My Interview with Hatred's Creative Director Jarosław Zieliński

"My genocide crusade begins... here."

A shocking line, and the final one spoken in the trailer for Hatred, the first game to be released from Destructive Creations, a Polish game studio. When the trailer initially dropped in October, it brought with it the expected political backlash for a game with a controversial topic. But, as I would find out, even the creative director, the outspoken Jarosław Zieliński, was surprised by just how far it all went.

If you aren't aware of the game at this point (likely a result of just waking up from a coma, or just now discovering there is a thing called the Internet), a brief summary: You assume the role of an unnamed man, bent on one thing: Killing as many people as possible before he himself is killed. The trailer itself can be disturbing to watch, especially if you fear the rash of mass shootings that have plague the world of late.

I will admit, my first viewing of the trailer shocked me. But then I watched it back, and found myself intrigued. Much like earlier shock titles such as Postal and Manhunt, the story is what shocked, not the gameplay. The more I watched it back, the more I wanted to know about the creative team behind the game.

I was obviously not alone. Stories were already swirling, including a rumour that the game was being made by Neo Nazi sympathizers. I knew, even at first glance, there wasn't much truth to that. Then came the request from Epic Games to remove logos from the trailer for the Unreal Engine. It should be noted that inclusion of these logos is actually a stipulation of the licensing agreement. If that wasn't enough, there was a petition started online demanding the game never be released, and that the developers needed to issue an apology.

After seeing all of this, I put my comments out on display, but I honestly was burning with curiosity. I was concerned that, given the state of games media, the company might not get a fair voice that tried to understand the why of this game.

So I reached out to the team behind the game, hoping they would answer a few questions for some small-time random gaming blogger. They were kind enough to not only respond, but provide me with some insight behind the game. While there are plenty of interviews out there (most likely better than mine),  I still would like to provide mine as just more insight into the irreverent minds behind Hatred.

[Note: Removed from this interview was a question regarding claims of Neo Nazi affiliation. This was proven to be false, and a full statement from the team can be seen on their official website. Due to the delay, this statement was released after the questions were sent. Jaroslaw did answer by referring me to the site.]

The game's trailer starts with a strong topic: Mass shootings. Did you have concerns about how this product would be viewed?

[Jarosław Zieliński, Creative Director] - Well, as the game about mass-shooter? It was obvious that people's reaction will be pretty polarized and it didn't concern us, really. It was part of the plan, but we didn't expect such a scale of all this.

When you were working on the project, what was your desire for the player to take away from the experience?

[J. Z.] Evil grin on his face. :) 

Have you ever played Spec Ops: The Line, and if you did, do you feel that's what influenced you to make this game?

[J. Z.] Postal influenced Hatred. Spec Ops bored me after 20 minutes, but I wouldn't say it's a bad game. It's just me.

Like 6 Days in Fallujah, this game might have issues being released. Are you self-releasing this title?

[J. Z.] Digitally - yes. We're talking about retail release with some publishers. Yes, some of them are interested, because controversial or not - it's still business.

I can imagine that victims who survived attacks similar to the one shown will have a strong reaction to this product. Do you have any comments for those who have been impacted by mass shootings?

[J. Z.] I've seen only one so far. Negative, of course. I'm really sorry for those people's experience, but we're not referring to any real-life mass-shooting in our game. All events here are fictional.

One item that crossed my mind while watching the gameplay footage is that numerous acts depicted in your game are very similar to acts found in the Grand Theft Auto, Saint's Row, and Assassin's Creed series. In those you do very similar acts, such as assassinations, random acts of violence, and such. When creating this game, did you consider how similar those elements were, and how the narrative changes their context?

[J. Z.] Yes, it changes the whole thing and we were aware of it. And what is hypocritical about all those complainers is that for them killing people for money in GTA is okay, while killing because of being mentally-ill isn't. It's fun to watch all those pissed off morality-warriors. :)

Thanks for the interview!

---

I would like to thank Jaroslaw for the interview, and I await the release of Hatred, and the future projects of Destructive Creations with great interest.

Hatred is slated to be released in Q2 of 2015.

From the "Patriarchy" with Love

I am the oppressor, you say.

I am that which stops your progress, impedes your way.

