Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

[NSFW] Hatred - A Mass Murder Simulator - Offended by the trailer? You're a hypocrite!

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by I am da bawss, Oct 23, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HemiMG

    HemiMG

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Posts:
    911
    While I agree that carrying around AR-15s on the street hurts the open carry cause more than helps it (you seem to be against any open carry though), when have any of these protesters ever hurt anyone? Can you name a single time? Yet you are excited to see them massacred because you assume they are violent people. Yes, that is bigotry. I don't care what your intentions are for having that bigotry. So basically, one bad open carry protestor and one bad cop in a sea of innocents on the same side and you want everyone dead. You want a massacre. You are excited for a massacre. Yes. That is wrong. Rather than work within the political system to stop our leaders from starting senseless wars, you want the men and women who signed up to protect us when actual threats occur to die. Yes, that is wrong. You can spin it all you want. It is still wrong.
     
  2. boonda

    boonda

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Posts:
    3
    Looks like an emo simulator.
     
    drewradley likes this.
  3. pete1061

    pete1061

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Posts:
    67
    Exactly, It's been done. It's not really "next level" more like a different take on the same old stuff.
    I guess the only difference is that Postal 2 mixed a little humor into things to soften the blow.
    Manhunt was also really brutal.

    Really, all the mass killing in games gets quite boring and monotonous.
    I could come up with some really sick ideas that would be next level, but I really don't want to feed into the dark side of the force, so they will remain undeveloped.
     
  4. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    The main thing I've learned from this thread and its accompanying article is that almost nobody knows what the word "hypocrisy" means.
     
  5. reentrant

    reentrant

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Posts:
    59
    Including you, Mr. Embodient of Double Standards, so kindly step off your high horse, thank you :)
     
    zombiegorilla likes this.
  6. MrBrainMelter

    MrBrainMelter

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2014
    Posts:
    233
    Wow ... people get so upset about things. It's just MURDER.
     
    chingwa likes this.
  7. neo_sluf

    neo_sluf

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Posts:
    19
    I really hate this game... really hate this.. why?..

    What if children saw this game or how about if someone played this game and has some emotional problems or let's just say common people?..


    "They are taught how to kill"... and this game shows how to do them..

    Are you not afraid of those reports highschool students kill others throught the influenc of this shooting games or like GTA?..

    This is a lot worse!..


    I am not saying anything bad about is and I just pointing out the influence it will give to the players. It is really bad and it is too harsh.

    It just better if you kill thousand of stick mens rather than killing this persons in game that are seem realistic it has a big impact than those killing oriented games which you will kill are monsters or zombies...

    This one.. my god..
     
  8. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    Again, it's obvious that I'm talking about 2 groups of bad apples. The rest of my line you're taking that from (or the TL;DR summation, which is in other quotes) is that the violent should annihilate one another. That statement doesn't imply any innocents should be harmed, but that when the police and some open carry persons aim their guns at one another, they at least take down the violent ones in the group. Of course, when you attack the police, it escalates so I don't think anyone is walking away from that.

    I don't exactly the significant difference between open carry and concealed weapons, but there was a guy who shot himself in the head trying to convince his friends that the gun was either empty or had the safety on (don't remember which) and then executed himself lol. I don't recall the details, but I believe that man earned himself a Darwin award.

    I'm excited for the exposure of what can happen when violent people with guns approach trigger happy cops. I'm excited for the net gain of peace that will be brought to the world after such an event. It doesn't need to be a massacre, but it'll be a more effective lesson if it is. Ideally, we'd get all of the people unable to live in peace and work together (this would include world leaders invading other countries for resources) and then gas them. Oh no, context! Don't worry, I'm referring to a statement I made in 8th grade.

    "I wish there was a gas we could release into the air that would kill people all over the world who were about to commit a crime." -Me, some years ago.

    And by crime I meant something that would result in someone else dying. I'm often not clear, but if you follow enough of what I say to get the context, you'll see any violence I ever advocate for is in the prevention of violence against the innocent by having two violent parties annihilate. Just like virtual particles :) It would be hell for us if we collided with 1 of the 2 particles, but they do us a favor and take another out. Most of nature seems random in violent, but there is at least that much inherent peace in our universe haha.
     
  9. ZJP

    ZJP

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,649
    So, this game is a sort of "Sociopathic Detector"? :p
     
    hippocoder likes this.
  10. drewradley

    drewradley

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Posts:
    3,063
    We've already been over this. Adults are allowed to play games like this in many countries. It's clearly not suitable for children. It is up to the PARENTS to stop their children from playing, not a business out to make money. Stop your own kids from playing and stop trying to make other people responsible for your kids.
     
    HolBol, zombiegorilla and Ony like this.
  11. drewradley

    drewradley

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Posts:
    3,063
    Your icon is of a kitten with a sniper rifle in what looks to be the Dallas book depository. I certainly hope you're not one to judge others for playing violent games. :p
     
    hippocoder likes this.
  12. I am da bawss

    I am da bawss

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,574

    Wrong. The problem is not how long you guys sit around occupying other people's land that doesn't belong to you. The problem started when you guys illegally invaded another country under false pretence fully knowing what will happen. Cheney himself said it back in 90s that Iraq should never be invaded because it will cause all kinds of problems - but somehow when he (and his puppet Bush) was in power he backtracked.



    He and the previous adminstration knew what will happen when they invade and removed Saddam. And instead of integrating the Sunni into the fold the puppet al-Maliki (the previous "Primeminister of Iraq") shunned them - creating resentment and hot bed for what is happening today. You can practically see from the map all those ISIS strongholds are previously Sunni strongholds. They got the Sunni support.


    Not when YOU GUYS created the terrorists in the first place, and continue to do so by invading, subverting and radicalizing countries in middle east and else where - Al Qaeda is practically your country's creation - by supplying and radicalizing (with Saudi royal's help) muslims to fight a "holy war" in Afganistan against the Soviet - which later turns around to bite you guys in the arse. And then you guys proceed to create and support a long list of dictators that you later remove with force - the ISIS didn't just happened out of thin air - YOU GUYS created it - first by destroying a stable and prosperous Libya - which became the hot bed for terrorists and then proceed to do the same to Syria - and now these countries along with Iraq becomes the hot bed for terrorists.

    There is a clear pattern here. YOUR COUNTRY is creating problems around the world, and then turns around to make it as if you have the solution and then proceed to make a mess of it.

    Watch this to get a clearer idea of what actually is going on.






    BTW, why are we talking about this?
    I thought we are talking about why is this game making you a hypocrite!? :D

    The truth of the matter is this, the attitudes shown in this thread is more than illuminating of what's happening to this world in the global stage. US often speaks about FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY - the basic human rights to govern itself - and to respect others to make their OWN DECISION - but when some country's foreign policy doesn't follow US's own line - all of that FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY and respect for human rights is all thrown out. Some people talks about censoring and banning this game - they are afraid other people cannot make their own decision for themselves and instead decided to make the decision for them. By overriding and taking away other people's basic human rights.


    Back several decades years ago, wearing a bathing suit to the beach was consider immoral and abhorrent. Nowadays people are wearing bikinis to the beach and we are now condemning countries who forced women to wear more than us.


    Whether this game is immoral or abhorrent or not, it is irrevelent. People can decide for themselves whether this should exist or not - by voting with their own wallets. If it becomes popular, then it didn't cross a line. If it does crossed a line - it will sell poorly. It is a reason why we don't have nude beach everywhere, as much as some of us want it!
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2014
    HemiMG and Demigiant like this.
  13. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    Nice to see other people know what's happening in the world. We kicked a doggy in the face to get the bone it was sitting on, and then it bit us, so we carpet bombed its neighborhood.

    But what can you do? Just gotta wait for all of the violent parties to annihilate ^-^
     
  14. I am da bawss

    I am da bawss

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,574

    If you value freedom and democracy, you have to trust other people making their own 'right' decision. If the general populations there are fed up with what's going on over there, they will act. They will take back their freedom, they will kick out those violent psychopaths, they, the majority, will make things right. History has taught us that even when you are unarmed civilian, with will and tenacity, you can win your own freedom, you can overcome what seemed to be insurmountable odds. You can win against an oppressive and racist foreign regime that occupied your country for over 200 years that's armed to the teeth and not afraid to murder rape and kill. For those without clue, I am talking about India, I am talking about Gandhi.

    So what can you do? Let us just not meddle in other people's business. Let's respect their basic human rights and hope they make the right decision.
     
  15. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    I'd love for my people to not meddle with other people. Unfortunately I can't quite stop them and ballistics don't discriminate. It might be more advantageous to my goals and survival to dissociate with these maniacs and flee to a country that knows how to keep out of other countries.

    That's why I don't vote :D I consider myself a foreigner with no right to decide the future of this nation, since I don't plan on being part of it for long.
     
  16. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    Ah if only it were true; internet arguing would be so much more fun if I could just make up definitions for existing words. Your post is just so antisemitic.
     
  17. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    You can do that if you want. It's called context sensitive. It can also be called lexicon. When some words are used in very specific contexts, the meaning can change. Or you can give a word no meaning whatsoever and it just carries the implications of the sentence leading up to it.

    "I don't like the way the color of that door mismatches the color of the walls. It's very antisemitic." In this context, I clearly meant to say some artsy word for color clashing, but I just tossed out 'antisemitic' which is essentially meaningless in the sentence. You can already tell what I mean, so the word might as well not be there. However, if you were continuing this conversation, you could say that the way the color of the chairs mismatches the floor is antisemitic. The person who originally misused / redefined the word in that conversation would understand you if you replied, "The chairs and floor in the kitchen are also antisemitic."

    The new context created there is 'discussing color schemes in a home'. If people accept this new context / convention, then the word antisemitic used in discussions about color schemes would carry the meaning of mismatching colors.

    The english language is marvelous because of this. The way we learn to parse it gives us the ability to create new words or use other words for new meanings on the fly as long as they're established for the communication they're being used in. I'm pretty sure that silly army code-speak is the same.

    Is a member of ISIS dancing the tango a Tango tango?
     
  18. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    Certainly I CAN say whatever I want and even make up brand new speakonetics to pontifichat with, but it seems kind of incombrutable to rant angrily about "hypocrisy" if all you really mean is "people liking some things but not other things". If you rail about the "hypocrisy" of liking chocolate ice cream but not strawberry ice cream, people aren't going to assume you're just changing the definition of the word "hypocrisy" out of pure funublience, they're going to think you're actually trying to prove that the people who like certain kinds of ice cream have some sort of moral failing or can't understand the interconnectedness of the ice cream universe.
     
    Ony and Demigiant like this.
  19. Demigiant

    Demigiant

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Posts:
    3,239
    The People vs Larry Flint is always a good movie about explaining this matter (if I remember correctly, saw it aaaaaaages ago).
     
    Ony likes this.
  20. ZJP

    ZJP

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,649
    Believe me i have no cat and the only weapon you can found in my home is a kitchen knife. Oh, the game i'm working on have no humans. Only robots. Pretty sure i'm no a Sociopathic Gamer.
    The icon is a story beetween Cats and the '64 Magic bullets'. Nothing else. The Carcano is 'out of service' and i LOVE books :D
     
  21. lmbarns

    lmbarns

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,628
    Can you even advertise a game like that? I think the average person watching TV would find it offensive. Everyone at my work found it extremely disturbing, and they've worked on horror stuff.

    I think you could make the most over the top, gory, violent game and it would be entertaining if the characters were like this:


    But playing as some mentally unstable, loner, outcast, main character just feels wrong. I'd hate to pour my energy into a project like that, or be on their marketing team.
     
  22. reentrant

    reentrant

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Posts:
    59
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2014
  23. reentrant

    reentrant

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Posts:
    59
    "Hypocrite" and "Embodient of Double Standrds" have enough meaning for him to whine and play victim about it. That's what matters :)
     
    zombiegorilla likes this.
  24. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    Wait, you think when someone points out your poor vocabulary that they are a "victim"? I'm starting to think you might not know what ANY words mean, actually. Your inability to formulate sentences is maybe a little annoying, but no, I don't feel like I'm a "victim" of your refusal to pick up a dictionary. It's more a sort of bemused observation. Don't worry, I'm not writing in pain or anything. If you start confusing "their" and "there" I might get a headache, but even then, claiming you are an impressive victimizer would be a little premature.
     
  25. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    Reentrant, I can tell that apparently something I said hurt your feelings and I apologize for not realizing how sensitive you are, though honestly I'm still not even sure what it is that has you feeling so hurt. My original post about using the word "hypocrisy" wasn't even directed at you; it was at the article and the title of this post. So if you feel like I am victimizing you, I'm sorry.
     
  26. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    Oh I missed whatever the conversation was. I saw a chance to say something I don't get to in every day conversation and went for it. Was someone playing the victim? That's always amusing to watch. This forum topic is getting better and better :D

    It looks like it has something to do with the sentences around "Embodiment of Double Standards". I haven't been following what's going on here (if anything), but uhh... there's a start... maybe. The only thing I am certain of is the use of the phrase "playing the victim" means someone is showing signs of going from logical to emotional. Which of the two of you is it?

    @makeshiftwings or @reentrant ??
     
  27. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    Heh, you're not the only one who doesn't follow what's going on. I understand that this boy is very angry at me, and apparently highly offended by the idea of words having definitions, and I guess correcting grammar is considered fighting for social justice now? MLK would be so proud.
     
  28. reentrant

    reentrant

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Posts:
    59
    Don't worry, you didn't miss much. He's just questioning the entire English language because he feels victimized by it.
     
  29. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    Ah yes, I would certainly hate to see any incoherent rambling going on.
     
  30. reentrant

    reentrant

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Posts:
    59
    That would be horrible, so after you come back from your local pharmacy to fill up on your medications, I'll be more than delighted to hear your version of the English dictionary, as well as any grammatical corrections :) It will be grand!
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2014
  31. high-octane

    high-octane

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2014
    Posts:
    84
    Can you guys please take your clever insult trading elsewhere? Please respect the right of people who actually want to have a discussion (or to read one).
     
    Ony and spraycanmansam like this.
  32. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    Eh, they could use the comic relief after the trauma they get reading what I've posted within these pages. :3
     
  33. high-octane

    high-octane

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2014
    Posts:
    84
    I do want to address the issue of hypocrisy, since there might be an inclination to take it as a personal insult when used in a matter-of-fact way. The hypocrisy lies not in the disagreement of differing tastes, but in the passing of moral judgement towards others engaged in a harmful behavior of similar nature.

    It would be difficult to dispute that the common denominator between "Hatred" and "Call of Duty" is the graphic portrayal of violence and gore for the purposes of entertainment. Scientific studies have largely concluded that continual and repeated exposure to any portrayal of violence and gore in entertainment is harmful to the average mentally healthy person (as opposed to the average psychopath or sadist)

    Irregardless, people will play these games for a variety of reasons. But the reasons offered can't be used as a type of excuse or justification when the behavior is simply either harmful or immoral. So it is unfair, both morally, and by the standards of liberal democratic societies we adhere by, to condemn other people for any permissible but harmful behavior that we ourselves engage in.

    The only people who have any valid or moral ground to criticize violent games and those who play them are those who don't play any type of violent video games to begin with.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2014
    Ony and I am da bawss like this.
  34. high-octane

    high-octane

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2014
    Posts:
    84
    Amazing information! It's also amazing to discover how these psychopaths' complete disregard for humanity and life actually makes its way down into into everyday actions of the people who agree with them.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2014
  35. Ness

    Ness

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Posts:
    182
    I dont get why people get upset because of this game, if you dont like it dont buy it, if people wont buy that game, no one will ever produce such game again. Simple.
    On top of that you guys are making a free advertising for this game....
     
    Ony likes this.
  36. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,350
    Hmm... so if you are ok with Mario stomping on a turtle, you have to automatically also be ok with Hatred guy shooting people in the face? Is it the same in the real world? Like if one time, you punched someone to stop a bank robbery, do you then also have to approve of mass genocide?
     
    NickHaldon likes this.
  37. CarterG81

    CarterG81

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,773
    .........

    Wow. Just wow.

    He wants a world without guns, and you find that disgusting. A bigot for wishing guns to cease to exist. Your love for a weapon designed to destroy life is what is truly disgusting. You Americans and your love for violence... I will never understand. Then again, I don't believe in violence.

    There is truly something wrong with people who enjoy things which solely exist to destroy life. Guns are not toys designed for fun at the range. I repeat: they are not toys... they are lethal weapons designed to end the life of anything it hits.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2014
    Tomnnn and I am da bawss like this.
  38. HemiMG

    HemiMG

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Posts:
    911
    How is this thread not locked yet? Oh well, further off topic we go. I'm violent? Can you prove it? I haven't hurt anyone. Ever. Your assumption that I am violent is false. Such false assumptions are the very definition of bigotry. Again, the intent behind the bigotry does not matter.

    Bows and Arrows are only designed to kill as well. Should all of them shoot backwards and kill the shooter? Should they cease to exist? Marksmanship with a gun, like marksmanship with a bow, is a sport. Both are olympic sports in fact. So tell me what makes the practitioner of one sport "violent" and the practitioner of another "non-violent". Funny me, I thought it was actual engagement in violent behavior that made someone violent. Or things like hoping that two violent people kill each other. Only one person in this thread has wished death upon anyone, and it isn't the gun owners, or the bow and arrow owners, or the sword owners (I'm assuming you want all martial arts schools to turn into bloodbaths too, since the only point of a Katana is to kill).
     
  39. high-octane

    high-octane

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2014
    Posts:
    84
    Apples and oranges. Super Mario has no graphic portrayals of blood and gore. Graphic violence and gore are central to both Call of Duty and Hatred.

    Whether someone approves of genocide or not is irrelevant to the immediate need of restraining someone in the least psychologically and physically harmful way when that person behaves destructively towards others in the real world. Even hardened psychopaths realize it's in their best interest to behave civilly in certain situations.

    For there to be hypocrisy, you'll need to present a scenario where there are two bank robbers being treated differently for the same violent act and conduct, or two different reactions when unnecessary violence is used to stop a bank robbery vs stopping a similarly extreme violent behavior.

    For example, a person who would restrain a white robber holding a gun with a punch, but restrain a black robber holding a gun with multiple bullets to the head. Or a bystander who justifies a robber being shot in the head repeatedly, but later that week becomes enraged when having learned that terrorists in a foreign country shot down a helicopter with soldiers from his country and set it on fire.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2014
  40. MrBrainMelter

    MrBrainMelter

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2014
    Posts:
    233
    (Some) violence is necessary for peace to exist. A non-violent solution only works if EVERYBODY is in on it, which is highly improbable in large groups (ie the world).
     
    HemiMG and NickHaldon like this.
  41. HemiMG

    HemiMG

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Posts:
    911
    People can't even agree on what violence is, apparently. The two people bragging on how non-violent they are could have easily wished for guns to simply not fire if they were going to be used for violent purposes. Instead, those people skip right over the non-violent solution and go to the violent one. I'd call that violent. They don't. So how do we ever get to a truly non-violent society when we can't even agree on what violence is? Of course, this is all just a thought experiment since there will always be crazies out there intent on doing harm to others. Those crazies have existed for as long as humanity has.
     
    I am da bawss likes this.
  42. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    I'm a very proud crazy, thank you very much. You're losing a lot of the reasoning in my answer there with that alternative solution. Someone attempting to execute another person is filled with hate, violence and vitriol. What would a permanent safety lock on the gun do to fix that? For someone about to kill another person, it would probably push them to immediately pistol whipping the person to death or taking out a knife. My solution would prevent any and all of those things from happening. Unfortunately, physics doesn't quite work that way and nature doesn't care about how we treat one another, haha.

    The point to be put in simplest terms would be for violence to only affect the source of it, removing that source from the world. As cruel as it sounds, if you don't ignore the premise, it would only annihilate people who were about to harm others.

    Peace is uncertain when there is more than 1 self aware organism in a space. It's sad to see the world as it is in with the presence of so many intelligent life forms, but at least we're fixing the problem. When we inevitably wipe ourselves out, the next species to rise to the top can try again.

    Where do you live, good sir? I'm considering moving out of this horrible place in about 7 years when its education system has driven me into crippling debt.
     
  43. HemiMG

    HemiMG

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Posts:
    911
    And how long do you think guns killing their owners would last before people stopped shooting the guns and starting pistol whipping anyhow? Or do you honestly believe that with no guns there would be no violence? A few thousand years of human existence before the invention of the gun says otherwise.

    We have a government that says it is perfectly okay to kill people if they have a system of government, or economic system, that you disagree with. We have a government that says it is perfectly acceptable to put human beings into cages for non-violent acts that you disagree with. Both of those are real life instances of violence that are completely rationalized. To bring it back on topic, I'm far more worried about people using real life examples such as that to grow up thinking that violence is the answer to not only problems, but even disagreements than I am about any fictional video game or movie doing the same.

    Make no mistake, I'm not non-violent enough that if someone aggressed upon me I would just stand there and take it. But there is a world of difference between being willing to respond to violence with violence and actively hoping that violence takes place. You are doing that latter. More importantly, you are blindly assuming that open carry protestors are violent people and thus wishing death upon them. Carter assumed that because I own a gun that I am a violent person. Do you not see how those views are prejudiced? Do you not see how using that prejudice to wish death upon someone is wrong?
     
    NickHaldon likes this.
  44. Aiursrage2k

    Aiursrage2k

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    4,835
    I
    The criminals will always have guns, its just the citizens that are unarmed unable to defend themselves and have to rely on the state to protect them.
     
    NickHaldon and HemiMG like this.
  45. thxfoo

    thxfoo

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2014
    Posts:
    515
    In many countries where guns are not easily available, most criminals don't have guns. There only the very worst criminals have guns. What are the odds of meeting them? And in most cases I would say the risk for your life is much higher if you have a gun too in such a case.

    Look what it did to the number of people killed by guns after Australia made it just a little harder to get one. And in the UK you have cops without guns.

    I understand when people want to feel safe (even most studies show that you are less safe that way), so allow small guns, but nobody privately needs assault weapons.
     
  46. high-octane

    high-octane

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2014
    Posts:
    84
    If a state is corrupt and ruled by psychopaths, armed citizens who are disillusioned actually present a more imminent threat than street criminals (who exist primarily because of the conditions created and nurtured by a corrupt state and hence easily controlled and exploited for various roles a corrupt state, for example, high level drug dealers legitimately claiming they are doing the bidding of government officials). Corrupt states give free rule to street criminals, but only to a point, so that they can offer a solution - the police state.
     
