http://youtu.be/RrX7G-1xPLs

Can you shout “fire!” in a crowded movie house? Yes. Yes you can. If there’s a fire. If doing so does not create injury or death. Can you create a videogame where players can pretend to be a spree killer massacring people – in graphic detail – at a school? Yes. Yes you can. But I would not want to be this game’s producers if some nutcase uses it to prepare for a real spree killing. And I would not want my daughter going to school with anyone who played Hatred. But . . . .

the company, Destructive Creations, has a right to create, market and sell this game. And people have a right to play it. You could even argue that the game’s revolting violence is a wake-up call to those who haven’t contemplated the full horror of a school shooter (the Sandy Hook slaughter was never graphically recreated). We know what the NRA would/will say.

What’s your take on this stomach-churning “entertainment”? [h/t Danny]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

120 COMMENTS

  2. I’d rather see a video game involving angry citizens slaughtering Wall Street bankers, personally.

  3. Top down shooter with gimmicky execution highlights.

    It’s pretty lame. Basically NES Commando dressed in black. Like drop-D tuning your git-box to sound “cool.”

  4. Do they have a mode where as soon as you pull a gun 3 teachers draw their carry guns and shoot you on the spot?

  5. I hope this is not well received by the game playing population, especially those school aged.

    • I’m not sure where to draw the line between a fun video game and sick murder pron. But wherever that line is, Hatred is comfortably on the other side of it.

        • People who like the idea of killing things will kill things, video game or not… As well, by that logic, you could argue the Army is a breeding ground for serial killers, which is obviously false. What really gets a psychopath’s motor running is the idea of DISARMED targets, and video games were you shoot disarmed people with little risk fits the bill well.

  6. See, that’s the thing about the First Amendment. Sure you get to speak your mind–but SO DOES EVERYBODY ELSE.

  7. The problem is not the violent games. The real problem is too many parents allow their kids to play games age inappropriate games such allowing a 12 year old to play an M rated game which is intended for ages 17 and older.

    • I’m starting to think it’s not necessarily the violence in games that is the problem, but the promise of violence as solution to every problem.

      Someone’s annoying you? You kill them. Someone’s taking too many of your quest mobs? You kill them. You think someone’s outfit looks stupid? You kill them.

      EDIT: Also, yes, this game is disgusting.

      I admit it’s a fine line, but I can’t help but think that social programming in sociopathic online worlds in a child’s formative years, for hours each day, will have a more lasting impact than something like Call of Duty that is basically the computer equivalent of paintball- even sides, evenly-applied rules, etc.

  8. Most vile videogame ever? I don’t know… it’s no Ethnic Cleansing, or Rapelay, or Superman 64.

  10. Bleh. Talk about pushback overkill. With CNN et al demanding Illegal Mom on Mayor of Everytown action, someone decided to be “edgy”. Once again gun owners can be reviled as canned psychopaths, just waiting to pop our tops.

    • It’s funny that that’s who will likely be blamed.
      Looking at the developers they’re all slavs working in an area with a booming death/black metal scene that has been going on as long as the US has had its hip-hop thing going on.
      The CEO is wearing death metal band shirt in the staff pic.*

      So we get a basic retro shooter with a black metal theme from the land of slavs and naturally it’ll be the fault of US gun owners if some soccer mom who ignores her kids media consumption habits happens to see this game on the screen one day.

      *I have nothing against black/death metal. I love it actually. It’s funny like a growling Weird Al. So nobody conclude I’m blaming music or a scene for anything.

  11. Well, that’s over the top. The market will decide its fate. I expect the developers are counting on the any press is good press strategy.

  12. Pretty twisted. But video games don’t make killers.
    If they did, their would be thousands of mass shooting every month.
    So far, all the spree spree killers in the last several decades excluding terrorist attacks, have be liberal democrats that are on or just coming off of prescribed psychotropic drugs.

  13. This seems like one of those games that will be in the bargain bin almost as son as it’s released.
    That is, if any store in the country can stomach being known as “That store that sell Hatred”.

