Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Grizzly on December 17, 2014, 12:10:34 pm
-
I am talking about Hatred, a video game that plays the "mass murder fantasy" thing with an entirely straight face. Yesterday, Hatred was removed from Greenlight (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/12/16/hatred-removed-from-steam/). Today, it was put back on again (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/12/17/hatred-has-returned-to-steam-greenlight/).
I personally really don't like Hatred's concept. The game devs specifically state that it was created as a backlash against gaming becoming more 'politically correct' - an entirely silly notion considering that games like GTAV and Call of Duty are some of the best selling games in history. Personally, I wouldn't stock such a game on that basis alone, esp. if it takes a rather... extreme course hatred does.
-
Well GTA V did get pulled off Target's shelves.
Pushing back against political correctness is a good thing.
Doing it this way is not.
The way to do it is simply to ignore what political correctness is telling you to do, and do what you want to do. Don't acknowledge it (political correctness) just ignore it. Political correctness should be treated as a complete irrelevance when it comes to deciding what you want to do. Treating it that way is giving it exactly the level of respect it deserves. Making a game explicitly to push back against political correctness is giving political correctness far too much respect. Treat it as an irrelevance. Out of sight, out of mind. You aren't pushing back against political correctness because you choose to, you're pushing back against it because it comes naturally to you. You are expending no effort to push back against it, you're just pushing back against it because it comes naturally. Make the game you want to make, if it happens to go in contravention to political correctness or doesn't, it matters not, because politial correctness is completely irrelevant.
-
I dont care about the game itself, but I care about Steam not censoring content for dubious reasons (like being PC), so its a good thing the game was put back to Greenlight. Let the gamer votes decide if they want it on Steam.
-
Pushing back against political correctness is a good thing.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post, and that's saying something.
I dont care about the game itself, but I care about Steam not censoring content for dubious reasons (like being PC), so its a good thing the game was put back to Greenlight. Let the gamer votes decide if they want it on Steam.
Steam choosing not to distribute a game is not censorship, just like Target in Australia choosing not to carry something is not censorship.
-
Pushing back against political correctness is a good thing.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post, and that's saying something.
I dont care about the game itself, but I care about Steam not censoring content for dubious reasons (like being PC), so its a good thing the game was put back to Greenlight. Let the gamer votes decide if they want it on Steam.
Steam choosing not to distribute a game is not censorship, just like Target in Australia choosing not to carry something is not censorship.
In today's current PC climate Steam not choosing to carry a game most likely means the game doesn't succeed. So really pulling a game, particularly when doing so is contradictory to the greenlight system, and when they're already carrying and selling games of the same ilk, is hypocritical and irresponsible. It's beyond censorship.
But hey that's what happens when gamers allow one company to gain a virtual monopoly
-
I dont care about the game itself, but I care about Steam not censoring content for dubious reasons (like being PC), so its a good thing the game was put back to Greenlight. Let the gamer votes decide if they want it on Steam.
Steam choosing not to distribute a game is not censorship, just like Target in Australia choosing not to carry something is not censorship.
How is it not censorship? Cancelling the planned distribution of a media work due to it being objectionable or politically incorrect is pretty much the definition of censorship.
-
In today's current PC climate Steam not choosing to carry a game most likely means the game doesn't succeed.
"Most likely"? That's awfully vague.
I dont care about the game itself, but I care about Steam not censoring content for dubious reasons (like being PC), so its a good thing the game was put back to Greenlight. Let the gamer votes decide if they want it on Steam.
Steam choosing not to distribute a game is not censorship, just like Target in Australia choosing not to carry something is not censorship.
How is it not censorship? Cancelling the planned distribution of a media work due to it being objectionable or politically incorrect is pretty much the definition of censorship.
Really? Somebody passed a law to prevent media from being published? Somebody's freedom of expression or press was curtailed? I'm not seeing it. If distributing Hatred had been made illegal or Steam had insisted on removing specific portions of the game, that would have been censorship. Choosing not to provide a platform for something is not censorship. It's not "planned distribution" when Valve doesn't guarantee anything on Greenlight will eventually become available for sale. Hell, there are plenty of games that have been "greenlit", way back at the beginning of Greenlight, even, that are still available.
-
Given the content of this game I look forward to voting on whether or not Jew Killer will be allowed on Greenlight. What right does Valve have to decide what they sell? Stop being so PC everyone.
BTW, all the fur flying over private sellers not wanting to stock GTA and this, and not a peep from you guys about DA:I actually being banned from India because it has gay people in it.
-
In today's current PC climate Steam not choosing to carry a game most likely means the game doesn't succeed.
"Most likely"? That's awfully vague.
I dont care about the game itself, but I care about Steam not censoring content for dubious reasons (like being PC), so its a good thing the game was put back to Greenlight. Let the gamer votes decide if they want it on Steam.
Steam choosing not to distribute a game is not censorship, just like Target in Australia choosing not to carry something is not censorship.
How is it not censorship? Cancelling the planned distribution of a media work due to it being objectionable or politically incorrect is pretty much the definition of censorship.
Really? Somebody passed a law to prevent media from being published? Somebody's freedom of expression or press was curtailed? I'm not seeing it. If distributing Hatred had been made illegal or Steam had insisted on removing specific portions of the game, that would have been censorship. Choosing not to provide a platform for something is not censorship. It's not "planned distribution" when Valve doesn't guarantee anything on Greenlight will eventually become available for sale. Hell, there are plenty of games that have been "greenlit", way back at the beginning of Greenlight, even, that are still available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship.
Not only government can censor. Steam as a media outlet deciding to not provide a platform for some game is censorship. Private institutions can also censor. Such censorship is legal (and you can definitely argue that its often justified), but lets not pretent its not censorship.
-
Accusations of censorship have become a new Godwin's Law. Stop abusing it.
(I would have just invoked Godwin had the identity of Hatred's developers not made it entirely appropriate).
-
Not only government can censor.
Indeed not.
Steam as a media outlet deciding to not provide a platform for some game is censorship.
Nope.
Private institutions can also censor.
Indeed they can!
Such censorship is legal (and you can definitely argue that its often justified), but lets not pretent its not censorship.
When it's actually censorship, yes. Let's not pretend that a store just not selling something is censorship, though, because it's just plain silly.
-
Argh. Semantics.
I'd rather people unloaded their frustrations on something like this game, or this:
http://www.whackyourboss.us/
Or darts into a picture of someone they don't like rather than darts / bullets, etc. into that person's actual face.
I don't think someone playing this game would be any more likely to go on a killing spree than someone playing what I linked would be likely to brutally assault / murder their boss. In fact, most people probably aren't thinking of their actual boss when playing that game.
It goes back to that old thing we laugh at where people try to equate video game violence with actual violence.
-
Retailers refusing to stock certain media can and has been used to exert tremendous pressure on what works do and don't enter the public sphere. It's an extremely powerful political tool, and you would absolutely be kicking and screaming if it was being used to attack your political position, so please stop acting like it's not worthy of discussion.
-
It's an extremely powerful political tool, and you would absolutely be kicking and screaming if it was being used to attack your political position, so please stop acting like it's not worthy of discussion.
I would absolutely not be kicking and screaming if a game I liked wasn't being sold on Steam, because it's already the case.
-
Retailers refusing to stock certain media can and has been used to exert tremendous pressure on what works do and don't enter the public sphere. It's an extremely powerful political tool, and you would absolutely be kicking and screaming if it was being used to attack your political position, so please stop acting like it's not worthy of discussion.
Therefore, every time a store pulls anything for objectionable content, it must be part of a coordinated attempt to control culture.
At least, that's the therefore you have to make to get from your point to theirs.
Btw, still no explanation why this is getting all the attention and not a peep made about a government outright banning a very popular game.
-
When it's actually censorship, yes. Let's not pretend that a store just not selling something is censorship, though, because it's just plain silly.
A media store actively refusing to sell something because its objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient? That is censorship. This is not Hatred not being sold because it failed Greenlight or developers dont want it sold on Steam, this was Steam making an active decision to stop already running Greenlight. It fulfills the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
Whatever, this is purely a semantic argument. I can reformulate my earlier post if the C word irritates you there:
I dont care about the game itself, but I care about Steam curating content based on dubious criteria (like being PC), so its a good thing the game was put back to Greenlight. Let the gamer votes decide if they want it on Steam.
-
PC is without a doubt the most powerful euphemism ever invented. You can use it on literally anything.
-
In today's current PC climate Steam not choosing to carry a game most likely means the game doesn't succeed.
"Most likely"? That's awfully vague.
No it isn't. You ever heard of Total Biscuit? He does videos on PC games on youtube.
He has stated that many developers specifically ask him to not do a video on their game until it is available on Steam. If it's on another distribution platform like GOG or Humble store first they ask him to wait to talk about their game until its on Steam because Steam sales will account for most of their sales.
Is that anecdotal, sure. But the guy's talking to developers all the time and those same developers are most concerned with having a roof over their head and putting food in their mouth so I trust that the latter has done their research.
Or if you want here's a 2 and a half hour video of him talking to developers and marketers about Steam curation and the platform as a whole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzUIIkP5RMA
This graphic from 2011 says that Steam has some 51% market share:
http://www.prlog.org/11520350-digital-distribution-giant-steam-is-losing-market-shares-to-amazon-gamestop-and-microsoft.html
If that's still remotely true, a game potentially losing 50% of its sales is a big thing. Not that market share directly translates into sales but it is an indicator.
-
It's an extremely powerful political tool, and you would absolutely be kicking and screaming if it was being used to attack your political position, so please stop acting like it's not worthy of discussion.
I would absolutely not be kicking and screaming if a game I liked wasn't being sold on Steam, because it's already the case.
But how would you react if developers of a game you like wanted to sell it on Steam, and Steam suddenly refused them, despite very favorable Greenlight response?
-
It's an extremely powerful political tool, and you would absolutely be kicking and screaming if it was being used to attack your political position, so please stop acting like it's not worthy of discussion.
I would absolutely not be kicking and screaming if a game I liked wasn't being sold on Steam, because it's already the case.
But how would you react if developers of a game you like wanted to sell it on Steam, and Steam suddenly refused them, despite very favorable Greenlight response?
What if my favorite game is Custer's Revenge and steam won't sell it? Is that censorship?
If that is, could you please tell me if there's another word denoting censorship that's actually worth giving a **** about?
-
http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6994921/hatred-the-polygon-interview
This interview would indicate to me that they are doing it for the right reasons after all.
From the OP, I thought it was specifically to take a shot at political correctness, but it actually is they are simply creating the game they want to play rather than creating a product specifically to rebel against political correctness.
"Like many of us, I grew up playing all kind of games. More or less violent. And I'm still just a regular guy like millions of other gamers in the world. But what I observe these days are games, that used to be considered a rebellious medium, losing that factor and just trying to fit in the nice and sweet pop-culture.
"So the spark that was present in Doom, Kingpin or Postal was lost somewhere in the process. Those games had no limits. So we've decided to rebel against this overall trend and go back to the roots. Create a game, that we want to play and not the one that will try to please anybody's expectations.
-
In today's current PC climate Steam not choosing to carry a game most likely means the game doesn't succeed.
"Most likely"? That's awfully vague.
No it isn't. You ever heard of Total Biscuit? He does videos on PC games on youtube.
He has stated that many developers specifically ask him to not do a video on their game until it is available on Steam. If it's on another distribution platform like GOG or Humble store first they ask him to wait to talk about their game until its on Steam because Steam sales will account for most of their sales.
Is that anecdotal, sure. But the guy's talking to developers all the time and those same developers are most concerned with having a roof over their head and putting food in their mouth so I trust that the latter has done their research.
Or if you want here's a 2 and a half hour video of him talking to developers and marketers about Steam curation and the platform as a whole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzUIIkP5RMA
This graphic from 2011 says that Steam has some 51% market share:
http://www.prlog.org/11520350-digital-distribution-giant-steam-is-losing-market-shares-to-amazon-gamestop-and-microsoft.html
If that's still remotely true, a game potentially losing 50% of its sales is a big thing. Not that market share directly translates into sales but it is an indicator.
Uh, AA? Not that it needs to be relevant, but as a personal aside, do some research on TB pretty please. Just trust me.
-
Is that anecdotal, sure.
So you admit it's completely useless as evidence even while you present it as evidence?
If that's still remotely true, a game potentially losing 50% of its sales is a big thing. Not that market share directly translates into sales but it is an indicator.
A potential indicator. And "losing 50% of potential sales" != "doesn't succeed".
It's an extremely powerful political tool, and you would absolutely be kicking and screaming if it was being used to attack your political position, so please stop acting like it's not worthy of discussion.
I would absolutely not be kicking and screaming if a game I liked wasn't being sold on Steam, because it's already the case.
But how would you react if developers of a game you like wanted to sell it on Steam, and Steam suddenly refused them, despite very favorable Greenlight response?
"Oh well."
-
From the OP, I thought it was specifically to take a shot at political correctness, but it actually is they are simply creating the game they want to play rather than creating a product specifically to rebel against political correctness.
Actually, the response to the very first question of that interview says otherwise:
Why did you decide to make a graphically intense game about killing innocent people?
The answer is simple really. We wanted to create something contrary to prevailing standards of forcing games to be more polite or nice than they really are or even should be.
-
Why doesn't Steam just
teachsell the controversy?
-
Actually, the response to the very first question of that interview says otherwise:
Why did you decide to make a graphically intense game about killing innocent people?
The answer is simple really. We wanted to create something contrary to prevailing standards of forcing games to be more polite or nice than they really are or even should be.
It's a fair point. Clearly it has played a significant part in the reasoning behind making the game.
The part I quoted about it being the game they want to play is the part that makes me think it's for the right reasons, though I recognise you're not disputing that. But I think at the end of the day they are making the game they want to play, rather than something designed to push as many of the PC brigade's buttons as possible.
-
http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6994921/hatred-the-polygon-interview
This interview would indicate to me that they are doing it for the right reasons after all.
From the OP, I thought it was specifically to take a shot at political correctness, but it actually is they are simply creating the game they want to play rather than creating a product specifically to rebel against political correctness.
"Like many of us, I grew up playing all kind of games. More or less violent. And I'm still just a regular guy like millions of other gamers in the world. But what I observe these days are games, that used to be considered a rebellious medium, losing that factor and just trying to fit in the nice and sweet pop-culture.
"So the spark that was present in Doom, Kingpin or Postal was lost somewhere in the process. Those games had no limits. So we've decided to rebel against this overall trend and go back to the roots. Create a game, that we want to play and not the one that will try to please anybody's expectations.
He's still complaining about political correctness in this answer. He doesn't literally say so, but when he starts complaining about "used to be considered a rebellious medium", "just trying to fit in the nice and sweet pop-culture", "Doom, Kingpin, or Postal", "Those games had no limits." then that forces certain conclusions.
Translated, he's saying "games used to cause controversy (that is, not be politically correct), but now they don't, so I'm going to make the most controversial (least politically correct) game I can to recapture that feeling that I was a rebel for playing games (because I got old and the gaming industry and gamers are in the living room rather than the basement, but I never grew up)". The literal text is not the whole of what the text says. It never is.
And frankly the fact games don't cause controversy anymore has nothing to do with Doom or Postal being somehow subversive and rebellious and ultraviolent in comparison to modern games. They're both quite tame, honestly, when we look back. It has more to do with the fact that games were new and different and what is different is frightening to people.
The complaints that supposedly spawned this game are either lies to cover for the utter misanthropy of the developers or based on a fundamental misunderstanding that the position of gaming in culture has changed. It's not something done by a minority of youth any more. It's mainstream. It's normal. Violence in gaming has become routine; these old games had far more limits and far less violence than he wants to remember.
-
Is that anecdotal, sure.
So you admit it's completely useless as evidence even while you present it as evidence?
It's more useful than your opinion buddy.
All you have is questions not information. Asking questions without a desire to answer them is a waste of everyone's time, as is deliberately asking questions that one hopes or believes cannot be answered.
If you have no desire to actually know the impact on an independent developer not having their game on Steam then there's very little point in actually trying to discuss it.
A developer like Team Meat had great success on the Xbox 360, becoming one of the best selling indie titles on the platform thanks in part to promotion by Microsoft. But when they talk about sales, their biggest cash cow is not the Xbox 360, it's not the PC, it's Steam specifically.
Another developer, Blendo (Atom Zombie Smasher) gave a chart showing his PC sales:
http://ca.ign.com/articles/2012/03/07/just-how-important-is-steam-for-indie-devs
96% of his sales were on Steam.
But hey those are just two developers I'm sure it means absolutely nothing and is no evidence at all. Such is the case in the moving goalposts that is internet discussion.
Uh, AA? Not that it needs to be relevant, but as a personal aside, do some research on TB pretty please. Just trust me.
Why? I watch his videos to get a sense of the game. Don't really need to know more than that.
-
Here's a cool censorship test for you guys.
If a guy approaches me and asks to advertise on my billboard, which occupies a very prominent section of a heavily traveled section of major highway, and I refuse on any grounds to display the advertisement, is that censorship?
The answer is no. Even if I have the only billboard visible from the highway, it is not censorship.
If a guy approaches me, etc, and I decide that his advertisement is abhorrent, tasteless, or any other descriptor and in doing so attempt to convince other proud billboard owners that this guy should not be allowed to display his advertisement, is that censorship?
The answer is yes.
Steam is not trying to get other distributors to shut down this game. Steam is not doing anything besides saying "No, you may not use my billboard."
It is not censorship.
-
But I think at the end of the day they are making the game they want to play, rather than something designed to push as many of the PC brigade's buttons as possible.
Aside from NGTM-1Rs excellent points, I would note that those two things are not mutually exclusive.
-
I mean, I get where this guy is coming from. When I was a kid, Snoop Dogg was this terrifyingly evil monster who'd killed a cop and my mom panicked when she realized I listened to his music. Now, Snoop Dogg is a respected American institution suitable for all ages who appeared leading an army of Gummy Bears in a Katy Perry video and my mom sang along with his verse without a shred of irony.
This guy is the fan of Dre, Snoop, and Tupac who woke up this year, looked around at rap's mainstream, and realized the person most likely to put out music that frightens parents is Nicki Minaj. It's not that violent rap is dead. Ghostface Killa is still out there somewhere. Eminem still talks about abusing women like it ain't no thing. It's that nobody cares about it anymore. He's realized the era of his childhood is over and that things have changed.
However, rather than accept the new normal, remain with the past, or hang out with those who still think like he does, he's attempted to bring the past back to us in the least-intelligent way possible.
-
FYI Steam put the game back on Greenlight people.
And what's his face apologized to the developer.
It was most-likely censorship. It was a decision made for the "wrong reasons." At least Valve has backbone to own up to it.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139094-Valve-Removes-Hatred-from-Steam-Greenlight
"Hi, Jaroslaw.
"Yesterday I heard that we were taking Hatred down from Greenlight. Since I wasn't up to speed, I asked around internally to find out why we had done that. It turns out that it wasn't a good decision, and we'll be putting Hatred back up. My apologies to you and your team. Steam is about creating tools for content creators and customers.
"Good luck with your game.
Gabe"
-
Steam willingly denying this game access to their store due to concerns regarding the violent nature of it is obviously censorship, I hope this particular semantical note is settled. It is also beyond dispute that Steam, given its prominent market share, especially in these alternative games, can basically decide whether the developers make enough money to get the investment back or not by that decision alone.
Regarding whether they should now accept an anti semitic game or not, that can become an interesting topic in itself (there were questionable games regarding the Gaza conflict pulled off from the Apple store, IIRC), but for this topic let us remind ourselves that misanthropism is equal opportunity egalitarian, non racist and non discriminatory. An anti Jew game would be obviously divisive where this is not.
Personally I don't care about the game but I do care that certain groups feel more and more comfortable in deciding for the rest of the society which games should we play or not. Who elected these high moral priests in the first place? Why do these people believe they speak for me? And if they don't who are they to deny me the convenience of being able to buy these games where I want? On whose authority do these people work?
I already long for those days where these people would say they wouldn't "take your games away from you". Golden days.
-
FYI Steam put the game back on Greenlight people.
And what's his face apologized to the developer.
It was most-likely censorship. It was a decision made for the "wrong reasons." At least Valve has backbone to own up to it.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139094-Valve-Removes-Hatred-from-Steam-Greenlight
"Hi, Jaroslaw.
"Yesterday I heard that we were taking Hatred down from Greenlight. Since I wasn't up to speed, I asked around internally to find out why we had done that. It turns out that it wasn't a good decision, and we'll be putting Hatred back up. My apologies to you and your team. Steam is about creating tools for content creators and customers.
"Good luck with your game.
Gabe"
You won't believe who led the charge to get the game back on steam. And who is now requesting AS, ZQ, and Phil Fish be added as targets to shoot.
-
But I think at the end of the day they are making the game they want to play, rather than something designed to push as many of the PC brigade's buttons as possible.
Aside from NGTM-1Rs excellent points, I would note that those two things are not mutually exclusive.
I suppose it's open to different interpretations. And sure, you can have both, but I believe even if it is both, that the latter is the secondary objective and the former is the primary objective.
Why did you want to make this thread anyway?
-
Steam willingly denying this game access to their store due to concerns regarding the violent nature of it is obviously censorship, I hope this particular semantical note is settled. It is also beyond dispute that Steam, given its prominent market share, especially in these alternative games, can basically decide whether the developers make enough money to get the investment back or not by that decision alone.
Regarding whether they should now accept an anti semitic game or not, that can become an interesting topic in itself (there were questionable games regarding the Gaza conflict pulled off from the Apple store, IIRC), but for this topic let us remind ourselves that misanthropism is equal opportunity egalitarian, non racist and non discriminatory. An anti Jew game would be obviously divisive where this is not.
Personally I don't care about the game but I do care that certain groups feel more and more comfortable in deciding for the rest of the society which games should we play or not. Who elected these high moral priests in the first place? Why do these people believe they speak for me? And if they don't who are they to deny me the convenience of being able to buy these games where I want? On whose authority do these people work?
I already long for those days where these people would say they wouldn't "take your games away from you". Golden days.
Like I said, Steam should sell the controversy.
-
Why did you want to make this thread anyway?
For the same reason I make other threads in the "Discussion" forums. I like opinions.
-
I believe they already are and the game will profit more from this I'm sure. Regarding the literally who's obsession in being successfully trolled, I gotta say I also appreciated the suggestion of having the entire gamergate people as "victims" of the game, no sarcasm. Why the hell not. Who cares.
-
Steam willingly denying this game access to their store due to concerns regarding the violent nature of it is obviously censorship, I hope this particular semantical note is settled.
No, it's not settled in any way, but it's not a point that can be argued fruitfully on the Internet.
I will say however that the only lesson I am taking from this is that Steam Greenlight is ****ed beyond repair, that Valve is doing a terrible job at communicating, and that the outrage about this is actually kind of hilarious.
It is also beyond dispute that Steam, given its prominent market share, especially in these alternative games, can basically decide whether the developers make enough money to get the investment back or not by that decision alone.
This is debatable as well. The Greenlight numbers showed some interest in this game, there's obviously an audience for this, and given the success the devs had in going viral with their marketing, I'm going to assume that they would have found an audience regardless of distribution method large enough to recoup at least some of the cost.
Personally I don't care about the game but I do care that certain groups feel more and more comfortable in deciding for the rest of the society which games should we play or not. Who elected these high moral priests in the first place? Why do these people believe they speak for me? And if they don't who are they to deny me the convenience of being able to buy these games where I want? On whose authority do these people work?
Do store owners have the right to curate their offerings? Is there a threshold beyond which a product has to be carried, regardless of the wishes of the store owner or other consumers?
I already long for those days where these people would say they wouldn't "take your games away from you". Golden days.
Yes, how dare people have opinions I disagree with. Being mildly inconvenienced is literally the worst.
-
Also, Luis, please do not start with the gamergate bull**** again.
-
Also, Luis, please do not start with the gamergate bull**** again.
I made a very obvious reference to it first. You can rebuke me too.
-
The_E, would you please stop picking on me please, I didn't start anything.
Regarding the finantials of the game, I do believe that regardless of their ability to recuperate the investment without Steam, it does mean a giant amount of money being denied to the company. Regarding my longing for those times where they would say they wouldn't take away our games I was being true. If you recall, I did start a thread where we could discuss sexism portrayed in VG. I really long for a world where critiques abound everywhere. I don't really long for a world filled with ideological groups campaigning to get games out of stores. Those things are a wee bit different.
-
Didn't know developers have a right to money that supersedes the right of Steam to decide what it can or can't sell. And still no explanation why India banning a game earns no interest whatsoever.
-
I'm likewise curious about why things that are relevant and cogent to the censorship discussion have been totally ignored.
-
Why did you want to make this thread anyway?
For the same reason I make other threads in the "Discussion" forums. I like opinions.
Thanks.
Still no explanation why India banning a game earns no interest whatsoever.
Does there need to be?
If I want to post something of interest do I first have to stop and go on a hunt to make sure there's nothing more "worthy" to talk about first?
-
I'm likewise curious about why things that are relevant and cogent to the censorship discussion have been totally ignored.
I'm all ears.
-
The_E, would you please stop picking on me please, I didn't start anything.
My apologies. I did not see Vega drag this **** into the thread, and was assuming that the sudden outburst of gamergate rhetoric came from you first.
Regarding the finantials of the game, I do believe that regardless of their ability to recuperate the investment without Steam, it does mean a giant amount of money being denied to the company. Regarding my longing for those times where they would say they wouldn't take away our games I was being true. If you recall, I did start a thread where we could discuss sexism portrayed in VG. I really long for a world where critiques abound everywhere. I don't really long for a world filled with ideological groups campaigning to get games out of stores. Those things are a wee bit different.
True, there is a difference. But, remind me, do consumers have the right to protest a decision made by a retailer? Do retailers have discretion over what to stock?
-
Vega, That's not the same thing, in a way it's in a different level (worse), but if you want to bring a "dear muslima" into this, I'd have to confess I'm way more concerned regarding what he happened with Seth Rogans movie, Sony, north korea , how the us has already hacked NK to understand what happened, etc. Or how the ruble has collapsed.
Hatred is the topic of the thread.
-
Congratulations on totally missing the point of why he brought it up. He didn't bring it up because of its "worthy"ness, he brought it up because it's a genuine case of government censorship applied to a game and it's gotten literally zero discussion in a thread about censorship applied to a game where the primary discussion is about what actually constitutes censorship instead of, say, discussion about why that's good, bad, or in between.
I'm likewise curious about why things that are relevant and cogent to the censorship discussion have been totally ignored.
I'm all ears.
Here's a cool censorship test for you guys.
If a guy approaches me and asks to advertise on my billboard, which occupies a very prominent section of a heavily traveled section of major highway, and I refuse on any grounds to display the advertisement, is that censorship?
The answer is no. Even if I have the only billboard visible from the highway, it is not censorship.
If a guy approaches me, etc, and I decide that his advertisement is abhorrent, tasteless, or any other descriptor and in doing so attempt to convince other proud billboard owners that this guy should not be allowed to display his advertisement, is that censorship?
The answer is yes.
Steam is not trying to get other distributors to shut down this game. Steam is not doing anything besides saying "No, you may not use my billboard."
It is not censorship.
It's somewhat frustrating that my (admittedly self-evaluated) Good Analogy got wholly ignored by the thread.
-
Why did you want to make this thread anyway?
For the same reason I make other threads in the "Discussion" forums. I like opinions.
Thanks.
Still no explanation why India banning a game earns no interest whatsoever.
Does there need to be?
If I want to post something of interest do I first have to stop and go on a hunt to make sure there's nothing more "worthy" to talk about first?
If this motivated by a sincere concern against censorship why is a supposedly developed country's government banning a game deserving of much less attention than one private seller deciding what they want to stock?
-
Hatred is the topic of the thread.
Actually, since Dragon Age: Inquisition's very progressive (for games) attitude to sex and sexual relationships can also be seen as an attempt to stir up controversy or a blatant disregard of what is considered politically correct, it fits within the scope of this discussion.
So here's an article for context (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-11-18-ea-pulls-dragon-age-inquisition-from-india-due-to-local-obscenity-laws).
It's somewhat frustrating that my (admittedly self-evaluated) Good Analogy got wholly ignored by the thread.
Hmm. I completely agree with your Good Analogy and therefore didn't see the need to talk about it. If that's any help. It's good.
-
Who says there even has to be any discussion? I would be surprised if anyone didn't think it was wrong. What's there to discuss?
It's somewhat frustrating that my (admittedly self-evaluated) Good Analogy got wholly ignored by the thread.
I liked it a lot, fwiw. But I'm not involved in the censorship discussion, which hopefully is over.
EDIT: Pretty much same reason as -Joshua- for not mentioning it. I thought it was bringing things to a smooth close.
-
Correct me if I'm misreading this, but it looks like DA:I wasn't banned, but rather that EA decided to pull it because they think it violates local law. It also sounds like Eurogamer and Kotaku think EA may have been overly-cautious in this regard.
Also, I obviously agree with Scotty's analogy because that's pretty much the same point I was trying to make earlier.
-
I would accept Scotty's position with a reservation that we need to try to see that a someone who wants the game can buy it somewhere.
-
I would either accept Scotty's position with a reservation that we need to make sure that a someone who wants the game can buy it somewhere.
That always was the case. The person asking Scotty to do stuff is free to put up his own sign at his own yard.
Correct me if I'm misreading this, but it looks like DA:I wasn't banned, but rather that EA decided to pull it because they think it violates local law.
Considering that EA has legal experts on their payroll, I am pretty sure that they know it violoates local law. As it stands, pre-emptive banning is still banning, and this really is India censoring certain content.
-
I would either accept Scotty's position with a reservation that we need to make sure that a someone who wants the game can buy it somewhere.
That always was the case. The person asking Scotty to do stuff is free to put up his own sign at his own yard.
Correct me if I'm misreading this, but it looks like DA:I wasn't banned, but rather that EA decided to pull it because they think it violates local law.
Considering that EA has legal experts on their payroll, I am pretty sure that they know it violoates local law.
Well, the article implies that the law is really vague, but IANAL (neither here nor in India).
As it stands, pre-emptive banning is still banning, and this really is India censoring certain content.
Yes, India's government is censoring certain content, but I'm just not sure if "company pulls product from India because they suspect it will be banned" can really be said to be the same thing as "India bans DA:I".
-
And it touches on another issue - as gaming audiences grow internationally there's going to be pressure to avoid stuff that would get your games shut out of certain markets.
-
And it touches on another issue - as gaming audiences grow internationally there's going to be pressure to avoid stuff that would get your games shut out of certain markets.
Or... not, as EA has aptly demonstrated. The fact that they've withdrawn from India's market with that particular game doesn't indicate a shift in gaming attitudes toward that kind of content. In the short run it means that piracy of DA:I in India will be an order of magnitude higher than the rest of the world, and in the long run maybe India will lighten up a bit.
-
I'm not saying a shift has occured - merely that this stuff is going to come up more and more often.
-
It's really fun to see liberals basing their arguments on the idea that a cartel has the right to do whatever the hell they like. You guys realise that the same arguments you're using to shut down discussions of censorship could equally well be applied to, say, restaurant owners in the South refusing to serve black customers?
-
It's really fun to see liberals basing their arguments on the idea that a cartel has the right to do whatever the hell they like. You guys realise that the same arguments you're using to shut down discussions of censorship could equally well be applied to, say, restaurant owners in the South refusing to serve black customers?
Apply the harm principle to both cases and compare. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't believe in factoring the real life consequences of the different choices when deciding what the right thing to do is? You just look at the abstract principles? Kk.
-
While PH could probably have phrased it less aggressively, please don't shoot right back with snark and sarcasm.
And I think the situation is rather more similar to a restaurant owner in the South refusing to serve Thai food. There is no discrimination against customers of any kind going on; it's a matter of a business owner not being forced, coerced, cajoled, or pestered into carrying a certain product based on ~scary issue~.
EDIT: more clearly stated: it's a matter of products, not a matter of customers. That's a significant difference.
-
more clearly stated: it's a matter of products, not a matter of customers. That's a significant difference.
A very significant difference.
It should also be noted that even now, businesses retain the right to refuse service to anyone; somebody else has to notice that they only exercise this right against, say, black people before it becomes a problem.
-
please don't shoot right back with snark and sarcasm.
Like this?
Congratulations on totally missing the point of why he brought it up.
-
It's really fun to see liberals basing their arguments on the idea that a cartel has the right to do whatever the hell they like. You guys realise that the same arguments you're using to shut down discussions of censorship could equally well be applied to, say, restaurant owners in the South refusing to serve black customers?
Apply the harm principle to both cases and compare. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't believe in factoring the real life consequences of the different choices when deciding what the right thing to do is? You just look at the abstract principles? Kk.
Well people are trying to apply the harm principle and you're just shooting them down by saying that it's not governmental censorship and therefore isn't doing any harm!
-
It's really fun to see liberals basing their arguments on the idea that a cartel has the right to do whatever the hell they like. You guys realise that the same arguments you're using to shut down discussions of censorship could equally well be applied to, say, restaurant owners in the South refusing to serve black customers?
Apply the harm principle to both cases and compare. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't believe in factoring the real life consequences of the different choices when deciding what the right thing to do is? You just look at the abstract principles? Kk.
Well people are trying to apply the harm principle and you're just shooting them down by saying that it's not governmental censorship and therefore isn't doing any harm!
Does the "harm" to a douchebag developer outweigh forcing someone to stock a game they don't want to stock? In this case, no ****ing way.
-
Are they really trying to apply the harm principle here? Serious question: people are equating a "lack of success" with "harm". There are times where that is probably valid, when it represents an organized, wide-scale attempt to prevent the success of a group based on non-functional attributes. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
The people whose jobs and livelihoods are riding on this have at no point done so less than willingly; they are engaged in an act of artistic expression if you hear them talk about it and anybody can tell you that doing it for the art is usually inimical to doing it for the money.
They have not been denied access to all distribution options, only one. There has been no organized effort to interfere with their success; only one entity has done so. That entity may represent a disproportionate likelihood of success for them, but it is not engaged in this behavior as part of a concerted effort against either similar people or similar products. There is no evidence of systemic discrimination of any kind.
I have spent much of my posting this thread constructing an argument that this particular game is based on either great galloping misanthropy or a complete failure to grasp that we don't live in the same world as we did when Doom and Night Trap came out, both of which are not only functional issues with its likely design failing to connect with audiences, but also artistic issues with what even the developers argue is their artistic expression. And the gallery owner is still allowed to make a judgement call about what art is good or not, as the retailer is allowed to make judgement calls about what they think will sell.
Even if you want to argue on grounds of censorship, there are alternate reasons for Valve to remove the game based on what the developer has said about it, many of which are based in functional aspects. Anyone nostalgic for the days of Doom and Postal while making a game will be eaten alive in a modern FPS environment where a major studio like Bungie can drop their new flagship title as an FPS and only get a passing grade from people. Any argument to some form of censorship must first demonstrate that no functional argument has merit.
-
I did use quotation marks.
-
Does the "harm" to a douchebag developer outweigh forcing someone to stock a game they don't want to stock? In this case, no ****ing way.
I don't really care about the harm done to 'some douchebag developer' either, but I do care about the power that private distributors have over public expression, and it annoys me when any concerns about that are dismissed out of hand as 'nothing to do with freedom of expression'.
-
Does the "harm" to a douchebag developer outweigh forcing someone to stock a game they don't want to stock? In this case, no ****ing way.
I don't really care about the harm done to 'some douchebag developer' either, but I do care about the power that private distributors have over public expression, and it annoys me when any concerns about that are dismissed out of hand as 'nothing to do with freedom of expression'.
A better case will come around. Be patient.
-
Does the "harm" to a douchebag developer outweigh forcing someone to stock a game they don't want to stock? In this case, no ****ing way.
I don't really care about the harm done to 'some douchebag developer' either, but I do care about the power that private distributors have over public expression, and it annoys me when any concerns about that are dismissed out of hand as 'nothing to do with freedom of expression'.
I don't think this is the particular front to throw yourself against in that particular fight. This is significantly more cut and dried than any scenario such a true discussion requires. To wit: Valve has decided they (and decided only for themselves) that they will not carry this game. That is the extent of Valve's involvement (or lackthereof) in this situation. It is not censorship, it is not unreasonably limiting freedom of expression (if it could be said to be doing that at all; I'm not convinced it is). That's pretty much the end of story when it comes to whether this is an instance of a private corporation unduly shaping public expression.
Your concerns are not invalid, even if I don't particularly share them. They're just not particularly applicable now.
-
They have not been denied access to all distribution options, only one.
Valve has decided they (and decided only for themselves) that they will not carry this game. That is the extent of Valve's involvement (or lackthereof) in this situation.
Did you guys forget that Valve put it back on Greenlight?
-
Yes.
-
Did you guys forget that Valve put it back on Greenlight?
No. Since people wanted to bang on about it being pulled as censorship after it was put back on Greenlight, I kind of have to continue talking about the period where it was off Greenlight even if that's over while discussing whether or not pulling it is censorship.
-
You won't believe who led the charge to get the game back on steam. And who is now requesting AS, ZQ, and Phil Fish be added as targets to shoot.
Phil Fish isn't even in the industry anymore dude. He quit after he got hacked.
It's somewhat frustrating that my (admittedly self-evaluated) Good Analogy got wholly ignored by the thread.
Your analogy is flawed because that's now how Steam's Greenlight works.
-
You won't believe who led the charge to get the game back on steam. And who is now requesting AS, ZQ, and Phil Fish be added as targets to shoot.
Phil Fish isn't even in the industry anymore dude. He quit after he got hacked.
You should tell them that.
-
You won't believe who led the charge to get the game back on steam. And who is now requesting AS, ZQ, and Phil Fish be added as targets to shoot.
Phil Fish isn't even in the industry anymore dude. He quit after he got hacked.
You should tell them that.
Tell who? You want to like, give a link? Remotely expand upon what you specifically find offensive?
Or are you talking about a months-old blog post that Total Biscuit made in reference to the gamergate thing that offended people and prompted them to start attacking him. (ie http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s4nmr1 )
If you have a specific qualm with what's he's saying here for example feel free to expand upon it.
As for Phil Fish, while I empathize with him having watched him on the Indie Game Movie his alleged tweets in response to this above were pretty juvenile. Though, I don't know twitter so maybe that's the norm.
-
It's somewhat frustrating that my (admittedly self-evaluated) Good Analogy got wholly ignored by the thread.
Your analogy is flawed because that's now how Steam's Greenlight works.
Superficially, no. Practically, yes it is. Anyone can host a packaged game and put it behind a paywall. Steam is publicity and simplicity rolled into one. Greenlight is the epitome of Steam's publicity offering, wherein prospective games metaphorically throw themselves to the masses to raise enough interest for their game to open up new sales avenues. Whether the game actually gets greenlit is ultimately irrelevant beyond Steam's sales figures. The game exists whether it is sold on Steam or not. Steam taking something off greenlight is analogous to saying "No, you cannot use my billboard."
Before the post edit: What the hell are you even arguing right now? Seriously. Sit down and tell me what the disagreement between you and Mr. Vega is, because reading that quote chain makes me wonder if you know.
-
It's somewhat frustrating that my (admittedly self-evaluated) Good Analogy got wholly ignored by the thread.
Your analogy is flawed because that's now how Steam's Greenlight works.
Superficially, no. Practically, yes it is. Anyone can host a packaged game and put it behind a paywall. Steam is publicity and simplicity rolled into one. Greenlight is the epitome of Steam's publicity offering, wherein prospective games metaphorically throw themselves to the masses to raise enough interest for their game to open up new sales avenues. Whether the game actually gets greenlit is ultimately irrelevant beyond Steam's sales figures. The game exists whether it is sold on Steam or not. Steam taking something off greenlight is analogous to saying "No, you cannot use my billboard."
Before the post edit: What the hell are you even arguing right now? Seriously. Sit down and tell me what the disagreement between you and Mr. Vega is, because reading that quote chain makes me wonder if you know.
I'm basing this off Jim Sterling (cause I'm not wading through the cesspool so AA can have his smoking gun):
https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/545052195453169664
https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/545052546164072448
https://twitter.com/GREENLIGHTGOLD/status/545053289079771137
-
I think pulling Hatred off Greenlight was very hypocritical by Valve. I mean, seriously, with all the utterly broken, unplayable, or just awfully bad games they sell with no quality control whatsoever they suddenly decide to pull this 1 game because they didn't like what it was about. I mean, sure they put it back on but Valve has never moderated Greenlight, it's why so much crap appears on Steam on a daily basis.
It's not outside their rights, sure, but it was still a dick move.
-
Superficially, no. Practically, yes it is. Anyone can host a packaged game and put it behind a paywall. Steam is publicity and simplicity rolled into one. Greenlight is the epitome of Steam's publicity offering, wherein prospective games metaphorically throw themselves to the masses to raise enough interest for their game to open up new sales avenues. Whether the game actually gets greenlit is ultimately irrelevant beyond Steam's sales figures. The game exists whether it is sold on Steam or not. Steam taking something off greenlight is analogous to saying "No, you cannot use my billboard."
Mechanically Greenlight is Steam removing themselves from the approval process and allowing the fans to get games that they want. Games are eligible as long as they presumably do not violate any guidelines.
Their decision to remove the game is contrary to that system, basically laying rules or groundwork for how things should work and then making arbitrary decisions contrary to those rules. And that's bad because of not only Steam's overwhelming market share (one game cited allegedly had 96% of its sales on Steam) but because it's a betrayal of trust with both the fans and the developers. IF you create a system and then ignore the rules of your own system then what good are those rules for?
If Steam is a store where anyone can enter their game and if the game being entered is not too dissimilar from other games already being sold then what grounds are there to remove it?
Before the post edit: What the hell are you even arguing right now? Seriously. Sit down and tell me what the disagreement between you and Mr. Vega is, because reading that quote chain makes me wonder if you know.
Your guess is as good as mine.
I referenced a video I believe that had Total Biscuit talking about Steam.
Mr. Vega for reasons unknown doesn't like Total Biscuit. He has yet to actually give a specific reason why except that I should research him.
I'm basing this off Jim Sterling (cause I'm not wading through the cesspool so AA can have his smoking gun):
https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/545052195453169664
https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/545052546164072448
https://twitter.com/GREENLIGHTGOLD/status/545053289079771137
What does this have to do with Total Biscuit?
Because he made a video about Hatred being removed? Did you watch that video? The video wasn't championing the game, it was questioning Steam on why it was removed without reason. He like other developers he cites believes it'll be a pretty boring game from first impressions of gameplay trailer.
-
Superficially, no. Practically, yes it is. Anyone can host a packaged game and put it behind a paywall. Steam is publicity and simplicity rolled into one. Greenlight is the epitome of Steam's publicity offering, wherein prospective games metaphorically throw themselves to the masses to raise enough interest for their game to open up new sales avenues. Whether the game actually gets greenlit is ultimately irrelevant beyond Steam's sales figures. The game exists whether it is sold on Steam or not. Steam taking something off greenlight is analogous to saying "No, you cannot use my billboard."
Not allowing something to get out IS censorship. Period. It doesn't have to be all-encompasing or state-sponsored.
And while Steam has the right to not sell/distribute what they don't want, it's still not exactly a nice thing to do. If I removed you from my forum/board because I don't like your views, I *AM* censoring you.
But all of this is pointless. Hatered is back on Steam, Gabe personally sent an e-mail to the developer with an apology.
Based Gaben.
-
So here's a question for you:
Volition pitches FS3 towards interplay.
Interplay refuses to support it, saying that there is no market for it right now.
Is this censorship?
-
So here's a question for you:
Volition pitches FS3 towards interplay.
Interplay refuses to support it, saying that there is no market for it right now.
Is this censorship?
I got a question for you,
Someone asks me to say "Ketchup" on a hand-written note
I say nothing
Is that censorship?
What if he asks me to say "Penis" instead?
-
Someone asks me to say "Ketchup" on a hand-written note
I say nothing
Is that censorship?
No.
-
Not allowing something to get out IS censorship.
Not allowing something to be made is censorship. Destroying all copies is censorship. Not allowing it to get out can be censorship if it is ideologically motivated and is done by a thinking being as a conscious choice. Even in that case certain ideologies like "I want to make a ton of money (and this will not help)" or "I don't want to be ashamed to show my face in the corporate boardroom ever again (because this will all end in tears)" are typically exempt from accusations of censorship unless first shown to be false.
In your example, accidentally dropping the painting into the river on the way to an exhibition is censorship; this is a clearly ridiculous situation.
-
It is FAR less serious than government censorship. But it is censorship still. So it is understandable why some people disagree with removing the game. Steam has a right to remove whatever they want, but that doesnt mean people cannot voice disagreement with their decisions.
Greenlight is supposed to put the choice into the hands of the community. Community said they want Hatred. And there are lots of other pretty violent games on Steam. Wide selection of games is best for the gamers so I dont think removing ultra-violent games is a good step. Now its Hatred, what will be next? Dont like it? Dont play it. Who knows, we may even see an excellent ultra-violent game made one day, thats not based only on creating controversy to succeed. Such game deserves to be on Steam, IMHO.
-
Congratulations on totally missing the point of why he brought it up. He didn't bring it up because of its "worthy"ness, he brought it up because it's a genuine case of government censorship applied to a game and it's gotten literally zero discussion in a thread about censorship applied to a game where the primary discussion is about what actually constitutes censorship instead of, say, discussion about why that's good, bad, or in between.
I'm likewise curious about why things that are relevant and cogent to the censorship discussion have been totally ignored.
I'm all ears.
Here's a cool censorship test for you guys.
If a guy approaches me and asks to advertise on my billboard, which occupies a very prominent section of a heavily traveled section of major highway, and I refuse on any grounds to display the advertisement, is that censorship?
The answer is no. Even if I have the only billboard visible from the highway, it is not censorship.
If a guy approaches me, etc, and I decide that his advertisement is abhorrent, tasteless, or any other descriptor and in doing so attempt to convince other proud billboard owners that this guy should not be allowed to display his advertisement, is that censorship?
The answer is yes.
Steam is not trying to get other distributors to shut down this game. Steam is not doing anything besides saying "No, you may not use my billboard."
It is not censorship.
It's somewhat frustrating that my (admittedly self-evaluated) Good Analogy got wholly ignored by the thread.
It's a terrible analogy, because the stores in question went to the trouble of actively denying access to the store (which isn't the same as a "billboard", sorry) because a couple of ideologue troublemakers decided these things were not kosher for the rest of us and shamed the stores into submission. You don't want it called a "censorship", I disagree but accept, for language should at least be a common thing between us. Call it as you please, I don't like it. Because if it starts with things that we both may well dislike (I have no love for Hatred, ar ar ar), the same arguments can be used against things we actually love.
