|
This game wouldn't even be a blip on the radar if it weren't for dumb, click bait bullshit news sites. There are hundreds of games where you can mow down innocent people in every sort of graphical style. I mean, poo poo, Watch Dogs is way worse. You can judge and then murder civilians based on whatever you found out about them. It allows you to play as a serial killer that stalks and profiles victims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC83kY3rywE Obviously this isn't the point of the game and most people tend to not do this. And there is plenty of other stuff to do in the game besides go on a killing spree. I don't get the appeal of Hatred. It looks like a bad twin-stick shooter with kill animations that is relying on its 'edgy' and 'controversial' content to generate sales instead of the gameplay, art design, writing (lol) or anything else. This is not a good sign. SALT CURES HAM posted:Honestly I kinda wanna get this game just because mindless stress relief "mow everyone the gently caress down" games are extremely my poo poo. It would be a definite buy if the devs weren't weirdo Nazis. Steam sales are coming up, it'd just be easier to buy Watch Dogs, Saint's Row III/IV or one of the many GTAs and go crazy murdering everything than this, which is more likely than not going to be a piece of poo poo. Those other games will be more fun too when you inevitably get bored of rampaging. If you've got an itch to kill all the police in the world, ever, get Payday 2. Every heist you mow down the entire police force of a small city. They must have a cloning bank somewhere.
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
this game is tearing us apart https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHJw4y6wpoc
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
closeted republican posted:At this point, the meltdowns over the game getting greenlit seem to be just as, if not more than, entertaining than the game itself: Hahah, holy poo poo, the salt is real. Stupid people really like losing their poo poo over awful games that otherwise would have gone unnoticed if not for all the attention they give them. People will buy it out of sheer spite and start gifting it to people just to troll them, like a rage inducing 'Bad Rats'.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
CrashCat posted:definitely, that pic just keeps on giving Technically, Plague Inc. is a genocide simulator where you kill men, women and children in a brutal and terrifying way. Also, Victoria II/EU IV also serve as genocide simulators too. I mean, you can basically subjugate entire cultures and Westernize them, erasing them from history entirely. Not to mention stomping the rebels and executing countless numbers of them. And in CK II you can be a pagan Viking, take an enemy King's wife as a concubine and sacrifice him to Odin. And there's countless strategy games where you can play as the Nazis and win WWII. There's plenty of horrible poo poo you can do in strategy/grand strategy. The problem is that it has to be graphic, otherwise it wouldn't evoke the same emotions. Pips, numbers and sprites don't carry the same outrage as being knee-deep in well-rendered blood, gore and bodies. Its an obvious contradiction, but they'd look even dumber decrying grand strategy games. Not to mention doing so doesn't generate many clicks for the outrage machine. It'd probably end up like the Polygon review of Tropico V, where the reviewer felt he had the blood of literal children on his hands from playing the game. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 11:44 on Jan 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
The Snark posted:You could probably evoke the same emotional response in the outrage-addict with sound effects. Modify those games with weeping, crying, pained screams of the dying, watch people lose all objectivity and flip out. Probably, yeah. The irony isn't lost on me that these sort of people allowed it to get green-lit in, what, a couple of days? A normal game can take months. Also, the most voted game on Greenlit ever, for fucks sake. Not to mention the fact that a game like this is never going to get any good press. For the creators, at best it'll be on several obscure websites, generate a little bit of outrage, enough to break even in sales. At worst, it would be completely ignored and get buried in the voluminous amounts of crap shoveled on Steam everyday and die a slow death it (more than likely) deserved. The creators know this and went right for the clickbait. They created an outrage generating trailer meant to poke the beehive and everyone played their assigned parts. Outrage was drummed up on major gaming websites, twitter warriors called for a ban, got it banned, other twitter warriors called for it to be unbanned, it was unbanned and they green-lit it because it became their pet issue. Now the other twitter warriors are screaming and boycotting Valve, drawing even more attention to it and to Steam. Hatred is on track to make money, no matter how much a piece of poo poo it or its creators are. Maybe a lot of money. At the very least it will create a handful of outrage imitators to try to ride the outrage gravy train and show outrage is an effective marketing tactic. All because people couldn't shut the gently caress up about it and realize that their reaction was the desired and entire point of the trailer and marketing. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Jan 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Mr. Fortitude posted:Not that I condone this game or plan to buy it, but I get the feeling stupid poo poo like that Polygon article on Tropico 5 are why so many gamers were Greenlighting this piece of poo poo. Yeah. It is worth it to just to make them pissed off and wring their hands some more. King Vidiot posted:Hahahaha that is loving priceless. It'll be worth Hatred coming out just to be able to see the exact moment in the review where the writer has a stroke. Polygon is an endless source of stupid garbage that can be mocked into the ground, so it pays to troll them just to see what comes out of it. I mean, these were the guys who hired Ben 'Controllers feel like real human breasts' Kuchera.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
