SpectralMeat wrote on Dec 31, 2014, 10:21:

Quinn wrote on Dec 31, 2014, 10:10:

SpectralMeat wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 12:13:
I want those rape sims to be greenlit next please
They are just pixels so should be no big deal right?

Killing humans in gamee is something that's done since Wolfenstein (and I'm sure before that). It wasn't a problem then so why should it be now?

Raping is another thing. We don't liberate outposts in Far Cry by raping everyone in it. Commander Shepard's plan wasn't to literally rape the Reapers and nor did the Reapers threat to literally rape the galaxy. But, if from now on the great majority decides its OK to create a game where you can run around raping people -- wne rape incidents don't increase because kf it -- than I am having a hard time to argue with it, too. So far America's laws for gun ownership is the problem for the shooting incidents, anyway. I don't think rape incidents will increase with a rape game, unless America changes its laws about rape. "As long as you're a responsible rapist, all is swell." -_-

Whoops getting off-topic...

Rape was just an example but sexuality in general is a no no for games, yet extreme violence like it is in this game or in GTA5 is all good, cuz it's only pixels.
Well a virtual pussy is only pixels too !!

I don't think we'll be seeing much rape in games. Ever. It's generally considered the worst thing you could ever do to anyone, despite the numerous examples of things that are objectively worse (like being murdered). People were up in arms over the implied rape in the Hotline Miami 2 demo and the audio logs in MGS:GZ. The gratuitous murder and torture? That was fine. Doesn't seem like context matters either. The implied rape in MGS:GZ made perfect sense within the context of the audio logs. Female prisoners get raped by their male captors. That's reality.

Feminists will argue that rape victims shouldn't have to be reminded of their trauma but if that's case, what about people who have suffered in other ways? What about people who have lost loved ones to murder or suicide? How about people that have been tortured, mutilated or crippled? How about people that have been shot or stabbed or beaten but survived? How about people that have been robbed? How about people that have been in car accidents? If you're going to essentially ban any depictions or suggestions of rape because they might offend, shouldn't you do the same for other potentially offensive content?

Back on topic, I'm glad Valve agreed to distribute Hatred. It probably won't be a good game but there are tons of shit games on Steam. Refusing to distribute Hatred would be hypocritical, as Steam already distributes both Postal games. Hatred is basically a remake of the original Postal, which had a much darker and more disturbing tone than its humorous sequel.

This comment was edited on Jan 1, 2015, 03:51.

While I find the subject matter of this game morally reprehensible, generations of my family have lost family members to defend freedom of speech. Given the freedom of speech issues highlighted around the controversy of "The Interview" (a piece of garbage film that would have died quietly, were it not for North Korea), I have to say it is someone's right to make this game, but I really question the moral values of a group of developers that thinks this is "a great game idea."

I'm more than a little surprised that Valve is choosing to publish this, as, unlike GTA or many of the other games of it's like, wanton murder is the central focus of this game.

Says more about the state of society than anything else, I guess.

NKD wrote on Dec 31, 2014, 07:41:
It's not some never-ending slippery slope that inevitably leads to the breakdown of all laws and complete anarchy in the streets dude.

Certainly not a linear line from the beginning of history no. I meant in terms of a single society from the point it becomes noticeable to their eventual failure. Hence a 50 to 100 year time frame, as I think it's a bit alarmist at this stage to say we're on the edge of collapse, especially on a topic based on a single game.

But, it should be fairly clear to everyone that at the moment we're constantly challenging old moral codes and the question was, where does it end for us? Thinking ahead like this isn't a bad thing. But you made some good points, which gives me something to think about anyway.

@Harlock. On your question regarding why I'm not concerned about "real" factors that affect people like pollution etc, well, how do know I'm not?

Actually, something now occurs to me.

We're seeing the argument that Steam should not publish Hatred because it's giving publicity to a terrible game.

I gave the example of Amazon publishing Mein Kampf. Amazon is very comparable to Steam: it's a giant when it comes to distribution, and at this point it's even a giant with digital distribution.

So tell me what books Amazon should refuse to carry. We can extend this argument to everything else Amazon deals with too in terms of media, but books are at the front of this list.

