"Hatred"= Next game that anti-gun politicians will target?

So been reading topics about guns, violent games like Mortal Kombat, GTA, Manhunt etc on here and elsewhere.

On another site I visit, someone mentioned this game and felt this would be a cool game to discuss.

It's for PC, so perhaps not everyone here has heard of it.

Thoughts? Too violent? Or been done before several times you think?

I personally think whatever future incidents happen I'm sure those politicians and people anti violent, anti gun and anti M rated video games will blame this game too no doubt.

Not saying I'll buy it or play it though, I personally think it's just a GTA+Manhunt generic knockoff with little to no story.

Discuss.

Didn't Unreal remove the licence for the engine from the devs?

Guns don't create violence. Video games and movies don't create violence. music does not create violenece. Violent humans create violence.

One of the devs is a neo-nazi. Lol of course the game will get controversy. The argument that this game will however cause violence is stupid just like any other game. It will always be the person playing, not the game.

Not too violent

It actually reminds me of Postal 2. In that you could use cats as silencers and pee on dead bodies.

Guns and games are not the problem. Besides, that's not too violent. This is.................................

@legacy6364: No, I believe that is exactly the right amount of violence. I'm actually okay with a little more.

I honestly have no idea. I don't think so to my knowledge I know MK X and since MK vs. DCU has been using a modified version of the Unreal Engine. HAHA postal, I remember that game.

Postal and MK are always on everyone's top 10 violent video games list. Another game that rivaled Postal was Soldier of Fortune, remember that series?

Annnnnd Knowledge bomb dropped.

I'll just be sitting up here in Canada were gun regulations and violent crime rates seem to have a mystical inverse relationship that Americans can't seem to get their minds around

so a game which sole purpose is what people already do in sandbox games???

The media can influence our attitudes about violence and desensitize us to violence.

@nick_hero22: not really

Da heck?...What's this game suppose to be about? Just randomly killing innocent people?....That seems rather odd and disheartening really..

Yes, really

@nick_hero22: no it doesn't, running around in a video game blowing away random prophesies nothing to desensitize you from actual brutality.

Besides we are genetically inclined to be excited by violence it's how we evolved.

Oh f%ck, not this sh%t again.

1) It desensitize us to violence because it removes the shock value of gratuitous violence that acts a inhibiting mechanism for those times when we feel inclined toward violent acts. That shock value comes from the fact that gratuitous violence isn't a very common occurrence in developed countries, so there is a shroud of mystery in regards to the actual ramifications of those said actions that make us very cautious about those type actions. Most people cannot fathom what it is like to take the life of another person which is why when soldiers come back from war they in many cases suffer from issues related to the tragedies of war. In places like the Middle East where public stoning is the norm, people have become desensitize to that type of behavior and don't see anything wrong with that type of behavior.

2) We are social animals, so our evolutionary inclination would lean more toward civilized and cooperative behavior because as far as physical finesse goes Homo sapiens are quite weak and fragile, but our ability to communicate effectively and efficiently with other members of our species has allowed us to overcome those physical limitations.

This game looks lame af, PS2 graphic levels lame. Oh, and it gets even lamer when you discover that this game was made simply to stir up controversy and provea point.

"Hey, lets make a super violent, controversial game centered around mass shootings in the wake of multiple real-life mass shootings, just to prove that violent games don't make violent people!!?"

@nick_hero22:

1: you hamstrung your own argument, yes soldiers do suffer from the violece they encountered, whether they played video games or not.

The middle east argument is one pretty ignorant to simply generalize the whole region and two irrelevant because they are desensitized to actual violence not just video games.

2:no socialization in animals is a very interesting and complicated subject and you have grossly over generalized it to the point of being incorrect, you have no idea what you are talking about, I recommend you go research animals like chimps, our closest relatives

Hint: they are very violent and very much enjoy killing things.