  47. HemiMG

    HemiMG

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Posts:
    911
    Death by guns is an irrelevant statistic unless you don't care about people murdered by other means. As I said above, violence existed long before the gun was invented and will exist in the absence of guns. The correct stat to track is the overall homicide rate. What affect did the gun reform laws of 1996 have on Australia's overall murder rate, compared to the pre-reform rates, and the rates of other countries over a similar period of time?

    The answer is, not much. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html If you look at the homicide rate in Australia, you'll see that, after a brief dip, it actually went up a little after the ban. It wasn't until 8 years later that it starts its decline. However, if you look at the homicides involving firearms chart at the bottom of the page, you'll see that firearm homicides were on the decline even before the 1996 laws.

    Now, look at the U.S. data for the same period. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1 Our homicide rate is half of what it was in 1992, despite more states moving toward more liberal (dictionary definition) gun laws and more guns being sold. We had a sharper decline in homicide rates than Australia did. So by what measure is Australia's law a success? If you are perfectly fine with people being stabbed or bludgeoned, I guess you can call it a success. Assuming of course you ignore the fact that the firearm murder rate was already dropping, and didn't drop significantly faster after the reforms.
     
    NickHaldon likes this.
  48. elmar1028

    elmar1028

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Posts:
    2,355
    Game is about nothing but killing. The only background of a character is that he "F***ing hate this world", and then he goes on rampage. Heck, even Postal had some meaning, developers gave you a choice to either kill people or not (you can even pass the whole game without killing anyone). Call of Duty's airport level was a bad idea, but the rest of the game seemed just fine.

    All characters from those games had motive to take innocent lives. And the "Hatred" guy - ???
     
    NickHaldon likes this.
  49. Rico21745

    Rico21745

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Posts:
    409
    I think you're 100% right. Both concerns for violence and sexism in games are pretty silly, so long as parents are actually doing their jobs.

    I'll talk about sexism because you seem set on it, but you can easily replace Sexism with Violence in the below and get some pretty spot on arguments regardless... Interestingly enough.


    Sexism in games is a symptom of cultural issues, not the cause.

    Simple logic will tell you this. Was there sexism before video games existed?

    We know the answer to this is yes. Am I wrong?

    Thus, Games are not the root cause of sexism. They are merely symptoms of a greater problem.

    This whole tirade to persecute developers for a problem that is widespread in society is pointless. There is far more pervasive media that perpetuates sexism much more so than video games.

    It annoys me to see people point at the pinpricks on the side of the boat that is society, and focus all their efforts at patching them up, when there's a gaping hole right in the middle making alarm sounds whilst being on fire that they choose to dutifully ignore.

    Want to fix sexism in games? It's a lot harder than tweeting or complaining about it. Here's just a few things you could do:

    1) Focus on inclusion in the industry rather than trying to force a 32 year old white male to write stories about transgender minorities. Why anyone things this is a good idea, or somehow representative of equality, I have no clue. Diversity is not cramming different color/shaped people into the same story. Nope. The people making these games should be speaking from the heart. Fix the barriers of entry into industry and you have a diverse industry.

    2) Fix the rest of the media that bombards your life 24/7. Radio, TV, Commercials, Movies, Music videos. Far *worse* being paraded every day. Worthier causes than the mild cases that affect games for the most part.

    3) Fix family structure and education systems that encourage boys and girls to pursue different career paths based on gender.

    4) This is a gamedev forum. You are free to make your own games with the ideals you want to share with people. Do it.

    These are a lot harder to accomplish than simply complaining about it, but I'd argue that if people spent even a fraction of their time trying to actually *FIX* the issue rather than complain about it, we'd have a lot better society overall.

    You don't get a better society from censoring content and people. this is *exactly* how you get to have societies with marginalized minorities. Once again, just because the content of Hatred may not speak to you personally, or provide you with anything positive, does not mean it could not somehow do that for someone else. Despite how far fetched it may sound to me or to you.

