Hatred--The Mass Murder Game

Heard about this a couple days ago and well, watching the trailer actually rendered me speechless and horrified. I've been a gamer since before games had graphics. I've played a lot of video games of all genres and from the kiddy friendly to the purely adult. I'm not a huge fan of some games. I don't play GTA because the game rubs me the wrong way and that's been kind of my own personal limit in terms of video games and violence. There's only one other game that has repulsed me entirely, historically, which I will not mention by name, but that game was also banned in numerous countries for what it portrayed. I'm also a huge advocate for the First Amendment and free speech. That said, I think this particular game should be quickly swept into a garbage can as it harkens to mind this little quote of Stephen King, who authored a book that was found in the possession of several school shooters.

“My book did not break [these teenagers] or turn them into killers; they found something in my book that spoke to them, because they were already broken,” he said. “Yet I did see ‘Rage’ as a possible accelerant, which is why I pulled it from sale. You don’t leave a can of gasoline where a boy with firebug tendencies can lay hands on it.”

ktla.com...

In light of the long debate that video game violence stimulates real-world violence, this game seems to be a slam dunk into wanting to put that to the test by putting a player into the role of a mass murderer. The precise type of individual that prompts this kind of debate. Why did the developers make it? Well, the makers of the game, Destructive Creations--a Polish startup--had this to say:

"These days, when a lot of games are heading to be polite, colorful, politically correct, and trying to be some kind of higher art, rather than just an entertainment – we wanted to create something against trends. Something different, something that could give the player a pure, gaming pleasure,"

Or make them want to vomit in the nearest toilet. The outcry from the gaming industry, including critics and reviewers, has been pretty much unanimously against the game's premise. In fact, many of the comments on both the trailer and the review articles are total revulsion towards the game, itself, and concerns that the game has "crossed a line". I'd argue that that is a good thing as it shows that most gamers find the idea of mass murder to be repulsive. Amen to that. However, Destructive Creations is framing their motivations to make this game under the banner of "pushing the envelope". How far is too far?

One of the big issues with envelope pushing is that, should it go wrong, it tends to have a backlash effect to the opposite of one's intentions were. If the makers of this game are not mental themselves, all it is going to take is one shooter who played this game to open the door to regulations and perhaps extreme regulations on video game content. Envelope pushing entails risk and why would they even tempt fate by providing a gas can to a boy with firebug tendencies?

Here's an article on the game that includes the trailer. Viewer discretion is heavily advised if you chose to watch the trailer. It is rather interesting that, as a gamer, I've long argued that there is a huge distinction between in-game violence and real violence and yet, this trailer provoked a very negative and repulsed response within me. It's that atrocious in my book.**

www.pcmag.com...

**I'm going to add this clarification. One could reskin this game to be a zombie game and I'd not have an issue with it. It's the premise that is disturbing in combination with the graphics itself. Instead of it being a zombie that is getting shot in the face, it's a young woman. Instead of being a zombie infested school or mall, it's your typical shopping mall/school. THAT is where the repulsion lies the premise AND the graphics.

What ever dude, that GAME looks fun. It's a freakin' game. What is this the 90s? It's hilarious how everyone jumps on this bandwagon yet never once, ever, does anyone of these ohh so offended people complain about Hollywood. Have you ever watched movies? What about American Horror Stories that's ON CABLE??? What about American Splendor or Rampage?? Hollywood and tv networks PROMOTE FAAAR WORSE and get away with it. It's a GAME. And this worst part is this game will be the scapegoat for s*** parenting nationwide.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

Have you played Saint's Row? That is basically a game of mass murder and mayhem that is a real sensory roller coaster. I am torn on this. I think video games almost deflate a person's need to do something in real life, especially when there are a thousand stimulations per second. Life just can't compete. I agree these guys are over the top and they are just begging for legislatures to target them, but I don't know if IRL allowing people to emulate these monstrous things is all that bad. Maybe if someone takes their frustrations out on murder/mayhem 3000 they won't be as likely to let things fester and build up to a point where they feel a need to do that to their own school???