Quinn wrote on Dec 31, 2014, 10:10:

SpectralMeat wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 12:13:
I want those rape sims to be greenlit next please
They are just pixels so should be no big deal right?

Killing humans in gamee is something that's done since Wolfenstein (and I'm sure before that). It wasn't a problem then so why should it be now?

Raping is another thing. We don't liberate outposts in Far Cry by raping everyone in it. Commander Shepard's plan wasn't to literally rape the Reapers and nor did the Reapers threat to literally rape the galaxy. But, if from now on the great majority decides its OK to create a game where you can run around raping people -- wne rape incidents don't increase because kf it -- than I am having a hard time to argue with it, too. So far America's laws for gun ownership is the problem for the shooting incidents, anyway. I don't think rape incidents will increase with a rape game, unless America changes its laws about rape. "As long as you're a responsible rapist, all is swell." -_-

Whoops getting off-topic...

Rape was just an example but sexuality in general is a no no for games, yet extreme violence like it is in this game or in GTA5 is all good, cuz it's only pixels.
Well a virtual pussy is only pixels too !!

djinn wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 21:09:

Prez wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 20:49:
turn off enough of your potential market with your gratuitous sex, violence, Gore, torture, rape, or whatever and the game dies and that type of game is not attempted again. At least for a while.

At least for a while. For me personally, that's the key issue. It's an ever changing line that doesn't go back and forth. It continues in the same direction, being pushed further and further back. Does anyone ask themselves where it will end? 50 or 100 years down the line? No moral posturing or attempt to censor here. Just trying to project where it could end up in the worst case, long term scenario.

If you want to talk about 50 or 100 years down the line, then why arent you worrying about more concrete things like chemical pollution, clean water shortages, diminishing resources, gmo abberations, climate changes, rising sea level, etc. etc. - you know, the shit that will actually affect people physically and become a possible threat to their actual survival? Thats not a rhetorical question.

Instead, its a concern over something that you have no idea how to "project", namely the psyche of humanity and its perturbations. Less than 5% of people in general understand their own psyche, let alone anyone elses - especially everyone else in all their numerous variations. The concern for the "hearts and minds" of the people is not a legitimate concern for the "fate of humanity", its a smokescreen for your own discomfort and inability to adapt to a particular situation. The issue has become symbolic for you. And plenty of other people share this problem, so there will be a large crowd expressing this sentiment.

At the end of the day, its just more traditionalism. Its religious moralism without the religion. Its an inability to adapt to reality, driven by hidden fears of retribution. Its a pretty common problem that comes from having parents. Its a refusal to grow up and be an adult, and instead clings in deference to whatever establishment is in place. Instead of favoring change and open minded acceptance, it favors static, fixed viewpoints that are considered inviolable.

SpectralMeat wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 12:13:
I want those rape sims to be greenlit next please
They are just pixels so should be no big deal right?

Killing humans in gamee is something that's done since Wolfenstein (and I'm sure before that). It wasn't a problem then so why should it be now?

Raping is another thing. We don't liberate outposts in Far Cry by raping everyone in it. Commander Shepard's plan wasn't to literally rape the Reapers and nor did the Reapers threat to literally rape the galaxy. But, if from now on the great majority decides its OK to create a game where you can run around raping people -- wne rape incidents don't increase because kf it -- than I am having a hard time to argue with it, too. So far America's laws for gun ownership is the problem for the shooting incidents, anyway. I don't think rape incidents will increase with a rape game, unless America changes its laws about rape. "As long as you're a responsible rapist, all is swell." -_-

Whoops getting off-topic...

djinn wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 21:09:

Prez wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 20:49:
turn off enough of your potential market with your gratuitous sex, violence, Gore, torture, rape, or whatever and the game dies and that type of game is not attempted again. At least for a while.

At least for a while. For me personally, that's the key issue. It's an ever changing line that doesn't go back and forth. It continues in the same direction, being pushed further and further back. Does anyone ask themselves where it will end? 50 or 100 years down the line? No moral posturing or attempt to censor here. Just trying to project where it could end up in the worst case, long term scenario.

Entertainment and art will reflect the society that creates it. If something frowned upon today becomes acceptable in the future, well, that's what society wants and that's what they will get. This world belongs to the people living in it today. If the people who inherit it are uncomfortable with how we've done things, they'll do things differently.

