Is a law enforcer a good guy tho? Like that vid of cops sicing a dog on a guy in his home, letting it rip his face and throat, laughing and slamming him onto the floor? Etc, there's been quite a few examples these days.

It's all a matter of perspective.

I'm guessing you havn't seen Cannibal Holocaust then?

nope.... i have seen some gory movies, but to be honest: i dont care about these kinds of movies cause i dont see the fun of it, neither do i in game like it.

law enforcer a good guy?

the default was to be good but nowadays its become a mess.

just visit the yahoo mail home page and see what shit is going on, things gone and done wrong by 'bad' cops
i read articles that lots of cops like to shoot coloured people for fun.

so based on that you could say that the sytem needs an overhaul cause it is dirty right now, but thats up to the government majors and prim minsters and the lot, they should take more time and spend more effort on asigning good cops , instead of just recruiting some guys who like to beat up people for fun.

But even though its a mess, it does not automatically justify anyone to go out and shoot all guys in blue.
Like i said the government messes up bigtime , and they are the ones responsible for law and order, not the common people.

New article (no real new information)

Hatred developer says GOG “refuses to distribute” the game

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/05/hatred-developer-says-gog-refuses-to-distribute-the-game/

LOL, this thread is linked in the article. Watch out Licurg, you'll become an internet celebrity soon! ;)

Hatred doesn't really look like my style of game, for starters I'm not that motivated by isometric shooters personally and generally like a more complex story. I enjoy complex stories because they more closely mirror the complexity of life where things are not even remotely binary nor holding unequivocal intrinsic value divorced from all context.

Systems tend to fail, sooner or later, to whatever degree, and often they fail repeatedly over time. This is why having systems with the minimal amount of invasiveness and maximum level of transparency is important and why things like censorship are deeply toxic.

To quote Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

The game is rated for adults only, saying that things of this nature should be subject to censorship such that even an adult may not purchase or witness them because it 'sends a bad message' is deeply disturbing to me because that is actively making a judgement about what others should and should not be allowed to choose to see, discuss or think. Further such assertions innately create a role wherein someone gets to define for others what they may and may not see/think/do within their own personal time and space. One paradigm does not fit all, nor should it have to, the many cultures of the world are a constant living testament to this, and treating it otherwise is at best a drastic oversimplification.

Lastly the messaging idea is vastly over done, if an adult is not mature enough to make their own decisions about life independently of the books, cinema, television, and games they choose to partake of then they are already subject to other problems which should be addressed in their specific context not require the blanket white washing of global discourse and media.

0.02 Cents

This could well be. I can't say I personally am in a great position to make such an assessment as the game type is somewhat outside of my usual tastes. If it is simply a case of GOG having a set of non-subjective criterion which the game did not meet then there is no reason to look further, much less release it.

I would like to add on this point however that while having such a set of standards it completely legitimate in my view. Such non-subjective and recurrent standards should I believe be a matter of public record.
This would allow members of the community here, as well as future prospective members, to make informed choices (avoiding controversy such as this thread topic) and as GOG has been a great place for Indy games it would also allow their Devs to be better informed at an early stage as to whether their particular game is likely to be a good fit for GOG thus saving both those Devs and GOG time and money in the cases where they wouldn't be a good fit.

This is the bit that actually bothers me somewhat.
I'm not really interested in this particular game, but having a notion of what the approval process consists of and how methodical or subjective the process is, thus leaving a lot to doubt, speculation, and the vagaries of the internet, that's the aspect that I find less than ideal and hope will see some redress in future.

This. This thread is hilarious. GOG have refused heaps of games over the years, some of which I would have liked to buy here but I never got this butthurt.

People are only screaming "Censorship!" because the game is deliberately provocative. Maybe GOG just don't like the game?

but but but :
BEWARE OF WHO WILL

DENYYYY YOU

ACCESS TO

INFORMATIOOOOOOOOOOON

"Hatred will not be available on GOG.com, even though gamers widely expected this to happen, because of GOG’s refusal to distribute the game."

*sigh*, they managed to bully Steam, so now they're trying to do the same to GOG. And people actually take their side. This is sad.

Well at least Steam got their sith back together, Steam has a lot of flaws but at least they hold their ground and don't moral police.

No, Steam did not "get their shit back together," Steam got bullied into selling a product they did not wish to sell in the first place. To be moral police, both Steam and GOG would have to be actively telling you "You should not play this game" - neither of the two were doing anything of the sort. Stop pretending as if Steam and GOG were the only ways of online distribution in existence, neither would prevent you from just getting the game from dev or any other distributor, and neither were passing any moral judgement on the game.

No, normally you can download an installer or a zip file from the game's store page (when you own the game). It's not the best organised system, but in most cases you don't need the client.

That's the developer's own DRM. What makes you think it's Desura's own DRM?

So games should not be done from the bad guys' perspective? That is ridiculous.

What next, banning books like American Psycho since it's done from a psychopath's perspective and he "wins" in the end?

Or maybe it's ok in literature but games it's bad?

Well?