Should the developers and publishers be responsibilized by the effect of their games on the players?

Yeah, but Life is not an entertainment product.

How much more warning do you want on the game?

It's Rated M, has warnings on it for "Blood", "Sexual Themes", "Strong Language", "Violence" and "Use of Drugs". The "normal person" going into that would have some idea that, yes, this is going to deal with mature (as in the rating) themes. Life, as I said, has messed up things happening, sometimes relatively randomly.

Do you need to have extra warnings on a movie that's already said up front, "Hey this is going to get messy." unless you want them to say, "Hey this is going to get messy and this is how... we're going shoot one guy, another is going to be stabbed, one is going to have his ear chopped off"

How specific do you need them to be?

@wacomole: what if a game is apparently harmless, and has a twist that features a traumatic event of self harm? Should it be labeled violence? Do you think a person you sees the descriptor is informed of the experience he is going to go through?

I don't think so.

Except said "harmless" game has already been rated M by the ESRB, and stamped with:

Violence, Blood, Sexual Themes, Strong Language, Use of Drugs

Perhaps someone who is having difficulties in life and is easily triggered by content such as the type you mentioned should avoid games Rated M and labeled with all of those warnings already.

@mb: Pretty much this, my god man at some point in your life you have to take responsibility for your own choices and not expect the world to coddle and shelter you.

I voted no, but from the situation of what happened in this particularly incident the dev putting links to suicide helplines on there site was a good idea thing they though of when developing this episode (maybe put at the end of the credits a message about calling someone if your felling troubled might have been better) . I'm acutely really coures what Alex, Dan, and Danny would have to say about this topic with there experience of....social mental disorders. (is that the right term probably not but ehh)

But by that logic aren't things like Blood and Gore, Animated Blood, Fantasy Violence, Intense Violence, Crude Humor, Mature Humor, Sexual Content, Sexual Violence, Nudity, Partial Nudity, Drug Reference, Alcohol Reference, Use of Alcohol, Tobacco Reference, Use of Tobacco, and Violent References redundant as well?

Yeah, but then again Violence, Blood, Sexual Themes, Strong Language, Use of Drugs, you also see in a game like GTA, and that doesn't acurately depict a game like Life is Strange. Because it is not GTA, and its violence is not comparable. The virtual depiction of a rise to criminal heights is not comparable to seeing someone kill himself in front of the player, being the player also responsible by his choice. I don't think both games relate to one another, and their label shouldn't either.

Yeah, why should I expect an entertainment product to actually entertain me instead of unknowingly shocking me with the brutal reality of the world I chose to ignore for an hour or so?

For that reasoning I don't understand why people should have games as a hobby. If it presents them unknowingly with the same crap they face in reality already, in the same way. For that we have already reality. I don't need a game exposing me unknowingly to heavy themes like suicide in my downtime. Especially if I chose not to.

@jrm: Google "abusive fallacy"

@renahzor: It's their responsibility not to diverge, but to start we could, I don't know, pas some regulations or something to keep them from throwing their poison around willy nilly. That will just probably push them into secrecy, though, so maybe we should start destroying anything that might encourage that sort of thinking. You know, burn the books, censor some sites, just really keep that sort of thought from developing. Then, because we really don't want that sort of thinking corrupting our culture, we'll just mark it off. Think up some sort of symbol or identifier to mark these sorts of poison people and the places they congregate. But I mean, realistically having them just anywhere is problematic, too. I mean, it's our territory, right? Why should we put up with anything that upsets us? Why not just contain them to specific places that way there's no chance of running into anything triggering, everybody would know just where they are, we could keep an eye on them to keep any of our people from being harmed, it'd be great! Then after that, should they cross the line again or if we decide to not put up with it anymore, really stop tolerating their shit, it'd be perfectly easy just to take care of them! It all seems like a pretty safe process to me, it really is up to us to protect our own and it's probably time we start taking steps, you know?

@itwongo: I applaud your passive-aggressive reply.

The overwhelmingly one sided result of the pole pretty much sum up the opinion of the majority. As always you folks are entitled to yours as well, adios.

But then again, what we're discussing now is not holding the publishers and developers (socially) responsible, but regulating games.

Sorry, here: You are judging the soundness of his argument on the content of his character. An abusive fallacy.

