[NSFW] Hatred - A Mass Murder Simulator - Offended by the trailer? You're a hypocrite!

The Mask of Sanity is another groundbreaking work that describes this phenomena. I will provide you a link to that for your edification or others on this thread who may wish to acquire further information on this topic which bears greatly on the current state of the world and geopolitics..
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
I will find a link for the FBI stuff or perhaps a video interview I remember viewing from a while back. The facts are that though they may not specifically use the term ponerology they use the same data that this more overreaching subject encompasses. Do not let the term ponerology confuse you. It comes from the greek.
"In theology, ponerology (from Greek poneros, "evil") is a study of evil. Major subdivisions of the study are the nature of evil, the origin of evil, and evil in relation to the Divine Government.[1]"Here is the wikipedia link on political ponerology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ponerology

To quarantine somebody is not necessarily to lock them away but to make them unable to infect or affect others with their disease. Knowledge of means and methods is one way this quarantine can be effected. I may also suggest a good read into the MK ULTRA programs who manipulate minds and compartmentalize them using drugs, imagery and suggestion to achieve the installation of compartmentalized assassin mindsets that can be triggered with keywords and all memory of that personality inaccessible once out of that personality. Methamphetamines and LSD are commonly used in this process and people playing games are not always "straight" so to speak. I find it interesting that they allow these subjects any drugs they wish to consume except cannabis which can break the entire programming in as little as one session.

Here is a link to a google search. The top links are direct to fbi.gov
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=FBI psychopaths are not human&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

Ok, search for "human" in that text. See? No non-human nowhere. That this is a google hit only means that the word "not" and the word "human" are in the text, it does not mean "not human" is in the text as you see.

Edit: search instead: FBI psychopaths are "not human"
No FBI hits except one. And "not human" does not apply to the psychopath being "not human" in this one. Actually the point of the hits you get here is, that the people that consider others "not human" are the psychopaths.

I do not say there is no science into why and how people are bad. But the conclusions you draw are the problem (non-human, quarantine,...).

It's like saying poor children have much higher probability to commit a crime later, so let's lock them all up. All people can be good or bad, and the living conditions are a huge factor.

Actually the most important factor is the environment. Poverty and perspective for the future.
A psychopath with the right caring environment is no problem in most cases.
Where I live we have almost no hard crime, because of social security. And our punishments for crime are very weak. If cops shoot somebody there is a rigorous investigation because it is assumed that should not happen. It happens so infrequent that it is in the national news if it happens.
A cop shooting on a fleeing car goes to jail here normally. Except he goes for the tires and there was no danger to hurt anyone.

 

Good Christ, no. "Filth" is an opinion, and you CANNOT have a governing body decide what is "filth" for everyone else in a free society. You give them an inch, and they will take a mile.

You are basing your statements on torture porn (and this dumb videogame) with absolutely no research or facts, but only your own personal opinions on the subjects.

Please stop talking, you are advocating an Orwellian future.

 

Let me understand your definition of "human" and "humanity" as that seems to be your continuous rendezvous point. I believe your lack of understanding my use of it is that is I use it in a philosophical and spiritual context as to what it is that makes us "human" as another poster in this thread pointed out. So, if you would define your understanding of a "human" and man's "humanity" perhaps the differences could be sorted out. I am saying that according to my understanding of what it is to be "human" is to have empathy, to understand right and wrong, to have guilt when you have done something to hurt another, to continually strive to be a better friend, parent, child, neighbor, citizen of your local and world community. In this context everything I have posted links to backs up my understanding of the psychopath not being "human". As for hybrids..I offer this most interesting documentary for your perusal.

I fully expect a knee jerk reaction from you but give it a go and explain to me the skulls and real world evidence presented regardless of what you may perceive as dogma.

 

We are already there...for those paying close attention.

 

Right so, it's ok to have rape etc in a video game? I'm saying it again... where do you draw the line? and who draws that line?

And again, are you really trying to say that extreme violence is something that would be missed by society? seriously, grow up. Films, even violent ones are censored. Scenes are cut out etc... there's limits. Games need a board of censorship if they go too far to be approved for the mass market, especially with the realism in graphics we are reaching.

censorship != banning

 

Plenty of rape in TV, movies, books, music, theatre, etc. Is it the interactive part that troubles you or do you think we should start burning everything with rape in it?