It's not some never-ending slippery slope that inevitably leads to the breakdown of all laws and complete anarchy in the streets dude. Society in the past has been both more debauched, AND more puritanical, depending on what society and what time period you're looking at. It doesn't move only in one direction as you claim. You had things like homosexuality being frowned on as immoral, at the same time that enslaving other humans was considered to be okay.

Moral viewpoints in society are not logical, they can be seemingly contradictory.

And even if your supposition was correct, that it is some kind of slippery slope from which there is no return, what mechanism do you suggest we use to stop it? Society governs itself. There is no one outside of society to keep it in check. If society at large desires a change, there is no one who can stop it from happening in the long term.

Squirmer wrote on Dec 31, 2014, 01:23:
I'm curious whether the libertarians here would support the sale of a pedophile simulator, incidentally.

I would defer to the law in the USA. Current case law, by my understanding is that if the simulated child pornography does not pass the "Miller Test" then it is deemed obscene and illegal. If it does pass the Miller Test then it's not illegal because it is not considered obscene. The Miller test is a test for obscenity which is not protected by the first amendment.

This comment was edited on Dec 31, 2014, 02:11.

I guess the problem is Valve hasn't articulated what Steam's line is. If someone wanted to make a pedophile simulator (probably exists in Japan already) I doubt Steam would ever publish it. So there's clearly a line, but no one knows where Steam's is.

I'm curious whether the libertarians here would support the sale of a pedophile simulator, incidentally.

My 3 cents worth is that everyone has their personal line which they are free to advocate and join with like minded individual to advocate. However that applies to everyone equally even though like me want to see the game released no matter how twisted the violence is in the game.

Prez wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 20:49:
turn off enough of your potential market with your gratuitous sex, violence, Gore, torture, rape, or whatever and the game dies and that type of game is not attempted again. At least for a while.

At least for a while. For me personally, that's the key issue. It's an ever changing line that doesn't go back and forth. It continues in the same direction, being pushed further and further back. Does anyone ask themselves where it will end? 50 or 100 years down the line? No moral posturing or attempt to censor here. Just trying to project where it could end up in the worst case, long term scenario.

For those who are asking if there is a line or where is the line, let me offer my two cents. The line exists, but it isn't an arbitrary one that any one person or group will draw. It is a natural, sort of "self-forming" line that forms when a critical mass of a market en masse decides that, for whatever reason, they don't feel comfortable buying or playing a certain game. One Nazi simulator may fall just short of it, while a similar Nazi game may cross it. It is simply a matter of financial math - turn off enough of your potential market with your gratuitous sex, violence, Gore, torture, rape, or whatever and the game dies and that type of game is not attempted again. At least for a while. No one person in a community has a right to say where this line should lay, but every person in the community has a part in shaping it. It is not the existence of a game or type of game that is a problem; one antisocial guy or group of guys making a gross game means nothing in the larger scheme of the massive gaming market. If someone made Harlock's Nazi Gas Chamber Simulator and it consistently remained on the Steam sales weekly top ten, then it indicates something about that market. IF it every gets made, however, we all know that it doesn't have a shot in hell at doing anything close. It will be forgotten within a week once the silly outrage dies down. Like "Hatred" will be if it doesn't do anything beyond ratchet up the shock level and ends up a one-trick pony.

This comment was edited on Dec 30, 2014, 21:09.

Xero wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 20:18:
Considering this game is not much different than what you can do in GTA4-5, actually GTA probably being worse, I find it a joke that people come out of their quiet caves to complain about a game that hasn't even been released yet.

Tell me, you couldn't make that exact same trailer in GTA 4 or 5?? Heck, GTA could do that plus show him getting head in a car, then shortly after, killing the prostitute, and getting his money back. But that is OK right?

Is it because the dude wears a trench coat and it brings back thoughts of Columbine?

Can you wear a trench coat in GTA 5? I just assume so, so even that angle would get shot down (pun).

siapnar wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 18:24:
I think most "moral crusaders" (less, but still douchey version of the term SWJ) on here would say that the developers of Hatred can make their game all the like, but to distribute it on the biggest digital platform the PC has to offer... that's just going to create shitstorm of bad publicity for the industry.

