Drawing the line... in blood.

....So, how about that hatred trailer guys? I had heard a little about it, but didn't pay any attention until later where its starting to become almost like a joke to make fun of it by doing something like posting a colorful video right after they show off the trailer. To say the game has violence is an understatement. The game doesn't just have it, its selling itself on only that at this stage. Its very graphic, very dark in tone (literally as well), and there was just nothing but over the top killing after a mean spirited monologue. Obviously people are in an uproar about it, but there's also a bit of defense for it. Even Epic has asked that their unreal engine logo gets removed from any mention within the game. The guys that put this out there have said this is too much. So is this ok? If not, what something like GTA any better?Where do we draw the line?

Well my first thought is how hilariously bad the opening dialogue is. No seriously, its so bad its hilarious and fun to watch. That coupled with the mediocre animation quality, it feels instantly like a B grade game trying hard to be edgy. Honestly the game could be looked at like that, but they really try to hammer home the idea of these intense graphic animations with no game incentive reasons in sight. Of course I bet there will be points, leaderboards, maybe power-ups, alternate modes, etc, but the trailer itself is living off of raw shock value of mass murder in interactive form. Its pretty much the poster child game the mainstream media wants you to think is the backbone of the gaming industry. My gripe with the game is mostly around the question of "What's the point?". I don't hate the hatred so much as I hate the lack of substance. There isn't anything fun to it where as Madworld, Naughty bear, and other games full of killing at its core build other gamey elements around your input and interaction. I suppose if you want it laser focused down to raw killing, fine I'm glad you got your game, but for a large number of people this should be an easily passable experience. Some people in defense of this game are suggesting people hate the violence because its not going against aliens or armed forces, but that's not necessarily true. It implies the same dumb idea Spec Ops did, that we want to be heroes. Nope, sorry, not the case. Aliens, soliders, and monsters are better though but not because of context as much as for the fact that they encourage better mechanics. Aliens have cool abilities and require some interesting possibly horror tipped story. Soldiers are supposed to be trained to fight you and bring out a warzone type of setting that gives the battle more of an edge. Civilians and a handful of cops... well that's just not so interesting, you can only kill so many of them before you feel you're wasting your time on polygon people. Look at Shadow of Mordor's recent praise over the nemesis system. What could have been dumbed down to as "kill these guys on your hit list" was turned into one big strategy game within a game where people are actually thinking and building up their own enemies, stories, battles, and rivalries from a deeper system that contextualizes everything just right. The game is doing well because of a very clever combat based mechanic stretched to shape dynamically with the player and very smart AI planning as well as some smart immersive extra bits on top. Hatred can't even pull off its aggressive animations smoothly, never the less come up with any mechanics that make it appealing. Its just run and gun in its most mindless and literal interpretation as possible. Once again, this isn't a fact of the game as a whole. Maybe they just hid the HUD and scoring system, quest info, or some kind of combo piece. Its just that like with most people its going off the feelings of the trailer. This is what the developers put together to appeal to you, and if that's their best than they've failed to hook me at all.

Its color is about as bright as its depth seems to be...

