i’m less worried about me not buying their games and more worried about the folks who buy madden every year even though the last interesting release was 08
Horses, a first-person psychological horror adventure about “the burden of familial trauma and puritan values, the dynamics of totalitarian power, and the ethics of personal responsibility” set on a ranch where nude human beings in horse masks are treated as livestock.
Is this just a game for edgelords or is there something compelling under that mess of a description?
Edit: We don’t have to pretend every game is art - there’s crap out there. I’m asking if anybody thinks this thing has redeeming qualities based on actual information about the game, not hypotheticals.
Whether a piece of art is a monumental accomplishment or a fleeting novelty should have no bearing on the content it is allowed to display. Making that distinction is indulging in censorship.
Unless you’re saying that Michelangelo gets a pass, but Horses doesn’t? How do you know whether a piece of art is worth it? Where do you draw the line?
Stephen King’s IT has the famous scene where children have an orgy in the sewers. Is he allowed to write it? What’s the difference between IT and Horses, apart from the (subjective) quality of the works themselves?
I think it’s a very interesting experience, although it may not be apt for people who play for the gameplay exclusively. It’s eerie and unsettling in a way that’s difficult to replicate in more traditional/mainstream media, which I think is a good thing in a horror game. If you’re tired of random ghosts, zombies or similar and want a more unique experience, Horses provides that.
Whether you’ll like it, heavily depends on whether you are willing to forgive its shortcomings in the gameplay department in favour of the unique story and social commentary it aims to provide. I’ve played multiple games in the past where I liked the story and didn’t care much for the gameplay, but I also have friends who are unwilling to play a bad game with a good story, so, you know, YMMV.
If you’re asking whether “that mess of a description” exists solely for you to masturbate on or to provide shock value, then I disagree. While the game does feature heavy themes and abhorrent imagery, they exist to convey the narrative. The following is from a Reddit comment (user: yougotiton) that sums it up very nicely:
[…] the puritan can never be free of sexuality, but is vindictive towards the reality of sexuality. It’s easier for them to express their own sexuality through abuse and violence than it is to confront it or interrogate it.
It’s also a horror game, so, you know, abhorrent things are to be expected (and are appreciated when done right).
Happy to oblige.
To be frank, and I’m sorry if this may sound a bit blunt, you might get more thoughtful replies if your question focused less on dismissing the game up front. The front-loaded tone of your original question is what drew so many downvotes and pushed people away who may have been willing to answer your questions thoughtfully. I also completely missed your point and talked about censorship instead of the game itself because of that.
It’s alright if you don’t like the game or its content, and honestly, I don’t think the game’s for me either; but I wouldn’t be so quick as to judge it as edgelord shovelware before even trying to assess what kind of game it is, especially as the article, which you quoted, made it quite clear that the game had social commentary going on and wasn’t just porn slop.
Ah yes, yes. The game from “one of the best indie game developers” that, as of 2025.12.04 (2 days since release), has <4 Metacritic user reviews (no score) and stands at 77 score with only 7 reviews by game critics. Devs get tons of free clout by being removed, but somehow their game is still unpopular. Wonder why.
They got tons of publicity by being banned from steam. They harnessed it as much as possible which spawned the infamous “one of the best indie game developers” title in some news articles. Being banned from two major game stores brings a lot of eyes on their game. And even with a bright spotlight lightning up their game - still barely anyone is talking about it. My theory is - game is below average at best and can be barely called an art piece in gaming industry. (based on what I know about the game and on one youtube playthrough)
Popularity matters cause it is a good metric to measure sales. If game is good and sells well - people will talk. People are barely talking about this game. Sales are probably very low. But also, what would sales be if it wouldn’t be banned of steam? I bet they would barely exist.
It would be an extremely risky strategy. The studio’s whole portfolio are offbeat shortforms (indeed one of the higher profile indie devs) and I don’t think getting banned from Steam and losing sales there was something they anticipated. Using this for publicity is plan B for damage control, never has been plan A.
The steam ban was ages ago, the news was recent. They decided to go loud about the steam ban as they released, its clearly pr. I dont think they got banned intentionally but the differwnce is a little academic when you cry this loudly about it.
