compl3x Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Liking far-right Neo-Nazi groups on Facebook raises certain questions about the views of some of the dev team, but I was asking about the issue of Steam pulling the game because of external pressure. If someone can corroborate that then I'll change my opinion about why I think Steam did it. Otherwise we are at an impasse and may as well leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athernar Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Are you sure you can't spoon-feed me some evidence of your social justice warrior conspiracy? I mean, after all, that would be all that is necessary to prove your point. It's rather peculiar that it's been so conspicuously absent from this exchange. Already done so on the previous page, I'm waiting for the supporting data for your absurd claim that not a single person ever complained to Valve about it. Use your common sense and accept that this was more likely a dopey idea from Steams PR department, not because Polygon contributors bitched about it. Valve don't have a PR department Mr No-Assumptions. And as I already described, Valve picking out some random game and banning it when they're taking an active policy of stepping away from 1st-party curation is counter-intuitive and rather nonsensical. And lets be honest, in terms of graphic violence Hatred is pretty tame. Something like Mortal Kombat X is far more graphic, yet I don't see that being pulled from Steam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Some more context about it being pulled from Steam here http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Why-Hatred-Was-Removed-From-Steam-Greenlight-68961.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Already done so on the previous page, No, you haven't. Valve don't have a PR department Mr No-Assumptions. And as I already described, Valve picking out some random game and banning it when they're taking an active policy of stepping away from 1st-party curation is counter-intuitive and rather nonsensical. You got me, I am not entirely familiar with Valve's corporate structure or which departments they fund. As far as it being "picked out randomly" I've already explained why that probably wasn't the case. You are committed to the Polygon/SJW angle that you accept no other explanation even it is it far more likely. And lets be honest, in terms of graphic violence Hatred is pretty tame. Something like Mortal Kombat X is far more graphic, yet I don't see that being pulled from Steam. Debatable. MK has some context of being a fighting game & it's hardly realistic. A reptilian guy spitting acid? A blue ninja shooting ice? A four armed dude? Hatred is "let's shoot, stab, beat random people for no purpose and let's make sure we really emphasise gruesome executions as realistically as possible". It's up to each person to say whether they think the difference is all that great or not. I'd argue that it is. I'd also point out that not many other game devs pursue this kind of style where the emphasise of the game is so solely focused on making people suffer. Some more context about it being pulled from Steam here http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Why-Hatred-Was-Removed-From-Steam-Greenlight-68961.html Which seems to better support my position. There is no evidence Steam was particularly swayed by anyone. Or that there was even enough time to do it in. Any suggestion there was is pure speculation. They were probably trying to pre-empt any negative publicity. The game was gone from Steam before anyone could even make a token Change.org petition demanding its removal. Even if there was an organized effort to get Hatred banned from Steam - and there's no indication that there was - that's too little time to convince Valve to do something they don't want to do. Can we put this to rest now? How about people who have played the game tell us their impressions and we discuss that? This is going no where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athernar Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 No, you haven't. Yeah I kinda have, you're just so unwilling to concede the point you accept no explanation that doesn't conform to your personal narrative. You got me, I am not entirely familiar with Valve's corporate structure or which departments they fund. As far as it being "picked out randomly" I've already explained why that probably wasn't the case. You are committed to the Polygon/SJW angle that you accept no other explanation even it is it far more likely. No, you haven't. Debatable. MK has some context of being a fighting game & it's hardly realistic. A reptilian guy spitting acid? A blue ninja shooting ice? A four armed dude? Hatred is "let's shoot, stab, beat random people for no purpose and let's make sure we really emphasise gruesome executions as realistically as possible". It's up to each person to say whether they think the difference is all that great or not. I'd argue that it is. I'd also point out that not many other game devs pursue this kind of style where the emphasise of the game is so solely focused on making people suffer. I don't remember real life being greyscale, blocky, low resolution and exceedingly corny to the point where nuclear power stations have three-digit nuclear self-destructs set to 666. Hatred doesn't come close to the graphic violence of MKX's fatalities, in violence or graphical realism. Hatred isn't anything new or groundbreaking, it's just a 3edgy5u game that