    Also, if the trailer footage is any indication, this guy is playing on easy mode, like he started his spree in downtown London where even the police are disarmed. Try setting this in a small town in Texas. Maybe start outside Cabela’s in Buda.

    • Uh, I don’t think anyone is going to buy this from a brick-and-mortar store … they will purchase it online and download it with their Internet connection.

  14. Sheesh… That looks graphic. Definitely not something I would play or promote. And it sucks that this will add to the stereotyping of gun owners everywhere. However… You know how for a while people were pretty sure that violent video games can cause people to be violent? Now some researchers are saying that violent video games provide a release for those that otherwise would carry out their urges in reality. Not saying I agree with those findings, but interesting to say the least. I hope there is a level where he happens to start a massacre down the street from an open carry rally.

    • I heard something about FPS games being used as theraphy for war vets. Something about re-experiencing traumatic situations in a safe environment makes it easier to cope and deal with.

  15. I’m a big defender of art and media, but holy sh@t I was not expecting this. I feel like this is going to speak to a lot of nutcases. I think this is one of those rare times when ESRB needs to throw out an A rating. This is an example of seeing just how far we can go with the 1st Amendment before it becomes criminal.

    • Yeah. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold would have loved this ‘game’..

      I Have to say, I’m not cool with this ‘game’. Not at all.

      And THAT bothers me.

    • I am also a hedge defender of video games. Many can play violent games all day and not be turned into a spree killer. But this game looks like it was created by Adam Lanza himself. I don’t know how the makers of this game can feel right making it.

    • There’s a difference between having the right to say or do something and actually saying or doing it if it’s an abomination to say or do it.

  18. Most vile videogame ever created? No, sir.

    This is basically the kiddie pool of vileness.

    There are 5 meter depth Olympic tower diving pools of messed up games out there, not all of them are particularly recent either.

    Remember, anyone with as little as a Flash editor can make some form of video game, and that still counts as ‘ever created’.

    The most vile videogame designed for commercial release?

    …Nope, still not vile enough to take that title either. Seriously, there is just… STUFF out there, in videogame format, just as much as there are vile films, vile comic books, vile written stories, etc.

    • Funny you don’t actually name the games. I’ve played games my whole life and have never seen a more vile game. Sure, Aliens Attack, GTA, COD, et al have lots of shooting of civilians, but it’s cartoonish and/or the main character usually has some kind of righteous motivation for doing what he does. Not this one. Even I draw the line on this game.

      • Let’s see, there’s Kaboom, where you play as a suicide bomber going for high score by killing as many bystanders as possible.

        There’s Ethnic Cleansing, the first person shooter game developed by the KKK.

        Super Columbine Massacre RPG. Play as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, that’s one.

        Then there’s RapeLay, which made headline news in the USA in 2009, where your goal is to stalk and rape a mother and her two daughters. It was sold commercially for 3 years.

        And these are just the ones I picked out of a wikipedia list. It gets worse than these.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversial_video_games

  19. “But I would not want to be this game’s producers if some nutcase uses it to prepare for a real spree killing.”

    Right, because playing a silly game, regardless of tact, has exactly the same causal attenuation as actually training. ‘What do you mean I fumbled a mag change and I wasn’t as fast as Todd Jarrett? I equipped Sleight-of-Hand-Pro and Ninja!’

    “And I would not want my daughter going to school with anyone who played Hatred.”
    And I would not want my daughter going to school with anyone who listened to Rock and Roll.
    And I would not want my daughter going to school with anyone who smoked the Reefer.
    And I would not want my daughter going to school with anyone whose parents let them shoot guns.

    Maybe its just because I saw the novelty in playing thru the Airport scene in ‘Call of Duty:One of the older ones’ that made everyone so uncomfortable, but really, there is no connection between video game violence and real life violence. This is just as sensational as sending home a kid for wearing an NRA t-shirt.

