HorrorScope wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 14:14:

siapnar wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 15:36:

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:21:
then where does it stop.

Here. It stops with this game and rape simulators. And pupping torturing simulators. Draw a line for once.

Why do video games get lines where movies and books don't?

See I want sex in games, but for some reasons it is tip toeing at best.

Movies and books have no problems with sex.

You draw a line here, it easily goes into games you most likely will enjoy, there is a lawyer ready to argue your pixel killing is as bad as the banned one.

I'm all for, if you don't like it don't buy it. I'm good if you say why you don't like it. I'm not a fan in saying "this should be banned, because you don't like it", we all want freedom, we don't want a dictator, but comments like those are dictatorial in nature. I don't like, want banned.

And I am one that totally has no problem with understanding the difference between real and fantasy.

Oh well.

I don't really know why sex is still a taboo subject in games at this point. Maybe because it's still (incorrectly IMO) considered a "kid's pastime?" I think it's odd that there isn't more sex in games too, and judging by the popularity of how much the Source engine is used to produce porn, I'd say I'm not the only one.

As for video games vs. books and movies, I think there are a couple of things at play. First, books and movies are much more mature media, and have gone through this process already decades ago. Games are just starting to go through it. Second, games are fundamentally different in that you, as a player, are perpetrating the action, and are therefore automatically sympathetic to it. Whereas in books and movies, you are a passive observer, and there's an out: you can choose to accept or reject what your are seeing. The rejection argument is much harder to make when you're taking the action to put the pistol in the child's mouth, pull the trigger, and blow virtual brains onto the wall. Yes, it's still virtual and pretend and no one gets hurt, but it's still abhorrent and indefensible.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 19, 2015, 05:30:
What if Steam and other distributors decide not to carry it? Or is censorship only offensive when enforced by the government? Even if the government banned the game, wouldn't the end result be the same as the developers canceling it? The game would effectively cease to exist and your problem would be resolved. The offensive content would never see the light of day.

It is only censorship if the government decides not to allow it. Private enterprises can do what they like. If Steam decides not to carry GTAV, then GoG, or Humble, or Origin, or someone else will carry it, and make a shitton of cash from it. If the gov't decides to ban it, then no one can carry it. Two entirely different issues.

If Steam is a defacto monopoly, and the game gets essentially censored because Steam doesn't carry it, then that is a different issue: it's an antitrust violation, and the government needs to do something about that particular market to ensure better competition, most likely breaking up Steam. However, that's not the case currently. There are lots of Steam alternatives, and the market is healthy.

I support the right of this game to exist, and the devs to sell it. I also support my own right to rail against this piece of shit, and to lobby Steam and others not to carry it. System working as designed.

Beamer wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 11:05:

Jerykk wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 07:08:

Beamer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:42:

jdreyer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:37:

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:25:

Beamer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:11:
I wish I could find the blues comments from when someone tried making a columbine simulator, as that's what this essentially is. You walk around in a trench coat killing innocent people for no reason.

It has a right to exist, but it's asinine.

Are there books and movies with those themes? If so then why not video games? Or should they all be banned and remember you ban them, then you have this in court with "here we see this girzzly act which was banned, but here this is as grizzly or even more so, why shouldn't this be banned, your honor?"

I guess I really don't care overall if it is banned, I just don't know why it would when other things exist. I got a foot in the grave like the next person, there are no perfect answers. I just have the ability to make ok with real from not real.

I personally have a bigger issue with a 10+ year war we have going on in the real, it was justified early on, now it seems to exist as a fear machine to grease the war pigs, I could be wrong.

What part about "has a right to exist" do you not understand?

Everyone will keep painting me as an sjw trying to ban things because they don't read. I swear that's half of the games community now - people thinking being critical is the same as trying to ban, even when the opposite is explicitly stated.

The purpose of criticism is to motivate change. People only criticize things when they aren't happy with the status quo. When you criticize a game for encouraging the slaughter of civilians, you are essentially saying "I find this game problematic." As with any problem, the solution is to remove the offending elements. You might not explicitly say as much but if the game were canceled or banned, you'd be satisfied.