riled up a bunch of sappy snowflakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 The game really doesn't break any ground that we've ever seen broken before, even if you don't agree with the assertion that Valve removed it because of pressure, it's pretty evident that the moral panic against the game is stupid. And it's also obvious that the "progressive" games press did slander the development team. Like it or not, the absurd bias of the games press has been exposed, and this incident does highlight how stupid these moral panics are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I agree the moral panic is stupid. Moral panics are, by definition, irrational. But I don't know if they are all malicious. Sometimes they are just misguided or hopelessly misinformed. The ban of GTA V from some stores in my country was an example of a dishonest campaign. If you like groups on FB which espouse hard-right, Neo-Nazi, racist, etc. views then you run the risk of being called racist. It's a bit hard to believe that someone would follow various far-right groups on social media but have no interest or support for those views. If you were someone who followed groups with contradictory views (far-right, far-left, anarchist, libertarian, socialist, etc.) you might be better able to argue you follow them to simply see their views. As far as I understand it that wasn't the case here. Slander is a bit of a tall order. Sensational, perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragontology Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 It just isn't a good game, and it isn't all that controversial, either. At least I don't think so. Yeah, sure, you go around killing people. But it's top-down, isometric, black-and-white, and the graphics aren't good. The controls are wonky. Calling it a twin stick shooter is kind of generous, even though that's technically what it is. The game considers not only the position of the mouse or the direction the right stick is being pushed, but also how far, which leads to some bizarre scrolling issues the gamer likely does not want. (How about binding scrolling to a hotkey?) It works when it's just you shooting people. When you come out, people are scared, you're cutting them down, it's mindless violent fun. As soon as the cops get involved... while it looks like a small town, within a couple minutes there's an army on top of you and you become the hunted. That's not what I signed on for. And you can't just not shoot anyone, either, the army is descending upon you whether you kill or not. I agree with those who said controversy is all it has, but it really doesn't even have that. Someone said GTA was originally rated AO. I don't remember that. I bought the original when it was brand new. I played the crap outta the demo. First map, five minute timer. You could do missions and stuff, but it was rather pointless. So when it came out and I could remove the timer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha Bloo Monkee Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I tried the game, it's pretty fun for some short-term gaming but I can't see it having a lasting appeal. I probably would have never even heard of the game or tried it if it weren't for all the "controversy". The game sounds like a horror movie when you play it. I was also pleased that it had controller support, considering it's a twin-stick shooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragontology Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I was also pleased that it had controller support, considering it's a twin-stick shooter. Crimsonland is the very definition of twin-stick shooter and I don't think it shipped with controller support. The new Steam "HD" version might have it, but the endless nights I spent playing it were with WASD to move and mouse to aim, and it worked very well for that. Crimsonland and Geometry Wars are examples of how a twin-stick shooter should behave, and how you can survive if you're quick even among a large number of enemies. Hatred doesn't do it so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I tried the game, it's pretty fun for some short-term gaming but I can't see it having a lasting appeal. I probably would have never even heard of the game or tried it if it weren't for all the "controversy". Trying to make your title stand out in a market that is heavily saturated with "indie" titles is hard to do. They did it effectively, all while arguing they were fighting some imaginary battle against political correctness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Marketing and PR at its best. Get some idiotic "journalists" to do the job for you. The game seems alright. Crappy story and cheesy dialogs, nice shooting and physics mechanics, but nothing really to make it stand out from the rest of the twin stick shooters. A good first effort, non the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Here is an interview with Przemyslaw Szczepaniak, the studio's Business & Marketing Development Manager... As far as receiving death threats: ABC T&G: What is the worst feedback that you've received? Have you been sent death threats? PS: Nah, there was no death threats, we had just several hate emails and that's it. Most of the feedback we got, was positive or neutral, and it's a good feeling because we know how many backers and fans we have in the world. http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2015/06/26/4262478.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts