|
Post by Red Impact on May 28, 2015 9:05:02 GMT -5
You have the right to say what you want, you don't have the right to stand on someone else's soapbox to do it. This isn't censorship, it's certain retailers saying they will now carry it/allow it to be shown. Their own rights of speech allow that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 10:34:12 GMT -5
You have the right to say what you want, you don't have the right to stand on someone else's soapbox to do it. This isn't censorship, it's certain retailers saying they will now carry it/allow it to be shown. Their own rights of speech allow that. Exactly. There is no censorship issue going on if Steam didn't want their game in their catalog. Is Destination America "censoring" TNA if they drop them from their network? No. If EMI records decides to drop Snoop Dog from their label. Is that censorship? Hardly. If Steam didn't want to distribute the game, the creators could still make it and distribute it themselves or through other means (granted, Steam is the biggest dog on the block, but that's besides the point). People's casual misuse of and general muddying of "censorship" for inflammatory remarks....ugh. And for the record, I think Steam would be stupid to NOT distribute it. I say put it out there, let the "controversy" jack up sales, and then take my cut.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 11:17:36 GMT -5
I just had a thought on this dumb game. Like, how is it a game? Not morally why, like I'm some prude that's never 187ed a virtual innocent, but why as in how do you make a game out of it? So you kill everyone and....... I don't think they're going to let you transfer and I also think it's safe to say you might just be looking at a little jail time. What is stage 2? You pretty much shoot your wad off right away.
|
|
wisdomwizard
King Koopa
Too Salty
Watching you.
Posts: 11,087
|
Post by wisdomwizard on May 28, 2015 12:48:57 GMT -5
You have the right to say what you want, you don't have the right to stand on someone else's soapbox to do it. This isn't censorship, it's certain retailers saying they will now carry it/allow it to be shown. Their own rights of speech allow that. Exactly. There is no censorship issue going on if Steam didn't want their game in their catalog. Is Destination America "censoring" TNA if they drop them from their network? No. If EMI records decides to drop Snoop Dog from their label. Is that censorship? Hardly. If Steam didn't want to distribute the game, the creators could still make it and distribute it themselves or through other means (granted, Steam is the biggest dog on the block, but that's besides the point). People's casual misuse of and general muddying of "censorship" for inflammatory remarks....ugh. And for the record, I think Steam would be stupid to NOT distribute it. I say put it out there, let the "controversy" jack up sales, and then take my cut.
That's all fine and good, except no one since the thread got bumped said anything about the game being censored. What you said is true, if a company doesn't want to support something controversial, they don't have to. Overall to add to your point, the same is true with Comedy Central not wanting to support Matt and Trey when they wanted to show Muhammad on South Park. Too bad it didn't stop morons from calling them "Cowardly Central" and other such garbage. Nevermind the threats they actually got to their staff and themselves.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on May 28, 2015 13:13:24 GMT -5
Why is School shooter still in the title of this thread. There's no Schools or children in the game. Because facts get in the way of a perfectly good forced moral outrage, in the same way that old farts who have never even come close to a copy of Night Trap used to claim it was filled to the brim with rape and gruesome violence. You have the right to say what you want, you don't have the right to stand on someone else's soapbox to do it. This isn't censorship, it's certain retailers saying they will now carry it/allow it to be shown. Their own rights of speech allow that. No-one's denying that, but some people are arguing that nobody should be allowed to sell it. Their logic is "it offends me, and I'm morally superior to everyone, therefore it is objectively immoral and shouldn't be allowed period", which IS censorship (or attempting it anyway). Of course stores should be allowed to refuse to sell it, and I don't remember anyone in this thread arguing that anyone should be forced to sell it. I do however remember people saying that it should be banned altogether and insulting anyone who disagrees.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 14:10:37 GMT -5
Of course stores should be allowed to refuse to sell it, and I don't remember anyone in this thread arguing that anyone should be forced to sell it. I do however remember people saying that it should be banned altogether and insulting anyone who disagrees.I've glanced over this thread and haven't been able to find anyone saying that. Maybe your memory is better than mine though. I was able to find a couple saying they don't see any artistic merit in the game and they personally don't see the point of it, but didn't think it should be banned. Also, I didn't really see anyone insulting anyone at all no matter what side of the discussion they were on. There were posts like this however: Where people tried to make it seem like Steam was infringing on their "right to choose" to play a game or not, which is just silliness. Then go on to claim that Steam was being "discriminatory" in selecting thier games (as if that's not Steam's right when choosing their catalog). If you're just talking generally on twitter or social media, then yeah - there were complete nincompoops on both sides of the discussion spouting gibberish disguised as rhetoric.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 28, 2015 14:56:34 GMT -5
No-one's denying that, but some people are arguing that nobody should be allowed to sell it. Their logic is "it offends me, and I'm morally superior to everyone, therefore it is objectively immoral and shouldn't be allowed period", which IS censorship (or attempting it anyway). Of course stores should be allowed to refuse to sell it, and I don't remember anyone in this thread arguing that anyone should be forced to sell it. I do however remember people saying that it should be banned altogether and insulting anyone who disagrees. And to that I say, so what? "Some people" will argue any stance, just like "some people" say the game is adept social commentary and has deep artistic merit. It's best to ignore the outliers and move on to what non-caricatures are saying rather than trying to diminish any argument by comparing it to the outliers.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on May 28, 2015 15:29:08 GMT -5
Like I said in previous posts, I don't think this game should be banned or censored by government entity. That's wrong. But I fully support any store that doesn't want to sell this game due to it being Rated AO or just out of a sense of decency. With the advent of digital game sales, there will be plenty of ways to get this game.