    • @JD

      Thank you for being reasonable. This game and article make me shake my head…

      Unfortunately, the “video games” make murderers meme got traction thanks to complete f*cking morons like LaPierre. A few decades prior to that it was heavy metal. It’s all nonsense. F*cked up people do f*cked up things but you can’t condition a rational person to commit murder, mass or otherwise, by exposing them to garbage like this.

      My guess is that the gaming community as a whole will reject this almost entirely. Sure, you’ll get some of the 4chan crowd that will be all over it, but they’re already degenerates. I’ve been a multiplayer gamer for close to two decades and let me clue those of you who’ve never touched the stuff in on something: gamers don’t have a “well-defined” code, but certain behaviors (think: racism, homophobia, and several others) will mark you. It’ll not only get you removed from places to play, but will result in large chunks of most gaming communities waging a campaign against you personally. Gamers aren’t centrally organized, but these days many/most are adults and certain lines are not crossed…

      Long story short: This is disgusting and won’t gain traction amongst gamers. Ignore the title, shame the developer, vote with your wallets. It will go away.

    • Having played video games since they began and having also shot firearms I just have to shake my head when someone acts as though someone can learn anything practical from things like this…

  22. The First Commandment–scratch that ‘Amendment’–doesn’t guarantee absolute speech no matter how vile or wicked it is. It protects speech against the government. So, if the government decided that this is vile and evil and you disagreed, they won’t throw you in prison. The 1st Amendnent interpretations have gone too far. We should be ashamed as a nation to say you support their right to say this. Evil is evil. Draw the line in your own heart and mind and don’t give into the sophomoric arguments of anything goes because it’s protected by an amendment somewhere. There is a higher law.

    • You misunderstand the First Amendment. It does not simply protect “speech against the government” – it requires that the government refrain from restricting pure speech (or expressive conduct) on the basis of its content or viewpoint. Video games are pure speech – like a book, like a play, like a song or a movie – in that they formalize and package an idea and allow that idea to be accepted, rejected, debated, demonized, etc, in the marketplace for the same. The cure for bad speech is good speech, and the only way to tell them apart is more speech.

      Saying “F* the government” is protected because its an idea. I could similarly say “F* skinheads” and “F* the Green Party” and “F* juniper trees, cut them all down” and each of those statements enjoy EXACTLY the same protection from the interference of government restriction. It is a *negative* right, requiring an absence of governmental action. Draw your own distinctions about morals, but don’t for a minute think that an assertion that someone else’s speech need be curtailed because it merely makes you uncomfortable is grounded in logic or law (either common or natural).

      • JD,

        Rights are an expression of the inherent dignity and value of human life. As such, we do not have any “rights” to endeavor to offensively harm someone.

        More specifically, we do not have a right to promote an “idea” or “speech” to offensively harm a group of people who have done nothing to us. We call that inciting a riot or inciting violence. It could even rise to the level of criminal conspiracy.

        In this particular case a video game is promoting and glamorizing an “idea” of offensively killing as many random people as possible. I see no reason why such an “idea” deserves protection.

        • In this particular case a video game is promoting and glamorizing an “idea” of offensively killing as many random people as possible. I see no reason why such an “idea” deserves protection.

          If you substitute Islam for video game in your statement would you feel the same way?

        • Ideas and speech do not harm others. Words don’t hurt…they may make you have a “feeling” in a corresponding way that was calculated by the speaker, but they themselves do not hurt. Feelings happen.

          If speech is calculated to make the audience react in a specific, highly predictable manner – i.e. inciting a riot, conveying a true threat, or those words that are likely to cause an imminent and immediate violent reaction towards the speaker aka fighting words – then we may decline to extend full protection to that speech.

          From this clip, and likely from the game in general, can you argue that this is inciting violence? Doubt it, unless there’s a boss fight that ends with “Ahhh! JD, I’m done. Avenge me by going to XYZ address at ABC time and date and shooting up 123school OR ELSE!” Fighting words? Nope, since the “speaker” is the game designer – gonna track him down and kill him after playing? Not likely. True threat? To whom, specifically?

