382 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Oh, hey, look, Mass Effect!

[KainD]

US is big, 50 states with different people, landscape, laws, morals etc. You can't talk about how things are in US, nothing is true for every location. Except for freedom. 

[In Exile]

I also don't believe we should have the ERSB do much more than it already does. IIRC it already warns about explicit sexual and psychological violence, and hell any 18+ title should be approached with care by anyone who believes they could be affected by some explicit content of any description. It's the ''all bets are off'' rating (except nudity because exploding people in bits is cool while breasts are teh evuls but I digress). One should inform oneself before playing a ''mature'' themed game if they have particular sentitivities. 

But as I say, this is missing the trees for the forest. Yes, I think it's entirely a reasonable position to take that consumers of content have a responsibility to ensure they are not consuming content they find either objectionable or outright traumatic. But to be reasonably informed requires available information. The whole issue here is whether we have that information available. 

 

And I don't see any evidence we do, because I said, some generic description about violence isn't particularly useful. The logic of "you should avoid the game if you have a particular sensitivity" is self-defeating. Who else is going to actually report on the game having potentially traumatic content to someone with a unique sensitivity but a person with that sensitivity? What we are left with is a situation where 1) we ask people to rely on random good Samaritans, weeks after release, to give them sufficient information or 2) ask that some subset of people traumatize themselves for the benefit of the group. 

 

Neither is acceptable when the solution is just having better disclosure about the content of the game, which costs very little comparatively. 

[Iakus]

 

Neither is acceptable when the solution is just having better disclosure about the content of the game, which costs very little comparatively. 

How much disclosure is "enough", though?  

[saladinbob]

DAI has an interview where they removed a scene where Leliana impostor seduced the Inquisitor, but it was removed because they perceive it as rape by one of the female staff members. I'm just waiting to hear what people's thoughts on this, and I hope people can avoid the snarky remarks in general. Certain topics like child killing or rape or racism are very sensitive since people can be affected by it, but it also brings out certain awareness and a strong emotion and connection to the characters if it fits with the narrative. I'm not talking about intentionally forcing sensitive topics into the game, but if it's organic and happen to fit the characters, I feel like it should be used. It's not also about being edgy or pushing the envelop, but if it's a topic that happens to come up in the game, if they should avoid or try to put in the alternatives. 

 

One of the most powerful scenes I found in video games is with the character Angela from Silent Hill 2, which is about personal purgatory. She was sexually abused by her father, while nothing ever mentioned explicitly, her manifestation created a monster with a bed with 2 figures, and the batons coming in and out of the holes. She always carries a knife with her, and in the end, James finds himself in her purgatory with fire everywhere, indicating how she feels about her life all the time. She killed her father and running away, looking for her mother, who ignored her suffering, mistaking others for her mother. It also created a contrast between her and the main character, James, who also killed someone that caused his suffering. The character also brings out some very emotional pain and state of mind where she talks to James like he has savior complex and point out the hypocrisy and weakness in his behaviors. It's very powerful and pulls the audience in when uses organically. 

 

 

There are several examples, but I don't want to detract from the discussion, and I'm not sure if it'd get locked since it is a sensitive topic, and I don't know if people would start mocking and attacking. I do see why some people may not like certain topics, especially if it's personal experience, and some topics can get pretty cliche. It's just about artistic vision vs. sensitivity, I guess. 

 

It depends upon the circumstances and the world they're trying to create. We don't live in a perfect world, so why should games not be representative of that fact? Take The Witcher series, for example. If we use Rape as the example, it never glorifies it but it does acknowledge that it takes place, especially in the third game within the context of an occupying force. Rape was, and still is in certain regions of the world, used as a tool of war by certain parties.

 

If the game is within such a setting, does it not do rape victims an injustice to pretend that it's all wine and roses and these things never happen? If the game was within such a setting, would we really want one that treats us as children, shielding us from the monsters in the closet? Or do we want a game that hammers home the horrors and brutality of such a setting? Like I said, it's all about the context and the world setting. So the real question is, do you want to buy a game that is sanitized?

[Seraphim24]

It depends upon the circumstances and the world they're trying to create. We don't live in a perfect world, so why should games not be representative of that fact? Take The Witcher series, for example. If we use Rape as the example, it never glorifies it but it does acknowledge that it takes place, especially in the third game within the context of an occupying force. Rape was, and still is in certain regions of the world, used as a tool of war by certain parties.

 

And why should games be exempt from striving towards perfection?

[FKA_Servo]

It depends upon the circumstances and the world they're trying to create. We don't live in a perfect world, so why should games not be representative of that fact? Take The Witcher series, for example. If we use Rape as the example, it never glorifies it but it does acknowledge that it takes place, especially in the third game within the context of an occupying force. Rape was, and still is in certain regions of the world, used as a tool of war by certain parties.

If the game is within such a setting, does it not do rape victims an injustice to pretend that it's all wine and roses and these things never happen? If the game was within such a setting, would we really want one that treats us as children, shielding us from the monsters in the closet? Or do we want a game that hammers home the horrors and brutality of such a setting? Like I said, it's all about the context and the world setting. So the real question is, do you want to buy a game that is sanitized?

