Okay, so here's the difference in my eyes:

Wolfenstein pits you against nazis.
Doom pits you against hellspawn.
Blood pits you against cultists.
Postal is just absurdist.

In all of these former games, I can see the humor.

In Hatred, I really can't.

But I hate censorship more than I dislike Hatred or any other game, so before anyone else gets offended and starts worrying about having their games taken away from them, bear in mind I'd be the last person to argue in favor of that.

For me it makes a huge difference how all the violence is presented.

Some years ago I was given a Wii game: Onechanbara
Bikini Zombie Slayers... blood fountains... rotten body parts... pretty violent in fact - but: this game was totally through the roof. Everything was so overdone, that it simply can't be taken serious - and you'll simply laugh when some fat Zomb explodes and covers your whole viewport with red blood.
The game itself was mediocre, but it was fun to play - because the violence happening on screen was not realistic.

High realism and special focus on sadism and torture, that's simply no fun, nothing I want to play. That's just disgusting.

For it pretty clear, developers of this 'game', used some kind of black marketing strategy, to make people talk about the game, angry review, people complaining that it's too violent and so on, simply and dirty PR move, that's cause they don't have anything else to offer. And as always, the main target is PROFIT. This 'game' can't really offer anything, and it's pretty obvious that they try to make PROFIT by making this 'game' as violent (scandalous) as possible, cause they will always find those people who will buy it, just to give it a try, after they see so many discussions about it. Pure PROFIT. But I think most of the people who will play this (aside from those who'll buy it just to fed their curiosity), are kids who'll get it illegally and some sick people, who will really enjoy it, and that's the thing that I don't really like.

Edit: about other violent games and high level of gore in them, I guess it's obvious too! You play any type of game, kill enemies in them and move on in order to succeed, to finish the game, to pull the lever at the end of the game (WOLF3D?), to move on with the storyline etc. But why do you kill innocent people in the game? For FUN?? Really? This game is just made to pull money from your pockets. It can't offer really anything to play.

Absolutely agree!

Somehow I doubt the rabbit hole really runs that deep, I just think the game itself is pretty tasteless.

I mean yeah, shock value sells, but that's kind of obvious anyway. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that either.

I don't like it, but I guess I'm saying there's a limit to how outraged I can get over one stupid game.

I don't even really have a problem with the game being tasteless or baselessly gory. It's just a bad game. It doesn't have any redeeming value beyond "kill people" and it being a admittedly very pretty gorefest.

That is the core problem with the game, it is just about baselessly killing people. But Michael, games like Quake and UT are about just killing people I hear you say. Well, yes, but they are much more than that. They are about tactical gameplay, teamwork (when playing in a team), planning, knowing your enemy and while - yes - you can play the game to just simply kill people, when doing that you are not playing it to it's full potential.

Being a game where you kill innocent people - while being tasteless - just has no deeper meaning, no value, no impact beyond the initial shock. Ultimately the game falls flat for repetitive gameplay, the initial shock will subside and give way to the obvious faults and lackluster game mechanics (because let's be honest, anyone who makes a game like this isn't very likely to care very much about having intricate game mechanics - but who knows, maybe they'll surprise me).

Should it be censored? Absolutely not, I completely agree on that. We live in a world of free speech and if you want to make a game about mass murder then by all means, you are free to do so; but it also means having to deal with the consequences. Free speech does not protect you from public outcry since it goes both ways.

Should this game have been made? Personally, I don't think so, but it doesn't have anything to do with the game's "message". Just look at the Steam front page and scroll through the endless lists of crappy indie games that have been pouring in from Greenlight. We have enough games that have only one core mechanic, that do not offer more than the initial premise and end up boring. We need more games that are fun from beginning to end, that you can sit down to play and finish and stand up with a feeling of "I had a blast!" instead of "Well, I guess that was a thing".

But I might be talking out of my ass, besides the controversy and some crappy "gameplay" trailers there isn't much to see about the game yet. I mean who knows, maybe there is going to be an interesting story about the main character, the epic tale of a hero on a quest. Maybe the game mechanics are going to end up keeping the players interested in playing beyond the first two hours and then quitting because the game is just plain boring... but again... DO you really think it is going to be? Because I don't think so...

""Beim Töten in Videospielen gibt es meines Erachtens keine Alternative. Entweder Du nimmst eine Knarre in die Hand oder eben nicht. Ohne Ausrede, ohne Alternative. Entweder ja oder nein.""