Satisfied if the devs decided not yo make it? Sure.

Satisfied if the us government forces the devs not to make it? No.

What if Steam and other distributors decide not to carry it? Or is censorship only offensive when enforced by the government? Even if the government banned the game, wouldn't the end result be the same as the developers canceling it? The game would effectively cease to exist and your problem would be resolved. The offensive content would never see the light of day.

siapnar wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 15:36:

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:21:
then where does it stop.

Here. It stops with this game and rape simulators. And pupping torturing simulators. Draw a line for once.

Why do video games get lines where movies and books don't?

See I want sex in games, but for some reasons it is tip toeing at best.

Movies and books have no problems with sex.

You draw a line here, it easily goes into games you most likely will enjoy, there is a lawyer ready to argue your pixel killing is as bad as the banned one.

I'm all for, if you don't like it don't buy it. I'm good if you say why you don't like it. I'm not a fan in saying "this should be banned, because you don't like it", we all want freedom, we don't want a dictator, but comments like those are dictatorial in nature. I don't like, want banned.

And I am one that totally has no problem with understanding the difference between real and fantasy.

Oh well.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 07:08:

Beamer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:42:

jdreyer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:37:

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:25:

Beamer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:11:
I wish I could find the blues comments from when someone tried making a columbine simulator, as that's what this essentially is. You walk around in a trench coat killing innocent people for no reason.

It has a right to exist, but it's asinine.

Are there books and movies with those themes? If so then why not video games? Or should they all be banned and remember you ban them, then you have this in court with "here we see this girzzly act which was banned, but here this is as grizzly or even more so, why shouldn't this be banned, your honor?"

I guess I really don't care overall if it is banned, I just don't know why it would when other things exist. I got a foot in the grave like the next person, there are no perfect answers. I just have the ability to make ok with real from not real.

I personally have a bigger issue with a 10+ year war we have going on in the real, it was justified early on, now it seems to exist as a fear machine to grease the war pigs, I could be wrong.

What part about "has a right to exist" do you not understand?

Everyone will keep painting me as an sjw trying to ban things because they don't read. I swear that's half of the games community now - people thinking being critical is the same as trying to ban, even when the opposite is explicitly stated.

The purpose of criticism is to motivate change. People only criticize things when they aren't happy with the status quo. When you criticize a game for encouraging the slaughter of civilians, you are essentially saying "I find this game problematic." As with any problem, the solution is to remove the offending elements. You might not explicitly say as much but if the game were canceled or banned, you'd be satisfied.

Satisfied if the devs decided not yo make it? Sure.

Satisfied if the us government forces the devs not to make it? No.

Beamer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:42:

jdreyer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:37:

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:25:

Beamer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:11:
I wish I could find the blues comments from when someone tried making a columbine simulator, as that's what this essentially is. You walk around in a trench coat killing innocent people for no reason.

It has a right to exist, but it's asinine.

Are there books and movies with those themes? If so then why not video games? Or should they all be banned and remember you ban them, then you have this in court with "here we see this girzzly act which was banned, but here this is as grizzly or even more so, why shouldn't this be banned, your honor?"

I guess I really don't care overall if it is banned, I just don't know why it would when other things exist. I got a foot in the grave like the next person, there are no perfect answers. I just have the ability to make ok with real from not real.

I personally have a bigger issue with a 10+ year war we have going on in the real, it was justified early on, now it seems to exist as a fear machine to grease the war pigs, I could be wrong.

What part about "has a right to exist" do you not understand?

Everyone will keep painting me as an sjw trying to ban things because they don't read. I swear that's half of the games community now - people thinking being critical is the same as trying to ban, even when the opposite is explicitly stated.

The purpose of criticism is to motivate change. People only criticize things when they aren't happy with the status quo. When you criticize a game for encouraging the slaughter of civilians, you are essentially saying "I find this game problematic." As with any problem, the solution is to remove the offending elements. You might not explicitly say as much but if the game were canceled or banned, you'd be satisfied.

