Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: karajorma on May 05, 2015, 09:48:31 am
-
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/05/04/failed-christian-shoe-promoter-makes-anti-gay-first-person-shooter/
Seriously? They actually Greenlit a game called Kill The Faggot?
-
Bloody ****, valve.
You are drowning in cash, hire some nerds for minimal wages that will at least filter drivel such as this.
-
They actually retracted that one after Jim Sterling (Thank god for him) made a video about it.
-
Couldn't care less.
Vote with your wallet.
-
I say greenlight it and then make a copy of it with rednecks and homophobes!
ahah, no I am not defending it, merely because it's such a crappy game.
-
The weird thing is that the group that made it seem semi-legitimate. They're doing voice acting according to their Facebook page, but also claim to hack COD 4 in steam reviews.
I think Greenlight is a neat idea but it shouldn't be so automatic. People vote for what they want, then a select few get put though. That'd filter out this filth and it's not like Value couldn't afford it. This QA would probably assure them more sales in the long run. But unfortunately, since Value gets a cut of each sale, they almost have no reason to not let everything though.
-
I read this after arriving to the end of talk on "cutting down the feedback-loop" ... funny coincidene
But Valve really needs to get its Greenlight-House in order
-
Seriously? They actually Greenlit a game called Kill The Faggot?
Wait, was this game actually released for purchase or was it still being 'voted' on when it was pulled from steam? I can't imagine any sane Valve employee person would let this slide, but I would be much less surprised if it slipped through the cracks of some automated tool. After all, people had to whine directly to Gabe to get Hatred put back on greenlight and this game isn't better.
I think Greenlight is a neat idea but it shouldn't be so automatic. People vote for what they want, then a select few get put though. That'd filter out this filth and it's not like Value couldn't afford it. This QA would probably assure them more sales in the long run.
That is how greenlight works (http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/about/?appid=765§ion=faq). Developers pay $100 to put their game on greenlight, people vote for it, Valve emails the developer "hey we noticed your game is popular, let's work to put it up for sale on stream", dialog happens between Valve and the developer, and the game is put up for sale.
-
Well according to the article a reviewer had downloaded the game to play it so it was available.
"These people that think if you are even remotely homophobic, you are 'hateful' and a 'bigot,' and do everything they can to destroy you in every vicious way possible," Herman wrote. "So I decided to go down a path that most developers are afraid to go down: to piss these people off by making the most overly offensive game possible to these idiots to prove a point."
Exactly what point did he think he was proving? Cause it looks suspiciously like he proved that if you smell smoke, it's cause there's a fire.
-
Well according to the article a reviewer had downloaded the game to play it so it was available.
Apparently not via steam, insofar as links to 3rd party downloads go. The link is shown in the video (https://youtu.be/W-p7mOl1xDE?t=3m32s). The article repeatedly states that the game was still in greenlight but given lines like "launched for public consumption", "Greenlight still failed to stop a game from launching" and the confusion here about what greenlight actually is I'm really not sure what to believe.
Exactly what point did he think he was proving? Cause it looks suspiciously like he proved that if you smell smoke, it's cause there's a fire.
Yeah, no matter how I think about it things just come back around to this guy being stupid. I realize the irony in both of us being completely convinced that the other is an idiot, but I really can't see how whatever point he's talking about relating well to his views. Aside from "lol i trol u! social experiment!", I guess.
-
Showed this to my gay friend
He laughed, said he'd probably play it for ****s and giggles. Actually, his real remark was "Hell yes I'd play it"
Makes me wonder why people are so in a bundle about it. The proper response to a game like this is "It's a ****ty game you'd really only play because you had literally nothing better to do with your money"
The incorrect response, is get all in a huff and fuff about it since *that's precisely what people who make these kinds of games aim for*
I also dislike it when people always refer to words as the "F Word" or the "N Word". You're writing an article, just say "faggot" instead of "pejorative f-word"
-
That said, Steam have every right to say "We don't want a game called Kill The Faggot associated with us, get it the **** off our site." Especially given that it broke their terms and conditions.
