Hatred: The Most Despicable Game of All Time?

[Ninety-Three]

 

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.

 

So they're kind of jerks, and they used a piece of rhetoric Gamergate likes, and that's what it took for you to assume they were anti-feminist jerks who want people to praise Hatred? Despite the fact that the post could only be clearer about Hatred not deserving praise if it used the literal text "Hatred does not deserve praise"?

 

 

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.

 

Oh it's certainly plausible, it's just that I often see people stating it with certainty, which makes me wonder what information they have that I don't.

[feelthedarkness]

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 feel like we should also flat out reject the "don't cover it" angle, because in a way you're saying there is actually a desire for fundamentally racist game, and if people just didn't know that it was available it would be ok. True progress would be people know there is this hateful thing, and still rejecting it.

 

An absence of coverage has not hurt white power groups from recruiting or quietly growing, worldwide. If you have Facebook, and have access to news, you can see white supremacy and the devaluing of POC lives is going pretty strong in lieu of any hard conversations. 

 

(none of this is meant as a direct attack against you mr zeus! 1 luv)

[Gaizokubanou]

I feel like we should also flat out reject the "don't cover it" angle, because in a way you're saying there is actually a desire for fundamentally racist game, and if people just didn't know that it was available it would be ok.

 

The angle is that it would be better (not perfect, just better) if creator of such material got less money out of it.  I agree that complete-silence approach is not right but will get to that below.

 

True progress would be people know there is this hateful thing, and still rejecting it.

 

Yes, but that would need education on why hateful things are bad.  Most coverage of Hatred IIRC wasn't about that cause it was a fair assumption that their audience would reject hateful contents without much explanation.

 

That's why I still stand by making more practical consideration for coverage of this kind of stuff... not silence, but rather, more intelligent coverage.  For example, simple timing and type of coverage matters a lot... post release in-depth writing like the one Walker did does actual good work vs the 7 (+?) articles Polygon released prior to release.

[Ninety-Three]

That's why I still stand by making more practical consideration for coverage of this kind of stuff... not silence, but rather, more intelligent coverage.  For example, simple timing and type of coverage matters a lot... post release in-depth writing like the one Walker did does actual good work vs the 7 (+?) articles Polygon released prior to release.

 

I'm not sure about the notion that articles can be written if they're just timed differently. That certainly would have helped the Hatred devs less, but it brings up the question of "Why bother at all?" What is accomplished by an article that says "Hey, you know that game Hatred that came out last week/month/whenever? It's a terrible evil game." Everyone who will accept that either hasn't heard of Hatred, in which case I'm not sure what the point is; or has seen Hatred, in which case they already know.

 

EDIT: To clarify, I'm talking about the pointlessness of saying "Hatred is a terrible evil game". Being John Walker and saying "Hatred is a bad game four out of ten" has obvious purpose.

[Gaizokubanou]

I'm not sure about the notion that articles can be written if they're just timed differently. That certainly would have helped the Hatred devs less, but it brings up the question of "Why bother at all?" What is accomplished by an article that says "Hey, you know that game Hatred that came out last week/month/whenever? It's a terrible evil game." Everyone who will accept that either hasn't heard of Hatred, in which case I'm not sure what the point is; or has heard of Hatred, in which case they already know.

 

It would have as much value as any other social commentary with proper contextual considerations of course.  In that sense, a post commentary on Hatred (assuming hypothetical universe, without all the pre release coverage) perhaps wouldn't make much sense at all as a solo coverage but maybe would be part of more comprehensive coverage on multiple games of that type.

 

But overall, my point wasn't that timing alone is everything, just that it's part of lot of stuff (volume, type, etc.) to take consideration of.

[Ben X]

Oh it's certainly plausible, it's just that I often see people stating it with certainty, which makes me wonder what information they have that I don't.

 

Here's one Polygon interview with them which shows awareness and intent on their part re. controversy.

 

Also, the quote in the fourth post in this thread (bearing in mind that this forum has an irritating "Pol. Correctness" -> "opinionated in a different way to me" filter.

 

EDIT: duh, of course the filter filtered me

[Zeusthecat]

I feel like we should also flat out reject the "don't cover it" angle, because in a way you're saying there is actually a desire for fundamentally racist game, and if people just didn't know that it was available it would be ok. True progress would be people know there is this hateful thing, and still rejecting it.

An absence of coverage has not hurt white power groups from recruiting or quietly growing, worldwide. If you have Facebook, and have access to news, you can see white supremacy and the devaluing of POC lives is going pretty strong in lieu of any hard conversations.

(none of this is meant as a direct attack against you mr zeus! 1 luv)

I wonder though, what is gained by having a bunch of articles saying a terrible product like this is terrible? You have some people that would see a game like this and be repulsed by it, some people who would be indifferent, and some people who would totally be into it. I don't think all of this media coverage saying it was bad did anything to convince the people who would have been into it to steer clear and for those who were indifferent, I think it had the net effect of pushing them towards supporting a game they otherwise wouldn't have cared about. And that is because this is an industry that is largely predicated and defined by edgy violence and the controversies that have arisen around it. So naturally, indifferent gamers will probably tend to band together to support violent games like this that are mired in controversy because that is what we have always historically done when a violent product in our medium is challenged.

