Yummlick: If you would be OK with selling games like Rapelay or hypothetical "nazi death camp manager" on GOG or any other distribution platform, because of conviction that "artistic" freedom is absolutely sacred and censorship is evil in every possible form and shape, then we can drop this subject already.
No right is "sacred" or absolute. In most civilized countries, not even the right to life is absolute, since there are some very specific constitutional exceptions, such as in the case of declaration of war.
When you want to limit a fundamental right such as freedom of expression, you need very good reasons to do so. And i simply can't see enough reasons to limit artistic freedom of expression here.
Whenever there's a "clash" between opposing rights, i think we should resort to the principle of proportionality. The problem is that i simply can't see which fundamental right is being "opposed" by the mere existence of a game such as Hatred. Another thing to note is that i'm 100% sure that the act of "banning" this game is more severe and harmful than the nature of the prohibited act itself, which goes against what the principle of proportionality stands for.
Yummlick: I don't consider artistic freedom sacred and censorship unambiguously bad.
Yes, censorship is always bad. The word censorship itself already has a very negative tone attached to it. Legal restrictions to one's rights are one thing, censorship is another.
Yummlick: Vide: child pornography.
Do you realize that "murdering" pixels is completely different from taking photos of
real life nude children? The first happens in a virtual world, it has no effect whatsoever over reality, the second one does, it's real people we are talking about, not pixels. Your comparison is ridiculous, to say the least. Taking photos of nude children and distributing them is a crime, murdering pixels isn't.
Yummlick: What exactly needs explanation here? In Hatred you play as a brutal maniac who's only goal is to kill as many innocent people before he gets killed. Developers aim for realism in both mood and artstyle of their game. This description cannot be applied for games like GTA or even Manhunt or Postal.
In the first Manhunt you're working for a TV show and your objective is to murder people in the most gruesome and brutal way possible so you can score more points. Sure, the people you are killing are far from being innocents, but it's still a very "dark", "unsettling" and "distasteful" theme for many people out there. Not to mention that it is much more realistic than Postal or GTA. In GTA you are a criminal and you have to do whatever it takes to accomplish your objectives, even if it means killing cops. Being a criminal in a game is fine, but being a psychopath isn't? Why?
Let me ask you again: where do we draw the line?
And i'm not even mentioning Postal here. The premise of Postal and Hatred are similar, the difference is that Postal has a bit of humor in it and Hatred seems to be serious.
Yummlick: If this is a game like GTA or Manhunt, then why exactly are we having this conversation? There was no shitstorm of this magnitude after release of the last GTA game.
The only reason why we still have games like GTA and Manhunt is that there were people fighting for freedom of expression against censorship defenders like you.
The only reason why there wasn't so much controversy over the last GTA is because people in general got used to that level of violence in games. The first 3 GTA games caused A LOT of controversy and faced some fierce opposition from conservative groups, especially fundamentalist christians like Jack Thompson. San Andreas also cause a shitload of controversy because of the "Hot Coffe" mod.
We only have violent games like GTA nowadays because the developers and the publisher of the first GTA dared to release it despite the outcry of the public in general. This is why i think Hatred is an important game. We need to push the boundaries, we need to change the perception that games are toys for children. We need more mature games to change that.
Just look at Mortal Kombat and Night Trap, for example, which were the games that lead to the creation of the ESRB. Both are extremely tame by today's standards, especially Night Trap, which was never that violent to begin with. We would never have so many mature games like we have today if someone hadn't taken the risk.
Even GTA V did have a controversial "torture" scene (you are forced to play it, it's not optional). Sure, it's not even close to being as controversial as Hot Coffe, but it still made the news in some gaming sites.
Here's the scene, if you want to watch it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjlSmCm1K74 How is that ok while Hatred isn't? Just look at the comments to see how many people found that scene to be disgusting.
Yummlick: And the line is already drawn, this game clearly crosses it.
So, please, tell me, where is the line?
Yummlick: You're Ok with this fact, because it's just a little step over said line, but I'm pretty sure that any sane person wouldn't be fine with it if the step was any bigger (like including killable children or option to rape victims).
Well, the original american release of Fallout did have killable children. Should we ban Fallout as well? Well at least Fallout isn't available here anymore, otherwise you would probably create a Wishlist entry to convince GOG to remove it.
Yummlick: On the side note, I have no idea who Jack Thompson is or was.
He's an american lawyer who fought a lot in the US during the 90s and early 2000s to ban violent games, especially GTA. He was a supporter of censorship like you.
