382 réponses à ce sujet

[SmilesJA]

Ignoring all the potentially creepy posts, I think Bioware should just use any topic as long as it serves the story.

[Ahglock]

Do you also hate the idea of labels? Because the point isn't offence, the point is informing people about the content they are going to consume. This attitude, to me, amounts to saying "Screw those people who want to know how much sugar is in their food."

Forced or voluntary?

But if you have ptsd don't play M rated games. Creating a trigger list is stupid as every subject could potentially trigger people. But even more common triggers would require a novel to cover an average M rated game. So in this context yes I hate labels. It's your responsibility if you have PTSD or other trauma to do research before you buy something. They aren't throwing this at you, you are voluntarily purchasing and consuming their media. Read reviews, ask questions, be an adult.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Forced or voluntary?

But if you have ptsd don't play M rated games. Creating a trigger list is stupid as every subject could potentially trigger people. But even more common triggers would require a novel to cover an average M rated game. So in this context yes I hate labels. It's your responsibility if you have PTSD or other trauma to do research before you buy something. They aren't throwing this at you, you are voluntarily purchasing and consuming their media. Read reviews, ask questions, be an adult.

> Does not want developers to list or label things that can trigger a reaction.

> Want people who could be triggered to research the game for the triggers. 

 

You realize how you are contradicting yourself, yes? Or are you saying that anyone who can be triggered should not get anything when it is new and wait weeks or months for just the possibility of someone other than the people who know everything about the game mentioning the specific trigger, and if that is never revealed not get the game even if it doesn't have it? 

[Ianamus]

I don't think there's a single topic that shouldn't ever be covered in media. If it fits the story and characters and is written well, why not?

 

If you try to avoid anything that could potentially upset someone you'd end up with nothing (and that would probably upset somebody as well).

[Dantriges]

The problem I see with this scene is more that the player´s avatar was involved and probably no rape victim playing it expected the magic equivalent of rape by deception  in a fantasy game.

[Rahmiel]

Certain topics should be avoided, simply because they don't fit in the narrative.  However if it fits, then the next question is, "can they execute on their narrative" and do the topic justice.  Not just "pay lip service" but have actual thought provking exploration of the topic.

 

But I am glad that someone at bioware can say, "oh hey, I don't think this works right in this game" or "I don't think the original vision/intention of this scene is coming across properly" that they can remove it.  Last thing I'd hate is to have a bud light situation on our hands.  Where something goes through 5 levels of approval and there's a massive public backlash.

 

I'm actually a fan of when sci-fi games take futuristic situations and are able to tie in back to similar arguments today.  Such as the pregnant woman and her dead husband's brother arguing on the citadel in ME1.  It's a sensitive topic yet I felt was handled well.. except for the fact that for some reason, they'd trust the first human spectre.. but whatever.

[Ahglock]

> Does not want developers to list or label things that can trigger a reaction.
> Want people who could be triggered to research the game for the triggers.

You realize how you are contradicting yourself, yes? Or are you saying that anyone who can be triggered should not get anything when it is new and wait weeks or months for just the possibility of someone other than the people who know everything about the game mentioning the specific trigger, and if that is never revealed not get the game even if it doesn't have it?

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.

[Rannik]

No.

 

If you're not designing a game for kids then you shouldn't treat players like children.

[AlanC9]

But if you have ptsd don't play M rated games. Creating a trigger list is stupid as every subject could potentially trigger people. But even more common triggers would require a novel to cover an average M rated game. So in this context yes I hate labels. It's your responsibility if you have PTSD or other trauma to do research before you buy something. They aren't throwing this at you, you are voluntarily purchasing and consuming their media. Read reviews, ask questions, be an adult.

Sounds to me like you and In Exile have very different ideas of how long and comprehensive such a trigger list would need to be.

Why not use a short and fairly generic list? If your personal trigger is in one of the generic categories then you need to look into it in detail, but otherwise not.

[Ahglock]

Sounds to me like you and In Exile have very different ideas of how long and comprehensive such a trigger list would need to be.

Why not use a short and fairly generic list? If your personal trigger is in one of the generic categories then you need to look into it in detail, but otherwise not.

Isn't that what the rating system does already?

[Iakus]

Isn't that what the rating system does already?

Yup.

