LOL and you think they will tell the truth because!? everyone saw the things on there facebook. thats just pathetic to try defend them.

Just do a bit of research, better research. :)

as he said...he never argued that...the game looks like a murder simulator that looks boring and doesnt seem to have much entertainment value...

so shitty game = no buy

Doesn't stop the media from blaming games for violent behavior.

It can give people in general a negative impression of video games and only lends further fuel for the violent video games fire. More specifically, it can negatively influence behavior because the content of the game is violent, aggressive, and sends a very poor message. Although it may not influence people to shoot up a school (unless they're seriously mentally ill, in which case the game only acts as a trigger or influence to an already unstable mind), it can feed the unhealthy views and behaviors of those who play it. For example, if someone is extremely pessimistic, misanthropic, and hateful toward the world, playing this game may reinforce this viewpoint. The individual's sentiments may strengthen as a result of Hatred.

The problem with Hatred is the message it sends. Unlike other violent video games, which could function cathartically to purge unwanted negative or violent emotions (or occupy one's violent thoughts in a way that is not actually deleterious to one's self or others), Hatred reinforces the violent sentiments of the player by attempting to rationalize it from the perspective of the mass murderer. Unlike games like the Call of Duty series (wherein the player is a soldier fighting their country's enemy), or the Borderlands series (wherein the player is a morally dubious mercenary in a satirical world), or even Grand Theft Auto series (wherein the player is a self-centered criminal trying to find his place in the world), Hatred is solely about being a vapid and one-dimensional protagonist hellbent on murdering as many innocent people as he can. Perhaps more important is the fact that whereas the other games have some semblance of a storyline and rationale behind the conduct of the protagonist, the sole purpose of The Antagonist is to murder as many people as possible. Even in GTA, civilian murders and killing sprees are optional.

Violent video games themselves may not cause or precipitate violence, but it can reinforce negative viewpoints and influence unhealthy behaviors. Although video games may not directly lead to violent tendencies (in mentally healthy adults), they can influence behaviors and beliefs which may indirectly lead to an increase in violence. This violence may not involve the sort of mass murder of Hatred, which I seriously doubt would be the case for any but the least stable of minds, but it can precipitate more hostile behaviors in one's interpersonal relations. You may not shoot up a school, but you can be more hostile to your peers. (There is also the matter of mentally ill individuals and children playing it, but for the purposes of this discussion those issues can be ignored.)

I am well aware of the research that has gone into the issue of whether violent video games cause violent behavior. I agree that the research shows that this is generally not the case; however, I am also not ignorant of the affects that media has on the mind and how such content could help shape, reshape, and solidify certain behaviors and views. For those educated in the research surrounding violent video games (or media in general) and its relationship with real-world violence, the issue becomes not whether there is a direct causation, but whether there is some underlying relationship between the two and whether, despite the statistics regarding violent crime, such content is not adversely impacting the mental health of its players (especially adolescents and young adults).

He didn't say it would have a negative influence on someone. He called it a mass-murder simulator created purely with the intent to stir controversy, which it is. People call other games murder simulators for silly reasons, but that's a literal description of what Hatred is about; it's the videogame version of clickbait, which makes it amusing that many of the same people who complain about silly sensationalist articles are rushing to buy it and getting all excited about it because omg it's soooo offensive and those people are going to get all offended over it am I right?

But when you strip away all the controversy, it looks like a shovelware game designed to sell copies by being as 'offensive' and controversial as possible.

Soldiers are not trained for murder. Murder is the crime of ending an innocent's life. Soldiers in the military are trained to kill combatants. This is not murder because those combatants are considered threats to the welfare of the soldiers and the interests they represent, and they are often hostile and aggressive. To describe warfare as mass-murder may sound poetic and works effectively at demonizing war, but it ultimately exposes one's ignorance about what qualifies as murder and how warfare differentiates from this.

This has nothing to do with government propaganda or brainwashing, and I find it hard to respect someone whatsoever when they employ such absurd arguments. Warfare is in a different social, economic, cultural, and ethical category as is social affairs. Killing someone in civil society is considered murder in most circumstances because it is the unlawful ending of another person's life, especially one who is innocent or whose crimes do not justify their execution. In war, it is a matter of two hostile entities fighting each other for the common interests of each government or society. The only "murder" that a military personnel can commit is among one's own people or among civilians of either side—and even this has not been universally recognized, nor has it always be historically true.

When it comes to war, killings between enemies is as much "murder" is it would be for two tribes to violently dispute a plot of land: it's organized combat sanctioned by the societies in order to achieve a given goal, even at the expense of enemy life. Anyway, murder is a social construct that was conceived to define and punish acts of ingroup killing which are considered unlawful, unjust, or immoral. If the society does not classify the sort of "organized murder" of warfare as the same as murder, then it is not murder. Considering how even international courts do not classify warfare as mass murder, however, I'm fairly certain it's appropriate to dismiss your murder argument as based on a misunderstanding of how warfare works and how this is perceived and treated differently by society.

