or things like that?
It's a bit more complicated than that. Regardless of how disgusting it is, being racist or holding any kind of stupid unjustified hatred/belief is not illegal ; if it was, that would mean that we would consider thought crimes to be a thing. From there things could go very, very ugly : any group of people holding any (positive or negative) belief could then become the victim of pressure groups trying to pass a law against this belief. Also, a positive side effect of ugly opinions not being illegal is that it makes it very easy to spot dickheads not to associate oneself with.
Now of course things become very different when actual actions are performed (physical or psychological attacks, personal threats, defamation). But a civilized state should really never come close to enforcing a thought police. This is at the very core of the whole Freedom of Speech concept.
ace-angel:
i dont get this
am i only allowed to talk about games that i like?
i do belive, that we think very differently about this matters, and discussing them will bring some clarity to people who are open for it.
Definitely not. Criticism is good and necessary, I don't think anyone would argue against it.
However, I have noticed a trend these past few years, where works of entertainment are demonized because they do not comply with peoples personal beliefs or political views. Criticism is fine in these cases, but far too often the criticism turns into a which hunt and people make attempts to harass, silence or demand an apology from the content creators. It disturbs me even more because these attacks are coming increasingly from the political left and are rarely put under scrutiny. As someone who leans left on social issues, I've been doing a lot of soul searching lately over some blatant hypocrisy that I've seen in public discourse.
Yes, they do. Postal 2 was released in 2003. Running with scissors has continued to make content for that game and keep their doors open for 11 years with that title.
Financial success doesn't mean making hundreds of millions of dollars for studios of this type, it means keeping the doors open the staff paid and the content flowing.
Moral outrage is the fuel of these studios, you defang these operations by ignoring them. Getting someone to notice you made a game is one of the biggest hurdles small developers face today. Remember that.
Apparently ignoring Hatred is not option for click-bait gaming websites, because even without a marketing budget and just a tasteless trailer its going to make money for websites like Polygon. They need your clicks, they need your outrage, they NEED Hatred the game.
Oh, I should have clarified. I was talking precisely about a big financial success. Running With Scissors have been riding on Postal2 for a while, but it doesn't seem like they've done much, or grown substantially since then. I can't find any official figures, but I really don't think the amount of copies they sold thanks to the controversy is anything to be concerned about. Even if the sales allow them to continue making new content I don't think that its enough of a success to encourage others to follow a similar path.
Completely agree on the media part though, they eat up that shit like hotcakes.
I'm not saying it should be forbidden by law, i'm just wondering, if it's really something that should be just passed as "it's a game, so let it be".
To follow up on Piors points (with which I completely agree), I think this post by Neil Gaiman presents a strong case for why we should defend speech or expression we find uncomfortable.
Many well respected works of art, literature or cinema feature elements that are obscene, disturbing or downright disgusting. When done successfully, they carry some deeper meaning, or are subversive in their nature. Decrying works that abuse these elements undermines the creative freedom of people who might want to use these elements for legitimate purposes. It creates a climate of creative fear where certain topics are turned into taboos and cannot be examined without huge personal risks.
That being said, there's nothing wrong if you like playing games like this. There's a guy on my team currently that loves the Postal franchise and he's the most normal guy I know. This game seems to be something you play for 25 minutes during your lunch break, but I'm guessing nobody wants to be known as "the psycho that has fun killing innocent people" at the office. People are quick to judge, after all.
I have several friends that loves the Postal franchise, and manhunt as well, and they also are quite normal.
I don't know what is to play in lunch breaks, because i'm a freelance. I always have seen very bad those people who actually play in their lunch break, but it's another matter.
Anyways, you easily can be pointed as "the psycho that has fun killing innocent people or orcs". Just seeing the steam profile and gaming activity is enough for that. As you said, people are quick to judge, but for clever people it's not the common case.