I think at this point "the industry" is so big that trying to sum it up that way is doomed to fail. This move was tried with the last major spree shooting - no one ultimately bought the argument. It's like saying Amazon is wrong to publish Mein Kampf because it runs risk of reflecting poorly on "literature", or Crossed better be barred so people don't think poorly of comic books.

I don't think the legion of concerned moms who love Bejeweled are going to accept the argument that Hatred represents everything gaming has to offer - and if they did, hell, I'd fight the moms. I think I can take them.

Considering this game is not much different than what you can do in GTA4-5, actually GTA probably being worse, I find it a joke that people come out of their quiet caves to complain about a game that hasn't even been released yet.

It's probably going to turn into a sh!tty game that everyone will forget in a few weeks after release and make you forget this was ever a big deal. Actually, the trailer is what made it a big deal and if the Devs wanted to get your attention, they sure did.

Tell me, you couldn't make that exact same trailer in GTA 4 or 5?? Heck, GTA could do that plus show him getting head in a car, then shortly after, killing the prostitute, and getting his money back. But that is OK right? Because every 12yr old kid on the planet bought the game when he asked his mother and she approved.

Is it because the dude wears a trench coat and it brings back thoughts of Columbine? Well there is a well too deep to dig into if you want to know how much media has been released since then in gaming and movie forms that bring back memories of Columbine.

Quboid wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 19:05:
Do you dislike or detest this game, or what we know of it at this time?

Well, I've seen the developer's gameplay footage complete with the executions, and they've made it clear the kind of game they're going for. I suppose the final product could turn out to be some radically different thing, at which point I'll change my view in light of the new information.

Generally when you selling point is 'Blow this screaming innocent woman's head off because you're a nihilist and crazy, woo!' you've not made a customer of me.

If so, would you say that despite this game seeming really tasteless, it is the developer's business for them to develop what they want regardless of our opinions?

Depends on what you mean. Hell, I'm quite sure they /want/ people's opinions to a degree. Not necessarily everyone's - I suspect they won't care what Beater's duo of views are on the matter, and that's fine. People can be free to express their views about the game for all I'm concerned. It's that call for Valve to bar it that I'm specifically against - I draw the line there, and I'm even in favor of Steam publishing it, come what may, given their position in the industry. (And as I've said, if Valve barred it, I'd view that as unfortunate - but I wouldn't want to force them on that point either. Hey, it's a complicated position.)

To give a tame example: World of Warcraft removed flight from their latest expansion. People are giving feedback there. Maybe they'll persuade Blizzard, maybe they won't. Some interaction between developer and audience matters, especially if the developer gives a rat's ass about things like "money", or otherwise. I have little problem with that, though that'll depend in part on just how a person's putting their point across. Sometimes they're worth a good mocking if they're acting crazy enough.

siapnar wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 18:24:
I think most "moral crusaders" (less, but still douchey version of the term SWJ) on here would say that the developers of Hatred can make their game all the like, but to distribute it on the biggest digital platform the PC has to offer... that's just going to create shitstorm of bad publicity for the industry.

Hatred has every right to made, but I don't think it should be easily promoted.

It's like releasing Cannibal Holocaust to major theatres and glorifying it's content

The whole point of the Greenlight system was to get the community involved, and so the community have spoken.

deal with it.

Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 18:18:
I defend speech and fiction I dislike, even detest. I recognize the complexities of issues, the balances that are best struck, the dangers of the well-intentioned who "Only want to make the world a better place!", and I don't position myself as the defender of the poor public who needs the constant stewardship of my preferred political and social cliques in order to truly prosper.

I also don't defend my political and social opinions as the stuff of utter scientific fact.

Do you dislike or detest this game, or what we know of it at this time?

If so, would you say that despite this game seeming really tasteless, it is the developer's business for them to develop what they want regardless of our opinions?

I think most "moral crusaders" (less, but still douchey version of the term SWJ) on here would say that the developers of Hatred can make their game all the like, but to distribute it on the biggest digital platform the PC has to offer... that's just going to create shitstorm of bad publicity for the industry.

Hatred has every right to made, but I don't think it should be easily promoted.

It's like releasing Cannibal Holocaust to major theatres and glorifying it's content