Talk:Hatred (video game)

So... fails at this stuff?

Should it be mentioned that, based entirely on the trailer, since that's all we have now, that the intent of moving away from the "games as art" moniker and refusing "any fake philosophy", he's actually failed at both? Making a balck and white game, but colouring in the fire and blood creates what's essentially a commentary on the glorification of violence in games, thereby making an artistic game, as well as having a "fake philosophy"? Or am I the only one to notice this? Should this be mentioned at all? Heck, depending on its price upon launch and the actual length of the title, as well as what you can actually end up doing throughout (it looks like a decade old Newgrounds flash game with better graphics, at least as far as what was shown in the trailer), I suspect he'll end up inadvertently making a statement about game value, ie. paying 60 or more for a our hour game with little to no replay value. So, in at least these sences (we'll have to wait for the price bit)should it be mentioned that the intent has already failed? 24.57.123.249 (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your analysis might be valid, but it'd fall under original research and POV. You'd need to find reliable sources expressing this view in a way that's notable and relevant to the article in order for it to be included.Darthmix (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• What Darth said, and I'd add that the job of WP is to present the sources, not to find the truth. It matters more that we present what the sources say rather than our original analysis. But if you can convince a WP:VG/RS to take up the topic... czar ♔ 19:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So can we now awknowledge that it DID in fact fail at its intended "themes" outside of not being politically correct (not really something games are doing. So yet another thing the developers screwed up on)? I mean, in this title that's totally against "games as art", there's even a moderately humorous story. So... fail? Or does this fall under opinion, because PERSONALLY I think it's undisputable fact (though it's understandable if you don't find the story as humorous as I do. Funny in an absurd way, to me. Like a more violent Monty Python) that it failed at all established efforts. 24.57.123.249 (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

FNVG claim

Can this be confirmed by anyone? http://fucknovideogames.tumblr.com/post/100204212288/hatred-is-a-genocide-simulator-developed-by-neo-nazis Because if this turns out to be true (which shoudl really surprise no one, if it did)then mayhap the "reasons" for this game can be changed to be what they are? Hm? If it turns out to be true. I'm the guy who posted about the fails in meaning, by the way. 24.57.123.249 (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I retitled your heading to be less accusatory per our policies on writing about living people. As said above, WP relies on what the reliable sources publish, not blogs without editorial credibility (such as the Tumblr referenced). For the answer to your question, you might want this recent Polygon article. For the speculation on the intents of the developers, I recommend another forum as WP is not the place for it. czar ♔ 06:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Tanks for the name change. And that's why I was asking. I was unable to do the research myself (my comp's old and crappy) so I was just hoping someone would be able to find something either way. But I heard about their denial a little while after intially making this. Sad thing is, and yes this is just opinion, so take or leave it, it's fairly suspicious. He's still going on about some imagined political correctness that games are forced into. What kind? Is being able to torture a guy in GTA5 too PC for these guys? What about the over the top insanity of Bayonetta? No Russia? Yes, they deny it, but anyone would. The reason this is beleivable is that they talk like neo-nazis. Still, like I said, thanks for the research. I can't stress how much of a POS my computer is.24.57.123.249 (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Comparing neo-nazis to a Polish gamedev who's family suffered under Nazi rule is shameful, and you should feel ashamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.77.53 (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination

{{Did you know nominations/Hatred (video game)}} czar ♔ 07:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Slipknot comparison

File:Slipknot Live In London at Live Download 2009.jpg

Kuchera wrote that the game's trailer shared aesthetics with early 2000s metal band Slipknot