1) The point is that we Americans have a hard time adjusting to situation that have gratuitous violent because that isn't the norm in our culture. Your argument doesn't even begin to address that claim since it was a claim about human psychology and not necessary about video games. We could substitute many different things in the place of video games, and still arrive at that conclusion.

Who generalized the Middle East? I stated that in the Middle East this behavior is considered the norm, and not the whole Middle East. Again, the point was when those images and experiences exist within the common everyday life we become desensitize to them. Nothing you posted really addressed that point.

2) You argument fails because you didn't take into consideration that there are many different levels of socialization in the animal kingdom. Homo sapiens have the most well developed neurological systems in the animal kingdom which allows for us to develop more sophisticated social organizations and structures compared animals like Chimpanzee which requires us having an affinity for more cooperative behavior since our social organization is more sophisticated than what Chimpanzees have going for them. So, that type of behavior maybe permissible for Chimpanzees because it has some type of evolutionary advantage, but that doesn't really give us any insight in the human realm of social behavior since we are completely different creatures with a different social system that requires a different type of behavior.

A game about a Misanthrope..........brilliant. /eye roll

You call that a 21st Century video game? Don't care if it's violent the concept's pretty lame enough for me not to buy.

@nick_hero22:

1:No we can't substitute anything for it, only actual violence will desensitized people to actual violence.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/08/27/in-new-study-video-games-not-tied-to-violence-in-high-risk-youth/58934.html

2: look back to your first statement about social animals

Your logic was we are social therefore inclind to non violence which is over simplified b.s., chimps were an example of how what you said was b.s. my argument never failed the point I was making (that you're statement was way over simplified) just went over your head.

I'm m not going to get into an argument with you about how human society relates to the societies of the other great apes because it doesn't really add to the subject we are actually discussing.

1) The link isn't addressing what I stated! I stated that an increase in gratuitous violent imagery desensitizes the general public, and not increases the rate of violence that's an important distinction you seem like you aren't able to make. Just because actual physical violence isn't increasing doesn't mean that a certain level of desensitizing doesn't have other ramifications.

This is an academic article from covering a study done at the Iowa State University essentially supporting what I have stated here http://www.public.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/06/jul/desensitized.shtml

2) Different levels of socialization require different types of behavior such as cooperation over mindless violence. I have already explained to you how each level depending on its sophistication have different types of behavior in order to maintain that social structure. Chimpanzees have a very very basic social organization compared to even our ancient Paleolithic ancestors, so looking to their social structure for insight into human psychology doesn't work because our system requires a different type of psychology that is needed in order to maintain our own system. So, it is in fact you who didn't understand my argument because you essentially repeated yourself without providing a substantive response to my argument. My response wasn't a over-simplification because it is in fact true. Chimpanzee psychology isn't going to tell us anything useful about the psychology of modern humans outside of an evolutionary perspective that has to do with the origins of our psychology which really isn't relevant to contemporary times since we are dealing with different factors. Yes, it does, you are choosing not to engage that argument because it exposes the flaw in your argument which happens to be that you didn't take in consideration that there are different levels of socialization each with there own behavioral patterns.

@nick_hero22:

1:http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/childrens-health/articles/2011/02/23/violent-video-games-may-not-desensitize-kids-study

2: yes it was an over simplification

"We are social animals, so our evolutionary inclination would lean more toward civilized and cooperative behavior"

Do you see how my statement was to prove this to be an over simplification now?

Their is nothing mindless about chimp society or its violence it all has a purpose.

What you fail to realize is I was never comparing human to chimp societies in the first place I was using chimps as an example of an animal that is both social and violent to prove you're statement to be an over generalization.

IT WAS AN EXAMPLE, not a comparison between the two.

My original point was that humans evolved to be excited by violence, something no one with half a brain will deny.

1) That study still doesn't change anything because the emotional memory doesn't need to be long-term in order to have an affect on society. Short-term emotional memory can have ramifications does as big as long-term emotional memory, so I don't see how your article is disputing the point.