Beamer wrote on Jan 18, 2015, 00:02:

Mad Max RW wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 21:33:
There's plenty of rape simulators coming out of Japanese game developers for years. Where are all the white knights and social justice warriors attacking them?

Where are they sold on steam and western stores?

Sarkeesian has actually referenced numerous Japanese games in her videos, particularly Nintendo games. It's convenient because Nintendo is the most outdated when it comes to gender representations. Their characters haven't really evolved at all since the 90's.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 23:43:
You have however no right to insult anyone who does play it.

Except for on the internet, the coward's domain.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 23:43:
Ps.: No game "forces" you to do anything. You have dozens of choices, one of which is NOT PLAYING IT. You have however no right to insult anyone who does play it.

I see your point but if your are to actually play the game to any kind of completion, yes you are forced to kill innocents.

And yeah, obviously I won't be playing it. But I can bitch about in vain

Mad Max RW wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 21:33:
There's plenty of rape simulators coming out of Japanese game developers for years. Where are all the white knights and social justice warriors attacking them?

Where are they sold on steam and western stores?

siapnar wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 15:36:

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:21:
then where does it stop.

Here. It stops with this game and rape simulators. And pupping torturing simulators. Draw a line for once.
To me, the line is pretty clear, it's not like: "yeah but then where does it stop?"
This is where it should stop. Any rational person should see that a game that forces the player as the sole objective, to kill innocent civilians for fun, with realistic executions in the most brutal manner, is sick. Why not kill kids, too?

http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout3/mods/376/?

You can draw lines wherever you want, for other people that line is nothing but irrelevant graffiti

Ps.: No game "forces" you to do anything. You have dozens of choices, one of which is NOT PLAYING IT. You have however no right to insult anyone who does play it.

There's plenty of rape simulators coming out of Japanese game developers for years. Where are all the white knights and social justice warriors attacking them?

Iurand wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 06:33:

Kxmode wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 23:11:

Even if this violence isn't really that bad and this harsh language isn't overused," writes one of the developers on their registration-required forums.

One website called "Hatred" a genocide simulator.

Doesn't this remind you of what happened in France last week? http://www.destructivecreations.pl/img/screens/s5.jpg

Here's a police officer being executed http://www.destructivecreations.pl/img/screens/s2.jpg

And these are the sick bastards who are responsible for creating this game http://www.destructivecreations.pl/img/team.jpg

Are you suggesting they did it after playing Hatred?

No idea what you mean.

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:21:
then where does it stop.

Here. It stops with this game and rape simulators. And pupping torturing simulators. Draw a line for once.
To me, the line is pretty clear, it's not like: "yeah but then where does it stop?"
This is where it should stop. Any rational person should see that a game that forces the player as the sole objective, to kill innocent civilians for fun, with realistic executions in the most brutal manner, is sick. Why not kill kids, too?

I'm not saying it shouldn't have the right to be made. People can do whatever they want.
But what they do can't be invulnerable to criticism due to freedom of speechh. That's bullshit.

Like others are saying.. no one here is saying it should be banned or the team not have the right to make it.
What baffles me is how people can defend them, based on the content of the game. Why make a game like this?

This comment was edited on Jan 17, 2015, 16:32.

Quboid wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 14:12:

(edit: Just noticed that this post was also in reply to Beamer. You sure can pick 'em, Mr. BMW.)

Where does the school board find them, and why do they keep sending them to me?

Beamer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:42:

jdreyer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:37:
What part about "has a right to exist" do you not understand?

Everyone will keep painting me as an sjw trying to ban things because they don't read. I swear that's half of the games community now - people thinking being critical is the same as trying to ban, even when the opposite is explicitly stated.

I wondered why so many people had such a problem understanding the difference between not liking something and wanting it banned. This post from a previous Hatred thread is illuminating (emphasis mine):

Flatline wrote on Dec 30, 2014, 16:58:
Dude, there are at least half a dozen posts in this thread where people are saying this "crosses the line" or "pushes the boundary" or is "going too far".

No, nobody is saying "CENSOR ALL THE THINGS" verbatim but they're using language that certain things like this game shouldn't be allowed. It's disingenuous to pretend that it isn't a passive-aggressive call for censorship.