This is the second time @Tutelary has removed the Slipknot image/caption (last time was October). The summary was "undue weight", so let's discuss that. Kuchera and Polygon were among the most prominent critics of the game and Kuchera wrote a summative assessment of the criticism of the game. The use of his metaphor is equally weighted to the use of his quote in the article, which is analogous to other articles that use a support or comparative image in their Reception sections, such as the shot of Hundreds in Blek's or Trey Parker in EarthBound's. It fits within our appropriate use of free use illustrations, especially in the absence of free use images from the game itself. czar ⨹ 18:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand the concept/context aspect of the comparison, but I don't really see how the image helps illustrate anything for the reader... Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So do I, that's the sole reason why I removed it. I don't mind Kuchera's or Polygon's reception on the article, but attempting to put an image automatically makes the reader's eyes guide to that picture, and in order to have images, you need to have a good amount of sources for the same connection to be able to put an image. Else, it's undue weight. And remind me again why, if in October, we are arguing this in January of 2015? I thought it was already settled that the image was undue weight, or how it's even useful for the reader. Are we also going to illustrate the 'Freedom of speech' aspect of this game using a symbol for that? It's got about the same number of sources. Tutelary (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The entire Reception (which is a subsection about the trailer) is about the aesthetic and shock impact, which Kuchera summarized in Slipknot, as pictured. No, it wasn't "settled"—there was never a discussion on the matter. Feel free to propose a relevant "freedom of speech" image, but I see such symbolism to be much less relevant than the shock aesthetic. If the issue is the image's size ("reader's eyes"), I could do a horizontal crop to make it somewhat smaller and more focused. czar ⨹ 18:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the WP:UNDUE sentiments, but even more importantly, I think its a terrible image choice. They're not doing anything representative of shock culture there; yeah, they've got their costumes on, but that picture depict a bunch of happy band members, seemingly celebrating a successful concert (or something to that effect). That particular image doesn't do anything illustrate Hatred-like shock value. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

All right czar ⨹ 20:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it fits well - much better than the image for Trey Parker and The Beatles in the Earthbound article, anyway. It illustrates shared aesthetics. I would vastly prefer an image of the game itself, but showcasing the similarities brought up by a Polygon editor seems a decent use for an image. Perhaps the image choice can be better, though. I don't mind a picture of Slipknot to be used, but I have no idea what image would be the best choice. ~Mable (chat) 21:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Um, any counterpoints to me or Tutelary? Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that if we bring up any actual sources regarding this WP:DUE weight, there's only even one. So an image, for one single source expressing the opinion? I just don't think it fits because under this standard, we'd need a few more images and make it even more cluttered. Tutelary (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The article, as it stands, has so little content, that a one picture to emphasize the relation of the two wouldn't hurt.

Future hopes and ideas

I got a few things in mind, that would push this article to a better level. First of all, we need some pictures of the game, maybe from the trailer, ask the devs, or simply find some from Google. Second of all, it would be nice, if you could reach out and find more sources for reception. Surely Polygon isn't the ultimate source. Lastly, why is there a quote instead of a screencap or the actual trailer on the place of "Hatred announcement trailer, October 2014"? I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eebros (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of reverted edits

Czar, I don't think it was necessary for you reverted all my edits wholesale without discussing this matter first, especially since some of the changes you reverted were not included in your objection. You may have not intended it, but your subsequent edit has made undoing your reversion impossible. Now, I'll need to manually edit them back in. In the future, I recommend only reverting the changes you think are inappropriate while keeping the other changes. If you are unsure as to how to do this, you could simply let me know and I could have done it myself. I apologize for not splitting up my edits, but I didn't think my changes would be challenged.

Having said that, what issues do you have with my edits? On the Steam Store page, it clearly states that the name or title of the main character is "The Antagonist"—at least, that is what the character is known as at this time, unless you count "Not Important" (which is what he is also referred to as). Since this is published by the developers themselves, I'd like to think this is a reliable enough source to use as verification of this. As for the spacing, they are unnecessary and don't change how the article is displayed. They simply add bytes, so why not remove them? I'll await your response before I edit my changes back in. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The same way that I'd need to manually edit them out. It is incumbent upon the adding editor to make sure everything checks out. As in the edit summary, my main issue is calling the player-character "known simply as The Antagonist" as that doesn't check out in the sources. Also the "mass murder sim" part, which is a controversial bit to add, should be primarily in the prose and not the lede. The lede should summarize the rest of the text. The developer's own words, if verified to actually be the developer's, can be used as a self-published sources with its usual caveats. I personally see no need to name the player-character if the secondary sources don't as well. Spacing is completely subjective and the only rule is to not edit war over it. There is consensus through editing to leave it the way it is. czar ⨹ 21:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. Apologies if I seemed acerbic before. I don't really care about the spacing in the source; I was just frustrated before because I felt that it was the main reason for your reversions. Do you think it's appropriate for me to retain the other edits, such as the only cleaning up the "Reception" section and adding the extra source? Do you think it's appropriate to add "mass murder simulator" in the Reception section, as well? I think it's notable to mention, and I wouldn't consider it POV to add.

