Oh goody, now I am somewhat more interested. That was an...interesting film experience.

First, when i talked about freedom of expression i was referring to the fact that you suggested that Hatred should be banned, which is a government enforced type of censorship. Legally speaking GOG can't "limit freedom of expression" just by choosing not to sell a certain game, so your question doesn't make any sense at all. You are distorting everything i said to make your point look valid.

But i will stilll try to answer your question. First, i would not fight to "ban" Rapelay or a "nazi camp manager". Sure, both would be sick and disgusting, but i believe people should be free to decide whether they want to access such content or not. Second, i would not oppose anyone making a "sell Rapelay on GOG" wishlist (like you are doing with Hatred), but i wouldn't vote to support it either.

Besides, the discussion is about Hatred, not a hyphotetical nazi game or Rapelay. You're derailing the discussion.

Yes, you are comparing things that are completely different. Your argument sounds like this: "hey, it's illegal to steal, therefore this game should be illegal as well". It just doesn't make sense. You're comparing things that are completely different. Taking and distributing photos of nude children is illegal, making a game about a psycho who murders people a priori is not. Such there might be legal implications in some countries if the rating boards decide to deem the game "innapropriate", but the legal treatment in both cases is completely different. You don't need rating boards to decide whether or not child porn is fine.

The first GTA games even had those rampage sub-missions in which you had to kill as many people as possible before the timer expired. That's not very different from the premise of Hatred. Sure, it's not required to take those missions, but they still exist.

"Less offensive"? So you think these games are offensive, right? Then me ask you once again: where do we draw the line? Why are GTA, Manhunt and Postal "offensive", but not enough for you to defend a ban while Hatred is "offensive" enough to get a ban? You can't rationally explain your position, this is why you are walking in circles while refusing to answer my question.

Besides, i never said there was no difference between these games and Hatred. There are differences, but they are extremely subtle. And i can't actually see too much of a difference between the first Postal and Hatred.

That's very dishonest, you're distorting every single one of my arguments. What i'm trying to say is that violence is much more acceptable in games today than it was 10 years ago. Mortal Kombat generated a lot of controversy and many groups tried to ban it (people like you). Mortal Kombat is tame by modern standards. Mortal Kombat X will be released next year and we don't have an outcry like we did when the first one was released, even though it will be WAY more realistic and gruesome, that's because of the games that pushed the boundaries of what is and what isn't acceptable within a game back in the day. The opposition that Hatred is facing now is not very different from the opposition GTA, Mortal Kombat and Postal faced back in the day.

If we were havhing the same discussion we are having now 20 years ago, you would probably be defending that Mortal Kombat and Night Trap should be banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_dodging

The original american releases of Fallout 1 and 2 had killable children. Should both games be banned as well?

So, let me see of i got it right. You and "many other people" should decide what is acceptable and what isn't? Only your opinion matters, is that it? Basically what you're saying here is that you think Hatred is unnaceptable because you and "many other people" said so. That's a nice example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

You agree with Jack Thompson and fundamentalist christian groups then?

I find it's refreshing to see a game be upfront and honest with its source material instead of give us some shallow, transparent context to go on so as to make us feel good about going on just as bad genocidal rampages. What sends a worse message: that it's perfectly acceptable to slaughter many, many people because the protagonist is searching for treasure, or attempting to climb a criminal enterprise, etc, or that someone is slaughtering innocents out of hate or because they wish to? Especially when the former violence is highly censored while the later is explicitly not? What sends a more acceptable (and hence dangerous) message about violence here? Nearly all games today trivialize murder. Hatred doesn't. It makes no concessions for what it entails and the extreme nature of it. What astonishes me is that people are perfectly OK with mass killing in games as long as they are handed paper thin rationales simply there to be able to do nothing more than justify it, yet this game, which makes no apologies and confronts us with what we're really dealing with, should be discouraged and frowned upon?


It heavily amuses me that people are fine with murdering hundreds and hundreds in other games just because they are comforted by some pathetic pretext (which we all know is simply an excuse to placate our moral quandaries), yet when we are confronted with the the true reality of what violence brings, we all of a sudden get our panties in a bunch and start throwing a hissy fit. Give me a break.

It's about time to view the action of murder in gaming for what it truly represents, context or no. Let's confront it, not sugar coat it and start complaining when it's not. Let's not pretend to hide the most horrific of acts behind bullshit context to belittle it so as to then be able to deem it acceptable and fun. I find that to be a FAR more dangerous a message to send to people than what Hatred is doing. That it is causing so much uproar amongst gamers is very healthy and good to see. In fact, this game may go to help combat the stigma of gamers being anti-social, psychopathic minded losers. It could turn out to be a huge unintentional advocate for anti-violence in gaming.