That's not HorrorScope but I wonder if he would agree that this criticism is a passive-aggressive call for censorship. As I commented on that thread, I absolutely do not agree.

(edit: Just noticed that this post was also in reply to Beamer. You sure can pick 'em, Mr. BMW.)

jdreyer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:37:

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:25:

Beamer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:11:
I wish I could find the blues comments from when someone tried making a columbine simulator, as that's what this essentially is. You walk around in a trench coat killing innocent people for no reason.

It has a right to exist, but it's asinine.

Are there books and movies with those themes? If so then why not video games? Or should they all be banned and remember you ban them, then you have this in court with "here we see this girzzly act which was banned, but here this is as grizzly or even more so, why shouldn't this be banned, your honor?"

I guess I really don't care overall if it is banned, I just don't know why it would when other things exist. I got a foot in the grave like the next person, there are no perfect answers. I just have the ability to make ok with real from not real.

I personally have a bigger issue with a 10+ year war we have going on in the real, it was justified early on, now it seems to exist as a fear machine to grease the war pigs, I could be wrong.

What part about "has a right to exist" do you not understand?

Everyone will keep painting me as an sjw trying to ban things because they don't read. I swear that's half of the games community now - people thinking being critical is the same as trying to ban, even when the opposite is explicitly stated.

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:25:

Beamer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:11:
I wish I could find the blues comments from when someone tried making a columbine simulator, as that's what this essentially is. You walk around in a trench coat killing innocent people for no reason.

It has a right to exist, but it's asinine.

Are there books and movies with those themes? If so then why not video games? Or should they all be banned and remember you ban them, then you have this in court with "here we see this girzzly act which was banned, but here this is as grizzly or even more so, why shouldn't this be banned, your honor?"

I guess I really don't care overall if it is banned, I just don't know why it would when other things exist. I got a foot in the grave like the next person, there are no perfect answers. I just have the ability to make ok with real from not real.

I personally have a bigger issue with a 10+ year war we have going on in the real, it was justified early on, now it seems to exist as a fear machine to grease the war pigs, I could be wrong.

What part about "has a right to exist" do you not understand?

Beamer wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:11:
I wish I could find the blues comments from when someone tried making a columbine simulator, as that's what this essentially is. You walk around in a trench coat killing innocent people for no reason.

It has a right to exist, but it's asinine.

Are there books and movies with those themes? If so then why not video games? Or should they all be banned and remember you ban them, then you have this in court with "here we see this girzzly act which was banned, but here this is as grizzly or even more so, why shouldn't this be banned, your honor?"

I guess I really don't care overall if it is banned, I just don't know why it would when other things exist. I got a foot in the grave like the next person, there are no perfect answers. I just have the ability to make ok with real from not real.

I personally have a bigger issue with a 10+ year war we have going on in the real, it was justified early on, now it seems to exist as a fear machine to grease the war pigs, I could be wrong.

siapnar wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 13:04:
I couldn't care less if I'm labeled a SJW, moral crusader, hypocrite, whatever - my opinion is that this game is disgusting, and I don't know why anyone would defend it's existence.

And those acting like it's no different than other games are either willfully ignorant or just stupid.
Also, my opinion

Because I've played too many games as a killer of pixels. Right your opinion, since it is fantasy, it is absolutely the same as many other killing pixel games to me.

Or is this going to be like the movie "In the Mouth of Madness", everyone reads the book, learns their part in a Lovevratian horror part that becomes the new reality, aka make me a killer for real? I have 100% confidence it isn't. As for an Adult rating, fine with that, that is no worries.

IMO if you have a problem like this, then you do have some Thompson in you, then where does it stop. Because you know lawyers will start lining up in the way I describe. "Your honor since Hatred was banned, here let me show you some footage from that, and now here are another 100 games footage, really aren't they the same your honor? And shouldn't they all be banned?".

Unless you think this game sparks real death in the real world, imo you should role with it, if you don't like it, ignore. Because it has a dark over-tone, it is still fiction. There are many books and movies with crazy dark over tones. Some I may see/read, others I have no interest.