And no the Indian case is still a very different situation. As I have stated, it's a worse situation than Hatred, but let's be clear about why there was no discussion regarding it: it's ****ing consensual that it's incredibly bull****. But as in many Indian issues, it's filled with homophobic politics, racism, class and fascist underpinnings. In other words, it's a very different culture that is still decades in barbarism in certain social issues. And because the issue is entirely consensual in these discussion boards and in twitter which are mostly western, then by definition there is no discussion about it. Why would anyone discuss what is consensual? The Indian censorship is bull****, their reasons are bull****, they should be ashamed, ****ing period.
e: Wait, I've changed my mind a bit on this issue. I think you are correct in saying this is an important case that informs this discussion, and I was a bit wrong declaring it unimportant because it is consensual between us. Yes, it is consensual, but here's an important detail: the reasons for it being censored (or not even distributed due to fear of it being censored) are abhorrent to our western values, but if we are allowed to take down games from stores because of our values, what is to stop others from doing the same with their own values? As I said above, what is to stop others from using the exact same arguments these high moral priests of social correctness use against the very games that you think are actually progressive and advancing your own morals?
Once you allow this kind of white noise chat about how certain "media" is "harmful" to our core ideological goals and should be "challenged" and attacked, boycotted and thrown out of stores, then you are effectively giving intellectual ammo to actual authocratic regimes to pull **** like censoring DA:I. And if you are going to criticize the government for it, then they will call you out for your hypocrisy.
Standing for Free Speech is something we should all be in the same boat, people. Get a load of the "horrible, gruesome, ghastly" Christopher Hitchens on it NAU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hate. Topical!
please don't shoot right back with snark and sarcasm.
Like this?
Congratulations on totally missing the point of why he brought it up.
Thanks Lorric. Small note: the last time I did this **** I got a warning. I don't want to begin thinking that if this kind of **** is done by a mod against me, then it suddenly becomes kosher. Another note: while it riled me up it only did so for a second, so you don't have to worry Scotty it's all ok.
-
It's a terrible analogy, because the stores in question went to the trouble of actively denying access to the store (which isn't the same as a "billboard", sorry) because a couple of ideologue troublemakers decided these things were not kosher for the rest of us and shamed the stores into submission.
Considering Valve's official statement when they took it down (“We wanted you guys to know that based on what we see on Greenlight we would not publish Hatred on Steam. As such we’ll be taking it down.”), this was very much an internal Valve thing and not because of pressure from "Ideologue troublemakers" (whatever the hell that is).
-
I repeat my earlier questions:
1. Do customers have a right to protest for or against decisions made by retailers?
2. Do retailers have the right to curate their offerings?
3. Do retailers have the right or obligation to follow the wishes of their customers?
-
I'm sorry The_E, I had read those questions yesterday but it was late and I was already in bed.
All of those things are perfect legitimate rights. They are also strawmans, since the issue was never one of "rights". I issued a very particular concern on how certain ideological groups are increasingly bullish on these sorts of campaigns for they are being apparently successful here and there. I said that I don't long for the kind of a world where ideological groups here and there shut down the market for some games they don't like, as if they are entitled to make those kinds of decisions for me. I do not recognize their authority to do this, and yet they pretend to speak for all of us.
I never said that anything they did was illegal. Or beyond their rights. I'm not "taking away their rights", but not in the way that they were not going to "Take away their games": I actually mean what I say.
Stores are perfectly allowed to not have a moral spine. And I am allowed to despise them for it.
There was a campaign against Hatred, Joshua, and it is my firm belief that this campaign fueled the initial decision by Steam to drop the game.
-
All of those things are perfect legitimate rights. They are also strawmans, since the issue was never one of "rights". I issued a very particular concern on how certain ideological groups are increasingly bullish on these sorts of campaigns for they are being apparently successful here and there. I said that I don't long for the kind of a world where ideological groups here and there shut down the market for some games they don't like, as if they are entitled to make those kinds of decisions for me. I do not recognize their authority to do this, and yet they pretend to speak for all of us.
But if we believe that everyone has the right to free expression, to gather a movement of likeminded people, and petition some entity to do something, then we must accept that there will be petitions we disagree with.
-
There was a campaign against Hatred, Joshua, and it is my firm belief that this campaign fueled the initial decision by Steam to drop the game.
Considering that Steam's did not make any reference to that campaign (which campaign?), this seems rather sillly, just as the assertions made by the game dev about "We wanted to create something contrary to prevailing standards of forcing games to be more polite or nice than they really are or even should be." - What standards? :v-old: develops games where you can beat people up using dildos. GTAV is the best selling game in history. Call of Duty spouts it's western Jingoïsm increasingly with each installment. Hotline Miami is lauded among the indies. I see absolutely no evidence of "standards forcing games" to be anything.
-
All of those things are perfect legitimate rights. They are also strawmans, since the issue was never one of "rights". I issued a very particular concern on how certain ideological groups are increasingly bullish on these sorts of campaigns for they are being apparently successful here and there. I said that I don't long for the kind of a world where ideological groups here and there shut down the market for some games they don't like, as if they are entitled to make those kinds of decisions for me. I do not recognize their authority to do this, and yet they pretend to speak for all of us.
But if we believe that everyone has the right to free expression, to gather a movement of likeminded people, and petition some entity to do something, then we must accept that there will be petitions we disagree with.
I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that I should accept there are things in the world that I disagree with? I mean, what are you talking about? Are you saying I shouldn't disagree with these things because they are entitled to exist? I'm sorry The_E but I thought I was really clear in my last reply: I am actually very earnest when I say that I am not here "taking away your petitions", very much unlike certain people were about games. Their rights are not being trampled when I despise their usage of it.
Sorry, I just don't understand your point.
Considering that Steam's did not make any reference to that campaign (which campaign?), this seems rather sillly
The online campaign existed, Steam initial statement existed. They followed sequentially. You don't believe they are causally connected, I do.
-
I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that I should accept there are things in the world that I disagree with? I mean, what are you talking about? Are you saying I shouldn't disagree with these things because they are entitled to exist? I'm sorry The_E but I thought I was really clear in my last reply: I am actually very earnest when I say that I am not here "taking away your petitions", very much unlike certain people were about games. Their rights are not being trampled when I despise their usage of it.
Yeah, sorry, I think I was a bit confused myself there.
-
The online campaign existed,
Where? Google invariably turns me towards Gamergate when I google "campaign against hatred video game", whilst "campaign to remove hatred from steam" invariably turns me towards the news articles I linked in the OP (which do not talk about an actual campaign)
-
You might be right and there not having been a coordinated campaign, and just disgust at the game and its existence. If it was just the latter, I'm both for it and smug at it, since that's the kind of controversy they were trying to get. I know a lot of **** went into twitter, and a lot of people tried to glue the "values" of this game into a certain Movement That Should Not Be Named, and a lot of people cheered when they learnt about Steam's (initial) decision, but I might have jumped the shark in seeing a "campaign" into all of those things.
-
What does this have to do with Total Biscuit?
Because he made a video about Hatred being removed? Did you watch that video? The video wasn't championing the game, it was questioning Steam on why it was removed without reason. He like other developers he cites believes it'll be a pretty boring game from first impressions of gameplay trailer.
That was totally unrelated to TotalBiscuit. I was mentioning the psychopaths that the game is now attracting.
-
It is FAR less serious than government censorship. But it is censorship still. So it is understandable why some people disagree with removing the game. Steam has a right to remove whatever they want, but that doesnt mean people cannot voice disagreement with their decisions.
It also does not make steam censorious to do so as has been explained many times to the more obtuse residents of this thread. If Steam genuinely removes a game from Greenlight because they think it is a bad game (something they could actually stand to do more often by most accounts), that cannot be censorship by definition.
Censorship is the ideological attempt to deny access to certain ideas or forms of content. By your own admission no similar forms of idea or content are being pulled from Steam; your protestations that Hatred was being censored are necessarily weakened by that observation.
-
It is FAR less serious than government censorship. But it is censorship still. So it is understandable why some people disagree with removing the game. Steam has a right to remove whatever they want, but that doesnt mean people cannot voice disagreement with their decisions.
Censorship is the ideological attempt to deny access to certain ideas or forms of content. By your own admission no similar forms of idea or content are being pulled from Steam; your protestations that Hatred was being censored are necessarily weakened by that observation.
Thats a pretty strange definition. There is no need for censorship to be so consistent that ALL similar forms of idea or content are always removed. Even imperfectly applied censorship (censoring just one game and letting similar ones to be sold) is still censorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
-
Key word: suppression. Steam isn't suppressing this game.
-
Thats a pretty strange definition. There is no need for censorship to be so consistent that ALL similar forms of idea or content are always removed. Even imperfectly applied censorship (censoring just one game and letting similar ones to be sold) is still censorship.
That is exactly the definition you have used, you simply don't understand that "imperfect suppression" in this case, means that your argument is fundamentally disjointed and unsupportable because no possible definition of censorship allows for the situation at hand. If it were being implemented incompetently, you might have an argument; but that is not the case.
You can't "suppress" speech by telling one person to be quiet and endorsing five other people who are expressing the same ideas. Steam already sells a whole collection of the ol' psychopathic ultraviolence simulators, and in fact pushes them pretty heavily via regular sales (they're all on sale right now in fact). They're called Grand Theft Auto. I'm sure others will occur to your thought if you bother to try; perhaps the variety of zombie shooters, since zombie shooters more or less exist to enable us to guiltlessly experience our more psychopathic fantasies of murdering our neighbors?
You have utterly failed to present evidence that Hatred was pulled from Greenlight for the ideas or speech it presented, because...
And there are lots of other pretty violent games on Steam.
...you admit that Steam actually endorses those ideas and speech that people find objectionable in Hatred. The only way you can sustain an accusation of censorship is by doublethink; by claiming that Steam is trying to censor forms of expression you have also claimed they openly support.
If this is the hill you want to die defending, by all means, die defending it. But don't be surprised that some of us decide you to need to sped on your way to that death because you've considered your choice of hill very poorly indeed.
-
Thats a pretty strange definition. There is no need for censorship to be so consistent that ALL similar forms of idea or content are always removed. Even imperfectly applied censorship (censoring just one game and letting similar ones to be sold) is still censorship.
You can't "suppress" speech by telling one person to be quiet and endorsing five other people who are expressing the same ideas.
Of course you can. You are supressing the speech of that one person. Again, inconsistently applied censorship it still censorship. This was not some official policy (as evidenced by Gabe reversing it), but probably a censoring action by some rogue concerned employers.
Besides, no game on Steam is really comparable in violence to Hatred, so you cant reall say they express "the same" ideas. One is far more intense than the other, you are presenting a false analogy.
Steam already sells a whole collection of the ol' psychopathic ultraviolence simulators, and in fact pushes them pretty heavily via regular sales (they're all on sale right now in fact). They're called Grand Theft Auto. I'm sure others will occur to your thought if you bother to try; perhaps the variety of zombie shooters, since zombie shooters more or less exist to enable us to guiltlessly experience our more psychopathic fantasies of murdering our neighbors?
See above. Are you really comparing GTA or zombie shooters in severity to Hatred? Thats a false analogy. Qualitatively they might be the same, quantitatively Hatred is far more extreme.
You have utterly failed to present evidence that Hatred was pulled from Greenlight for the ideas or speech it presented, because...
And there are lots of other pretty violent games on Steam.
...you admit that Steam actually endorses those ideas and speech that people find objectionable in Hatred. The only way you can sustain an accusation of censorship is by doublethink; by claiming that Steam is trying to censor forms of expression you have also claimed they openly support.
They support mildly violent games like GTA, but refuse to support extremely violent games like Hatred. Pulling a game because it crossed some perceived threshold of objectionable expression is the definition of censorship. Or do I have to link it for the third time?
-
They support mildly violent games like GTA, but refuse to support extremely violent games like Hatred. Pulling a game because it crossed some perceived threshold of objectionable expression is the definition of censorship. Or do I have to link it for the third time?
It is also the right of any store owner to curate their selection of goods.
maslo, can you offer a good guideline as to when said right becomes censorship?
