JamXmed wrote:
I understand where you're coming from but if the game doesn't have even the slightest of humor or way to loosen up the mood or even the curtosy of adding a for of reprimand for doing such heinous acts, then it's just a genocide simulator and i can't accept it and whatever it stands for. The saddest thing is that just like Carmageddon, the game can suddenly be acceptable in todays standards by switching the population from innocent bystanders into zombies that have killed your family. Suddenly by doing so the game changes from a hate simulator into a retribution simulator. It's sick but suddenly acceptable.
If you've ever actually played Carmageddon, you'd know that it actually has a very humoristic slant to it, albeit a dark one. Apparently, when it was first submitted to the BBFC, the people who were assigned to rate it actually enjoyed the game a lot in its initial form, but they changed the pedestrians to zombies for the European market just to be cautious. This change was later reversed for most of the European market, however. Of course, the game was still very controversial. I remember watching my dad play it at a local cyber cafe back in the day, and my mom wasn't too thrilled.

He says he refused to play it at first, but he eventually gave it a try.
Like I said above, I'm not going to be buying or playing Hatred, because the developers support hate groups, as far as I can tell. The game's content, while shocking, doesn't strike me as something that should be banned or censored. If it turns out to be like that infamous "Ethnic Cleansing" game where the content itself is racist in nature, then I could argue that there could be a case for banning it on that basis.
Changing the enemies to zombies would definitely cause a lot of the controversy to die down, and the game's content itself would become more socially acceptable... but that wouldn't change the fact that it's being developed by people who I am fairly certain support hate groups. I would still boycott it.