-
Can't argue with that kara! If something breaks the ToS, that's pretty well checkmate in any legal sense
-
Exactly what point did he think he was proving? Cause it looks suspiciously like he proved that if you smell smoke, it's cause there's a fire.
I think his point was: this is what an actually offensive game looks like. In contrast with certain people complaining about lack of gay romance options in games and other trivial things.
-
I think his point was: this is what an actually offensive game looks like. In contrast with certain people complaining about lack of gay romance options in games and other trivial things.
And he failed, epically so. Hatred is a game that is offensive. Everything in it is designed to court controversy, but it still looks like there's going to be an actual game with actual graphics design and actual gameplay at the end of it. In this case, we have a crudely made ...thing... that on technical/artistic quality alone has no place on Steam.
In terms of offensiveness, this is like that 12-year-old kid running around the schoolyard asking everyone whether their parents know they're gay and feeling mighty clever about himself.
-
I think I see 666maslo666's point though.
But yeah, a truly homophobic game is always going to be of this kind of **** standard cause no one serious is going to touch it with a 10' bargepole.
-
If anything, it establishes in my head that what we need is more information and less calls for censorship. It's a stupid game that reminds me of an old 90s game of Beavis and Butthead where we would spit from a rooftop of a high building into the sidewalk and try to catch the people underneath.
I'm not saying it should be greenlit or any of that thing. It's a terrible game and has terrible taste, I'm all for a store the size of Steam have some standards.
-
Here's what the developer had to say in a Eurogamer interview:
"I decided to release it on Greenlight to see people's reactions," Herman said. "The reason behind this particular game is because of how tired I am of people being overly sensitive and how easily offended people are by every little thing, especially with LGBT issues.
"I didn't make this game to attack LGBT people personally, and no I don't hate gays and think they should be treated fairly, but I made this game just to piss off those people that are way too overly sensitive, which includes straight people," he added. "These people that think if you are even remotely homophobic, you are 'hateful' and a 'bigot', and do everything they can to destroy you in every vicious way possible."
As such, Herman sought to troll the internet be releasing this. "I decided to go down a path that most developers are afraid to go down: to piss these people off by making the most overly offensive game possible to these idiots to prove a point. The point being that a crappy made video game would offend people so much. I mean so offended that people will waste all their time posting on forums, Reddit, etc of how disgusted they are, offended, how much everyone involved in the game should die, and even getting into large debates over it."
Naturally, that's what happened and Herman couldn't have been more pleased. "Successfully trolled the entire LGBT community," he wrote on Twitter. "Thank you media for spreading this troll game around. You did exactly what we were hoping :)"
I don't know, still sounds like a pretty pointless and idiotic thing to do to me. We all know that reddit, twitter etc are really great at building outrage, so why prove it once more?
At the end of the day, provocative art pieces (and this pretty much is one) should make me think about me and my reactions (or society's reaction). But this thing makes me think more about how much of an idiot the developer is.
-
Heh, so we can toss this in the bucket with the next game to come out: "The Draw Mohammed Game!" -- as drawing Mohammed just to prove you can and piss off Muslims is equally stupid.
-
how tired I am of people being overly sensitive and how easily offended people are by every little thing,
I understand this man! The amount of people that stand up for themselves these days is unbearable! (http://wondermark.com/1k71/)
-
Well he's guaranteed no one will ever take him seriously again. So there is that.
-
Heh, so we can toss this in the bucket with the next game to come out: "The Draw Mohammed Game!" -- as drawing Mohammed just to prove you can and piss off Muslims is equally stupid.
No we cannot, the difference is, gays do not have a habit of actually killing people for offending them or otherwise limiting the rights of homophobes. If they did, then this game would be a good thing and an act of defiance.
Actually, thinking about it, my view on this game changed a little right now. I still consider its message to be reprehensible, but as long as so called "developed" nations have ridiculous hate speech laws, I think games such as this should be made as an act of defiance, too. I guess I just cannot get truly mad at people who are pushing freedom of speech boundaries..
-
So you'd be all for an "Behead the American" game then?
-
You know he's going to say 'yes' to that so why are you even bothering.
