It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
The JRPG Days are not over yet!
You've been playing Zwei: The Arges Adventure and Legrand Legacy: Tale of the Fatebounds while snagging genre classics on the cheap from our jRPG Days sale. Now it's time to take a look behind the scenes: team leader Ken Berry and localization producer Thomas Lipschultz have taken some time to chat with us about how XSEED handles the release and localization of their beloved JRPG series.
The interview is broken down into two parts, for convenience. Stay tuned for Part 2 tomorrow, January 30.

So, let's start with a quick year in review – from your professional point of view, has 2017 been good to Japanese games in the West?

Ken: Yes, I would say that 2017 has been a very good year for Japanese games in the West. The obvious big winner is Nintendo with their extremely successful launch of the Switch, as I remember some Japanese executives being concerned whether the idea of one machine being both a home console and a portable machine could succeed in North America where public transportation is not nearly as prevalent as Japan.
The PC platform also continues to get more support from the Japanese gaming industry. Not only are you seeing more instances of simultaneous PC launches with the console release, but they seem to be gradually accepting the idea of DRM-free on PC as well, which had always been a huge challenge in the past because they would often mistakenly equate “DRM-free” to “free.”

A lot can be said about different sensibilities in Japan vs. the West. In the past year, maybe more than ever, sexuality, sexualization, and consent, are talked about in mainstream Western culture – taboos are being broken and lines being drawn. Has this had an impact on your approach and your work?

Tom: As a company, I think it’s definitely made us stop and take stock of a game’s content a lot earlier in the process than ever before, so we know well in advance whether there will be any potentially problematic content, and can prepare ourselves to deal with that content as production ramps up.
For me specifically, it’s been kind of an inner struggle, as I think a lot of people are aware that I have a personal zero-tolerance policy for censorship in video games, along with a fairly broad definition of what constitutes censorship (for me, it consists of any content changes made not out of legal or contractual necessity, but solely in an attempt to avoid offending or upsetting members of the target audience). Despite this, I do fully understand that from a business standpoint – and even from a moral standpoint – it’s always best to avoid upsetting your fans, because obviously, an upset fan is not going to remain a fan for very long, and signing off on upsetting or troublesome language or imagery is never something anyone wants to do!
The problem I have, though, is that I truly do consider video games – ALL video games – to be art, and just as it wouldn’t feel right to me if someone painted over offensive material in a painting, edited out offensive material in a book, or cut offensive material from a film, I don’t want to see anyone (least of all us) editing out offensive material in games. My thought is, if it’s that offensive, then we probably shouldn’t be releasing the game at all – though that’s obviously not always a realistic option.
Recently, however, with all the news that’s come out about systemic sexual harassment and abuse in Hollywood and elsewhere, as well as the issues being faced by the LGBTQ community in this modern political climate, it’s become much harder to justify maintaining a zero-tolerance approach – and with a lot of Japanese games starting to really push the boundaries of “good taste” more and more, the looming threat of censorship has become much larger and more imposing than ever, and certainly more of a beast to fight on multiple levels. And it’s really not a battle I WANT to fight – I’d rather just localize games that everybody can enjoy!
I still hold firm in my belief, however, that if we want video games to be classified as an art form on par with books, films, and paintings, we need to maintain zero tolerance for censorship in localization, no matter how offensive the content we’re localizing may be. And if there’s any positive to be gained by doing so, it’s that the presence of offensive content in localized titles will spark much-needed discussion about those topics, and hopefully lead to a dialogue on the state of the industry in Japan, possibly even resulting in creators being a little more cognizant of people outside their tight-knit circle of acquaintances when designing new titles from here on out.
But for the immediate future, I believe content alteration will occur a little more often in the West than it has before (hopefully not by us, but regrettably, that isn’t outside the realm of possibility!), while little else will change for the industry overseas. My solace lies in the thought that we’ll just keep getting more games like the Zwei titles to work on: superb examples of classic action JRPG design with content that’s often snarky and a little mischievous, but never crosses the line into offensive territory, and thus isn’t at any risk of being toned down in localization. Those remain a joy to work on, and the more games of that sort I’m given, the less worried I’ll be about censorship moving forward.

The titles. We need to talk about the game titles...
What is it that makes Japanese naming conventions so different? How do you approach localizing a game's title, and what does it take to make it work in the West?