          Again, freedom of speech is a negative right. There is no objective valuation to one’s *life* being weighed when deciding that a marketplace of ideas is more desirable than prior restraint and constant government monitoring, censorship, and sanctions…that is an objective valuation of what is at stake in a free country and free society.

        • More specifically, we do not have a right to promote an “idea” or “speech” to offensively harm a group of people who have done nothing to us. We call that inciting a riot or inciting violence. It could even rise to the level of criminal conspiracy.

          In this particular case a video game is promoting and glamorizing an “idea” of offensively killing as many random people as possible. I see no reason why such an “idea” deserves protection.

          I fail to see how this game is “inciting a riot or inciting violence.” Specifically: we have every right to promote an idea or speech right up until it harms or causes harm to anyone. This dumbass game isn’t doing that.

          We all agree that it is in the poorest of taste; but unless you get extra points for uploading your own video footage of murdering school children, the game’s not encouraging anyone to go out and murder people. Thus it falls far short of the completely asinine “You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater,” argument you’re floating here. A lot of folks said things similar to what you’re saying about Postal which was a PC game in the 90’s that revolved around being a postal worker and going on a killing spree. Not so coincidentally, THAT game followed on the heels of the headlining mass-killing events of the time. It was in poor taste then as well, but it also didn’t contribute to more postmen completely losing their sh*t and smoking all of their co-workers.

          Your post surprises me quite a bit. I thought you were somebody who understood and respected liberty. Freedom can be a real bitch, but she isn’t fickle. Any time somebody says, “but but but, there should be a law!” I take a step back and start making a sign of the cross. The slippery slope is a tired argument, but you’re taking a dive down it on well-greased toboggan.

        • Because it’s exactly that: just an idea. A guy playing a video game in the privacy of his own home is not comparable to inciting a riot. For starters, there’s nobody else involved. Second, he’s not encouraging any actions. He’s just playing a game. The game producers are even further removed from these imaginary consequences.

          Absent any interaction with or impact on anyone else, your real objection is to the content of this speech, which is constitutionally protected.

        • JD and others,

          Speech can definitely be harmful. That is why libel and slander gets no protection.

          Speech that promotes offensively harming or killing people does not deserve protection, either. Such speech is a verbal attack on the objects of their speech. If physical attacks are a crime, why not verbal attacks? More importantly, speech which promotes offensively harming or killing people is nothing more than a public solicitation for volunteers to carry out the message. The best example of this are the Nazi speeches to eradicate the Jews. It would be patently ridiculous to claim that Nazi Germany would have mobilized to execute over 6 million Jews had there never been any speeches calling for their eradication.

          This case with this game is a little less clear. According to the promo, the game does not explicitly tell players to offensively harm or kill people. Implicitly, the game promotes and glamorizes hatred of all human beings and offensively killing them. It’s entire message is that human beings are meaningless and worthless and therefore you should offensively kill them if you hate them.

          I don’t condemn the game because I don’t like it or because I find its message to be “offensive” (in the hypersensitive politically correct sense). I condemn the game because the only thing it does is promote hatred of human life and the indiscriminate, offensive killing of human life. It’s only message, its only purpose is a violation of the “live and let live” principle. That is why it does not deserve protection.

    • “Draw the line in your own heart and mind and don’t give into the sophomoric arguments of anything goes because it’s protected by an amendment somewhere. ”

      So then you support the NFA?

      “There is a higher law.”

      No, there isn’t.

      • Grindstone asked, “Do I support the NFA?” I do.

        Here’s why:

        The general argument throughout the responses to this post is that every man can do what is right in his own eyes in the privacy of his own home (or between consenting adults) as long as there is no victim; specifically, in this instance, that this ‘game’ is merely dealing with “ideas” and should be protected. I vehemently disagree. If this ‘game’ is any indication, mankind is inherently wicked and will do evil things with his hands. Simply placing murder and evil into the context of a ‘game’ does not render playing the game amoral. The higher law says that “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.” To curb or dissuade this natural tendency of man, we have “ideas” called laws that punish or curtail certain behaviors. People who play these violent video ‘games’ reveal themselves to be murderers, liars, rapists, et al. As such, I do not want them to have access to weapons especially NFA weapons–virtual is bad enough. The “shall not be infringed” clause assumes that we have a moral population that can be trusted. Funny, isn’t it, as we have become more ‘liberal” and more accepting of evil behavior, we have actually lost freedoms. Maybe righteousness really does exalt a nation? Condoning wicked behavior, whether you participate in it or not, makes you no less guilty.
        Last thought: I also support the NFA because do you really want 10 million felons newly minted into ‘citizens’ having unfettered access to guns. They lack our culture, heritage, language, and love of country. The NFA, ironically enough, serves to protect Americans from Americans AND foreigners. Who knew?

        • Last thought: I also support the NFA because do you really want 10 million felons newly minted into ‘citizens’ having unfettered access to guns. They lack our culture, heritage, language, and love of country.

          Yea, we should require the untermenschen to wear a patch or something on their clothing too. That way we can readily identify the subhumans in our midst. MURICA!

          Are you f*cking stoned?

  23. I would never support any law to ban this game. But this is the most sick and vile game I have ever seen. Absolute filth. I`m sure that the anti constitutionalists will make loads of political hay from this game. I predict that this game will bomb on the market place just like a similar game from years ago called Postal.

    • Frighteningly enough, we’ve got more that one “pro-constitutionalists” saying some pretty scary stuff in regards to this game. Who needs enemies with friends like these, right?

      • It might be possible for criminal charges of conspiracy to commit murder and/or inciting a murder and/or inciting a riot etc. etc. etc.

        If the authorities want to use existing law to prevent this from being released and/or prosecute those involved with it’s production than I will not be terribly upset. It looks like a rebranded grand theft auto with more blood.

        • It would be a violation of the 1st amendment and the fact that people think its okay, just shows them for the anti-constitutional hypocrites that they are.

          Can I made a decision whether to play it or not, without other busy bodies or government involved? thank you

  25. They are just trying to make some quick money off of the bad press and 14 year old fantasies. This is a ridiculous game and will go away.

    Pretending to shoot innocent victims that are really nothing more than digitally created images on a computer screen isn’t evil and these games don’t create murderers. As far as being evil, this is just as evil as pong. Much to do about nothing really.

  26. They’ll make some money off the shock value and their publicity will be free of charge thanks to hand-wringing and outrage.

  28. My total LIFETIME gaming experience (not including solitaire, or pong) is about 1/2 hour of Grand Theft Auto. I just don’t get the fascination with trying to relate to brooding dark characters that inflict violence and mayhem in a virtual world. It was enough to convince me that I really didn’t need to spend the money on a game device. Is this “Hatred” the worst vilest game ever? I’m sure it is surpassed by stuff to nasty to even describe, because there are people out there that into torture, mutilation, and much, much worse.

  29. Didn’t most of the mass shooters play video games like this? Looks like violent video games are the problem and not guns

  30. I can definitely see this creating violent youths. After all, I became gay as soon as I watched gay porn for the first time.

  31. There are the “Postal” and “Manhunt” series already. This is just another title in the collection for politicians to point the finger at for causing the downfall of our society.

    That said, it’s a game in development from a small Polish company. They’re probably going to have to release it themselves, because distributors are already backing away. The only marketing they’re going to get is from news orgs. because they’re being “edgy.” As BigRed said, the trailer doesn’t show any interesting mechanics, and the developers are probably going to put all their effort into animating grotesque killing sequences.

  32. Personally, I don’t by the hype of violent media leading to violent behavior. If it was the case, anyone watching prime time TV would be an axe murderer.

    As for the game, I could see a lazy Sunday afternoon taken up by it. Looks kinda fun.

  33. I’ve been a salesman in the video game industry for over seven years. It’s still disheartening to hear this view point from the firearms industry, whether it’s after a school shooting or examples like this.

    The ESRB has a great handle on rating video games and the process works like movie ratings. Underage consumers are not allowed to purchase M-rated games, just like they can’t buy a ticket to an R-rated movie without an adult. Both of these things come down to parenting. If you’re buying video games for your kid, that is under 17, you *might* be a bad parent.

    The rating system is in place and it works. There is no need for a law criminalizing selling video games to kids. Leeland Yee tried and got rebuffed by the courts (before he got arrested for gun trafficking and corruption).

    Study after study has shown that violent video games do not create violent people. Other studies that contradict this have been discredited (time and time again). My belief is, every young spree or mass shooter plays video games because pretty much all kids play video games. The most popular games are rated M and, just like everything else, parents don’t take the time to look into what their kid wants them to buy or misjudges their child’s maturity level. That’s like saying that all spree shooters have hair.

    It’s saddening that the gun industry blames video games for sick people killing innocent people. It’s the exact same argument made by antis about guns.

    We are better than this.

    We don’t like it when the antis blame the gun or want to ban guns (obviously), because we know the gun isn’t the issue.

    Personally, this game is disgusting and vile and I don’t think it will sell. Partly because it’s PC only, partly because of the backlash and mostly because it looks like it will suck. I also wouldn’t want to be on the development team. I think this will be a black mark on their resume.

    The video game industry is not perfect. Look into GamerGate. Look at this game or, as was mentioned above, Postal and Hot Coffee. Those are not good looks for the industry, but it is a free speech issue just like movies, music and pornography.

    I still think trying to ban video games or impose futile laws on video games is a bad (possible immature) stance to take. We don’t like it when it happens with guns and we know better.

  34. I think that, regardless of your personal opinions, the first amendment protects the production of such video games, and your sentiment that you wouldn’t want your daughter going to school with someone who plays “Hatred” is similar to someone not wanting their children to go to school with someone who liked guns. That’s my two cents, anyway.

  35. @RF, well I see it’s time for you to take another shot at the NRA. You are a strange man.

    As for the creators and producers of this filth, I’d like to see their balls smashed with a sledgehammer.

  38. Video games have as much a chance of turning someone into a spree killer as monopoly has of turning someone into a slum lord.

    I thoroughly enjoy chopping the heads off of digital characters….and yet I am not a member of ISIS. Whoda thunk?

    • Postal was so wrong. Cats don’t work as silencers, muslim owned stores don’t have ninjas or training camps in them and you can’t piss everywhere without cops tasering you sooner or later.

      Don’t ask how I found out.

      /joke in case NSA reads this (hi Frank, did ya get the promotion you wanted?).

    • More specifically, we do not have a right to promote an “idea” or “speech” to offensively harm a group of people who have done nothing to us. We call that inciting a riot or inciting violence. It could even rise to the level of criminal conspiracy.

      In this particular case a video game is promoting and glamorizing an “idea” of offensively killing as many random people as possible. I see no reason why such an “idea” deserves protection.

    • A lot of the same people that will be up in arms (sometimes I make myself giggle) about this game will happily announce that Nabokov was a genius. Video games don’t make people murder children with any more frequency than books make people molest them…

      Please ignore my first response, is was a quick attempt at a copypasta response that I posted to the wrong place. By the time TTAG’s advertisement saturated ass got around to letting me refresh I couldn’t edit or delete it.

      • How is it glorifying? The main character seems to be a “loser” judging by his living quarters and the fact that he has noone in his life. All he got is anger. That seems hardly like something to aspire to or imitate. Even the stereotype of the lonely gamer that lives in his mothers basement has a better life than the main character in this game.

    • HAHA thats funny (sarc/), turning to false stereo types about video game players and their literacy. Thats the same as the anti gunners assuming all gun owners don’t have teeth and drink beer shirtless on their porch all day.

  41. Now re-skin the victims as zombies/vampires/ogres and everyone would be drooling over the new “hardcore” game. That’s what other games/movies/books do all the fucking time and no one bats an eye.

    Literally millions of people do what the trailer just showed but on GTA V, that isn’t as graphic, so it’s funny.

    “”””Violent”””” Video-games make violent kids” is just as easy to disarm as disarmament itself.

