Hatred - Reveal & Gameplay Trailer

Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean Uwe Boll has already made the movie version of this concept.

It's nothing new so I don't understand what the fuss is about.
 
It's a clever conceit. Players slaughter people in their thousands without thinking just because a game tells them a character is a villain, a guard or a soldier. Games have repeatedly embraced torture as a gameplay mechanic to no complaint from gamers, they have indirectly encouraged players to laugh at killing prostitutes and strippers, reduced the idea of taking a life to a number on a score or a variable determining bonuses later on. Now this comes along and everyone gets all righteous? I'm calling bullshit on that. This is the sort of game most of you will have been playing your entire gaming lives and as many have pointed out, a small reskin, a justifying objective or the dishonest pretense of 'satire' would make it all OK in everyone's eyes. No matter how it turns out, this game looks to be offering exactly what so many other games do but without any excuses to hide behind: murdering people as an accomplishment and source of pleasure. Anyone who has ever played and enjoyed a Rockstar game in particular has absolutely no justification in getting high and mighty over this.
 
You just described the GTA franchise.

yeah, lets ignore the mobster themes and the themes of greed, betrayal, morally grey areas and characterization of protagonists and anti-heroes... who cares about what most of the games budget went into, lets focus on a byproduct that the devs actively discourage.
 
Engine looks pretty cool... make it zombies and no issue.. but as it stands... it's Postal with out the humor.. which means it's just a murder simulator with no context. Which is pretty poor taste... can't get behind that.

Not a really useful remark since you're probably talking about Postal 2&3 but in case it interests some people, the plot of Postal 1 revolved around The Postal Dude believing that every people in the city was infected or insane and decided to cleanse it. The first one took itself very seriously, the goal of each level is to kill a set number of armed enemies and civilians.
Between each level you'd get a journal entry of the Postal Dude, most of them being legit disturbing (in what is an already controversial game). The last level is you trying to "cleanse" an elementary school but the character has a mental breakdown and is then imprisoned in a mental asylum.
The last level and its missing cutscene (obviously NSFW and I suggest you don't watch it if you already found Hatred's trailer disturbing) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvRhC-G09X8 (stop watching at 1m and start the 2nd video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-dThpYDsnU

The script of the 2nd video :
Population pressure and the stress of modern life may cause an increase in violent tendencies. The urban environment is the incubator for all sorts of undesirable behaviors. However much his atrocity disgusts us, he may actually consider himself a hero. This is common among those who take up the popular slang "going postal". In his tortured mind, he may feel he was battling against impossible odds...
It's not unusual for some individuals to believe that the entire fate of the world rests in their hands. In the end our subject displays all the classic symptoms of paranoid delusions. We may never know what truly set him off but rest assured, we will have plenty of time to study him.

Just thought some people would be interested by this, this is a pretty old game and had a big controversy revolving around it.
Personally I find Postal more disturbing than what has been shown of Hatred but I still don't see any problem with them existing. Besides, Hatred still has the possibility of being something else either by the story/VA etc.
 

Yeah, beaten. I was a bit upset when I read this tweet so I posted right away. Also you wrote that you're not sure. I can tell you I am sure. We learn about those soldiers at history lessons.

We have quite an increase of patriotic moods right now in Poland. I think you can understand that with a war raging behind our eastern border it's quite expected. This guy may be just following the trend. Or he might be right-wing, so what? (I'm definitely not)
 
It's a clever conceit. Players slaughter people in their thousands without thinking just because a game tells them a character is a villain, a guard or a soldier. Games have repeatedly embraced torture as a gameplay mechanic to no complaint from gamers, they have indirectly encouraged players to laugh at killing prostitutes and strippers, reduced the idea of taking a life to a number on a score or a variable determining bonuses later on. Now this comes along and everyone gets all righteous? I'm calling bullshit on that. This is the sort of game most of you will have been playing your entire gaming lives and as many have pointed out, a small reskin, a justifying objective or the dishonest pretense of 'satire' would make it all OK in everyone's eyes. No matter how it turns out, this game looks to be offering exactly what so many other games do but without any excuses to hide behind: murdering people as an accomplishment and source of pleasure. Anyone who has ever played and enjoyed a Rockstar game in particular has absolutely no justification in getting high and mighty over this.

