382 réponses à ce sujet

[DaemionMoadrin]

This is becoming silly.

 

If someone has PTSD, if someone relives painful memories, if someone suffers... then we can talk about having a trigger. Someone who lost a loved one will probably react badly to reminders of the incident, someone who was raped will probably react badly to mentions of sexual assault etc...

 

But you do not get triggered because something kind of offends you. This is beyond hyperbole and just as bad as people claiming to have ADHD, OCD or autism when they aren't even diagnosed. Some topics are controversial but disagreement or dislike aren't a trigger and people seriously need to learn to deal with stuff.

 

What's next? Singles being triggered by Valentine's Day?

 

Life isn't fair, life isn't kind. Life is harsh. You can pretend otherwise but in the end it's your own fault if you can't deal with the inevitable reality of life. Even people with legitimate issues are able to avoid movies and games that are likely to trigger them. If I'm a veteran suffering from PTSD, then maybe I'm not going to play CoD, BF or similiar games. Unless that's part of my therapy.

 

The current ESRB rating is lacking because it just checks a list instead of analyzing the themes of a game (which is how you get terrorism, genocide and other, similiar, topics into a T rated game while a couple F-bombs in an otherwise clean game can push it up to M).

It still mentions enough highlights to make a somewhat informed decision.

 

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

 

Blood, Partial Nudity, Sexual Content, Strong Language, Violence

 

This is an action role-playing game in which players assume the role of a space commander attempting to save humanity from a galaxy-wide threat. As players interact with myriad characters (e.g., developing alliances and relationships), they use machine guns, shotguns, assault rifles, and futuristic weapons to kill humans and alien creatures in frenetic combat. Enemies sometimes emit splashes of blood when hit; some sequences depict bloodstained characters or environments. Cutscenes depict other instances of violence: an alien shooting herself in the head with a pistol; a character getting impaled by a creature's claws. As the game progresses, the storyline sometimes references sexual material (e.g., “When this is over, I'm getting laid” and “Were oil and lubricants involved? Was there moaning?”). Players can also initiate brief romantic encounters between characters: dialogue choices are made, leading to kissing and caressing on a bed—sexual activity is implied. In one of these sequences, an alien character's buttocks and breasts are briefly depicted. The words “f**k,” “sh*t,” and “a*shole” can be heard in dialogue.

 

What more do people want? A full synopsis? The game as novel?

 

If you buy a game that was rated M or Adult, you should be aware that it got that rating for a reason... and if you are unable to deal with mature or adult content (whatever the reason), then maybe you should give that game a pass.

 

Complaining about triggers though? Unless you have an actual mental problem that can be triggered it's not your place to start that discussion. This isn't what supporting people who need your help looks like.

 

Asking the writers to change their story, to take the possibility into account that there might be a few people who might get triggered... that's going too far.

 

Being offended by a certain topic is silly. Being offended by the way a topic is being handled, now that's different. It still doesn't mean it should be avoided completely.

 

Are we doing so well that we need to invent problems where there are none?

[In Exile]

But "offence" is just a talking point used to discredit the legitimate complaints that arise here. No one who talks seriously about triggers (well, no one worth taking seriously) is talking about offence. It's the side pushing back against it that makes it about "offence". 

[goishen]

Are we doing so well that we need to invent problems where there are none?

 

 

First world problems, yo.

 

Gotta love 'em.

[Iakus]

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."

I was only countering that particular example, I highlighted that Witcher 3 specifically says that fire is used as a weapon in the game.  Also, one of its descriptors is "intense violence" as well as "blood and gore"  Putting two and two together should indicate that someone with a problem with fire should be cautious about purchasing this game.  Even though it does not specifically say it depicts people being burned alive (and I did concede that the summary could very well mention that)

 

The question about listing trigger warnings is:   how long and how detailed should this list be?  How specific is too specific?  Who decides what is specific enough?  

[Iakus]

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.

Ah, Massively.  So eager to pick a fight with me you didn't even bother to find out my position on the topic, did you?  

[God]

Ah, Massively.  So eager to pick a fight with me you didn't even bother to find out my position on the topic, did you?  

 

Figured it out from reading. Sort of the point of the page here. 

 

I'm not impressed. I stand by my assertion on your point. 

[Seraphim24]

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. 

 

That's the thing though, views that aren't popular or expected are often the wrong ones. Poltically correct views are wrong by default, they are borrowed answers, even if they are correct idealistically they are still wrong substantively because they are given by those who have not obtained them for themselves.

 

As to this topic, censorhsip is usually invoked simply by those who want to pour some kind of emotional/psychological poison onto the rest of us, and then use the defense of "free speech" as if preventing them from causing harm was an unjustified restriction on their rights.

 

If people won't even acknowledge the notion of right and wrong, debates about censorship and so on are pointless.

[Applepie_Svk]

This is becoming silly.

 

If someone has PTSD, if someone relives painful memories, if someone suffers... then we can talk about having a trigger. Someone who lost a loved one will probably react badly to reminders of the incident, someone who was raped will probably react badly to mentions of sexual assault etc...

 

 

Have you heard about Twitter PTSD ?