CrashCat posted:yeah, even long before gg hit Polygon was already notorious for a tendency to post really whiny articles that had less to do about playing games than what the games do to society. i guess there's a niche for that, but they didn't even bill it like that on the site from what i could tell. it seems to me like that is a big enough break from the norm that they should have embraced it and branded around it, but my guess is they wanted to keep a mainstream audience while providing niche content. i always assumed they were just another poo poo gaming website (they did hire ben kuchera after all). i never really read polygon before, so that Tropico 5 article came as a hilarious surprise. Attached with a pretty whiny, pathetic writer. i don't really give a poo poo about them or what they do. i just occasionally read their articles because they are almost universally awful and hilarious at the same time. i mean, holy poo poo they named a micro-transaction game about kim loving kardashian the most progressive game of the summer. that's comedy gold right there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
dogstile posted:Are we talking about the Tropico 5 article where the guy has problems with the game because you can send anyone you like to prison? I still wonder who the gently caress can't handle pixel men being put in a prison. Not even killed, just put into prison. Yup. http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/4/5720864/tropico-5-review-wasted-away-again Here are some of the good parts: quote:It was hard for me to get perspective on all the charming quirks of Kim Jong Il, Envar Hoxha and Nicolae Ceaușescu — people who I was imitating in the game — when I knew that they were responsible for the rape, murder and enslavement of many thousands, perhaps even millions of real people. Instead of making me chuckle, Tropico 5 constantly reminded me of all the blood staining my hands I've never read a review where I've seen a reviewer being such a huge pussy. It really is hilarious, though I don't know how a person like that actually functions if a video game bothers him that much. CrashCat posted:i was once bummed that such a nice looking site (at least in mobile view) was wasting that pretty design on garbage, but then i read an article that was the equivalent of committing a crime just so you can see a police officer and tell them about what you had for breakfast. an article so bad that i lost any shred of sympathy. i don't even remember what the article was anymore, but it was definitely some prime non sequitur bullshit Color me not surprised. I remember them saying they were going full on progressive or making up a new progressive site. I can't really remember but I honestly don't give a poo poo either way, because whatever it is I'm sure it'll involve awful, hilarious click-bait garbage. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Karpaw posted:Leigh Alexander put that in her top 5 of 2014. Seems like a blatant attempt to troll gamergaters. Kind of, but I think it is more a hipster thing to do. Quite possibly the largest amount of hipster douche-baggery you can pull off when writing about games. "Oh, people don't like a mobile game designed to gently caress the consumer hard with a spiky dildo by including as many micro-transactions as possible while being designed around a horrible excuse for a human being? They just don't get it like I do, man  " The only way it could be worse is if it praised the Dungeon Keeper Mobile Remake as being the best re-imaging of the franchise. Obscure indie games have become too 'mainstream'. They gotta go all the way back around to money grabbing, poo poo mobile games that the entire gaming community hates but only they get the true message of. The article itself is about as subtle as a brick to the face with its intentions. It is written so obviously out of spite and contempt for the target audience, blatant non-conformism and a large helping of click-bait. It isn't anything to get frothing at the mouth screaming about. It is there to laugh at, because my God, you have to be one dumb motherfucker to actually believe that poo poo. And yeah, it looks like this is going to last a while. Probably well into this year. At least it is entertaining with the amount of stupid flying around on both sides. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Hatred has been rated by the ESRB. And it is Adults Only. Regardless of whether this game has been Greenlit, Steam will refuse to publish games with Adults Only ratings. This is why Manhunt 2 is not available on the service, but Manhunt 1 is. I think it is idiotic to have a rating that is never used because no one will sell your product (Hello NC-17), but that is kind of moot. So, after all that hoopla and bullshit, the game more than likely won't even see a Steam release anyway. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Curious why it would have gotten AO. Isn't that usually only for explicit sexual content? I remember Manhunt 2 causing a fuss by having castration on-screen, but I've never played it myself. Nope, it includes violence as well. Manhunt 2 got it for violence, but that was mainly thanks to the hysteria of the time (Most notably, Hilary Clinton. So politics played a part in that). Usually a game can be bloody as gently caress, but if it includes graphic depictions of torture, that shoots the rating up. Sort of like how some horror movies can be rated NC-17 the same way, but that is much much rarer now. The NC-17 has evolved to cover only sex and I can't think of any recent examples for violence. AO is still a large part self-censorship because there is no possible way to sell your game. No major distribution network will carry it, no stores will stock it and no digital retailers will sell it. The rating for all intents and purposes doesn't really exist and should not still be around. If your rating effectively eliminates a product from the market, it is no longer a rating. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Fair enough! I don't understand much of the American censorship stuff. Over here it's just a basic 12/15/18 with the latter covering everything from extreme mutilation to porn. Americans have a much....richer history with censorship. The movie industry started with the so-called Legion of Decency in the 1930s where the American Roman Catholic Church pressed for zealous censorship of movies (which eventually morphed into the MPAA ratings system that everyone knows and loathes. Oh, and the Catholics are still involved in rating movies too) and the Comic's Code Authority in the 1950's, which basically postulated that comics would turn youths into degenerates and sex maniacs. That was run by a hack child psychologist. It was decades before comics broke free of them and some books have managed to ditch ratings and the code entirely, unlike movies and video games. Video games tried to avoid the above unmitigated disasters of rating systems with self-censorship. It has largely been ok, but Adults-Only is still extraordinarily problematic and can be very arbitrary with violent content. It really should just be for pornographic games, but I guess they want to keep their options open. EDIT: Also, there have only been three games that have received Adults Only in regards to violence: Thrill Kill (a lovely mortal combat rip-off that was canceled and never released), Manhunt 2 (likely to political pressure and widespread exposure) and Hatred. Which seems to be the only one without extenuating circumstances, so it is basically unique in this regard. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Though if the rating didn't exist, what would you use instead? Unrated? That presents the problem of games which aren't big enough to get ESRB ratings not being sold either. I'm not saying unrated, the consequences are the same. But when your rating effectively bars it from sale from pretty much every store in the entire country, digitally or otherwise, that's not really a rating anymore. A rating is ideally a guideline for the content you want yourself or your family to consume. It should not be used to push things out of the market. Not to mention the simple name of the rating itself "Adults Only", inspires images of pornographic games (which most of the games rated under Adults Only are) and not what the rating actually includes. So if you have an intensely violent, disturbing game with no sex, it can be lumped into the same category. Where it probably doesn't belong. From the ESRBs own website Mature Rating posted:Content is generally suitable for ages 17 and up. May contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language. Adults Only posted:Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency. The latter two are easily definable. The former, however, is not. I can argue that plenty of Mature games have scenes of 'prolonged' intense violence. How long is too long? What is too intense beyond mature, which is pretty well defined anyway? You torture a guy for a prolonged time in GTA V. To some that would be intense. Enemies in other games writhe around on the floor for a while before you can shoot them. Same for this. The problem is when you start splicing content down like this, you start splitting hairs and things get murky. My solution is to remove the intense violence from AO, fold it back into Mature. Keep AO for exactly what it sounds like: Porn and Gambling. Or you could split the rating. Have a Mature+ that warns parents of graphic violence or torture without it being unsellable in major retailers. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Except the AO rating isn't designed to bar it from sale, it's a function of the content that elicits that rating. My argument is that if you want to have a rating for porn, have one. You simply cannot have a rating that lumps in pornography and not pornography. Because everyone will associate the not pornography with pornography and the rating is effectively censoring unpopular content. NC-17 does not imply violence, it implies porn. Adults Only implies porn. That's a fact. Even a poster in this thread thought Adults Only was porn simply by reading the name. Retailers think that. Parents think that. If your game is not pornographic and gets an Adults Only label, it is not being fairly represented at all and basically going to not be sold simply because retailers don't want to sell porn. And as you said yourself, they will not distinguish between the non-porn AO and the porn AO. And you've mentioned the exact problem with Adults Only. The ratings board has a category where they can basically arbitrarily throw a game down a well, never to be seen again, where it is branded as pornography. If you have something that is too controversial with its violence, you can just find a way to toss the AO rating on it and have it be buried. To its credit, the ESRB hasn't done that many times (Manhunt 2, maybe Hatred). It is telling that this is only the third game in the ESRB's 21 year history that has been given the AO rating for violence only. However, the MPAA has branded films it didn't like with NC-17 since the rating has existed. Though, they get more leeway when they want a movie thrown down a well. Scalding Coffee posted:The MPAA has a shadow organization board comprised of many different subsets of people. It is funny the lengths they go to keep them hidden from society. Pretty much everyone should see 'This Film is Not Yet Rated'. The fact that the Catholic loving Church is still a major part of the ratings system in this country boggles my mind.