• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Hatred Game - Thoughts?

Fireeye

Augre
WFTO Backer
Dec 30, 2012
1,155
687
515
Ze Germany
#21
Imho, I feel that "evil" in many games equals "pants-on-head-retarded". They tend offer you choices like this:

A poor farmer has asked you to retrieve his favorite sheep, Bettie, from marauding bandits. After a challenging battle, you return the sheep to the farmer. In his gratitude, he wants to give you 100 gold pieces. Do you
a) Refuse to take his gold because he, being a poor farmer, needs it more than you (Stupid Good, earns you positive reputation that lowers merchant prices, amongst other things)
b) Accept his gold and be on your way (+ 100 Gold)
c) Kill the farmer, sodomize the sheep, set the farm on fire, steal the lolly of a nearby child (Stupid Evil, the entire village hates you, guards attack you, traders refuse to do business with you, no advantages gained).

You know, I'd happily play the asshole if there was an option d) that would have you threaten or blackmail the farmer for a bit more gold, but as things are, far to many games merely punish you for being evil, without giving you benefits as well as they do for the Stupidly Good characters.

Now in Hatred, you are Stupid Evil (or Chaotic Evil) by default. You don't have to worry about not getting the benefits of a Stupid Good character because that path is not available anyway. Non-withstanding, I hope that reviewers will not give this game a lower score because of that because they feel the need to play moral apostle - they already did that with Tropico 5 and reading the reasoning behind this made me lose a good chunk of faith in humanity.
 
Likes: Castigator

Castigator

Gargoyle
WFTO Backer
Dec 30, 2012
433
237
305
Germany
#23
Summarized: A well reasoned opinon on moral choices and their nuances in Gaming.
Well, I usually do some calculations to determine whether or not "stupid good" is actually stupid. In your scenario, depending on merchant prices, I may be able to easily make thousands of gold from the merchant price bonus alone, so even as an evil character, I usually prefer to stay on good terms with the general public, so they can assure my affluence.
But generally, I agree, roleplaying games, or games with roleplaying elements are differentiated by the nuances they offer between the polar opposites of angelic goodness and diabolical perfidy.
And the most common mistake of these guys is, that their "evil" is the retarded version of chaotic evil.
There should be options to go around the quest's challenge and con people out of their quest rewards, the farmer probably wouldn't mind if you got him a similar sheep from another farmer. Depending on your charisma, you could even make outrageus claims, such as "This is a famous award winning ram from another duchy!" If he believes you, you can get the 100 gold and the merchants learn of your "generousity".
Or you might have to gather weapons for a righteous rebellion against a ruthless baron. Instead of simply handing the weapons to the rebelling knights to arm their conscripts, sell them to the highest bidder, who happens to be a certain baron. In return for your support, the baron might offer you to swear fealty to him and take over one of the vacant estates, that belonged to one of those uppity knights.
In a third scenario, you come across a hamlet, that is suffering from a disease. Being an experienced adventurer, you do know how to cure the disease, but will you play nice, or just milk the farmers for everything they have?
There might be even more ambiguous ways around a certain situation, where your hero could increase his fortune in ways, that are not entirely ethical, legal, or justified. The hero could do all that and still maintain help the people, just not entirely unmotivated by his own gain.
Or he could restrict himself to scamming the rich, while leaving the poor alone.
What I meant to say was, that there are other ways to success, where you don't have to act stupid evil.
Games like Tropico and Crusader Kings are built around this. Sure, they are more related to strategy/simulation, but they offer you choices and consequences.
 
Nov 10, 2013
100
50
235
35
Germany
#24
Mh I'm not realy interested in this game, it's a little to dull for my taste, and it will be Censored/banned/indexed/confiscated in my country anyway because of the controversial content.
 

Fireeye

Augre
WFTO Backer
Dec 30, 2012
1,155
687
515
Ze Germany
#25
To be honest, I think there is a far more easier example of "being evil" done right. Look at Overlord I and II: You do, of course, play a cliche evil character, but the game offers you two nuances of evil: You can either go full "HULK SMASH" which nets you a short-term boost of gold but leaves the land you conquer/pillage dead and barren, or you can enslave the population, giving you a more long term benefit.

To be fair, Overlord I may be a bad example because the "good guys" the villagers you "enslave" live under are such massive assholes that you actually are closer to liberating than enslaving them.
 