-
If I walk into a LGBT meeting and shout faggot, I'm not provoking discussion or debate, just hatred. I don't think anybody is being "overly sensitive" by reacting aggressively to media that promotes the killing of their own group; I'm not exactly going to like a game called 'Kill the Englishmen'. It's your right to make it, and it's my right to complain and want it removed.
Also, Valve has people individually Greenlighting games?! Jesus Christ it's worst than I thought! I prefer it to be an automated process than have people allowing all the other dog **** like Air Control though.
-
Actually, thinking about it, my view on this game changed a little right now. I still consider its message to be reprehensible, but as long as so called "developed" nations have ridiculous hate speech laws, I think games such as this should be made as an act of defiance, too. I guess I just cannot get truly mad at people who are pushing freedom of speech boundaries..
Except that he's not pushing the boundaries of free speech at all: He just calls a bunch of people faggots.
People have been doing that for a hundred years.
edited for formatting.
-
Exactly, he's only pushing the buttons of a particular crowd of Internet denizens. Simple trolling, nothing more; with the added bonus of having his collaborators quit on him in disgust.
-
I'm firmly in the camp that nothing should be censored.
The market/wallet is the ultimate arbiter.
Heck, if everyone were to follow the moral crusaders, there would be no p0rn on the internet.
-
how tired I am of people being overly sensitive and how easily offended people are by every little thing,
I understand this man! The amount of people that stand up for themselves these days is unbearable! (http://wondermark.com/1k71/)
There's deliberate walking over someone else, and then there's the insulted taking things out of context or proportion
Which happens far more than legitimate concerns, which is probably what the guy was pointing out
There's many ways to interpret his message. My take was "These are the things people get offended by. It's stupid. *Makes game* THIS is what people should be offended by. It's deliberate"
Then again, I'm inherently desensitized to violence and words such as "faggot". Seriously, I've heard my gay friends use that word far more than any of my straight friends. That just goes to another discussion about words only given weight if you provide them weight.
-
I'm firmly in the camp that nothing should be censored.
The market/wallet is the ultimate arbiter.
Heck, if everyone were to follow the moral crusaders, there would be no p0rn on the internet.
Dude, this guy was giving the game away for free. You can't affect his speech by boycotting a free, non-scarce product. I'm generally not for censorship either but if you want quality content you need to abate poor content somehow.
-
It surprises me that someone could see a project like this all the way through development without having a life-changing epiphany at any point.
"Hey, I'm working all these hours to produce something, for free, that cannot possibly cast me in a good light, which can only bring annoyance and harm; what am I doing with my life?"
-
It surprises me that someone could see a project like this all the way through development without having a life-changing epiphany at any point.
"Hey, I'm working all these hours to produce something, for free, that cannot possibly cast me in a good light, which can only bring annoyance and harm; what am I doing with my life?"
The game honestly looks like it was tossed together over a weekend. I'm more surprised he spent the $100 to put it up on greenlight.
Tangentially related, this kind of thing seems to be happening a lot lately (http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/how-someone-spent-pennies-to-troll-women-people-of-color-via-promoted-tweets/). Or at least it's getting Ars to pay attention to it more.
-
I say greenlight it and then make a copy of it with rednecks and homophobes!
Now this is a mod I'd pay $5.99 for, Valve.
-
how tired I am of people being overly sensitive and how easily offended people are by every little thing,
I understand this man! The amount of people that stand up for themselves these days is unbearable! (http://wondermark.com/1k71/)
There's deliberate walking over someone else, and then there's the insulted taking things out of context or proportion
Which happens far more than legitimate concerns, which is probably what the guy was pointing out
Which he did by... deliberately insulting people.
Yeah sure, it ties into a larger trend of people being insulted because they are called out on their careless speech, but this isn't helping anyone.
-
Heh, so we can toss this in the bucket with the next game to come out: "The Draw Mohammed Game!" -- as drawing Mohammed just to prove you can and piss off Muslims is equally stupid.
No we cannot, the difference is, gays do not have a habit of actually killing people for offending them or otherwise limiting the rights of homophobes. If they did, then this game would be a good thing and an act of defiance.