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Why don't retailers, especially digital ones sell AO games? That's weird/stupid. Also move theaters these days have 20+ screens, why does an NC-17 rating matter? Who is telling these theaters not to show these movies? Again, the stigma is that they're porn and the a lot of people still see video games as toys for children. Retailers don't want to deal with the controversy because everyone associates AO games with porn, same with NC-17. Also, the thing isn't only with the theaters. Commercial networks will not play trailers for movies rated NC-17 (which is why you will frequently see unrated movies that might eventually be rated NC-17 run trailers). Newspapers will not run ad-space dedicated to them. AMC theaters and Regal Entertainment will not run NC-17 or unrated movies, and they are the major theater chains in the country. Because NC-17 is associated with porn and they don't want the controversy. Unless you've got an art house theater and are already a filmophile, you're poo poo out of luck to see an NC-17 movie at a multiplex. OwlFancier posted:AO doesn't mean porn, it means stuff which isn't judged as suitable for the previous rating band, which includes porn by default because porn is already legally not sellable to minors, and it also includes things which are judged as being unsuitable on a more precise level. And any rating that includes porn and non-porn, the non porn will always be assumed to be pornographic. You cannot separate this. This is why they are not sold, because retailers do not want to be associated with porn in any way, shape or form. And it is rare because the ESRB decides it is rare. All it takes is a changing of the guard, a shift in perspective and other games that aren't AO suddenly become AO. The only difference between M and AO in regards to violence is the word 'prolonged'. Rating systems aren't loving black and white. GTA V features a torture scene that goes on for several minutes and is graphically realistic, AO. Wolfenstein: The New Order shows soldiers being mutilated and tortured in graphic detail in cut scenes which include limb and organ removal for minutes at a time, AO. Postal 2, you are allowed to burn people, chop them and then urinate on their corpses. All of which takes a prolonged period to carry out, AO. See how easy that was? I just took 3 games that were rated M and moved them right into AO because the only difference is the word 'prolonged'. Now those games are not going to be sold. Newspapers, Magazines and TVs are not going to run ads. No retailer will stock them. Because they are considered pornographic, exactly like NC-17. And retailers do not want to sell pornography. EDIT: I should point out: It is completely legal for a minor to buy an M rated or even an AO rated game in the United States. The ESRB is NOT a governmental body, nor does it have any laws regulating it. The ID that you're required to show are store/industry policies to prevent the very intervention of government enforcement of ratings. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Bleg, double post.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Congratulations, you have established that trying to create an objective metric of a subjective medium is impossible. Now you just need to establish that there isn't a need for something which approximates one and you will have debunked the ratings system. I'm not arguing for the death of the ESRB or all ratings systems, even (but gently caress NC-17, for reals). Sorry if I wasn't clear. Here is what I am arguing: I am arguing that violence be completely taken out and dissociated from the AO rating because it is far too arbitrary and the rating itself will forever and always be considered pornographic, whether or not that is the intent of the rating. Preferably by folding all violence, prolonged or not, into the M rating. (Oh, and if a new violence rating contained CoD and GTA? gently caress yes they'd stock it). And it is a criticism of the ratings system, because 'Adults Only' is viewed as pornography and the ratings system has not moved to correct this. It is simply more convenient for them to have a rating where, if something gets too controversial with its violence, they can just basically eliminate it from being sold. However, AO does exist for a reason. You don't want hentai games getting an M or something and being stocked at Walmart next to CoD. It should not exist, like NC-17 does, as a well where you can throw things that are controversial down and hope they disappear. Which can very easily happen to video games. Scalding Coffee posted:A real good movie. The thing about it is that one person is representative of how that one group would react to each movie. One Islamic representative? One Asian? Why not? It really is the most 1950's way of thinking on how to analyze a culture. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so loving sad. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:manhunt 2 was released Because it was edited down to an M: quote:Later that same day, in an unexpected move, the ESRB issued the game with an AO rating. The initial impact of this decision was that major retail chains, such as Walmart, GameStop and Target would not stock the title. However, the following day, June 20, Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony Computer Entertainment issued statements saying they do not allow AO titles on their platforms, which effectively meant the game would have been banned in the US. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
Gamersgate is based in Sweden, not the US. You still can't buy it off of an American digital distribution platform as AO. EDIT: Never mind, it appears amazon is selling it uncut. But as with most console games of that era, PC is basically an afterthought. And you still can't buy it on Steam, so for many it may as well not exist. Dapper Dan fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 07:37
|
|