I don't think it's inconsistent with ESRB's other ratings.

How do you mean?

rated AO unfairly

2edgy4me

I envy that guy so bad.

I like the idea <3

Looks ok, I'll probably play it

Better not play this, I might end up copying it

I really don't see anything refreshing about this game...
Kill people. Cool, is there anything else i can do?
Back to mario then!

I think there's a definite waste of potential there. By spicing up the game storyline with something more than just "kill people" they could have made something memorable because the visuals and atmosphere are sweet. The game devs are probably trying to shock their way into the history books with the "m0st c0ntrov3rs1al g4me ev4rrrr!!!11111" award but this is going to fail hard and become one of the most boring games ever instead.

Postal on the other hand was intentionally funny and will remain as a positive experience with massive lulz all around for everyone who played it despite the game eventually getting boring as well. I really can't see where the massive lulz are in Hatred, and if they can't materialize themselves in the game's trailer then they're probably non-existent.

Imagine Hatred with a blade-runner vibe and a thick kill-replicant-dudes plot going on. Would be 10/10.

My two potats.

In a world of GTA, CoD, and many other violent first person shooter games where you can kill people in gruesome ways, how is this game "controversial?" With so many violent video game and movies out there what is suppose to make this game stand out?

Is it because were playing the "bad" guy? I'd really like to know, as I remember a couple months back some websites making a big deal out of it. I'm just not seeing it.

cause in our civilised world killing soldiers is good fun. especially of color. subhumans really, who cares. they die off grealty every day anyways.
but civilians, 'innocent', selfish, ignorant about attrocities, and supporting injustice as long as it suits them. yeah, you simply can't. It's sacred, you know
PS: im oposed to any sort of violence, especially those recent ones in Paris. just sensing lot of dubious, two-faced morality in those standards. especially concerning that the western world kills a lot of civilians during all those 'interventions' in shitholes like the Middle East.

Wise words.

Hello,

I really beg you to reconsider. There is so much bullshit in that post. The way he justifies killing civilians by marking the victims 'guilty'. Its like justifying rape because a girl wears short skirts. Its the mindset of psychopaths.

Sincerely,
Your dubious two-faced guard of morality on esr

So killing an unarmed person that has no intent to harm you is not worse than killing someone who wants to kill you too?

jesus kids these days... get a fucking grip.

why does the soldier wants to kill you? cause majority of civilians support it, and do nothing against it. look, i wrote I am against all violence. I seriously am, just have troubles with the 'innocent' part. humans are vile, selfish aholes. those with riffles simply had unlucky birth and they ended up in the army, obeying orders of true evil doers. I would never consider carrier in the military, but I am fortunate to be in that position. still cannot blame all atrocities on soldiers. cause everyone should know that war is inhuman, war is evil, war means casulties. yet somehow there is support for it. thus 'innocence' of victims who supported intervention in Iraq (almost did not happen) is relative when you look at the number of casulties in said country. ofc there are people who dont support wars, or are true humanitarians, there are some who could truly be considered pure. thus this type of retribution would be injustified (as it always is). When I watched this trailer i felt sick, it was apaling. I'm oposed to any violence, k? yet its weird its somehow ok to kill people in uniforms and killing civillians is not. It's like you are taking away from soldiers their humanity. but you may think i went offtopic, its on point, as "So killing an unarmed person that has no intent to harm you is not worse than killing someone who wants to kill you too?" by that logic would you say that the terrorists murdering charlie hebdo staff was not ok, but when they executed the policeman who posed a threat their action was justified?;x
It comes I guess from gloryfing violence, and selling soldiers as the ultimate brave patriots. all the movies (recent memory: american sniper) selling us that mass murderers headshoting one dirty arab after another are superheroes. So then, after years of that feed you go into gaming fantasy of emulating war with no remorse. howcome war fantasy is OK? and mass murderer fantasy is not? Put on some CoD, do a mission about Iraq, and wonder howcome there are no civilians in this game (over 100k Dead, though i do know that most were not slayed by "the coalition") but please, find the nukes, as clearly you are the good-doer and its perfectly all right and acceptable to have kill/death ratio of 1000/0 vs those subhumans.

I did not take away anyone's humanity. I did not attempt to justify murder. You did. I simply stated that killing an unarmed for no good reason is even worse. This is the issue discussed here in context of the game hatred. Now the idea that killing an unarmed for no good reason is extremely cruel and inglorable can be found in basically all the ancient cultures for good reasons. You can disagree with that concept but its really weird to do so.

I can't see the point of the people support wars argument. Do you know what party a citizen votes for just by looking at them? Are terroristic attacks only aimed to kill those who are on the other side of the political spectrum? The answer is no and this is why your comment disgusted me. In another context maybe it would not so much.

I think you are looking at the wrong side. If someone supports war, it does not necessarily mean that the person does so because it gives them an advantage, they might be manipulated by propaganda and it is not the individual to blame.

Also yes war is always cruel and not glory and honor. However, not every war started with bad intentions.

Every statement in your initial comment was generalizing, oversimplified and out of context. it was embarrassing.