What we need; however, in our society is a mechanism to get people to confront their own demons and work through them. Our whole puritan society is built upon self-denial. "I would never dream of doing that." The monster that is hidden away is surely untamed. If instead we were honest and said, "Yeah, I've had impulses to do that, but this is why I don't give into those impulses," I think we create a humanity is that is more mature, more self-governing, and more capable of bearing their creative powers into reality in a non-destructive manner.

If instead of saying, "I would never do that." We said, "I choose not to do that because of this." I think we are much less likely to ever "snap" in a moment of weakness because we've never denied the beast inside of us and we've never allowed it to rob us of our own authority.

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Have you played Saint's Row? That is basically a game of mass murder and mayhem that is a real sensory roller coaster. I am torn on this. I think video games almost deflate a person's need to do something in real life, especially when there are a thousand stimulations per second. Life just can't compete. I agree these guys are over the top and they are just begging for legislatures to target them, but I don't know if IRL allowing people to emulate these monstrous things is all that bad. Maybe if someone takes their frustrations out on murder/mayhem 3000 they won't be as likely to let things fester and build up to a point where they feel a need to do that to their own school???

What we need; however, in our society is a mechanism to get people to confront their own demons and work through them. Our whole puritan society is built upon self-denial. "I would never dream of doing that." The monster that is hidden away is surely untamed. If instead we were honest and said, "Yeah, I've had impulses to do that, but this is why I don't give into those impulses," I think we create a humanity is that is more mature, more self-governing, and more capable of bearing their creative powers into reality in a non-destructive manner.

If instead of saying, "I would never do that." We said, "I choose not to do that because of this." I think we are much less likely to ever "snap" in a moment of weakness because we've never denied the beast inside of us and we've never allowed it to rob us of our own authority.

I understand what you're saying but normal, sane people would never do anything remotely close to anything they play in games. The ability to can impulse is what seperates normal people from insane brutes, and the reason asylums excist.

a reply to: Flesh699

If you took the time to note that I referenced a book as being viewed by its own author as a "potential accelerant", then you should comprehend that remarking on the Hollywood/cable depiction of violence is rather silly. If a non-graphical book was withdrawn by an author out of his own personal concerns due to its presence being found in the possession of multiple shooters, then surely that goes without saying that movies and more could also act as possible accelerants.

Natural Born Killers is a movie that comes to mind that was, as you so adroitly put it, so very 90's.

a reply to: Nechash

Brilliant post and yes, I've played Saint's Row. It's something that I had also considered as well in that the game, itself, could provide a venting for those few may absolutely need it. Or, being confronted with the consistent violence and screams may actually take what could be a fantasy at risk of being played out and make it less savory than one had imagined. Those thoughts actually did pop into my head as well.

However, and it is a big however, there is still a risk that, for those small few that do actually become mass murderers, the game would be unlikely to satisfy for long or it could solidify the fantasy to the extent where the individual would act in real life. That they exist is an unfortunate reality and whether or not the finding of this game on the computer of a future shooter could doom the gaming industry to content restrictions is almost as much of a reality.

a reply to: Flesh699

I think wolves serve a definite purpose in societies and for far too long we have been apologizing for being ourselves. I've never been one to live my life saying "I couldn't possibly." The fact that I can now say, "I choose not to," is a real step in the right direction in my mind. You will never get a brazen one to understand whatever is innate in you that prevents you from behaving however you want to, but you can get them to empathize. It takes time, but it isn't impossible.

At a time in my life, I honestly believed I ought to die because if I were allowed to live I would inevitably injure someone else in the heat of selfishness. I believed this because there is no natural morality in me. Whatever innocence I had was shattered long before I ever learned to talk. I don't know if it was genetic or if it was my response to the systematic abuse and neglect of my parents, but whatever the cause, I was monstrous. I didn't mean to be. I didn't want to hurt any body, but I simply did not comprehend the idea that other people were truly equal to me. In my mind, life was in a game, a dream, or more like a waking nightmare. I did not have the mental capacity to understand what I was doing to other people. I'm just lucky I have a natural inclination towards virtue and introspection. Had I been a truly hedonistic extrovert, I would have probably been a totally lost cause.