Tom: I don’t think most Japanese naming conventions are all that different, honestly, save for the fact that they’re usually much longer than the names we tend to see here (with subtitles on top of subtitles, e.g. “Corpse Party: BloodCovered: …Repeated Fear”). Which, I believe, is mostly attributable to some general differences in the way games are advertised in Japan, with more text meaning a bigger poster on the wall and more space allotted to discuss the game in print… not to mention the ability to strike a pose and rattle off a long name, looking and sounding kind of dorkily awesome in the process!
In the Western world, though, we’re definitely all about succinct naming: something short and to the point, that rolls off the tongue, with one or two words being the ideal. Especially if it’s unique enough to be Googlable! We want the name to be easy to remember so that prospective fans can always find information on it at a moment’s notice, even if they haven’t heard anyone talking about the game for quite some time.
I assume you’re speaking more in terms of translations, though (“Sen no Kiseki” → “Trails of Cold Steel”), as well as the rare addition of subtitles (“Zwei!!” → “Zwei: The Arges Adventure”). In the former case, the goal is to come up with something that remains relatively true to the original Japanese but still sounds snappy and natural in English, with bonus points for picking a name that perfectly fits the tone and content of the game (as “Trails of Cold Steel” most definitely does).
And in the latter case, we were really just trying to avoid drawing attention to the fact that we were releasing “Zwei II” before “Zwei” – a luxury afforded us by the fact that the two games tell standalone stories, and necessitated by the fact that Zwei II was finished and ready for release quite a bit sooner. We considered numerous possible subtitles for both games, but ultimately chose “The Ilvard Insurrection” for Zwei II because… well, it preserved the acronym, “Zwei:II”!
We attempted something similar with the first game, but despite our best attempts, we couldn’t come up with any viable names that would form the acronyms ONE, EINS, or even WAN, nor any single-word subtitles beginning with the letter I. We settled on AA to preserve the double lettering of Ilvard Insurrection, and because A is the first letter of the alphabet… and also because the first Zwei is a pretty tough game, so we anticipated a lot of people would be saying “AAAAAA” when playing it!
Post edited January 29, 2018 by maladr0Id
high rated
Have to say I'm surprised and somewhat relieved so many people are against censorship here. I wonder if the whole freedom from DRM thing ties into it?

Anyway hopefully you don't feel too dogpiled Tom, but I agree with a lot of sentiments posted in this thread, a couple of the statements you've made here and other members of Xseed have made in the past have rubbed me the wrong way. Aside from your marketing seeming to consist of announcing a game on twitter two weeks before it comes out and cheaping out on JP voices you're easily the best localization company. Though really not to sound insulting I feel like what you guys do should be the bare minimum for localizers, localization is in a very sorry state.

One thing I saw in a couple other interviews is you (Xseed) choose to skip localizing certain games because you don't like them or don't think the gameplay is good or don't like the content. But why should that matter? You're not fanslators, you're a business, whether you personally care for games shouldn't matter at all, what matters is what the fans want/where the money is. That's being a professional, almost every job has to work on things they don't like at times. This of course also applies to offensive stuff, and going along with that the statements made in previous interviews that you guys don't want to do too many lewd games because you don't want to be seen as *that* type of company bother me. Feels insulting to the people who do enjoy those kinds of games.

And again going along with that I don't think its anyone's place to decide whether something was included "for the sake of it". Pushing boundaries is a good thing, it'd be a very stale world without it. It's crazy in the internet age where we're no longer limited to our small social circles to reinforce our beliefs exclusively that more and more people want to live in bubbles/safe spaces where nothing challenges their beliefs or offends them. Having things to challenge your beliefs and even being offended helps you grow as a person, if you let it. Once upon a time I tried to avoid anything I didn't like eg sex or gore and looked down on it, but through repeated exposure I became desensitized to it and even came to appreciate it. And Japanese stuff is by far the best at doing that I've found.

Ultimately I believe it's on the offended to avoid content that offends them, not all content that offends them to self censor. No one forces people to play a game or watch a tv show or movie (unless it's part of their job, which is different of course). It's the difference between not making a "yo mama" joke to someone who's mother just died, vs them expecting everything on TV to not feature anything bad happening to someone who's a mother. The person can't avoid you saying it, but they can just change the channel or do something else. You shouldn't purposefully be a jerk to other people if they can't avoid it, but you shouldn't get in the way of freedom of expression because people might find it distasteful.

EDIT: oh and yeah I gotta agree with what someone else in the thread said, your "safe" choice of games has put me off, aside from Trails, Ys and SK nothing you guys have done in the past couple years has really interested me. Hope you don't forget about part of your audience (not saying it has anything to do with censorship, just saying in general).
Post edited January 30, 2018 by Firion.341
For what it's worth, I have the impression XSEED's localized more Marvelous games since last year precisely to avoid another Valkyrie Drive situation. They stick to localizing the games they find interesting and worthwhile as a principle, but there's cases where it's wise to pick up a game or two which will help in the long run even if it's not ideal.
avatar
grgspunk: I don't think you're a sell-out, not yet at least--I just think you're faltering. Nobody here wants Japanese companies to censor themselves in order to appease a western audience, yet you wanted Japanese devs to have "dialogue" and be more "cognizant" so they can do just that.

You think this is something I'd expect an anti-censorship fellow would say? You think I want this to happen?
avatar
wyrdwad: I would hope it is, yes. Because ultimately, we should all be aware of the world around us, and respect others as much as possible.

This doesn't mean altering one's artistic output, when being offensive or risque is an integral part of that. But to use the example I linked earlier, if someone at Nintendo suddenly decided Mario should murder children for some reason, I would hope some of the other devs there would ask that person WTF he/she was thinking.

Self-censorship is a terrible thing, but absolute anarchy can be just as bad. I am firmly anti-censorship, but I am not an anarchist, and I do not believe there should be zero accountability on the development level. Good stories are written with care and attention, not chaos.

That's just my personal opinion, though. And you are free to disagree.

And certainly, I do not let that opinion influence any developers -- not just because I'm in no position to do so, but also because I would never be so egotistical as to believe my opinion on this matter is worth more than a creative specialist who's been entrusted with a work of art. Agree or disagree, that person is the expert, not me, and I will always defer to his/her will.

-Tom
Yeah, except with the free market, if you make a dumb decision like that you'll get punished with a lack of sales. I don't think Murdering Mario would catch on too well. And it's not like they haven't actually played with Wario, Mario's Missing, and for some unknown reason my mind tells me something of a game where Mario goes to jail, but i'm having trouble remembering what the game is called.
avatar
wyrdwad: Also, please do bear in mind that... you guys may not be the intended audience for my answer in the first place, potentially? See, the biggest issue that stands in the way of abolishing censorship in gaming is the sheer number of pro-censorship advocates, and their influence on the industry as a whole. And the only way we're going to one day rid ourselves of censorship is to try to appeal to their sensibilities, and convince them that censorship is not the answer. Which can only be achieved by reaching some sort of common ground with them, then working from there to show them how censorship damages even their own agendas in the end.

If, however, they are immediately alienated and told that their concerns are irrelevant and their point of view is flat-out wrong, they'll simply be galvanized in their existing notions. It's important to respect those who disagree, and try to see things from their side as best as possible, and I believe I'm in a good position to do that since I genuinely dislike a lot of the content that comes out of Japan, and -- as stated -- personally wish some of it wouldn't be there in the first place.

-Tom
avatar
stullz: I would love nothing more than a meaningful dialogue between the two sides.
Could I perhaps politely suggest that attaining a meaningful dialogue between any given set of groups or people (whether two or more) is more likely sans the use of categorical statements and group/social agenda labels?

Most broad terms have rather fuzzy definitions, especially when it comes to social or political contexts. What may make perfect sense to one individual (or their personal context of peers and friends) will likely not be a 100% match for the definition used by folks who hold a different personal perspective or point of social/cultural reference.

I'm not saying there aren't intractable ideologues or demagogues out there, there certainly are, but even groups aren't hive minds and attributing unfavorable traits, or applying criticism via group labels does more to shut down dialogue than to clarify it.

Just an observation I came to after spending a few years volunteering within mixed background contexts.

Cheers :)
avatar
grgspunk: I don't think you're a sell-out, not yet at least--I just think you're faltering. Nobody here wants Japanese companies to censor themselves in order to appease a western audience, yet you wanted Japanese devs to have "dialogue" and be more "cognizant" so they can do just that.

You think this is something I'd expect an anti-censorship fellow would say? You think I want this to happen?
avatar
wyrdwad: I would hope it is, yes. Because ultimately, we should all be aware of the world around us, and respect others as much as possible.

This doesn't mean altering one's artistic output, when being offensive or risque is an integral part of that. But to use the example I linked earlier, if someone at Nintendo suddenly decided Mario should murder children for some reason, I would hope some of the other devs there would ask that person WTF he/she was thinking.

Self-censorship is a terrible thing, but absolute anarchy can be just as bad. I am firmly anti-censorship, but I am not an anarchist, and I do not believe there should be zero accountability on the development level. Good stories are written with care and attention, not chaos.

That's just my personal opinion, though. And you are free to disagree.

And certainly, I do not let that opinion influence any developers -- not just because I'm in no position to do so, but also because I would never be so egotistical as to believe my opinion on this matter is worth more than a creative specialist who's been entrusted with a work of art. Agree or disagree, that person is the expert, not me, and I will always defer to his/her will.

-Tom
It's interesting to me - and please do correct me if I have misread your intent - that your statements which in large part amount to something along the lines of 'gratuitous addition of content can be as bad for telling a quality story as gratuitous cutting of content (i.e. censorship)' have been in some cases construed (I would think misconstrued) as saying you somehow advocate bland 'pre chewed' narratives.

HuniePop was amusing but adding it's fan service elements to ECHO wouldn't be an asset to that story.
The Witcher series has - IMO - earned it's various accolades but adding its violent elements to Sokobond wouldn't improve that game.

It seems to me like you are saying that it could serve developers to consider what best expresses their vision and intent, and to avoid omitting or including anything which doesn't support that end. That is a pretty far cry from advocating any form of censorship, even self-censorship.

Again let me know if I've read you wrong (and thanks for taking the time to converse with everyone here).
Post edited January 30, 2018 by RoseLegion
avatar
stullz: I would love nothing more than a meaningful dialogue between the two sides.
avatar
RoseLegion: Could I perhaps politely suggest that attaining a meaningful dialogue between any given set of groups or people (whether two or more) is more likely sans the use of categorical statements and group/social agenda labels?

Most broad terms have rather fuzzy definitions, especially when it comes to social or political contexts. What may make perfect sense to one individual (or their personal context of peers and friends) will likely not be a 100% match for the definition used by folks who hold a different personal perspective or point of social/cultural reference.

I'm not saying there aren't intractable ideologues or demagogues out there, there certainly are, but even groups aren't hive minds and attributing unfavorable traits, or applying criticism via group labels does more to shut down dialogue than to clarify it.

Just an observation I came to after spending a few years volunteering within mixed background contexts.

Cheers :)
Some dialogues cannot be had. The overton window is a thing, and when things get political, overton window very much applies. Sometimes you just have to put your foot down.
low rated
avatar
paladin181: I can't believe I'm saying this, but art is not sacred. "Just because you can doesn't mean you should" applies there. What about art that in its creation kills or harms someone physically? Should that not be censored? If something severely harms people emotionally, that shouldn't be tempered to stop it happening?
avatar
lunaticox: And who gets to have the final say on what art is capable of causing harm?
A governmental body?
An angry mob?
Cultural nannies?
Tech journalists?
Twitter?
The people who are actually harmed by the art in question, of course.
avatar
wyrdwad: I would hope it is, yes. Because ultimately, we should all be aware of the world around us, and respect others as much as possible.

This doesn't mean altering one's artistic output, when being offensive or risque is an integral part of that. But to use the example I linked earlier, if someone at Nintendo suddenly decided Mario should murder children for some reason, I would hope some of the other devs there would ask that person WTF he/she was thinking.

Self-censorship is a terrible thing, but absolute anarchy can be just as bad. I am firmly anti-censorship, but I am not an anarchist, and I do not believe there should be zero accountability on the development level. Good stories are written with care and attention, not chaos.

That's just my personal opinion, though. And you are free to disagree.

And certainly, I do not let that opinion influence any developers -- not just because I'm in no position to do so, but also because I would never be so egotistical as to believe my opinion on this matter is worth more than a creative specialist who's been entrusted with a work of art. Agree or disagree, that person is the expert, not me, and I will always defer to his/her will.

-Tom
avatar
RoseLegion: It's interesting to me - and please do correct me if I have misread your intent - that your statements which in large part amount to something along the lines of 'gratuitous addition of content can be as bad for telling a quality story as gratuitous cutting of content (i.e. censorship)' have been in some cases construed (I would think misconstrued) as saying you somehow advocate bland 'pre chewed' narratives.

HuniePop was amusing but adding it's fan service elements to ECHO wouldn't be an asset to that story.
The Witcher series has - IMO - earned it's various accolades but adding its violent elements to Sokobond wouldn't improve that game.

It seems to me like you are saying that it could serve developers to consider what best expresses their vision and intent, and to avoid omitting or including anything which doesn't support that end. That is a pretty far cry from advocating any form of censorship, even self-censorship.

Again let me know if I've read you wrong (and thanks for taking the time to converse with everyone here).
Honestly, any dev who would try to use such cheap tactics of adding unnecessary material to their medium is less worried about the message of their medium and more about the money, which is OK, but I think they deserve what they deserve. Let idiots be idiots and the free market will crush the bad ideas for you.
avatar
RoseLegion: Could I perhaps politely suggest that attaining a meaningful dialogue between any given set of groups or people (whether two or more) is more likely sans the use of categorical statements and group/social agenda labels?

Most broad terms have rather fuzzy definitions, especially when it comes to social or political contexts. What may make perfect sense to one individual (or their personal context of peers and friends) will likely not be a 100% match for the definition used by folks who hold a different personal perspective or point of social/cultural reference.

I'm not saying there aren't intractable ideologues or demagogues out there, there certainly are, but even groups aren't hive minds and attributing unfavorable traits, or applying criticism via group labels does more to shut down dialogue than to clarify it.

Just an observation I came to after spending a few years volunteering within mixed background contexts.

Cheers :)
avatar
kohlrak: Some dialogues cannot be had. The overton window is a thing, and when things get political, overton window very much applies. Sometimes you just have to put your foot down.
The groups I refrenced in my proior post were in fact political, and dialogues were very much had (some terse but still worthwhile). And it was groups in the plural, some without a specific party affiliation and at least one with each of the 4 (yep not giving the Rep & Dem folks the only place on the stage) major parties in the USA.
There were lots of diffrences, and there was quite a bit of common ground found even when some of those diffrences were intractable.
avatar
MusouTenseiZ: And example would be good, because I can't think of anything, and please no ancient barbaric stuff no one does nowadys, modern day example please.
avatar
wyrdwad: Actually, there is a very good example of this I heard about only maybe... a year ago?

An episode of a children's cartoon which urged kids not to fear touching and interacting with spiders was banned from airing in Australia -- and I totally agree with that, because in Australia, touching and interacting with random spiders can KILL YOU VERY DEAD.

That is a very specific exception to the rule, however, and doesn't come up very often (I genuinely can't think of ANY other examples, in fact).

-Tom

P.S. Please check the previous page of comments for a response to the general censorship discussion that's occurring. I attempted to clarify my position just now, and I believe it should address a lot of the concerns being raised.
There was also an episode of the Pokémon anime that caused physical harm when it was aired. In the episode Electric Soldier Porygon (which only aired in Japan and is no longer aired even there), there is a part where some animation technique involving flashing colors was used, and it caused epileptic seizures in many children who were watching it. The episode made the news, and a 30 second clip (which you can find on youtube if you're brave) containing the problematic content was included in the news, resulting in more people experiencing seisures. So, there's an example of physical harm. If one were localizing this episode, or if one wanted to re-broadcast it, it would be perfectly reasonable to tone down the flashing in that segment so that people can watch it without seizures.

(By the way, for anyone who feels like looking up the episode, it makes sense to include an EPILEPSY WARNING in this post, as the video might not be safe.)
avatar
kohlrak: Oh, believe me, i'm well aware. I remember when pokemon evolution was considered atheist propaganda (actually ,to this day, i really question why they chose the word "evolve" instead of something a little less sensitive and maybe even more accurate [and it's not like they couldn't make their own word like they already do in japan]).
I think "metamorphosis" would be a better term; just look at Caterpie's evolution chain, which is clearly based on the metamorphosis of a real world animal.
avatar
kohlrak: Some dialogues cannot be had. The overton window is a thing, and when things get political, overton window very much applies. Sometimes you just have to put your foot down.
avatar
RoseLegion: The groups I refrenced in my proior post were in fact political, and dialogues were very much had (some terse but still worthwhile). And it was groups in the plural, some without a specific party affiliation and at least one with each of the 4 (yep not giving the Rep & Dem folks the only place on the stage) major parties in the USA.
There were lots of diffrences, and there was quite a bit of common ground found even when some of those diffrences were intractable.
It might be possible to have a dialogue, but overton window suggests that there are times where it's just a generally bad idea. Some groups are dumb enough to immediately take your whole arm when you offer a hand. Some smarter groups act disgruntled now, ask for a hand, pretend to be satisfied, wait a year or so, and start being disgruntled again.

avatar
wyrdwad: Actually, there is a very good example of this I heard about only maybe... a year ago?

An episode of a children's cartoon which urged kids not to fear touching and interacting with spiders was banned from airing in Australia -- and I totally agree with that, because in Australia, touching and interacting with random spiders can KILL YOU VERY DEAD.

That is a very specific exception to the rule, however, and doesn't come up very often (I genuinely can't think of ANY other examples, in fact).

-Tom

P.S. Please check the previous page of comments for a response to the general censorship discussion that's occurring. I attempted to clarify my position just now, and I believe it should address a lot of the concerns being raised.
avatar
dtgreene: There was also an episode of the Pokémon anime that caused physical harm when it was aired. In the episode Electric Soldier Porygon (which only aired in Japan and is no longer aired even there), there is a part where some animation technique involving flashing colors was used, and it caused epileptic seizures in many children who were watching it. The episode made the news, and a 30 second clip (which you can find on youtube if you're brave) containing the problematic content was included in the news, resulting in more people experiencing seisures. So, there's an example of physical harm. If one were localizing this episode, or if one wanted to re-broadcast it, it would be perfectly reasonable to tone down the flashing in that segment so that people can watch it without seizures.

(By the way, for anyone who feels like looking up the episode, it makes sense to include an EPILEPSY WARNING in this post, as the video might not be safe.)
After seeing the flashy bit, experiencing a total lack of any sort of really anything other than flashing going on, and despite not having epilepsy, I didn't feel too good watching it, either. Frankly, that episode is a great example of how people should just generally be more weary. And those with known epilepsy should be weary of flashy screens (computer monitors and TVs) to begin with. That didn't need to be censored, but straight up shortening that scene was in order. They picked a bad scene to use as a filler is what they did. I found it way too annoying outside of the physical harm. That was just overall bad taste, and I don't think it should be censored. I think it should be exposed for what it was.

EDIT: To clarify, if you have epilepsy, watching kids shows with bright flashy colors to begin with is a bad idea. This was just a hardcore example of why this was a bad idea.

EDIT2: Ok, i must've watched an extended version or something because the youtube version i see is like 10 seconds long when the version i remember was over a minute long, and the flashing was so bad i couldn't watch it. Now i see the error of my ways. That said, still a bad idea for epileptics to watch flashy cartoons.
Post edited January 30, 2018 by kohlrak
avatar
lunaticox: And who gets to have the final say on what art is capable of causing harm?
A governmental body?
An angry mob?
Cultural nannies?
Tech journalists?
Twitter?
avatar
dtgreene: The people who are actually harmed by the art in question, of course.
Well, that makes it easy since art is incapable of causing harm!
avatar
RoseLegion: A person who is frightened by horror films doesn't choose to be, but their response gives them no right to say horror films should not exist or be available.
Just like a person who is interested by horror films doesn't choose to be but their response gives them no right to say everyone must watch horror films (or that other types of films should not be available.)
It might, however, be worth putting a warning or other indication that a film is a horror film, so the person who is frightened by them can make an informed decision not to watch the film.

(There's a reason that ESRB ratings have descriptors like "mild violence" on them.)

Trigger warnings, when used properly, serve a similar purpose; they allow people who would be triggered by, say, a depiction of rape to avoid such depictions while still allowing the work to exist and be enjoyed by others.

avatar
Totenglocke: Censorship is NEVER a valid opinion because people CHOOSE to consume media (watch movies, play games, read books, listen to music, etc) and if they don't like the content, then they shouldn't buy it - end of story.
Putting a suitable warning, however, is a valid option here; such a warning allows consumers to make an informed choice about whether to consume media before it causes issues.
Post edited January 30, 2018 by dtgreene
avatar
RoseLegion: A person who is frightened by horror films doesn't choose to be, but their response gives them no right to say horror films should not exist or be available.
Just like a person who is interested by horror films doesn't choose to be but their response gives them no right to say everyone must watch horror films (or that other types of films should not be available.)
avatar
dtgreene: It might, however, be worth putting a warning or other indication that a film is a horror film, so the person who is frightened by them can make an informed decision not to watch the film.

(There's a reason that ESRB ratings have descriptors like "mild violence" on them.)

Trigger warnings, when used properly, serve a similar purpose; they allow people who would be triggered by, say, a depiction of rape to avoid such depictions while still allowing the work to exist and be enjoyed by others.

avatar
Totenglocke: Censorship is NEVER a valid opinion because people CHOOSE to consume media (watch movies, play games, read books, listen to music, etc) and if they don't like the content, then they shouldn't buy it - end of story.
avatar
dtgreene: Putting a suitable warning, however, is a valid option here; such a warning allows consumers to make an informed choice about whether to consume media before it causes issues.
So you'd be fine if we just slapped labels on everything that said "Caution: May cause butthurt among oversensitive idiots"?