Have video games finally gone too far?

[Larks2242 251]

It has been said time and time again but the latest game from a studio called Destructive Creations just released a trailer for a game called "Hatred".

 

It begins with a death metal rocker guy who claims to be fed up with people and then goes out to murder them.

 

 

 

To me this looks like nothing more then a simulator for the criminally/mentally insane.

 

 

What are you're thoughts?

[Hotwheeler 409]

You don`t really want to know what i`m thinking right now about this game.This game deals with a very problematic theme and i`m pretty sure this will be banned immediatly after release.I mean ripping out the guts of a groaning zombie or go on a sidewalk rampage with a sturdy car in GTA is one thing (i also like to do that but mostly for the hilarious reactions of near pedestrians...one passing by womans sees how a bunch of cops is crushed by a car:"I know i should have feeled sorry,but i don`t) but this game i just hideous.The overall style with the black and white surroundings and the camera angle looks actually pretty neat,but all that killing,shooting and stabbing several times is just hideous.

And i`m pretty sure the next time a student grabs his fathers gun and kills people in school and in his hometown this will again throw up that eternity debacle of  "brutal games are ruining our sane minds".

[Xenocity 343]

Have no fear, Rockstar already passed them by on Wii and PS2!

 

 

 

I giveth you the Manhunt series from the makers of GTA. 

It is literally a gory murder simulation, where the more violent and bloody your murder is the more points you earn which in turn gives you a higher rank. 

[GMT 389]

uhm... extra-violent movies anyone?

just sayin...

[47ply 1,100]

I feel games tv and movies have all gone to far a long time ago game or not how is killing some one entertainment let alone fun?

[Xenocity 343]

I feel games tv and movies have all gone to far a long time ago game or not how is killing some one entertainment let alone fun?

People love violence to some degree, some people love it more than others. 

 

Entertainment and fun are in the eyes of the beholder.

 

We still aren't as violent as Ancient Roman culture. 

[Nesral Sredna 62]

 

Entertainment and fun are in the eyes of the beholder.

 

We still aren't as violent as Ancient Roman culture. 

 

Still??? If that's a goal to aspire to, I'd say we were pretty close to in the 1940'ies. And what a coincidence then that several employees of this polish "company" has ties to polish extremist rightwinged hate-groups and islamophobic anti-immigrationgroups. These are not the kind of ones that meet the LGBT community with "rational arguments" about familyvalues(childrens right before adults)*  u know... ;-), but with unreasonable hatred/unprovoced violence

(*= Though both sides makes it difficult to see the difference between arguments and hate.../offtopic)

 

 

Are these the people we want to fund?

[Mr Saturn64 742]

I think it's safe to say that near everyone in their right minds would not be entertained by mass shootings, which are an unfortunate reality in this country.  As for whether or not games like this (as well as others, like the aforementioned games on this thread) cause real violence is still a possibility. 

 

Another thought.  It could turn out like the controversial 1982 Atari game "Custer's Revenge), which has one goal: and that's rape.  It was a commercial flop, a huge controversy starter, and did nothing but offend people.  This may very well be the same thing, only with violence instead of sexual themes.

[Nesral Sredna 62]

I think it's safe to say that near everyone in their right minds would not be entertained by mass shootings, which are an unfortunate reality in this country.  As for whether or not games like this (as well as others, like the aforementioned games on this thread) cause real violence is still a possibility. 

 

Another thought.  It could turn out like the controversial 1982 Atari game "Custer's Revenge), which has one goal: and that's rape.  It was a commercial flop, a huge controversy starter, and did nothing but offend people.  This may very well be the same thing, only with violence instead of sexual themes.

 

People don't always buy games because of the entertainment value. Steam early access had some awfully poor "games" just made to quickly rip people off and due to the media attention it got, the scheme worked. People bought these "games" just to see how bad they were...  .

 

Even though they'll have huge problems finding a publisher, they have gotten the attention they seeked. And their lack of respecting ESRB's and EPIC Games property(they used their logos without permission) I don't think they'll mind if it spreads underground...

[Mr Saturn64 742]

Which it probably will.  Even though they said "copycat crimes" won't happen, in a country already with more shootings than any other first-world country, that's a pretty big statement.  Somehow, I don't think that people won't try and copy the crimes committed in this game.

[Duke87 1,070]

Personally I wish the developers of this game well. It's extremely provocative, of course, and deviates from established standards of what is and isn't okay. But to me that's only a good thing. Censorship that is institutional rather than government imposed is still censorship. If an independent developer wants to buck that line of thinking make a radically offensive game, I say high five. The principle of creative freedom requires people to be able to create whatever they want. And the beauty of digital art is you can make anything without actually harming anyone.