 

And those are often censored when they go too far. Currently there's no censorship, no removal of scenes which go too far in games. I'm saying if hatred is any indication of what will come in the future, it will be unavoidable.

Again though... I'm surprised that people fight so passionately to include rape and extreme violence as if it's some kind of thing that benefits the human race.

 

Sociolotron beat them to it, back in 2005 or earlier.

 

I love the fact that some of you are acting like this is new and exclusive to this game and that this has crossed some sort of line.

By your logic, if you ban this kind of game, you should also ban pretty much every action game ever because they all promote mass murder in some way or another. I can spend all day here listing games that let you do bad things to innocent virtual people.

If you played any action game recently, then I agree with the OP and you're just a big hypocrite.

 

I'll revise my statement: The market should be heavily regulated but content creation should not. Each market can choose to allow a game to be distributed on their service or not, but it should not be illegal EVER to obtain, posses or create virtual content. Diablo 3 content is a joke because while it is rated M, bliz knows probably more than half of their market is not older than 17. The M rating is probably being used to market to kids because they think something is cooler if it's rated M...

If you personally can't stomach the content then the simple solution for you is not to buy it. If religious groups in America can get along, I'm sure you won't judge your friends too harshly for enjoying that game. I personally wouldn't play it because the gameplay doesn't look that fun and their effort to make an edgy product shows a bit too much.

The line should be drawn per person for their own content consumption. Virtual media can't hurt you if you don't view it and people who would be influenced by it can't get their hands on it.

George Carlin found where the line was drawn just so he could cross it deliberately.

 

The less restrictions the freer you are from the control freaks.

 

I started watching. Ok, so a nephilim is anyone who has a blood line directly back to satan? I could not go on watching, it is too long and hurts my brain.

I'm atheist, so presenting religious fantasy as science looks like a joke to me.

Edit: oh god, I watched a little more: UFOs, and humans do not come from monkeys (missing link argument like always with Creationists, ignoring that many missing links have been found, just funny and sad at the same time). To be religious needs a little blindness to facts and logic, but the stuff in this video is just simply completely nuts. Even the Pope believes in evolution and science, but there are people that just live in a parallel fantasy world in their minds.
Just look for science about the skulls, I'm too lazy to do it for you, you ignore it anyway (short: these people bound rope around their head or something). And check some atheist youtube streams about Creationism and other stuff if you are not afraid of another perspective.

I do not watch more, because if I come back with a list what is wrong about it, you will ignore my points. Like e.g. the previous post of me (e.g. about poor children):

Edit2:
oh guys, watch this video. I just randomly jump around in it, one crazy thing after another:
- "there should be no whale skeletons be found in deserts" - maybe there was a sea there earlier dummy
- "there should be no sea shell found in mountains" - maybe there was a sea there earlier dummy

Edit3:
The people who are able to believe this video are exactly the people you could bring to kill others easily, because you can bring them to believe the others are not humans but demons.
From her first post I assumed maybe a little religiously blinded, even there was zero religion in that post. But this really is far worse than I assumed. I'm shocked.

Edit4:
funny fact about the guy in the video: "Trey Smith is best known for his role in the 1999 safe robbery of prominent television evangelist Mike Murdock, a lead fundraiser for TBN, PTL, Daystar, Benny Hinn and others."
So he saw how much money you can get from milking dumb people, so now he does that himself.

 

Censoring someone's expression is like telling someone their opinion is wrong. As much as you might dislike it, opinions and expressions can't be wrong. There's always a reason someone has their opinion no matter how stupid that reason is.

You'll get a greater understanding of your fellow man and species if you don't censor freedom of expression. In fact, you'd probably stop certain tragedies from happening if the logic behind someone's opinion makes them appear to be a threat to society. If the creator of hatred is (as we suspect) trying as hard as possibly to make a controversial game, he's not a threat to anyone. If the creator of hatred is venting frustrations of some sort through the game, then maybe he would benefit from some therapy - or maybe sharing his expressions of frustration with others would be therapeutic. If the creator's intent is some kind of manifestation of his own intentions, then you can deem him a threat and use that as a lead to discover a massacre before it happens. Without freedom of expression, you'll kill thousands!