I also reserve the right to (not-so) silently judge anyone who buys this game for reasons outside of a sense of morbid curiosity.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,295
|
Post by The Ichi on May 28, 2015 15:29:13 GMT -5
From what I've seen it's not even overly gory or anything, just played a bit too straight.
It's no more gory than a Mortal Kombat or Fallout, the latter of which I can kill children if I have the right mods.
|
|
|
Post by knightrider01 on May 28, 2015 19:45:32 GMT -5
I'm just gonna go ahead and say this. We need to change the title of this thread it is misleading and in no way true. That title is basically doing the same thing Jack Thompson. About the argument of artistic merit, remember art is subjective to the individual not the group. For every person who say this game has none there is more than likely the same amount say it does. When comparing to a game like GTA there is very little difference. Like Tim Buckley made fun of in Ctrl+Alt+Delete the only difference is that one is more cartoony and full of staire and one is darker and more serious.
And finally for everyone who is saying this isn't censorship because only the government can censor I would direct you to the ACLU and how they define censorship:
"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional."
So why this may not be illegal it is still censorship. Not governmental by private pressure groups. More than likely the same people who tried to get it banned on steam and failed. These groups are more likely to be people on twitter and tumblr pressuring them into. While no one can prove it, seeing these sites history of using mass hate to stop things they don't like.
Also these type of groups are behind some infamous instances of hurting peoples lives i.e the communist hunt in Hollywood of the 1950's. Because of this and danger these kind of people present I don't support this decision.
This won't hurt the game any in fact this will probably skyrocket the sales even more now. People really need to learn from the government going after Mortal Kombat and Night Trap just makes these games sale more. Tell people they can't have something and that's all they want.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on May 28, 2015 21:19:44 GMT -5
If a retailer thinks the game is meritless, it's their right not to carry it. If private groups, NOT any sort of government sponsored entity, want to denounce the game (and frankly, I can't blame them) and argue people shouldn't play it, it's their right also.
I'm of the mentality that if people want to play as Not Nathan Explosion and act out the fantasies of that creepy kid in the desk behind you muttering to themselves, they're free to find a retailer willing to carry the game and knock themselves out. But I'm not going to shed any tears over a concept that lame until the government actually does get involved, and I don't see that happening in this scenario.
|
|
Square
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Official Ambassador
Grand Poobah of Scavenger Hunts 2011
Square-Because he looks good at all the right angles.
Posts: 18,700
|
Post by Square on May 28, 2015 21:36:38 GMT -5
So Harmful Opinions did a review of it www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtej1D_rexY&feature=youtu.be (Its gameplay so warning I guess) It looks like it'll be a fun twin shooter game,nothing to write home about though, and the music and the graphics make a cool atmosphere. There are apparently missions and quests which would give the game more legs. Honestly it just looks like how most people first play GTA but darker tone.
|
|
|
Post by knightrider01 on May 28, 2015 21:56:55 GMT -5
If a retailer thinks the game is meritless, it's their right not to carry it. If private groups, NOT any sort of government sponsored entity, want to denounce the game (and frankly, I can't blame them) and argue people shouldn't play it, it's their right also. I'm of the mentality that if people want to play as Not Nathan Explosion and act out the fantasies of that creepy kid in the desk behind you muttering to themselves, they're free to find a retailer willing to carry the game and knock themselves out. But I'm not going to shed any tears over a concept that lame until the government actually does get involved, and I don't see that happening in this scenario. Except if those individuals are using their influence to get them to ban the game which is censorship which, again according to ACLU, it is. So them being offended and not wanting them to sale Hatred isn't right. The only thing we can do at this point is counter protest them. In this case is the game selling very well. Which it probably will.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 28, 2015 22:13:53 GMT -5
If a retailer thinks the game is meritless, it's their right not to carry it. If private groups, NOT any sort of government sponsored entity, want to denounce the game (and frankly, I can't blame them) and argue people shouldn't play it, it's their right also. I'm of the mentality that if people want to play as Not Nathan Explosion and act out the fantasies of that creepy kid in the desk behind you muttering to themselves, they're free to find a retailer willing to carry the game and knock themselves out. But I'm not going to shed any tears over a concept that lame until the government actually does get involved, and I don't see that happening in this scenario. Except if those individuals are using their influence to get them to ban the game which is censorship which, again according to ACLU, it is. So them being offended and not wanting them to sale Hatred isn't right. The only thing we can do at this point is counter protest them. In this case is the game selling very well. Which it probably will. Here's the thing. They can't ban the game. This isn't the 50's, they can't just stop every record store in town from carrying an album and thus shut off access to it. It's the internet, this game is available on the publisher's website and unless this group has the resources to buy every webhosting service out there, they can't stop it's sale (And lobbying to a web host to ban it is useless as, unless the law has changed in the years since I graduated from journalism school, as soon as a webhost starts to control the content they're hosting, they're legally responsible for all the content that is posted. They're not going to set themselves up as legally responsible for all the internet appease some hyperconservatives). If GOG or Steam chose not to carry it, that's their right. Claiming it's a bad thing that they have that right is tantamount to saying that a retailer can't control their stock. If people want to buy this game as a sort of counter protest because they believe it really was intended as some subtle social message, they have outlets to do that. If people want to boycott GoG or Steam to try to sway their decision against publishing it, that's their right too. No one needs to be on any particular service to sell a digital game anymore. The internet has made that form of citizen censorship nigh impossible, which is a great thing. It also means we don't need to take part in any particular campaign to rally against it, because the only time they could stop a game like this from reaching an audience would be to stop it from existing in the first place, which they've failed to do.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on May 28, 2015 22:56:25 GMT -5
And what is Hatred's message anyway?