  42. While I don’t think video games in and of themselves are the problem, there certainly could be a contributing factor to violent behavior. I consider this stuff the mental equivalent of a fried Twinkie covered in bacon bits. Sick entertainment for some, but not good for your health.

    I don’t support bans, but this stuff is still garbage.

  43. I don’t know. Last video games I played were probably Tetris and Super Mario Brothers. So what do I know? Seems tacky, tasteless and gimmicky. I wouldn’t let my kids play it, but I wouldn’t use government to keep you from letting your kids play it.

  44. I’m not sure why the gun community is always looking to point fingers at violent video games when there have been violent movies for ages. Or is it ignorance similar to liberals attempting to ban guns since most of us enjoy violent movies so it must be the games since “I don’t play games ’cause they’re vile”?

    The game seems to be based off the movie “Rampage” maybe? And while I agree this game is violent I wouldn’t think of it as the most vile video game ever created as there have been many worse games but I suppose that’s subjective. Perhaps this one is only vile because of mass shootings in the U.S. being a hot topic but why are we ignoring games like Grand Theft Auto, Postal, etc.? Or movies like the Purge, any Rambo movie, etc. which are also highly violent?

  46. Apparently none of you have ever played Modern Warfare 2 with the airport massacre level.

    Also, props to giving this game free publicity.

    • Thats different! Your character goes through that airport with the intentions of getting an in with the terrorists so he can save countless thousands of lives. This is senseless violence with the only purpose being “I hate the world and want violence.” This game is truly sickening.

  48. It’s in the same league as Saints Row or Postal, except those are self aware and play the mindless violence as an over the top macabre joke. Tastelessness is one thing, this level of sickness though….. I don’t buy that video games “cause” violence or that this should be banned but it’s definitely pretty odious. And apparently the developer Destructive Creations is run by hardcore Polish nationalists as well, which explains a lot.

  49. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzsyUDLI4FQ

    While this game is stomach churning, I hate seeing arguments against games that would make Moms Defend Action proud. If this was practically all there was in action games, I might be concerned, but this is a title clearly for adults, so I don’t see the reason to go all Tipper Gore here.

    • That is a truly violent game. You play as a character going around eating what looks like babies of whatever it is that your playing as. When you eat enough babies you get a piece of fruit for dessert and if you loose, ghosts eat you.

  53. I have no problem with violent videogames, but IMO this is despicable. I mean even the Grand Theft Auto games don’t have you killing children or anything. Games that involve violence are just part of adult themes. But a game in which you go around murdering school children!?

  55. I don’t think that violent video games lead to violent people. I have played enough violent games in my time and my guns have never pointed at anyone. But instead of creating a watch list for everyone who buys guns or ammo they should look at creating a watch list for everyone who buys this game. I am not saying that it guarantees they are going on a shooting spree but I can see the type of person that would go on a shooting spree would play this game.

  56. As a gamer, I have played many violent and gruesome games and I enjoy watching gruesome horror movies. But I could not finish this clip. I’m also a pretty well-adjusted guy, married to a saint of a woman, and we raise our kids with good values. So maybe that’s why.

    Regarding violent tendencies from playing violent video games: studies have shown that aggression increases in kids who play violent video games for too long, much in the same way that aggression increases in kids who are at a high school football game and the other team is a long-standing rival. I know my level of tension (and maybe aggression) increases on games that aren’t even violent, but are particularly fast-moving and puzzling, because I play them on hard and want a serious challenge.

    Regarding messages that games send us: I recommend everyone who’s interested and has access to a game console to play Spec Ops: The Line. It really brings to the surface the ugly side of war, and makes the gamer see firsthand the result of their actions. It’s truly a beautiful game, but it is all one of the most gruesome ones I’ve ever played.

  58. Anyone who would play this is aside puppy. Ban it? No, that’s unconstitutional. Ridicule anyone who admits to playing it? Damn right. I doubt culture needs the individuals who are attracted to this type of activity. I don’t have any research to back up that assumption. I’m strictly going off gut-instinct.

Comments are closed.