Guest_Catch This Fade_*
I've slaughtered mobs in video games before. Where's the drama?
Now there's a thought. I feel like anybody that played a GTA game would be lying if they said they didn't go around just slaughtering the populace from time to time because they were bored.
Guest_The Weakened_*
Now there's a thought. I feel like anybody that played a GTA game would be lying if they said they didn't go around just slaughtering the populace from time to time because they were bored.
Running down pedestrians on the sidewalk is a favorite GTA pastime of mine.
This game looks so lame and it's obviously trying to generate publicity on the sole fact of being "edgy".
From what I've read, being edgy isn't their goal. It's obviously meant to shock and provide a twisted, cathartic experience. It's also a big eff you to the current indie scene with games like Gone Home and Stanley Parable - perfectly valid games but then so is Hatred. Striving for an artistic approach doesn't always mean social commentary. The devs have stressed they want the gameplay to be solid. I read about it and they have some interesting ideas. That said, jimmies have been rustled and I understand the critics.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
What the heck social commentary is there in the Stanley Parable? I genuinely did not get a single bit of social commentary from that at all, outside of letting the crying baby travel into the "flames" (which was rather amusing). I've heard that Gone Home has some sort of "SJ" aspect to it, though I have no idea what it is.
Can you point us to some of these comments of their, slimgrin? Because everything I'm seeing (them say) is very silly.
And interesting article I came across: http://www.engadget....d-game-trailer/
I can't say that I agree completely (I DO feel that there is a meaningful difference between killing "innocent" civilians and enemies), but it's an interesting article.
I despise top-down shooters, and pretty much most top-down games in general, so this would never have been for me, but I will be interested if they actually do something with it.
Yeah, the Stanley Parable part got me. Is it an eff you to "politically correct" games or "not an actual game" games?
As for it being edgy, I don't know. On one hand, the developers want to make a solid game with viable mechanics with an edgy theme, to supposedly break the trend of political correctness. On the other, they want to flesh out the game's brutality in the execution moves, giving a glimpse of the "reality" of what's going on. It seems a bit conflicted but I can't say for sure until it actually comes out.
From what I've read, being edgy isn't their goal. It's obviously meant to shock and provide a twisted, cathartic experience. It's also a big eff you to the current indie scene with games like Gone Home and Stanley Parable - perfectly valid games but then so is Hatred. Striving for an artistic approach doesn't always mean social commentary. The devs have stressed they want the gameplay to be solid. I read about it and they have some interesting ideas. That said, jimmies have been rustled and I understand the critics.
I don't get it, the last time I played The Stanley Parable, it had plenty to say about video games, but it had nothing to say about society. Hatred looks like it has more to say about society than The Stanley Parable, judging by the developer's comments in the article Entropic Angel linked, about how social justice warriors can't tell them what to do. If the developers hadn't said they were only making this game to make liberals angry, I would be more generous, and say that this game could be aiming to give us some valuable insights into other so called "murder simulators" in much the same way that The Stanley Parable gives us valuable insights into the first person adventure genre. Looking at the desaturated color palette they're using, and the disturbingly realistic way the NPCs react to protagonist, I can almost imagine that Destructive Creations is trying to turn the act of slaughtering npcs into as miserable of an experience as possible. But why? To make gamers question the prominence of violence in popular titles by showing them how people would really react to a massacre in a manner similar to Uwe Boll's "Rampage?" To show gamers why it actually is fun to slaughter NPCs in other titles such as Saints Row 4 and Fallout 3 by showing what not to do? Probably not, I think they really are just doing this to make people like Anita Sarkeesian mad.
I heard about this title and honestly? Too bad this is only game! I wish someone could appear in RL and clear whole earth from humanity scourge!
I shouldn't have tossed the SP in there, and I was loosely paraphrasing the devs.This article explains it better:
http://www.engadget....d-game-trailer/
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Lol, that's the one I came across.
It's interesting, but I don't agree. I feel there really is a difference: both in intent and in form (WHY you're killing, and WHAT you're killing).
In an open-world game, you go on a killing spree to chill out from the objectives. It's a way of taking a break. It's basically a minigame, like drinking alcohol (in W_D at least) or gambling. It isn't the intent.