Also, it seems to me you're implying an argument is correct simply because the majority thinks so which is a bandwagon argument. Another fallacy.

I'm playing the game too and you are mischaracterizing this game as something it isn't. The game alludes to a major tragedy befalling the town within the first couple of minutes, what happens almost immediately after that is an unstable student bringing a gun to school, your best friend has a step-father who is also unstable and abusive, the girl this thread is centered on telegraphs everything she is going to do. This game is far from lighthearted and that was clear from the beginning.

@jeust: If all you want is inoffensive and boring, that is fine. There are plenty of ways for you to find out what the content of a game is. If it bothers you that much, then you can look up practically anything on Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, don't complain when artists and creators produce art and creations instead of comfort food. And definitely don't complain when you're asked to give serious thought to something grim and disturbing. Darker themes and ideas are such an enduring part of human expression for good reasons. If you don't want to face such things, there are plenty of ways to easily shield yourself.

@jeust: You keep saying you're being "unknowingly" exposed to this stuff, whilst completely ignoring that big slanty "M" that's broadly telling you what to expect.

@wacomole said:

@jeust: You keep saying you're being "unknowingly" exposed to this stuff, whilst completely ignoring that big slanty "M" that's broadly telling you what to expect.

I made a post earlier about this, but if these generalist warnings are enough to satisfy, then aren't things like Blood and Gore, Animated Blood, Fantasy Violence, Intense Violence, Crude Humor, Mature Humor, Sexual Content, Sexual Violence, Nudity, Partial Nudity, Drug Reference, Alcohol Reference, Use of Alcohol, Tobacco Reference, Use of Tobacco, and Violent References just as redundant as Suicide, Suicide References, and Suicidal Themes?

I view content and trigger warnings the same way I view accessibility options — including them should always be up to the developers, but when they are, it's something to celebrate, not scorn or mock.

Yeah, the tornado. You also see a tornado in Alan Wake, and that hardly counts a major tragedy.

And a student brings a gun to school, and then you rewind it, and the consequences of his actions are nulified, and so is the gun, that never appears again.

The stepfather is traumatized and paranoid, and hit the step daughter that was talking back to him. What is a violent gesture, but nothing extraordinary, as it happens in the relationship between parents and their sons and daughters.

All this accompaigned by soft music, and juvenile imagery.

I don't remember if the girl talked about suicide in the sms. Still the scene was shocking, and came out of nowhere.

The game had drama from the beginning, but nothing as dark as the suicide. A lot of entertainment features drama, but keeps it lighthearted.

Here is your trigger warnings list.

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/synopsis.jsp?Certificate=10016105&Title=

Life Is Strange – Episode 1: American Chrysalis:

Rating: M for Mature

Content Descriptors: Violence, Blood, Sexual Themes, Strong Language, Use of Drugs

If the sound of any of that scares you, maybe don't play this game.

In the future they may want to add "Use of Clapping, Strong Clapping, Clapping Themes, and Clapping" to their descriptors.

Edit: I'm a slowpoke, sorry everyone who had the same idea.

@mb

@itwongo said:

I made a post earlier about this, but if these generalist warnings are enough to satisfy, then aren't things like Blood and Gore, Animated Blood, Fantasy Violence, Intense Violence, Crude Humor, Mature Humor, Sexual Content, Sexual Violence, Nudity, Partial Nudity, Drug Reference, Alcohol Reference, Use of Alcohol, Tobacco Reference, Use of Tobacco, and Violent References just as redundant as Suicide, Suicide References, and Suicidal Themes?

Well, you are looking beside the point. I shouldn't have to search the internet to get information about a product I want to buy. That's what ESRB descriptors are for. And I don't want to get spoiled on the actual story of the game, to see if it is suits my preferences or not.

I would like to know the ways to shield myself, when descriptors are too vague to really distinguish different kind of games, and the only sure way, well is to expose myself to spoilers or the game, to know exactly what the game entails, and then I get spoiled.

I'm not harping against creative freedom. I'm just saying new descriptors and disclaimers would be a great idea to warn people about shocking experiences in games.

While trigger warning are not bad, the people who complain about the lack as well as the inclusion of them can be very irritating.