-
They support mildly violent games like GTA, but refuse to support extremely violent games like Hatred. Pulling a game because it crossed some perceived threshold of objectionable expression is the definition of censorship. Or do I have to link it for the third time?
It is also the right of any store owner to curate their selection of goods.
Of course, censorship by private institutions in places their own is legal, no one is suggesting that Steam should be forced to sell Hatred by law. But still can be considered immoral, especially if such institution has a lot of influence.
maslo, can you offer a good guideline as to when said right becomes censorship?
I think the Wiki definition I linked is pretty good as a guideline. Whats not clear about it?
-
Of course, censorship by private institutions in places their own is legal, no one is suggesting that Steam should be forced to sell Hatred by law. But still can be considered immoral, especially if such institution has a lot of influence.
So a small store (like, say Humble) is absolutely free to curate their selection, but a large store (like Steam, GoG) is morally wrong to do so?
I think the Wiki definition I linked is pretty good as a guideline. Whats not clear about it?
It's not clear because any act of curation then becomes censorship, which is a uselessly broad definition.
-
It's a consumer driven market, people should be allowed to have a choice.
My own personal feeling is that I don't want the game. The simple solution to this is to not buy it, I don't need companies telling me what I want to play and what I don't.
That said, Steam runs its own shop, and, like Nintendo before it (though, to a different degree) they are perfectly entitled to control what appears on their site because it will have a direct reflection on the reputation of the company.
Looking at the game itself, it kind of looks like what would happen if someone took games like GTA or Saints Row and then applied the 'Fun Hoover' and sucked everything out of the games that made them fun, i.e. firing an RPG in a street is not fun, firing an RPG having parachuted from a sports car that you lifted to the top of a skyscraper with a Helicopter and with armed Police in hot pursuit... now that's fun...
I can't say I've read the whole thread, but I will say that it's Steam's ballpark, and therefore their choice. If it's done for 'moralistic' reasons then it was probably done for the wrong reasons, but I won't be pining the game at all, because it looks like you would experience the sum total of the gameplay in the first 4 minutes of owning it.
-
It's not clear because any act of curation then becomes censorship, which is a uselessly broad definition.
It's basically the same thing when the store you have has the kind of market share that Steam has. Just like Microsoft had certain obligations regarding what kind of software they bundled Windows with and allowed / disallowed certain apps, etc. because they had a monopoly over a market, Steam has certain perceived obligations, albeit not legal ones, when it comes to curation.
Everyone is entitled to their own curation. For instance, Apple Store censors porn apps. That's the correct word: censor. It's also pretty much an uncontroversial censoring, but it's still censorship. They will call it "curation", which is the neat word of today, but censorship is what it is.
Why are people denying the proper semantical usage of this word is something that baffles and concerns me. NGTM's argument is that the game was "bad" therefore it was merely curated out of Steam just like every other "bad" games. But there's little indication that this was the case, that the problem was "quality". It was most assuredly the game's "problematic content" that got them squirming. IOW, it was the social, political content of the game that caused it being out in the first place. I also have little evidence for it, because there was no official statement by Valve by then, just this little snippet:
"Based on what we've see on Greenlight we would not publish Hatred on Steam. As such we'll be taking it down," Valve's Doug Lombardi offered to Eurogamer.
The fact that Gabe reinstated the game himself is proof enough for me that the problem was never one of quality, but rather of content. And if the problem is content, then yes, it's censorship. The other argument where it cannot be censorship because the criteria (ultraviolence) failed to censor other games like GTA, etc., is just nonsense, flat out silly at its face, since no one has ever argued that it was a consistent, coherent decision. It was obviously an emotional decision from someone in Valve that was disgusted by that game and drew the line "No this **** won't do". Which seems like a human, pretty okay decision to be made, except Hitchens was glorious in his defense of free speech when he stated that it's precisely the most ghastly speech that needs the most protection, not the least. See my last youtube link for details on why this is the case.
-
Any claims of "quality" being a requirement to get on Steam are humbug, I tell you. Check out any sale, and there will be a few games sold for a wish that have nearly all their reviews negative. "The game doesn't even run", "it crashes constantly", stuff like that. Steam has released unplayable games more than once (not even bad ones, at least presumably. Unplayable, as in, you can't run them). They also have an incredible selection of bad games that nonetheless got in there somehow (my father sometimes buys them, because they're almost free and can be farmed for cards surprisingly often, for some reason). Quality is not an issue for Steam.
-
Besides, no game on Steam is really comparable in violence to Hatred,
Bull****. If anything Hatred's small scale prevents it from being as truly violent as something like GTA. You're a lone crazy in Hatred; you're a lone crazy with access to a tank in GTA.
-
Besides, no game on Steam is really comparable in violence to Hatred,
Bull****. If anything Hatred's small scale prevents it from being as truly violent as something like GTA. You're a lone crazy in Hatred; you're a lone crazy with access to a tank in GTA.
In Saint's Row you are an entire gang of crazies with acces to prototype military hardware. Including Vtols with beam cannons.
-
NG, That's not what he meant. By that criteria, DEFCON was the most violent game ever made. Violence can be the most gruesome and the killer count be really small. It's about the "gruesomeness" of it, not the body count.
-
Red Orchestra, Cod: World at War.
-
NG, That's not what he meant. By that criteria, DEFCON was the most violent game ever made. Violence can be the most gruesome and the killer count be really small. It's about the "gruesomeness" of it, not the body count.
GTA V is pretty gruesome in that regard then.
Hell, watch the way your characters look after a fight the original Dragon Age. The blood spatter level is complete madness and more than Hatred will ever offer. Not enough for you? Shogun 2 has an official blood mod so you can watch 1200 angry samurai go plowing into 1200 other angry samurai and every kill is gushing blood all over the place.
Could go on if you like? Killing Floor? Dead Space? Nation Red?
We're dealing with a game being published through Steam Greenlight, so the bottom floor for how "gruesome" it could possibly get is pretty low...
-
So if it isn't quality nor "gruesomeness", what in your mind was it that ticked off some Valve employees?
I think you are absolutely wrong in here. Clearly it was the "bad taste" gut sense that was sparked off. Just look at the kinds of articles that were written about the Hatred trailer, in which the writers were all like "Well I now look at games like GTA in a different light because of Hatred, my god this is something". Clearly, this crossed a disgust barrier of some kind. If you insist otherwise, well then what can I say but agree to disagree?
-
Since the censorship debate actually has **** all to do with this debate, next person to mention censorship is getting time off.
Feel free to continue the debate without the pointless semantic debate.
-
Well if you say so who the **** am I to argue with you, mr Banhammer happy?
-
Since the censorship debate actually has **** all to do with this debate, next person to mention censorship is getting time off.
Feel free to continue the debate without the pointless semantic debate.
The discussion is about whether it's right for Steam to pull a game like Hatred for whatever reason it's coming up with. The possibility of censorship is smack dab in the center of this.
-
He meant the argument over what fringe, minute, or on the opposite side uselessly broad and overgeneralized definitions of censorship are "right" in this case.
-
next person to mention censorship is getting time off.
That sure looks like he'll ban us for daring to mention it at all regardless of a debate over definition. I look forward to him threatening to ban the use of the term "free market" in a discussion about globalization.
-
Besides, no game on Steam is really comparable in violence to Hatred,
Bull****. If anything Hatred's small scale prevents it from being as truly violent as something like GTA. You're a lone crazy in Hatred; you're a lone crazy with access to a tank in GTA.
Surely everyone knows that everyone knows that the amount of corpses or volume of blood isn't what makes one game as/more/less violent than another, and also what is meant when Hatred is claimed to be incomparable in violence to GTA/Hitman/etc. If you want to argue that the difference shouldn't matter, then fine, but you can't pretend like it doesn't exist.
-
Since the censorship debate actually has **** all to do with this debate, next person to mention censorship is getting time off.
Feel free to continue the debate without the pointless semantic debate.
Mentioning. Mentioned.
You may consider it "pointless semantic debate", but can I point out the irony of threatening to ban (ergo, exert censorship) on a discussion involving censorship?
And, if I may ask, to what point or purpose does that happen to ultimately serve? However the conversation MAY have been going before that declaration, it certainly isn't going to go any better now because of it.
Edit: I will however agree to the idea that people should probably take a break and regather themselves for an actual discussion. And I don't happen to have particularly cared at all for a few of the reactions that have occurred as a result of that post and would like to suggest that people rethink their ideas of how to properly challenge such things in the future.
-
Hatred is so controversial because killing innocent civilians is the actual goal of the game. It glorifies violence. GTA and similar games did not go that far.
-
Hatred is so controversial because killing innocent civilians is the actual goal of the game. It glorifies violence. GTA and similar games did not go that far.
I mean, yes, it's Super Columbine Massacre RPG only if that game actually glorified the killings.
-
Hatred is so controversial because killing innocent civilians is the actual goal of the game. It glorifies violence. GTA and similar games did not go that far.
GTA mechanically rewarded you for civilian killing sprees with money drops as far back as III. If you are in desperate need of a good gun, triggering higher-tier cops is one of the few ways to get one rapidly, though it's not easy. (Which isn't about punishment; it's about gameplay. You don't get good stuff without working for it.)
And I mean, yes, an argument can be made that going on a random rampage is not the purpose of a series like GTA or Saint's Row (it could also be argued it IS the purpose of any zombie game or related franchise), but if you break down how much time the player spends on the story vs. how much time they spend trying to cause enough chaos the game fires pulsed laser beams out of the monitor to eliminate this threat to society...I suspect the answer will not be favorable to your argument.
-
He meant the argument over what fringe, minute, or on the opposite side uselessly broad and overgeneralized definitions of censorship are "right" in this case.
Exactly. If you want to debate whether Valve have the right to decide what they can sell or not that's fine. But debating what censorship is, is rather pointless since you all seem to insist on using different meanings for the word and keep insisting that you are the correct one.
It doesn't improve a debate to get mired in a debate about semantics. Just stop using the word (since you can't agree what it means) and explain why the company is wrong or right in other terms. Winning the debate on whether you have the correct definition for what censorship is doesn't mean your opinion of what Valve did is correct. It's a sideshow. Argue the main point.
-
Given how abysmal the quality of Greenlight games can be, I think its time Valve chopped it off.
-
I tend to agree. Some of the stuff on Greenlight is an offense to taste and quality. I'll be the first to admit that sometimes I enjoy games that are on the bad side of mediocre, or outright bad, but some of that stuff is so egregiously bad it's just frustrating to see it even being considered.
-
This is not only a problem with Greenlight, though. There's a game called "Uriel's Chasm" in there, apparently it does not come from Greenlight (though I'm not sure). Just read the reviews... And now consider that this (and the other game from the same developer) are still above the worst Steam has to offer. At least they run. I remember when Steam was great, because you generally could expect a game bought there (even an oldie) to work without additional finagling, and to be of reasonable quality. Now, you can't. Steam has everything now, and 90% of everything is crap, as per Sturgeon's law. It's a good thing that it has the review system, at least.
As for Hatred, I think that most people that try it will be only interested in controversy. If it wasn't for that, it'd be absolutely unremarkable. It doesn't seem to have neither the quality nor an interesting enough premise to be really competitive. It'll only last as long as they can keep the buzz going on around it (indeed, if Steam didn't decide to censor it, we'd have never heard of it). It doesn't deserve getting taken off Steam, but it doesn't look like it'll be a huge success.
-
There's a huge point that's been overwhelmingly, if not completely, overlooked in this discussion: we live on the Internet. This is an age where anyone on the planet can create a piece of digital content, buy some dirt-cheap file hosting, and charge whatever they damn well please for it. (Hell, you can even skip the hosting service if you set up a torrent.) The only real barrier is publicity, and Hatred already had that in spades even before the Greenlight incident. Would it have lost some sales if it had stayed removed from Steam? Probably, but too bad, so sad, who gives a ****. No single store is obligated to sell a particular product. Regardless, every person who's even remotely interested in playing this game would know exactly how to get it, even without Steam's help.