Further, in games typically the antagonists are "bad" people doing something "bad" and thus you have a reason to kill them. Now, if you don't believe it's allowable to kill people doing bad things, this point probably won't mean as much (for someone like, for example, the author of that article). I DO believe it's allowable FOR CERTAIN THINGS. Obviously not theft. But if someone's in the process of, say, running a slave ring, and you are after the head honcho, I believe that if guards that get in your way, try to kill you, etc, it is morally...understandable, at the very least. I'm not a pacifist.
Incidentally, a game that did this on a large scale (if the people you came across, guards and such, didn't try to kill you but tried to arrest you), would be interesting from a moral standpoint. I'll never forget the ONE combat encounter in Dragon Age Origins where you come across a bunch of adventurers heading to Denerim to tell on a member of the Mage Collective, and they don't attack you--you have to choose to attack them. Those are two different moral actions.
But not only are these people trying to kill you and such, they also can be considered "bad people" in most cases, and are definitely not innocent civilians. So there's a large gulf, in my opinion, between the two. Not only are they inviting your response by assaulting you in the first place, they also are (typically) "bad" people who are "deserving" of some punishment.
The reality is, in most games what you're doing is passive. You aren't killing these characters, you're defending yourself from THEM trying to kill you. The person who chooses to kill and the person who kills out of self-defense are two different people.
I feel a story like this could do a better job of actually exploring the mind of killer (serial instead of mass murderer, but it's something) than a game that's just about mindless violence. Because killing is never really about mindless violence. There is intent behind it. And I admit that was a shameless plug, but read it it's good! Edit: It's not bad, but there are a couple of high points.
I looked at that engadget article and it occurred to me that there is a different reaction to Hatred that you could have, which isn't being considered. Maybe the right response is this: "Hatred is seriously problematic, and you know what, so are those other shooters." Heck, game developers have been wrestling with the problematic nature of the shooter genre for a while now, as the relatively recent wave of "Surprise! Your character is a jerk" games (i.e. Spec Ops: The Line, Hotline Miami, etc.) will attest to.
Supposing I'm right about this, I don't think this means you have to stop playing those other games (I still play a lot of them, after all) or that you can't consistently criticize Hatred, which strips away everything but the problematic elements, but perhaps we should not be so sanguine in our belief that the typical everyday shooter has no moral baggage.
I heard about this title and honestly? Too bad this is only game! I wish someone could appear in RL and clear whole earth from humanity scourge!
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
I looked at that engadget article and it occurred to me that there is a different reaction to Hatred that you could have, which isn't being considered. Maybe the right response is this: "Hatred is seriously problematic, and you know what, so are those other shooters." Heck, game developers have been wrestling with the problematic nature of the shooter genre for a while now, as the relatively recent wave of "Surprise! Your character is a jerk" games (i.e. Spec Ops: The Line, Hotline Miami, etc.) will attest to.
Supposing I'm right about this, I don't think this means you have to stop playing those other games (I still play a lot of them, after all) or that you can't consistently criticize Hatred, which strips away everything but the problematic elements, but perhaps we should not be so sanguine in our belief that the typical everyday shooter has no moral baggage.
Can you describe the moral problems with current shooters?
I've already explained this on your wall, but in the Metroid Prime Trilogy, Samus is kind of a jerk.
Can you describe the moral problems with current shooters?
I imagine it's that in other shooters we're still going around killing hundreds if not thousands of people.
They also get bonus points if 90% of the enemies are either Russian or Middle Eastern.
I imagine it's that in other shooters we're still going around killing hundreds if not thousands of people.
They also get bonus points if 90% of the enemies are either Russian or Middle Eastern.
Pfft, those enemies are so yesterday. Try Chinese.
Interestingly, one thing about shooters is how glorified they are once you are given an excuse to kill the bad guys. Torture, dismemberment, general sadism, you name it. But it's all okay since he's an invading soldier/racist/criminal. I'll take CoD as an example. In World at War, the brutality of the Soviet invasion of Berlin is presented as barbaric and bleak. Later? We get to cheer at the over-the-top villain deaths.