To the gun thing. It doesn't matter that you can rewind it. He brings a gun to school and kills a girl. You can rewind it but the initial imagery can still be considered a trigger.

the stepfather seems to have signs of PTSD and the way Chloe talks about him makes it seem like he has done some extreme stuff to her mother and her in the past. Episode 2 brought it down a bit to just hitting but in episode 1 it seemed like it was a larger problem.

Within the first few minutes of meeting Kate in ep. 1 I though "She's depressed." Within her first appearance in ep. 2 when she gets bullied and the tape is revealed I thought" Kate is going to try to kill herself." Kate even talks about a possible rape that she experienced. She complained about not having friends or people that loved her, how shameful she'd be if her church and family found out about the tape, and her overall demeanor points to danger. If you know anything about depression or suicide victims she seemed like the textbook definition.

And the fact that the music is soft doesn't matter since, if you paid attention to them, they seem sad and oppressive in tone. The juvenile imagery seems like it's meant to represent nostalgia for a time of innocence that the main character has lost. Her ability to rewind time and the fact that rewinding too far causes her pain even points to that. Now she has to deal with real life. The fact that she loses her power in those crucial moments mean that not everything is avoidable and sometimes you have to face the present. The suicide even fits with the overall message. This game is not the walk in the park you want to make it as.

Everyone is arguing from the same direction, from the POV of the consumer. I'm going to take the argument from the opposite direction, the POV of the artist, because I'd be interested to see what the responses to that would be in contrast to the responses already aired. Note: I'm not an artist or creator, I'm just interested in debating this from a different angle to see what it brings up.

The artist, or content creator, should be able to make any statement they wish without being censored. Most would agree with this so let's go a step further: The artist should be able to reserve the right to have any content warnings removed from their work for any reason. Some works of art/books/films/games are supposed to be confrontational, disturbing, controversial, thought-provoking, difficult, unpleasant, disrespectful, challenging - all that lovely stuff.

Everyone that makes these things has the right to express themselves without their work being pre-emptively diluted (or "spoiled") by warnings indicating the type and/or severity of the content contained within. Sometimes this is achieved by being unexpectedly shocking, other times the theme of the work itself requires it to get up in peoples faces that wouldn't normally choose to expose themselves to it, say if their aim is to present an unpopular political point or try to change or challenge society or attitudes in some way. They might even just want to piss people off! And that's fine, no-one has an intrinsic right to not be offended. Perhaps the only point someone making this argument could reasonably be expected to concede is let's keep the "not suitable for young children" warnings in the obvious cases - but that's it.

Obviously I'm devil's advocating here; my actual opinion falls into a more central position. I believe no-one should be censored and should have the right to make anything they wish saying anything they want it to say in whatever manner they deem conveys the message most effectively. I also believe that empathy is a really cool thing and more humans should practise it in order to be decent and kind to one another so the world can be better. These two statements don't have to be mutually exclusive, but in certain situations they butt heads and one or the other has to give (Je suis Charlie debacle, anyone?)

For the record, anyone suggesting any kind of government regulation on what content should or shouldn't be allowed to be portrayed in works of fiction I think is super-wrong. On the flipside, people don't have the right to protection from the consequences of the shitty things they say or create, so if they make pariahs of themselves and get shunned and boycotted because of whatever offensive thing they made, that's on them.

Even the ESRB beg to differ...

"ESRB ratings are a great starting point, but are just one tool among many. For more inquisitive parents there is an abundance of resources that provide information and insight about the games your kids are asking for."

and...

"Checking a game's ESRB rating and rating summary is a great way to gain insight into its content and decide about a game's appropriateness for your child. If you'd like to go even deeper you may want to take advantage of additional information available on the following websites, many of which include screen shots of game play, videos, demos and other resources that can help you get better acquainted with a game's content and decide if it's right for your family."

They themselves recommend you looking further elsewhere (including enthusiast websites like this one) if you want to know more specifically about a product. They are there to give you an indication of what to expect and for that "normal person" you mentioned earlier it's acceptable enough. If you're finding that they are not giving you enough information to reliably make your purchasing choice, then it looks very likely that you will have to take their advice and look for further information from other sources.

This is literally impossible to do in many cases without spoiling the game. I don't know what else to tell you.

If a developer has to go "*****WARNING: THERE IS A SCENE INVOLVING *fill in specific graphic thing here* *****" then in some cases they are spoiling a major scene or part of the game.