-
It wasn't overlooked, but apparently not being allowed on Steam is censorship now and morally wrong.
-
Here's the thing. If you really believe that Steam are guilty of censorship because they abusing their monopoly position, stop using Steam. It's a self-correcting problem.
-
It wasn't overlooked, but apparently not being allowed on Steam is censorship now and morally wrong.
Yeah, what about all the erotic content that is not allowed on steam?
-
It's still censorship, but there's still a long way to go in to get people to view censoring sexual content the same way they view censoring violence. Censorship of sexual material is widely accepted just about everywhere, and to get them to change that would require changing the society's attitude towards sex and nudity. I'm all for it, but it's no easy task. Also, it's unlikely it's improve the average quality of content there, though it's not like that stopped them before... It does have a few games (The Witcher 1 and 2, Metro:Last Light) with mild sexual content, though not much more than you'd expect in an average movie (one made in Europe, at least, which is where those games come from as well).
You know what is hilarious, though? Sex is a part of our everyday life, almost all adults, most teenagers and even some children had contact with it already, in one form or another. It requires responsibility to do safely, but that's true regarding almost everything (such as driving cars or using a stove). It is also necessary for prolonging our species and quite enjoyable as an aside. Violence, on the other hand, is highly frowned upon in the general society, most people go through their lives without ever seeing a gun fired at another person with their own eyes, and the world would be better off without it. Now, guess which one we're more "protected" against... :)
-
I think people are confusing censorship with government censorship.
Any time you try to stop something from getting exposure because you don't agree with it, that's censorship. Period.
You can argue if it's good or bad or warranted (I personally believe it almost never is).
So yes, someone turning off their You Tube comments because he didn't like what people were saying - that is censorship. He has every right to do it, but it still sucks.
So is someone deciding to drop a game/produce because they don't agree with the "message".
-
And I think people are confusing the right to free speech with the right to be listened to.
-
I think Jamie has some thoughts worthy of sharing:
-
Censorship of sexual material is widely accepted just about everywhere,
Heh. Heh.
Get yourself to a beach in France. I'll wait.
-
That's why I didn't say everywhere. :) "Just about everywhere" excludes the few places which are not OK with censoring sexual material. Let's face is, French beaches are a small enough part of the world that it's not really relevant to this discussion. I do applaud France for generally having a saner approach to sexuality than most of the world. Most of the world still has bigger issues with showing a naked person from the front than with showing someone brutally dismembered, which IMO is completely backwards from what logic would dictate.
-
Also spanish beaches.
-
Also spanish beaches.
And Costa Rican beaches.
-
Also spanish beaches.
And Costa Rican beaches.
The dutch have specific nude beaches.
-
You can get your tits out on certain beaches in Cornwall, but I think this isn't really relevant to the points being made :P
-
Exactly. It's not about whether nude beaches exist (they do in many places, even in rather prudish Poland), but about what people think about showing them in video games. :) Europe in general is much better about attitudes on sexuality than the US, but they're not free (even the French and the Dutch) from the fallacy I was talking about. Children, in particular, are much more "protected" against sexual content than against violent content, and this is a worldwide trend. Censorship of tasteless gore like Hatred causes controversy, even though there's little merit in the game, artistic or otherwise (I oppose its censorship on principle, but I couldn't care less for the game itself). On the other hand, there was a controversy about one GTA title not censoring a sex minigame thoroughly enough (it took some simple modding to enable, not enough for moral guardians, apparently).
-
Thing is, Censorship is a very broad brush, especially when applied to a Distributor that has every right to pick and choose what it distributes, not because of Moralistic concerns on their part (though possibly on the part of other people) but because of self-interest with regards to the companies image.
So did Steam 'censor'? No, they withdrew an item from their catalogue because other people got vocal about their concerns. I suppose in a way the thing you should be afraid of is the day a group of people cannot get a company to, at the very least, listen to a concern.
It's kind of a collision of ideals, because 'Freedom of Speech' says one thing, but the concept of a customer-driven market says another. In this case, if you look at how Freedom of Speech is defined, I think you'll find the Capitalist view carries the most weight.
Long story short, it's not Censorship, it's Public Relations.
-
Hatred got hit with an AO rating for North America. (http://www.gamespot.com/articles/hatred-rated-adults-only-in-north-america/1100-6424713/)
Goodbye, Hatred. That blocks any console distribution and Valve's never run an AO game via Steam before. It's almost like you made bad decisions to shock people.
-
Hatred got hit with an AO rating for North America. (http://www.gamespot.com/articles/hatred-rated-adults-only-in-north-america/1100-6424713/)
Goodbye, Hatred. That blocks any console distribution and Valve's never run an AO game via Steam before. It's almost like you made bad decisions to shock people.
I could've sworn there has been an AO game on console before...
Although being an AO rated game sort of gives it that token "Oooooo" status. They're far and few
-
[...]it's still some kind of achievement to have the second game in history getting AO rating for violence and harsh language only,"
Emphasis mine. Now I wonder, what was the first one? Manhunt (I recall it was pretty controversial, too, for similar reasons)? I thought AO is pretty much reserved for stuff like outright porn and actual gambling. All I can say, it certainly does deserve the rating.
-
I could've sworn there has been an AO game on console before...
According to this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AO-rated_video_games), it looks like the only one ever was GTA: San Andreas over the "Hot Coffee" nonsense, at least until Rockstar pulled that version for one with the content removed.
-
Well, Thrill Kill would've been for consoles (it's also an answer to my question, turns out Manhunt did have "strong sexual content", too), but it got canceled. Besides this, Manhunt 2, Hatred, GTA, Fahrenreit and that gambling app, every single title on that list is porn, and usually old porn, to boot (well, Larry is a lot more than that, but it's still about sex).
-
The whole AO thing, by the way, is the kind of thing I was alluding to earlier in this thread when I said that you can't just say "oh who cares if the distributors regulate what content they provide, it's their right and what harm does it do".
-
I could've sworn there has been an AO game on console before...
Not at release. San Andreas had its rating upgraded (for somewhat specious reasons) and wasn't pulled, but all the major console companies at this time refuse to carry AO titles, at least partially because too many distribution outlets refuse to. If you get hit with AO right out of the gate you're dead.
-
The whole AO thing, by the way, is the kind of thing I was alluding to earlier in this thread when I said that you can't just say "oh who cares if the distributors regulate what content they provide, it's their right and what harm does it do".
I'm not sure what this is getting at. AO games aren't forbidden from being sold by major distributors. Major distributors have collectively decided to avoid selling AO titles, for reasons that I'm sure vary from distributor to distributor.
If that's not what you were bringing that up for, I honestly can't parse the line of discussion here.
-
And because nobody will sell AO games, AO games don't get made. And because the ESRB gets to decide what makes a game 'Adults Only', the ESRB gets to decide what content can get put in games. The resultant chilling effect is well-documented, and if you don't think it has a detrimental effect on the medium, well... I'm not sure what to say to that.
-
AO games get made all the time. I'd wager you could find a couple hundred by typing the phrase 'porn game' into your search engine of choice.
The counterpoint to your point is the question of whether the sorts of things that result in a game being rated AO bring anything constructive or beneficial to the medium that their absence leaves lacking. Given how lenient the ESRB is on rating games AO already, I'm not sure that there's a major detriment going on here.
-
Phantom, your argument is predicated on the possibility of the ESRB using their power in service of some kind of political or social-engineering goal rather than attempting to enforce the social mores of the moment and changing as they do. I'm not sure you can sustain that argument beyond a few individual and politically-motivated cases like this one and San Andreas, thus I am skeptical of a "detrimental effect on the medium" as that implies a pattern of behavior that may not exist.
Indeed, with DAI out right now I could construct an argument that the ESRB is considerably more progressive than the majority of American jurisdictions about what does and does not constitute sufficient sexual nudity to rate an attempt at censorship.
-
As Scotty pointed out, there are literally thousands of "AO" games available right now, the vast majority of which blissfully live out their existences without ever bothering with the ESRB. The only reason a game needs to go through the ESRB is if it's intended to be sold at retail, which generally isn't a necessity if you're targeting a dedicated niche audience (like, say, eroge dating-sim fans). It's the same exact reason why the massive amount of porn films produced every year don't bother with being rated by the MPAA; they're not going to be sitting on the shelves at Wal-Mart in the first place.
As for the specific case of Hatred, like I said before, the only potential reason it couldn't generate plenty of sales even without Steam would be lack of publicity, which it had in spades even before the additional boost of being rated AO. Anyone who would have potentially bought this game will know exactly where to find it. They're not losing out on anything.
-
Did Hot Coffee suddenly not happen or something?
-
You mean the thing that both NGTM-1R and myself specifically mentioned as a one-off based on asinine reasoning?
-
I guess the thing to do would be to have two versions of the game. A modified version that gets them to drop the AO rating, and the original version for where they can still sell it. They could call the modified version Hatred and the original version Unbridled Hatred.
EDIT: I looked up the Hot Coffee thing. I understand why it garnered the AO rating for the game, but I find it kind of amusing that consensual sex with your girlfriend = NO, but the rest of what your character gets up to and can get up to = :yes:
-
Society Has ****ed Up Attitude Towards Sex; Film at Eleven.
-
Society Has ****ed Up Attitude Towards Sex; Film at Eleven.
QFT
And also for the pun.
-
I've already mentioned that earlier in the thread. Stealing cars, commiting murders and running a gang is apparently fine. Having consensual sex with your girlfriend is not... And I've seen cases (mostly in the US) when you don't even need to have sex, just be nude from waist down. That's "modern society" for you.
-
But how would we protect kids from the tit of evil? Some guy said we have to!
I am sorry about hatred getting shafted. Because if it was a film about someone going on killing spree after they cracked, it would have gotten pass and praise. Just look at the 80-90s for examples of how this was done before.
-
All that stuff's secondary, what's applicable to the topic of this thread is that those attitudes are enforced by industry self-censorship and popular pressure and certain people in this thread are stringently apologising for these practices because they happen to have ended up on a certain side of the issue of the month.
-
The idea that the very concept of self-censorship should be abhorred is just ****ing alien to me, or that the concept of social acceptability is likewise, or that the concept of appropriate content is, or the concept of commercial self-determination for businesses. Even if you don't hit all those checkboxes, you sure as hell hit at least one. The developers of Hatred have a couple options at this point. They include censoring the game to get down to an M rating; or keeping the game exactly as is and getting the AO rating, foregoing regular distribution and retail presence (of which the main advantage is publicity, which Hatred already has in spades).
Am I apologizing for the existence of the ESRB and corporate self-determination? You're absolutely right I am. A major distributor or retail corporation should never be obligated to sell x product regardless of reasoning. If that's not what you're saying there is no problem here. If that is what you're saying, too ****ing bad.
The ESRB is not a static instrument or a social engineering construct. What gets rated T nowadays would have solidly been M a decade ago. Prime example: Destiny. It contains arguably worse violence and even language than Halo: Combat Evolved, which was slapped with an M when it was released. The worst word anyone ever says in Halo: CE is "****", and it's in the script exactly once. No characters besides the Flood are even visibly injured at any time, up to and including their death by violent explosion. No character displays more than 10% total skin surface area with the exception of Cortana who is a computer program and has no naughty bits to speak of. That game got an M. If that's not a pretty strong indicator that the ESRB doesn't approach games from the framework of conservative social engineering (which is pretty much what the crux of your disagreement stems from, unless I am quite earnestly unable to comprehend your objection), I don't know what is.
-
If you're female and go topless for a few minutes in most jurisdictions the ESRB covers, you have a chance of getting arrested (even though in some of them it's legal; you'd be surprised how many people don't know the law and are cops).
If you're female and go topless in Dragon Age Inquisition for a few minutes, you don't actually get censored. The ESRB? More progressive than the law? It's more likely than you think!