Logic check. So, all Muslims are murderous savages OR only murderous, savage Muslims are offended by drawing Mohammed?
-
No we cannot, the difference is, gays do not have a habit of actually killing people for offending them or otherwise limiting the rights of homophobes. If they did, then this game would be a good thing and an act of defiance.
Those "acts of defiance" are the reason why we can't all get along, you know? They're never a good thing. All those people too stupid to let go of the past, forgive each other and see that the other side is human, too. I suppose this has to do with both sides being made up of humans... Drawing Muhammad specifically to piss off Muslims is just as wrong as things they do to piss us off. It's equivalent to harming cows in India or mishandling the communion bread and wine in a Christian church. I couldn't care less for a bunch of cheap wine and poor bread, but they do, so I know better than to mess with those, even though I'm not fond of Catholic Church. I'd strip them of tax exemptions and special rights, but they can have their holy bread. Being a jerk about things that don't actually affect you is stupid (strong words about actual problems are OK, just make sure those are real problems).
Myself, I think that going out of way to offend each other is one of the few things worse than going out of the way to avoid offending anyone. If you have to, offend yourself. :) The only group that has full rights to use a slur is the one the slur refers to. Indeed, you see that happen pretty often.
Regarding the game, I think it was really an insult to Steam more than anything. Hatred had some merit (though not a lot of it), this was just a pile of manure in every bit. The biggest cost involved in making this game was likely the 100$ for putting it on Greenlight. I'm not really against Steam selling it (the days when being on Steam was an indicator of quality are long gone), but it shouldn't advertise anything like that, simply because it's not worth any actual attention.
-
Who is rubber-stamping these games for release? Somebody's racist and/or incredibly tired intern?
-
Who is rubber-stamping these games for release? Somebody's racist and/or incredibly tired intern?
I think it's because Valve gets a cut of whatever is sold and more games = more purchases = more money for Valve. At least they don't pocket the $100 fee for getting a game on Greenlight.
-
Who is rubber-stamping these games for release? Somebody's racist and/or incredibly tired intern?
It doesn't even sound like this game got to the "release" part. If being Greenlit just depends on getting a certain number of votes, that step is probably an automated process at this point. Stories like this definitely show that it'd behoove Valve for it to NOT be an automated process, that's for sure.
-
No we cannot, the difference is, gays do not have a habit of actually killing people for offending them or otherwise limiting the rights of homophobes. If they did, then this game would be a good thing and an act of defiance.
Those "acts of defiance" are the reason why we can't all get along, you know? They're never a good thing. All those people too stupid to let go of the past, forgive each other and see that the other side is human, too. I suppose this has to do with both sides being made up of humans... Drawing Muhammad specifically to piss off Muslims is just as wrong as things they do to piss us off. It's equivalent to harming cows in India or mishandling the communion bread and wine in a Christian church. I couldn't care less for a bunch of cheap wine and poor bread, but they do, so I know better than to mess with those, even though I'm not fond of Catholic Church. I'd strip them of tax exemptions and special rights, but they can have their holy bread. Being a jerk about things that don't actually affect you is stupid (strong words about actual problems are OK, just make sure those are real problems).
Myself, I think that going out of way to offend each other is one of the few things worse than going out of the way to avoid offending anyone. If you have to, offend yourself. :) The only group that has full rights to use a slur is the one the slur refers to. Indeed, you see that happen pretty often.
Regarding the game, I think it was really an insult to Steam more than anything. Hatred had some merit (though not a lot of it), this was just a pile of manure in every bit. The biggest cost involved in making this game was likely the 100$ for putting it on Greenlight. I'm not really against Steam selling it (the days when being on Steam was an indicator of quality are long gone), but it shouldn't advertise anything like that, simply because it's not worth any actual attention.
I like this post. I don't agree with all of it, but I like it. Empathy is a good thing.
-
Who is rubber-stamping these games for release? Somebody's racist and/or incredibly tired intern?
It doesn't even sound like this game got to the "release" part. If being Greenlit just depends on getting a certain number of votes, that step is probably an automated process at this point. Stories like this definitely show that it'd behoove Valve for it to NOT be an automated process, that's for sure.
