382 réponses à ce sujet

[Giantdeathrobot]

You'll notice that's a recurring theme. Whenever someone does what you want/like but other people don't they are brave individuals pursuing their art despite the flak they get for it, if they write something you don't like but other people do it's because they have been cowed into writing anodyne drivel by a vocal minority. Seriously, check it. Happens all the time and it is hilarious.

 

That's a thing I also see with the whole ''write what you want'' thing.

 

Because then, when writers make a decision not to write about subject X for Y reasons (they don't know if they can handle it, don't see it working in context, don't like the implications, etc.) then it means they somehow ''caved in'' or somesuch. No topic should be completely off the table, but no writer should be called a coward or anything along those lines for not wanting to approach a particular topic, either. That's also part of creative freedom.

[Iakus]

Let me also state for the record:

 

I personally do not like excessive blood, gore, sex/nudity, swearing, etc in my games.  All too often it's used as a crutch to make a game "darker and edgier" without a thought for how it is handled in-game.  Same with delicate or hot-button issues.  Simply having it in the game doesn't add weight to the game.  It needs to be implemented in a way that adds to the story, not to check the "deep story" box on the list.  Like, say, Mass Effect 3 did.

 

That said, I think the fault lies in the game developers, not the rating system.  The system gives me a pretty good idea what is in the game.  But it can't tell me how well it is implemented.

 

Thus I say "If you aren't sure you can do it justice, better to just leave it out."

[Ahglock]

How is it shutting down speech? Nobody here has said that developers can't put them into games, just that they should tell people what's in the games. If you're against that, then how is the rating system okay with you since that's "shutting down speech" by restricting who can buy it? Is having food companies say what's in their food shutting down their creativity or limiting what they can make? The answer is no. Same with games.

The entire intent is to shut down speech. Raise your complaints, yell about how you are harmed, never accept disclosures as enough, and eventually people just stop putting it in.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The entire intent is to shut down speech. Raise your complaints, yell about how you are harmed, never accept disclosures as enough, and eventually people just stop putting it in.

Then you are completely misreading my intent. I don't care what game developers put in their games. As long as they can do it well, more power to them. I just think they should let people know everything that is in it, just like many other producers do with their products. I even said that the developers letting people know everything that is in it would stop the people complaining, or rather stop their complaints being valid, since they had full warning. 

[Killdren88]

Then you are completely misreading my intent. I don't care what game developers put in their games. As long as they can do it well, more power to them. I just think they should let people know everything that is in it, just like many other producers do with their products. I even said that the developers letting people know everything that is in it would stop the people complaining, or rather stop their complaints being valid, since they had full warning. 

 

So...you want...trigger warnings in games?

[Kalas Magnus]

i think 'rated m' is the only trigger warning needed.

 

play 'rated e' games if video games trigger you.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

So...you want...trigger warnings in games?

Not in games, other than the health-related ones like the one that warns people prone to seizures, but on the game/game developer's website there can be a page that has it. Thus people who are concerned about those things can check to see if the game has it, and those that aren't concerned don't.

[Iakus]

i think 'rated m' is the only trigger warning needed.

 

play 'rated e' games if video games trigger you.

Not helpful.  And rather patronizing.

 

Life is Strange and The Witcher 3 are both M rated games for entirely different reasons.

[FKA_Servo]

Not helpful.  And rather patronizing.

 

Life is Strange and The Witcher 3 are both M rated games for entirely different reasons.

 

By the same token, an M rated game from 2007 is potentially a very different animal than an M rated game in 2015. It's a pretty arbitrary designation, sometimes.

 

I think the ESRB fulfills this well enough though, listing the most extreme stuff as dictated by consensus. Listing instance by instance each bit of potentially objectionable content seems like a waste to me, even if it's not much effort in the big picture.

[Iakus]

By the same token, an M rated game from 2007 is potentially a very different animal than an M rated game in 2015. It's a pretty arbitrary designation, sometimes.

 

Yup.  Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy was re-rated as M (from AO) when the remastered edition came out earlier this year.

[Ahglock]

Then you are completely misreading my intent. I don't care what game developers put in their games. As long as they can do it well, more power to them. I just think they should let people know everything that is in it, just like many other producers do with their products. I even said that the developers letting people know everything that is in it would stop the people complaining, or rather stop their complaints being valid, since they had full warning.

Sorry. I wasn't trying to imply it was your intent. I've delt with too many political organizations. I was implying too many groups on the trigger warning rampage are trying to shut down speech. The rating system does enough of that in its own as companies chase ratings.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Then you are completely misreading my intent. I don't care what game developers put in their games. As long as they can do it well, more power to them. I just think they should let people know everything that is in it, just like many other producers do with their products. I even said that the developers letting people know everything that is in it would stop the people complaining, or rather stop their complaints being valid, since they had full warning. 

 

They already do that. It's called ESRB rating and if you look at the entries then you'll see that they are detailed.

 

For example: http://www.esrb.org/...e=Mass Effect 3

 

What more do you need?

[In Exile]

There is no contradiction. There are multiple avenues to research content of a game, most reviews launch the day before release or even earlier. And yes if you are worried about it don't get it day one, wait a couple weeks and ask around. This isn't wheelchair access issues. You have a issue that you can resolve on your own with a variety of tools. And this is a video game.

 

How would you know the game has "triggers" if no one is putting together a list? We're right back to the labels on food list, and your argument is a variant of "if you don't want to trigger your fatal peanut allergy, just wait enough until someone with a milder allergy eats it first and comments". This system is not only stupid, it's inefficient. 

[In Exile]

That's kind of the point though. Anything could potentially trigger someone. There was a certain group that made the news recently because it asked it's members to applaud using jazz hands because certain people had said they found clapping triggering.

 

You can't ask every film/game/book etc to list everything it contains. At best you can ask them to list the most triggering/objectionable content, which already happens.

 

We're right back to the nonsense hyperbole. The fact that someone says something is a "trigger" doesn't mean that it's something we have to take action on. Even if we accept that they're right, the truth can simply be that their condition is so rare that it doesn't justify the investment at a societal level. Which is a common issue re: allocating resources. 

 

It's no argument to the provision of information to pick out some absurd example and then use it, for example, to discredit a label for PTSD related to very common causes. This is the kind of post and position that, again, undercuts the legitimacy of your entire argument. 

[In Exile]

Some cutscenes depict slow-motion decapitations and other gore: an autopsy of a torture victim, rooms with several corpses (e.g., hanging from the ceiling, covered in blood on a bed, naked in a tub).

 

maybe a scene as specific as the one you described could have been mentioned as well.  But given Witcher 3's first two descriptors are "Blood and Gore" and "Intense Violence" I would be cautious of the game anyways.

 

Well, except if you have a specific issue with, say, fire, and blood and gore mean absolutely nothing to you. This is the issue. But the question of what type of disclosure we need is totally different from whether that type of disclosure is legitimate. 

 

Let me put it this way: the argument right now is that we already have the information that we would get with "trigger warning". But this isn't a counter-argument to having trigger warnings. This is completely conceding the legitimacy of trigger warnings, going so far as to say all the information is already out there, and then just saying there's something special or different by not using the word "trigger."

[Ahglock]

How would you know the game has "triggers" if no one is putting together a list? We're right back to the labels on food list, and your argument is a variant of "if you don't want to trigger your fatal peanut allergy, just wait enough until someone with a milder allergy eats it first and comments". This system is not only stupid, it's inefficient.

As already stated the rating system covers this. If you need a more specific trigger list either skip the product if you are worried or ask people the forums, customer service, reviewers who respond to fans. This is nothing like food as you need to eat. You can skip a game with no harm coming to you.

[SnakeCode]

We're right back to the nonsense hyperbole. The fact that someone says something is a "trigger" doesn't mean that it's something we have to take action on. Even if we accept that they're right, the truth can simply be that their condition is so rare that it doesn't justify the investment at a societal level. Which is a common issue re: allocating resources. 

 

It's no argument to the provision of information to pick out some absurd example and then use it, for example, to discredit a label for PTSD related to very common causes. This is the kind of post and position that, again, undercuts the legitimacy of your entire argument. 

 

Congratulations on reinforcing my point.

[AlanC9]

I've completely lost the thread here. What are we actually talking about adding to the existing ESRB title descriptions?

[God]

No topic should be avoided, but neither should we have to get the usual one-sided bias steamroller that BW throws on their games over issues. 

 

I want to be pro-human. I want to have moral, ethical, and ideological complexity. I want to have the ability to hold a view that isn't popular, PC, or expected. 

[God]

Not helpful.  And rather patronizing.

 

Life is Strange and The Witcher 3 are both M rated games for entirely different reasons.

 

You deserve to be patronized in this instance. If an 'M' rating doesn't work for you, it's your own fault. If you don't like it, don't play it. If you think you won't like it, don't play it.

[It's Vexion]

I don't think the point of avoiding it was necessarily because it was rape; that's a topic that has been addressed before. When creating a story or piece of art, one has to be aware of what they are doing. I think the reason they decided to cut it was primarily because that was an unintended consequence of the piece. I wasn't there and I don't know what conversation they had, but clearly the concerned individual managed to convince the rest of the writing team -- so it must have had at least some merit.

[Ianamus]

As I said earlier, on the box putting everything under one of the two dozen or so things the game rating systems have is fine, since they are allotted only so much space. But on the game or game company's website there is no good reason why they couldn't list everything that happens in the game that could upset people. They have infinite space, it takes practically no time at all compared to anything else they have to do relating to the game, and they covered their bases so people can't complain about what is in the game because they warmed them. 

 

At this point wouldn't it make more sense for said person, wondering if a game is suitable for them, to wait until after the game is released and ask on forums whether the game could potentially upset them (given their particular triggers)?

 

Even if a games website did have a list of every single thing that occurs in the game I would still rather go and ask people who played the game before me about my specific concern than reading through a huge list that probably wouldn't fully cover the specific details or might word it differently.

[Il Divo]

At this point wouldn't it make more sense for said person, wondering if a game is suitable for them, to wait until after the game is released and ask on forums whether the game is suitable for them (given their particular triggers)?

 

Even if the games website did have a list of every single thing that occurs in the game I would still rather go and ask people who played the game before me than reading through a huge list that might not adequately cover the specific details or might word it differently.

 

At the end of the day, that probably is the best approach to take it. Even if a trigger label makes mention of the particular triggers, which I think is a fair approach, at the end of the day, speaking to actual people to highlight your particular circumstances will lead to a more effective response. 

[In Exile]

I've completely lost the thread here. What are we actually talking about adding to the existing ESRB title descriptions?

The problem I think is that the ESRB is designed as a rating system. The level of generality necessary to get the point across is different from a system meant to inform about the range of content.

Let's put it this way - the ESRB can say "gore" or "torture" and get the point across. But a rating system based on triggers may need to be more specific - such as beheading or waterboarding.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

At this point wouldn't it make more sense for said person, wondering if a game is suitable for them, to wait until after the game is released and ask on forums whether the game could potentially upset them (given their particular triggers)?

 

Even if a games website did have a list of every single thing that occurs in the game I would still rather go and ask people who played the game before me about my specific concern than reading through a huge list that probably wouldn't fully cover the specific details or might word it differently.

The problem with that is for a lot of people, that is a very personal thing to discuss and not one they may feel comfortable exposing about themselves to strangers on the Internet. Meanwhile the game developer making a list and leaving it to be viewed preserves all anonymity. Plus it lets them decide whether they want to get it when it comes out rather than waiting weeks or months for people to have played it 100%.