 

The thing to keep in mind is: THIS IS NOT REAL. It is a game. People already use lots of existing games to go on rampages as a way of relieving stress and such. I mean, come on, how often does anyone actually attempt to complete missions in GTA? That game is already for going on rampages even if it provides a more structred alternative. What difference does it make really if you have a game where rampaging is the central and only goal? Clearly there is a market for such things.

 

Now, granted, given the nature of the game, minors shouldn't be playing it without supervision or perhaps even at all (person dependent). But that's no reason why adults can't have fun with it.

 

I also don't buy the idea that games make people violent. Yes, a lot of stories of mass killers involve the culprit playing these kinds of games, but y'know, correlation does not imply causation. People go on killing sprees in real life because they're psycho, not because video games made them do it. And for the vast majority of people who are not murderous psychos and can mentally separate fantasy from reality, a virtual rampage can be great stress relief and can actually make people less violent.

 

I know this myself. There have been times where I've been really pissed off about something where I've loaded up Duke Nukem or something similar, gone and blown a bunch of virtual things to bits, and after about 15-30 minutes of that felt a lot better and turned the game off, relaxed and calm.

 

 

The other problem I have with the idea of saying anything "goes too far" is that no one is forcing anyone to play the game. If you find it objectionable you don't have to play it, nor do you have to let your kids play it or allow it in your house. But there's no reason why that should stop anyone else from playing it. To hell with censorship.

[iLoveMusic 66]

Video games.....I haven't really paid attention to these since the mid-2000s. My time, which is also when I think video games were at their prime - was 1990s and early 00s. Games were purely fun. I'll take any Nintendo 64 or SNES game over Grand Theft Auto (or the game being described in this thread) any day. We got the Super Nintendo right after I was born - 1992. And to this day, it still works, and has never failed. From time to time, me, my friends or family members will go back and play it for fun, and we all sit around and watch. Prince of Persia, Mystical Ninja, the original SimCity (which I have but never beat all of those impossible scenarios), Super Mario World, Super Ghouls 'N' Ghosts - that's fun schtuff right there. Same goes for my N64, which I still have like 30 games for. The first three Mario Partys, Super Smash Bros., Mario Kart, Mischief Makers, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, PilotWings, Crusin' USA, Donkey Kong 64, Super Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, Dr. Mario.....the list goes on. And I can still play those even decades after I got them, and have just as much fun as I did the very first time I played those games. Also very fun to play with friends. Granted, these consoles did have their fair share of terrible games, but this is far outweighed by the good.

 

Around 2002, I noticed that everybody started caring only about graphics instead of how fun the games were. Even then, I wondered why this was. A few consoles with good games still came out, like PlayStation 2, and Nintendo Gamecube. I never bothered with Xbox. But to me, the quality of games (replay value, variety, and just how fun they were in general) gradually declined from about 2005 onward. Everything seems to have homogenized into ultra-realistic shooters or games with post-apocalyptic themes. I'm not interested in these at all. To me, they're not fun and I get bored after 5 minutes. And while the online-play seems like a neat idea, it's tainted with that whole seedy gamer/internet subculture that I so greatly detest and avoid like the plague. The last console I bothered with was the Nintendo Wii, which I received as a gift in 2008. I only have four games for it, none of which I've played in years now. I had more, but sold them. I have no interest in today's console or the games on them. My friend, who has a PS3 (or PS4, I'm not sure which) recently told me that he was reading some Gaming magazine, and in there it said there was something they call a "video game drought" going on over the last couple of years - a.k.a. video game developers simply don't know what to do anymore. Apparently that whole field is running stale and has been for a few years, which makes sense.

 

If I had any advice for video game developers, I'd suggest one or both of the following:

• Back-to-basics. Stop caring so much about graphics and make some fun games again that appeal to a much wider base than spoiled 8-20 year-old violence-loving internet/video game-addicts.
• Virtual reality gaming. I don't think the tools for this are here right now, or when/if they will be developed and perfected. Then again, I haven't looked much into it. Maybe someone else can chime in here.

That's my two cents. I don't claim to be an expert on this subject by any means, and I'm certainly not a "gamer", so if I made any mistakes in my post above, feel free to correct them.

[47ply 1,100]

well said @iLoveMusic

[Larks2242 251]

1)

 

The thing to keep in mind is: THIS IS NOT REAL. It is a game. People already use lots of existing games to go on rampages as a way of relieving stress and such. I mean, come on, how often does anyone actually attempt to complete missions in GTA? That game is already for going on rampages even if it provides a more structred alternative. What difference does it make really if you have a game where rampaging is the central and only goal? Clearly there is a market for such things.