VALVe should definitely take an active hand in filtering content for quality, if for no other reason than to protect the brand of their platform. It's good business sense, all moral arguments aside.
I think it's because Valve gets a cut of whatever is sold and more games = more purchases = more money for Valve. At least they don't pocket the $100 fee for getting a game on Greenlight.
I think that, in order to maintain a certain level of profitably, VALVe has ignored signs that their platform's scale is outgrowing the staff and infrastructure that they are willing to pay to support that platform.
It's "tolerating-unacceptable-levels-of-unsupportable-features-with-predictable-consequences" levels of mild evil, but not "directly-permit-this-kind-of-content-for-the-sake-of-profit" levels of evil.
-
Those "acts of defiance" are the reason why we can't all get along, you know? They're never a good thing.
I do not believe it is possible to have a free society and at the same time to not have people insult muslims, or christians, or anyone else. Humanity is just too big and diverse for everyone to be curteous all the time. And coupled with the fact that there are infact some muslims who are murderous savages, certain level of ambient insulting activity against islam is guaranteed, I would say even justified.
The only way to solve this issue is not by ceasing to insult muslims, it is by islam becoming desensitised to insults. The same thing which happened to christianity over the centuries.
We will never all get along with no insults but we should all get along with no actual violence.
-
My position on this is the same as last time: drawing offensive pictures of Mohammed for the sole purpose of pissing off Muslims is crass and self-indulgent. But there are plenty of entirely reasonable motives for depicting a significant historical figure who has significant social relevance today, and I have complete contempt for the idea that anyone should be expected to self-censor if some sect arbitrarily decides to take offence at it. Mohammed is part of the common history of humanity and so is the right to draw him.
-
I think your average Islamist is just as desensitized to insults as the average Christian. After all they've been around for roughly the same amount of time and are both considered to be a fully fledged religions. Neither religion strongly follows doctrine in everyday life that promotes violent reactions to insults because if they did, the religion would quickly lose popularity, support and would be unable to integrate into a law abiding society. Muslims and Christians wouldn't be able to integrate into society if they all burnt images or Muhammad or attacked people who eat meat on Friday; it is only the extremists (and this applies to all regions and faiths) that react this violently to this. I believe it's not Islam or people's interaction with it that has to change, it's extremism on a grander scale.
Since this is OT can we go back to talking about how Valve sucks? I'll get you started 'Half life 3'.
-
This does actually make me wonder what would be the response to a "Draw Jesus as not actually being white" Day would be. I suspect we'd get quite an interesting backlash to it.
-
This does actually make me wonder what would be the response to a "Draw Jesus as not actually being white" Day would be. I suspect we'd get quite an interesting backlash to it.
I'd like to think people in general would be ok with it. Surely you'll get a few freaks that would, ya know, freak out like they do about everything, but I'd imagine that it'd be mostly fine. There's no rule anywhere that you can't draw Jesus, like there is with Muhammad. It'd sure be interesting to see, though.
-
This does actually make me wonder what would be the response to a "Draw Jesus as not actually being white" Day would be. I suspect we'd get quite an interesting backlash to it.
I think a lot of people on this forum would be completely in favour and would side against the inevitable fundamentalist outrage, so I'm not sure how it's meant to illustrate any hypocrisy from that quarter.
-
My position on this is the same as last time: drawing offensive pictures of Mohammed for the sole purpose of pissing off Muslims is crass and self-indulgent. But there are plenty of entirely reasonable motives for depicting a significant historical figure who has significant social relevance today, and I have complete contempt for the idea that anyone should be expected to self-censor if some sect arbitrarily decides to take offence at it. Mohammed is part of the common history of humanity and so is the right to draw him.
I completely agree with this.
-
This does actually make me wonder what would be the response to a "Draw Jesus as not actually being white" Day would be. I suspect we'd get quite an interesting backlash to it.
There's already a crap-load of artwork out there depicting Jesus as not white, soooo...