What you want is the equivalent of having ***** WARNING: THERE IS THE CONCEPT OF CANNIBALISM IN THIS MOVIE ***** at the start of Soylent Green. It would ruin the whole thing.

If this is the future of people, the robots are going to win. Absolutely spineless. "People need to help people do everything. Even if they're capable of making decisions for themselves and experiencing life. If it's not to my advantage I don't want to do it. Unless it inconveniences someone else, that way I can blame someone."

"Would you like to view disclaimers? Y/N"

While I can empathize with how people feel. I've learned, and felt through creating my own art that, if I am forced to summarize it in word form I am belitting the impact of the message I want to convey. I do feel this is a gray area with no easy answer.

Hell no!

No

That's one of the purposes of the ESRB. Their ratings and content rationale should cover most of that, hopefully anything that would merit a trigger warning would be classified. I'm glad they will be rating digital games soon. More information for consumers is always a good thing.

If you as a consumer look at their content list for a given game and see a general term to something you find traumatic, then it's probably worth investigating further to make sure it's something you can handle. As long as consumers have a fair opportunity to make an informed decisions, at some point the buyer does have to assume some responsibility for what they consume.

If developer want to include even more detailed and explicit warnings, more power to them. That's a only a good thing.

That being said I've heard episode 2 of Life is Strange is pretty heart wrenching.

@itwongo said:

@wacomole said:

@jeust: You keep saying you're being "unknowingly" exposed to this stuff, whilst completely ignoring that big slanty "M" that's broadly telling you what to expect.

I made a post earlier about this, but if these generalist warnings are enough to satisfy, then aren't things like Blood and Gore, Animated Blood, Fantasy Violence, Intense Violence, Crude Humor, Mature Humor, Sexual Content, Sexual Violence, Nudity, Partial Nudity, Drug Reference, Alcohol Reference, Use of Alcohol, Tobacco Reference, Use of Tobacco, and Violent References just as redundant as Suicide, Suicide References, and Suicidal Themes?

If the descriptors you've listed are on the box, then they are in fact in the game. The stuff in that image is part of a definition of what "M" means on a game case - it may include those things, but doesn't necessarily include all of them. No, they aren't redundant, they're general enough to not spoil anything and specific enough to tell those wary that this game has some content that shouldn't be viewed by those sensitive to it.

The bits about suicide step a little too far into "spoiler" territory. If Gears of War 3 had a suicide spoiler warning on the back of the box, I could have made a good guess as to who was going to pull off a suicidal move.

In any case

@jeust

You asked what we think in your initial post. Now that I have access to a proper keyboard at home, I have a better answer.

If you're picking up an M-rated game, you should know beforehand that you're stepping into territory where anything goes. You might be buying a game where you're asked to, at the very least, accompany men shooting down civilians in an airport. You might be buying a game where the player is asked to beat men to death with pipes, two-by-fours, and baseball bats. You might be buying a game where a man finds his long-lost wife in the clutches of his enemies and he decides to end her suffering himself because the chances she'll make it out alive are slim to none and she's not going to do it under her own power. How 'bout that last one? What's the ESRB going to put on the box for that one?

Art - and entertainment is a form of art - is supposed to make you think, and sometimes the goal is to make you think about something unsettling and feel uncomfortable. If you're sheltering yourself from anything that might offend you, then at some point you're sheltering yourself from any sort of critical thinking about anything - morality, society, the world around you, and exploring those sorts of things in a work of art often requires details and events that can make people uncomfortable. And they should! Thank god they do! They're supposed to! But you should never try to shelter yourself from ideas and expressions that make you stop and think, even if it makes you think about things as grim and depressing as suicide. You're stopping your own self-growth when you refuse to acknowledge and deal with such ideas. If you can't face uncomfortable themes in a story of any sort, then what are you going to do when they happen in real life?

On a final note, think about all of the games that you have played as well as all of the stories you've read and the movies you've seen. Now think about all of the potentially disturbing things in them. I know you've played The Last of Us - are you really saying that the ESRB should, in addition to what's already on the box, add descriptors detailing drowning, claustrophobia, implications of rape, killing defenseless doctors, terminal airborne diseases, murderous psychopaths, suicide, and abusing children? I'm sure I could think of more, but all of those things are in the game at some point, and all of them could trigger fears and extreme discomfort in some individuals. Do you really think that the ESRB, Sony, and/or Naughty Dog should be held responsible for any discomfort those people feel? And if they are made responsible for people's reactions to their game, what then? We just get a bunch of bland stuff processed through a billion filters to ensure that they're as inoffensive as possible so as to avoid lawsuits?

