DrTuring

Yikes. Sorta sucks that it's still in for you, huh? But yeah, if Oblivion looks at the majority of their audience, or even just in this thread, they would know that removing it would be a bad idea. And yeah, it's censorship when you force a development team to take out content even though most people are fine with it.

I am all for #2. All that we need is a toggle. The offended can just turn it off, and it gives the added bonus of not having a bunch of Fanfiction.net tier stuff for the rest of us! But not sure about #1. Word of mouth is probably sufficient.

Source on them removing it? I don't see anything on the forums. They didn't, he's using an example.

I would be fine with just a toggle option. I'm pretty sure everyone would be fine with a toggle option, except for the hardcore agenda pushers on each side.

You have to be joking. You're seriously saying that men NEVER, EVER get prejudice sent their way? Really?

Hell, I'm pretty sure myself it was a joke about "The Crying Game," where that situation was almost the same thing.

I'm going to explain this once, which you will no doubt ignore. How high is the possiblity of there being an actual killing spree against men by "SJWs"? Ok, how many times has the panic defense actually been used by murder defendants? Also, are you going to post here again or did you make an account just for that? You know it says in the article you linked all but one attempt at that failed? And I find it funny that you're claiming the defense "It's just a joke" for #KillAllMen, but are asking for this JOKE to be pulled here. It reeks of double standards.

And believe me they will be offended by something pretty soon, this past week alone I've seem the very same crowd beign offended at Totalbiscuit, beign offended at a cover for a Batgirl comic, and they also had LiongsGate studios delete a few of their tweets because they were deemed offended. Everyone that disagrees is attacked, like I showed with Totalbiscuit and declared a misogynist or transphone and then put in one of those famous blockbots. You get put on the blocklist if you follow the certain individuals such as Roguestar or Sargon of Akkad. If what I've heard is correct, the head of the blockbot put him on without having to do that. While also bragging about putting on the Pope. It's a horrible tool that only exists to stifle discussion, anyways.

Well most people here seem to agree that the line shouldn't be pulled. That's been the main issue for everyone but you, honestly. While we talk about the joke, and whether or not it should be kept in, you're saying all this "YOU'RE A GAMERGATER" crap. It's very disengenuous.

Merely not wanting something to exist is not censorship. I hate mayonnaise. I want all of it destroyed forever. It's gross. Censorship is when I somehow manage to get it outlawed against the will of the people or when my army of robots (which I totally don't have! *ahem*) somehow enforce my magical anti-mayo will on the world. Obsidian deciding "Hey, let's get rid of this thing?". Not censorship. It's a choice. If the government of California marched down to Irvine and made Obsidian change the game? Censorship. I mean this in the nicest way possible but if you care so much about a thing you need to learn about what it is and isn't. Hmm. What if the mayonnaise hater started claiming Obsidian's love of mayonnaise make them horrible unethical people, and raised a protest of a thousand people that marched to California and protested, until Obsidian declares a no-mayo policy just because it would be too much work and public relations disaster to do otherwise? It might count as censorship or it might not. But if one were to conclude "well it's Obsidian's choice", that's a very unfair definition of 'choice', too. (I'm not saying that analogy is exactly what is happening now, I'm just saying your current argumenta bout 'let Obsidian choose' is a bit narrow-sighted.) (And as someone who has studied the history of censorship, you know, it's a definition that changes over time, and its boundaries in the U.S. for example has been heavily debated by legal scholars and philosophers throughout its entire history. It's hard to just say "x is censorship y is not, good bye".) It's funny you bring that up. One of the developers of Divinity: Original Sin had said something akin to that in an interview. He said something akin to "If a mob group came into your resturaunt, and demanded that you stop selling a certain type of food 'or else', it's still your choice. But the choice WAS influenced."

When all you have is a herring, then you have to use a herring. It's safe to assume people who have a problem will be the most vocal. Yet even here, the people who have a problem with are the minority of the discussion. It's also safe to assume that most people not talking about it are fine with it as is, so they don't feel a need to take a stand one way or the other. No?

. Just because it isn't vital doesn't make it NOT a part of the game. Besides, reading these gravestones can be fun. Most of time fun as in "Cringy to the point of hilarity" fun, but fun none the less.

The difference is that that was BEFORE the game was out. Now the game IS out. People bought the game. And people bought the game expecting all the content offered.

No one is claiming that EVERYONE thinks it. Only the majority. There's a difference. Just look at the threads. About 5 people saying to purge it, and about 30 or so defending it at least.