I'm glad we can agree that the trailer is disgusting. Eventho the game concept is not worse than call of duty for you.

if you can support war gaming fantasies and agree to whitewash the war in that manner, I don't see why you are so oposed to a civilian slaughter fantasy. So are war games OK, cause in war fantasies you can kill males? and killing males is fine (as oposed to killing women or children, why can't there be any women in the cyber-armies?). or is it that the AI is armed (although you know that they can shoot you 29 times with their weapon and you will be fine... plastic bats would probably do more dmg to you than the game version of enemy's 'hi-tech weapons', today's games are like cheating on GODMODE excuse to slaughter more 'soldiers' in a more and more spectacular manner) but this seems to be OK. right? see thing is war gaming fantasies tend to show you the part where you get to be on the side of good that doesnt rape civilians, that doesnt kill the innocent. and we know that this is pure BS, when it comes to the countries that invade / fight enemies off their home soil. that this is how you build up your support to wars. by making the world seem white and black. in the war you are the good guy, and you need to destroy the bad guy. so naturally if your state is at war, the oponents are the bad guys... its like programing, and i dont see people oposing this war gaming fantasies, although virtual humans are dying there in mass rates. but ye ye... they are soldiers.
i could now play a game of 'who said it' with 'great hero' and 'outstanding partiot' chris kyle vs true beast and dead on psychopath Anders Breivik. you would have problems of guessing who said it. yet one was a hero and the other is a monster. funny how this ultimate monster (and its hard to find a bigger one) killed only 1/3 of what that hero has on his count. that monster was even more 'brave' in his attempt as the hero simply layed down 200meters away from his targets and eliminated them from safe distance. yet in black and white world. chris kyle, a person who described killing as "fun", and who 'loved killing those savages', and was successfull at it (255kills) (savages being weird looking for his peculiar racist judgement males aged 16-66). ye, that guy is a hero. At the same time his norwegian mirror reflection, who would probably gladly kill some arabs himself, is the worst monster in recent europe;s history. PS: breivik had good intentions ofc as he was ""Europe's most perfect knight since WWII". He was convinced that he was a warrior in a "low intensity civil war" and had been chosen to save his people." PS: Chris Kyle arabian shootout simulator T-rated game will be probably comming soon! judging by how well received at box office that Eastwood movie is, and how patriotic, brave and noble was what he was doing according to quite a lot of people. Innocent people ofc.

i guess one of mine main arguments here boils down to the fact of picturing war as a good vs bad deal is skewing the reality of it, and it's something that is taking place all the time in modern FPS (im all for killing Nazis:D:D). By doing that I beleive that most gamers without thinking justify wars, like the recent one in Iraq (how many games taking place there have been released?, did the 'coalition' find those nukes, was Iraq posing a threat to the us of a, how many civilians died there, does Iraq has oil and is that fact ever mentioned in those games). Yet on a mission in Iraq you are the hero murdering some 'terrorists' in their own country. (the fact that your deeds directly fuel radicals and extremists totally ruining that country is yet again not mentioned). games show you as the good guy, and every other brown person as a killable bad guy.
Biased much?
VS
a game that is honest about itself. that doesnt twist facts. fact is that most humans are selfish assholes, and in this fantasy you get to be a total psycho that kills them all. deed that is illegal (not chris kyle case), deed that is punishable (not chris kyle case) and definately more immoral that what those assholes do to you. But it is a fantasy.

Both games are only fantasies. though one is being honest about itself and the other one is propaganda brainwashing players into believing that war is good as long as you are fighting for the good guys. Both games should have rating M. Yet if you are patriot letting your 8 yo kid kill some arabs in CoD you will be fine, as oposed to letting him play some Hatred. (though to be fair, with the ammount of firearms in usa just laying around its probably reasonable)

PS: Only a fraction of wars are justifiable, with nazi germany being prime example. mr putin slowly moves to that field though Depending on his next moves, who knows, maybe we will meet on the field as our countries will take vengeance on those ruskies.

PPS: so a flaw in my thinking are 'rape fantasies games' genre. I am all against that ;x as sex should be consencual always. killing someone should be banned as well, but somehow it is OK in fps... (as long as you are filled with hate to brown people patriot who loves to kill them)

Video games arent reality. The sooner you realize that the faster youll get better.

Because it is the primary objective to kill as many random people as possible unlike in gta where you CAN do that but it is not the intended way of playing.

Agreed. If it parodied mass murder (which it almost does by being so absurdly juvenile and unsophisticated in motivation but it seems too serious) or had some insightful commentary on the issue, it could have been more than just controversial.

My biggest fear is that It'll make the police state even bigger then it already is. Considering the local pollice already look like military warriors. A stark contrast to even how it was back in the 90s.

Remember what 9-11 allowed to happen?

meh, when I saw the first screenshot I thought it would be a slasher movie style game where you are the villain. That would be cool

and you don't find out who the villain is until the very end after cutscenes and shit a la 'scream'

It's a stupid idea with a horrible context.

I hope the game and any interest in it will die fast, no pun intended. it's just unreflected shock value with nothing else then provocation.

the isometric perspective looks stupid.

Looks fun tbh.

lol@morality war here in this thread

BTW i will play this

I'm with you on that, game looks interesting and it should reduce my stress :)

the first serie of postal was dank, this gonna be a proper postal 2 in my eyes!

Postal 2 >>>>>>> this

Any day.

You can urinate in people's mouths and not even feel morally obligated to stop.

I would never feel morally obligated.