Destructive Creations has revealed its first game titled "Hatred".  This game has lit the flames of controversy from its depictions of a mass murderer taking joy in the killing of innocent people.  Some people have looked at it with ardent disgust, even to the point where Epic Game have asked that Hatred take its logo off of its trailer even though it is using the Unreal 4 Engine that they have created.

The point of this editorial is going to express my feelings on how completely ridiculous these people's reactions are to this game, how double-standard everyone is being, and how exactly "Hatred" could serve to provide new forms of entertainment for the rest of us while pushing the boundaries of conventional thought in video games.


  Why So Serious?  

This game consisting of grey tones starts off very dark in demeanor from the minute the trailer actually begins.  We see a man who's long hair blankets his face, wearing a trench coat while amassing numerous weapons for the purpose of carnage.  While doing so, he mutters this dialogue.

"My name is not important, what is important is what I'm going to do.  I just fucking hate this world and the human worms feasting on its carcass.  My whole life is just cold, bitter hatred, and I always wanted to die violently.  This is the time of vengeance and no life is worth saving.  And I will put into the grave as many as I can.  It's time for me to kill, and it's time for me to die.  My genocide crusade begins...here".

This game is obviously going to be about killing innocent people just for the sake of killing them, no other reason besides the protagonist's (or should we call him an antagonist?) hatred and harsh perspective on the world.  I have already seen many have blatant disgust with that concept, despite the fact that many awarded "Game of the Year" to Grand Theft Auto V, a game which ends with  you putting a man who's still alive into the trunk of a car and pushing it into the ocean so he dies of either drowning or suffocation.  Classy.  What's more, even Epic Games wants to distance themselves from the game by having them remove their logo and any mention of their engine, but they are responsible for the creation of  the gruesome "Gears of War" franchise which allows you to blow apart your foes (and fellow players) with shotguns, stomp in their heads with enough pressure to have it explode, and even having Locust rip off the arms of fallen enemies and repeatedly bash them with it as an execution taunt.  Ridiculous.  "Shadow of Mordor" released just recently and did not receive flak for allowing you to behead your adversaries, why?  I find many people have said, even an affiliate of mine, "because they are fictional characters and considered “monsters” or the “bad guys,” it never really bothered me.  However, seeing an innocent woman have a similar fate just felt different, even if it’s not real.".  Allow me to address this way of thinking because LOTS of people feel the same way, and I personally feel it is double-standard and just plain biased.

The reason the death penalty exists is because people feel like it is "Okay" to kill other people as long as they fulfill certain conditions, people have also taken this into account when killing someone during video games.  Someone's a bad guy by how the video game has presented them, they are not human in their looks and are often grotesque, so this makes them all right to shed digital blood.    Mass murdering in Saints Row IV is perfectly fine because it is done in a comical way with goofy weapons like a Giant Dildo Bat in a game mode labeled "Mayhem".  Having me shoot other players and kill them in Call of Duty is fine because it is not overly gory and is done in good fun!  Pathetic.  All human life has value, evil or otherwise so when is it "all right" to actually kill anyone?  It NEVER is, but people are fine with it as long as the person involved meets a set criteria?  How heinous is that?  Are we now appointing values on the lives of people based on a certain set of conditions that makes their deaths NOT affect our moral compass?....Sure seems that way.  Though, I have to ask that if we are basing values of life simply on the actions that people have done, then is it not possible for the inverse to be true where someone no longer has any value for the lives of others whatsoever?  Remember, every person we have seen as an enemy in a game has their own back story, sometimes they think what they are doing is the RIGHT thing to do, therefore, are you killing other people just for your own cause?  Think about it.

Something else I have been hearing and am worried about is the fact people believe that this will be used as further ammo against the gaming industry, that those who plot against our form of entertainment will be given more fire to use against us during arguments.  To be perfectly honest, I do not really care, someone who hates gaming and wants to see it destroyed will always find a reason to bash it, despite the fact it has the most accurate rating's system (Electronic Software Ratings Board) of any entertainment medium out here.  If you do not believe me, the game "MineCraft," which is a retro-styled game about building things and rated "E for Everyone" by the ESRB, was blamed before in a case of school violence.  It does not matter whether-or-not someone has anything t throw at games, they will do it anyway.  I agree, it may not be good to give them something that could prove to be a liability, but with so much violence happening in real life and even television, there is plenty of blame to go around.

I also feel like this game is helping out the industry by giving us a look at the darker side of an antagonist.  A lot of times we may play as the villain in games, but they usually end up being somewhat of a good guy because developers present the story to players as if they are justified by doing so.  Kratos in "God of War" slaughtered many, but he is seen as a badass who is completely justified in killing many just to get back at a single person.  In turn, people have the nerve to complain when the main character seen in this trailer kills people for the hatred he has, what is the difference?  I like playing as a madman with no purpose in the game, to truly see what it feels like to be an evil person.  Games are suppose to make the player take on a role, to bring them into their world and invoke emotion that makes the one playing it feel as though they are living that experience.  The fact people are disgusted by the trailer means that the game is doing what it should be doing, people should praise the level of thought that went into creating this atmosphere, not shunning it for not following the status quo and making it where some good guy has a tangible "reason" for slaughtering innocents.  Games are just that, fantasies to live out without being harmed yourself or harming anyone else.

In conclusion, I feel people are taking things too far by saying that this is completely wrong and disgusting as we have seen things like this in gaming before, however it just has a positive spin on it to make the player feel like they are justified in doing it.  People are way too judgmental based on their own personal morality, even though they are quick to enjoy something else that is entirely the same in different packaging.  I, for one, am looking forward to Hatred and what it is going to bring to the table as an alternative shooting game to the traditional, one that allows me to be someone who only cares about harming innocents instead of protecting them.  I wish more games went out of their way to try and be unique, going against the trends set in place to provide new and unique experiences.  Well, that is my two cents, thank you for reading.