You know how I know I have changed, and this might not seem like much to you, but it is everything to me. I want to buy my girlfriend flowers for valentine's day because it will make her happy. I hate valentine's day. I hate Catholicism. I hate commercialized holidays. I hate being expected to mind my Ps and Qs, to put on a show for others, to dance to their tunes, but none of that matters to me at all, because if I don't get her flowers on valentine's day, if I don't take her out, if I don't treat her as if she is the very center of my universe, she will suffer.

She might be gracious enough to hide it. She might rationalize it and treat it as if it is nothing, but she will suffer. Her suffering never mattered to me before. It wasn't a universal value. I evaluated my morality entirely upon logical transactions. That was the height of virtue for me. I was incapable of anything beyond this, but now, for the first time in my life I think I truly understand what it means to love someone, and amazingly, like a soppy headed idiot, I'm beginning to feel this love, not just for my family, but for all people. I will be a better person each and everyday because I choose to, and to me the person who chooses goodness when it is foreign to them is at least as moral as the person who could never choose anything but goodness.

I understand you don't see it that way. I understand to some people sociopaths, narcissists, hedonists, sorcerers, Satanists or whatever it is you want to call us are the most dangerous forces in nature. I get that. If I couldn't choose evil, I wouldn't want to live among people who could. I don't know if there will ever be a solid answer for our two kinds of people. At one time, I think, sociopaths got the hard things done that needed doing and slept very well afterwards. They were a necessary evil. Perhaps the world doesn't need us anymore. I hope that is true. I think for all the good we've done for our own tribes and families we've done that much more evil to everyone else in the world. I am no longer afraid of rectification. I just don't want to lose my freedom or individuality in the process. ;p

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: Flesh699

I think wolves serve a definite purpose in societies and for far too long we have been apologizing for being ourselves. I've never been one to live my life saying "I couldn't possibly." The fact that I can now say, "I choose not to," is a real step in the right direction in my mind. You will never get a brazen one to understand whatever is innate in you that prevents you from behaving however you want to, but you can get them to empathize. It takes time, but it isn't impossible.

At a time in my life, I honestly believed I ought to die because if I were allowed to live I would inevitably injure someone else in the heat of selfishness. I believed this because there is no natural morality in me. Whatever innocence I had was shattered long before I ever learned to talk. I don't know if it was genetic or if it was my response to the systematic abuse and neglect of my parents, but whatever the cause, I was monstrous. I didn't mean to be. I didn't want to hurt any body, but I simply did not comprehend the idea that other people were truly equal to me. In my mind, life was in a game, a dream, or more like a waking nightmare. I did not have the mental capacity to understand what I was doing to other people. I'm just lucky I have a natural inclination towards virtue and introspection. Had I been a truly hedonistic extrovert, I would have probably been a totally lost cause.

You know how I know I have changed, and this might not seem like much to you, but it is everything to me. I want to buy my girlfriend flowers for valentine's day because it will make her happy. I hate valentine's day. I hate Catholicism. I hate commercialized holidays. I hate being expected to mind my Ps and Qs, to put on a show for others, to dance to their tunes, but none of that matters to me at all, because if I don't get her flowers on valentine's day, if I don't take her out, if I don't treat her as if she is the very center of my universe, she will suffer.

She might be gracious enough to hide it. She might rationalize it and treat it as if it is nothing, but she will suffer. Her suffering never mattered to me before. It wasn't a universal value. I evaluated my morality entirely upon logical transactions. That was the height of virtue for me. I was incapable of anything beyond this, but now, for the first time in my life I think I truly understand what it means to love someone, and amazingly, like a soppy headed idiot, I'm beginning to feel this love, not just for my family, but for all people. I will be a better person each and everyday because I choose to, and to me the person who chooses goodness when it is foreign to them is at least as moral as the person who could never choose anything but goodness.

