Hatred: The Most Despicable Game of All Time?

[feelthedarkness]

Long windiest not-actually smart guy ever? 

[Ninety-Three]

hmm that's an interesting point jerry but on the whole i think i'm okay with the spooky feminists over in games journalism not praising the nazi game

 

What? What quote did you read? Because I read one where he called Hatred a bad game, and the only thing he said about the media was that their attention made this bad game sell better than it should have.

[Denial]

Long windiest not-actually smart guy ever? 

 

C'mon - dude doesn't even have a top hat or a fedora.

[Reyturner]

It's a weird situation; when something like Hatred is happy to coast on notoriety, selling to disaffected edgelords, any press can only help them. The "silence is consent" theory kind of breaks down when it only serves to drive a wedge between progressives who want to speak out against it and progressives who stay silent because don't want to give it free advertising. 

[Merus]

It's too goddamn late for me to make a coherent point, so mumble mumble like Kotaku running stories on what Stormfront thinks about the latest video games mumble grumble

[natellite]

What? What quote did you read? Because I read one where he called Hatred a bad game, and the only thing he said about the media was that their attention made this bad game sell better than it should have.

 

Actually what he said was the difference between hatred and hotline miami is that the spunky indie devs over at Devolver ingratiated themselves to the games press with concepts like "irony" and "inside connections."

 

edit: It's not even actually about Hatred. Let me clarify (emphasis mine):

 

A big part of the problem on the developer side is that they didn’t flatter games media.  What a developer is supposed to do is to give their violence ironic cover, or agree to pretend that it’s a deconstruction of violence, or make the player wear a surreal animal mask, anything to “elevate” the piece so that the press can rub their faces on it like a cat.  Barring these, you’d better fucking know one of them.

 

The implication here is that people who write about games are either 1. desperately looking for an excuse for making hyperviolence socially acceptable or 2. too stupid to know the difference. With all due respect to Jerry: fuck off with that.

[Gaizokubanou]

This game and its surrounding situation reminds me of one of those anime fights where one guy's power is to absorb your attacks and the idiots keep on attacking that guy anyway cause 'we gotta stop it' only to make it grow stronger.

 

 

Actually what he said was the difference between hatred and hotline miami is that the spunky indie devs over at Devolver ingratiated themselves to the games press with concepts like "irony" and "inside connections."

 

Paragraph 1 2 and 4 touches on the irony of negative press (intended to damage the reputation of the game) giving the game iconic status that it never deserved.  What you said there is indeed mentioned but only in paragraph 3.

[Ninety-Three]

Actually what he said was the difference between hatred and hotline miami is that the spunky indie devs over at Devolver ingratiated themselves to the games press with concepts like "irony" and "inside connections."

 

I fail to see how that leads in any way to your earlier response.

 

hmm that's an interesting point jerry but on the whole i think i'm okay with the spooky feminists over in games journalism not praising the nazi game

 

What does anything he said have to do with feminists or his perception of them as spooky? He called the game bad multiple times, how much further can he get from demanding people praise it?

[Twig]

I actually don't disagree with (most of) what he said. U:

 

But he is obviously missing the point.

[feelthedarkness]

C'mon - dude doesn't even have a top hat or a fedora.

 

That you know of

[feelthedarkness]

Also "ironic cover" and "pretend it's about" to me seems like aggressively missing the point, or maybe more likely an unwillingness to engage in any kind of deeper criticism. 

 

The idea that it's the presses fault that people had a reaction to a game about a white guy gruesomely executing non-white civilians is both nonsense and in itself offensive. Jerry's opinion boils down to "you're dumb for caring about something", which also explains a lot about their whole deal.

[Gormongous]

Also "iron cover" and "pretend it's about" to me seems like aggressively missing the point, or maybe more likely an unwillingness to engage in any kind of deeper criticism. 

 

The idea that it's the presses fault that people had a reaction to a game about a white guy gruesomely executing non-white civilians is both nonsense and in itself offensive. Jerry's opinion boils down to "you're dumb for caring about something", which also explains a lot about their whole deal.

 

Yeah, there's a strong strain of "just don't talk about things that you don't like," which has worked great for Penny Arcade in the past, especially with their own scandals, but is not terribly good or useful advice for the entire edifice of games criticism.

