What differentiates offensive games like this-games that are meant to incite nothing but anger-from games like Grand Theft Auto is that there is effort on the part of Grand Theft Auto developers to make a fun, engaging game in spite of the content that may be offensive. While there is obviously a difference between simulated violence and actual violence, the disproportionately high murder rate for LGBTQH individuals and the still-active climate of homophobia in our social and political system means we really do have to take things like this seriously. You can't punch people in the face and handwave it away by saying you were only doing it to see their reaction.
#Satrie games like deathspank free#
And Kill the F****t doesn't fall under protected free speech because the game was rejected by Steam, a private entity, not the US government. Steam was within its rights to remove it, as the game violated their terms of service on offensive material and discrimination. Games like Grand Theft Auto approach satire in other ways-celebrity-obsessed media, our culture of excess, et cetera-but Hatred is a surface-level game that shows you violence and nothing else.īut that wasn't the case with a game called Kill the F****t (censorship added), which was admitted to Steam Greenlight and subsequently removed after complaints from users. Instead, the sole intent was to make something extremely violent that would anger people-that's part of the reason many people are against it. The game's website makes it pretty clear that it's purely about rejecting the notion that games should be "politically correct" and artistic. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Hatred is trying to ask these questions. Are the actions of a protagonist who guns down enemies (Nathan Drake, for instance) excused just because he's the good guy? How is Hatred different than approaching Grand Theft Auto as a sandbox murder simulator? Why is one game deplorable when the other isn't? There's a lot to critique in the way we think about violence in games, whether it's constructing violence as a means to an end in games like Uncharted, or as a painful yet necessary evil like in This War of Mine. You could claim that Hatred is making a statement in the way it revels in violence. The game's raison d'être is not akin to Grand Theft Auto's humor and occasional social satire it's violence for violence's sake, and the developers point out that there is "no compassion, no mercy, no point in going back." It's an indulgent, ultraviolent game, and its priority is not story or character but pure, unadulterated violence. Hatredhas drawn a lot of criticism for being highly offensive. Hatred: Cultural Critique or Outright Offensive?
But sometimes, there are games that make that line feel extra distinct and clear.
One person's satire is another person's offensive material, and of course, eliminating anything that might be construed as offensive isn't the right move.
It's not enough to provide an example of hypocrisy or offensive content and call it satire the satire is in the critique, not in the content itself.ĭrawing the line between satirical games and outright offensive games can be difficult. Further, satire is supposed to be witty-an important note that many offensive games fail to hit.
0 kommentar(er)