I wonder how high suicide numbers would increase if the phrase "%I'm going to kill%" caused a message to be blocked, no matter what the context was.

 

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
"Censorship" usually refers to the government editing and deleting things, and films are not censored in the U.S. I'm pretty sure they're not censored in most European countries either. I don't remember which country you're in, but in the U.S., there is the MPAA, a self-policing movie board that assigns ratings to movies, and will tell movies that if they want to avoid an X or NC-17 rating, they need to remove certain scenes, but this isn't exactly censorship, since you can still produce and legally distribute an unrated movie. Video games already have the same thing. In the US, it's the ESRB, and it works the same way it works in movies. If you want an ESRB rating that's not AO, you have to delete what they tell you to, and most games go along with that because most retail stores and Steam will not sell AO games. Europe has PEGI, which is basically the same thing.

 

I'm not sure what actions you can do in Hatred that you can't already do in GTA. Sure, GTA has a story, but at any time, I can go outside my apartment and act like a psychopath:

I can:

1. Mow innocent people down as fast as my guns will let me.
2. Shoot innocent people in different parts of the body. When I do, blood will gush out of the limbs I shot off.
3. Point guns at innocent people. When I do this, they'll put their hands up, cower in fear, or run away. I can blow their limbs off while they're in this state of fear.
4. The game gives me lots of ways to hurt people, from baseball bats to shotguns to rocket launchers. I can also run over people with cars.
5. If I kill enough people, the game will send policemen at me. I'm free to shoot them too.
6. Oh yeah. When people die, I can take their money, so I can go buy more guns to kill with.


The only thing that Hatred really does differently is that it looks more realistic. When I blow a limb off, the graphics are gorier. When I point my guns at people, the fear is more genuine.

I'm not gonna say GTA is a good thing, but we've already crossed that line. Hatred just makes it more obvious.

 

Do we need to draw a line? It's not like this is going to be on broadcast television, where any ten year old could just turn on the tube and watch. Not like there isn't violent pornography (as I star playing system of a down) on TV already. How graphic the depiction is doesn't really matter.

I'm probably not going to play it since it sounds boring and the opening part of the trailer was so full of wangst that my gut hurt. Don't see how anyone who has played spec ops is probably going to care. Chances are that by the end, you will quite deliberately have opened fire on civilians.

 

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so F***ing what."

- Stephen Fry


(Sorry, I couldn't resist. )

 

Have you considered that perhaps instead of encouraging bad actions, these types of experiences may instead curb that behavior by providing the people who may need them an outlet?

Where do you draw the line for what is appropriate in a game or not?

If we decide that certain games are OK and others are not, that is a subjective observation and as such is fallible. While I may feel like shooting and violence, or sex, in games is OK, there are quite a few people who would disagree with me.

So who's right, who's wrong? Who gets to make that choice?

How would you feel if someone decided that the games you enjoy, are not appropriate?

In general:

I don't care for the content of this game, but I disagree with the people who would have content censored because they find it unsettling. When you start picking and choosing what is acceptable and what is not in your media, you open the door to a lot of bad things. Often times the people with the power to censor are not exactly looking out for people's best interests. History has shown that to be the case time and time again.

I find it interesting how people talk about this game and use the very arguments mainstream media uses when they blame shootings on video games.

 

But, I'm not offended. I'm disturbed, big difference. Still, thanks for the quote, made me smile


Offended: "resentful or annoyed, typically as a result of a perceived insult."
Disturbed: "make (someone) anxious." (ie just a feeling)

 

Riiiiiiiight. "Protective". TOTALLY a different thing. Well, I wouldn't worry about protecting anyone, since a wise person I know once told me that normal people are not affected at all by media, and that you would have to be literally insane to let media alter your perceptions of anything, and that those people are so rare that we shouldn't worry about it and game developers should just make whatever they want to make.

 

But I think there's one thing we can all agree on: This game deserves a perfect score on every review site, and none of the reviewers should mention the violence or have any opinion on it at all. Because game sites need to be objective and keep their politics out of it. Am I right or am I right? In fact all the sites that have mentioned the violence in this game are probably already infiltrated by the liberal conspiracy and we should boycott them for not being objective.