Amen.
 
I mean Uwe Boll has already made the movie version of this concept.

It's nothing new so I don't understand what the fuss is about.

It's a video game. And as well we all know, video games are toys and should be treated as such. In no way shape or form should it take on any serious/dark/depressing themes like actual artistic mediums. Think of the children!

I'm not exactly the best at sarcasm but it was worth a shot. XD
 
Would you say that about a game where you play a fictitious terrorist militant who seeks out journalists to then decapitate them?

I don't really see the difference between something like that, and this.

It's the realistic portrayal along with the art style, copter-like top-down camera, and focus on terrorizing 'k-mart' looking stores that sets this apart from a GTA. This game does nothing but give (in this case, more justified) fuel to the whole games-lead-to-violence fallacy.

I'm not hypodrmage, but I totally would. Make what you like, devs!

Gaming's such a young medium, it still induces hand-wringing. That won't always be the case. Write a book/shoot a movie/sing a song about the murder of innocents, rape or pedophilia; no one bats an eyelid.
 
I think the game looks fun. Having power in games is fun. You've never played a god game like black and white and took joy in wiping out mortals? People have already mentioned the sadistic things you can do in gta. Oh yeah its got a jokey edge to it but the fun is still derived from the act of doing these evil things.

Also this repeated talk of distinguishing between "innocents" and "civilians" and supposedly acceptable enemies kind of gives credence to the talking heads that feel violent games influence people. They're video game characters. It's a video game. I don't see myself as killing innocents. I'd see myself as playing the rarely offered role of a bad guy and killing npcs. It's not going to twist my mind. It'snot ggoing to lead me to go on a killing spree. Calling them innocents and civilians makes it seem like you guys are seeing these virtual characters as being more than they are.
 
It's a clever conceit. Players slaughter people in their thousands without thinking just because a game tells them a character is a villain, a guard or a soldier. Games have repeatedly embraced torture as a gameplay mechanic to no complaint from gamers, they have indirectly encouraged players to laugh at killing prostitutes and strippers, reduced the idea of taking a life to a number on a score or a variable determining bonuses later on. Now this comes along and everyone gets all righteous? I'm calling bullshit on that. This is the sort of game most of you will have been playing your entire gaming lives and as many have pointed out, a small reskin, a justifying objective or the dishonest pretense of 'satire' would make it all OK in everyone's eyes. No matter how it turns out, this game looks to be offering exactly what so many other games do but without any excuses to hide behind: murdering people as an accomplishment and source of pleasure. Anyone who has ever played and enjoyed a Rockstar game in particular has absolutely no justification in getting high and mighty over this.

Best post of the year.

No matter what justification people try to pull out of there ass, murder is still murder. Genocide is still Genocide. There is no ways around it.
 
Anyone who has ever played and enjoyed a Rockstar game in particular has absolutely no justification in getting high and mighty over this.
Uh-uh...not all of us spend our time slaughtering innocent people in those worlds when there's a ton of story campaign that does plenty else and never just makes your entire existence one as a killer only out to target innocents for score. The trailer for this game makes that the only point. So, for those that only really like to do the whole mass-murder thing in open world games that offer choices and expensive content dedicated to not doing that, you might possibly have had an agreeable statement.
 
Would you say that about a game where you play a fictitious terrorist militant who seeks out journalists to then decapitate them?

I don't really see the difference between something like that, and this.

It's the realistic portrayal along with the art style, copter-like top-down camera, and focus on terrorizing 'k-mart' looking stores that sets this apart from a GTA. This game does nothing but give (in this case, more justified) fuel to the whole games-lead-to-violence fallacy.

Besides the fact you're using a straw man...

Yes I would - I wouldn't play it and wouldn't financially support it. People all over the world make content I don't agree with, why should videogames be treated any different?
 
Damn that was kinda hard to watch. I think the difference between this and a game like GTA is that in that game killing civilians is not primary objectivr nor is it the main point of the game. Additionally the tone of a game like that is much much lighter. This game is putting a serious focus on killing straight up innocent people for no apparent reason. Mowing down a bunch of screaming un armed people in the mall and chasing down civilians and shooting them point blank in the face is pretty disturbing.
 
yeah, lets ignore the mobster themes and the themes of greed, betrayal, morally grey areas and characterization of protagonists and anti-heroes... who cares about what most of the games budget went into, lets focus on a byproduct that the devs actively discourage.

