This is all information pulled straight from the developer’s website. Nothing has been coerced or changed.

While I’m going to have to agree that this game was most likely made for shock value, I have to ask: what if the game was made to create a statement? Jack Thompson famously coined the phrase “murder simulator” and Hatred is exactly that. What if the reason this game was created to make a commentary on that? Most video games have you killing something in some form or fashion, this game is just taking the pretense out the equation. When boiled down to their core mechanics, most games are about killing things and Hatred is JUST that. If that is the intended purpose of the title then that there is nothing wrong with that.

There is also the societal aspect that this game could be trying to convey. At our core, humans are violent. We pretend to be civilized but if you take all of our comforts away, we’ll resort to being the animals that we truly are. This game could be making a statement about what a human actually is when you strip it all away. I mean, look at the recent events happening across the world and even history as an example: we are a violent and aggressive species. Perhaps this game is meant to unsettle people because it shows them exactly what they are at their core.

Then there’s the issue of censorship. In recent years, those who are supposedly on the side of gaming and gamers have tried to force their worldview on the industry. If they had it their way, certain games would not exist. Does Hatred not deserve to exist? Isn’t art supposed to challenge your preconceptions and beliefs? Should all games be bland and safe so that they do not stir controversy? While it’s true that video games as a medium has the potential to instill more profound feelings in people due to their interactive nature, should they be under more scrutiny than movies, books, or TV? If we ban Hatred, that would create a slippery slope situation that we may not be able to pull back from. Granted that the game will indeed be released, but any talk of censoring games should make anyone who values freedom of expression uneasy.

While I personally don’t care much for a game like Hatred, its existence has fostered a lot of interesting debates about appropriate content in video games and about censorship. I won’t be buying the game since I need more of a story from my titles, and I suggest that those who don’t want to play this game stay away from it. As consumers, we are free to choose what entertainment we consume. If Hatred isn’t for you then so be it. If Hatred was created just to shock people with its violence then, as underhanded as that may be, we can’t exactly fault the studio for trying to stand out from the others and trying to make their game a success. It’s a cheap way to get there of course, but if they do make a profit from the game then more power to them.

This is obviously a debate and topic with no end in sight but I believe that’s it’s necessary to discuss this in order for the medium to continue growing.

Take Manhunt for example, a very violent game – however Rockstar provided a narrative context for the violence, which gave the player character reason to act violently. Rockstar was able to inject so much pathos into the character, that when the player finally gets to meet Starkweather (the antagonist) – they are fully justified in greeting him with extreme violence. The violence in Manhunt was not random and was not pointless. The violence in Hatred is.

Another game that will inevitable be compared will be the Grand Theft Auto series. However in GTA, the premise of the game is never to kill innocent civilians. The nature of the open world game structure means that it becomes a side effect of the game design – it is not the primary purpose of the game. In fact it can be argued that it is possible to play GTA without the need to murder random innocent civilians or police officers. In Hatred hower, the player is given no such choice, and not other purpose than to murder innocents… for no apparent reason other than for sadistic pleasure.

Where do we draw the line? Should games like “Super Columbine Massacre” , or “super School Shooter” be supported and champoined as ‘freedom of speach’, or should we instead respect the children killed, and families devasted by not glorifying the killing for our amusement and entertainment. What happens when terrorrist groups release video games about killing American children – as has been known to happen? What happens when supremacist groups release video games about killing ethnic minorities? What happens when games are no longer about fun, and start being an avenue for extreminsts propaganda – what then?