 

And you whittle on about me ignoring questions. I predicted a knee jerk response and got it. Explain the skulls. Ignore his explanation. They look very similar to Egytptian hieroglyphics and carvings of royals. There are south american glyphs and carvings with the same skull anomalies. They belonged to serpent cults. Ya know..the ones whose priests immolated children in the fires of Molech and the Aztec Priests that skinned young women alive, tore their hearts out and wore the skin whilst high on petum, a mixture of coca leaf and petroleum which they rubbed on their bodies. Crude cocaine extraction is done with kerosene..not much diff from petroleum. But I do not expect you to have the requisite reading and knowledge to know these things. You seem to be quite enamored and content with the current state of your knowledge. It fascinates me that you have chosen me as a target for your vitriol.

You may have been descended or cloned from monkeys. I do not have an rh factor myself so i doubt there is a link between myself and the lower primates. The world has a fascinating and hidden history. I am sure if I said there were giants in those days you would also scoff at that yet the evidence is all over the internet without biblical context. I note how quickly you dismiss knowledge without making the requisite pursuit of the evidence. Congratulations on being an atheist. That definitively makes you a superior intellect..heh. I used to be "smart" like you.

 

I wanted dragons to exist and I swear they did at one time! Too many cultures all have them that at the time didn't know of each other.
dragons ftw!

 

Hey, do you guys remember a few threads ago when I was the crazy person and ippdev was the voice of reason? Those were simpler times. Sometimes I miss them.

 

I draw the line with what I'm personally comfortable with, no one's forcing me to watch or play anything. ME. Not you, or any governing body.

And yes, there are many people in society that enjoy extremely violent entertainment. The Raid 1 and 2 are two of my favorite movies. SAW. Hostel. (all of which had unrated post-theater releases) I enjoyed Postal in 1997 when I was 15, although I was aware it was ridiculous, hamfisted and, you know, not reality. Some people find catharsis through fantasy violence. Normal, well-adjusted, not-psychotic-murderer people.

Regarding films, they are only required to be "censored" for theatrical release. There are plenty of unrated films available on DVD/Blu-Ray/digitally.

 

First and foremost this game is uncomfortable for people.
And people tend to like to think about uncomfortable topics in a certain way: Later or - best - never. They like the thought of huge distance to all those things.

Seriously, the only big difference between Hatred and games like CoD is that Hatred doesn't bother painting the people you kill as "evil" in one way or another.
Strip this one aspect away from CoD. What do you get? Five hours of you shooting, slashing, stabbing, bombing and basically just blowing random people's faces off.

Let's reverse the situation:
Replace the people in Hatred with zombies. What do you get? Basically Dead Rising. And that's okay right? Because as soon as it's zombies, you have build yourself enough of a distance that running through masses with a fire-axe attached to a sledgehammer is absolutely okay and funny and not F***ed up in the slightest, right?

That's hypocrisy for you.


As far as the developers go. I wouldn't call them sick, since a modified version of hanlon's razor applies here.
Never attribute to malice sickness that which is adequately explained by stupidity intelligence.

This game will spark enough controversy to sell quite a few copies regardless of quality.
I mean this happened the other day.

 

As I mentioned before, I think all the people making this comparison are missing something obvious. In CoD and Dead Rising, you are in combat. The enemy is trying to kill you, and you are trying to kill them, and that's what makes it an actual "game"... you are trying to win the fight, and you have to dodge and aim and think tactically and there is always a chance that you will lose. The point isn't that the enemy is "evil", it's that they are actively fighting against you and presenting an obstacle to overcome. That's usually how games work, and that's kind of the whole point of FPS's, especially in multiplayer. If you're shooting your friend in Halo, you are not doing it because you think your friend is "evil", you're doing it because it's a competition and you are both trying to win. In Hatred, on the other hand, you are just shooting unarmed targets that are not fighting back, and who are apparently worse at running away than your average houseplant.

 

I'm not really OK with a kid of 10 getting hold of ultra violent games where you know, you're not a spectator, but a participant, and the cause of it. For a developing mind, there is an effect - there's no doubt about that. For adults the jury is out - I suspect that this would have no effect unless they were already mentally ill. But for a child (which is where my real problem is, as I'm kind of protective of kids) - I can't see them brutally stabbing a crying innocent women and walking to school the next day being unaffected by that. Hence I think it's pretty disturbing... and worrying if left unchecked.