But in truth that is just a game you play.

You need a villain, a foe to slay.

But there are no more demons, no more dragons today.

Instead we are in a world of concrete and steel,

Where we question what we feel

Instead of accepting it as real.

Every emotion needs a name

And a target for whom to blame

But that is a victim's game

Though I'm sure you won't say the same

You scream that we are evil, vile,

That what we love is puerile.

Yet, stay and listen a while.

For what you think you see,

That is not reality.

That is what you wish it to be.

You need us to be the enemy

Because, without us, there's nothing for you to be.

You are not here for creativity

You want control, that's plain to see.

You want decision by committee

"Don't think of you, think of me.

What you do is offensive, don't you see

It harms my rights, my sensitivity!"

You say that, because I am a man, I am stained with sin

That I want to rape and do women in.

But you know what, that sounds close to religion.

A gospel of hate and forced contrition.

But in this church, there's not a preacher

Instead, a lecturer, a teacher

A pseudo-academic in a magazine feature.

All proclaiming us as some twisted creature.

But gamers don't want to play along

No, we hear the tune to this song

The sound of it just plain wrong

Not to mention linking your Patreon.

That's what it is about, at the end.

Money enough for you to spend

Fame for your name, and to your wills we bend

Except you chose wrong this time, friend.

You see, gamers, we play to win

And we are not covered in sin.

We take your ideology, and toss it in the bin

And that's because we are diverse,

Accepting, welcoming, no matter how you curse

We will not change, we will not disperse

Now here's your coat, and your purse.

Go back to harassing some other industry,

Because, right here, it's coming along nicely.

I see many more signs of diversity

Than I do in all your misandry.

And if I do represent your "Patriachy",

Then I say this with love, to you from me.

You're no longer oppressed, I set you free.

Custer's Last Stand? Let's hope so.

September, 1982. A game is released for the Atari 2600. A game so racist that it was taken down from store shelves. It's still catalogued as one of the many curiosities of modern culture, much like the very heavily racial overtones of old cartoons and what not.

It exists to remind us that we did something horribly wrong, and shouldn't do it again.

To my shock and surprise, this game has suddenly gotten a new burst of life and press. Why? Because someone on the Internet got offended, and just had to tell the world in a splashy news story. I guess hating on gaming culture is how one makes it these days.

Enter into our tale the game in question, Custer's Revenge.

Yes, this ancient relic of shocking racism was a thing back in the day. And it was rightly called out and decried for it. So why is there a news story in 2014 about it? Because self-professed indie game developer  Elizabeth LaPensée stumbled across a new version of the game.

Now, you're wondering what company would dare do a remake of this game? Who would be stupid enough to fund this? Is it some KKK group? Neo-Nazis? What sick company is going to put this out for sale?

Well, none. You see,  LaPensée found this game in the dregs of the Internet. It was remade as a flash game by Mysticca Games. Never heard of them? Me either, and that's because they aren't a game company. It's just a hobbyist who remade it in Flash, and posted it to the Internet. In 2008.

No, I'm serious. An unknown "studio" posts a free Flash remake of Custer's Revenge 6 years ago, and here we are in 2014 talking about it.

Now, I am not going to defend this game. And neither would anyone else. The reason it's not a thing is that people didn't ask for nor want it. It's one of the many oddities you will find floating about the Internet, like NEDM, the Pain Olympics, and the like. I highly recommend not searching any of those terms if you have a tender stomach.

That's the wonder of the Internet. People can make a thing they want, put it out there for everyone to see, and then people will react as they will. In this case, the only references left to the game is a broken forum archive where you can download it. It isn't promoted, and while there are a few videos of people playing it more for the "What the Hell Is This" value of it, no one really supports the game.

But LaPensée would like you to think it's a bigger deal than it is.

She is outraged such a thing exists. How dare it exist! I mean, forget that no one was really playing it. The handful of YouTube videos she likely found are like the remaining ones I saw. They are made by small channels trying for a laugh at the expense of the ridiculousness of this game even existing.

Now, you might ask yourself, then, why was this even a story? Because #GamerGate. You see, normally this kind of story, with proper research, would have shown that this was not a major issue. It would have never been written about. Perhaps contacting the hosting site would get the file removed once and for all, and that would have been that.

But due to the massive outcry currently in gaming, this developer managed to land a news story on a national news network. It gave her some exposure, which I hope she is happy for. But in the end, it's ultimately a tempest in a teapot. A 6 year old remake of a 32 year old game has been given more free publicity than the spamming attempts by its creator when it was made. And really, that's the greatest crime here.

RE: Gaming's "Greatest Adversary"

The following is a repost of my comments on the article from Bloomsberg Businessweek. As I have serious doubts that the post will remain due to it exposing the highly inaccurate nature of the article, I am reposting it here as a refutation of that article. The original article is linked below:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-26/anita-sarkeesian-battles-sexism-in-games-gamergate-harassment?hootPostID=e61f286d3f9fe1869809de3bda829add

And now the response:

Wow, I stopped reading at "each episode takes hundreds of hours of gameplay which she does herself or with McIntosh."

It's already been proven that she lifted the bulk of her footage off other people's YouTube channels. She didn't play any of those games, and outright misrepresents many.

http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html

And she says she played first person shooters and could find women's butts to stare at? Really? Do I need to break out my CoD discs and show you how stupid that is? I stared at several hours of men's fronts and back sides. Don't remember even seeing a female butt. What games did she play in those hours of research? Likely not many, if she played at all. Because, by her own admission, she hates violent games. Here, in her own words!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734

This article is terribly researched. Both of those took me exactly 30 seconds each to google. In 60 seconds of research I've torn a hole in your narrative.

And that person who comes back with each new video? We in #GamerGate found him. He's also the likely source of Anita's USU death threat.

http://kotaku.com/the-anita-sarkeesian-hater-that-everyone-hates-1658494441

And that's from a site that is ANTI-GAMERGATE! We know who her harasser is. We wanted her to press charges. She didn't and hasn't. Ask yourself why. Why is it that we, in #GamerGate, are trying to bring this man to justice, and she is not involving herself.

Tack on 30 more seconds of research there. 90 seconds of Google searches.

And where is the fact that #GamerGate has an active anti-harassment group going after those same threats you talk about. You see, instead of laying back and lamenting attacks, we're trying to do something about them. Instead of writing an article online to get ad revenue, we're out there finding, reporting, and removing these elements. Your subject won't even press charges against a known harasser!

Also, do you realize how sexist your article is? Let me grab a couple quotes quickly:

"Petite and fair, with long, shiny hair the color of merlot, chunky boots, and nails painted gold,"

Why are you objectifying her based on her appearance? It shouldn't matter if she showed up with her hair in a pony tail wearing decades old sneakers, no makeup or nail polish. And who cares about her weight? You've reduced her to a label in saying:

"Sarkeesian, 31, telegraphs an earnest grad student."

So are you saying all grad students are petite and fair? With long hair and chunky boots? That's sexist as hell.

And then you say this near your conclusion:

"A blond woman sitting at the next table before an array of New York City street"

What does her hair colour matter? Why is this essential to your story? Is it so you can say blonds like her too? It's an irrelevant detail, again summarizing the appearance of a woman based on one trait.



And finally, by way of bias, how long have you and Anita been in communication? I went by both of your Twitter accounts. Now, what you may not realize is that they are sorted by most recent follower to least recent. You appear fairly far down the list. So how long have you two known each other? Could this be why your article is so biased? Could that be why you never mention any of items I put herein?


Remember, #GamerGate is about ethics. Maybe that subject makes people in journalism far too uncomfortable these days.

What lies at #GamerGate's core?

This movement has had many labels. Many ideas have also been discussed surrounding it. But what truly lies at the core of this giant fight? What is the reason it rages on?

Is it about misogyny? Are we a movement of hatred, bent on protecting our hobby from being inclusive?

Is it about removing political commentary from our games? Do we want to just ignore games becoming a critical art form and refuse to have them be critiqued as other forms of art?

Is it about ethics in journalism? Is all we want just to have fair, clear reviews about the products we buy?

The truth, or the view of it, depends on who you ask. Even if you speak to those who are on the same side, you might get a different answer. And that is because, what lies at the core of this isn't ideals, or truths. It's people. Other human beings, not unlike yourself, fighting for the ideals and truths they believe in.

Somewhere along the way, the world has forgotten that.

The hatred seen during #GamerGate is the hatred that saturates the Internet. It's the hatred born of the vast disconnection between people that has paradoxically occurred now that messages can circle the globe in seconds. We can communicate faster than ever, yet we listen to each other less and less. We revel in sites like WorldStar, and laugh relentlessly at others without regard with how they would feel. In short, the technology meant to share ideas has shared ignorance instead.

As a supporter of #GamerGate, I have tried to engage people to break through their confirmation bias, that mental trick that eases decision-making but blocks out contradiction. In the end, though, I meet with no success. Time and again, even when I think that I've reached someone, they turn back and resort to old ideals, comforted by them. And it is because they don't see a human being on the other side of the argument. They see a faceless set of ideals.

We question so much, why not the very existence of one another?

You see it all the time, people denying that someone can't possibly support this or that idea. #NotYourShield was founded to put faces to the argument, and even then they are disbelieved. It's the Internet, after all. It's all Photoshop and exaggeration. Nothing is real except what you already know to be real. The entire Internet has become an echo chamber of one's own beliefs. If you hold an ideal, even if it is unpopular, in the wide world of the Internet you will find others who share it. And in sharing it, carving out a spot for yourselves, you create a space where you can retreat to time and again.

These places can wall you off to everything else. They can stop you from considering the possibility, however unlikely, that you might be wrong.

Now, you might say, "Pawk, how do you know that you aren't wrong about #GamerGate?" I could very well be, and in just admitting that, I do more than most of the antiGG individuals I have dealt with. They refuse to question, and actively refuse to speak about it. No matter how reasonable or caustic you are, they will block you. They will refuse to look critically at facts, to consider them from other angles.

I openly agree that there is harassment of women online. There is also harassment of men. There is harassment of private citizens, of public people. It isn't due to #GamerGate. It's not even due to any one idea. Every idea draws fervent hate and love. And when those people on either side collide, the most extreme of both sides begin hurling slurs and threats of violence. The reasonable, moderate people who are in the middle of this fight need to understand this.

I don't want people to be harmed. I don't want people to be afraid on either side just for believing what they do. Because I know what lies at the core, and what will exist even once this fight ends.

People. People deserving of respect. People who deserve to be safe.

#GamerGate is about ethics, not harassment

Since The Open Standard won't print it...

For the past two months, you've likely heard a lot about #GamerGate. The question is, have you listened.

After reading an article posted to this service, I can see that some still have the misconception that #GamerGate supports hatred. That we were the ones to blame for the threats on Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian. The greatest issue with that statement is that it is provably false.

Let us examine the case of Anita's death threat. This threat was posted in its entirety on the original article, shown here: http://www.standard.net/Police/2014/10/14/Utah-State-University-student-threatens-act-of-terror-if-feminist.html . The threat mentions nothing of #GamerGate. In fact, she has received threats previously, long before this movement ever started. Further, initial repostings of the story even stated there was no link. They did, however, imply one, using phrases like "While not connected to the GamerGate movement, it does keep with its tone." That tone, it must be stated, was labeled by these same sites.

In reality, #GamerGate did more than just denounce the threats made against Anita. In fact, they went so far as to locate the harasser, a Brazillian blogger who wanted to build a career based on garnering hits for negative press directed at her. http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2j3rdi/gamergate_tracks_a_corrupt_journalist_who_made/

You see, #GamerGate is not about harassment. It's about ethical reporting. The transition that took place from the first story to those that now surround it is incredible. These stories are examples of how unethical journalism and willful distortion has taken a known, confirmed fact, and by implication alone, buried it under a mountain of repeated lies. This newly manufactured fact is then used as the backbone to support opinion pieces like this.

What drives most of us is that, after showcasing all of this, we are still shouted down. We are faced with stories and editorials like this. All this done in defense of a feminist known to have taken seminars in media manipulation, and who uses tragedies like the Seattle Shooting to promote feminist books on her Twitter account. https://archive.today/DEpxD

.

People are so willing to believe what they are told that they've stopped questioning the source of their information, and just outright believe it. I am not asking you to believe what I say. I ask you to use your own eyes, and your own mind, and examine the facts.