First world problems...

 

The problem of these new generations is that they feel entitled to rights, to privileges, well almost to everything. Than you have these protest that claims that are against racism and yet spreading it on each corner, the worse of it is that politicians are helping to spread this idiocy by not stepping against it.

[Steelcan]

As to this topic, censorhsip is usually invoked simply by those who want to pour some kind of emotional/psychological poison onto the rest of us, and then use the defense of "free speech" as if preventing them from causing harm was an unjustified restriction on their rights.

People should have the right to say what they want, no one is making other people listen to them.  Obviously there should be some curtailments such as the 'yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater' and inciting violence, but beyond such exceptions there should not be a debate surrounding this.

 

If a white supremacist wants to make a game version of Mein Kampf it should be up to consumers whether to buy into the nonsense or not.

[Derrame]

there is racism in the witcher games, they are handled very well, so noone ever complained, so it depends on how are these topics handled and how deep

[In Exile]

People should have the right to say what they want, no one is making other people listen to them.  Obviously there should be some curtailments such as the 'yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater' and inciting violence, but beyond such exceptions there should not be a debate surrounding this.

 

If a white supremacist wants to make a game version of Mein Kampf it should be up to consumers whether to buy into the nonsense or not.

 

That's conflating two issues. There's a difference between the government banning Mein Kampf, the game, and, for example, every single major distributor refusing - regardless of what consumers want - to ever stock and sell it. Consumers don't get a choice either way, but the second one isn't a free speech issue. 

 

But more to the point, the whole challenge to freedom of speech is that "inciting violence" might actually apprehend Mein Kampf, the game, which is likely a game about getting white people to perpetrate horrific acts of violence against [insert group]. This is generally the rationale for hate speech laws. 

[In Exile]

I was only countering that particular example, I highlighted that Witcher 3 specifically says that fire is used as a weapon in the game.  Also, one of its descriptors is "intense violence" as well as "blood and gore"  Putting two and two together should indicate that someone with a problem with fire should be cautious about purchasing this game.  Even though it does not specifically say it depicts people being burned alive (and I did concede that the summary could very well mention that)

 

The question about listing trigger warnings is:   how long and how detailed should this list be?  How specific is too specific?  Who decides what is specific enough?  

 

Why would that follow? When I think of "intense violence" and "blood and gore", I think of severed arms and beatings, not someone burned at the stake. That's the case for a lot of reasons, including cultural assumptions about what counts as violence and what the word "gore" usually means in the context of games. 

 

I'm not persuaded by the idea that someone should have to be cautious because of a particular susceptibility. That's silly. It's true that a rare susceptibility will mean that someone has to be cautious because it's uneconomical to fully inform/guard them, but that's totally different from this silly (and actually uneconomical) idea that people should have to overcome informational asymmetry for no real cogent reason apart from some moral parable about responsibility. 

 

The issue here isn't about the volume of disclosure. It's about the type. As I said before: the ESRB is a rating system. It's designed to tell us, based on our cultural values, how "offensive" a game might end up being vis-a-vis our sensibilities. A "TRS" (e.g. Trigger Rating System) doesn't need more information - it just needs tailored information. 

[Ahglock]

That's conflating two issues. There's a difference between the government banning Mein Kampf, the game, and, for example, every single major distributor refusing - regardless of what consumers want - to ever stock and sell it. Consumers don't get a choice either way, but the second one isn't a free speech issue.

But more to the point, the whole challenge to freedom of speech is that "inciting violence" might actually apprehend Mein Kampf, the game, which is likely a game about getting white people to perpetrate horrific acts of violence against [insert group]. This is generally the rationale for hate speech laws.

While I disagree with you on this issue it is a good point you bring up and it is important to separate your rights vs personal choice to censor. The ratings system is voluntary so I have no issue with it, outside of how I think it influences game content as they chase ratings. Though it's become less of an issue over time as the system gas allowed more under M. I also would have no issue if companies decided on their own to publish lists of triggers. I don't think it's needed and I don't think they should as I think it leads too to much self censorship but as long as it's a free choice they make whatever.

Side note. Incitement to violence in America requires imminence. If it slowly brain washes someone to violence it's protected speach, even hate speach. I know most other countries are not quite as flexible there.

[o Ventus]

Nothing is taboo, as long as the subject is handled well, with intelligence and done so realistically.

 

I'm not going to ask Bioware or whoever to censor themselves because of my poor fee-fees. If THEY choose to cut some content because they don't like the message or the subject matter or whatever, then that's their decision. I won't hold it against them.

[Dantriges]

Side note. Incitement to violence in America requires imminence. If it slowly brain washes someone to violence it's protected speach, even hate speach. I know most other countries are not quite as flexible there.

 

Yup. Mein Kampf and so banned over here, but hey, our grandparents fell for that once already. We have a totally inept "federal office for the protection of the constitution" instead, that is supposed to not let stuff like right wing terrorism out of hand (and well other stuff like counter intel, left, terrorism in all shades and stuff like that) . They actually managed to fumble into such a big scandal and a number of smaller ones, when right extremism is involved, you have to wonder if they do it on purpose or are just plain incompetent.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Yup. Mein Kampf and so banned over here, but hey, our grandparents fell for that once already. We have a totally inept "federal office for the protection of the constitution" instead, that is supposed to not let stuff like right wing terrorism out of hand (and well other stuff like counter intel, left, terrorism in all shades and stuff like that) . They actually managed to fumble into such a big scandal and a number of smaller ones, when right extremism is involved, you have to wonder if they do it on purpose or are just plain incompetent.

 

I think it's hilarious how they compromised their own investigations because almost everyone involved was some sort of undercover agent. Without their involvement several groups wouldn't even have existed. ^^

 

It doesn't bother me that Mein Kampf is banned in Germany. I can't imagine there ever being a demand for a product based on it and I don't think it should be allowed. The people who could handle the subject matter properly are too smart to get involved with it and the people who would take the book as a basis for a game are too stupid to do it right.

 

Given the choice I prefer having a government that curtails (any) extremism and doesn't let anyone spew hate speech. FFS USA, Trump is quoting Hitler and you guys applaud him! He's inciting the masses against immigrants, mexicans, the poor etc... and promises costly, drastic measures if he gets elected. It's like people forgot the events leading to WW2 already.

 

Although it's easy for Germany to act superior in these cases... we've got one of the newest constitutions (basic laws) with an age of only 66 years. We took most of the mistakes of the past into account when we created it. It's not perfect but generally it does a great job.

[FKA_Servo]

Given the choice I prefer having a government that curtails (any) extremism and doesn't let anyone spew hate speech. FFS USA, Trump is quoting Hitler and you guys applaud him! He's inciting the masses against immigrants, mexicans, the poor etc... and promises costly, drastic measures if he gets elected. It's like people forgot the events leading to WW2 already.

 

Hey, not all USA.

 

In real life, as on the internet, the morons aren't necessarily the most numerous, but they're typically the loudest.

[Zehealingman]

This is becoming silly.

If someone has PTSD, if someone relives painful memories, if someone suffers... then we can talk about having a trigger. Someone who lost a loved one will probably react badly to reminders of the incident, someone who was raped will probably react badly to mentions of sexual assault etc...

But you do not get triggered because something kind of offends you. This is beyond hyperbole and just as bad as people claiming to have ADHD, OCD or autism when they aren't even diagnosed. Some topics are controversial but disagreement or dislike aren't a trigger and people seriously need to learn to deal with stuff.

What's next? Singles being triggered by Valentine's Day?

Life isn't fair, life isn't kind. Life is harsh. You can pretend otherwise but in the end it's your own fault if you can't deal with the inevitable reality of life. Even people with legitimate issues are able to avoid movies and games that are likely to trigger them. If I'm a veteran suffering from PTSD, then maybe I'm not going to play CoD, BF or similiar games. Unless that's part of my therapy.

The current ESRB rating is lacking because it just checks a list instead of analyzing the themes of a game (which is how you get terrorism, genocide and other, similiar, topics into a T rated game while a couple F-bombs in an otherwise clean game can push it up to M).
It still mentions enough highlights to make a somewhat informed decision.

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

What more do people want? A full synopsis? The game as novel?

If you buy a game that was rated M or Adult, you should be aware that it got that rating for a reason... and if you are unable to deal with mature or adult content (whatever the reason), then maybe you should give that game a pass.

Complaining about triggers though? Unless you have an actual mental problem that can be triggered it's not your place to start that discussion. This isn't what supporting people who need your help looks like.

Asking the writers to change their story, to take the possibility into account that there might be a few people who might get triggered... that's going too far.

Being offended by a certain topic is silly. Being offended by the way a topic is being handled, now that's different. It still doesn't mean it should be avoided completely.

Are we doing so well that we need to invent problems where there are none?

You.

I like you.

[BioWareMod02]

Hello everyone. Please remember to  stay on topic and avoid political discussions. Thank you.

[KainD]

Hello everyone. Please remember to  stay on topic and avoid political discussions. Thank you.

 

Where is that avatar from?

[pkypereira]

Hello everyone. Please remember to  stay on topic and avoid political discussions. Thank you.

 

So political discussions are one of the topics that need to be avoided.

[Seraphim24]

Where is that avatar from?

 

I kind of want to know also, it looks like Morrigan but....

[rapscallioness]

Eh, it sounds stupid anyway. I'm glad they cut it. How was that gonna work exactly? What, they were gonna force my character to be "seduced" by Not!Lelianna? For reasons?

 

And then what? Was she gonna manipulate me through the power of the punn? Gtfoh with that.

 

Yeah, handle difficult and sensitive issues. When done right it can prove to be a powerful and cathartic experience. But do it right, or don't do it at all.

 

They made the right choice, although not necessarily for the reasons they state.

[KainD]

I kind of want to know also, it looks like Morrigan but....

 

After some time with google image searching I discovered this: 

http://tekkoontan.de...anart-356352441

[KainD]

Oh! Good find that was quick, I guess it's just a generic fem warrior or something.

 

I like how the artist actively acknowledges the fact that the armor is impractical.