 

Also, ten thousand kudos for being one of the world's most popular webcomics and making a comic and newspost about a game that, as far as I can tell, they don't feel should be talked about. If games journalists find Hatred offensive or disturbing, they should just keep quiet lest the trolls be encouraged, but Penny Arcade is above the fray, meta-meta-commentary, so they can talk all they want.

 

I won't even get into the quasi-GG rhetoric of the third paragraph. No amount of industry-specific "ingratiating" is going to make Hatred palatable to most people, and implying that that's the major difference between it and something like Hotline Miami (which was also decried by some, for good reasons, as much as I personally love the game) is patently absurd. Jerry Holkins is possibly the densest "smart" person I've had the dubious pleasure of reading.

[Ninety-Three]

The overall tone of this thread seems to be that you're supposed to talk about Hatred, supposed to write a bunch of news articles about how it's a terrible evil game made by terrible evil people (which is true). But why? If you want Hatred to go away, do badly, or otherwise not exist, the only course of action seems to be what Jerry's proposing: give it no publicity. I haven't seen anyone disagree with his premise that media controversy boosted the game's sales substantially. What exactly is the point of the anti-Hatred article then?

[natellite]

I fail to see how that leads in any way to your earlier response.

 

 

 

What does anything he said have to do with feminists or his perception of them as spooky? He called the game bad multiple times, how much further can he get from demanding people praise it?

 

My point is that Jerry takes a break from calling a bad game bad to slydog the games press by saying "heh, if Hatred wanted some good reviews, they should have said it was a deconstruction," like we're too dumb to know the difference between Hatred and a game like Hotline Miami - and by the way, when people did talk about the hyperviolence in the latter game, they were decried for "missing the point". It just sounds like Gamergate-lite (which, I suppose, coming from the writer of Penny Arcade, is unsurprising).

[Gormongous]

The overall tone of this thread seems to be that you're supposed to talk about Hatred, supposed to write a bunch of news articles about how it's a terrible evil game made by terrible evil people (which is true). But why? If you want Hatred to go away, do badly, or otherwise not exist, the only course of action seems to be what Jerry's proposing: give it no publicity. I haven't seen anyone disagree with his premise that media controversy boosted the game's sales substantially. What exactly is the point of the anti-Hatred article then?

 

I don't believe in an anti-Hatred article. I believe in serious, sober examination like John Walker did Rock Paper Shotgun, which was widely decried by various commentators as either too conciliatory to a game that should be absolutely unmentionable or as unfairly censuring of the game's several flaws owing to an assumed SJW bone to pick. I just have a problem with people saying that the correct response to Hatred is total silence, as if the correct response to anything hateful and offensive is silence. It's a policy of quietism and it doesn't work over the longer-than-short-term, because it simply allows people who don't find it hateful and offensive to dictate the conversations in a space.

[natellite]

The overall tone of this thread seems to be that you're supposed to talk about Hatred, supposed to write a bunch of news articles about how it's a terrible evil game made by terrible evil people (which is true). But why? If you want Hatred to go away, do badly, or otherwise not exist, the only course of action seems to be what Jerry's proposing: give it no publicity. I haven't seen anyone disagree with his premise that media controversy boosted the game's sales substantially. What exactly is the point of the anti-Hatred article then?

 

For what it's worth, I don't know what to do with a game like Hatred. I'm of two minds: As a game, it's thoroughly mediocre, but the way that they've positioned it as a product is clearly designed to bait people into talking about it. It's a time-honored tradition, and it works. So obviously, you don't want to give them the column space. But from my perspective, that's how I engage with things like this - I play the game, and then I talk about it or write about it. Saying "just ignore them" doesn't actually work.

 

I think Hatred is going to be thoroughly forgotten in a month or two, and hopefully the people who made it will go back to drawing pentagrams in the margins of their notebooks or whatever. But I fundamentally disagree with the notion that the best way to deal with something I find offensive is not to engage with it at all. 

[Gaizokubanou]

I can sympathize why you guys are disliking that proposal because it flies too close to silencing dissent... ok so how about this perspective?

 

We have limited attention and volume of speech we can generate, yes?  So instead of looking it as staying silent, look at it as giving your valuable resource to something worthy.  Like I would have gladly traded few articles on condemning Hatred for few one say, praising Snakebird.

 

Edit: Or at least let's be more practical about timing as well.  Lot of 'negative' press came out few months before release - prime time for hype campaign because release days are super important sales wise.  Post release analysis could be just as thoughtful, if not more (cause you can actually see the game for yourself), and would probably not have helped the game's sale by much.