This thread really shows who you should avoid at all costs if you want to have an actual discussion about videogames without having some agenda or morality lecture showed down your throat by hypocrites (nameless generalization is super cool). I'm out, this is all just way too disappointing coming from extremely talented devs. (still love your art tho , and I don't think opinions presented in this thread is proof of how a person is)
Manhunt is an interesting game. I worked with a couple of devs on it. There was a lot of talk at the time about how it was a satire etc but the devs had a game that was going nowhere so they sat in the pub for a day and decided that the only way it would sell is to make it more controversial than GTA! So all the violence got added. Controversy sells and Hatred will sell!
This thread really shows who you should avoid at all costs if you want to have an actual discussion about videogames without having some agenda or morality lecture showed down your throat by hypocrites (nameless generalization is super cool).
Is that some Hotline Miami fan art i see that you've made?
Don't be such a hypocrite.
Hotline Miami isn't about Anders Breivik style hate-motivated mass shootings and you know it. Stop trying to make false equivalencies between this game and...well pretty much any other game besides Ethnic Cleansing.
LOL, you are the contradiction in person. Interesting huh? :thumbup:
I'm sure you find too many games entertaining or "interesting", but as i said, this is a matter of tastes. You can't demonize the people who plays violent games, and less, trying to call them as "psychopaths" as you intended with your bait/trap replies. The worst thing you can make are bad assumptions.
Do you suffer from a lack of emotional attachment to protagonists in all mediums?
Nope. see, you are making a bad and quick judge, a very bad assumption. The difference is that i see things with logic and from a different point of view than yours. I just see a game, just that, nothing real. Why the heck should i have emotions with something irreal? i'm not such a dramatic freak . Like i said, change the actual people with zombies and then, let me know if the game is ok for you.
Are you the typical guy that shouts as a girl in panic when playing Amnesia or Outlast?
Games are going to be more and more realistic, so keep your sense of reality. Where you may see a person, i just see a bunch of polygons with textures and some animations. I'm quite old to be tormented by a game.
I'm also out of discussion, i have said all what i wanted to say. There are too many hypocrites on this thread with unbiased points of view.
I think what these devs are doing is a good thing. Yeah the game is all about killing innocent people but I think that they are just shoving this violence thing in the faces of the people that always try and blame games for violence. I love it.
After reading that interview, I have the same reaction I get from Cody Wilson. It seems pretty clear their entire motivation is simply "because you're not supposed to." Why anyone would want to model their entire philosophy after a rebellious teenager is beyond me.
I have several friends that loves the Postal franchise, and manhunt as well, and they also are quite normal.
Well, not to try to be a dick here, but it's kinda like saying "nazis aren't bad. I know few of them, and they didn't kill or hurt anyone."
Now, yes i know, i'm not comparing this game to nazis or any thing that you were talking about. I'm just trying to say that this kind of argument i personally don't find valid, and i gave that example only as example of why this kind of argument just sounds wrong.
Or, i don't personally know people who uses realigion so that they can go out and blow themself up in public in it's name. However, we all know that kind of thing still happens, wetter i personally know such people or not.
Again, just to point out why i find this argument invalid.
And thing about freedom of speech...well, as far as i go, it only goes as far as it doesn't start to hurt anyone. So the only question here is, does this game has any potential to cause harm? I wouldn't just dismiss it just like that. Of course not all of us are going on a rampage after playing that game.
But i do believe that they do have some influence in certain conditions over certain people.
I think what these devs are doing is a good thing. Yeah the game is all about killing innocent people but I think that they are just shoving this violence thing in the faces of the people that always try and blame games for violence. I love it.
And how exactly do you think people who blame games for violence, will react to this?
Most of us are gamers and gamedevs ourselves, and not even we can all agree that those people are completely wrong, after this game. I really can't seem how this will help us.
Game maybe have right to exist, but i really don't see how that will improve idea about game not being cause for violence in eyes of those people.
And thing about freedom of speech...well, as far as i go, it only goes as far as it doesn't start to hurt anyone. So the only question here is, does this game has any potential to cause harm? I wouldn't just dismiss it just like that. Of course not all of us are going on a rampage after playing that game.