Goranga bonus. For successfully mowing down a whole line of Krishnas. GTA 1.
 
I agree / know this. I'm just pointing out that violence is still violence regardless of the veneer people put over it, like a different character model. Thus making it less relatable, and getting a lesser empathetic emotional response, because of one simple change.


I like these kinds of conversations, but open forums seem too sensitive for it. xD

Right, where we disagree, is that it's hypocritical. There's no hypocrisy involved, because it's not a conscious double standard when we feel empathy for human images verses non-human images.
 
I agree / know this. I'm just pointing out that violence is still violence regardless of the veneer people put over it, like a different character model. Thus making it less relatable, and getting a lesser empathetic emotional response, because of one simple change.


I like these kinds of conversations, but open forums seem too sensitive for it. xD
Violence may still be violence regardless of the cause, but what are you trying to say with regards to the game? It could be said that self defense is still violence or war is still violence, but the context of the violent actions do matter, because it effects the story and the mentality that the game generates. Is this game going to promote kids or adults to do this thing, obviously not, but it still seems senseless to people and that is why they are against playing it. Narrative can drive a gameplay experience, and in this case the character would be someone that I really hate and so I don't wish to further the goals of the main character.
 
Hatred has the guy killing because he doesn't like people. Kratos kills for revenge and because he was exploited by the gods (both a whiny cry babies though) and it's a whole thing about the Greek gods and monsters and how Kratos isn't a hero and just as bad or worst than those gods he kills.

The russians on CoD are trying to kill you, they are enemy combatants. If you are reffering to the "No Russian" level then you don't have to kill any innocents during that bit and there is context in the story (lol CoD having a story) for why the character is there.

The main objective of GTA isn't to go on a murder spree. It's to get rich and be a big dick crime guy. You can kill innocents but it's not the main goal or even a side objective just something you can do in the open world.

this is just killing for the sake of killing. Violence for the sake of violence. If you like a game where you just kill innocent people that can't fight back and offer no challenge then fine, cool, power to you, but stop trying to compare the little context this game has to other games that provide more (even if it is still flimsy)

The story mission in GTA can be called a murder spree. Is killing police officers who are trying to impede a bank robber better than killing innocent pedestrians? Does the fact that they have the means to stop you make their deaths more justified?

There are survival missions in GTAO where your goal is to kill mass amounts of policemen and proceed to the next round.
 
How do zombies not offer a different moral background to a story?

Are you trying to suggest that violence is justifiable in a survival situation? Do you think the scenario in a zombie shooter offers enough detail to somehow let me feel empathy for the dudebro? Oh, world's gone to shit, what a terrible situation. Better kill those zombies, there is no choice. I have yet to play a twin stick shooter that's sophisticated enough to make me question my actions. Games just aren't there yet.

Are you saying that their is no difference between a movie that follows around follows around the two students of Columbine and portrays them as taking their revenge on society and a film where two students take out a school full of zombies. You are saying that there is no difference in the moral background? Or are you saying that it is important that this is a video game and so the difference has no bearing on how the players feel when playing it?

I'm not saying anything about movies, I don't know where you're getting that from. Zombies in these types of video games aren't there to offer you some kind of carte blanche. They come with a fun scenario and that's pretty much it.

Also, Gaf is not a message board. It doesn't make any sense to not try to analyze people, as it can give an important context to their argument and understanding someone's personality allows to have some insight into what they find important and what they would emphasis most of all. Its a good skill to have, but really limited when analyzing text. The fact that you are still replying means that you do care about the game though in some manner, or you really care about the fact that people are arguing on moral principles. I have never stated that they shouldn't have made this game or that they shouldn't be able to, but I have said that it offers a different kind of experience and on that I find tasteless on moral grounds.

I don't care about this game at all, I just find it impolite not to reply when someone actually tries to have a conversation. Even if you think you could analyze me (or anyone else). You are way off though.