I swear I thought it was a parody of angry teen late 90's stuff when the trailer hit. But no, it's meant to be taken seriously...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 23:57:27 GMT -5
Except if those individuals are using their influence to get them to ban the game which is censorship which, again according to ACLU, it is. So them being offended and not wanting them to sale Hatred isn't right. The only thing we can do at this point is counter protest them. In this case is the game selling very well. Which it probably will. Here's the thing. They can't ban the game. This isn't the 50's, they can't just stop every record store in town from carrying an album and thus shut off access to it. It's the internet, this game is available on the publisher's website and unless this group has the resources to buy every webhosting service out there, they can't stop it's sale (And lobbying to a web host to ban it is useless as, unless the law has changed in the years since I graduated from journalism school, as soon as a webhost starts to control the content they're hosting, they're legally responsible for all the content that is posted. They're not going to set themselves up as legally responsible for all the internet appease some hyperconservatives). If GOG or Steam chose not to carry it, that's their right. Claiming it's a bad thing that they have that right is tantamount to saying that a retailer can't control their stock. If people want to buy this game as a sort of counter protest because they believe it really was intended as some subtle social message, they have outlets to do that. If people want to boycott GoG or Steam to try to sway their decision against publishing it, that's their right too. No one needs to be on any particular service to sell a digital game anymore. The internet has made that form of citizen censorship nigh impossible, which is a great thing. It also means we don't need to take part in any particular campaign to rally against it, because the only time they could stop a game like this from reaching an audience would be to stop it from existing in the first place, which they've failed to do. Further driving home the point that its NOT censorship anymore than Burger King choosing not to carry Heinz Ketchup is "censorship" against the Heinz corp. Steam choosing to not carry a game is not tantamount to "suppressing" Hatred's devs speech or art in any way whatsoever. Those devs are 100% free to make that game as violent and offensive as they please. Steam not carrying them doesn't suppress the devs "words, images or ideas." It fails the ACLUs definition of censorship.
|
|
wisdomwizard
King Koopa
Too Salty
Watching you.
Posts: 11,087
|
Post by wisdomwizard on May 29, 2015 0:19:39 GMT -5
Regardless of Hatred being "censored" or not, the title of this thread should be changed as it's inaccurate, and it's just as silly to leave it so.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on May 29, 2015 0:43:34 GMT -5
I say re-title the thread with my tagline of "For Edgelords, By Edgelords." It's certainly proving accurate enough.
Also any talk of the game being censored from the masses is just intellectually dishonest at this point. Steam is carrying it even though they usually don't carry AO games. And even if they didn't, you can just buy it from the publisher's website unhindered.
The SJW's are not coming to take away your vidya.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,295
|
Post by The Ichi on May 29, 2015 5:19:26 GMT -5
And what is Hatred's message anyway? I swear I thought it was a parody of angry teen late 90's stuff when the trailer hit. But no, it's meant to be taken seriously...? Like I said earlier, I think it's made with the Streishand effect intended. Make something so dark and violent that it'll get people talking (especially if it has to fight agaisnt being banned). Not saying that's not stupid, but it's my theory. Basically, the new Manhunt. That or this kid finally became a developer.
|
|
Square
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Official Ambassador
Grand Poobah of Scavenger Hunts 2011
Square-Because he looks good at all the right angles.
Posts: 18,700
|
Post by Square on May 29, 2015 6:42:43 GMT -5
Looking at the game I think it is hitting home with a cool point about the nature of violence and games. Stripped back to the bare bones of "kill" instead of most games that will either make death cartoony or the main character likable as with GTA's Trevor or to attempt to create an enviroment where its ok to kill such as a war setting.
Without playing it yet but watching a few videos of it I would also say there is something to it about mental health, the bleakness of it the tenseness of the music it really does ramp up the you vs the world feel of the game and gives a rather interesting insight as to the mind of someone that would do this.
|
|