The Steam Store page's description appears to be authored by the developers, in which case it's a self-published source; however, since it's their own game, wouldn't whatever title or name they give to the main character be held to be definitive verification of the name or title of the character? Since it's published through Valve and on the Steam Store, and not on their website, wouldn't that alone be enough to qualify it as a reliable source? Sorry if I'm mistaken here; I'm ignorant on these matters when it comes to Wikipedia policy. I don't know why the other sources don't refer to the main character as "The Antagonist", but I don't believe that is sufficient reason to assume it isn't his title or name, especially if the developers appear to be referring to him as that. They appear to refer to him as that here as well, although it isn't capitalized (perhaps a mistake on Polygon's part). ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't remember having a contention with the murder sim part as long as it's in context and neutral. I wouldn't add "The Antagonist" unless secondary sources cover it. That part's less about citing a reliable source and more about whether it's even necessary for an encyclopedia article if no secondary sources care to discuss it. czar ⨹ 02:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is my revised edit. Is that better, in your opinion? Or do you think some of my changes still warrant a revert? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The new paragraph doesn't compare well in that diff and I don't have time to suss it out, but it looks more or less fine. Only thing I'd add is to specify which outlets called it a mass murder sim and leave off the commentary at the end of that sentence. Also can't see where GameSpot calls it that in their ref—I'd remove it. czar ⨹ 04:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I paragraphed the section for readability, and because I deemed it appropriate in that instance. If you think it shouldn't be, I can change it back. I also made the changes you recommended, and replaced the GameSpot source with a better one which does describe the game as a "mass murder simulator". You can see the changes here. I hope that's alright. Thanks for your help, by the way. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Human shields

The article makes reference to the use of Human Shields in the game. I believe there has been a misunderstanding: The Antagonist refers to police as "human shields" because they "shield" his victims. There has been no indication that NPCs in the game will actually be able to be used as shields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.168.139 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The Crusader?

Is that his name? The Steam page refers to him as The Antagonist and its capitalized like a proper noun. "Hatred is a violent twin-stick shooter, in which you take the role of The Antagonist fighting against all of humanity." Is this a discrepancy somewhere or? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

His name is Notim Portant. He told you, man. 78.105.219.110 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't played the game. Hence why I asked. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Rafał Pankowski on Polygon magazine

VM has challenged this content on the basis of "passing mention, not an expert on video games, WP:UNDUE". The source in question is Hatred, free speech and one developer's connections with Poland's far right, Polygon, Charlie Hall, 18 December 2014, published in Polygon (website) which is a specialist news source for gaming. Lets begin this the obvious here - this is not a "passing mention" - the whole 3,439 word piece is devoted to Rafał Pankowski‎, an academic expert on Poland's far right,[1][2][3] who heads the anti-racist "Never Again" Association. As we have a reliable source for gaming deeming fit to devote 3,439 words to describing what a reliable and expert authority on the Polish far-right says of the game and the development team, this is quite clearly WP:DUE here. Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I tentatively support this factoid, through I wouldn't necessarily recommend it for the lead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not 'well received by its player base'

Metacritic user score is 4.6/10. This is not a game that is well received by its users... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A tautology perhaps in that any game's habitual players (the playerbase) probably like it if they continue playing..... But in terms of Wikipedia, it seems this assertion in the lede is unsourced. In the body - arstechnica reports on voting to get it back onto Steam - which got many supports/favorables - that seem unrelated to actual game play. Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Nor does this (in the body) support that. It was a "best seller" around launch. Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Is Clint Westwood Tom Clarke Hill's pseudonym?

The pages says the voice actor who's uses the Clint Westwood pseudonym in the end credits wished to remain anonymous. I found that some websites like IMDb claim that a man named Tom Clarke Hill voiced The Antagonist, as well as the Steam forums, and used said pseudonym, but I can't find any reliable sources to conform this. I think we should find a reliable source to back this claim up before adding it to the page. HaveYouHeardAboutTheBird (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)