I understand you don't see it that way. I understand to some people sociopaths, narcissists, hedonists, sorcerers, Satanists or whatever it is you want to call us are the most dangerous forces in nature. I get that. If I couldn't choose evil, I wouldn't want to live among people who could. I don't know if there will ever be a solid answer for our two kinds of people. At one time, I think, sociopaths got the hard things done that needed doing and slept very well afterwards. They were a necessary evil. Perhaps the world doesn't need us anymore. I hope that is true. I think for all the good we've done for our own tribes and families we've done that much more evil to everyone else in the world. I am no longer afraid of rectification. I just don't want to lose my freedom or individuality in the process. ;p

I see what you're saying and I didn't mean to attack the op, but these last few days I've read so much hypocrisy toward that game It's actually became offensive to my common sense lol.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

The responses stating that this game is comparable to Saints Row or GTA either didn't watch the trailer or the implications just went right over their heads.

I dig GTA. I find Saints Row to be fun. Manhunt and Kane & Lynch, while pushing some boundaries, I found very artistic and worthy of praise. I haven't really played a game where the violence wasn't either dramatized or justified enough to pass as entertainment or, at the very least, art. Even the most tasteless and brutal games I've played don't "cross the line" or, if they do, it's done in an ironic fashion to make a point.

But the trailer for Hatred doesn't show a game. It shows a simulator.

I'm really hoping it gets changed in development and altered into a zombie shooter because it actually looks impressive. It's unfortunate they feel this is the mark they need to make with their game.

I don't know. I love games and am a gamer myself, but I game to get out of reality, not put myself into games that offer me reality at its darkest and most insane and violent. That's kind of what this game looks like to me.

It seems to be inviting me to run out and commit mass murder because ... it's just a game, right? But they're going to make it as realistic an experience within the game as they can. I don't need a murder simulation, thanks, and why would anyone else? But, I'm not drawn to games like GTA or Saints Row for the same reason - they things they portray and ask me to go get just a little too close to things that are really real. They make ME feel bad instead of good when I play them.

And I guess I question the need to make it overly realistic or as realistic as possible. At least GTA and Saints Row are still cartoony to a degree. I wonder if we can get to the point where the need for realism can lead some over the edge to seek the ultimate realistic thrill?

a reply to: WhiteAlice

That said, I think this particular game should be quickly swept into a garbage can

You think, what does that mean? If you want you can buy a copy and toss it yourself.

One game getting pulled off the shelf now, how many next month just because some person has a problem with it.

And by the way I hadn't even heard of this game till reading this so then I checked out the trailer.
So thanks for your help spreading the word.

Right now, my gaming is limited to Myst & Star Trek: Online. Granted Myst is pure exploration & puzzle-cracking, you do kill enemies in STO, albeit sans the graphic aspects. When I'm a Klink (Klingon) picking off Federation officers, I'm not seeing the likelihood to do it in real life here. Same with when I'm a Fed or Romulan killing their enemies in the storyline/queues. It's a game. When I was playing the hell out of Medal of Honor, it was also just a game. I never found any inkling of inspiration to go postal anywhere.
My older brother had the most massive collection of games I'd ever seen, and I played most of them from zombie games to GTA. They're still just games. The common denominator is that you're killing something, gore or not.
If someone thinks the defining distinction between acceptable killing in a game, and unacceptable killing in a game is whether or not there is blood & gore, you're missing the point entirely. You're still killing a digital something. A boss is shot point blank in STO, no gore however. Another massacres the hosts at a neutral ground diplomatic meeting in the current expansion release of STO. No gore there, either, just bodies everywhere. But it's still NPC deaths.

If pretty killing versus realistic killing is really more acceptable, that should be a wake-up call to a double standard. The whole idea of it inspiring people aside, it's a damned double standard when one death route is more acceptable than the other. That's something that should never even come up when debating video game killing, since a kill count is still a kill count in a game.

In the mean time, I'm off to go log in as a Fed & kill off some dirty Klinks

dont like it? then dont buy it.

a reply to: Nyiah

No it's not the killing and blood and gore.

I'm talking about making it as real as it can get as though you are in an actual simulator. There is more to realism than blood and gore, and if you think blood and gore makes something "real," you clearly haven't played any of the Dragon Age games with persistent gore turned on. That's like thinking that adding tons of gore and sex make something "mature."

There is a point where it crosses a line from game to something else that really makes you uncomfortable, something that's more about really experiencing what it might actually be like to kill someone without actually doing it.