MB, man, I really hope you haven't locked this like I suspected you would for a little while, I spent too long writing this out.

English isn't my native language but responsibilized sounds stupid as fuck and I doubt it's a real word.

I know the word responsible but I highly doubt you can use it like OP did.

That's because responsibilized isn't a word.

You make a good point

Games are supposed to make you feel things. That's what they're there for.

Also, sad, depressing stuff is the best thing for you when you're sad and depressed.

@mb: Haha, your patronising disregard for people with mental health issues is hilarious! No, but really, you come up with all these extreme examples and say we can't account for all of them and you're right. But we probably can account for things where it's patently obvious that this will have an impact on someone. Like say rape. Or suicide. These aren't abstract ideas. It's pretty clear that seeing rape in media can have horrible repercussions on rape survivors. And if that means poor ickle you has to suck it up and deal with a 2 sentence warning about how this thing contains/may contain scenes of sexual violence so prepare yourself for that accordingly then I think that's not exactly going over the top and infringing upon creators freedom.

@itwongo: I don't know. There is no easy answer. Mentioning suicide in the ESRB blurb probably would help but I'd be lying if I told you the last time I actually read one of those was in the last 5 years. A line in among the opening credits/licensing screens would be more likely to grab my attention but how much more likely? I can't say.

I'm not going to say that trigger warnings are perfect. Hell, in the past I've gone out for shit with trigger warnings on them when I was in a low mood and "looking for motivation" if you get me. But I really don't get why the idea offends some people so much. God, I wish I could be that ignorant.

@forkboy: I dont get you one iota, please explain.

Has there actually ever been any evidence about the (positive) effects of trigger warnings? I did a quick google search and found respectable sources saying that exposure is actually a more powerful tool of overcoming traumas and depression than avoidance as the latter will only reinforce a feeling of helplessness.

I'm all for empathy, but I honestly think there's a big difference between empathizing and trying to make stories predictable and 'safe' for, what we assume, everyone. As far as I can see, the developers actually empathized by not only warding off minors from their website, but also including telephone numbers of suicide prevention lines from different countries, and I hope they won't prevent themselves in the future from including events in the game that they deem necessary for the story.

People also say "welp", does not make it a word, wiki can be updated by literally anyone so it cant be used as proof

No. Media is media, and you partake in it of your own volition. There are also plenty of resources to help you out if there are specific things that trigger you/set you off when on screen. You can even ask a friend who you know doesn't care about the story to skim through a synopsis/Wikipedia article and tell you of anything without spoiling the narrative. Developers/publishers should not be held accountable for this kind of stuff, especially considering the very wide spectrum of things that people can get upset over.

I feel as though that negative feelings/emotions/themes are just as important as the positive counterparts when it comes to introspection. Birdman, for instance, didn't exactly have the happiest ending in the world, but it did provide some serious food for thought. You are doing yourself a disservice if all you expose yourself to is what you deem to be safe content, though I do understand that triggers/PTSD is a very real thing.

Edit: Another recent example I'd state of a game that used a very shocking ending is Hotline Miami 2.Had the nature of the ending been issued as a trigger warning, it would have completely the impact out of the final scene.

@kagato: Welp is definitely a word.

What about a self-harm warning?

As someone who aspires to write fantasy novels some day, I will firmly stand by the idea that creators are not responsible for whatever reactions their creations elicit. Even if you felt that a particularly shocking and personally traumatic scene came out of nowhere and changed an entire work from being fun to too dark to be fun, they didn't do a damn thing wrong. Even if they handle heavy themes such as sexual assault in poor taste or reduce it to shallow shock value, they didn't do a damn thing wrong. It's up to you whether or not to buy it, and it's up to you to handle your own personal demons. It's also up to you whether or not to give it a one star review on amazon afterwards, or w/e you want to do, but it's not a creator's job to worry about the rest of the world's issues. It just isn't, and god help us all if it ever is.

