Last I checked, wars don't happen for no reason. We don't have wars just because we like to kill people.

Hello

Quote from: Verbatim on December 17, 2014, 01:11:30 PM

Last I checked, wars don't happen for no reason. We don't have wars just because we like to kill people.

What are you even talking about?

Call of Duty takes place during war.
Halo takes place during war.
Battlefield takes place in a war.

You fucking idiot.

Quote from: >Being a BongLemön on December 17, 2014, 01:13:12 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on December 17, 2014, 01:11:30 PM

Last I checked, wars don't happen for no reason. We don't have wars just because we like to kill people.

What are you even talking about?

Call of Duty takes place during war.
Halo takes place during war.
Battlefield takes place in a war.

You fucking idiot.

I'm talking about the multiplayer, you spongaloid. Something which I specifically stated in a previous post.
Have you ever played the multiplayer of either of those games?

I'm talking about the multiplayer, you spongaloid.

And I'm NOT.

Last I checked, Hatred isn't a multiplayer game anyway, so it's fucking moronic to compare it with the multiplayer of another game.

Okay mate.
There's no objective to CoD's MP besides killing other people. There's no objective to Hatred besides killing people.

I distinctly remember there being several other objectives, like planting/disarming bombs and capturing objectives. In addition, the multiplayer is set up as a war between the two factions from the campaign. Not to mention that both sides are organized, uniformed soldiers with military training and weapons, willingly engaging each other, whereas Hatred is some trenchcoat-wearing motherfucker shooting up public places because he hates them. The fact that that has to be spelled out is incredible. I know you understand the differences, you're just refusing to acknowledge them because 'muh censorship' nonsense.

But hey, continue to be a retard that's in favour of censoring creative freedom.

This isn't about censorship, it's about Valve not endorsing a game that conflicts with common decency. Destructive Creations are welcome to publish it themselves.

(Posted by Sly-Something)

For one, you and the interest groups against the game aren't the supreme authority on what games can and can't be made.

They're free to make the game. I have no problem with that. I'm talking about Steam standing up for a standard of quality requisite to being greenlit, then backing down because of keyboard warriors bitching about censorship.

My full support goes to Hurtful and Verbatim here. [Minus the vulgarity though ]

Quote from: GodspeedSnowjira! on December 17, 2014, 01:40:38 PM

My full support goes Verbatim here.

Strange feeling, huh?

I could get used to it! He's not nearly as bad as before.

Quote from: >Being a BongLemön on December 17, 2014, 01:28:14 PM

Okay mate.
There's no objective to CoD's MP besides killing other people. There's no objective to Hatred besides killing people.

I distinctly remember there being several other objectives, like planting/disarming bombs and capturing objectives.

So as long as they tack on additional modes to the one strictly for killing each other it's okay?

In addition, the multiplayer is set up as a war between the two factions from the campaign. Not to mention that both sides are organized, uniformed soldiers with military training and weapons, willingly engaging each other, whereas Hatred is some trenchcoat-wearing motherfucker shooting up public places because he hates them.

And they are both video games so I don't see why the characters motives have to be morally sound.  Video games are virtual play grounds and shouldn't be limited to only guys with good intentions. 

you're just refusing to acknowledge them because 'muh censorship' nonsense.

Because "stop liking what I don't like" and ''muh artistic narratives!" is so much better.

This isn't about censorship, it's about Valve not endorsing a game that conflicts with common decency.

Actually, it kinda is.  Certain media groups were threatening to slam Valve if they didn't do as they say.  I'm glad Valve has some balls to not be easily intimidated by them and to let the game flop on it's own.

I'm talking about Steam standing up for a standard of quality requisite to being greenlit

Which isn't what they clearly want to do, regardless of how hard the media tries to bully them into it.

 

then backing down because of keyboard warriors bitching about censorship.

What a shame they couldn't be bullied to take it down by the tumblr wenches and media prudes.  What a shame the vocal minority didn't have more push.

And they are both video games so I don't see why the characters motives have to be morally sound.  Video games are virtual play grounds and shouldn't be limited to only guys with good intentions.