Sure, I play games and kill things in them all the time, but when I'm playing, I'm doing it for the goal which generally is to get to the end of the story for me and not simply to kill something. The killing is all an incidental means to an end, not the end in an of itself.

The biggest producer of 'killers' has and always will be our own military. It is real, they use real weapons and they practice to be perfect killing machines. That is their purpose, to conquer, render impotent, destroy or annihilate.

With that said I have debated this issue many times in many different media's. Porn, video games, music, movies, books, art, stage - it starts with; where does one draw the line and who draws it for you? Do you really want someone making these choices for you or will you change when you disagree with them?

What actually causes a person to snap? Years of systematic abuse, psychological disorders or a video game(external stimuli)? IMO there is no one answer and there never will be. Crazy people have walked the Earth long before technology and will continue to do so after we here are all gone. I would much rather have the choice to do and view what I please, then to not be given any at all. If I choose to kill afterward because of it, being part of society, I will face dire consequences. But of course that makes sense to me I'm not psychologically ill.

Has anyone read "Catcher in the Rye"?
Perfect example for this topic, was it the book that created those killers or was it the killers that identified with a book? Billions have read it, a couple did bad things.

I've played video games all my life and at times I too identify with some of them. Pac-Man does not make me obsessed for fruit, porn does not make me objectify men or predatory, listening to Marilyn Manson does not make me want to hurt anyone including myself. Natural Born Killers did not make me see murder as the new In-Trend making me seek fame at the end of a sword.

So maybe we should consentrate on the real issue which is mental illness and the ability to NOT be able to separate reality from fiction and the true mark of psychopathic behavior. This is something most of us will never understand and just being offended by this game is testament to that. If you feel empathy you are not a complete psychopath and chances are if you played this game it wouldn't push you over the edge. It eventually comes down to simple numbers, there are an infinite amount of media outlets that present brutal violent simulated situations to satisfy every ego impulse humanity has yet to desire and they do affect some but chances are they would do whatever evil acts they were thinking irregardless to external stimuli anyway.

So my opinion has and always will be, treat or lock up the crazy people and don't get rid of the crazy stuff we watch, read, play and do. For us NORMAL people, life without these outlets will only bring us closer to being psychopathic ourselves someday and I like being able to differentiate bad from good.

That game looks awesome. Maybe it would be cathartic to some

a reply to: WhiteAlice

I personally never much liked GTA, and never even played saints row. But not because of the violence in them, its just that I find such games boring, in GTA I would even be avoiding violence or even crashing into people when other who play the game would be running over the computer controlled people on the roads like cattle. The game loses its fun after about 30 minutes when you realize that its just the same old thing and there really are no mechanics other then the sandbox aspect, which gets old fast, it literally is just a setting for people to work out there fantasies without getting into trouble for it.

I am generally of the mind that its all just videogames, and really none of these things phase me, but that is before I came to realize that a lot of people are quite easily impressionable, and while even a game like this may in a way help work out the tension for any potential mass murderer out there, or just a deluded kid with personal issues to take it out in a virtual setting before they do something real stupid in real life. I do believe that if it is banned I would not bat an eye, it just looks like another boring game to me, but a lot of people may buy it, and just a many may get a thrill from it.

And yes unlike other games of its genre its specifically aimed at that effect or murder, many games have done it before and its toggled as either zombies or a war game, while this game looks strictly to be just about killing, there does not even seem to be any opposition like in most shootem ups you usually have people or enemies shooting back at you, you cant just walk around shooting willy nilly or its gameover. But this game is exactly about that shooting people willy nilly without any real challenge to it, even in GTA if you shoot up places the game citizens eventually shoot back or the cops show in force, in this game from the demo video in your link, its about shooting up stores or random people in the street till the cops show.

In all like I said it probably should be banned, but I think that should be on a state by state basis or country by country basis, let people make a decision on and if they want this game hitting a store near them, and really thats all there is to it. Personally I think the game looks kind of lame but a lot of people would get a kick out of it.

OH and also, people need to see what it is about before they go make a decision to buy it for there kid on Christmas, or make any comment on it, because after all if you cant even watch a video of it how would you even come to a conclusion. I would think parents would have the insight to at least check up on what video games there getting for there kids, after all it only takes a few minutes to check what it is about on the internet.