Earlier you said it was a videogame, it doesn't need defended. By saying that it is just a video game, you are making a defense for it.

Saying that it doesn't need to be defended doesn't mean that it mustn't be defended.

Now you are finally making some claim about the game, stating that it looks boring. You state that this should have been the line of argument that people should have pointed out earlier, but that isn't my issue with it. In fact, I would say that the gameplay mechanics and the destructible environment looks good. I take moral issue with the intentions of the main protagonist, because they could arm the civilians and make them more interesting to fight than zombies and I would still have an issue with the game.

I guess you have issues with shooting humans in video games then.
 
It's a clever conceit. Players slaughter people in their thousands without thinking just because a game tells them a character is a villain, a guard or a soldier. Games have repeatedly embraced torture as a gameplay mechanic to no complaint from gamers, they have indirectly encouraged players to laugh at killing prostitutes and strippers, reduced the idea of taking a life to a number on a score or a variable determining bonuses later on. Now this comes along and everyone gets all righteous? I'm calling bullshit on that. This is the sort of game most of you will have been playing your entire gaming lives and as many have pointed out, a small reskin, a justifying objective or the dishonest pretense of 'satire' would make it all OK in everyone's eyes. No matter how it turns out, this game looks to be offering exactly what so many other games do but without any excuses to hide behind: murdering people as an accomplishment and source of pleasure. Anyone who has ever played and enjoyed a Rockstar game in particular has absolutely no justification in getting high and mighty over this.
Wow, nailed it.
 
Just saw the trailer....wow. Pretty brutal.

If this game is nothing but mass civilian genocide, you think it'll be banned at all?

There will be opposition in the game, it shows cops and a lot of glowing guns laying on the ground.

It's a clever conceit. Players slaughter people in their thousands without thinking just because a game tells them a character is a villain, a guard or a soldier. Games have repeatedly embraced torture as a gameplay mechanic to no complaint from gamers, they have indirectly encouraged players to laugh at killing prostitutes and strippers, reduced the idea of taking a life to a number on a score or a variable determining bonuses later on. Now this comes along and everyone gets all righteous? I'm calling bullshit on that. This is the sort of game most of you will have been playing your entire gaming lives and as many have pointed out, a small reskin, a justifying objective or the dishonest pretense of 'satire' would make it all OK in everyone's eyes. No matter how it turns out, this game looks to be offering exactly what so many other games do but without any excuses to hide behind: murdering people as an accomplishment and source of pleasure. Anyone who has ever played and enjoyed a Rockstar game in particular has absolutely no justification in getting high and mighty over this.

Great post.
 
Right, where we disagree, is that it's hypocritical. There's no hypocrisy involved, because it's not a conscious double standard when we feel empathy for human images verses non-human images.

Violence may still be violence regardless of the cause, but what are you trying to say with regards to the game? It could be said that self defense is still violence or war is still violence, but the context of the violent actions do matter, because it effects the story and the mentality that the game generates. Is this game going to promote kids or adults to do this thing, obviously not, but it still seems senseless to people and that is why they are against playing it. Narrative can drive a gameplay experience, and in this case the character would be someone that I really hate and so I don't wish to further the goals of the main character.

This post is essentially what I was trying to say. I think we all agree, we're just saying it differently. :P
 
The point being shooting innocent people for the sake of it makes this game pretty awful

Yeah it's "only a game" but so was RapeLay and i don't think most people would defend that as being "only a game"

A lot of games feature killing but it always has context, and even games like GTA you're not supposed to kill random people, if you do the police will come etc, and it will make your life harder anyway
 
It's a clever conceit. Players slaughter people in their thousands without thinking just because a game tells them a character is a villain, a guard or a soldier. Games have repeatedly embraced torture as a gameplay mechanic to no complaint from gamers, they have indirectly encouraged players to laugh at killing prostitutes and strippers, reduced the idea of taking a life to a number on a score or a variable determining bonuses later on. Now this comes along and everyone gets all righteous? I'm calling bullshit on that. This is the sort of game most of you will have been playing your entire gaming lives and as many have pointed out, a small reskin, a justifying objective or the dishonest pretense of 'satire' would make it all OK in everyone's eyes. No matter how it turns out, this game looks to be offering exactly what so many other games do but without any excuses to hide behind: murdering people as an accomplishment and source of pleasure. Anyone who has ever played and enjoyed a Rockstar game in particular has absolutely no justification in getting high and mighty over this.
Yup, this is exactly it. You would only need very small changes to make the game "justifiable violence" in many players' eyes... which just points out how utterly fucked up it all is if you give it more than a few seconds' thought.