So yeah, I think the coverage this game received had a net negative effect and only served to bolster support for these types of games (again, that is just due to the nature of the video game industry as it pertains to violence). I think the better approach would have been to instead publish a bunch of articles highlighting other non violent games that could have used some exposure and saved this battle for a game that didn't actually need this exposure to sell.

[Twig]

Here's one Polygon interview with them which shows awareness and intent on their part re. controversy.

 

Also, the quote in the fourth post in this thread (bearing in mind that this forum has an irritating "having an opinion" -> "opinionated in a different way to me" filter.

That one's for "opinionated in a way that is different from me", if I'm not mistaken.

 

I'll try it: "opinionated in a way that is different from me".

 

EDIT: Yep.

[Ninety-Three]

Here's one Polygon interview with them which shows awareness and intent on their part re. controversy.

 

Link is broken. Fixed version.

[Reyturner]

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.

 

I'm hearing you when you say that silence in the face of injustice is a bad policy. I think that's absolutely true.

 

Most of the time.

 

I apologize in advance if this feels like an attack. It isn't my intent. These are just my own opinions. 

 

I feel there's a difference in Polygon calling out Penny Arcade, a media juggernaut and a major public face for gaming, and Polygon elevating Hatred out of the nothing it came from every couple of days to remind you how awful it is. As you say, Penny Arcade doesn't operate in a vacuum. They have roots in the industry and to the community as deep as any institution in videos games. Calling out their bad behaviour in the context of that influence and importance is necessary and just. And you are absolutely correct when you say that the games press has frequently dropped the ball when "nice people" do hurtful things, either because they don't understand the harm or because they're worried about burning bridges.

 

Jerry, in that very post even, likes to act like PA is just a couple of jokers making .jpgs. It's a great way of deflecting criticism: "well gosh, why're you so worried about little ol' us". But, they (or, more accurately, Robert Khoo) have built a media empire that has to maintain a reputation to continue dealing with real companies in the real world. More importantly, they see themselves as a force for good, even if their behaviour is informed by shitty prejudices and biases they aren't aware of until they trod through them and smear shit all over the carpet. To be square with their own identity they need to reconcile that self image with the feedback they get. Maybe they would like to be left alone and be spared that painful process, but they have to make at least some effort to address these things. 

 

Hatred and the devs who make it, however, have no relevance beyond the outrage they seek to generate in the games press. They have no reputation to be harmed. They can't commit career suicide as they have no ties to the greater games industry. Critically, they don't see themselves as anything other than edgy enfant terribles taking the skeleton warriors for a ride and making a buck while they're at it. It isn't like they haven't corrected their trajectory because they're not aware that what they're doing is hurtful and awful. On the contrary, every blog post, youtube video, tweet and tumblr decrying Hatred is, to them, a badge of honor. They're a cancer, but they are literally nothing without attention.

 

You can't rehabilitate cancer, you can only cut it off. 

[Dewar]

I didn't find PA's post particularly objectionable either. Though the link to games journalism and Hotline Miami was a poor choice, 

 

In the end, I think excessive uninformed preview coverage is the real problem here. If everyone had just covered Hatred when it had come out, everyone would have realized that it's just not a great game, and the violence isn't even really that edgy, and it would have disappeared. Since we've been exposed to months of articles about how it's going to be the most offensive thing ever, even though no one writing those articles had actually played it or had any information about it. in short, report on what's happening, not what might be happening in six months. I'd say the same thing about the next Call of Duty, or Assassin's Creed, or whatever.

[Bjorn]

I think it could be a fun media analysis exercise to go back to some of the early Hatred coverage and compare it, particularly the parts that focused on the violence, to the coverage of games which are just as graphically violent.  There's no doubt that many games get passes on graphic violence while a handful of others do not. 

 

 

However, I do think PA has either ignored or conveniently forgot a few things.  Like in the original trailer almost all of the close up, "visceral" kills are of women or people of color.  And it appeared that several of the members of the development studio were supporters of politically radical groups in Poland that were at least anti-immigrant if not straight up racist hate groups.  Add how gamergate immediately adopted Hatred as a cause célèbre.  I guess the "squares" are the people who applied some thought to the trailer, investigated the backgrounds of the developers and then questioned how it is that a subset of gaming (gamergate) could so gleefully adopt Hatred as a cause.  You know, actually engaging in a bit of journalism rather than just reprinting press releases, like they're usually accused of doing. 

 

The actual goddamned context surrounding Hatred makes Jerry's comparisons to punk and Hotline Miami fucking laughable.  You could get into how there is/was a subculture of racism, white power, neo-Nazism, and etc in punk, and that might be an interesting comparison to make.  But that's not what Jerry is doing.  He's just name dropping punk as though there is some kind of insightful commentary inherent to that statement. 

[Dewar]

I think it could be a fun media analysis exercise to go back to some of the early Hatred coverage and compare it, particularly the parts that focused on the violence, to the coverage of games which are just as graphically violent.  There's no doubt that many games get passes on graphic violence while a handful of others do not. 

