[ARS] Failed Christian shoe promoter makes anti-gay first-person shooter

[MrDynamicMan]

*hops over to the yt video to laugh at the people justifying this game*

Seriously, fuck that guy.

[Guest]

This is the sort of thing which makes me hesitant to visit Ars Technica.

This isn't tech news. This isn't noteworthy gaming news. This isn't even noteworthy political news, everybody knows these people exist.

Why crap up a tech website with articles about it? It's like writing an article about a Westboro Baptist nutjob making one of those 'God hates fags' signs, but this time, a computer was involved which makes it a 'disturbing development in the tech industry'.

Keep to writing about tech on tech websites and put your outrage bait on tumblr/reddit/whereverthefuck.

[Guest Kloaked]

This is the sort of thing which makes me hesitant to visit Ars Technica.

This isn't tech news. This isn't noteworthy gaming news. This isn't even noteworthy political news, everybody knows these people exist.

Why crap up a tech website with articles about it? It's like writing an article about a Westboro Baptist nutjob making one of those 'God hates fags' signs, but this time, a computer was involved which makes it a 'disturbing development in the tech industry'.

Keep to writing about tech on tech websites and put your outrage bait on tumblr/reddit/whereverthefuck.

I hope this thread and other useless posts get removed from this section. There's so much bullshit posted here.

[LAwLz]

I think homo-cide would have been a better title.

[blackadder]

O man, please don't be American... Well please don't be human... Some people's kids.

[Trik'Stari]

I think homo-cide would have been a better title.

HAH.

[Nowak]

Guy gets mad because he failed at his job, so he created a "game" with the sole purpose of offending a demographic.

 

ok

[RH00D]

I think homo-cide would have been a better title.

 

Game-For-People-With-Massive-Insecurities-Cide would have been a more fitting title though.

[RagnarokDel]

how is that not hate speech?

[Castdeath97]

Guy gets mad because he failed at his job, so he created a "game" with the sole purpose of offending a demographic.

 

ok

 

More like, man attempts to get attention and troll by selling shoes that claim to be involved with Jesus but fails, so he takes it to the extreme and succeeds because sadly people are giving him the attention he wanted.

[Kamil]

I hope this was made by an AI that was taught how to behave by only being allowed to read YouTube comments for years. I can't think of a non-terrible alternative.

[Lazmarr]

-snip-

No offence, but this guy is not Christian and doesn't speak for anyone out there...Most Christians, at least the ones I know including myself, are accepting of everyones sexual orientation, whether they are gay, bi, or transgender etc, and their religious/personal beliefs.

Perhaps the guy has a personal vendetta against the Christian community and is a 'Christian' but does so to ruin the religions good name.... Just a thought; if anything though as my old  college friend would jokingly say, "he should be shipped off to Holland with all the Goths and Emo's"

 

[mr moose]

It's interesting to watch peoples responses when things like this hit the news.   Remember when Hatred was pulled from steam and lots of people cried that it should be up to the "mature gamer" and "responsible gamer" to be able to choose what games they played?  I wonder if people think the rules are different for this game?

[RH00D]

It's interesting to watch peoples responses when things like this hit the news.   Remember when Hatred was pulled from steam and lots of people cried that it should be up to the "mature gamer" and "responsible gamer" to be able to choose what games they played?  I wonder if people think the rules are different for this game?

 

The biggest problem is people cling to extremes. People act like you either have to allow everything no matter what or you're disallowing things left and right as to not offend anybody.

 

But it doesn't have to be like that, there is such things as middle grounds and reasonable compromises. But those rarely ever happen because everybody wants to be "the one who is right".

[mr moose]

The biggest problem is people cling to extremes. People act like you either have to allow everything no matter what or you're disallowing things left and right as to not offend anybody.

 

But it doesn't have to be like that, there is such things as middle grounds and reasonable compromises. But those rarely ever happen because everybody wants to be "the one who is right".

 

I really do like it when people respond to my propositions with thought out reason,  not just assume I support something and tell me why I am wrong. Thank you.

[NateGSR117]

Holy cow, burn it with fire so that this maybe purified from the human race.

[WolfDeville]

No offence, but this guy is not Christian and doesn't speak for anyone out there...Most Christians, at least the ones I know including myself, are accepting of everyones sexual orientation, whether they are gay, bi, or transgender etc, and their religious/personal beliefs.

