Hatred: Devastation has been a source of controversy for quite some time now. The game about a man hellbent on slaughtering innocent civilians in the most brutal and gory ways possible because of his intense hatred of happy humans has even obtained the elusive AO rating from the ESRB. It’s a nightmarish simulator for violent, psychopathic mass murderers.
Unsurprisingly, there are many people who are opposed to Hatred and its hyper-violent content. We’ve seen similar controversy in the past with other violent video games, the most obvious of which is perhaps the Grand Theft Auto series. Yet somehow, Hatred seems to have gone a step further.
In the Grand Theft Auto series, harming civilians is typically an option. Yes, there are definitely Grand Theft Auto missions where hurting civilians ends up being a part of the main objective. But even in these missions, the civilians are always collateral damage to some unrealistically grandiose master plan of a heist or some other illegal money-making operation. In Grand Theft Auto, the violence is there and many people choose to take advantage of that option, but it takes more of a background role in terms of plot.
In Hatred, the focus is on, well, hatred. The whole point is to kill people essentially because they are there living and enjoying their lives, and thus deserve to die in the eyes of the uber exaggerated, emo cliche of a main character.
Let’s break down the latest trailer:
In the first few lines of the video, we hear the main character saying this, “Human scum, they’ve always felt so fucking safe inside their homes. Surrounded by the possessions gathered their whole lives. So weak. So fragile. They don’t deserve a natural death. Unconsciously waiting to be obliterated by my hatred.”
Hmm, what type of people do we know that feel safe inside their homes surrounded by their possessions? Oh wait, duh, pretty much everyone, and especially gamers. While some people may be incredibly active and use their homes primarily as a sleeping hut safe from predators with the added benefit of protection from the elements, most gamers see their homes as safe havens. How does he feel about these individuals, people no different than gamers? He thinks they are weak, fragile, and don’t deserve a natural death.
That’s an interesting twist- a video game character who hates the people playing and hopes that they can hate along with him. It’s straightforward enough; the developers hide nothing in the trailer. As we watch, we see the main character destroy citizens and residential areas with tanks, flamethrowers, shotguns, machine guns, and more. He finishes out with this line, “Those parasites think their walls can save them. But I will destroy everything they own and everything they are.”
Hatred and its latest trailer begs the question: Should this really be a game? For many people, the first answer that comes to mind is an immediate “No!” based on the title’s concept and violent content. For many other people, the first answer that comes to mind is an immediate “Yes!” based on freedoms of speech and expression. Both of those perspectives are understandable, yet they are only the first steps of evaluating Hatred‘s future. What’s important to consider isn’t just whether Hatred is right or wrong in principle, but whether it is right or wrong in terms of effect. If we look to research over the years, though, we’re left with even more division.
One side argues that playing violence-driven games has no dire psychological effect on the player. A review from Christopher J. Ferguson, a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, collects multiple studies and data that refute any worries:
“Increasingly, research from various labs is making it clear that the influence of video games on youth aggression is minimal… Long-term outcome studies from Germany have similarly not found any relationship. Other research finds that the release of violent games is associated with immediate declines in violent crime, not increases. This is not to say that no studies find any evidence for effects, but these tend to be very small. For instance, one study from Canada found that playing violent video games was associated with about a half a percent increase in later youth aggression.” (LSE)
In attempting to prove that video games are not harmful, Ferguson looks at the issue through multiple lenses. Another way to analyze the effects of video game violence is to focus upon bullying and delinquent behavior in minors:
Violent video game exposure was not found to be predictive of delinquency or bullying, nor was level of parental involvement. These results question the commonly held belief that violent video games are related to youth delinquency and bullying. (SAGE)
Some studies go as far as to suggest gaming violence can act as therapeutic catharsis and reduce aggression (MSU).
The other side argues that playing violence-driven video games absolutely makes players more aggressive. Could playing this game only ignite a person’s negativity, or perhaps better said, hatred? Believe it or not, in an almost complete contradiction to Ferguson, there is research to suggest exactly that:
Computer players often deny that playing violent video games makes them aggressive, which is in contrast to the findings of a recent comprehensive meta-analysis. The present research examines whether comparison processes between the players’ intense acts of violence in a video game and their comparatively harmless aggressive behavior in daily life not only account for this apparent discrepancy but also underlie the effect of playing violent video games on aggressive behavior. In fact, two experiments reveal that playing a violent video game leads to a bias in the perception of what counts as aggressive, which in turn evokes aggressive behavior. (ScienceDirect)
There have been various studies over the years on the relation between violence and video games, but we are not yet left with one definitive answer.
Were the data more conclusive, and violent video games confidently showed to provide a cathartic, psychologically safe outlet to begin therapeutic aid in those struggling with true hatred and negativity, then perhaps Hatred could find more support in this debate. The data would have to explore the range of effective violence, and whether this result could be anywhere near possible for a game as poignant as Hatred.
On the other hand, if this type of game truly fuels the acts of violence we see in the news so frequently these days, then the community and distributors like Steam might have to seriously weigh the social repercussions of games like Hatred against their valued freedom of speech.
Until psychologists and scientists can agree on definitive research, however, we’ll have to be wary of psychological and moral claims alike. Let’s hope for the best. And in the meantime, share your opinion on Hatred in the comments.
About the author
