Hatred

Post Reply New Topic

Meh, it's a tryhard edgy game, but I don't get why people are flipping over it. Anyone with a brain has known for ages videogames don't cause violence, but people who don't like this sort of thing and feel the world should change for them are gonna complain as hard as they can to get their way (usually people who want to take us back to the "wholesome" style of media of the 50's who would complain about rock music being satan worship backwards and complaining about women not covering their ankles or some junk)

That.... isnt the reason why people are angry at it. Not even close.

Alot of that "ZOMG video games make people into crazed murderers!!!11" died down alot in recent times. I've yet to meet a single person against this game who comes even close to believing THAT.

I think using extreme violence as a selling point for a game is rather lame. I tend to like more substance in games. Violence of many kinds has a place in any kind of storytelling, but it should be a means to an end and not the end in and of itself. I do think that it has been used as a gimmick to generate interest and to sell a sloppy game. There are people who are really into extreme violence and that is enough to entertain them. I think of the stereotypical "internet tough guy" who is obsessed with violence, guns, and being a douche. I have met people like that and they are rather unpleasant. I think one already has to be unhinged to emulate a game, film, etc...

What I mean is shootings especially by some maniac that just wants the world to burn hits close to home, but if it was futuristic or whatever I am sure people wouldn't go off the wall about it as much as they have.

How do you figure that the exact same game being set, say, a hundred years from now, would make any difference as to what people thought of it? The time period the game is set has literally nothing to do with my own or other peoples complaints about it.

Hatred is really not doing anything different than what the original GTA did. Both games were designed to cause controversy. Rockstar paid marketers who specialize in controversy to market the game. Actually, they even paid people to write condemnation articles in right wing newspapers and magazines to outrage people.

Can't be that much different than GTA in controversy. I mean, sure this might be worse, but in GTA you ARE a criminal. You rob mini marts, mug people, sleep with prostitues, etc. The whole point of GTA is to rob people. Yeah, it has a story, but...it's a criminal story. I think GTA gets it's controversy watered down due to the comic nature of most of it. Like, who would take Trevor Philips serious?

I'm fine with being evil in InFamous Second Son and killing everyone as they moan, scream and implore me to spare them

I like this little counter-analysis in how it analyzes the content of hatred.

And this remains one of the reasons why I hate the whole thing.

At least with GTA there's more to it than "just kill everyone".

But this? When looked at from a pure gameplay standpoint, it's an *EXTREMELY* generic top-down shooter. As in, about as generic as it gets. I say this as someone who has played the shooter genre absolutely to freaking death (and no, I dont mean FPS included in there). It just never stops giving me the impression that the devs are using controversy SPECIFICALLY to cover up their lack of design skills. To cover up that, really, the game just isnt all that interesting from a gameplay standpoint.

Even something like Mortal Kombat does this to an extent. Now, granted, MKX turned out pretty darn good, gameplay-wise, but then that series is also downright ANCIENT. It's had about a bazillion years for the devs to grow it. Looking back on the original games, gameplay-wise, they really were very, very generic (hell, characters all had pretty much exactly the same normals in the original game!). Theoretically, this game here could grow into that, but for now.... yeah. I just see nothing here of value. Just devs with a lack of design talent.


.... on the note of Extra Credits, keep in mind the context: they are meant to be ENTIRELY about the study of JUST game-design, in that series of videos they do. When they start to head away from that (which I think they did in that video) it's best not to take them too seriously. They're good at mechanic analysis, but dont exactly specialize in much else.

I've played and admired that title, it's about the dichotomy of good and evil, within each individual. Quite a constructive thing to learn about, really. We're discussing games developed by people sufficiently weak minded to give into evil and cross their fingers whilst letting their heads spin praying to nothing it makes them some money. You're also fourteen, or at least human to be sure. It's clinically proven that playing the villains, peculiarly enough can only strengthen your moral core, something I'm sure you posses considering your choice of forum.

To quote the developers;

"1. People think we're some f-ing noobs who are making crappy game just for the sake of controversy. No, most of us are considered as "seniors" in the industry and we know the stuff.

2. Who the [Explicit] ever told that in Hatred you just go and shoot people until you're getting killed... Some ret*d journalists are writing this [BS] again and again instead of doing some research first. We've told many times it's not that way, we have objectives, level progression etc, it would be dumb and boring in the way they describe it."

I did confirm earlier that most of them were quite experienced in the industry and the engine they are using. While this doesn't mean they can't horribly screw up. I think that they have enough experience to realize that they can't be extremely generic or else lose all credibility. But just as what I've seen and heard of their actual work, I don't think the game will be bad. The soundtrack is already brilliant. Some of my favorite works used controversy as a great tool and asset - it's the surrealist way. I don't expect it to be a smashing hit or incredibly innovative, but I expect something at least 3.5 stars from them.

Cop out. Saying "we're industry seniors" just means these bratty devs have not only managed to create one of the most vile PC games in living memory, it means their work environment is probably even worse. They probably had to find the meanest damn venture capitalists on the planet too. That or they invested countless thousands of dollars out of pocket in order to have make-believe murder-suicides because they just suck to high heaven. They are f'ing noobs, because their noobosity quotient is too stratospherically high for them to think of anything better to do.

Now can we PLEASE quit feeding trolls?

Meaningless.

You can be an industry vet for 20 years...

...and still be capable only of absolute trash.

As I said before: If these guys have the skill to make something good, they should just PROVE IT.... by making a game that can stand on it's own BY JUST BEING A GOOD GAME instead of standing by holding onto a crutch made of "controversy". No matter what they end up doing with the game past this point, they've already chosen the second option, and I for one wont be even considering a game that they've so much as looked at too hard (I have the same view of a dev like Rockstar).

I can live with all the games based on killing, since they have existed since the beginning.

This is what I really hate about gaming besides the obsession with graphics.



There are tons of food now made explicitly for hardcore gamers, which you must eat to be taken seriously while not eating casual food(real food).

It's true that they can still produce crap, I said that. But how is controversy a crutch? Is Shock Buddhism a crutch? Is surrealism nothing but crutches? How does using one relate to the other? They don't. That is my point. Surreal became a well known word thanks to the incredibly controversial The Corpse which was specifically designed to be incredibly controversial. Controversy is at the heart of surrealism. Hatred is likely surrealist based on the fact that it is dealing with mass shooting (the purest act of surrealism.) Would an art philosophy that relishes in a controversy be incapable of creating that which is great via it's own definitions by use of the controversy? No.