Valve pulls Hatred from Greenlight due to disagreeing with the subject matter of the game.
576 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;46720873]
get off the high horse, it's okay for a company serving 7 million people, half of them opinionated and volatile, to want to protect their image.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's a high horse when Valve is willing to sell you a scam at your expense but not a game at their expense.
[QUOTE=Thlis;46720851]Can you adequately define when it is and isn't alright to feature mass genocide in a game?[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding me right now? You can skip that section because the developers realized how controversial it was. You can avoid killing the citizens, but either way it's a major plot point that creates the crux of all conflict in Modern Warfare 2 and 3, and it's meant to be horrifying both in-verse as well as to the player to indicate just how twisted Makarov is as well as show the player that the attempts to stop Makarov are going to come at a heavy price of many, many lives. It's not 'genocide simulator', it's a circumstance that happens and has downright detrimental effects for the world over afterwards and does not, in any way, glorify pulling out a light machinegun and gunning down an airport full of people and the police trying to kill you for it.
Hatred is a game about genocide, it's about going around and killing everyone because that's how the game is designed, and it's intentionally trying to stir controversy to get itself a bigger name with the depicted brutality mixed with bragging about it. I don't entirely agree with Valve kicking it off of Steam, but then I understand their reasons and i'm surprised people actually even Greenlit it onto Steam in the first place given that most people considered the game an absolute joke.
Valve has the right to choose what they sell but if they're willing to remove games from Greenlight based on their content they really ought to remove the terrible half-assed cash grabs as well.
[QUOTE=bitches;46720871]This game strives to be a simulator for mass murder of the sort you see on the news, unlike games like GTA. This comes at a time when terrorism and shootings are causing unrest worldwide.
Nobody banned this game from being sold to anyone. This isn't censorship. They can sell the game elsewhere.
Valve doesn't want to be associated with a particularly controversial game, and that's their decision to make. They associate themselves with a lot of questionable games, but it isn't hard to see why this one warrants more attention and debate within Valve than others.
but no, continue to whine about censorship and how videogames are just pixels and words don't matter[/QUOTE]
Games about killing foreigners as a righteous and powerful American are fine though. I mean, American intervention into foreign lands isn't causing any unrest, right?
[QUOTE=Thlis;46720870]What like in GTA where people will plead for their lives?[/QUOTE]
Completely different from Hatred.
If I were to compare both, I'd say its like comparing GTA's life-like world to Watch_Dogs cardboard world.
What I mean with this, is that GTA wasn't designed to look like the last day in the life of a guy about to make a murder spree.
Again... Context.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;46720471]That'll take a good while, considering games are still easy scapegoats nowadays and will be for a long time to come.[/QUOTE]
Thing is, I don't think it's just a matter of time. Anything could happen with the right amount of time, whether it needs a millennium or a moment. But for it to come quicker, you would need a way to reach millions upon millions of people, which we already have, as well as people who are able to sway other with the words that truly matter, which there are but few of them share our ideology. What needs to happen is for us to ignore and stonewall the Old World, whilst simultaneously reaching younger minds with a message of truth and understanding. It's been said before, but as you get older, you tend to become less receptive to the new, partly depending on the individual's brain and partly depending on how they've been raised to think. The key to bringing people into the fold is by starting when they're young and receptive, finding ways to ingrain New World beliefs in their minds without coming across too strong or attracting the attention of folks who disagree with the vision.
I know, it sounds kind of like creepy cultist behaviour, and I remember one of the posters here had a bad experience with a cult (I'm sorry that I forgot your name, bro, but my heart still goes out to you), but I think the key difference between those kinds of cults and spreading the actual good word to do the actual good work is basically not doing all that creepy negative shit like saying "if you aren't in your seats in 20 seconds you've all failed" or manipulating kids into doing crazy shit. I'm not a man of faith by any means, and I encourage healthy scepticism and the art of questioning everything, but when it comes to "controlling" people through philosophy, there are right ways, wrong ways, and ways that can easily be both. Controlling people through fear is the wrong way most times, but influencing them with scientific knowledge and hope for the future is a better way to go about it. The more you understand about the universe, the better off you'll be, for this is a universe ruled by wild unthinking forces and the understanding of those forces, not by the whims and whimsies of a vast celestial intelligence who leeches off of the hearts and minds of the crops He sows. Knowledge enables power, and knowing the way minds work can enable the power to influence others.