That's a pretty dangerous line o thinking. Anything we say or create has the potential to result in others being hurt. Charles Manson went on a rampage believing that The Beatles were sending him secret messages in their songs. It's an extreme example, but it goes to show that no artist can predict how their work will be interpreted. We can of course say that Manson, was a true nut, an outlier that is uncommon even among serial killers. We can argue that only truly disturbing works should be put under scrutiny. But where do we paint that line? How do we measure whether something is disturbing or wrong? How do we quantify the risks? Should we demonize older works created in times that had different moral standards and may encourage bad behavior? Do we accept that works made today may one day be censored because they no longer conform to peoples beliefs?
I think we should stop placing the burden of social responsibility on the author. Instead, we the audience should be responsible for our actions, not the media we consume, even if it does shape our worldviews.
teaandcigarettes,
Interesting points, but when you say we should take responsibility for out own actions...in perfect world, i totally agree with you. But we do not live in perfect world.
If someone is openly calling for racism, or killing innocent people, or anything like that, under excuse like "hey, it's art", we are going to have problems, there's not way around it. Whenever you have something that cannot be forbidden for any reason at all, it's always going to be target for abuse. Freedom of speech is not exception to this i think.
If someone is openly calling for racism, and at least if it's proven this indeed is a fact, then freedom of speech be damned, we have lives to save in such cases. We can't just sit down and be ok with spreading racism like that (again, just example).
When you have saving lives vs freedom of speech, while touchy subject, i don't think there is any need for a debate what has priority here.
And there's where i'd draw a line. When this "freedom of speech" starts to have actually serious influence on people and causes harm, it's where i'd draw a line. Preferably before someone actually gets seriously hurt or dies.
There is a fine line to be walked here, but it would be a start to actually start thinking about this line.
Interesting discussion, here. As others have said, I'm a bit bothered by how people 'attack' the developers and label them as Nazis based on such little information (real good investigative work there, NSA agents).
As for the game itself, the models, VFX and animations seem decent (except for the elbows, they look so unnatural), the destructible environments seem like a fun mechanism, but I'm not much of a fan of the limited color palette: black, white, blood, fire, sirens. That said, the palette seems to be quite deliberately chosen and may work well in actual gameplay.
Am I the only one who's annoyed by the shaky cam? It's like - you've killed everyone, who is filming this? Why is the cameraman a character in these cinematics?
Replies
i agree with easterislannick about the mirror thing.
I provided a relevant source for you in the previous page.
It's a work of art, it's made to elicit different emotions. Criticize the work, not the viewer or creator, for fucks sake.
And if you seriously believe that fictional anything might affect people in reality, then you also believe that people are by default; extremely stupid, gullible and violent to a misanthropic manner, which is disgusting and bigoted on a whole new scale.
no no, the whole point is to not be art. the developers said it themselves, really
the difference in other forms of simiple killin entertainment is that in other games, you kill combatants, usually as a means of getting rewarded with progression. what this game controversially states is that killing civilians/noncombatants for no reward other than the means to kill -more- civilians is an acceptable form of entertainment (or even the notion that killing civilians is the 'reward'). and that's stupid
They said higher art, shit like "The Mountain" or "Gone Home", there is a difference. A videogame is art in the same way a book, a movie, a song or a picture is art. It is something created to serve itself and it may invoke certain emotions with others who observe it, it's art.
which is strange because they ironically loaded the 'simple entertainment' with the political notion of going against a trend
I see people comparing this to CoD/BF/L4D/[insert game with guns here] but this is pretty different due to the fact that basically everybody you are killing is defenseless. If every citizen was for some reason carrying weapons and would attack you as soon as the first shot went out, then this game could be turned into something fun like Crimsonland, but that's not the case.
Violence is generally accepted in games because the game does not focus on it. With CoD, you are invested into a story about a specific soldier or group of soldier. With L4D, you are invested in the survival of you and your friends.
This game on the other hand, focuses strictly on violence, the devs want you to be invested in the violence and I believe the trailer even states that the main character will die at the end of all this (probably either killed by a cop or suicide.)
The devs are free to make whatever they want and sell it (although I'm guessing this will only sell because of the "controversy") but there's nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in the core game design. I saw a commenter on /r/gaming that wrote out a much better scenario for the game and despite being equally violent, it actually sounded interesting and definitely something that would be worth buying. I can't find the comment right now but the guy basically gave the game an interesting story about morals.
Anyway, despite some of the devs being neo-Nazis, they are still free to make whatever they want even if it pisses everybody off. There are worse games that are made strictly to offend people, Muslim Massacre which was the only game to offend me for example, and there are several games that exist where you rape and potentially kill innocent women.
Game developers can be just as much of insensitive assholes as anybody else, basically nothing new.
I'd say that is projection on your part, but who knows, maybe they'll clarify what they mean in some interview, where the english is less borked :P
The game is making a political statement (according to the creators) and discussing the politics is absolutely appropriate.
real art mediums have discussions like this all the time -- aesthetics and ethics are not boring fields. If you aren't interested in discussion about representation or communication via the medium maybe you should 'vote with your wallet' by not posting in the thread.
why are you all still bullying the guy who says meat a lot? AFAIK he literally has a disability and poking at his idiosyncrasies is not productive for anyone.
ty adam teriyaki and other adults
i mean, it's in the quote and everything. It seems like it was either:
a) a gimmick game relying on a super-edgy statement on political correction by going entirely in the other direction while at the same time fumbling with the notion of entertainment
or
b) it's simple entertainment. the developers want you to believe that killing civilians and the getting in firefights with the police.... so you can kill more civilians later is Simple Entertainment.
those are both not very good messages to send - i suppose it'd be more palatable if the developers didn't look like they did everything in their power to humanize the NPCs, but they crawl, limp, and beg for their lives as you kill them. for simple entertainment, of course.
Man, the fact is that this whole thing about Japan have been discussed bazillions of times. It seems you don't see the TV, nor international news, it's incredible.
And it's a fact as huge as the Tibet. I'm not going to waste my time googling charts and news for your, because 1: you are being ignorant on purpose, because 2: you are a lazy ass.
Another Polycount user gave you evidence and you ignored it completely, so... sorry if it bothers you to use google.
Let the devs make what they want. You have no words, nor rights over them. The people who developed Outlast did a very good game, very gore, and they had FREEDOM of creativity. Who are you to question their freedom? or whatever they want to develop?. You are nobody really and they will ignore people like you.
They are producing a game because there's a demand.
Shadows of mordor has been a big success, and the people want more gore, "moar". It can't be helped. They want the level of gore of films. They are after a more convincing gameplay, more realistic.
I think they act like the people that are against the bulls festivities in my country. They are moved by hatred towards something they dislike in their minds, and they will never respect the traditions, nor tastes of other people, nothing. They just want to impose their point of views/ideas by force like dictators. The best example are those death menaces to the devs. So... who are the real menace? the gamers of these games and the devs? or these bunch of hateful people?
The whole point is that some people does not have respect, nor tolerance. I don't like too many games, but i don't attack the people who play them, and less the devs responsible of the game.
If you don't like these games because are harmful for your sensitivity, don't buy/play them. Easy, right?. Ignorance makes hapiness, so ignore all you can't stand.
What was shown looks supremely tasteless, but lets get real, we all know how misleading game trailers can be right?
I mean a small studio wouldn't be deliberately controversial so they could get some of that free viral marketing would they?
All this outrage is going to achieve is a guaranteed financial success. Regardless of what is actually in the shipping game.
that's very different. gore is a visual feedback and is only used as a tool to realize a concept - in Shadow of Mordor, gore was only used to accentuate the reality of visceral combat. That carries a completely different message when it is used in a different setting, like killing civilians who can't fight back, for one.
that's true. I can only hope that it's a joke marketing tactic instead a serious attempt at a videogame
that's a trap question... do you really think the gamers of these kind of games are psychopaths by nature?
I could ask something like, what do you get killing hundreds of orcs in the game shadows of mordor, beheading innocent and poor orcs? what do you get playing games such as COD or sniper elite V3?
I find your question stupid because you already know the answer: entertainment.
To be honest, are these types of games actually selling that well? I remember people talking all the time about Manhunt, Postal and so on, but I don't actually recall seeing anyone play them. Frankly, I won't be surprised if despite the whole controversy it ends up underselling. Games like that have a pretty niche appeal to begin with, so I don't think the controversy is doing them as much favor as we might assume.
Fighting old age bigotry (ei: D&D made your worship the devil) with new age bigotry (ei: something is being made for it's own sake and I don't like, hence it shouldn't exist) are the same thing.
You would think with over 600 PUBLISHED games coming out a year (this is not talking about 3rd party, solo published, or small free indie games, which sends that number to almost 900, 300 more then Movies in a year globally), you guys would learn to live and let live at the end of the day.
How is 1 game out of the first published 600 (thats almost 2 games per day) ruining your day? Talk about privilege to feel offended.
As for the usual, Postal had success due to the generation it was in, but at the same time, games like CS and Unreal were in the scene, a one trick pony game cannot, with rehash, last long against competitive games that have longer life spans (ei: Dota).
Also, ManHunt 1 was a success, hence for ManHunt 2, but also remember that politics got involved (censorship for many markets + refused classifications + D2D for PC), but also, ManHunt 2 rehashed the same stuff and felt also somewhat more dry then the first one, which lead to many people seeing it the lesser version of the series, hence lack of interest for future projects from RockStar.
Lastly, that's the entire idea of civilized society.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ~Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Unless the person happens to be someone super special, that is the absolute authority of unbiased analysis of the subject matter without any kind of external influence, dictating what can be said vs. what should never even be talked about because they have the complete unequivocal data that is truth, I don't think anyone should have the right to say WILLY NILLY on whim, what can exist and what shouldn't, they can SAY it if they like, but not under any value of truth.
It may be different for you, i don't see real civilians, just puppets/dolls/characters with a certain level of expressions.
In games such as Amnesia or Outlast, you can't fight back... both games are aimed for a type of audience. And then, if we talk about new games, the evil within... wtf! They multiplied the gore experience x1000.
The same with Ryse: Son of Rome, another gore feast, killing clones of the same enemy one after one.
Playing these games does not make you a bad person, nor a psychopath, nor a threat to the whole society. It's foolish, and we must be crazy to think in that corrupted way of thinking. Let's be logical and not so emotional.
I dunno, like for all media, i think there are things that don't think belong in either games, or movies or any other media. I don't think racism or anything like that, should be passed on as ok, because it's really all about having fun.
i dont get this
am i only allowed to talk about games that i like?
i do belive, that we think very differently about this matters, and discussing them will bring some clarity to people who are open for it.
im intersted in games. the culture, the industry, the games themselves. talking about them lets me affect the direction we are heading as a culture, however miniscule.
and i think this stuff is as important now as ever, considering that games are behind compared to other mediums.
Yes, they do. Postal 2 was released in 2003. Running with scissors has continued to make content for that game and keep their doors open for 11 years with that title.
Financial success doesn't mean making hundreds of millions of dollars for studios of this type, it means keeping the doors open the staff paid and the content flowing.
Moral outrage is the fuel of these studios, you defang these operations by ignoring them. Getting someone to notice you made a game is one of the biggest hurdles small developers face today. Remember that.
Apparently ignoring Hatred is not option for click-bait gaming websites, because even without a marketing budget and just a tasteless trailer its going to make money for websites like Polygon. They need your clicks, they need your outrage, they NEED Hatred the game.
This game just makes me really uncomfortable. Will not buy.
Also, I'm fearful of public perception of games industry and our image when the general media picks this up.
"Excessive violence" isn't always a bad thing in games (but it can definitely turn some people off of a game). I've been playing The Evil Within a lot for the last week and the violence is both a positive and a negative thing. When I sneak up on an enemy and do a stealth takeout where the protagonist pulls a knife out and stabs a monster in the head, it feels great because I just eliminated something that was a huge threat to me. When I'm running from that asshole with the chainsaw and I run out of stamina and he grabs me and cuts my head clean off, it feels terrible and even provides a lingering feeling of shock when you shut the game off to go do something else.