Well, isn't what constitutes sanitization sort of subjective?

I think that leaving something to the imagination means just that. As has been put forth many times in this thread and elsewhere, difficult subjects shouldn't be verboten, but they should be handled deftly. And without speaking to the particular example you give (because I don't remember the specific examples in TW3 off the top of my head), just because a topic like rape isn't glorified doesn't necessarily mean it's handled thoughtfully or well. Plus, it's not as though there aren't a million things also happening in a situation like TW3's that aren't explicitly shown, either.

[In Exile]

How much disclosure is "enough", though?

I think that's actually a question more relevant to, say, mental health professionals. Because it shouldn't be hard to come up with universal trigger warnings - what works on a book can work on a game.

[Steelcan]

I think that's actually a question more relevant to, say, mental health professionals. Because it shouldn't be hard to come up with universal trigger warnings - what works on a book can work on a game.

I still don't see the necessity of it, even the most cursory glance at pre-release material should let people know what the game's content is likely to include

[ThomasBlaine]

As I remember it, Bioware handled rape perfectly well in Dragon Age: Origins. Shianna's and the female city elf's ordeal, the threat of women being taken by darkspawn and the large-scale sale of elves into slavery were all dramatic and horrifying without becoming vulgar or objectifying or demeaning the victims, and their presence lent the setting some real grit and brutality. I can't say how rape victims felt about those elements, but as an average gamer it only increased my immersion and respect for the whole project, and the lack of similar things in later games took away from the setting's credibility in my opinion.

 

I don't think such things should be shoved in our faces for shock value, but if they're handled well and taken seriously by the developers I don't think there's anything in games that should be avoided on general principle. And games should definitely not be forbidden from implementing anything specific. The scenario with a seductive Leliana impostor could have been interesting in any number of ways that I would personally have liked to see in the game, but without knowing exactly what they had planned it's hard to say if scrapping the idea was ultimately a good decision or not. As for mistreatment of children and other delicate issues, it can and most likely already has been handled tastefully, which is what we as customers and fans should be encouraging.

 

Censoring and discouraging developers from even trying to tackle mature themes is a horrible idea, and one that can only hurt the industry and our enjoyment of future games.

[Iakus]

I think that's actually a question more relevant to, say, mental health professionals. Because it shouldn't be hard to come up with universal trigger warnings - what works on a book can work on a game.

 

That's just it though, it's not universal.  No list sill be comprehensive enough.  How are you going to cover potential trauma triggers for everyone on the planet?

[Sartoz]

                                                                                                  <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

I was under the impression that this game is about exploration, driving the Mako, finding a new home world, finding resources, fighting off enemies, potential battles in a sp-to-mp-to back to-sp play and generally attempt to survive in a hostile cluster. 

 

Why would the writers and Art Director even come up with the idea of  integrating "sensitive topics" into the game?  Yes, it's a story but it is the story of the Pathfinder's journey into becoming the new hero. 

 

In any case, you'd think the new colonists would be vetted for "fitness" for this very crucial mission. I doubt a rape scene or a racist protagonist adds anything of value to the game's primary mission.

[straykat]

As I remember it, Bioware handled rape perfectly well in Dragon Age: Origins.

 

And even then, Sarkeesian specifically singled out the City Elf origin for her whining.

[Sartoz]

And even then, Sarkeesian specifically singled out the City Elf origin for her whining.

                                                                                                <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

And that added what to the game? Conversely, if it was omitted, would you feel the game lacked "something"?

[straykat]

                                                                                                <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

And that added what to the game? Conversely, if it was omitted, would you feel the game lacked "something"?

 

I have no complaints about it. My City Elf was badass. It was no different than Kill Bill.

 

To Anita, it's still not good enough. I don't know what she wants.

[AresKeith]

I have no complaints about it. My City Elf was badass. It was no different than Kill Bill.

 

To Anita, it's still not good enough. I don't know what she wants.

 

Attention

[Kalas Magnus]

I have no complaints about it. My City Elf was badass. It was no different than Kill Bill.

 

To Anita, it's still not good enough. I don't know what she wants.

its never enough for them...

 

never.

[Hazegurl]

There are all kinds of things people class as rape these days. Look up fraud rape/rape by deception. It means getting consensual sex by pretending to be someone you are not (not dissimilar to the Leliana thing) but has since been expanded to lying about any aspect of someone's life. So a guy tells a woman he's a millionaire, she has consensual sex with him, then finds out he isn't a millionaire. Turns out that the guy just raped her.

 

So whilst the cut Leliana content could be described as rapey, it wasn't Leliana who was being raped in that scenario. It's pretty backwards to consider Leliana the victim, as nothing happened to (the real) her.

The entire time I was reading this thread, I thought that the complaint that female dev had was that they believed Leliana (Desire Demon) raped the IQ.  I'm still wondering how on Earth Leliana became the victim in the scenario.

 

But I'm glad it was cut, if Leliana was the only freaking person they could think of for this. I think they should have used the person the IQ flirted with the most and Leliana or Cullen if the IQ flirted with no one.

