Good enough analysis. Now, I'm not saying you are right, or wrong, about their motivations and ideologies. Facts are facts, their interpretation can vary.

Next point being. The game does not exist yet, you already object to its content, partly because of the creators political beliefs. Let's explore that intolerance.

Question 1 - death of the author is something you guys usually are 100% behind, intent not mattering, etc... why is this different?

Question 2 - assuming you are sufficiently humble to admit it, your political beliefs are not inherently correct. For someone who has rational arguments that your beliefs are wrong, is it ok to dismiss whatever you post a priori?

I was talking to someone close to the developers. They have some interesting stuff planned for hatred. :)

However - from what I heard vaguely you can expect a pretty good game.

Regardless of a developers beliefs - I think that people should be able to create freely. Vote with your wallets.

Do not let others suffer because of your actions.

That's fine, I know when I am beaten. It is, after all, a very big lizard.

Anyway, I am expecting you to speak up against gOg's hostile actions against all the innocents now:

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_rejects_agdihimalayas_mages_initiation
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_rejected_thomas_was_alone
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/winter_wolves_games_on_gog/page1
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_rejects_machines_at_war_3/page1

If you run out of battles, let me know and I can find you more, there are plenty.

GOG will carry the game if it's technically sound. They already have violent games on here, why would they stop at this one?

I must say I find it interesting how the developers managed to make the hype for this game now. The more people talk about hating it or liking it the more people will talk about it and buy it. But since the release is in Q2 2015 they might have created the hype a bit too soon.

Anyway I don't doubt that this game will come here. Its practically made for gogs catalog.

No kidding, I was ready to play it this week.

By that logic, would you say the works of HP Lovecraft and Rouald Dahl are inherently terrible, due to the beliefs of the authors?

Not, it isn't, because i'm not IMPOSING my view down everyone's throats like you are doing. When you defend a ban, what you are defending is "in my opinion this game is offensive therefore no one should be able to play it". What i'm defending is: if you find the game offensive, don't fucking play it, no one is forcing you to do so. If you don't, then play it if you want.

I'm defending people being free to decide what they should or shouldn't play, you are defending restricting people's freedom and you think i'm being more radical? I'm defending the right of being able to choose what you want to play or not, you are defending taking away that right. You don't have to be a genious to realize which "opinion" is more radical.

But there isn't a good reason. Just the fact that we have this thread with so many people who agree with having the game here already proves that.

My point is that the "context" difference is too subtle and it makes me wonder where the the line is between what's acceptable and what isn't. Having optional missions in which you can play as psychopath murdering everyone is ok, having a game (that is also optional since you don't have to buy it) about a psychopath murdering everyone is not. The lack of rationality in that argument blows my mind. You are just appealing to emotion at this point, it's impossible for you to rationally defend your position.

What's the maximum level of offensive content a game can have then? Care to explain? And how do you define "offensive"? By your personal beliefs? Or do you have something more precise?

Of course the first Postal is not as realistic, it was released in 1997, the characters were primitive polygon models. It couldn't have been more "realistic" than that at the time.

For fuck's sake, stop pulling a strawman all the time. I'm not saying anything about violence making games more mature or being the direction the industry should focus on. All i'm saying is that if developers want to make a violent game, they have much more freedom now than 20 years ago. And that's a good thing, because developers are free to explore and make the game they want to make. If they want to make a game without any blood, that's fine, if they want to make a violent game, that's also fine. What i'm defending here is freedom. Let developers and publishers "draw their lines".

Could you be more precise? Where is the line?

That's very imprecise.

Why not? They have killable children, which is "beyond" the line of what's acceptable and what isn't according to you. Double standards much? Fun fact: Hatred does not have killable children or animals (the devs said in their FAQ).

No, that's not. If what you are saying here is true, then no minority would ever have any rights. You are aware that nazism also had "the majority of interested parties" supporting it in Germany, right?

By the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

And i'm not even sure we are talking about the "majority" here. We have more votes for Hatred on the wishlist than against it.

Nice try distorting my arguments, but that's not how it works. In case you didn't notice, there's a huge difference between defending the choice of having access to that "offensive" content and outright banning it, making it impossible for anyone to access said content. Can you see the difference between our arguments? I'm defending that people should be able to choose, you are defending that people should not be able to choose because [u]you think it's innapropriate.

No one is forcing you to find the game acceptable, what i'm saying here is that it's not right to impose your opinion down everyone's throats. Let each person decide what they want to play or not. If you find it disgusting, fine, it's your opinion, but don't try to restrict other people's right just because of your opinion. People who find that game acceptable should be allowed to play it. Take your censorship elsewhere.

One position grants people freedom, the other tries to limit freedom for no reason. If you have at least half a brain it's not very hard to see which one is more radical.

Well, if you agree with Jack Thompson then i have nothing else to say on the matter. You're clearly one of those selfish intolerant people who want to oppose and censor anything that goes against their personal belief. No amount of rational arguments can change this kind of people.

Well, good luck with your witch hunting crusade. I'm done here, we have nothing else to discuss.

If we took nutty writers out of the equation, and no one crazy was ever allowed to write, then there wouldn't have to be a book burning festival... or at least it would be a very small fire.

Anyone care to start a list of offensively cruel, drunk, neurotic, politically charged, perverted, sexist, racist, depressed, manic, borderline psychotic writers? I just thought of about 40 right off the bat... said screw the list. They were all nuts. And brilliant.

