Earlier this week Dev studio Destructive Creations, released a trailer for their upcoming game Hatred. Upon viewing the trailer, I was a bit disturbed, and over the past few days have debated whether or not it is responsible to write about this game. Another reason I have not written about it is, well, there is a fine line that is very easily moved and manipulated when it comes to video game violence, there are many ways to interpret the subject. For more of my interpretation on gaming and behavior check out my article Videogames and Behavior, Does one influence the other?
To preface my opinion on the title, I do not believe video game violence causes real world violence. I am usually the biggest defender of videogame violence, when that violence has some sort of substance. This does not ring true with this title however, because violence IS the only substance in Hatred.
The quickest title that comes to mind when discussing violent and controversial games is the Grand Theft Auto series. Gamers often joke about the prostitutes they assault, or the police they mow down, racing down the streets of cities that very closely mirror our own. One huge difference is that Grand Theft Auto is not marketed as a violence sim. In GTA titles we are offered near limitless things to do aside from violently slaughtering innocent people. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is actually the title I used to teach my little sister how to play video games, at just 5 years old. I watched her dexterity and motor skills develop as she drove around on her little red moped across the streets of Vice City, absolutely no violence involved. Could this be done with a title like Hatred? A title that actively promotes violence? Yes we know there is a potential for violence in GTA games, but the real fun is in the action of that violence, those intense police chases, those heart racing heists. But the “fun” in this game seems to be found in the begging and pleading of innocent people.
Another moment in gaming that comes to mind is the infamous, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 level in which you must mow down innocent civilians in an airport as they attempt to hide and run away in fear. This however did not disturb me, it intrigued me, and I actually applauded Infinity Ward for attempting to do something like this. On it’s surface, yes this scene was gruesome and violent, but with context, it was daring. Players were put in the position of a soldier who was undercover in a terrorist cell, if you did not go along with this massacre, you would be exposed. This moment was meant to stop gamers in their tracks, to put them in a hugely conflicting situation where you do not have much time to act. It raised questions about real world operations such as this where sometimes innocent people are sacrificed to save countless others, the game asked “Is it worth it?”. There was a reason for it. This moment was in no way celebrated, and players even had the option to skip it altogether.
Like any other product, I also ask “Does this break any sort of new ground? Is there a reason this should exist?”. Admittedly, this sometimes seems like a silly question when we have games where we can run around as a goat ruining everyone’s day, but it should still be asked. What substance, what change will this bring to games? Judging from it’s trailer, Hatred is yet another game where we just shoot things. Completely unoriginal. But what it does bring, is a sense of malice, a very dark sense of malevolence that perhaps, isn’t something that should be spread. Video games can also be an intense narrative tool, delivering interesting stories and deep complex characters. Judging by his opening monologue, there is simply one dimension to the character in this game, he’s a total ***hole. An argument could perhaps be made if he were some tortured soul or if there were some redeeming qualities to him, but there literally are none.
Finally as gamers, we should also worry about the image we portray to obnoxious politicians. Everyone remembers that not too long ago games came under heavy fire, and Hatred would have been the perfect evidence in an argument for more stringent game legislation and censorship. I can’t help but feel these developers are hurting games by giving conservatives more ammunition (see what I did there?).
As I write all of this, it sounds a bit like my mind is made up, but I am still conflicted. If we as gamers, truly believe these sorts of games do not lead to real world violence, shouldn’t this be a test of that faith? Herein lies the conflict. If gamers can support a game like GTA, that is not marketed as a violent game (even though all know it is), should people be able to sell any violent product as long as it has other uses or options? One comparison I made in debate with someone was attaching a bottle opener to the side of a pistol and selling it as a bottle opener even though we all know you can use it to harm people. An odd comparison admittedly, but the point is, is GTA okay simply because they aren’t up front about their games’ violence anymore (Even though there is a scene where we WATERBOARD and torture someone)? Are their games somehow less violent now because we have been bombarded with a slew of other features? Is Hatred bothering us because they are simply being up front about violence? I still have not made up my mind personally, but one thing is for sure, this title has undoubtedly sparked a much needed conversation about games and whether we have grown from them.
Be sure to also check out Adam Straughans’ take on video game violence here!