Now, you brought up expanding the warnings that appear on games, and I personally wouldn't mind that if it helped some people avoid stuff that they would rather not relive. The ESRB already have a content descriptor for sexual violence, so I don't see how adding self-harm or suicide to the list would be at all uncalled for. Yes, it is a bit more specific and "spoilery" but whatever. If you're not a person who deals with these issues, or a parent giving a game to a kid, do you honestly ever look at what the ratings says? People are being real dickheads about that idea in this thread. Nobody's asking for a plethora of content descriptors ranging from claustrophobia to airborne diseases (@believer258). They're asking for the specific ones that normal people are likely to experience and develop actual PTSD for; not simple phobias which can be fucking anything. Turns out that list is pretty small and wouldn't be terribly hard to add.

However, I have always found books to be far more disturbing than games because they plant you straight in a person's head with no filter and ask you to engage with the content creatively by turning words into images. Studies have shown that heavy readers are more empathetic and respectful of viewpoints they don't share than the average non-reader specifically because of this phenomenon. Because of this I've never once understood the argument that, simply because video games are interactive, they elicit a stronger emotional response than other mediums. I just honestly don't believe that to be true at all, have never experienced it personally, and have never met anyone in person that has claimed as such. So, if it's not true and games are basically the same as movies as far as emotional response, why should they be expected to bear these warnings/content descriptors when not a single book will warn you of what's contained inside the pages? The ESRB and the MPAA exist specifically to help lazy parents decide on the most general of criteria what is appropriate for their child to watch, so it's a bit silly to expect either to turn into something more than that, even if it would be helpful for some.

Yeah, but a person should make a conscious choice of facing traumas and depression, and not be force fed in his/hobbie unknowingly. As all good that can come from facing such a trauma unknowingly, it will also hurt a person profoundly, if a person is sensible to themes the game dabbles on, especially if the intention of the developers is to shock. If it shocks a normal person, imagine a person who is susceptible to the themes. This is more than an unconvenience to such individuals.

And I'm not against creativity, or dealing with heavy issues. I am just for descriptors and warnings that could tell the consumer a bit of what he is getting into, instead of letting it play out, and leaving the player sort his own feelings afterwards, by himself.

Yeah, because I'm going to ask a friend to check the content of every game I want to play to see if it's safe for me. That is really a viable solution. Sincerely, it feels like a shoehorned solution by someone that doesn't want to have their hobbie changed imperceptibly, to take into account the problems of a section of gamers. There are games that have those same warnings I talk. Games like Resident Evil 0-3. How has seeing those disclaimers inconvenienced you?

Like you said triggers and PTSD are very real, and like that there are other themes that shock a normal person, who isn't susceptible to them in the first place. Things like rape, extreme sexual behaviour, extreme violence, self-harm, and its extremity, suicide, or even liberties taken with religion. There is little ambiguity about what shocks the population in general, and there should be warnings about it, in media.

Well a person shouldn't have to face issues he doesn't want in media, in the entertainment he consumes, as a distraction. I personally don't look in entertainment to face the issues, I face when I deal with real life. I look for a safer experience. Because there would be little reason to distract myself if it would only be to provoke the same kind of distress I find myself in real life. The function of entertainment is to entertain, not to problematize the consumer. Although I do appreciate content that does so, but I, the consumer, should be made aware of what I'm getting into, before seeing it fully realized on screen, and having to deal with it.

Man, disclaimers is something that flashes for five seconds in the beggining of a game, and descriptives are something that every game has. And how much does they spoil to you nowadays? Personally I don't remember the descriptives when I play a game, and I'm experiencing it. Are you thinking about them when you are deep in a firefight, or watching a cutscene? Unless you are susceptible to the themes, you probably won't care about them, unless you want to.

That doesn't solve the issue of him wanting warnings about potential triggers but not wanting spoilers.

What he wants is essentially a catch-22. He wants potential trigger warnings but he doesn't want spoilers. In many cases, the only way to list all potential trigger warnings would be to spoil major concepts in the story, which in itself often spoils the story. So if he wants to find out potential triggers he has no choice but to potentially spoil the story. One could literally break this down into formal logic to prove what he wants is logically impossible.

This forces one of two things, either warnings that are incredibly generic/non-specific and thus useless (and likely already covered by ESRB stuff) so they don't spoil the story or it forces specific warnings that are likely to spoil the story.