The story mission in GTA can be called a murder spree. Is killing police officers who are trying to impede a bank robber better than killing innocent pedestrians? Does the fact that they have the means to stop you make their deaths more justified?

There even survival missions in GTAO where your goal is to kill mass amounts of policemen and proceed to the next round.
Yeah, and let's be honest here, how many players have never just ran around running over pedestrians and walked into a store just to shoot everyone and shoot all the policemen coming to stop you?

Hell, even once they do stop me in the game I just shoot up everyone in the hospital immediately after I revive. It's silly and ridiculous and, frankly, Hatred is really not far removed from that at all. Just a little change in context and some more believable NPC reactions and suddenly people are aghast at it all.

The fact that we are now asking these questions automatically justifies the game's existence, I would think.
 
Speaking of which:

Yeah that is what I am thinking about.

The point being shooting innocent people for the sake of it makes this game pretty awful

Yeah it's "only a game" but so was RapeLay and i don't think most people would defend that as being "only a game"

A lot of games feature killing but it always has context, and even games like GTA you're not supposed to kill random people, if you do the police will come etc, and it will make your life harder anyway

I don't want to start defending the game at all (i do not know all intentions and am myself conflicted). But this game showing violence in such a form in such a shocking way throws up so many questions.

The comment about justifying violence in a game with a thin shitty plot and strawmen badguys made by xandaca hit home for me.
 
It's a clever conceit. Players slaughter people in their thousands without thinking just because a game tells them a character is a villain, a guard or a soldier. Games have repeatedly embraced torture as a gameplay mechanic to no complaint from gamers, they have indirectly encouraged players to laugh at killing prostitutes and strippers, reduced the idea of taking a life to a number on a score or a variable determinists bonuses later on. Now this comes along and everyone gets all righteous? I'm calling bullshit on that. This is the sort of game most of you will have been playing your entire gaming lives and as many have pointed out, a small reskin, a justifying objective or the dishonest pretense of 'satire' would make it all OK in everyone's eyes. No matter how it turns out, this game looks to be offering exactly what so many other games do but without any excuses to hide behind: murdering people as an accomplishment and source of pleasure. Anyone who has ever played and enjoyed a Rockstar game in particular has absolutely no justification in getting high and mighty over this.

While I agree with parts of what you said, the perversion of this game can't be understated. It's beyond tasteless. It's vile. It's literally a murder simulator that asks the player to revel in taking a life while it supplicates for mercy. I dislike GTA for hiding behind its pretenses and duping players into suspending their morality, but hopefully this game is a wake up call to all those games that play babe in the woods with murder
 
Maybe I'm weird but I can totally de-contextualize stuff in games and I never really find anything offensive, unless it's just really poorly done, and this game doesn't seem unaware of what it's doing.
 
That voice over was soooo cheesy. Didn't really feel like it helped the tone of the rest of the trailer. Don't think I'll play it, seems a bit too 'look at us! so edgy'.
 
It's a clever conceit. Players slaughter people in their thousands without thinking just because a game tells them a character is a villain, a guard or a soldier. Games have repeatedly embraced torture as a gameplay mechanic to no complaint from gamers, they have indirectly encouraged players to laugh at killing prostitutes and strippers, reduced the idea of taking a life to a number on a score or a variable determining bonuses later on. Now this comes along and everyone gets all righteous? I'm calling bullshit on that. This is the sort of game most of you will have been playing your entire gaming lives and as many have pointed out, a small reskin, a justifying objective or the dishonest pretense of 'satire' would make it all OK in everyone's eyes. No matter how it turns out, this game looks to be offering exactly what so many other games do but without any excuses to hide behind: murdering people as an accomplishment and source of pleasure. Anyone who has ever played and enjoyed a Rockstar game in particular has absolutely no justification in getting high and mighty over this.