[Fredward]

The entire time I was reading this thread, I thought that the complaint that female dev had was that they believed Leliana (Desire Demon) raped the IQ.  I'm still wondering how on Earth Leliana became the victim in the scenario.

 

Is that not how it was meant?

[Ieldra]

The discussion here does, however, raise an interesting question to me as I see mentions about how the writers should be able to tell the story they want without censorship, yet all the examples discussed are situations where the writers themselves removed those parts of the story because they didn't feel they worked within it. So it isn't a question of censorship, but the writers actually writing the story they want?

 

Also, I am kind of glad to have been reminded that the next time I go out to a bar and throw a hardcore racial slur at some stranger, it's really their fault for taking offense at it.

Self-censorship for the benefit of the oversenstitive is still a form of censorship. Also, of course they'd *say* they did it because it didn't fit the story. People rarely admit to self-censorship.

 

As for your latter point: one is real life, the other is in fiction. One appeal of rpgs and their stories is that we can deal with bad stuff we know from the real world by proxy. In real life, of course I'd never want to experience something like the female Warden in DAO's CE origin, but in the game, I like that the story has those unpleasant aspects and that I can handle it appropriately. For me, the difference is not between "rape is a topic in this story" or not, but between "I can deal with it appropriately" (by killing Vaughn or simply letting him rot in his cell) or not (for instance, if we had to live with him gloating over what he'd done and getting away with it).

 

In short, people being offended by bad stuff in a story - as opposed to real life - that I usually consider oversenstitive. People are not justified in being offended at all unless the story itself appears to take up the viewpoint of the offender. In any other case, this should be dealt with in-world - of course my CE Warden was enraged about what happened to her friends and almost happened to her. Merely being uncomfortable with a topic, that I understand, but that should be no reason for self-censorship if the topic fits the story or the place or social environment where it takes place.

[SnakeCode]

I have no complaints about it. My City Elf was badass. It was no different than Kill Bill.

 

To Anita, it's still not good enough. I don't know what she wants.

 

Neither does she, or people like her.

 

They say they want a female version of link, so they are given Linkle. Linkle is bad because she falls under the "Miss Male" trope, despite that being just what they asked for. Linkle's thighs are exposed, so sexualisation is a big concern as well, even though anyone familiar with TLoZ history knows that Link has worn short shorts countless times. More importantly however, that isn't what people who said they wanted "a female Link" actually wanted. They wanted THE Link to just be turned into a woman outright, because reasons.

 

This is the problem with kowtowing to these trust fund extremists. Nothing will ever be good enough, give them everything they wanted and there will still be a thousand things that make it "problematic," why? Because to quote our good friend St Anita- "Everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out."

[Seraphim24]

its never enough for them...

 

never.

 

I think Anita was focused on all these other issues and gaming was her way of making a kind of big splash so she could get to the point where she could talk about all these other generic issues within feminism or media, etc.

 

Which in many ways is exactly what happened.

 

I can't really take her super seriously about games because she argues Wind Waker is the best Zelda game and Beyond Good and Evil is like the best Ancel/Ubisoft game... both things I know to be objectively false.

 

On the other hand, she has things to say in other areas that seem fine.

 

My suspicion (possibly unfounded) is that one of her problems in games is simply that most of the time you are playing as a male making character/avatar (which is true), and failing to pinpoint that resulted in a kind of shotgun blast of criticisms. In other words, another woman that has problems expressing her strong beta tendencies when "according to society," women are supposed to be alpha all the time.

[rapscallioness]

But it was not BW's goal or intent to deal with the subject of rape in this scene. They were trying to make the envy demon situation feel more..weird and scary. But it came off as creepy and rapey. That is not what they were shooting for.

[Iakus]

But it was not BW's goal or intent to deal with the subject of rape in this scene. They were trying to make the envy demon situation feel more..weird and scary. But it came off as creepy and rapey. That is not what they were shooting for.

As I said way back at the beginning:  This is an Envy demon, not a Desire demon.  It wanted to become the Inquisitor, not seduce or trick him/her.  

[Giantdeathrobot]

Self-censorship for the benefit of the oversenstitive is still a form of censorship. Also, of course they'd *say* they did it because it didn't fit the story. People rarely admit to self-censorship.

 

 

 

There is absolutely no way to know that without being there when they took that decision, however. That kind of attitude rubs me the wrong way honestly. Are we so intent on wanting sex, gore, rape and other ''mature'' content that when it's not there, we gotta dig for a hidden motive or self-censorship in order to explain that? Can't the devs just decide not to put it there because it doesn't mesh with the particular story they want to tell, or is that not allowed anymore and we gotta search for the dreaded *gasp* agenda in order to prove to everyone how much we value artistic freedom?

 

The Envy demon trying to seduce the Not-Inquisitor-Yet doesn't mesh with its motus operandi. Had the enemy been a Desire Demon, the scene would have made sense and removing it would have been puzzling; after all, it seems to me that to a Desire Demon, questionable consent would be a quaint but irrelevant mortal concept as we see with the one that puts the Templar in its thrall in Kinloch Hold. But Envy wants to become someone, to replace them fully. I fail to see how incarnating Leliana in order to seduce the PC achieves that goal.