 

 

 

 

2)

 

I also don't buy the idea that games make people violent. Yes, a lot of stories of mass killers involve the culprit playing these kinds of games, but y'know, correlation does not imply causation. People go on killing sprees in real life because they're psycho, not because video games made them do it. And for the vast majority of people who are not murderous psychos and can mentally separate fantasy from reality, a virtual rampage can be great stress relief and can actually make people less violent.

 

I know this myself. There have been times where I've been really pissed off about something where I've loaded up Duke Nukem or something similar, gone and blown a bunch of virtual things to bits, and after about 15-30 minutes of that felt a lot better and turned the game off, relaxed and calm.

 

 

The other problem I have with the idea of saying anything "goes too far" is that no one is forcing anyone to play the game. If you find it objectionable you don't have to play it, nor do you have to let your kids play it or allow it in your house. But there's no reason why that should stop anyone else from playing it. To hell with censorship.

 

I'm gonna break this down into two parts.

 

1) In Your and my mind it isn't real but some people the psycho as you said, These things can have a lot of influence and can inspire them in many ways and plant ideas they never thought of prior to the game, (If I recall the Virginia Tech shooter was obsessed with doom and played it as a simulator)  while GTA is violent in itself (I did enjoy the latest installment) the plot line and narrative juxtaposed to the difference in both tone and intended targets of this game.

 

2) While games certainly can effect people in different ways as with any form of media, I do have concerns about the mentally ill, games tend to be more immerse and more time consuming them movies/music or other related mediums, There needs to be some kind of way to deal head on with the growing issue of mental health, rather then focusing on guns and trying to tighten laws on rights.

 

I am not in favor of censorship as that is a blatant violation/disregard for the first amendment, but we do have to figure out a way that is both respectful towards the two most important amendments, first and second, and that can keep those who are certifiable away from anything that can harm the public. 

[47ply 1,100]

I don't think its censorship that is needed! but more of a revolution back to fun games. There will always be spot for these games perhaps they should tone down the push and never ending tv ads for them kinda like porn movies they will always be there and the people who enjoy them always know where to find them.  

[Mr Saturn64 742]

In the way of the mind of the psycho, this can really be something to give them ideas. There's a legend going around (that's been proven false, by the way) that the Columbine shooters made Doom levels to practice the shooting that killed 12 people. While that may not be true, they were big fans. I don't think video games are the main problem, and that gun access and poor mental health treatment are the big problems, i see where the controversy is. I imagine this game will be under heavy fire (no joke intended) if it's released, which no publisher will probably do. Something tells me numerous countries will ban this game, and console releases won't happen.

[Larks2242 251]

The video has since surpassed 1 Million views and holds an extremely mixed reception almost even likes and dislikes with 15,566 likes and 13,299 dislikes.

[Huston 5,800]

Looking at this, it seems like something of a controversial and touchy subjects that never seems to get a definitive answer. Though weighing on this myself, I can't say I like the game all that much. There's no definitive purpose and intention (besides mass murder on a grander scale), no real story and overly repetitive and monotonous gameplay. Advocating violence on a different level as it seems and all in all, not the kind of game I'd think should get that much attention of any kind. While it is also said that games aren't always a direct correlation with the advocacy of violence, there's still never really any reason or point in making games like this. I mean, it's completely separate from FPS, TPS, supsense/horror genres and any other type of 'violent' game we consider today. But this, it's kind of a whole other thing, a niche game bracket that seems to serve those on the more extreme end of the spectrum.

 

To me, seeing something like this just solidifies that there's a dip in the quality of games in terms of gameplay, style and story which is saddening. All Hatred seems to be is the lesser long lost sibling of Manhunt, which in a way, with graphics aside, is probably much more violent and twisted then Hatred.  I'd probably still say though, that this is trailing off in a direction that gaming probably shouldn't have even bothered opening. So yeah, gone too far.

[Titanicbuff 1,262]

I remember an XBox game called Leisuresuit Larry- it was a bit interesting to say the least- whole goal was get women drunk- I'd say thats going a bit far.