It isn't exclusive to games. Why do you think shows like Dexter get a following?
Pfft, those enemies are so yesterday. Try Chinese.
Interestingly, one thing about shooters is how glorified they are once you are given an excuse to kill the bad guys. Torture, dismemberment, general sadism, you name it. But it's all okay since he's an invading soldier/racist/criminal. I'll take CoD as an example. In World at War, the brutality of the Soviet invasion of Berlin is presented as barbaric and bleak. Later? We get to cheer at the over-the-top villain deaths.
It isn't exclusive to games. Why do you think shows like Dexter get a following?
Only thing I recall about Dexter is the last season got a lot of hate. XD
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
I imagine it's that in other shooters we're still going around killing hundreds if not thousands of people.
They also get bonus points if 90% of the enemies are either Russian or Middle Eastern.
Um...can you describe the moral problems with current shooters?
What you describe has nothing to do with morality. Middle Easterners being portrayed as terrorists is not morally questionable. You're killing terrorists.
I don't recall playing any shooters where your enemies are Russian (I don't play shooters--the last one I bought was MOH Allied Assault). In the ones where they ARE Russian, what is the motivation issued? Are they shown as harboring weapons of mass destruction? Taking over Georgia? Because if they give a morally objectionable act for the antagonists to do, that's not a moral issue.
One might consider it a social issue (shooters are anti-Middle Easterners/Russians!--and even that is a generalization), but it's hardly moral.
Um...can you describe the moral problems with current shooters?
They involve shooting people.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
They involve shooting people.
That wasn't what Cyonan posited. But pacifism is certainly a moral standpoint one could take.
People cry about mass-murder? Every day, players are virtually sexually assaulting dead corpses with their testicles (tea-bagging) while gloating on a daily basis. It's not just celebrating killing someone, you get a sadistic pleasure from it.
Its pratically simulating a humiliating and degrading form of sexual assault with ones testicles, but its a game and simply "banter" right?
Um...can you describe the moral problems with current shooters?
What you describe has nothing to do with morality. Middle Easterners being portrayed as terrorists is not morally questionable. You're killing terrorists.
I don't recall playing any shooters where your enemies are Russian (I don't play shooters--the last one I bought was MOH Allied Assault). In the ones where they ARE Russian, what is the motivation issued? Are they shown as harboring weapons of mass destruction? Taking over Georgia? Because if they give a morally objectionable act for the antagonists to do, that's not a moral issue.
One might consider it a social issue (shooters are anti-Middle Easterners/Russians!--and even that is a generalization), but it's hardly moral.
The main thing I was pointing out is that you're still killing tons of people and to be perfectly honest, not a lot of games provide a very good portrayal of the enemies doing terrorist things. They simply say "here be bad guys, go kill".
Alternatively games like Payday actually have you killing police forces.
The part about Middle Easterners and Russians was a jab at media in general using them as a common enemy. Russians aren't used quite as much these days, and was admittedly more of a film thing than a video game thing(although a few still did use them).
The only thing offensive about this game is how hard it's trying.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
The main thing I was pointing out is that you're still killing tons of people and to be perfectly honest, not a lot of games provide a very good portrayal of the enemies doing terrorist things. They simply say "here be bad guys, go kill".
Alternatively games like Payday actually have you killing police forces.
The part about Middle Easterners and Russians was a jab at media in general using them as a common enemy. Russians aren't used quite as much these days, and was admittedly more of a film thing than a video game thing(although a few still did use them).
That's fair enough.
Games like this Payday--I actually don't play games like that for that reason. I don't play GTA and never will. A friend of mine bought Mafia II a couple of years ago, and while I think it's brilliant, I personally do not intend to buy it (see it on sale every once in a while) because I don't agree with being a criminal, and especially a cop-killer.
And I have certainly read my share of Tom Clancy books, so I definitely know about that--I just didn't know of many video games.
You don't have to agree with the game to enjoy it. That's why there are things like role-playing.
Seriously, if I had to agree with everything in a game in order to enjoy it, then I wouldn't even be gaming at all.
Retour en haut