"Hatred" Most likely the most edgiest game ever announced!

[Arekan]

is this supposed to be a joke? like are you serious

...Yes? If you're going to argue on a game about being able to not do anything and still get past because of free choice, then don't ignore the fact that this game probably wouldn't do anything if you walked around either lol.

[Ad Bot]

[John Freeman]

That scene was portrayed in-universe as the vile act that it is, and the player was not required to even touch the trigger to progress. It did not glorify the mass-shooting of an airport.

Good point, I was wrong

[Foxscotch]

...Yes? If you're going to argue on a game about being able to not do anything and still get past because of free choice, then don't ignore the fact that this game probably wouldn't do anything if you walked around either lol.

having an optional sequence where you kill civilians in a game that is not about killing those people is not actually comparable to making a game that is entirely about killing innocent people but without actually building in a requirement to kill them

that scene being in call of duty wasn't just for the sake of murder, and as qwepir said, you don't actually have to kill anyone to continue with the game
you do have to kill people to progress in this game, though. unlike what you assumed for some reason, there is progression, which is clear because of the goal to eventually be killed yourself. I imagine that will never happen if you don't kill someone else. sooo...

[Qwepir]

Looks like this game has no progression, either. The player can walk around not doing anything probably. Also, if you didn't notice, it seems to have cops in it just like GTA. Soo.. invalid argument, because it's like GTA.

Are you really this stupid?

...Yes? If you're going to argue on a game about being able to not do anything and still get past because of free choice, then don't ignore the fact that this game probably wouldn't do anything if you walked around either lol.

Oh my god you really are this stupid. Like, so-stupid-you-don't-understand-what-games-are stupid. No stuff you can just refuse to progress, but that isn't what anyone on this earth would call "playing the game". Just because I boot up Skyrim and walk in circles for hours in Whiterun doesn't mean that the game doesn't have some goal I'm meant to be achieving.

[Flamecannon]

also on a gameplay rather than a humane err ethical aspect its generally funner to fight things that can fight rather than a giraffe with a small neck or a shark with old man dentures

[MrKitKat]

also on a gameplay rather than a humane err ethical aspect its generally funner to fight things that can fight rather than a giraffe with a small neck or a shark with old man dentures

there are cops

[ZombiLoin]

Somebody brought up an interesting point on a discussion board and I'd wonder what your opinions on it are.

I'm not arguing your point, but I feel that your statement does bring up an interesting question.

You're right, Grand Theft Auto never directly encourages you to kill innocent pedestrians, yet many people do it anyways. How is that better than playing a game that outright tells you to kill innocents? One would think that it's arguably worse when committing Flash Mob in a game that doesn't ask it of you. In that situation you're not doing it for game progression or for any sort of gain at all, you're just killing people for the sake of killing them.

Yet on the other hand you have a game that not only tells you to kill innocents, but rewards you for it as well. It applauds you for committing these atrocities, and further encourages you to do more. At the same time though, you as a player may not necessarily be doing these things because you want to, but because it's the only way for the game to progress further.

So which one is worse? Killing innocent people in a video game because it tells you to do it and rewards you for it, or killing innocent people in a video game just so you can see their heads explode? Both are equally bad in my opinion, yet so many people (myself included during the very few times I've played Grand Theft Auto) feel a complete desensitization when killing innocents of their own accord in a video game. So why is it that when killing innocents is presented to you as an objective that it suddenly becomes wrong and morally reprehensible?

also on a gameplay rather than a humane err ethical aspect its generally funner to fight things that can fight rather than a giraffe with a small neck or a shark with old man dentures

I suppose you can say the police count.

[Arekan]

Are you really this stupid?Oh my god you really are this stupid. Like, so-stupid-you-don't-understand-what-games-are stupid. No stuff you can just refuse to progress, but that isn't what anyone on this earth would call "playing the game".

The "are you stupid" insult. It's beautiful, everybody uses it, it totally says a lot about your argument.
Why don't we put it this way.

You guys are the same guys who make fun of 9/11, national socialist's, etc. to the point where you jack off to national socialist roleplays. Then, all the sudden, this comes along. This is the same stuff that happened way back when, in like, the 90's. Hell, look at that.. one game I can't think of, by Rockstar. People liked that. It was killing people. Manhunt, yeah, that one. I don't think you had a reason behind it either.
Is it the graphics? Do the good graphics get you?

[Flamecannon]

there are cops

i am aware but more of the focus was on innocent bystanders being killed than cops

[ResonKinetic]

The "are you stupid" insult. It's beautiful, everybody uses it, it totally says a lot about your argument.

oh it's not an argument or necessarily an insult

it's an observation of your behavior

[WaterOre]

Coldsteel the Hedgehog model DLC when

[ZombiLoin]

You guys are the same guys who make fun of 9/11, national socialist's, etc. to the point where you jack off to national socialist roleplays. Then, all the sudden, this comes along. This is the same stuff that happened way back when, in like, the 90's. Hell, look at that.. one game I can't think of, by Rockstar. People liked that. It was killing people. Manhunt, yeah, that one. I don't think you had a reason behind it either.
Is it the graphics? Do the good graphics get you?

This statement was so absurd it fried my brain.

[Qwepir]

You guys are the same guys who make fun of 9/11, national socialist's, etc. to the point where you jack off to national socialist roleplays.

Stopping you here. Go find where I make fun of 9/11 and jack off to national socialist roleplays. You can't do that? Oh neat look at that your entire argument fell to shambles and I didn't even have to lift a finger. Maybe you should make sure the person you're debating with actually falls within the behavioral spectrum you're assigning them before you make such handicapped generalizations.

The "are you stupid" insult. It's beautiful, everybody uses it, it totally says a lot about your argument.

With you, I don't even need to make one, you seem more than eager to shoot yourself in the foot for me.

[TheScout]

regardless of any feelings players will have about this, the game will be a huge black mark on gaming. this is a much less harmless goat simulator; its only purpose is to be loving awful and ruin how the media sees gaming. whatever you do,
DO NOT BY THIS GAME.
Buying this game is supporting people who make their money entirely off of drama. You may as well go donate to that SJW news site that made the 4chanhacksemmawatson website or whatever.

[Jairo]

Hell, look at that.. one game I can't think of, by Rockstar. People liked that. It was killing people. Manhunt, yeah, that one. I don't think you had a reason behind it either.
Is it the graphics? Do the good graphics get you?

iirc the explicit goal in manhunt wasn't to kill civilians but enemy gang members/criminals

what is your point