[The Avatar 1,089]

Here's my problem with the game: it's violence just for violence's sake. Personally, I don't like violence at all, especially if it's just for the thrill. Sure, I've played Skyrim where you stab bandits with swords and bludgeon the undead with giant war-hammers, but at least the violence serves a purpose - defense. In this game, you're killing innocent people to "spread Armageddon upon society." Everyone has different ideas of what is right and wrong, but I think we can all agree that there is nothing morally permissible about this game, just as most people would agree that murder in real life is unethical. In most cases I'm against censorship, but here, I think it's justified. In these times of school shootings and mass killing sprees carried out by psychotic, often emotionally-troubled individuals, I don't think we need any more media that portrays senseless violence and condones feelings of hatred. 

 

To be honest, I can't even fathom how someone can think up a game like this and want to publish it, let alone how someone could play it and live with himself. 

[Huston 5,800]

Here's my problem with the game: it's violence just for violence's sake. Personally, I don't like violence at all, especially if it's just for the thrill. Sure, I've played Skyrim where you stab bandits with swords and bludgeon the undead with giant war-hammers, but at least the violence serves a purpose - defense. In this game, you're killing innocent people to "spread Armageddon upon society." Everyone has different ideas of what is right and wrong, but I think we can all agree that there is nothing morally permissible about this game, just as most people would agree that murder in real life is unethical. In most cases I'm against censorship, but here, I think it's justified. In these times of school shootings and mass killing sprees carried out by psychotic, often emotionally-troubled individuals, I don't think we need any more media that portrays senseless violence and condones feelings of hatred. 

 

To be honest, I can't even fathom how someone can think up a game like this and want to publish it, let alone how someone could play it and live with himself. 

 

That's pretty much it there. Violence in gaming can be 'alright' to an extent. Not advocating the idea, (otherwise a lot of games would turn out quite boring), but unjustified violence for the sake of violence just takes it a step in a direction I'd probably steer way away from. Other violent game genres tend to be more sensible in a sense, that while violence is present, they're justified often as self-defense.

[crishy 57]

Games are just like movies and books (which also have plenty of similar things, Silence of the Lambs one that comes to me right now) and on that point that applies to games as well (I highly respect law enforcers in real life but "killing" them in GTA is half of the fun there) so no point singling this specific game out. It is fiction only after all.

 

 People have been killing each other with guns long before internet and television, so if something has to be banned (or at least way more strictly regulated) I would say it is guns instead.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Yeah, it looks really violent. But the violence is so over the top idiotic and extreme that it really takes a completely delusional person to see it as realistic or as a good idea to go around and start killing people for real. Everyone else knows that this kind of violence is just faker than fake. 

 

And sure, this is violent, misanthropic and nihilistic. But why would this be going to far when we have movies that go just as far or even further? Why is it okay for movies to be all those things but not for games? Because some crazy person can't handle it? Perhaps the people that are worried about the crazy persons should look beyond something like games and wonder why seemingly all those crazy people that can't handle games live in the US and nowhere else. 

[Larks2242 251]

Because some crazy person can't handle it? Perhaps the people that are worried about the crazy persons should look beyond something like games and wonder why seemingly all those crazy people that can't handle games live in the US and nowhere else. 

 

That has to be the most ignorant statement on this entire forum, violence knows no bounds and is not limited to one specific location.

[LexusInfernus 908]

That has to be the most ignorant statement on this entire forum, violence knows no bounds and is not limited to one specific location.

 

Yet in other parts of the world the phenomena of people going crazy and go on a murdering spree is pretty rare and the people there also play games. Sure, violence exists in those countries as well, but not on the scale and regularity like in the US. That is a simple undeniable fact supported by pretty much any statistic you can find. Now you probably know my opinion on what is a far more relevant cause, but I don't want to turn this into an anti-gun discussion. Whether you believe like me that guns are the issue, or something else like the lack of mental health care or president Obama, we should at least be able to agree that the facts do not support the idea that violent games cause murder sprees. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Alright folks, discuss the issues, not each other.

To address a couple other points:

Everyone has different ideas of what is right and wrong, but I think we can all agree that there is nothing morally permissible about this game, just as most people would agree that murder in real life is unethical.

...

To be honest, I can't even fathom how someone can think up a game like this and want to publish it, let alone how someone could play it and live with himself.

I don't see anything morally impermissible about this game because unlike real life murder it's just a game. No one is actually harmed. If no one is actually harmed, then what is wrong with it? It is victimless, no one needs protecting from it.

Yes, the acts in the game would be insane and horrible if they happened in real life. But, they are not happening in real life. Depictions of immoral behavior or not necessarily themselves inherently immoral. Ceci ne pas un pipe, y'know?

Given all that, that is how I could play a game like this and live with myself. Because I know it isn't real, and I'm not actually hurting anyone. If I'm not actually hurting anyone, what have I done wrong?