-
Yeah, but it's always been my contention that it's the actually "Let's have a day to piss off X" rather than the actual act which is the problem. Muhammad is actually depicted in several places throughout the muslim world. Hell, in Iran you can buy his picture on a postcard if you want cause Shia Islam is actually much more tolerant of depictions of Muhammad. Do you think no one in Iran protested against Draw Muhammad Day?
My point is that if a bunch of non-christians suddenly started drawing Jesus, you'd get a very interesting reaction from the hardcore believers.
-
Something Something Valve.
This does actually make me wonder what would be the response to a "Draw Jesus as not actually being white" Day would be. I suspect we'd get quite an interesting backlash to it.
There's already a crap-load of artwork out there depicting Jesus as not white, soooo...
There's also a crap-load of artwork with Jesus riding raptors and I dont know what. Christians aren't generally as ass backwards as Muslims when it comes to this subject. There's hasn't been any shooting of journalists while they are at work for drawing Jesus in newspapers recently for example. Even the more fundamentalist (western) Christian believers are relatively mild compared to the Muslim ones. Cults like the westboro church generally just hangs outside with dumb signs and annoy people that passby.
My point is that if a bunch of non-christians suddenly started drawing Jesus, you'd get a very interesting reaction from the hardcore believers.
Your point has already been proven false on multiple occasions.
-
My point is that if a bunch of non-christians suddenly started drawing Jesus, you'd get a very interesting reaction from the hardcore believers.
After the Pissing On Christ, I really don't think you can sustain the idea that you'll get the kind of reaction you do from certain Muslim sects to Muhammad anything.
-
Honestly, they can't really claim to be true hard core believers if they think Jesus was.. white??
Also, I think Spoon was referring to Raptor Jesus (https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1361344209/Raptor_Jesus.png). Not going to post the image in case it offends someone - although, ironically, I find it slightly offensive, as it seems to me to be a way of communicating contempt of Christianity -- however, I'm not going to flip out about it, or hide from it, people are free to express their opinions, and I'm not going to help win anyone over by being condescending about it.
One person I know that has a bumper sticker of Raptor Jesus did say that i wasn't an a-hole like other Christians -- however, I have to wonder if that stereotype isn't borne out of the abrasive Christians being overly loud and attention gathering. (Westboro anyone?)
-
Yeah, but it's always been my contention that it's the actually "Let's have a day to piss off X" rather than the actual act which is the problem.
That day exists as a consequence of multiple violent incidents which targeted people insulting Muhammad. Similar violence does not occur due to people insulting Jesus, but if it did, then yes you will probably see a "Let's have a day to piss off Christians" day, too. And it would be a justified reaction, too.
-
As everyone seems to have missed it, I'll repeat what I said about images of Muhammad being all over Iran.
-
O...K, but I don't think anyone's suggested that all Muslims are going around killing people for drawing Mohammed.
-
As everyone seems to have missed it, I'll repeat what I said about images of Muhammad being all over Iran.
No one missed it. It simply wasn't relevant to your central assertions or anyone else's. Cool story, bro; back to the point.
-
Except it was. People act like this whole thing is simply "If you draw Muhammad, muslims get cross." It's nowhere remotely close to that.
But nevermind, I don't think it's worth continuing to argue the point.
-
Honestly, they can't really claim to be true hard core believers if they think Jesus was.. white??
Also, I think Spoon was referring to Raptor Jesus (https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1361344209/Raptor_Jesus.png). Not going to post the image in case it offends someone - although, ironically, I find it slightly offensive, as it seems to me to be a way of communicating contempt of Christianity -- however, I'm not going to flip out about it, or hide from it, people are free to express their opinions, and I'm not going to help win anyone over by being condescending about it.
One person I know that has a bumper sticker of Raptor Jesus did say that i wasn't an a-hole like other Christians -- however, I have to wonder if that stereotype isn't borne out of the abrasive Christians being overly loud and attention gathering. (Westboro anyone?)
Since when is Raptor Jesus problematic?
-
It exists only as a mockery of Divinity incarnate, without Jesus Christ of Nazareth you would not have the said Raptor Jesus.
Yes?
I mean... What's the point? Although I'm sure some just mean it as a funny joke. I can understand that.
Perhaps my perception is colored by my experience, I can't say for sure.