 

 

However, I do think PA has either ignored or conveniently forgot a few things.  Like in the original trailer almost all of the close up, "visceral" kills are of women or people of color.  And it appeared that several of the members of the development studio were supporters of politically radical groups in Poland that were at least anti-immigrant if not straight up racist hate groups.  Add how gamergate immediately adopted Hatred as a cause célèbre.  I guess the "squares" are the people who applied some thought to the trailer, investigated the backgrounds of the developers and then questioned how it is that a subset of gaming (gamergate) could so gleefully adopt Hatred as a cause.  You know, actually engaging in a bit of journalism rather than just reprinting press releases, like they're usually accused of doing. 

 

The actual goddamned context surrounding Hatred makes Jerry's comparisons to punk and Hotline Miami fucking laughable.  You could get into how there is/was a subculture of racism, white power, neo-Nazism, and etc in punk, and that might be an interesting comparison to make.  But that's not what Jerry is doing.  He's just name dropping punk as though there is some kind of insightful commentary inherent to that statement. 

 

I guess I don't get the same meaning from the word punk that you do. When someone says something is punk, that to me says "anti-establishment" which this is, and something I want to stay away from, which this is.

[tegan]

Hatred isn't really anti-establishment. I mean, it's a shitty Grand Theft Auto. It's a shitty imitation of one of the most popular games ever made. It couldn't be more establishment if it tried.

[Dewar]

Hatred isn't really anti-establishment. I mean, it's a shitty Grand Theft Auto. It's a shitty imitation of one of the most popular games ever made. It couldn't be more establishment if it tried.

 

I don't really think it compares to Grand Theft Auto, except maybe in the bad press it gets. I imagine, much like Postal, someone was wanting to make the game that the rest of the world didn't want them to make. Not trying to get into a discussion of power dynamics in the press, but I feel like someone on that dev team was honestly feeling that they were going against the established hierarchy by putting out a game that's basically saying "fuck the police" but instead of police it's SJW's. That's what I mean by anti-establishment, I'm talking about artistic intent, not necessarily about reality.

[Bjorn]

Yeah, I'm not convinced that a game that revels in graphic violence like it does is in any way anti-establishment in a medium which is dominated by verbs like shoot, stab, punch and murder. Hatred is like a suburban anarchist, a kid who screams about the man oppressing him, but has no idea who mows his lawn and likes to go to the community pool on Saturdays. 

 

Something like Hatoful Boyfriend would be more punk than Hatred from an anti-establishment definition.

[Ninety-Three]

Yeah, I'm not convinced that a game that revels in graphic violence like it does is in any way anti-establishment in a medium which is dominated by verbs like shoot, stab, punch and murder. Hatred is like a suburban anarchist, a kid who screams about the man oppressing him, but has no idea who mows his lawn and likes to go to the community pool on Saturdays. 

 

Something like Hatoful Boyfriend would be more punk than Hatred from an anti-establishment definition.

 

Is being anti-establishment more about effect or intent though? Because I'm certain the Hatred devs considered themselves to be sticking it to... someone, by making an offensive game to be despised by many.

[Dewar]

I think we agree, I'm just looking at it from the angle that most punk bands I'm aware of where they scream about being anti-establishment and may even feel that they're anti-establishment, but they're still all pasty white guys.

[Reyturner]

They're antisocial, not anti establishment.

[Ninety-Three]

I think that Steam definitely counts as The Man, so given that they managed to get pulled (temporarily) from Steam for what they were doing, does that make them anti-establishment?

[Bjorn]

Is being anti-establishment more about effect or intent though? Because I'm certain the Hatred devs considered themselves to be sticking it to... someone, by making an offensive game to be despised by many.

 

Interesting question!  My kneejerk reaction is that it would have to be a combination of the two, with a bit more weight given to effect.  You have to want to be punk, but if your attempts ultimately make you a laughingstock, then you're not really punk.  Same with wanting to be anti-establishment, you might want that will all your heart, but if you ultimately make a product that pretty much conforms to the establishment, well, then welcome to the machine Cog #8935.

[tegan]

I think that Steam definitely counts as The Man, so given that they managed to get pulled (temporarily) from Steam for what they were doing, does that make them anti-establishment?

 

They give a special thanks to "Lord Gaben" in the credits.

 

so no

[Bjorn]

Lord Gaben: The Man Behind The Man

[Dewar]

Interesting question!  My kneejerk reaction is that it would have to be a combination of the two, with a bit more weight given to effect.  You have to want to be punk, but if your attempts ultimately make you a laughingstock, then you're not really punk.  Same with wanting to be anti-establishment, you might want that will all your heart, but if you ultimately make a product that pretty much conforms to the establishment, well, then welcome to the machine Cog #8935.

 

I have never seen anyone that is both attempting to be punk and is effectively punk. I feel like as soon as you're trying to be punk you've already failed, which is why I see PA's paragraph about Hatred being punk to be negative and condescending. 

[Gormongous]

Lord Gaben: The Man Behind The Man

 

Lord Gaben

Long Beard

A Nerd Blog

Bland Ogre

Rend a Glob

El Dong Bar