What I'm getting at is that if we can influence the younger generation to grow up and fix the countless mistakes of the Old World, we could help ensure that video games get the respect they deserve ahead to schedule. It's already happening to an extent, as the young nerds of the 80's and 90's are now in their 20's and 30's, and video games are already ingrained in 21st century youth culture, so with more young blood and a greater understanding of the universe, along with folks who can write and sell truly convincing arguments, hopefully games would get the respect they deserve by the end of the next generation. It'd be hard to push it forward, but hey, nothing worth having in this world comes easy, and in all honesty it shouldn't. As terrible as it can be, strife is one of the main things that drive us to advance, throwing challenges and obstacles for us to understand and surpass, bettering ourselves and others as we succeed and even as we fail. In this universe, there's nothing worse than getting too soft.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46720854]The fact that Valve cares more about it's image than it's customers is what fucking pisses me off about this.
I was willing to defend them when it came to all of the other blatant fucking scamware under the assumption they just didn't look at [I]anything,[/I] but clearly they care when something that might harm their prestigious public image comes up. Holy shit, what assholes.[/QUOTE]
is this satire
"valve won't publish an actual intentional mass murder simulator, the result of which would definitely mean a loss in revenue and possibly less sales/less new, non-mass-shooting content for me in the future! what [I]assholes[/I]!"
[QUOTE=Thlis;46720895]I don't think it's a high horse when Valve is willing to sell you a scam at your expense but not a game at their expense.[/QUOTE]
you could just
you know
not buy scam games
if people bought shit like air control without doing their research first, that's their fault for impulse-buying a product before they knew anything about it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46720839]Hey, all you time travelers in this thread, can you tell me if the new Mad Max is as good as it looks? I'm really hyped for that movie.[/QUOTE]
Hilarious, but if you watch the Hatred trailer you get a hate-filled speech and then a fast-paced montage of action, slaughter, metal music and executions. Do you expect the game to be about something else?
[QUOTE=Kljunas;46720898]Valve has the right to choose what they sell but if they're willing to remove games from Greenlight based on their content they really ought to remove the terrible half-assed cash grabs as well.[/QUOTE]
Microsoft has the right to choose what programs they allow on their operating system.
did postal even go through greenlight to get on, i know postal 2 did
edit: it wasn't, why are you guys trying to make this point
[QUOTE=bitches;46720886]Why are they assholes for protecting their image? Nothing is stopping the devs from selling it elsewhere, and you buying it elsewhere. They didn't harm you in any way.[/QUOTE]
They give a fuck about their public image. The media cares about games like Hatred, but they don't give a shit about things like Air Control.
Consumers are the ones that have to deal with the fucking scams they sell. They don't give a fuck what we think.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;46720896]Are you kidding me right now? You can skip that section because the developers realized how controversial it was.[/QUOTE]
I am asking you, can you adequately define when it is and isn't alright to feature mass genocide in a game.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;46720896]You can avoid killing the citizens, but either way it's a major plot point that creates the crux of all conflict in Modern Warfare 2 and 3, and it's meant to be horrifying both in-verse as well as to the player to indicate just how twisted Makarov is as well as show the player that the attempts to stop Makarov are going to come at a heavy price of many, many lives.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying that it's alright to feature mass genocide when it makes the plot more interesting?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46720854]The fact that Valve cares more about it's image than it's customers is what fucking pisses me off about this.
I was willing to defend them when it came to all of the other blatant fucking scamware under the assumption they just didn't look at [I]anything,[/I] but clearly they care when something that might harm their prestigious public image comes up. Holy shit, what assholes.[/QUOTE]
1- Really? They are assholes for denying publishing of a rather violent game?
2- Objectively, can you blame them? Theres some kind of shooting or something going around in the news every now and then. This certainly would raise a few eyebrows.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46720918]They give a fuck about their public image. The media cares about games like Hatred, but they don't give a shit about things like Air Control.
Consumers are the ones that have to deal with the fucking scams they sell. They don't give a fuck what we think.[/QUOTE]
caring for one side doesnt mean they don't care for the other, especially when those two sides aren't even conflicting.
[QUOTE=Thlis;46720922]I am asking you, can you adequately define when it is and isn't alright to feature mass genocide in a game.
So you're saying that it's alright to feature mass genocide when it makes the plot more interesting?[/QUOTE]
Why are you not asking instead "can you skip it/not participate in it?"
[QUOTE=Drury;46720893]Not gonna quote anyone but basically to everyone defending GTA:
If in a game you could do everything you can in Hatred+do everything you can in GTA, would the game be acceptable?
Furthermore, if the player choses to kill civilians and do nothing else (despite having multiple options), does that mean the game is not acceptable?
If you answer yes to both, that's a serious case of double standard.