You're arguing this grand overarching conspiracy, but the examples you've used for it are clearly exceptions to the rules of how things normally work, and now you're forced to rely on vague assertions of ad hominem. The vaguer your arguments become, the less we should take them seriously.
You want a grand conspiracy; we've actually got the Supreme Court, which makes silly decisions occasionally but in general does attempt to reflect the will of the people and provide a mechanism by which the law can be made to match what people want the law to be.
Put up or shut up, Phantom. Lay out a case.
-
The ESRB mechanic is insane, the process of how they define something to be either a letter or another is insane. The conservative mindset behind it is ghastly, and the example Scotty had about a word "****ty" being the reason why Halo got a letter rather than another is just so typical. And ridiculous, considering the amount of deaths that game portrays. Somehow a somewhat soft curse word is the big social problem here?
But regarding Hatred, well what did they expect? If you're going to go out on a limb and create the least PC game ever invented, well it is actually fitting you get the Ao rating. Don't ****ing complain about it, publicize the **** out of it. "Our game is so nasty they even had to ressurect the Ao rating out of Mordor's graveyard for it!"
Wasn't this what you wanted? Come on! Aren't you entertained? COME ON.
Regarding this:
The counterpoint to your point is the question of whether the sorts of things that result in a game being rated AO bring anything constructive or beneficial to the medium that their absence leaves lacking. Given how lenient the ESRB is on rating games AO already, I'm not sure that there's a major detriment going on here
This is so anti-art that I won't even comment on it. I'll just leave it up here and admire it. 2015, this is what you have become.
-
The counterpoint to your point is the question of whether the sorts of things that result in a game being rated AO bring anything constructive or beneficial to the medium that their absence leaves lacking. Given how lenient the ESRB is on rating games AO already, I'm not sure that there's a major detriment going on here
This is so anti-art that I won't even comment on it. I'll just leave it up here and admire it. 2015, this is what you have become.
I'll have a little go at it though. Because that is a question only each individual should be asking for themselves.
A body like the ESRB is a good thing as long as it doesn't have any actual power. As long as you're free to treat the verdicts it gives on games as guidelines and suggestions. It is what I've done my whole life with things with age ratings slapped on them. I look at the little comments (things like strong language, strong violence, etc.) and the number is a guide to how severe those things are, and then I make my decision. In such a capacity they are a useful tool to help me to decide if I want to purchase a product. Give them power to be making that decision for you, and suddenly they turn into sanctimonious judges of taste, overruling your own judgement of what fits into your taste.
The idea that the very concept of self-censorship should be abhorred is just ****ing alien to me, or that the concept of social acceptability is likewise, or that the concept of appropriate content is, or the concept of commercial self-determination for businesses. Even if you don't hit all those checkboxes, you sure as hell hit at least one. The developers of Hatred have a couple options at this point. They include censoring the game to get down to an M rating; or keeping the game exactly as is and getting the AO rating, foregoing regular distribution and retail presence (of which the main advantage is publicity, which Hatred already has in spades).
This bit interests me. For me, self-censorship is not the problem. Involuntary self-censorship is the problem. I wonder how you feel about that? Not buying a copy of Hatred because it doesn't interest you is a voluntary decision. Not buying a copy of Hatred because it's not on the shelf is not a voluntary decision. Someone made that decision for you. That decision has been taken away from you by someone deciding what is best for you without your consent. By someone making a decision that should not be their decision to make.
If a company decides not to stock Hatred because they think they won't make a profit, that is a voluntary decision. If a company decides not to stock Hatred because they feel it would make a profit but would bring trouble with it from external pressures, that is not a voluntary decision, it's an imposed decision by outside influences. By more sanctimonious, self-appointed judges of taste looking to impose their narrow definitions of what is acceptable and isn't upon all of us. The problem there isn't the company, it's the external pressure. The company should be able to choose their own reasons for not stocking something. That includes if they simply don't like it enough not to stock it for whatever reason. But if it's because they think others who don't like it will make trouble for them, that is not their decision, it's been imposed upon them by others.
If something is truly not going to be beneficial, you don't have to lift a finger. Because hardly anyone will buy it. Because hardly anyone will be interested in it. The problem will take care of itself.
-
The thing about Hatred is that it kind-of ticks both boxes. It is a game that would make lots of profit because of sanctimonious self-appointed people try to impose their definitions of good taste on it, rather than the fact it is a good game (it might even be a good game, but that's not what it will be remembered for).
At the end of the day, some people shouted, Steam removed a game, everyone else shouted, Steam put it back, yay for Customer Feedback. In some ways this entire thing feels like an awful lot of wasted rage.
-
I think both you and Lorric are exactly right, the problem is this perceived external pressure from sanctimonious "institutions". They not only create these problems for producers, they even end up creating silly games like "Hatred" as a collateral damage.
Reminds me of an anecdote regarding the first Star Wars movie. It was about to have a kids rating, I think PG. In a pre viewing, however, when Vader chokes captain Antilles, a young boy in the audience cries a bit. And for that mere accident, the movie got PG13 and the producers sighed with relief because it would mean they would target their intended audience. The randomness of these things are ridiculous.
-
The "best", most desirable ratings seem to be in the middle ground. Too low and hardly anybody will be interested because they'd expect the work to be aimed specifically at young children. Too high and you'll cut out a large part of your audience and risk being lumped in with porn. I suspect that the story about Star Wars is apocryphal, it's likely they simply negotiated the higher rating to get the audience they wanted (besides, there are a few more "kid-unfriendly" scenes besides the one with Vader).
I don't think that not being stocked in retail stores will have any impact on Hatred. Who buys games in retail these days, anyway? Steam... that's surely going to be interesting. On one hand, it never carried an AO-rated game before. On the other hand, it already got flak for pulling it, and had stated that there's nothing wrong with it. That puts them into a very uncomfortable situation. I think that it will be very bad for their credibility if they pulled it again. There's no law saying they can't have an AO-rated game, and they have seen it before ESRB did. So it might just become the first AO game on Steam. Also, it might just be the start of a new Steam policy of not adding games to Greenlight that have ratings pending.
If you're female and go topless for a few minutes in most jurisdictions the ESRB covers, you have a chance of getting arrested (even though in some of them it's legal; you'd be surprised how many people don't know the law and are cops).
If you're female and go topless in Dragon Age Inquisition for a few minutes, you don't actually get censored. The ESRB? More progressive than the law? It's more likely than you think!
Not that it's saying much, the law isn't exactly known for being progressive, either (at least in the US. Netherlands, for example, are a different story). Though that's actually heavily state-dependent. It is certainly more progressive than most police (who tend to not know that), but that's not saying much, either. :)
-
I'm not sure, but isn't the ESRB rating system entirely voluntary anyway? Like with film classification, it's funded by the Industry itself isn't it?
-
So I decided to watch the trailer...
Now okay, I don't know, it might have something particularly gruesome hidden away in there. But is what I'm seeing on there really worse in any significant way than say, a Grand Theft Auto rampage? It's also third person which takes you away from the violence somewhat as opposed to first person, and the newest Grand Theft Auto is first person. I'd argue that the violence is more impactful from the new Grand Theft Auto in first person than what I see there in Hatred.
Or what about comparing to some of the other offerings of video games?
-
Flipside: Yes, it is.
Also, Luis, my point with Halo wasn't that the word "****" turned it into an M rated game (it didn't). It was that the ratings system evolves as time passes, and that a game that was M in the past would not be now.
-
Well, from what I can see, the ESRB act as a 'buffer' between the Right-Wing elements of American government, who wish to impose laws regarding content and/or availability of media and the Industry which would rather be open, but are willing to self-regulate as a compromise.
The thing is, if you create a game, call it 'Hatred' and make it about a shooting-spree by a psychopath and then send it to the ESRB for rating, I personally have an idea that you are pretty certain you are going to get an AO rating before you start, since something as close to this to the very thing that scares the lawmakers about Computer games is going to create claims of them not doing their job if they did not. It's no-win for the ESRB really.
The thing is, this HAS been done, the exact same mechanics in general, but they changed the story and called it 'Syndicate Wars' (not to mention the games like GTA and others that did similar stuff), and I do find myself wondering whether the whole idea of sending it for rating was to generate this kind of publicity.
-
That is right. As I said, if the goal was to make the least pc game ever, well, congrats, mission successful. Lets remind ourselves however that only two other games got this rating for other than sexual reasons, and one of those got re edited to get out of that rating (ManHunt 2). The other was cancelled before release (Thrill Kill). Ten years ago, this would have been over for Hatred, but given we now have Steam, I wonder. Let's see what they will do.
-
Reminds me of an anecdote regarding the first Star Wars movie. It was about to have a kids rating, I think PG. In a pre viewing, however, when Vader chokes captain Antilles, a young boy in the audience cries a bit. And for that mere accident, the movie got PG13 and the producers sighed with relief because it would mean they would target their intended audience. The randomness of these things are ridiculous.
This must have been a story from a non-MPAA using country as our PG-13 rating didn't exist until 1984--SW was and remains PG. It was discomfort about movies like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom getting PG ratings that inspired the new category.
-
I don't recall the exact denomination. I heard this story in a recent google talk (weeks ago) from a star wars buff. It was a very entertaining talk about the making of the first movie.
-
Talking about the making of Star Wars is difficult because Lucas went out of his way to revise history one he became truly successful. :P
-
One more video. Does Hatred go further than Sweettooth's story cutscenes in the newest Twisted Metal I wonder?
I wouldn't watch this one if you're at all squeamish.
Whether it makes any difference that the player is controlling the action vs. a cinematic I don't know. But I would have thought it simply matters what is happening on the screen. And in fact such cutscenes are usually more detailed than gameplay footage.
It's interesting to look up actually. Here's Twisted Metal. They go into some detail, so you don't actually need to watch that video if you want to understand why the rating was given. Very informative. Twisted Metal received an M:
http://www.esrb.org/ratings/synopsis.jsp?Certificate=31949
There does not seem to be a page for Hatred, at least, I cannot find one. I think if they do produce one later, it will be interesting to compare it to the Twisted Metal summary.
I wonder if Twisted Metal managed to make it over here to Europe with the cutscenes in the game. The previous game, Twisted Metal Black, they had to take the cutscenes out for the European release, but they remained in America.
Awww, no such detail. In fact, it makes it seem pretty unremarkable.
http://www.esrb.org/ratings/synopsis.jsp?Certificate=6484&Title=Twisted%20Metal%3A%20Black&searchkeyword=twisted%20metal%20black
Maybe we won't get the detail we got for Twisted Metal with Hatred. I've never looked up one of these before now.
-
I obviously can't be truly privy to the ESRB's formulation for what constitutes AO, but there's a significant difference between a cutscene and something a player is expected to do, and further between the presentation of the material in the game. From the sounds of it, Hatred is glorifying attempted genocide and doing so deliberately. That puts it on a different level than merely gorey.
-
Hatred seems to be rather abusing the term 'genocide' to mean 'killing everyone', at least from what I can see.
-
I don't recall the exact denomination. I heard this story in a recent google talk (weeks ago) from a star wars buff. It was a very entertaining talk about the making of the first movie.
It was originally rated G, and Lucas added the shot of the bloody arm in the bar in Mos Eisley to bring it up to PG.
As I recall, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was the reason for the creation of the PG-13 category.
-
This is where I got that anecdote, and yes, he mentions PG rating, not PG 13: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naeRobXFO74 @40:20 onward (aint the transcript feature (+ ctrl F) of youtube a charm)
-
cutscenes
Non-interactive.
-
This is where I got that anecdote, and yes, he mentions PG rating, not PG 13: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naeRobXFO74 @40:20 onward (aint the transcript feature (+ ctrl F) of youtube a charm)
Interesting. Upon further research, this article (http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2014/08/27/movie-legends-revealed-did-star-wars-add-a-severed-arm-to-earn-a-pg-rating/) seems to confirm the YouTube video.