Doubtful, but perhaps this is the real goal of the developers? Regardless, Hatred makes a large statement in its distinction from other games in its portrayal of violence, and it is creating healthy discourse about a subject in gaming that should be discussed in how far the line can be stretched until it is crossed. If I can't appreciate or respect this game in any other way, I can for that at least. It is time a game came along to make us turn inward and ask ourselves exactly WHY we revel in the committal of violence as we do, because context is not what is bringing us that sense enjoyment and fun, and you all damn well know that. It is the violence itself. Hatred just is unashamed to admit that.

How is that so wrong?

yes, that is a dictionary. You may want to read it... A store can be warm and friendly, and still reject a game. It can even by sympathetic, and still reject a game. It can even be generous (offering help and feedback) and still reject a game. The act of not selling a game is not an hostile act, hostility or not will be in way a game is rejected.

also consider this - if rejecting a game is a hostile act, gOg have to be one of the most hostile stores in existence :)

I am repeating my self.... they have a reason, heck they can have many reasons not to sell it.

And I do wonder what the act of trying to pressurinsing a store to selling something they not want to sell is?

any particular reason why this people can not buy the game DRM free directly from the developer? or DRM free from any other store? do you even know if this people want to sell the game DRM free?

This game is not sold on Steam.... and if the end product is like the trailer - I have a feeling it will never be sold on steam.

ah, goody. Finaly

The developers are not innocent, as they have set up to make a controversial game. They know they are making a controversial game, it is the intent. They are not innocent, and need to take responsibility of their actions (which is that the game will not be salable in mainstream stores)

Do they have a publisher? If they do, they are not innocent either for the reason above.

If being innocent is "No GOG, no buy", then I have no sympathy, and I am not sure how 'innocent' comes into it. The devs will most likely sell the game via their websites, does who want to buy it have access there.

and neither is refusing to sell a game

Hey, it is the dictionary again.hmm....."Free from moral wrong" check, the stores are free from moral wrong not selling the game yes.... hmmm.... "Not involving evil intent or motive", check again. I guess this dictionary is just proving that the stores are innocents in this. Cheers.

broken record? I just showed you that the act of rejecting a game is not automatically 'hostile', nor is the game being rejected for no good reason, nor are there any 'innocent people' involved.

hehe, a good analogy is intended to clear up the matter for the other part. If the analogy do not - then it is a bad analogy. It is kind of how it works.

So - I just emailed Destructive Creations - I am still waiting for a reply :)

I got an auto response like no other :)

The following is a Auto Response.

- - -

Hi! We have such many mails to respond to, that I've had to set this auto responder, because apart from sending e-mails, I still have a game to make. :)

All press members: you will be contacted back as soon as possible.

All fans: Thanks for your support! There are so many of you guys, we won't stop!

All haters: Good! Let it flow out of you! :)

All "please, stop making this game" people: We have put a lot of money, time and hearts into production so far. There's a legion of people who write here "please, make this game happen, don't listen to the others, you're doing a great job" - we simply can't disappoint those guys. We're not breaking any laws by making this game, so don't waste your time. :)

FAQ:

Q: Relase date?
A: We don't know exactly - but it shall be as written at the end of our trailer - April - June, 2015

Q: Steam? Gog?
A: If they will let us sell on their sites, we want to relase it there. Otherwise, you'll be able to buy Hatred stright from us.

Q: PS4? XboX One?
A: We would love to, but we're to small team to develop a consoles version. If the game will sell nice on PC, we will have the money to work for PS4/XO versions.

Q: Any preview version for youtubers/press?
A: No, we're working on the title only for 4 months and it's far from being suitable to be shown as preview version.

Q: Price?
A: Half price.

Q: Alpha/beta testing?
A: Nope, sorry. Only internal testing.

Q: Multiplayer/coop?
A: Not now, we're to small team. Maybe as some sort of free DLC or something in the future.

Q: Where's the line?
A: No killing children or animals.

Q: Mod support?
A: We don't know.

Q: Pre-order?
A: When the second trailer will be launched. :)

Q: Racism?
A: Quote from Postal Dude: "Please, don't think I'm a biggot. I kill races equally". The same goes for Hatred. :)

I wish you all a very nice day.

J. Z.

- - -

End Auto Response

What is REALLY scary are the REAL people that are so unstable that they think everyone (themselves obviously taken as a reference point) will become a crazy killers because of a game. They are so scared that this game will tip them over the edge that they want to ban it. But if it becomes successful and people don't start going en masse on a killing rampage that would mean that they are the only ones that have a sanity problem and the rest of the planet can enjoy it for what it is, a escapist game.

C'mon Neobr, humour me, I'm interested in your answers:

You clearly accept that laws against the distribution of child pornography are reasonable (me too!!). Do you accept that that is a form of censorship that is not bad (in that it censors the distribution of photos)?