    The creator should make the decision if they want something made. The public can then make the choice if they are interested in it. If this game doesn't speak to anyone, then it'll die off. If anything the controversy only helps this game, by spreading the word about it.

    I'd say it's clever marketing but its really quite obvious to me. I really thought people would dismiss this game for what it is, a plea to get money through controversy.
     
    Ony and HemiMG like this.
  50. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    I already accounted for this. I used the pistol whip example primarily because your solution did not account for it. Making guns not fire when used for bad purposes does not prevent pistol whipping. In my simplified statement posted twice, any item used for violent purposes (against another person) would slay the user of the item (or deal equivocal damage that would be otherwise done to the victim). If the guy tried to pistol whip someone in my universe, then maybe gun would swing back too hard on the wind up and break his wrist ;)

    I make violent games usually to promote the idea that violence should be kept virtual. Not only are you not interfering with anyone else's life, you can do things not even possible in virtual worlds! Whether the thing you're trying to do would violate physics or is simply beyond your financial means, a virtual world can do it. The more violent and over the top the game, the more it draws people away from real world violence (when committed for the sake of violence). If someone is robbing a store because they need money or food, a simulation offers them nothing. But if the character identifies with the protagonist of the game Hatred (the one in this original topic), then it might be more attractive to actuate their feelings virtually than IRL, where they would face harsh penalties which would range from life in prison to execution from another armed citizen. I actually used this in a research paper in college about how violence in virtual mediums actually reduces real world violence. I got some great sources one of them including an interview with someone who said as a child, reading hulk comics let him get certain built up feelings out and made him more balanced / stable emotionally in day to day events and socializing. I'm bringing realistic game violence to a new level once the sixense STEM is out just so that any violence leaking into the real world from censored / poorly made games can be captured and remain virtual. If you want to say recent CoD games have made kids more violent, don't gloss over the fact that since CoD5, the amount of violence has dwindled significantly.

    CoD 5: multiple places for limbs to break off from explosions, head's pop from sniper & shotgun damage, putting a shotgun to an enemy's chest will actually blow out the chest cavity (really nicely detailed ribs in that texture!), etc.

    CoD 4&6 (every infinity ward one): enemies bounce and ragdoll when killed, farting out little blood splats when shot.

    I don't need to respond to the open carry violence assumption since I already have before. I'm wishing violence on the violent (by their own hands) solely to have said violent person removed from society. If you stop the person from hurting anyone, you don't solve the problem of where things got to a point where s/he was willing to kill someone. Getting rid of certain items designed to kill would definitely lessen the casualties in massacres when they happen. It won't stop the violence, but then some scrawny kid with severe mental issues can't go out on a whim and decide to mow down 100+ people.

    Here's a fun little thing to consider for shooting targets: What if the gun was replaced by an object that looked just like a gun, but fired a digital / electric signal instead of a bullet? If the signal hits the target, it can be made to fall out of the sky or destroy itself. You can add all kinds of vibration feedback devices to simulate the kick, so it'll feel the same and require the same skill, but the difference will be that such a device cannot be used in mass shootings and it would consume less resources to use, making your hobby more green and even introduce new kinds of play.

    But your response to that would probably be blah blah guns are cool and my right blah. Ok, but if you're not using them to kill, what's the difference? Do you get a sick kick out of the waste of metal and plastic that goes into the bullets and the targets? Besides that, what would the difference be? Are you planning to use it to kill someone? If not, why choose that option where the sole difference is lethality? Would you change your mind if a young relative accidentally shot themselves or another person? Why does that have to happen first to make the switch? Heck if you made the switch now, a 1 year old could operate it safely without the [low] probability of blowing their own brains out. It could even be used to train kids to use guns instead of starting them with real ones, introducing the now greater than 0 probability that when using an automatic weapon, they will unintentionally execute their instructor.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.