Perhaps the guy has a personal vendetta against the Christian community and is a 'Christian' but does so to ruin the religions good name.... Just a thought; if anything though as my old  college friend would jokingly say, "he should be shipped off to Holland with all the Goths and Emo's"

 

I'm Catholic so don't worry. I don't judge someone's actions based on their religion or whatever

[WolfDeville]

Make a game about killing random people with undefined sexuality in the street (Hatred) and nobody panics.

Are......are you serious?......

[adamdidthis]

What's next, a death camp sim?????

[killers993]

What's next, a death camp sim?????

 

Give it some time. 

[Whiskers]

Make a game about killing random people with undefined sexuality in the street (Hatred) and nobody panics. Make a game about killing gays in the street, everyone loses their minds!

There is a considerable difference between a game in which the goal is to kill 'people' and a game in which the goal is to kill specifically 'gay and transgendered people'.

That said, there is a slight double standard to any outcry that may occur with this game. There are countless others which have existed in which the goal is to kill a specific type of person - nuns, old people, children, women... hell, depending on how far you want to go into it you could argue that games like Call of Duty and Battlefield are racist as the objective of the game is usually to kill those of a different race.

At the end of the day, it's a bad game made by someone who has a lot to learn. It should be forgotten about as it doesn't deserve anyone's attention - true acts of discrimination with a tangible impact on reality should be the priority...

[han_han08]

so much hate..

[mr moose]

There is a considerable difference between a game in which the goal is to kill 'people' and a game in which the goal is to kill specifically 'gay and transgendered people'.

That said, there is a slight double standard to any outcry that may occur with this game. There are countless others which have existed in which the goal is to kill a specific type of person - nuns, old people, children, women... hell, depending on how far you want to go into it you could argue that games like Call of Duty and Battlefield are racist as the objective of the game is usually to kill those of a different race.

At the end of the day, it's a bad game made by someone who has a lot to learn. It should be forgotten about as it doesn't deserve anyone's attention - true acts of discrimination with a tangible impact on reality should be the priority...

 

I agree that there is a considerable difference in the game, both intention and purpose. However the main arguments for why Hatred should be allowed had nothing to do with the content or purpose of the game. They where that people should have the right to play whatever game they want (no censorship), that it is not someones else's right to decide what I am mature enough to play (civil liberty) and that as a responsible adult gamer, why should I be denied the rights to play a game because someone else can't control themselves (being punished for someone else's crime).  The fact that the game is horrible and does nothing good is moot, because if we are to apply the same arguments to this game as we applied to hatred then people have to let it be allowed also.

 

Now anyone who sees the conundrum this raises, (personal perspective on appropriate is just that, personal perspective) will realise that people need to re-evaluate why they think something is inappropriate and apply the same rules to all games.  If we follow this logic to it's final conclusion games would have to be like the mascot in community college (a non identity) without a storyline or target characters,  else the violence contained within the game can be construed as vilification.

[Whiskers]

I agree that there is a considerable difference in the game, both intention and purpose. However the main arguments for why Hatred should be allowed had nothing to do with the content or purpose of the game. They where that people should have the right to play whatever game they want (no censorship), that it is not someones else's right to decide what I am mature enough to play (civil liberty) and that as a responsible adult gamer, why should I be denied the rights to play a game because someone else can't control themselves (being punished for someone else's crime).  The fact that the game is horrible and does nothing good is moot, because if we are to apply the same arguments to this game as we applied to hatred then people have to let it be allowed also.

 

Now anyone who sees the conundrum this raises, (personal perspective on appropriate is just that, personal perspective) will realise that people need to re-evaluate why they think something is inappropriate and apply the same rules to all games.  If we follow this logic to it's final conclusion games would have to be like the mascot in community college (a non identity) without a storyline or target characters,  else the violence contained within the game can be construed as vilification.

Mm. And I entirely agree. Those who wish to play the game should be free to do so - however, Steam is a proprietary gaming ecosystem owned by a private corporation. As such, they have the right to remove any content they wish to from their service if it violates their Terms of Service. Steam are responsible for any and all content they provide access to, and as such will do what they can / must to ensure that they are not distributing content which may be considered discriminatory or offensive as doing so may be harmful to their reputation or even lead to legal issues.

Steam removing the game from their service is not the same thing as Steam dictating that you are not allowed to play the game. I'm sure it will already have been made available from other locations.

[Castdeath97]

Hmm the conversation here is way more mature than are techinca, where I saw one claim that religion is being forced into him because he found a book cover that said it fits a bible...........