Nothing to do with a game but quoting Stalin never helped anyone's case. :P You'd be better off backing up your point with, "It's like Charles Manson said..."

TLDR the game is 50% public controversy, 20% game, 30% hot air, and there is no real reason or explanation for GOG to release it as of now.

Apart from it only being 20% game? My standard for playing games is that they need to be at least 75% game

Sorry, it is probably already explained. But lost in the long thread: why all the controversy about killing people in Hatred and not in the whole line of Call of Duty? It is just flimsy definition of bad guys?

Wild guess, the people in CoD are shooting back? :P

Honestly I don't know and I don't care. You want to play the game the play it, if not, then don't. :D

Well, thanks for the answer. Not really helpful to understand what is going on, though.
I start to get the feeling there is no answer actually; a part of the usual: "It is not american, so it bad".

I'm a reliable source and I give you a 0 out of 10.

That's the thing, it's not necessarily a war story - it's much more than just that. But you have to play it to understand...

...or to be a terrible human being like Jefe here.

I thought that was the point but it seems they put all their energy into destructible environments and marketing budget.

i dunno. i feel like playing final fantasy xii after all these years.
http://squareinsider.com/forums/topic/24859-ff12-too-much-fmv/

Just bought it, I bet is a very bad repetitive and boring game, (Just as Postal 1 and 2 are... or Manhunt) but all the anti-hatred campaign push me to buy it.

I can't stand people confusing real life and issues, with games and/or movies. My two cents for your outrage.

Because killing people in Hatred has no context. In almost every other game where you kill people you have a reason why you do that (survival, rescueing someone, making money and so on). Killing people in Hatred is absolutely pointless. You kill people out of a mood no further explanation and that's in my opinion very cliche what peole think about a rampage. The devolopers said they wanted to make a provocative game but maybe even for that they didn't go far enough. In the forums of Hatred some people demanded that you should be able to kill kids or pregnant women but the developers denied it. Even they have a boarder where they say, we can't do that. And that is the point where their intention of making a political incorrect game fails. It's not provocative enough that people start thinking about what they are doing in this game. Killing people becomes a mechanism and this mechanism isn't fun enough to say: OK but the gameplay is good. There are many other twinstick shooters out there who make it better. Where is your boarder where it becomes disgusting for you? Maybe a children raping simulator where the protagonist is raping children out of his mood and the only gameplay consists of raping children? I don't usually mind playing an evil character in games but in the most games you know what is going on in the mind of the character and the game discusses the theme, which gives it a right of existence. But in Hatred I don't see such a point. So the question is not if you are killing people in a game but why you are killing them. The missing explanation in Hatred can neither be seen serious, nor satirical. What do the developers want to say with this game? Do they find it good making rampages or not?

15 reviews on Metacritic.com so far. Metascore is 47 at the moment. Almost all of the reviews complain about the game being boring and very badly optimised:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/hatred

First impressions on HATRED

" POSTAL 1 REMASTERED" nuff said

We should remember that POSTAL 1 had nothing about sarcastic humor, and texts between levels were only representing a mad and evil guy, that hates the world, listening to voices, pure psychopath. POSTAL 2 bring humor to disguise it's dark origins, something that was good, as made the game definitively funnier than the first chapter, IMHO Postal 1 is one of the most overrated games ever, it was and is a BAD game beyond any polemic.

Beyond morbid topics, the gameplay of HATRED is as POSTAL, repetitive, dull, and boring. Technically looks good, but I played it on my laptop, and for the graphics that portrays is really bad optimized, not even lowering the settings to low get much better framerate. I could say much more, but there is not much more to tell, mechanics are EXACTLY as POSTAL, with better, but similar controls. Killings are not really realistic or morbid, and MANHUNT was much violent on the "executions". Shootings in black & white are far "softer" than Carmageddon massive ran overs, or the colorful burning ragdolls on POSTAL2.

Probably I were never bought it if it were not be because I do not like people with big problems and issues to difference between REALITY vs movies and video games. This was really the main reason that awake my interest on the game, the same way I seen movies like IRREVERSIBLE.

And again the "Scandal" pushed more sales than repulsion, the game is on top charts of STEAM in the first days, selling more than THE WITCHER 3 and GTA V.

So be it (The attached video is not about the game, but about what I think about these polemics.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI-mDTdeKR8

I'm sorry, but that's patented bullshit. Stalin never said it, and the official propaganda (both the positive and the disparaging interpretations) promotes the exact opposite -- that a single individual should be prepared to give their one life to save more lives of others. (Which, incidentally, is an excellent principle, as long is everyone subscribes to it and not just schmucks.)

One apocryphal story goes, when Stalin's son Jacob was captured by the Nazis, Hitler offered to trade him for Generalfeldmarschall Paulus, upon which Stalin allegedly said, "I'm not trading a general for a soldier". This hasn't actually happened (Jacob was killed, not captured), but the story shows what sort of person Stalin was widely considered to have been.