Let's also not forget that in GTA1, there was not much else to do besides killing pedestrians, and look at the series now. Interesting to note that GTA1 was also a target of controversy, and still, it was a hit, a legend even.
Not that I care. I'm safely with the people saying NPCs in videogames are pixels, not people. After all, GTA1 was a success because it was fun and unique, not because you could butcher random joes and janes represented by 8*8 sprites. That was just a meaningless bonus.[/QUOTE]
It's not about [I]can [/I]do it's about whether it's the [I]only thing[/I] to do. If you can murder civilians and cops (like in Hatred) and do everything you can in GTA, you have GTA. The intent of Hatred is mass murder (not acceptable); the combination game you describe does not have that same intent and is instead about doing whatever you want to, including non-violent things (acceptable).
Individual player choice does not affect the meaning of the game.
[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;46720910]Hilarious, but if you watch the Hatred trailer you get a hate-filled speech and then a fast-paced montage of action, slaughter, metal music and executions. Do you expect the game to be about something else?[/QUOTE]
If you can tell exactly what something is by the trailer alone, why do you buy any games or watch any movies in the first place?
Sometimes shit's different. I don't know if it [I]will[/I] be, but the fact that everyone is scrambling for excuses to condemn this game before it's even released is disgusting.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46720905]Games about killing foreigners as a righteous and powerful American are fine though. I mean, American intervention into foreign lands isn't causing any unrest, right?[/QUOTE]
Glorious strawman that has nothing to do with my post. Facepunch debating at its finest. I'm done.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;46720937]Why are you not asking instead "can you skip it/not participate in it?"[/QUOTE]
Because if a game has it as an option then it can be considered as featuring it regardless of having an option to skip it.
[QUOTE=Thlis;46720922]I am asking you, can you adequately define when it is and isn't alright to feature mass genocide in a game.
So you're saying that it's alright to feature mass genocide when it makes the plot more interesting?[/QUOTE]
You're being intentionally obstinate but I'm gonna chime in and say that, yes, depicting violence for plot purposes is entirely justifiable, especially when it comes to making you dislike the story's antagonist. Modern Warfare 2's No Russian scene is there to make you hate the bad guy, and that's fine. There's an intent behind the violence, a justification, and that's what separates it from Hatred.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46720918]They give a fuck about their public image. The media cares about games like Hatred, but they don't give a shit about things like Air Control.
Consumers are the ones that have to deal with the fucking scams they sell. They don't give a fuck what we think.[/QUOTE]
Probably because Air Control isn't a game about killing people because you're supposed to be a mass murderer on a rampage?
It's just a completely broken joke of a game that doesn't even makes sense.
[QUOTE=Thlis;46720922]I am asking you, can you adequately define when it is and isn't alright to feature mass genocide in a game.
So you're saying that it's alright to feature mass genocide when it makes the plot more interesting?[/QUOTE]
Then I can't adequately define it because it's not my position, as a nobody consumer in the grand scheme of things, to define it for everyone else at the same time. Everyone has their own lines they draw. But you're drawing for straws to justify why other games shouldn't get off with genocide-related violence in comparison to this one game that is about genocide. There are people who could create better arguments than me, but I get the feeling it's a bit fruitless.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46720941]If you can tell exactly what something is by the trailer alone, why do you buy any games or watch any movies in the first place?
Sometimes shit's different. I don't know if it [I]will[/I] be, but the fact that everyone is scrambling for excuses to condemn this game before it's even released is disgusting.[/QUOTE]
what do you think the videogame is going to be about, mr. scorpio
do you think that the protagonist is going to skip through a field of dandelions and realize "hey maybe murder isn't all that great after all"
if their product is going to be vastly different from what the trailer depicts, that's their fault for deceiving their customers.
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;46720934]caring for one side doesnt mean they don't care for the other, especially when those two sides aren't even conflicting.[/QUOTE]
If they have the time to remove games that [I]might[/I] be unacceptable, then how can you fucking tell me they don't have the time to remove games that're clearly scams?
Either they can police their store or they can't. Clearly they can, they just don't fucking care.
[QUOTE=Thlis;46720946]Because if a game has it as an option then it can be considered as featuring it regardless of having an option to skip it.[/QUOTE]
Nobody forces you to kill any of them, unlike the point of this game, which is set on literaly "killing innocents"
[QUOTE=joes33431;46720962]what do you think the videogame is going to be about, mr. scorpio
do you think that the protagonist is going to skip through a field of dandelions and realize "hey maybe murder isn't all that great after all"
if their product is going to be vastly different from what the trailer depicts, that's their fault for deceiving their customers.[/QUOTE]
I don't know. Maybe I'll wait for the thing to exist before I make claims about what it is.