Bei allem Respekt, aber das ist einseitiges, dualistisches Geplapper und lässt
alle Graustufen eines Konfliktes aussen vor.
Es ist ein gewaltiger Unterschied, ob ich in einem Kampf mit auf beiden Seiten
ungefähr gleichen Mitteln der Möglichkeit meines möglichen eigenen (virtuellen)
Ablebends entgegentrete oder ich hilfloses, verängstigtes Leben sinnlos
auslösche.
Noch einen weiteren Unterschied macht es, ob ich in dem Kampf der Aggressor bin,
der auf bewaffneten Widerstand trifft, der vermieden werden kann um trotzdem
ein gesetztes Ziel zu erreichen, oder ich verteidigend einem Aggressor
ausgesetzt bin, der auch dann angreift, wenn ich den Konflikt vermeiden will.

""Warum spiele ich Spiele, die insbesondere von den amerikanischen Behörden als "gut" eingestuft werden? Z.B. Cod oder BF. Da wird einfach dem Töten eine Rechtfertigung beigezimmert. Es wird gesagt - da sind die Bösen - also darfst du darauf schießen. Und letztendlich ist es dann jedem egal, der ballern will. Er schießt und tötet virtuell. Ich erinnere an die verlogene Begründung der Amis, die den ersten Irak-Krieg rechtfertigte. ""

Dieses ausgelutschte Argument schon wieder. Call of Duty und Battlefield und
jeden anderen in der Realität verankerten Militärshooter spiele ich nicht,
eben weil ich unreflektiert in einem fremden Land auf fremde Menschen schiesse,
die zwar bewaffnet sind, aber wer würde im Zweifelsfall nicht seine eigene
Heimat Verteidigen. Wer sagt, dass alle Gegner Terroristen sind.
Modern Warfare 1 war der einzige von mir gespielte Teil und machte mir sehr
schnell die Probleme der Reihe klar, und mir, dass ich diese platten
Propagandashooter auf Schienen nicht mag. Bin auch kein Fan von GTA.
Insofern ist dein Argument absolut richtig, rechtfertigt aber mit keiner Logik
Hatred.

Zudem ist deinerseits immer von "abschlachten" die Rede.
Ich glaube nicht, dass die meisten Shooterfans, ob Realsetting oder
Fantasy\Sci-Fi, das so empfinden. Es ist ein Unterschied, ob ich den Angreifer
besiege und seinen Tod als Ausgang in Kauf nehme um den Konflikt zu beenden und
gegebenfalls XYZ zu beschützen\retten, oder ob ich alle Gore-Effekte bei
Soldier of Fortune an den getöteten Gegnern mit diversen Waffen ausnutze, die
die Ghul-Engine zu bieten hat. Letzters dürfte Abschlachten definieren.

Mir ist bewusst, dass Hatred nichts neues ist, ich denke, da war Chiller als
erstes Game dieser Sorte da. Etwas Falsches wird aber nicht in Ordnung,
nur weil es davor zig mal das gleiche Falsche gegeben hat.
Hatred ist verachtungswürdige, kranke Scheisse und jeder, der das spielt und
etwas anderes als Abscheu empfindet ist für mich potentiell gefährlich.

Sorry Alpha Strike, but I don't believe you that you are in any way surprised that this game is getting people riled up. You of all people should be the most aware that that the is the goal behind the game.

Like Redeemer said, this game is so edgy in trying to make up some controversy, the creators must look more cut up than a 14 year old girl that just learned that One Direction split up.

Are people allowed to do whatever game they want? Fo sure. Are people allowed to judge what other people put out publicly? Absolutely!
I don't think my two cents really matter too much, I feel like everything has been said already and I don't think this is a good place to kick off a philosophical debate about what games are and what not. But come on, no should be surprised that this game generates negative response.

Depth of gameplay is an issue that all games deal with and I agree this one doesn't look very promising. As you mentioned in this day and age there tend to be a lot of offenders in that regard though which is why it's harder to get upset about this one in particular.

My biggest problem with games like this one is that their design almost REQUIRES meta gaming to work properly, and yet they never seem to do it right. So not only is the game plodding and boring, but you can't challenge yourself to complete it in record speeds or pull off genuinely impressive stunts. It's just completely soulless.