You're correct, and it can be really interesting narrative-wise when a character is evil and you're basically forced to go along with evil acts, a la GTA.

It seems like the only reason you support GabeN's decision is because it spites Tumblr and other SJW-bullshit complaints. Like I said, DC is welcome to complete the game and release it, I just find it disagreeable that Valve would choose to endorse a game like Hatred. In a capitalist economy, companies have every right to deny support for whatever they choose. You're absolutely out of your mind if you think this game does any good for the industry which is already lambasted as hyper-violent and crime-inducing; refusing to greenlight this was a good step towards showing that gamers aren't mindless violence junkies after all.

Don't like it? Don't play it. It's that simple.

You're right, it is that simple. There's no need to be so glib about it, but you know, whatever.

All I'm saying is, I don't disagree with the decision to blacklist it.
(I don't disagree with it being greenlit again, either.)

I'm just saying, if it were up to me, I would have done the same thing.
And I hate censorship. Ask anyone.

What upsets me is the notion that the game Hatred is at all comparable to any of the violent video games currently on the market. Based on the trailer footage, I don't think it is.

Quote from: GodspeedSnowjira! on December 17, 2014, 01:44:16 PM

Spoiler

back to arguing about why a private corporation ltierally has every right to not support a game with zero artistic merit

I'm not arguing that they don't have that right.  I'm arguing a private corporation shouldn't be threatened for selling a product that has no negative effect on anyone. 

You seriously think that releasing this game will not have any negative effects on how the industry is viewed by people not familiar with it [aka the mainstream press]?

The initial reason it was taken down was bloggers and certain media outlets were going to shame them for simply releasing it on their market, with the usual drivel about them supporting violence and patriarchy yada yada yada.

Or how about Valve deciding that the product is simply one not worth distributing?

Quote

Spoiler

back to arguing about why a private corporation ltierally has every right to not support a game with zero artistic merit

I'm not arguing that they don't have that right.  I'm arguing a private corporation shouldn't be threatened for selling a product that has no negative effect on anyone. 

You seriously think that releasing this game will not have any negative effects on how the industry is viewed by people not familiar with it [aka the mainstream press]?

It's not gamers fault the media is ignorant.  So far no credible studies have been able to link violent games with causing real life violence.  Not releasing it for fear of shame only boasts their position.

The initial reason it was taken down was bloggers and certain media outlets were going to shame them for simply releasing it on their market, with the usual drivel about them supporting violence and patriarchy yada yada yada.

Or how about Valve deciding that the product is simply one not worth distributing?

If that was their personal decision I wouldn't be against it. 

lol this thread.

Its funny that people are still using the 'its not censorship' line or 'valve has the right' line after we went over that in the first page. That and people keep saying they don't like the game as if that is relevant.

No idea why anyone is still arguing though. Even GabeN admitted pulling it was bs, and apologized for it. Its back up on steam. Move on with your day guys.
 

Your argument seems to be "Valve was pressured into this decision by tumblr/SJWs, hence it's wrong" coupled with "there's nothing wrong with the game and Valve should release it."

A) If the first argument is correctly translated, defend your premise. How do you know Valve was "pressured into this decision" instead of making it on their own? Was there a statement or something saying "due to popular demand" that I'm missing?

Just a hunch and then I just argued under the assumption as if it was true. 

An analogy for why I could think that is if a bully says to a kid "come to school tomorrow and I'll kick your ass" and the kid goes home and posts on facebook "hey guys I'm not coming to school tomorrow" it's a good hunch you know why.

B) If the second argument is correct, why would you say this?

Yep and if it was under their own decision I'm fine with it.

There could be nothing wrong with the game, but it's still their choice not to release it.

It's not gamers fault the media is ignorant.  So far no credible studies have been able to link violent games with causing real life violence.  Not releasing it for fear of shame only boasts their position.

Uh, okay? What's your argument here? You're dodging the question.

Will this or will this not stir negative attention to the industry?

I don't have a magic ball to see how much it will stir.  Likely just as much as GTA, but that's irrelevant.  I don't care about ignorant people's opinion's of my hobbies.  Should their negative attention hold merit if it's under false pretense and out of ignorance?  I sure don't think so.