You describe soldiers as cold, heartless killers who legally murder people "without any kind of remorse". This is patently false and a gross misrepresentation of the soldiers on both sides. Although some soldiers (on both sides) do consider the enemy to be beneath their consideration, this is largely a trait of the mentally ill and a vestige of historical warfare. Nowadays, people become traumatized and suffer from PTSD simply because of the deaths they caused during their service; it is against international law to mistreat or abuse prisoners of war; and it is considered distasteful to speak of the enemy as unworthy of the same basic rights and humane treatment as should be allotted to anyone. The only exceptions to this are when people misidentify the enemy as savages, such as how many view Islamist terrorists, and thus view them as less than human. This is often characteristic of bigots and zealous nationalists, however, so I wouldn't consider them an accurate representation of social perception. To answer your question, I am not "sold" on the idea that warfare is legally-sanctioned mass murder, if you wish to so inaccurately describe it as that, because I recognize that warfare is not that.

Although all three titles were developed to be sold, Hatred was also developed to incite controversy. This can be obviously seen by the actions, statements, and behaviors of the development team, which starkly contrasts with the behaviors of the teams who developed Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto and all of its installments. (As a side note, I wouldn't consider Destructive Creations to be "professional", and not only because of the unprofessionalism they exhibited during their interviews and social media posts.) My point with Hatred is that the game was developed with the intended purpose of stirring up controversy. Whereas the other two games may have caused controversy, there is no evidence that this was intentional or deliberate. If there is, then feel free to cite it to prove me wrong.

Again, I recommend you read my arguments in the thread I linked, as well as the article I linked to therein, both of which can help elucidate on why your examples of behavior in GTA (which is optional) is not an apt comparison of the activities of the protagonist in Hatred (which is necessary for the story and functions as the sole objective in the game). And by the way, you are not rewarded money for murdering a prostitute; you are stealing her cash, which is then added to your overall bank. Don't try to misconstrue the game mechanics to fit your own agenda, since it'll only make you easier to debunk.

It doesn't matter whether the quality of the story is poor in GTA or CoD: there is at least some story to be told and it serves as the plot of the game. Hatred has no story, unless you count the flimsy background provided in the trailer describing the protagonist's hatred for humanity and desire to kill everyone. Whereas the other two games possess some sort of coherent storyline the player can follow and enjoy, Hatred is totally absent in this department.

In Call of Duty, the justifications for the behaviors of its characters are ingrained in the storyline. In Hatred, the "justifications" are the psychotic rationalizations of a mass murderer which add nothing to the story and fails to adequately justify anything. At least in Call of Duty the explanations provided are sufficient to understand the perspectives and viewpoints of the characters. It's unimportant whether the actions are justified for the character (who is fictional, in case you forgot); what matters is whether the audience or player can relate to the character and whether they accept his or her justifications. If they do not, this reflects poorly on the writers and development team that created the character. In Call of Duty the audience can relate to the hierarchical subordination of soldiers in the military, and the need for certain actions to be committed during war.

Again, you are drawing a false comparison by equating the actions of a mass murderer stepping out of his home and shooting innocent civilians with the purpose of murder-suicide; and the actions of a soldier following orders and making his own moral decisions during wartime while trying to do his job as a soldier, serve the country he is representing, and protecting himself from the enemy. That is such an absurd and irrational attempt at paralleling two perpendicular games that I find it difficult to take you seriously.

GTA may have had ludonarrative dissonance, but at least it had a narrative which is largely followed. Hatred does not. The story may be poorly executed, but at least it is present in some capacity—which is not the case for Hatred.

Your points are flawed and riddled with holes. You are trying to equate three very different games under the same classification (which is what you argued before) or lack thereof (which is what you're arguing now). A proper analysis of the three games will reveal that Hatred is the odd one out, and fully satisfies the classification of being a "mass murder simulator". Neither GTA nor CoD qualify in this regard because even "mass murder" could be achieved in some respect (which is arguably impossible in CoD with the exception of one scene), they are not the only objective of the game, nor are they the main focus, nor even a secondary focus, nor even a necessary feature (excepting, again, the one scene in CoD wherein you played the antagonists, and not the protagonists). In Hatred, mass murder is the sole objective of the game. There is no other thing for you to do besides murder innocent people or yourself. Unlike Call of Duty, wherein you are fighting enemies and combatants in a war setting, or Grand Theft Auto where you are a criminal who has the OPTION of mass murder (and in a satirical way, mind you), Hatred is a serious game about seriously killing civilians with no other justification than misanthropy and a desire for murder.

Your bullshit glorification of Hatred makes me think you're either a troll or trying to toss a red herring.

Once more, your point is what?