Marados

Matriarch
WFTO Founder
Dec 18, 2013
601
316
420
Germany
#27
Valve already removed Hatred from Steam!

“We wanted you guys to know that based on what we see on Greenlight we would not publish Hatred on Steam. As such we’ll be taking it down.”
- Valve
 

Fireeye

Augre
WFTO Backer
Dec 30, 2012
1,155
687
515
Ze Germany
#29
It's already been put back though,
Can confirm. Afaik it actually was Gabe Newell himself who intervened and had it brought back to Greenlight. Cue analdevastated culture critics and social justice warriors who see it as the absolute and definite end of western society.

I have this strange feeling as if this could turn into another cult classic like Postal II.
 

Mozared

Juggernaut
WFTO Founder
Feb 17, 2013
1,132
836
520
28
#30
The more this is talked about, the more interesting the phenomenon is becoming to me. Someone on Reddit said you could complete the game as a pure pacifist. I wonder if it's true, it'll make the game that much more interesting. Either way, Valve pulling their support was bad all-round, and I'm glad it's back.

Relevant:
 

Blizzard

Necromancer
WFTO Backer
Dec 3, 2011
530
198
410
34
Behind you
#32
My thoughts on Hatred are its a game like any other and doesn't deserve to be just "censored" , how can postal and manhunt be sold on steam yet somehow this cannot ?! (I know this isnt really censorship but I am just to lazy to find the correct word )

Now if you have a problem with the game fine , share your agrguments why you hate it by all means
but for god sake don't try prohibited other people from experiencing the game
 
May 26, 2014
44
17
90
28
#33
I think it's tasteless (and the other ones you mentioned too), you can sell things without steam and it wouldn't be a problem if they had to sell it on their own site. Steam however don't see themselves as an authority on taste so it doesn't matter anyway.
 
Dec 25, 2014
56
24
120
28
#34
The game is just in the style of Postal 1 so i do not know what the controversy is all about. I thought that when on TV/Netflix you can see human centipede then a game like Hatred would go without a huge notice. Unfortunately a game about killing still brings controversy. Welcome back to the 90s.

About the game itself it semms it will just be Postal 1 with different art style. Postal 1 was good so I look forward to it.
 

Psycix

Dryad
WFTO Founder
Jan 9, 2013
834
305
395
#35
Is a game where you kill people worse than one where you TORTURE people, sometimes purely out of recreational sadism?
It is amazing how Hatred, simply because of it's style, caused a large public outcry, while DK and WFTO haven't.

I invite you to compare Hatred to another violent and recently controversial game: GTA V
The main critique to violent videogames is often that this will cause aggression in real life. Whether or not this is true is debatable, but even if it is, let's consider the following:
Many people will claim that Hatred is bad because the only objective seems to be killing innocents. In GTA there is no incentive to do so, and doing so will actually penalize the player by getting the cops sent after him; hence people conclude that Hatred is somehow worse than GTA, sparking a larger outcry relative to the game's publicity.

But now, from another perspective, realize that in Hatred the player is doing so in order to reach the game's goal. The murdering of innocents is not the player's choice.
In GTA, harming innocent people is not something that the game demanded you to do: It is something the player chooses to do by himself. The game is not encouraging the player to do so, the player himself decides on doing this at his own will.
So here is food for thought: Is a game that involves murdering people as the main part of gameplay 'better' or 'worse' than a game where a player is not encouraged, yet given the possibility to do so?



In the end, everything comes down to the initial impression to the public. The actual content or the actual mechanics and incentives in the game do not matter. Hatred is engineered to delivering the darkest impression possible, causing people to respond out of emotion rather than making a rational analysis. If you look at it objectively, it is not *that* bad at all, and in my opinion neither is violence in videogames, because it's just a game.
 

Fireeye

Augre
WFTO Backer
Dec 30, 2012
1,155
687
515
Ze Germany
#36
I'm still waiting for the concerned mothers that want Hatred fans to be killed, or at least imprisoned.

The question is not whether this will be a thing, but when.
 

Fireeye

Augre
WFTO Backer
Dec 30, 2012
1,155
687
515
Ze Germany
#37
Oh btw, Hatred got greenlit a few days ago. The SJWs and concerned mothers produced enough salt to ravage the fields of Carthago twice over because of it.
 
Top Bottom