If not censorship, then there needs to be industry wide protection here, so kids don't just pick up the latest ultra-violent game. Right now there's very little respect or care about it, since games still aren't that realistic. In the next 5 years they will be incredibly realistic.

 

It's a tag team

 

Serious question: If a child can be affected by violent imagery in a game, do you think a child could be affected by sexist or racist imagery in a game?

PS - Sorry for singling you out, please don't ban me.

 

Good thing games have ratings so responsible parents can decide for themselves what their children play. It's not up to you what other people's kids play.

 

There's a wealth of actual proven evidence that pre-puberty is a very vulnerable time for kids. It essentially shapes their entire adult life. This is why things like smacking your kids is being clamped down on, and why children can be 'scarred for life' if you've heard the phrase. It's here in childhood that your brain isn't actually developed yet. It's still developing.

People in this forum might say "well I saw mad max sex scenes when I was a kid and I thought it was cool". But they are probably less well adjusted than they like to think, and prone to all sorts of things like depression or a need to watch violence or perhaps they're just reclusive. In any case I *was* affected by complete freedom to watch whatever I wanted. I was hit as a kid and I didn't have a very good childhood.

As an adult I remain functional, but everyone else is having a much happier time of things than I am. This isn't a personal sob story but just a honest look at myself, and the reason I agree with the findings by experts that childhood is a vulnerable period.

 

1.I'm not "missing the point", but it's part of my "painting them as "evil" in one way or another" point.
This disguise is paper-thin. It's just one step above "they're enemies because your crosshair goes red if you aim at them". No effort is put into it.

2. You made the "it's not a game" point and I have a strict policy whenever someone brings it up:
I give you one chance to back it up with some serious argumentation, or I'll just disregard your argument.
My stand on it is that you're not in the position to universally define what is and what isn't a game for every person in the world, period.

4. You're not in the position to define what is and what isn't challenging. What if this game has some challenges in form of...well, literal challenges. Stuff like the "Killing Frenzies" from GTA2?

3. You're also not in the position of defining what is and what isn't the point of a shooter. If I started projecting my personal tastes as universal truths, CoD wouldn't be classified as a shooter anymore.


Disclamer: So far I don't like this game at all, but I don't like when people play the moral-police and want to decide for everyone.

I agree. Good thing this isn't rated for children, right?

 

What if you're allergic to human tears? That makes the trailer look like self defense! All of those people are trying to murder the protagonist!!

--edit

Huh, somehow didn't notice hippocoder was a forum mod. Thanks for not closing this very entertaining topic!

--edit 2

Since people are liking this comment so long after it's initial posting, I'll add a little extra something to it:

If this game is set in Texas and this man owns the property, then he's just standing his ground! That would also explain all the weapons. Just set this game in Texas and the plot explains itself ^-^ Throw in some Hobby Lobby references and say this man is executing infidels as a religious right and obligation.

 

That's kind of not answering the question. For what it's worth, I agree with you that media can affect children, and I also know it affects adults (as you say, proven evidence). What I'm trying to get at, not so subtly, is that this is exactly the problem with your former blanket statements dismissing all concerns with sexism or racism in games because "they don't actually affect anyone" and "it's just politics", or dismissing everyone's concerns about a game as "just being offended".

 

Uh, mario rescuing the princess isn't a problem. Having the princess stabbed repeatedly is a massively different ball game man.

 

1) I actually just saw later that he shows that the normal people explain it the way I did (rope around head).

2) Sure. The whole scientific community is wrong and you are right. Science does not mean what you like is true. You have to create a falsifiable theory. The stuff in this video is not like that. It just says stuff and assumes it is true. Like religions do it.
You have 97% DNA of a primate, just an accident? Or is DNA satan stuff?

3) The skulls and giants, could be theoretically. Evolution you know. Maybe relatives of us, like Neanderthals. But I prefer such infos from well known scientists and not some nutjobs on the internet. You have links to well known scientists talking about that (so people that have published multiple papers in well known journals)?

