[zookeeper]

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.

[Zacam]

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.

[666maslo666]

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.

[Mr. Vega]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[An4ximandros]

Given how abysmal the quality of Greenlight games can be, I think its time Valve chopped it off.

[Scotty]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[Mongoose]

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.

[The E]

It wasn't overlooked, but apparently not being allowed on Steam is censorship now and morally wrong.

[karajorma]

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.

[Grizzly]

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?

[Dragon]

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...

[TrashMan]

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".

[The E]

And I think people are confusing the right to free speech with the right to be listened to.

[Luis Dias]

I think Jamie has some thoughts worthy of sharing:

[NGTM-1R]

Censorship of sexual material is widely accepted just about everywhere,

Heh. Heh.

Get yourself to a beach in France. I'll wait.

[Dragon]

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.

[Grizzly]

Also spanish beaches.