Violence "shock" in games depends entirely on how it occurs and why it occurs. If the main character in Hatred actually had an understandable reason for wanting to kill people and I actually cared at all about him, then the game would probably be seen in a less negative light. The game isn't out yet so it's not fair to make an assumption that the story will be non-existent, but the trailer and devs' "message" on their site gives the impression that there will be no story other than "I hate this world and want to go out with a bang."
That being said, there's nothing wrong if you like playing games like this. There's a guy on my team currently that loves the Postal franchise and he's the most normal guy I know. This game seems to be something you play for 25 minutes during your lunch break, but I'm guessing nobody wants to be known as "the psycho that has fun killing innocent people" at the office. People are quick to judge, after all.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Regardless of how disgusting it is, being racist or holding any kind of stupid unjustified hatred/belief is not illegal ; if it was, that would mean that we would consider thought crimes to be a thing. From there things could go very, very ugly : any group of people holding any (positive or negative) belief could then become the victim of pressure groups trying to pass a law against this belief. Also, a positive side effect of ugly opinions not being illegal is that it makes it very easy to spot dickheads not to associate oneself with.
Now of course things become very different when actual actions are performed (physical or psychological attacks, personal threats, defamation). But a civilized state should really never come close to enforcing a thought police. This is at the very core of the whole Freedom of Speech concept.
Definitely not. Criticism is good and necessary, I don't think anyone would argue against it.
However, I have noticed a trend these past few years, where works of entertainment are demonized because they do not comply with peoples personal beliefs or political views. Criticism is fine in these cases, but far too often the criticism turns into a which hunt and people make attempts to harass, silence or demand an apology from the content creators. It disturbs me even more because these attacks are coming increasingly from the political left and are rarely put under scrutiny. As someone who leans left on social issues, I've been doing a lot of soul searching lately over some blatant hypocrisy that I've seen in public discourse.
Oh, I should have clarified. I was talking precisely about a big financial success. Running With Scissors have been riding on Postal2 for a while, but it doesn't seem like they've done much, or grown substantially since then. I can't find any official figures, but I really don't think the amount of copies they sold thanks to the controversy is anything to be concerned about. Even if the sales allow them to continue making new content I don't think that its enough of a success to encourage others to follow a similar path.
Completely agree on the media part though, they eat up that shit like hotcakes.
I'm not saying it should be forbidden by law, i'm just wondering, if it's really something that should be just passed as "it's a game, so let it be".
Thats a stupid answer. Why is it entertaining? Elaborate.
Do you suffer from a lack of emotional attachment to protagonists in all mediums?
To follow up on Piors points (with which I completely agree), I think this post by Neil Gaiman presents a strong case for why we should defend speech or expression we find uncomfortable.
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html
Many well respected works of art, literature or cinema feature elements that are obscene, disturbing or downright disgusting. When done successfully, they carry some deeper meaning, or are subversive in their nature. Decrying works that abuse these elements undermines the creative freedom of people who might want to use these elements for legitimate purposes. It creates a climate of creative fear where certain topics are turned into taboos and cannot be examined without huge personal risks.
I have several friends that loves the Postal franchise, and manhunt as well, and they also are quite normal.
I don't know what is to play in lunch breaks, because i'm a freelance. I always have seen very bad those people who actually play in their lunch break, but it's another matter.
Anyways, you easily can be pointed as "the psycho that has fun killing innocent people or orcs". Just seeing the steam profile and gaming activity is enough for that. As you said, people are quick to judge, but for clever people it's not the common case.
Hrm. A lot of this going around lately.
For lolz.
Hotline Miami isn't about Anders Breivik style hate-motivated mass shootings and you know it. Stop trying to make false equivalencies between this game and...well pretty much any other game besides Ethnic Cleansing.
I already replied you with an answer. http://www.polycount.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2160086&postcount=125
Why are you so enraged with this game? its existence it's harmful for you? elaborate
Also, why the hell you say me all that nonsense, when your last reply in this thread contains this:
LOL, you are the contradiction in person. Interesting huh? :thumbup:
I'm sure you find too many games entertaining or "interesting", but as i said, this is a matter of tastes. You can't demonize the people who plays violent games, and less, trying to call them as "psychopaths" as you intended with your bait/trap replies. The worst thing you can make are bad assumptions.