But all that is Satan and UFOs and demons. They are not human, protect yourself from them. Trey Smith knows what all the ancient texts mean, and see, they perfectly match his world view. Nice, isn't it. Joke is, he doesn't believe a word he says like all these dumb people abusers.

 

You said some humans are non-humans. Just answered to that. Assumed you just used words badly. Said "are they half demons?" as joke. But holy sh#t, you really believe they are demons. From there it got crazier and crazier.

But the video is hilarious, thanks for that. Says everything there is to know...

Edit: As said, the people you can make believe others are demons or non-humans, those are those you can manipulate to do very bad things.

 

Bacteria have over 90% of our genome. You prattle on about science but do not seem very familar with much of it. There is no missing link according to great numbers of scientists. Dr. Richard Buggs (geneticist at the University of Florida) says" I predict that when we have a reliable, complete chimpanzee genome, the overall similarity of the human genome will prove to be close to 70% (and very far from 99%)"

Even Darwin himself said that this intepretation of his theory was wrong.
http://books.google.com/books?id=9O...in said his theory was misinterpreted&f=false

There is not one shred of evidence of macro-evolution. Things are what they are. In this manner I have more belief in the theory of morphic resonance by Rupert Sheldrake http://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance

But that is not this discussion. Trey Smith is not the issue. The skulls were the issue in regards to hybrids and that their genome may be the cause of psychopathy, which is speculation on my part and was originally presented as such. Many cultures have records of these Gods that cam down from the skies..including indigenous shamanic based cultures. They certainly were in charge of cultures that fostered human sacrifice from the archaeological evidence. In the Carlos Castaneda books Don Juan said of their tradition that...

"I want to appeal to your analytical mind. Think for a moment, and tell me how you would explain the contradiction between the intelligence of man the engineer and the stupidity of his systems of beliefs, or the stupidity of his contradictory behavior. Sorcerers believe that the predators have given us our systems of beliefs, our ideas of good and evil, our social mores. They are the ones who set up our hopes and expectations and dreams of success or failure. They have given us covetousness, greed, and cowardice. It is the predators who make us complacent, routinary, and egomaniacal.

In order to keep us obedient and meek and weak, the predators engaged themselves in a stupendous maneuver..stupendous, of course, from the point of view of a fighting strategist. A horrendous maneuver from the point of view of those who suffer it. They gave us their mind! Do you hear me? The predators give us their mind, which becomes our mind. The predators' mind is baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now.

I know that even though you have never suffered hunger you have food anxiety, which is none other than the anxiety of the predator who fears that any moment now its maneuver is going to be uncovered and food is going to be denied. Through the mind, which, after all, is their mind, the predators inject into the lives of human beings whatever is convenient for them. And they ensure, in this manner, a degree of security to act as a buffer against their fear.

Sorcerers see infant human beings as strange, luminous balls of energy, covered from the top to the bottom with a glowing coat, something like a plastic cover that is adjusted tightly over their cocoon of energy. That glowing coat of awareness is what the predators consume, and when a human being reaches adulthood, all that is left of that glowing coat of awareness is a narrow fringe that goes from the ground to the top of the toes. That fringe permits mankind to continue living, but only barely." Perhaps this is the root of psychopathy as the enemies mind describes exactly their condition. I posit the makers of the game this thread is about have succumbed to this enemy. Enjoy the cognitive dissonance. It is the beginning of the breakthrough an discarding of the enemies mind.

 

I don't think anyone believes in macro-evolution. Or does anyone? It gets redefined on pretty much a daily basis. The last logical definition I got that made it believable was:

The point where a different generations of a species cannot interbreed anymore because of a series of changes from microevolution over time.

While the last unreasonable definition I got was just a change of the time. The last bad definition for macro evolution was significant change in 1 generation that makes it another species (where the standard for being a new species is being unable to breed with the previous generation).

Seems in all of these definitions, people are just picking different scales of time. What definition might you be referring to?

 

People who use the "combat" excuse to justify their selectiveness towards certain violence have a tendency to willfully ignore the fact that unarmed civilians, women and children always comprise the overwhelming majority of war casualties. Neoconservatives and Islamophobes use religious scriptures, flawed historical analysis, or both to justify innocent civilians deaths.