Yes, as I said, plan B. Do you expect the studio to say “ok fuck it, let’s close up” when they projected a huge loss of sales after Steam denied their release?
(1) The devs trying to make the best out of a bad situation and marketing their game in a difficult situation is, like, not their fault? If you have a product, you want to sell it. Especially if you are an indie dev who desperately needs as much marketing as possible, and ESPECIALLY if you get banned from the largest videogame storefront on the planet because of Valve’s shitty review policies. Calling this “publicity stunt” is very narrow-minded.
(2) Some random news article calling them “one of the best indie game developers” is, again, not their fault. First of all, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and secondly, the devs are not out there brainwashing people to like their game. If someone liked their game enough to consider them a GOTY contender, good for them. My 2018 GOTY was CrossCode despite other big titles releasing that same year (MH World, RDR2, Spiderman, Celeste, God of War just to name a few), is it the dev’s fault?
(3) You calling it “barely an art piece” means shit all. It’s not up to you (or anyone) to decide what’s art and what’s not. This is blatant censorship, but I guess that’s alright as long as it’s not something you like?
(4) The problem is not that they would’ve sold fewer copies had they be available on Steam; the problem is that they weren’t allowed a chance to prove themselves to begin with, because of the shitty review policies by Valve who adamantly refuses to review any game twice (despite them having more than enough money to do so) when they find something they deem “unacceptable”, according to their nebulous metrics. Somehow Sex with Hitler is allowed to be sold on their platform, and so are many Japanese hentai games featuring questionably-legal child-like characters, but this one isn’t? Why is that?
In this crazy world where it could actually happen, I don’t think they did it with intent. Most likely the haven’t had this in their plans, but they did plan on having a minor in the game to ride a horse. They thought that it would be a great idea to capitalize on Steam ban - that is undeniable. And I can’t blame them. That is indeed a perfect advertisement campaign - loud and, most importantly, free.
It is just hilarious to me that with all this clout and attention, their game is getting barely any buzz post-release. And also that the most posted article about Steam ban is mentioning them as one of the best idie devs out there when they are like mid at best.
Thats not what theyre saying at all. Did you read the comment?
Theyre saying after the Steam ban the company decided to make use of the ban to popularize their game, which is completely normal imo. Theyre only saying the game is overhyped by controversy.
They got told “no, and never” by Steam 3 years ago. It’s absolutely a marketing move to bring it up now. The Epic and Humble removals were rug pulls, though.
Does it being a marketing move mean that it’s not worth criticizing Steam for having a one-strike-you’re-out system? I don’t think it does. If your game has (something valve considers reject-worthy) and you get rejected, you should probably be allowed to submit it again after removing the thing valve rejected you for.
that would be impossible! Lord Emperor Gaben is the sole bringer of light to a world of darkness, he, and he himself, is single-handedly the reason why there is still good in the gaming industry! for example, he, alone, by himself, birthed Linux, so we could all enjoy a world free of the tyranny of Microsoft!!!
ok but for real. why do gamers talk about gabe newell the way tech people talked about elon musk circa 2018… im seeing a lot of uncomfortable parallels
Wait, I thought this game was a depiction of what we subject horses to, using a horror lens to drive home the point? I’ve never heard of something less sexy?
My understanding is that there was a scene where a young girl rides a naked man/woman around. Apparently it has since been changed to make the child older, but… I can perfectly understand why anyone would be hesitant to accept such a game based on that description alone. Even if it’s not intended to be sexual, the developers were certainly pushing the line
That’s not how this works, you don’t get to decide what is acceptable for other people. It’s people like you who galvanize Mastercard and Visa in trying to control what kind of content we’re “allowed” to purchase.
To be clear this all sounds repugnant to me, but i realize Im not the sole arbiter of taste and have no interest in telling other adults what (legal) things they are and aren’t allowed to do.
If the game is so bad it’ll tank, it doesn’t need outside forces influencing it.
That’s not how that works. You don’t get to decide what a store does and does not sell. Steam refuses hundreds of games a year, this one doesn’t get special treatment.