No one is innocent in the conversation, that much is true. I think that's why this conversation is so interesting.
 
It's a clever conceit. Players slaughter people in their thousands without thinking just because a game tells them a character is a villain, a guard or a soldier. Games have repeatedly embraced torture as a gameplay mechanic to no complaint from gamers, they have indirectly encouraged players to laugh at killing prostitutes and strippers, reduced the idea of taking a life to a number on a score or a variable determining bonuses later on. Now this comes along and everyone gets all righteous? I'm calling bullshit on that. This is the sort of game most of you will have been playing your entire gaming lives and as many have pointed out, a small reskin, a justifying objective or the dishonest pretense of 'satire' would make it all OK in everyone's eyes. No matter how it turns out, this game looks to be offering exactly what so many other games do but without any excuses to hide behind: murdering people as an accomplishment and source of pleasure. Anyone who has ever played and enjoyed a Rockstar game in particular has absolutely no justification in getting high and mighty over this.

Applaud this man.
 
It's a clever conceit. Players slaughter people in their thousands without thinking just because a game tells them a character is a villain, a guard or a soldier. Games have repeatedly embraced torture as a gameplay mechanic to no complaint from gamers, they have indirectly encouraged players to laugh at killing prostitutes and strippers, reduced the idea of taking a life to a number on a score or a variable determining bonuses later on. Now this comes along and everyone gets all righteous? I'm calling bullshit on that. This is the sort of game most of you will have been playing your entire gaming lives and as many have pointed out, a small reskin, a justifying objective or the dishonest pretense of 'satire' would make it all OK in everyone's eyes. No matter how it turns out, this game looks to be offering exactly what so many other games do but without any excuses to hide behind: murdering people as an accomplishment and source of pleasure. Anyone who has ever played and enjoyed a Rockstar game in particular has absolutely no justification in getting high and mighty over this.

Agreed, but how about those of us that don't feel comfortable playing GTA games, or any other game with morally-suspect "protagonists"?

In particular I found interesting from the first post was this line:

...just don't try this at home and don't take it too seriously, it's just a game. :)

I play games more than I watch movies for the sole reason of immersion. I'm not going to do anything in a game that goes against my real-life moral mindset, and when I'm forced to it really gets to me, so I will take this sort of thing seriously. For those that can separate that and feel comfortable playing this game, all the power to them, but it doesn't make the concept any less disturbing...
 
The story mission in GTA can be called a murder spree. Is killing police officers who are trying to impede a bank robber better than killing innocent pedestrians? Does the fact that they have the means to stop you make their deaths more justified?

There even survival missions in GTAO where your goal is to kill mass amounts of policemen and proceed to the next round.

Never played GTAO so don't know much about it other than it being a sandbox type thing to dick around in (be that do missions, mow down each other and by standers, drive and explore etc) so I don't think it needs or even has any context other than "do what you like by online becuase why not?".

Regarding GTA and the killing there there are at least reasons be they self defence (even if the defence is a result of a criminal act) and the cops can at least shoot back at you and mostly it's a defensive action, they don't go out looking for cops to kill just because. GTA has more context for the goings on. You rise up in a criminal world, there is greed, mistrust of others and authority, gang violence and the like. There is more development as to why your character is doing this, their motivations, why they are risking their lives for this (even if the reason ultimately boils down to greed). I just feel it's more "justified" in GTA due to the context given by the story. It's still murdering innocent cops and not so innocent criminals but there is a reason for doing it other than "lol lets kill them because mmmmmm blood and funny lols".

Hatred the "justification" is the character hates people so kill them because he expects to die anyway. I just want more of a reason than that. Guy just wants to kill because he wants to kill because people "deserve" it where as in GTA your character kills because they either have no choice, because of self defence (even if it is in defence of a criminal act) or revenge. At least there there are reasons as to why the character is doing it and why you as a player have to do it.

And I'm also not making any comments on the random killing sprees people go on outside of missions or during them whatever. I'm just talking about missions in the story. The stuff you have to do and not where you whip out an RPG into a crowd and get a 5 star rating and hole up in a building for half an hour.

I'm also not saying this game shouldn't exist or should be censored or anything, just this isn't for me and the reasons why I think this isn't for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom