Playdate: Tender Loving Care (04/14/2017)

The car accident was two months ago on 2/20/96. That means that it's smokedog420, brooooo! wheeeeeheheheheheeheh!

@artisanbreads: @monthly:

Honest question: does having the warning affect you in any way, shape, or form? Does it upset you that it's there? If not, then maybe just don't worry about it? It's there for people who might encounter something like some of the dialogue from that radio program, or the ways people portray mental illness in this game, and find it upsetting. If it doesn't bother you, then the warning isn't for you.

The site has been around for a long time. Times changes and people learn.

Also Vinny does not have to be but he is because he seems like a good person and wants people to feel accepted. It's odd that you question his awareness and understanding of the issues.

This is almost like the shitty, 90s thriller version of what Until Dawn did with its intermissions that asked questions of the player and adjusted the game with those responses in mind. The main protagonist being a terrible asshole with no sense of personal progression up to the sex scene is a big turnoff that at least the crew can give it the jeers it deserves.

Because questioning such things makes someone a bad person.

There's probably a clause in CBS contracts that states you need to present a certain way to reflect the values of the company, so you don't bring undue heat on them, and they don't have to put "The views of Bill Doe don't necessarily reflect the values of CBS blablabla" in all the videos or segments you're in. If you look, in general, at the way CBS news slants, it's pretty clear what the values of the company are, and that's fine. Corporations are free to adopt a certain culture of place and require their employees to act in certain ways.

The Adam and Eve question from these videos, and Vinny kind of silently squirming, but not protesting, Alex's white supremacist Hot Mess around GOTY time seems to suggest to me that he's not fully on board personally with the way Alex clearly thinks, but knows better than to say anything because of where he works.

@barrock: Beth Tegarden, the blonde psychiatrist.

.

It looks like there is a 1 hour, 57 minute cut of this.

I love reading people getting triggered over trigger warnings.

Boy is this a weird thing. And what's the actual point in the "explore the house" sections? There only seems to be relatively minor flavour text/content available in them. Is it just to maintain the flimsiest, barest pretence that this is a game rather than a choose your own adventure movie (light on the choosing part)?

The guy who wrote the book this mess is based on also wrote The Devil's Advocate. I don't know why I feel it's important that you know that, but here we are.

Also, why do people feel the need to complain about content warnings? Does it hurt you? No? Then why bang on about what is essentially a harmless attempt at courtesy?

I can't believe that people are bitching about the warning. Actually, it's a comments section on the internet, so I totally can. If our options are: put up warning for "offensive" content or never dabble with "offensive" content, then I should think that the right choice is pretty clear.

I'm actually kind of invested in seeing how this story plays out. It's hokey, but I don't think that it's that bad. Not really seeing why there's so much eroticism, though. Seems out of place with little payoff.

Thank you for this. Watched 1&2 back to back

Everything about this game is a surreal nightmare.

John Hurt seems like the worst, most oblivious psychiatrist ever.

Was this entire game created in order to demonize mental healthcare professionals?

People whining about the warning is the most hilarious thing in a while. Fucking amazing.

@allodude: Maybe it really was funded by scientologists.

So I bought this "game". Only got one ending so far, but it was the most 90's ass thing ever.

Some of the flavour text and stuff you can read is pretty out there. There's a book in Kathryn's drawer they haven't looked at yet which is a thing and Micheal's journal is ridiculous.

I really can't imagine being the person who would be angry at the existence of a content warning on a side bar.

@bloody_skirmish: This fuckin 'I bet he's secretly one of the good ones' bullshit.

@bloody_skirmish: I think you're seeing things which aren't there to be honest. Everyone is just trying to have a good time and have fun while acknowledging that this games portrayal of serious issues is absolutely piss poor.

I saw a viewer discretion warning in front of a network tv cop show in 1997, and it ruined my life. How dare they put a warning I could easily ignore in front of entertainment I want to watch? People are given the option of deciding whether a show is right for them before they watch it? And it has no impact on me or my enjoyment of the show? What has the world come to?

@monthly: You're right, there's no way to account for every possible reaction everyone could possibly have to this kind of stuff. But some of the things this game tries (and mostly fails) to address is stuff I know can be upsetting to folks, so putting a little warning up front is a quick way to let people know, just in case. It's up to people to decide whether they can handle something or not. Having that information at the top helps them make that decision. I think this is a really goofy thing to get irritated about.

Man, I'm still enjoying their commentary, but I really don't understand the hostility! This game looks astonishing, I wish I had known about it sooner. It's exactly the kind of game I've always wanted to make. I don't think it's trivializing the concept of mental health at all. I do wonder, in the crew's opinion, what a game depicting one's psychological health should look like? Because this seems quite nice.

Maybe it's just an American thing, I don't know. In any case, I'm quite compelled by the story so far, and I'm happy that they'll continue to play it. They do have some nice observations and jokes, but I must repeat how baffling I find their distaste for this game.

Addendum: can anyone explain what was up with Vinny's reaction to Michael's coworker bringing up the handicapped kid? I'm kind of confused. He seemed to really dislike that character, but all she seemed to be doing was expressing sympathy for having to care for a handicapped child, especially with everything the couple has already been through. Is there some connotation with the word "handicapped" that I'm missing?

Or you just put up a little warning and they know before they even press play. Done. No inconvenience to you or me or anyone else. It's a really weird thing to be bothered by a text box under a video.

@rothbart: If I remember right the phrase used was "it's handicapped". The pronoun "it" refers to objects and is a dehumanising extremely rude way to refer to people, even more so when said person is handicapped as the implication there is that being handicapped is the reason they don't count as properly human.

-

As for why Vinny in particular found it objectionable, he's a father and shown to be the most protective of children. He was also the one that seemed most uncomfortable earlier on with the prospect that the game involved a childs death and most strongly reacted to the scene of the car accident (complete with close up of said dead child). It makes perfect sense that he'd be most disgusted by a character referring to a handicapped child as "it".

-

ALSO being congratulated on adopting a handicapped child like you've taken in a 3 legged dog is gross. The sense that you're looking after the child out of a sense of pity and this is a grand charitable act that you should be congratulated for.

@alex: okay? It's just a brief remark. Do what ever you want on this website, I just commented on something on the site. I didn't cancel my subscription and write an angry letter.

It was just very impersonal and she referred to the children as "another one" and "this one was handicapped". Not really a way you want to talk about kids in general but with a handicapped child that can come across as very dehumanizing.

The whole thing was awkward just from a conversational standpoint.

@rothbart: the game repeatedly implies or outright states that mental healthcare is quackery. It adopts numerous positions on the subject that are held by, for example, the Church of Scientology. Its portrayal both of the characters being treated and those treating them is extremely cartoonish and betrays a fundamentally flawed, incomplete and inexpert grasp of issues which are incredibly complex and sensitive. The people who wrote this do not seem like they were even remotely qualified to handle this subject matter.

I get that it may not be great in depiction but where are you getting this from? I didn't see this in the game. The only person who kind of takes this attitude is Michael but the game has consistently made him out to be a jerk (and beyond that he goes back to Hurt constantly and isn't against mental health treatment itself but the methods).

The entire premise supports mental health care. Two traumatized people are seeking it out. What you think of the depictions and the fact that they are creating a paranoid, mystery vibe is up to you but I think this is off base. Even when Hurt's character sees what is going on in the house he has an outraged reaction.

To me the game's premise and everything is super 90's and there were psychological thriller movies made along similar lines with the same sorts of treatment of this issue. I don't see how it's saying "mental health is a joke" by any possible stretch.

@artisanbreads: The nurse says as much outright. And around the same time, it's repeatedly stated that she is "very experienced" and her previous "successes" are highlighted. It's true that the Doctor begins to question her ethics later, but his breezy, hands off approach to the situation is part of the problem so it barely helps mitigate the problem at all. They're portraying precisely two people who are credentialed mental healthcare experts and both of them are either ethically compromised or flat out incompetent. Meanwhile, the only person shown to explicitly take issue with them is played as a straight up jerk, and his questioning of their methods is one of the reasons he's painted as a bad guy (this despite the fact he's clearly dealing with his own issues, something the game makes only very passing mention of to the point it feels like an afterthought). Maybe they patch up some of these issues in the final third of the story, but it's hardly surprising people would find it questionable based on what's been shown so far.

@jensonb: I really don't mean to be dismissive but this is all simple drama and in line with psychological thrillers all over the place.

They aren't saying "oh this woman nurse is right", they want you to question her all long. Hurt is standing back because he's the narrator for a video game who comes in and make some comments. And in the end I don't see anything saying "hey player, if you have mental health issues don't seek help because this is what happens".

If people have issues with it in ways I get it. As I mentioned previously, I have mental issues and simple stigmatizing or trivializing of them can play a factor in making people ignore mental health issues and stuff. But as far as the specific "this is saying mental health care is bullshit". Just off the top of my head I could mention the Sopranos as a show that shows multiple angles on mental health and doesn't always show the doctor as being perfect or all of it as being productive.

I do not see the game going near that far in any way. I do think your other points are fair (like Michael being seen as having no mental issues, but I think that will come to be a factor in the conclusion if I was to guess).

I just wanted to defend the game a bit on that one point because I don't think it's like attacking the mentally ill and certainly doesn't deserve any comparisons to Scientology (people who would rather murder than allow mental health to be worked on). I think it's clearly of the time when psychological thrillers like this were big (and again certainly not great execution in this game).

It really sounds like you're making assumptions without any proof. As someone who has worked for a number of major corporations that are very similar to CBSi I can tell you right now that your claim that CBS is trying to control the narrative of GB though contract clauses and such is nonsense.

Companies are generally very hands-off when it comes to these brands unless they do something egregious and attention is brought it, like how Maker Studios/Disney didn't even notice PewDiePie's behavior until it was brought up in a WSJ article months later.

Also I don't understand why anyone gets offended about content warnings. Like Alex said, if it doesn't bother you, then cool! Just ignore the warning. That's all you have to do.

yesss..this is the best!!

Dude, go back and listen to the first 3 - 4 years of the Bombcast. There are easily one to two things said per show that would get them in hot water in this day and age. Times change. The Honeymooners, or even Seinfeld would NEVER get made today. People in the public eye have to either change with the times or crash hard. Another example would be Howard Stern. His back catalog of radio shows could NEVER EVER be on radio these days, and his current show is super safe celebrity interviews. Despite all that I did enjoy the Vinny fan fiction some people were writing in this thread.

lol if anyone who watches an even remotely decent amount of gb content or listens to the podcasts thinks a single one of them is right-wing in any way

evidence? nah motherfucker, I've got a HUNCH, and by god that's all I need

Small comment on the difference in perception between positive and negative portrayals of mental illness depending on where you live. I live in a country where there are stories about mentally health people being chained up because families don't know what to do, or being sealed in rooms with only a slot for food. So for me atm, having my own mental health issues, I completely understand why this is a terrible portrayal, but I feel like this game could almost be learning material for people where I live, which is really sad!

Ryan also hates Brad.

Welcome to the penis farm everybody.

Hope you enjoy your stay!

I wanted to mention how it's weird that there is a huge disclaimer excusing the content of the game, and then I see there is a gigantic debate dedicated to this very topic.

Thank you for doing this. Vinny playing FMV is one of my favorite things about Giant Bomb. Never stop.

I dont think the game is too bad.

I killed time this weekend by reading the novel on which this game is based. I'll save detailed reactions for the next video due to spoilers, but - God help me, the game is actually a better and more nuanced portrayal of the story than the book. It's that bad.

@humanity:I still don't understand why it matters? Like why does it bother you at all? And if your response is "it doesn't," then why are you posting about it?

@corwag: Uh, Seinfeld could definitely be made today. Always Sunny is far more offensive than Seinfeld ever was and it's still going.

@biggnife: It's not that it bothers me it's that I find it weirdly perplexing as to why they feel the need to single this game out specifically as something that could potentially offend viewers when they don't take the same precautions with any of their other content. The QL to Hatred doesn't have any disclaimers for example and that game is potentially disturbing. The QL to Shadow Warrior doesn't have a warning about potentially offensive racial stereotyping.

So my take on this is - ok it's your choice to single this super old and obviously out of touch piece of interactive media, but why when you don't take the same precautions with other content? I mean they played a game on UPF where the players are literally penises that "plug" into each other..

EDIT: Ok a question for you - should all videos from this point on have disclaimers about anything potentially offensive? If so then what do we consider worth warning about? Is bad language offensive enough? Is it just mental illness that is a touchy subject but race isn't?

@humanity: Basically, it boiled down to this for me: these playdates tend to be pretty silly, frivolous things. Normally these games are just campy and dumb. Someone who watches these might wander into this video thinking it's just another goofy thing then suddenly find themselves encountering a section of the game that might trigger something for them. We may add more warnings in the future. It'll just depend on the situation.

Also, the idea that it's a HUGE DISCLAIMER is weird. It's a sentence in the show notes, man.

@humanity: If other videos had content warnings I'd be fine with those too. If the content warning applies to me then I won't watch the video, if it doesnt then I'd ignore the warning.

And I would say both race and mental illness are sensitive topics and I'd have no issue if Hatred or Shadow Warrior had warnings either. I can't speak to why GB decided not to do them because I'm not a GB editor. I really don't care if any video with sensitive material has a content warning.

The argument I see a lot is that these content warnings are a "slippery slope" that leads to policing people for posting offensive topics, but I've seen literally nothing to back this up. It feels like a strawman that was made up to perpetuate the stigma of "outrage culture."

Ultimately, the point is that having that content warning there doesn't change anything or affect the video at all for people whom the warning doesn't apply to, so I don't see why it matters.

Also, most people visiting this site would be familiar with what, say, Hatred has to dish out. Tender Loving Care comes as an unknown quantity to most gamers, and it invokes pointedly specific trauma scenarios in protracted, ugly, sometimes sudden ways (I'm thinking of the radio calls here) in an approximation of a real-life setting, under the pretense of dealing with these issues in a mature manner but actually doing anything but. This makes it considerably different from most games the site covers, so I can understand a word of caution to the effect of "heads up if you don't want to deal with this stupid shit right now."

I've always wanted to try mediation.