[Ninety-Three]

I don't believe in an anti-Hatred article. I believe in serious, sober examination like John Walker did Rock Paper Shotgun, which was widely decried by various commentators as either too conciliatory to a game that should be absolutely unmentionable or as unfairly censuring of the game's several flaws owing to an assumed SJW bone to pick. I just have a problem with people saying that the correct response to Hatred is total silence, as if the correct response to anything hateful and offensive is silence. It's a policy of quietism and it doesn't work over the longer-than-short-term, because it simply allows people who don't find it hateful and offensive to dictate the conversations in a space.

 

So basically, ignore the moral panic and review it with an impersonal "The game is garbage"? Isn't that Jerry's point? He's not decrying any and all attention given to Hatred, but specifically "press histrionics" and "breathless, plainly mercenary attempts to capitalize on the game's violence". Jerry's post sounds like he would love if there were nothing but John Walker reviews.

 

I realize that I misstated things in saying the game should be ignored completely, I was taking it for granted that there would still be a John Walker to review the game and tell us that it's a videogаme which scores four out of ten. When I said Hatred should be ignored, I meant that the anti-Hatred articles shouldn't be written.

 

 

I think Hatred is going to be thoroughly forgotten in a month or two, and hopefully the people who made it will go back to drawing pentagrams in the margins of their notebooks or whatever. But I fundamentally disagree with the notion that the best way to deal with something I find offensive is not to engage with it at all. 

 

Capitalism makes things complicated. Every news outlet which published an article about Hatred is (in part) responsible for that game's sales being higher than they otherwise would have. Writing about Hatred leads to the Hatred devs getting more money, decreasing the odds that they go back to doodling pentagrams.

 

This isn't the case for everything, or even most things. For instance, I doubt that articles complaining the movie Boyhood was all-white resulted in an increase in its sales. And maybe when this is the case, whatever you get out of engaging is worth the price of the Hatred devs getting more money. But that's a cost-benefit analysis, and so it's easy to imagine the numbers such that the best way to deal with Hatred is to not engage.

 

EDIT: Gormungus, people aren't saying that all offensive things should be ignored, they're saying that specifically this one should. We should ignore offensive things if they're just being offensive to generate controversy, because not ignoring them would be doing exactly what they want.

[Gormongous]

So basically, ignore the moral panic and review it with an impersonal "The game is garbage"? Isn't that Jerry's point? He's not decrying any and all attention given to Hatred, but specifically "press histrionics" and "breathless, plainly mercenary attempts to capitalize on the game's violence". Jerry's post sounds like he would love if there were nothing but John Walker reviews.

 

I realize that I misstated things in saying the game should be ignored completely, I was taking it for granted that there would still be a John Walker to review the game and tell us that it's a videogаme which scores four out of ten. When I said Hatred should be ignored, I meant that the anti-Hatred articles shouldn't be written.

 

I mean, Holkins says a lot of things. He compares Hatred to punk, he's got a brief "boys will be boys" line leading off the second paragraph, he devotes his entire third paragraph to the importance of flattering what he sees as broken and corrupt games media, he says that our current system is "vastly superior" to the old way of making games even if Hatred is one of its products, and he lays the fault of Hatred's success solely on the doorstep of the traditional games media. Just because the lattermost item comes last and most clearly does not mean it's a thesis or that it has any unifying influence on Holkins' impressionistic attempt to plumb the depths of this issue. Wasn't Hatred taken down from Steam, and wouldn't that have happened anyway without a (largely overstated) media outcry? "Banned from Steam" is the new "Rated AO for adults only" and I'm not sure Holkins is saying, "Publish only serious criticism of Hatred." When he talks about talking, his appeals are entirely negative, in favor of absence. You're interpolating a stated need for John Walker in that rant.

[Ninety-Three]

I'm not sure Holkins is saying, "Publish only serious criticism of Hatred." When he talks about talking, his appeals are entirely negative, in favor of absence. You're interpolating a stated need for John Walker in that rant.

 

When he talks about talking, multiple times, it's specifically the moral panic kind of talking. I'm assuming that he doesn't mind "This is a bad videogаme four of ten ten do not buy or rent" talking because he does it himself multiple times. You're right that he's not saying "Publish only serious criticism", but "Don't publish moral panic, mechanical reviews are fine" is functionally pretty similar.