Do you really judge a game based on the political beliefs of its developers? If i followed your ideology i would probably be left with no games to play.

Yummlick, I have a personal dislike for any game that promotes murder. As you said in your poll you made here on GOG, you said in the comments that, "I don't want to make fun out of a theme of mass murders."

I couldn't agree more. But see, I don't like murder period whether it's mass murder or regular. So all those games that have murder in them....fork em over bud. That's right, because I have a personal dislike for something that harms NOBODY, you sir, have to hand over your games.

I'll even go further. Just like the games that have violence but hurts nobody....you can have violent thoughts that hurt nobody. I think it should not be allowed that you have those thoughts. You are now forbidden from having any thoughts that might be considered violent in nature. Hell even thoughts with "dirty words". I know they are just words but I have a personal dislike for them.

So to sum this up....I agree with you completely....

I said I give up. That means, fuck off. That means stop replying. You didn't win, you are just impossible. And FYI, if GOG is hostile to a dev and publisher, then they probably have a good reason to be. I never said all devs and publishers are innocent, you fucking moron. You'd know that if you didn't have the reading comprehension ability of a retarded Orangutan. Because I made that clear in a previous post and even if I didn't, you'd have to be retarded to jump to such a conclusion.

*Yawn* OK, you don't have to specify this any further, I completely understand your worldview and I completely disagree with it. You're fine with people creating, distributing and using any kind of content they find fun and appropriate - as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, I assume. "Hatred with killable children and/or 'rapeable' victims" - fine, let the people decide whether they want to play it or not. "Death camp sim" - fine, let the people decide. "Rapelay" - fine, let the people decide.
Sounds "awesome", but it's irresponsible, especialy in case of video games, where age restrictions means nothing (oh, "age restrictions"... We could discuss them next!;)). You're promoting complete freedom in the world full of all kinds of deviations (desensitization is one, too) and people - some of the, of course - that are immature, easily manipulated or outright stupid.
In my opinion establishing some healthy boundaries seem to be a bit better course of action in these circumstances. We're historicaly biased these days, however - censorship is being immediately associated with totalitarianism and sad people in grey suits telling you what to think and what to say. Because of this bias we're prone for falling into the other extreme - the one you're presenting.
It proves that some people are "fine" with this kind of content. What it doesn't prove is the content itself being "fine". But it's again the matter of different worldviews, as described in my previous paragraph.
Mate, I list all kinds of factual differences between these games and you're clinging to the context only. It's like saying that killing goombas in Mario is the same as killing cops in GTA - in both cases they stand in your way to the objective. Context is a lot but not all that there is to it. Hatred with purple cube shooting golden stars at blue spheres wouldn't cause such an outrage as it does in current, very realistic, form. One can't deny this.
Game can have as offensive content as people among the interested parties are willing to stomach. Manhunt was too much for German governement (one would say that a government represents it's people, you'd probably say that it's some kind of tyranny), so the game is banned there. If Hatred is offensive enough to be banned anywhere only time will tell.
Here's a link for you: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/offensive
When enough people feel offended by some content and they're able to succesfuly struggle to "impose" their worldview onto the others, then the laws are being established. So most of the time the thing is offensive when majority of the interested parties feels that it is.
"The only reason why we still have games like GTA and Manhunt is that there were people fighting for freedom of expression against censorship defenders like you." <- GTA and Manhunt, the true milestones of game design. And I'm not even saying that they're bad, but you're talking about them as if they were something the industry couldn't live without.

"We only have violent games like GTA nowadays because the developers and the publisher of the first GTA dared to release it despite the outcry of the public in general. This is why i think Hatred is an important game. We need to push the boundaries, we need to change the perception that games are toys for children. We need more mature games to change that. <- Oh, well...

"Just look at Mortal Kombat and Night Trap, for example, which were the games that lead to the creation of the ESRB. Both are extremely tame by today's standards, especially Night Trap, which was never that violent to begin with. We would never have so many mature games like we have today if someone hadn't taken the risk." <- What were you saying about that "strawman", again?

So, I'm all for pushing the boundaries of the medium by game developers to make games better and more mature. But increasing the levels of violence is counterproductive to this goal.
How else does one define the position of a line if not by pointing out the two extremes on both sides of it? What kind of answer would satisfy you? Because I'm starting to suspect that none.
Yeah, so? I'm just a guy on GOG forums. Not some world famous specialist in the field of ethics or philosophy.
Why not? I dunno. Maybe because they were able to censor the game to get rid of the problem?
And it's indeed a fun fact. I'm wondering why Hatred won't have killable children? According to the developers it's "just a game" and "pixel people". And no animals? What's up with that? Developers surely have drawn this line themselves, because they're members of the PETA.
Double standards much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
And I'm not saying that I'm sure we're in the majority here. But GOG users is just one of interested parties here, of that I am sure.

Yeah, yeah, different worldviews and all that jazz.
Well, thank you for the conversation, then. Best wishes.

What a peculiar use of innocence/guilt here. Let's see - a dev team that quite literally aims to make money by
spreading hatred is somehow "innocent" but a dev team behind Thomas Was Alone is somehow "guilty". How does that work again?

Also, if GOG ultimately rejects Hatred citing its toxic content as out-of-line with the site standards, will you accept it as a "good reason" for them to be this "hostile"?