Metro:
The most controversial game of the year is an ultra violent murder sim where civilians beg for their lives, but is there justification for the violence?
Hatred isn’t a very good video game. You probably guessed that already, given how desperate it is to shock with its violence and amorality, but it’s not absolutely terrible either. The concept certainly is, but we’re only here to judge the quality of the game. In terms of freedom of speech, if someone wants to make an ultra violent game about murdering hundreds of innocent people then they’re perfectly within their rights. But did they have to make it so incredibly boring?
A game about killing people.
This game was just gratuitous violence. I don't know why it was rated AO. It's no worse than a GTA killing spree, Hotline Miami, or even the 'No Russian' COD mission. Reminded my of a weaker Dead Nation except no zombies.
I'm surprised Switch is getting this and PlayStation/Xbox isn't. The game was basically Postal with better graphics and more realism.
A look at five games that gamers loved but most critics hated.
Advent Rising is another good example. It got panned by critics but it has a good story and I enjoyed playing it. The graphics are dated, the enemies all look the same, but it was made in 2005 so what do you expect? I wish they made the sequel so I could finish the story but I think the critics killed it off.
Joanna Mueller writes: "Since the 1980's, video game advocates have been arguing for the protection of games as a medium of free speech. Frankly, I consider myself in that camp, but just because a game can push against the boundaries of common decency doesn't mean it should. Especially if the developer is just hoping to ride the wave of pearl clutching controversy to the bank."
Nothing wrong with pushing for controversy, but the game still has to be worthwhile. Lots of games in the 90s showed that.
Because the novelty will eventually wear off and the audience will eventually wise up.
So what? If there's a market for something then why should anyone care if it gets filled, as long as it's not something illegal? You can dislike so-called "edge lord" games all you want (in fact, you can like or dislike whatever you want, full stop) but even if games like Hatred are just trying to take advantage of anti-SJW backlash to make a quick buck, the fact that they exist at all is important in a culture that's becoming increasingly puritan and censorship orientated. Art is supposed to push the envelope. It's supposed to make you think. And even if all a game makes you do is think about why certain people are so desperate to ban it.
Oh please. What's with the hyperbole headline. David Jenkins can't have played many games if he thinks this is remotely "the most violent game on Earth".
Maybe he's been stuck in a parallel universe where Nintendo games are the only ones available?
I have a hard time believing that this game is more violent than Soldier of Fortune 2. That game was brutal... and awesome. Like 26 different spots on a body you could target for different effects.
Mortal kombat is way more violent than hatred. the only thing I don't about the game is that it keeps on freezing on me. >:[