Nope. see, you are making a bad and quick judge, a very bad assumption. The difference is that i see things with logic and from a different point of view than yours. I just see a game, just that, nothing real. Why the heck should i have emotions with something irreal? i'm not such a dramatic freak
Are you the typical guy that shouts as a girl in panic when playing Amnesia or Outlast?
Games are going to be more and more realistic, so keep your sense of reality. Where you may see a person, i just see a bunch of polygons with textures and some animations. I'm quite old to be tormented by a game.
I'm also out of discussion, i have said all what i wanted to say. There are too many hypocrites on this thread with unbiased points of view.
Well, not to try to be a dick here, but it's kinda like saying "nazis aren't bad. I know few of them, and they didn't kill or hurt anyone."
Now, yes i know, i'm not comparing this game to nazis or any thing that you were talking about. I'm just trying to say that this kind of argument i personally don't find valid, and i gave that example only as example of why this kind of argument just sounds wrong.
Or, i don't personally know people who uses realigion so that they can go out and blow themself up in public in it's name. However, we all know that kind of thing still happens, wetter i personally know such people or not.
Again, just to point out why i find this argument invalid.
And thing about freedom of speech...well, as far as i go, it only goes as far as it doesn't start to hurt anyone. So the only question here is, does this game has any potential to cause harm? I wouldn't just dismiss it just like that. Of course not all of us are going on a rampage after playing that game.
But i do believe that they do have some influence in certain conditions over certain people.
And how exactly do you think people who blame games for violence, will react to this?
Most of us are gamers and gamedevs ourselves, and not even we can all agree that those people are completely wrong, after this game. I really can't seem how this will help us.
Game maybe have right to exist, but i really don't see how that will improve idea about game not being cause for violence in eyes of those people.
That's a pretty dangerous line o thinking. Anything we say or create has the potential to result in others being hurt. Charles Manson went on a rampage believing that The Beatles were sending him secret messages in their songs. It's an extreme example, but it goes to show that no artist can predict how their work will be interpreted. We can of course say that Manson, was a true nut, an outlier that is uncommon even among serial killers. We can argue that only truly disturbing works should be put under scrutiny. But where do we paint that line? How do we measure whether something is disturbing or wrong? How do we quantify the risks? Should we demonize older works created in times that had different moral standards and may encourage bad behavior? Do we accept that works made today may one day be censored because they no longer conform to peoples beliefs?
I think we should stop placing the burden of social responsibility on the author. Instead, we the audience should be responsible for our actions, not the media we consume, even if it does shape our worldviews.
Interesting points, but when you say we should take responsibility for out own actions...in perfect world, i totally agree with you. But we do not live in perfect world.
If someone is openly calling for racism, or killing innocent people, or anything like that, under excuse like "hey, it's art", we are going to have problems, there's not way around it. Whenever you have something that cannot be forbidden for any reason at all, it's always going to be target for abuse. Freedom of speech is not exception to this i think.
If someone is openly calling for racism, and at least if it's proven this indeed is a fact, then freedom of speech be damned, we have lives to save in such cases. We can't just sit down and be ok with spreading racism like that (again, just example).
When you have saving lives vs freedom of speech, while touchy subject, i don't think there is any need for a debate what has priority here.
And there's where i'd draw a line. When this "freedom of speech" starts to have actually serious influence on people and causes harm, it's where i'd draw a line. Preferably before someone actually gets seriously hurt or dies.
There is a fine line to be walked here, but it would be a start to actually start thinking about this line.
As for the game itself, the models, VFX and animations seem decent (except for the elbows, they look so unnatural), the destructible environments seem like a fun mechanism, but I'm not much of a fan of the limited color palette: black, white, blood, fire, sirens. That said, the palette seems to be quite deliberately chosen and may work well in actual gameplay.
Am I the only one who's annoyed by the shaky cam? It's like - you've killed everyone, who is filming this? Why is the cameraman a character in these cinematics?