 

 

My point is that Jerry takes a break from calling a bad game bad to slydog the games press by saying "heh, if Hatred wanted some good reviews, they should have said it was a deconstruction," like we're too dumb to know the difference between Hatred and a game like Hotline Miami - and by the way, when people did talk about the hyperviolence in the latter game, they were decried for "missing the point". It just sounds like Gamergate-lite (which, I suppose, coming from the writer of Penny Arcade, is unsurprising).

 

So what happened is he used a piece of rhetoric about inside connections which also gets used by Gamergate, so you assumed he was a big old anti-feminist who wants people to praise the nazi game, despite none of that being present in the text? Is alleged games media collusion like the Hitler mustache, so tainted by association that one cannot use it for any purpose without looking bad?

 

That's not a rhetorical question or an attempt to trap you in an argument, I'm really asking. It seems like it might be happening, and it's not necessarily an invalid premise.

[Zeusthecat]

I think it is unfortunate that this game wasn't ignored from the outset. These were some unknown shitty dudes making a shitty game and if it weren't for the massive amount of media coverage it got, it would have probably just faded into obscurity like so many other games. If it would have been popular and well known regardless then I think the negative media coverage would have been fine but in this case it is literally the only reason this game sold so well. It is painful to think that those developers were right and that their little "plan" to generate negative media coverage to bolster the sales of their game succeeded so spectacularly. Other than their shitty trailer they didn't have to do one bit of marketing.

[Ninety-Three]

I think it is unfortunate that this game wasn't ignored from the outset. These were some unknown shitty dudes making a shitty game and if it weren't for the massive amount of media coverage it got, it would have probably just faded into obscurity like so many other games. If it would have been popular and well known regardless then I think the negative media coverage would have been fine but in this case it is literally the only reason this game sold so well. It is painful to think that those developers were right and that their little "plan" to generate negative media coverage to bolster the sales of their game succeeded so spectacularly. Other than their shitty trailer they didn't have to do one bit of marketing.

 

I'd like to make a tangent from the current theme of the thread to discuss this a bit more. Everyone talks about how Hatred is a game built to generate controversy and convert that controversy into sales, as if that was what the creators set out to do. But where are we getting that idea? Hatred certainly did create controversy and convert that into sales, but why is everyone so certain that the devs sat down and said "We'll make the most offensive game in the world and the controversy will make us rich"? Why can't it be "I have this awesome idea for a shooting spree videogаme where you can murder all the people!"

 

Is there anything specific that people are pointing at and saying "That was clearly engineered to be offensive to drum up controversy" or are people just assuming that the game was built ground-up as a controversy engine because they can't fathom anyone wanting to make Hatred?

[Twig]

I don't think that's what Zeus was saying.

At any rate I don't think they made it to drum up controversy. I think they made it cause they're shitty people.

[natellite]

So what happened is he used a piece of rhetoric about inside connections which also gets used by Gamergate, so you assumed he was a big old anti-feminist who wants people to praise the nazi game, despite none of that being present in the text? Is alleged games media collusion like the Hitler mustache, so tainted by association that one cannot use it for any purpose without looking bad?

 

That's not a rhetorical question or an attempt to trap you in an argument, I'm really asking. It seems like it might be happening, and it's not necessarily an invalid premise.

 

No, but Penny Arcade doesn't operate in a vacuum. That piece of rhetoric is combined in my view of their organization with their past defense of things like Dickwolves, as well as Krahulik's tendency to say dumb, incorrect and hurtful shit about trans people on twitter, just to name the two things I remember offhand. In aggregate, that leads me to believe that they view the games press - the same games press that jumps to call them out on their missteps - with disdain. And at that point, the things they have to say about the press start to sound very familiar. At the very least, it's enough to make me not want to extend either of them the benefit of the doubt. They wasted that capital with me years ago.

 

I'll be the first to admit there are significant issues with games journalism, but to my mind, a lot of those issues stem from the fact that people who write about games extend too little criticism about their subjects, not too much.

[Zeusthecat]

I think first and foremost, they developed the game because it is the shitty type of game they wanted to make. But I do think at some level they hoped or maybe even planned for the negative media coverage to generate interest for their game. If you read the first articles that came out, they even came out and said that they had hoped the negative media coverage would bolster the sales of their game and smugly thanked sites like Polygon for giving them the coverage they had hoped for. Of course, it could have all been unintentional originally but I do think it is plausible that that was exactly what they were going for.