Also, out of interest, do you think laws against defamation are bad?

What if, hypothetically, there was a video game that didn't use actual images of children but (super realistic) graphics and it was a game that allowed the player to abuse these pixel-children?

+1

I don't think this game needs banning - it should come to gog but with standard age restriction like +18 since it is probably the most violent and disturbing game I saw in a long time and probably not understandable for younger people and this is the only problem I see with this game. Afterall this is basically a massacre simulator as somebody menitoned on the web and I think that description holds true for this game.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well.
I still find it horrific, but I do understand what they are getting at, and I support it.

You just pick and choose which words from me enter your brain and ignore the rest or your brain is doing that automatically. And you are doing the same thing with the dictionary. I explained to you why not selling a game (or pressuring a store into not selling a game) is being hostile to people but you just ignored my explanation. You are impossible. You just have to be right no matter what. Debating with you is like debating with a religious fanatic. You don't explain why you are saying what you are saying. You are just basically saying no to everything I'm saying and saying people who make a controversial game are evil basically. You don't tell us why they are evil, you just tell us that they are evil...and therefore should suffer.

"A store can be warm and friendly, and still reject a game. It can even by sympathetic, and still reject a game. It can even be generous (offering help and feedback) and still reject a game."
This is just hilarious. So if I prevent you from enjoying something or prevent you from making money from your hard work for no good reason, I can still be warm and friendly to you? How is that possible? By smiling at you? By singing and dancing for you? By telling you, "Hey man, I feel sorry for you." Maybe by baking you some cookies? So if a Christian conservative starts saying negative things about homosexuals that are not true, he or she can still be warm and friendly to homosexuals at the same time? LOL If a burglar breaks into your house and decides not to steal your TV out of the kindness in his heart but steals everything else valuable, he is being warm and friendly to you?

Let's just end this debate now and save precious time. The road ends here. Why does it end here? Because people who make controversial games are evil because amok says so. :P In the holy book of amok, it says those who are guilty of creating art that sparks a prolonged public dispute must suffer because they are agents of the devil. :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwTADnsFrPA

listen Hippys. I love you! We dont need good comedy movies anymore because we have you Hippys in gaming forums teaching the world the way of the Hippys!

I'm not derailing or distorting anything, you're the one evading questions so I got to assume something from time to time. Comparison between these games is accurate and justified. Holocaust happened in real life and mass murders happened (like Breivik's attack on Utoya island) - both were awful crimes and still cause strong negative emotions, especially among people affected, and should not be considered as appropriate and entertaining themes for video games.
But thank you for your gracious answer, anyway, since it shows that there are basic differences between our worldviews - I would fight to "ban" such games and I would vote against selling them on GOG or anywhere else. And to be honest I think that your's "allow everything" is far more radical opinion, than mine "ban things in some cases". Think about it.

Oh, thanks for explaining me what I'm doing. But if I was to rephrase my argument, then I'd say it sounds more like: "Hey, some things are illegal (for good reasons), therefore this game could be too (if there's a good reason)."

Less serious tone, less graphic presentation and, as you rightly pointed out, it was far from being the games main goal. What is your point, again?

Let me quote in case you missed it: "Less serious tone, agressive and "evil" enemies, less realism, less sensitive theme etc. etc. It all makes mentioned games less offensive."

You seem to campare these games only by their themes here. Postal didn't depict murder in as realistic manner as Hatred. The mood of that game was much different too.

I'm not "distorting" your arguments, but I do simplify them to extract the most basic points standing behind them. And in case of above paragraph you're again focusing on pushing the boundaries of graphical representation of violence in video games. Yes, you are right that 'violence is much more acceptable in games today than it was 10 years ago". Is it some huge success of the industry? Does violence make for more mature games? Is this the direction industry should focus on?
Oh, and link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_dodging

Alright, here it is in a more straightforward form: For the time being "the line" is somewhere inbetween killing innocent civilians and murdering children/raping. How do I know this? Well, as we can see, killing innocent civilians (in games) in some (mostly less graphic and serious) forms is considered acceptable by majority of population and killing children/raping is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_dodging
And no, these games shouldn't be banned, but censoring them was a good idea.

If "I and many other people" are the majority among interested parties, then the answer to your questions is "yes". That's how it works.
Here's a funny thought experiment for you: You and "many other people" should decide that everything is acceptable? Only your opinion matters, is that it? Basically what you're saying here is that you think Hatred is acceptable because you and "many other people" said so.
Again, "allow everything" vs. "ban some things". I'm wondering what is more radical...?

That's pretty imprecise question. I don't know what opinions Jack Thompson and fundamentalist christian groups have on the subject of video games, but I do think that some boundaries should stay untouched.

Another troll post, I'm guessing.