They'd rather not be reminded how many unarmed civilians were starved to death and killed while Clinton, Blair and Bush (both) were calling for endless sanctions, and other peoples' children to fight gruesome wars based on lies.

They don''t want to be informed that CoD and Modern Warfare are cleverly masked propaganda tools, because in fact an accurate war simulation would allow a variety of torture, humiliation, rape, and every kind of atrocity that have been thoroughly documented and evidenced in every major war in the last century or so.

 

From over here, it seems that the main difference is that one offends you and the other doesn't. Again, the point is not so much which one is worse or which one is more likely to mind-control small children into turning into homicidal maniacs; the point is that it's a bit hypocritical to expect anyone to take your own cries of "won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!" seriously while you are simultaneously advocating that all devs ignore anyone who makes that argument and just make whatever games they want.

 

I don't really have a reply to this, I just wanted to quote it for posterity.

 

I'm not trying to insult you but it seems to me that all of your information is gotten from the media. All of what you say sounds very much like Ferguson type talk. There are always bad cops just the same as there is always bad people. You are picking and choosing what stories to share and what not to.

I haven't heard of either of the stories you've shared. They might be exactly how you've told them but they could also be huge differences. I don't know.

You cant trust the media. It never portrays anything correctly. It is always skewed and it never gives the whole picture. I feel like most of your information comes from the media. If it really doesn't then I am sorry that I doubted you.

I think that instead of saying they should all kill each other we should try to help both parties.

I really wish people would stop disrespecting our troops that are overseas. The way everyone's acting I would think that we could have another Vietnam on our hands. No ones appreciating what our troops are sacrificing so that we don't have to worry about being attacked in the middle of the night.

Also there is huge differences between COD and Hatred. In Hatred its not necessarily the amount of violence and gore that makes it bad (Although I still think its to much). Its the fact that in Hatred you are murdering innocent people for no other reason then to just murder innocent people. In COD the people that you kill are not innocent. They are military combatants who knew when they signed up that there is a chance that they may killed. They are trying to invade our country and pretty much enslave us. There is a huge difference between this and murdering innocent people.

 

It's more that you're saying, with bold underlines, that "the only" difference between an FPS and a civilian murdering game is that FPS targets are "bad", and that's an incredibly false statement. Again, when you are playing Halo deathmatch, there is no illusion that your friends are "bad", and you are not shooting them because the game has given you a "flimsy excuse", you are doing it because it's a competition and the fun comes from the action. It's like the difference between an action movie and a torture porn movie. They are both violent, but an action movie generates its fun from adrenaline rushes and close calls and tense situations, while torture porn is just presenting violence as a sort of sexual fetish or domination fantasy.

 

No one actually dies in either game. No crimes are committed. No violence is carried out. It's all make believe.

 

You're gravely missing the point. People are arguing and trying to justify that certain forms of make-believe should be acceptable, while others shouldn't.

 

So you accuse others of falling for media propaganda, yet make statements revealing your own susceptibility to the same line of propaganda. It's only Western nations that face "Vietnam" because our countries are meddling in countries that want to be left alone and do not want our presence. Do you think nations minding there own business have anything to fear?

 

I understand that completely. But that is what's happening inside the game. Hatred is trying for a realistic mass murder simulation. People keep comparing it to COD. What happens in games can influence people in real life so we have to think of it in a real life aspect.

@high-octane I don't really understand what you mean by "revealing your own susceptibility to the same line of propaganda." Could you please elaborate more on that?

The countries don't want to be left alone and even if they did, we would have to intervene because of what is happening in the other countries. They are murdering and beheading people all over the place. They are actually even beheading American citizens. Why should we not intervene if they are killing our citizens?

Also on a side note, a sheriff was just killed as he was approaching a suspicious vehicle. There is a reason that cops look at anyone as if they are dangerous. Because cops are getting killed all over the place doing perfectly normal things. They have to be on guard even longer which will lead to them being more jumpy and twitchy.

One other thing, this game if its released will probably be on steam and other downloadable places. Kids could download the game without parents even knowing. We simply cant say that people who shouldn't play it wont. Also on the peanut allergy thing people who are mentally unstable wont care that they shouldn't play it cause it will hurt them more. They wont care and they will play and then get mentally sicker and sicker.