“The paper also opens itself to critique by not considering arguments that games are safe for good reason. For example, how will the paper stand up to criticisms citing severe injury and death following the Jackass television franchise (e.g. 2011 case of Matt-Dillon Shannon’s defense he got the idea to set a 16 year old friend on fire, ultimately killing them, after watching Jackass)? What about the connections some have drawn between rough-and-tumble play and bullying? How will it contend with arguments that regulatory boards and lawsuits exist for a reason? How will it contend with the idea that you can already virtually take risks via games, so ‘real’risk isn’t necessary? Where’s the line between risk-taking for amusement and risk-taking as self harm? What’s the responsibility of designers and developers in managing risk, or informing players? What safety precautions were undertaken for the university’s ethics/legal committee to approve the play of the game on campus? Did they approve it? If not, will they be worried when this is published? Whilst I don’t think the above questions need to be answered one-by-one to make the article publishable, I’ve written them in the hope they inspire reflection on the content that is already there.”

Reviewer 2 – Ashley ML Brown, University of Utah, June 2016.