Saying “I understand why (store) would not want to carry this product” is not the same as saying “no store should carry this product.”
I’m not admonishing the store, as you said it’s up to them to carry what they like. I’m admonishing you and people like you for trying to exert pressure on the store to not carry something you personally don’t like, because again, you’re not intended to be in charge of what others sell.
Earlier this year steam updated its guidelines to prohibit content that “may violate the rules and standards set forth by steam payment processors and related card networks”
Visa and Mastercard pressured steam to remove a game because they didn’t agree with its content. Visa and Mastercard only care because they believe they end users care - that’s you, a potential end user of visa and Mastercards service. Valve only cares because visa and Mastercard care.
You saying “I see why they wouldn’t want to sell the game” helps them to pressure steam into self censorship.
You’re speaking with an awful lot of confidence on stuff you don’t seem to be very well versed in.
For example, you somehow missed the fact that just months after payment processors forced steam to remove a game, they’re suddenly self-censoring.
Um, he didn’t say he was deciding for others, he said he could understand how others would be hesitant… sounded like he was supporting your very point that people have a right to have their own opinion.
The only reason someone wouldn’t want to sell something is because of pressure from others - you boil it down enough and the logic is “I don’t want to sell this because others will judge me”, which stems directly from others judgement, being my entire point.
You can claim “Valve doesn’t want to sell it for moral reasons”, but they’re not a moral body, they’re a corporation - their only job is to earn money.
The more people feel they can dictate what a retailer sells, the worse it gets for all of us, and retailers choosing to drop things rather than “roc k the boat” is a problem.
Sure, this is a pretty repugnant case, but the slippery slope starts somewhere.
I regret my short hand of “slippery slope” but it’s not a coincidence that less than 6 months ago payment processors used their influence to get a game pulled from steam and now all of a sudden steam is self censoring based on content.
Whatever the non-fallacious version of “there’s an escalating pattern here” is what’s happening.
You claimed Steam banned this because of the payment processors. The same payment processors being used by stores that didn’t ban this. Seems a relevant point to the discussion we are having.
The article from July explains why Steam banned this game last month, despite Itch (which stopped selling certain games due to the payment processors) is selling it?
Who is this article writer that can see 4 months into the future?!
Along with the official release date of the game (December 2), the statement revealed that Horses was indefinitely banned on Steam in June 2023 – days before it was set to premiere on IGN’s Summer of Gaming event.
This is useful information I was not aware of - thank you.
While I was wrong about Horses, the issue with payment processors forcing censorship on Steam is still true and an enormous issue - Visa doesn’t get a say in what I purchase.
People are free to pressure retailers on what to sell and what not too. Saying they can’t would be far worse. And the retailer is doing the job of making money… by following the 2ishes of the populace. This is the free market capitalist society we live in. Completly sucks, but it is consistent.
I don’t disagree, I’m just calling the people who choose to complain morons, because again I don’t believe they should be the arbiters of what is acceptable.
Basically, you’re free to have your opinion, but keep it to your fucking self and your fucking echo chambers you regressive fucking failures (the general you, not you specifically)
Interesting point. But in general, who are the people complaining in the wrong spot. I suspect people basically are complaining in thier echo chambers… social media. And likely noone cares. But then the media jumps in and picks it up. So is the media to blame? I read a story about a lady in Britain I think who had like 89 followers and made a statement. It went viral. Suddenly her statement to her echo chamber was in the news. It ruined her life actually.
So are we saying the media should be banned on reporting what is said inside echo chambers, or are we saying public posting of opinions should be banned?
Neither. I’m saying that visa and Mastercards opinion on what I’m buying means fuck all to me, it’s none of their fucking business. I don’t care who writes you a letter, posts on face book, what the media says, it’s not their job to police my purchases.
They’d be 100% in the clear just ignoring these people (the kind of morons who have time to cause this kind of trouble either don’t need credit or don’t have a choice in the matter, so no loss of customers), but they decided to interject themselves in a place they don’t belong. So fuck em, and anyone who tries to enforce limitations on the legal things I do via crybaby disingenuous public pressure.
If everyone felt like me, these attempts would fall flat on their face. Sadly, too many sheepish pearl clutching morons.
On the visa and Mastercard thing I very much agree. In theory they are a business, and can chose who to do business with. But the free market pressures don’t exist to impact the decisions they make. So instead of them being influenced by customer sentiment, they are actually influenced by large organization with an agenda. That agenda is usually just a BS reason to build the organization and make specific people rich. It doesn’t represent the will of the people. So… they should be treated more like a utility. Places are refusing to take cash these days, so it is an easy argument that they function like a utility.
The buyout has effectively already gone through, and as the price has been decided, any money you give to them is directly going to saudi arabia, as they will get that new value.
He cites a lot of Immersive Sim level design, Minecraft does not have that sort of detail; it merely provides a block-by-block construction system with some rudimentary decoration, it’s not gonna achieve his design requirement.
The game company seems to have thought that they could drum up sales on other platforms by making this a media thing. Based on the additional platforms pulling out, it might have backfired. They could have let their little horse-porn game quietly release on every platform but Steam and made enough to get by. Instead they drew attention to themselves.
Steam was the first major storefront to refuse to carry Horses, a first-person psychological horror adventure about “the burden of familial trauma and puritan values, the dynamics of totalitarian power, and the ethics of personal responsibility” set on a ranch where nude human beings in horse masks are treated as livestock.
Publisher Santa Ragione said in November that Valve declined to carry Horses because it contained “content that appears, in our judgment, to depict sexual conduct involving a minor.” Santa Ragione disputed that characterization, but an appeal was rejected and the ban stands.
I am just gonna pretend like Epic and HB banned it only after see all this PR work they’re trying to do to save this god awful looking piece of “art.”
And just becsuse the comments here don’t seem to know the real root issue: The game originally featured a child protagonist, and that was what Valve was sent to review. They only changed the protag to an adult after the rejection and now they are throwing a hissy fit over their pedo game being banned.
No place for challenging art in video games. Books and movies have been pushing boundaries for millennia, but this new medium is way too effective at affecting people
The distinction may seem like nitpicking but no, CSAM is a legally defined term of depictions of actual children being sexually abused.
This game does not feature any such content. Not just because there are no depictions of real children, but also because the fictional children depicted aren’t subjected to sexual abuse.
Valve’s language cites “sexual conduct” which in this case reportedly (I didn’t watch it myself) has been stretched to include nudity that is non-sexual in nature.
I get why Valve would err on the side of caution, but that TOS decision is no basis to turn around and make the legally relevant claim that the game features actual CSAM.
As like 3000 other comments here have explained, Valve has a zero tolerance policy for what they consider CSAM, meaning they will not reconsider. Which is their prerogative.
I’m on the fence about the topic, but you’ve gotta be dense to believe CSAM has nothing to do here. The accusation is one of CSAM, so the argument is whether the scene is CSAM or not.
In a perfect world the question would be simple, but in the reality we live in, you have to consider if the art will be misused - and that’s assuming the artist is honest about their intentions in the first place.
It already is a unique art form. This is not defined by the commercial availability, and this game wouldn’t be the first art piece that understands controversy as part of its essence.
Y’all need to read what CSAM is. Questionable or objectionable art isn’t CSAM in the same sense that drawing a murder isn’t murder and drawing Noncon isn’t rape.
Depiction isn’t harm, if it was damn near all literature would be in the same category.
Let’s not go down that slippery slope.
Books like Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret – Judy Blume would be considered abuse material on such an asinine slope.
Y’all need to read what CSAM is. Questionable or objectionable art isn’t CSAM in the same sense that drawing a murder isn’t murder and drawing Noncon isn’t rape.
it’s literally legally defined as CSAM in most western countries. and I probably wouldn’t be arguing otherwise, since it looks like the other dude who did that got all his posts deleted by the mod.
drawing a murder isn’t murder and drawing Noncon isn’t rape.
Drawing people having sex isn’t sex, but it is porn. Verbally attacking someone isn’t assault, but it can be abuse. Drawing a comic where someone tortures and then kills the president of the United States isn’t murder, but it will get the FBI knocking on your door.
pcgamer.com
Gorące