2) Your statement didn't prove what I said was an over-simplification. Who said that Chimpanzee social structure was mindless? I said that certain level of socialization might prefer mindless violence, but that doesn't tell us anything about the level of socialization humans are in. You claimed that humans have an inclination more geared toward violence, and tried to justify that claim by pointing to Chimpanzees. I showed this to be false because Chimpanzee have a different social structure that requires a different psychology from humans in order to maintain that system. You were equivocating with the term "social", and like I said before you didn't take into account that there different levels of socialization. Just because we are both social animals doesn't mean you can extrapolate Chimpanzee behavior and psychology onto human behavior and psychology. I never disputed the claim that humans have the capacity toward violence, but I don't believe that is an intrinsic characteristic of human beings but the byproduct of external factors. I like how you are not trying to back-peddle away from the comparison you made between Chimpanzee psychology and human psychology since I showed it to be false. Maybe, humans have evolved to be interested in conflict in order to evaluate their own personal well-being and security, but this isn't the same thing as being excited by violence.

@nick_hero22:

1: the study proves more than anything you say

2: I never made a comparison you ditz,

You could replace chimps with hyenas and remove the closest relative bit and it wouldn't make a difference.

Just admit you goofed no one cares that you did.

1) You didn't read the study because it didn't refute my point because the desensitizing doesn't need to be ingrained in the long-term memory in order to have an affect.

2) This is a comparison, "no socialization in animals is a very interesting and complicated subject and you have grossly over generalized it to the point of being incorrect, you have no idea what you are talking about, I recommend you go research animals like chimps, our closest relatives". You wouldn't haven alluded to Chimpanzees if there wasn't a common factor that they shared with humans, so for all intents in purposes this is classified as a comparison because you are looking at a single variable that both groups have in respect to your argument.

Just admit you that you couldn't refute my argument nor do you understand the definition of a comparison, you goofed up no one cares that you did.

@nick_hero22:

1: I hear excuses not rebuttals, the gamers reacted the same way non gamers did that pretty much says it all.

2: there was a common factor, both animals are social and while that is technically a comparison we both know it's not the assumed comparison that we are talking about.

You assumed I brought up chimps as a way to show humans are violent but I brought them up to show social animals can evolve to have inclinations towards violence, hence disproving your incorrect generalization.

I've come to the conclusion you are just too proud to admit you thought I meant something I didn't.

You goofed, it's that simple.

Oh god....

We already have the gaming journalism painting the community as racist, sexist white cisgendered males. We don't need this -_-

1) How in the hell is that an excuse when the article didn't contradict my thesis? It sounds like you have excuses for not actually reading the article and being able to refuted this argument.

2) You made a comparison between the violent impulses of two social animals. This is obvious from the quote I put in my previous response.

"This is a comparison, "no socialization in animals is a very interesting and complicated subject and you have grossly over generalized it to the point of being incorrect, you have no idea what you are talking about, I recommend you go research animals like chimps, our closest relatives". You wouldn't haven alluded to Chimpanzees if there wasn't a common factor that they shared with humans, so for all intents in purposes this is classified as a comparison because you are looking at a single variable that both groups have in respect to your argument."

"You assumed I brought up chimps as a way to show humans are violent but I brought them up to show social animals can evolve to have inclinations towards violence, hence disproving your incorrect generalization."

Thanks for acknowledging that you made a fallacious comparison between Chimpanzees and humans, and you didn't disprove anything because you didn't response to the argument I put forth which was that human are on a different level of socialization compared to Chimpanzees. And, I can help but notice that these two statements sound almost equivalent. If something has violent tendencies wouldn't that in fact be equivalent to saying it's violent since being defined as being violent is based off whether or not something has the tendency to show violent/aggressive mannerisms?

I have quotes from what you said, so how is it a misunderstanding on my part?

The game looks meanspirited and pointless, but will it create killers?

No it will not.