[The Avatar 1,089]

And sure, this is violent, misanthropic and nihilistic. But why would this be going to far when we have movies that go just as far or even further? Why is it okay for movies to be all those things but not for games? Because some crazy person can't handle it? 

 

I don't think movies and TV shows should be allowed to depict this kind of violence, either, but that is another topic for another day.

 

Yes, the acts in the game would be insane and horrible if they happened in real life. But, they are not happening in real life. Depictions of immoral behavior or not necessarily themselves inherently immoral. Ceci ne pas un pipe, y'know?

 

I guess that's where we fundamentally disagree. I see anything that depicts something immoral as inherently immoral itself. Maybe this is just due to my religious upbringing, but I would feel guilty playing an incredibly violent game like this, even though I did not commit any of the horrific acts in real life.

[poshbakerloo 186]

I really don't have a problem with extreme violence in video games or movies. If its something unsuitable for children...rate it 18! If someone tries to re-enact a scene from it then they need locking up in an asylum. I have played GTA for a very long time...trust me, I have never once ran down the street with a chainsaw! 

 

One thing I hate is censorship. I do agree with keeping sex and violence away from children, but once someone is over 18 (or what ever the legal age of being an adult is in your country) then they are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong.

 

Sane people can play GTA, and watch Cannibal Holocaust without doing anything bad afterwards.

 

Its the same thinking that I apply to religion, don't blame the religion, don't blame the video game, don't blame the movie...blame the people for being dumb and doing stupid things.

 

The End

[Xenocity 343]

[sNIP]

Actually there isn't so much a drought as in there is a lack of diversity. 

 

What really happened was the following:

• Consumers wanted every better graphics
• Consumers shifted to realism and M rated games
• Developer wanted to make realistic M rated games
• Development costs went through the roof with HD development forcing developers to close and to focus on their best selling IPs. 
• Consumers in the West quit buying anything that wasn't yearly sports game XXX and AAA blockbuster games etc.... 
• Nintendo was the only major developer and platform holder who refused to play this game (they really can't afford to bleed billions on selling their systems below market costs like the competition)
• Consumers quit paying $20+ for colorful based games, because kiddy, casual, and inferior games. 
• iOS came out and developers started racing to the bottom on price, now no one wants to pay more a few dollars for game on mobile/handheld
• Android came out and starting giving software away for free, now very few Android users want to pay anything for software.
• Steam came along and introduce massive sales at least twice a year, which causes PC users to wait and buy PC games for pennies on the dollar. 

Now gamers are complaining about having too many colorful/kiddy/casual games flooding Xbox One and PS4 at the expense of realism/shooters/hardcore games. 

They are also complaining about the lacks of shooters/hardcore games leading to many articles wondering if hardcore gaming is dead. 

 

Nintendo is suffering from having the image of being for casual/women/kids/Japanese, which is affecting what developers release on there systems.

3DS is widely ignored from gamers because it lacks mature/shooters/hardcore games and is handheld (handheld games aren't real games), while market data "shows" hardcore gamers prefer iOS devices over traditional handheld/PC games.

Wii U suffers from many issues including too many colorful/kiddy/casual/minigames and lacking shooters/mature/hardcore games. 

 

If you see Simcity turn into a GTA/FPS/Mature games, don't be upset and surprised. 

 

P.S. Wii has a decent library of non mature/shooters/hardcore games that aren't made by Nintendo.

[crishy 57]

 

That has to be the most ignorant statement on this entire forum, violence knows no bounds and is not limited to one specific location.

 

Yet in other parts of the world the phenomena of people going crazy and go on a murdering spree is pretty rare and the people there also play games. Sure, violence exists in those countries as well, but not on the scale and regularity like in the US. That is a simple undeniable fact supported by pretty much any statistic you can find. Now you probably know my opinion on what is a far more relevant cause, but I don't want to turn this into an anti-gun discussion. Whether you believe like me that guns are the issue, or something else like the lack of mental health care or president Obama, we should at least be able to agree that the facts do not support the idea that violent games cause murder sprees. 

 

 

Yup. Just look at the US statistics against Canadian homicide (or violent crime in general) statistics. Other countries have even lower rates.

 

The media plays a very small role in violence but people like to scapegoat it - especially games - because it is the easy way out.

 

Socioeconomic factors coupled with some sort of strict gun control are much more important and there you see some contrasting differences between both countries.

 

Are the contents of the game morally questionable? Indeed. But so much of the media in general you see nowadays. Attempting to rate media on the amount or severity of morally questionable content is bound to be controversial as this is highly subjective and will not result in much change anyway.