Not making a call is an option, you know. There's such a thing as withholding judgement.
[QUOTE=ironman17;46720907]Thing is, I don't think it's just a matter of time. Anything could happen with the right amount of time, whether it needs a millennium or a moment. But for it to come quicker, you would need a way to reach millions upon millions of people, which we already have, as well as people who are able to sway other with the words that truly matter, which there are but few of them share our ideology. What needs to happen is for us to ignore and stonewall the Old World, whilst simultaneously reaching younger minds with a message of truth and understanding. It's been said before, but as you get older, you tend to become less receptive to the new, partly depending on the individual's brain and partly depending on how they've been raised to think. The key to bringing people into the fold is by starting when they're young and receptive, finding ways to ingrain New World beliefs in their minds without coming across too strong or attracting the attention of folks who disagree with the vision.
I know, it sounds kind of like creepy cultist behaviour, and I remember one of the posters here had a bad experience with a cult (I'm sorry that I forgot your name, bro, but my heart still goes out to you), but I think the key difference between those kinds of cults and spreading the actual good word to do the actual good work is basically not doing all that creepy negative shit like saying "if you aren't in your seats in 20 seconds you've all failed" or manipulating kids into doing crazy shit. I'm not a man of faith by any means, and I encourage healthy scepticism and the art of questioning everything, but when it comes to "controlling" people through philosophy, there are right ways, wrong ways, and ways that can easily be both. Controlling people through fear is the wrong way most times, but influencing them with scientific knowledge and hope for the future is a better way to go about it. The more you understand about the universe, the better off you'll be, for this is a universe ruled by wild unthinking forces and the understanding of those forces, not by the whims and whimsies of a vast celestial intelligence who leeches off of the hearts and minds of the crops He sows. Knowledge enables power, and knowing the way minds work can enable the power to influence others.
What I'm getting at is that if we can influence the younger generation to grow up and fix the countless mistakes of the Old World, we could help ensure that video games get the respect they deserve ahead to schedule. It's already happening to an extent, as the young nerds of the 80's and 90's are now in their 20's and 30's, and video games are already ingrained in 21st century youth culture, so with more young blood and a greater understanding of the universe, along with folks who can write and sell truly convincing arguments, hopefully games would get the respect they deserve by the end of the next generation. It'd be hard to push it forward, but hey, nothing worth having in this world comes easy, and in all honesty it shouldn't. As terrible as it can be, strife is one of the main things that drive us to advance, throwing challenges and obstacles for us to understand and surpass, bettering ourselves and others as we succeed and even as we fail. In this universe, there's nothing worse than getting too soft.[/QUOTE]
you could've just shortened it to "we're getting there slowly" and I still would've agreed with you
we're already influencing the younger generation, kids are becoming more liberal than the previous generation and are starting to think for themselves
[QUOTE=The Calzone;46720951]You're being intentionally obstinate but I'm gonna chime in and say that, yes, depicting violence for plot purposes is entirely justifiable, especially when it comes to making you dislike the story's antagonist. Modern Warfare 2's No Russian scene is there to make you hate the bad guy, and that's fine. There's an intent behind the violence, a justification, and that's what separates it from Hatred.[/QUOTE]
And what's stopping Hatred's narrative from painting the MC like an unapologetic asshole and psychopath ?
I mean the trailer didn't make me think that I'd like to get some icecream with the guy.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46720965]If they have the time to remove games that [I]might[/I] be unacceptable, then how can you fucking tell me they don't have the time to remove games that're clearly scams?
Either they can police their store or they can't. Clearly they can, they just don't fucking care.[/QUOTE]
What game(s) are you refering to? Air Control? They've delt with that. Also, it takes more than just a push of a button to get shit off their store, such as re-reimbursing owners, discussing things with the games creators, etc., especially when they're also working on a thousand other things (sales, business transactions, steam support, server maintenance, not to mention anything not related to steam.) There's a reason it took Valve 3 weeks to remove Air Control.
Though I will admit Valve was VERY quick to push this off of Greenlight. Like, suspiciously quick, and it may just invalidate everything I just said.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46720965]If they have the time to remove games that [I]might[/I] be unacceptable, then how can you fucking tell me they don't have the time to remove games that're clearly scams?
Either they can police their store or they can't. Clearly they can, they just don't fucking care.[/QUOTE]
deciding whether or not you like/dislike a game is much easier than claiming a game to be a scam
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.