So ya watch the video and decide if you wanted it or not, or if you want it near your kids or family or even town or state, its as simple as that. But the trailer is pretty brutal, I have seen and played plenty of more brutal and bloody game, but all of them were not specifically about shooting random people, the current game I am playing now is much more brutal and much more bloody then this game. But again your shooting zombies all the while trying to survive.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

**I'm going to add this clarification. One could reskin this game to be a zombie game and I'd not have an issue with it. It's the premise that is disturbing in combination with the graphics itself. Instead of it being a zombie that is getting shot in the face, it's a young woman. Instead of being a zombie infested school or mall, it's your typical shopping mall/school. THAT is where the repulsion lies the premise AND the graphics.

Bravo.

Honestly, I'm stoked about the game! Bring it on. It's about time. Nothing like a good run o' virtual violence to bring the blood pressure down now and then.

That's one thing about the Sims I always wanted. Bring a little genocide into it!

First off, I want to thank most of you for really thinking about the issues regarding this game and taking the time to reflect on it. I think that's awesome and am grateful for every one of your posts.

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: WhiteAlice
The responses stating that this game is comparable to Saints Row or GTA either didn't watch the trailer or the implications just went right over their heads.

I dig GTA. I find Saints Row to be fun. Manhunt and Kane & Lynch, while pushing some boundaries, I found very artistic and worthy of praise. I haven't really played a game where the violence wasn't either dramatized or justified enough to pass as entertainment or, at the very least, art. Even the most tasteless and brutal games I've played don't "cross the line" or, if they do, it's done in an ironic fashion to make a point.

But the trailer for Hatred doesn't show a game. It shows a simulator.

I'd argue that, even though it does seem more like a simulator, it still is a game. One of the things that troubles me about making this particular game/simulator is that it actually seems to dredge up some of the specters of actual shooters. Most particularly, Lanza, who was probably the most recent shooter to be so intrinsically associated with video games at least within the press.

"This was the work of a video gamer, and that it was his intent to put his own name at the very top of that list," the source tells Lupica, referring to what he learned at conference. "They believe that he picked an elementary school because he felt it was a point of least resistance, where he could rack up the greatest number of kills. That's what (the Connecticut police) believe."

www.usatoday.com...

I'd hazard though that whether the Connecticut police were correct in their presumptions or not is really very subjective. I'd argue that Lanza was probably very methodical by nature and that his spreadsheet was a grim sort of research to maximize his damage on society. However, the fact that it has been referenced here and there that some may have had a desire to break records or have the high score, makes the game rather troubling as that is its primary intention. "Last as long as you can--kill as many as you can" seems to be the core premise and that would be a match for many of past shooters from Harris and Klebold to Lanza to Holmes and probably a lot more.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: WhiteAlice

That said, I think this particular game should be quickly swept into a garbage can

You think, what does that mean? If you want you can buy a copy and toss it yourself.

One game getting pulled off the shelf now, how many next month just because some person has a problem with it.

And by the way I hadn't even heard of this game till reading this so then I checked out the trailer.
So thanks for your help spreading the word.

I wouldn't give them a single penny. Pretty sure I made myself fairly abundantly clear in what I think should be done with this game. This wouldn't be the first game to be pulled off the shelves. RapeLay was another game, produced in Japan, that generated a whole lot of controversy. It is effectively banned in Japan and a few other countries. Multiple video games have been pulled from the shelves globally. My concern here is that this particular game being associated with a single shooting could lead to precisely what you're talking about. Free speech kind of works like this--just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should. Self responsibility is needed.

Here's a list to peruse: en.wikipedia.org...

As far as "spreading the word", that I have no issue with as I think that the game actually does provoke some very interesting realizations/thoughts in regards to video games, particularly violent video games. I find the responses to be fascinating and really insightful. As you obviously think that I didn't consider that I would be "spreading the word" before posting, then you really haven't run into me on these forums before, lol. The benefits to provoking discussion outweighs the cost of "spreading the word" as it seems, based on a variety of sources, most gamers are disgusted.