So I mentioned the mechanics and only that, but I have yet to talk about the gore. Many bring this game up as crossing the line in violence, and I really have trouble seeing that as far as violence on its own goes. Maybe to some degree you could say its whole design and tone is terrible, but violence on its own? Nope, sorry, guess I'm "desensitized". I don't hate violence in video games, never did. There's only been two times a game's shock value violence has moved me to think its a bit too much, and that was the original Soldier of Fortune (It eventually looks a bit robotic, but the first hour is just insanely gorey for an old game), and one time in Dishonored where I decided to be the most psychotic guy possible on the party level. I couldn't go through with it on Dishonored, walking up one by one and slitting throats just got old and felt wrong. I wasn't doing anything useful or relevant, I was just doing it because I told myself I would try a "mean" playthrough on that one level and it left me quitting out on that save and erasing that progress before I finished the mass murder. Still for everything else out there.... nope never found a limit. Actually I think some violent flare is needed in an action game. Its about aesthetics; If you give me a game like Uncharted where shooting a guy means he just falls flat on his face and still looks like he's clean enough to attend a fancy formal gathering, it leaves a bitter feeling. Its as if the game wants to look action packed while being too cowardly or lazy to pull off the full effect. Getting it just right alongside great gunplay can make a massive difference as to whether or not the game feels good at its job. Far Cry 1 felt great whenever you were able to hurt a guy, then see how accurate your shots were as it was actually one of the only games to leave bullet holes in targets. Meanwhile Killzone 2 has an entire trailer showing off how well tuned their death animations, gunplay, fun ragdoll physics, and bleeding effects are. In addition to the inteligent AI and level design, the aesthetics have helped make Killzone 2 my all time favorite corridor shooter out there. Censoring or downplaying that stuff in a game about action feels essentially like what would happen if Batman movies had him defeat thugs by a game of freeze tag (I blame Mr.freeze), it just sounds stupid and breaks the immersion. So what does this all have to do with hatred? Well I just don't have any problem with its show case of violent and aggressive visuals. I'm willing to bet there's worse out there that I've played. I mean sure its got those terrible animations, and a horrible context, but is it worse than firing a cerebral bore in Turok, hacking off limbs with a hatchet in Postal 2, or a fatality in Mortal Kombat? I really don't think so. Some people would argue those are cartoony by comparison, but again I'll point out Hatred's opening, animations, and that shotgun to head explosion. Its still quite crazy, its just that the problem lies in the fact that there's nothing beyond the violence. Again its mechanics that are important, and I disagree with the fact that this game is crossing the line in violence. Its crossing the line in pointless violence, sure, but the key word that separates this game from something like GTA, is pointless. However since violence is a big deal to this game, its a compliment to say that it has indeed nailed the nature that it wont be so pretty. Still I'd much rather be playing something with mechanics behind that combat and gorey aesthetics, so how about bulletstorm and a mini-gun instead?

Let's rock!

Of course though I don't speak for all. Some do find the violence disgusting, or maybe they do feel its the lack of mechanics and the obvious shock value that makes this work appalling. So much so that they really would rather the game not exist at all. Honestly I think that's a pretty twisted view, maybe more so than the game ironically. This is kind of the thing you do with free markets and free speech, you've got to let this game slide. If you don't like it, don't play it. If you're worried about it causing violence, then you need to re-check yourself and remember what we've been fighting for as gamers (...well other than gamergate, but lets not discuss that now). Video games don't cause violence, even the ones that are made for shock value. It'll take an already messed up mind to take gaming out into reality in such a way that causes harm. Worst case scenario is that this is just one big stunt that may make a bit of money. It was made to get people shocked and hateful towards its terrible nature, it wanted to give journalists something so horrible they had to cover, and they want people to buy it just to see if it really is some kind of murder fantasy. Its basically a living bad publicity = sales stunt as some claim. Personally, I can totally see this point and wouldn't be surprised if it was true, but again... I can't really find a necessary reason this needs to stop. Just do not support it. If the news uses it against us, just remember that gamers themselves were opposed to it... in addition to the fact that other medias have their own substance-less shock value junk.

On a final note though, I obviously can't see the appeal of this game, but what about those that do? Some people really have looked towards it and said "ok, I may check this out" and defend it as a thing for stress relief. Fair enough, but once again I think mechanics trump all here. When you just want stress relief would you rather play this mindless shooting game, or something that has more humor, silly references, more immersive, and a mod community. Well meet Postal 2, where you can absolutely go insane and only that if you just want stress relief. Then you can also have a good laugh at reasonable humor, fun missions gone wrong, and witness an environment that naturally lends itself to hilarious interactive set-pieces. There's pretty much no fluff getting in your way, but you can get so much more out of it if you're having a bad day and just want to let out some angry tension in a virtual world. So.... who really wants Hatred?