 

Wasteland 2 ersb rating: M

 

for "Blood and Gore, Drug Reference, Sexual Content, Strong Language, Violence"

 

taken from the ESRB web site:

 

Rating Summary: This is a role-playing game in which players lead a law enforcement faction to investigate a threat in a post-apocalyptic desert. From a 3/4 over-head view, players traverse barren landscapes, interact with characters, and fight other human survivors and fantastical enemies (e.g., robots, mutant creatures, giant insects). Players use pistols, machine guns, shotguns, blades, and explosives to kill enemies in turn-based combat. Some attacks result in decapitations and dismemberment, with large blood pools/blood-splatter effects staining the ground; some environments also depict scattered body parts and corpses amid blood-splattered floors. During the course of the game, players can visit and engage in sexual relations with workers at a brothel—sex acts are not depicted, though sexual moaning is occasionally heard; these encounters sometimes result in characters obtaining various STDs (e.g., syphilis, “Drippy Dragon,” and “Crusty Clam”). The dialogue contains references to drugs (e.g., “It's giving honest drug dealers like me and Martha a bad name”; “Gangsters, raiders, whoremongers, drug dealers, all banded together”); one mission involves collecting mushrooms for an addict. The words “f**k,” “sh*t,” and “c*nt”  appear in the dialogue.

 

The information is out there for anyone with a computer and a little curiosity

[Iakus]

No.

 

If you're not designing a game for kids then you shouldn't treat players like children.

While true, handling the content immaturely is no different than treating the players like children.  

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Isn't that what the rating system does already?

Not really. The rating system doesn't go into detail about everything that can trigger people.

For example, even the in-depth version of the Witcher 3: Wild Hunt rating doesn't mention anything about seeing people burned alive in great detail, something that has been known to cause reactions among lethal fire or explosion survivors and soldiers. 

[SnakeCode]

Not really. The rating system doesn't go into detail about everything that can trigger people.

For example, even the in-depth version of the Witcher 3: Wild Hunt rating doesn't mention anything about seeing people burned alive in visceral detail, something that has been known to cause reactions among lethal fire or explosion survivors and soldiers. 

 

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.

[AlanC9]

Isn't that what the rating system does already?

It's not as good as, say, cable TV's.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

That's kind of the point though. Anything could potentially trigger someone. There was a certain group that 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.

Why can't we? We can do that with other things, like for example food. The don't have to give a paragraph for every single thing, but a few words per thing is certainly doable and not unreasonable. Just put it on the game or game company's website. 

[Ahglock]

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.

Damn. Jazz hands triggers me to do something.

[Il Divo]

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.

 

I think there's room for middle-ground on that. I think it would be crazy to expect trigger warnings to get as specific as "man gets burned alive", but on the other end, I think a general description of the content should be enough to let people know there might be disturbing images contained, with room for additional research on the side. 

[Ahglock]

I think there's room for middle-ground on that. I think it would be crazy to expect trigger warnings to get as specific as "man gets burned alive", but on the other end, I think a general description of the content should be enough to let people know there might be disturbing images contained, with room for additional research on the side.

As far as I can tell that is already done. It's rated M for these listed reasons. Then if you read the synopsis it gives even more detail. The request for trigger warnings has long gone past legitimate requests and instead is an attempt to bubble wrap the world it's now a method to shut down speech not warn.

[SnakeCode]

I think there's room for middle-ground on that. I think it would be crazy to expect trigger warnings to get as specific as "man gets burned alive", but on the other end, I think a general description of the content should be enough to let people know there might be disturbing images contained, with room for additional research on the side. 

 

"Man gets burned alive" would come under "violence" anyway. I bet most things would come under what's already there in the ratings label to begin with. Unless you get into ridiculous territory like the aforementioned clapping.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

As far as I can tell that is already done. It's rated M for these listed reasons. Then if you read the synopsis it gives even more detail. The request for trigger warnings has long gone past legitimate requests and instead is an attempt to bubble wrap the world it's now a method to shut down speech not warn.

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.

[Iakus]

Not really. The rating system doesn't go into detail about everything that can trigger people.

For example, even the in-depth version of the Witcher 3: Wild Hunt rating doesn't mention anything about seeing people burned alive in great detail, something that has been known to cause reactions among lethal fire or explosion survivors and soldiers. 

Not into detail, no.  But even the rating system given gives a pretty strong hint that it's a risk factor.

 

the rating says that Geralt engages in quests involving "killing enemy soldiers and fantastical creatures"  And that combat is done with "swords and other bladed weapons as well as magical attacks (e.g., blasts of fire, stun spells)"

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Not into detail, no.  But even the rating system given gives a pretty strong hint that it's a risk factor.

 

the rating says that Geralt engages in quests involving "killing enemy soldiers and fantastical creatures"  And that combat is done with "swords and other bladed weapons as well as magical attacks (e.g., blasts of fire, stun spells)"

"Blasts of fire" is not the same as "There is a mandatory scene in the game where you have to watch two people burned alive at the stake, seeing their skin melt and boil off their body as they scream in agony". Saying "People burned alive" would cover that however, and look it is only three words. Oh no, how terrible to write the novel that is three words. It took a whole two seconds. 

[Iakus]

"Blasts of fire" is not the same as "There is a mandatory scene in the game where you have to watch two people burned alive at the stake, seeing their skin melt and boil off their body as they scream in agony". Saying "People burned alive" would cover that however, and look it is only three words. Oh no, how terrible to write the novel that is three words. 

 

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.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

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.

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.