I actually agree with this idea. It would satisfy everyone.

Possibly. In which case they'll leave it in. But things do slip through the cracks that are not always commensurate with the ideals of your studio. Particularly in large projects with a lot of moving parts. Josh wants to look into it. If the answer from the producers is "Oh, we just had two people sit in a room and gave them two days to log all the data after the initial cull. I guess we missed this." then that's what happened, y'know? The realities of a dev cycle are complicated and Kickstart stuff only makes for more complications you can keep track of. I've been there and that was on projects not even close to the scale/funding of Pillars. Sure. It is their choice in the end, and it's always possible it slipped through. I just think that it makes more sense to leave it in, as opposed to take it out, of only because taking it out was promted by an outside group, not Obsidian themselves. Plus, it's just a refrence to The Crying Game anyways. everyone forgot that.

I figure the whole "it's Obsidian's choice" thing would have made clear who I place more capital on in the struggle you're painting. As someone in the field, I think the choice is left to the creator. Do I have a preference? Sure. But you can't talk about mobs in one sentence and then make an argument to the people right after. The argument is this. Obsidian allowed it in. This was them choosing to let it in their game. Now people are demanding it be pulled. AFTER Obsidian chose to let it in. That WAS their choice, was it not? Actually, from Sawyer's tweet it looks like they woud have pulled it if they had caught it in time. Sawyer is not all of Obsidian. He may not like it, but it's for the people in charge to decide. He even said he would "Bring it up to the Producers." Not that he would pull it.

I figure the whole "it's Obsidian's choice" thing would have made clear who I place more capital on in the struggle you're painting. As someone in the field, I think the choice is left to the creator. Do I have a preference? Sure. But you can't talk about mobs in one sentence and then make an argument to the people right after. The argument is this. Obsidian allowed it in. This was them choosing to let it in their game. Now people are demanding it be pulled. AFTER Obsidian chose to let it in. That WAS their choice, was it not?

I believe we just have two different ideas on politics. You seem to think politics is all social interactions. That's... not very true, in my own opinion. Politics don't apply to everything. Politics only apply to things that are trying to send a message that isn't centered around morals. For instance, no one will make the claim that trash like the upcoming "Pixels" is politics, but movies like Elysium are clearly about the class divides of the rich and poor. It's entirely possible for entertainment and art without politics. Like the Mona Lisa.

Noo? Politics is when people make POLICY. Poli-cy, Poli-tics. Why are you saying that all interaction is politics?

No created work is apolitical or without allegory. If the only issue is that people would be put off by the existence of politics, they shouldn't be engaging with art at all. Or and that is just a or we could all act like adults and see it as a dumb joke a bard or jester would sing and not as something political or even more than that. If presented in that context? Sure. I don't think it'd be as much an issue. It's something artists and creators already do and have done for quite a long time. Examine the use of magic in fiction and you'll often find the fear of magic or magic users has political or allegorical subtext. "No work is apolitical?" Come on. That's insane! Not everything has to be about politics! It's only all politics to someone who has chosen to make politics their identity.

Or and that is just a or we could all act like adults and see it as a dumb joke a bard or jester would sing and not as something political or even more than that. That is my problem with this whole debate that is going on. Too much over analyzing too much shaming for harmless **** the movie or book industry would not even care to address. That's the thing about movies and books. They've been around long enough to get past the period where people try to control them. Video games are the new medium on the block, so people are trying to take control of it with their political agenda, whether it be Hard-right Fundies like Jack Thompson, or Hard-left Puritans like Jonathan McIntosh. It's sad, but so long as we fight for freedom of expression like we did with Thompson, video games will be able to be treated with the same respect those mediums are.

A "Transphobe of the highest order?" For thinking a game should keep some content? I would think that would be kept to the people who, you know, attack trans people, not people who just want to play a good video game without censorship.

Understood. Is there any word on how the developers are reacting to this topic?

I can jump in and explain to the best of my ability. The main reason is because the implication is the man was so disgusted or shamed that he slept with someone he thought was a biological female that he killed himself. That he found them so repulsive once he knew they were not who he thought, that he would rather die than live. That's pretty harsh and in real life, when these things happen, people actually do die. Namely the transperson who is the victim of a murder. It happens and more than you'd think. Some people know friends who were murdered due to this very issue. Imagine, for a moment, that the "joke" was about race. A man somehow doesn't realize that the person he was sleeping with was of dark skin so he kills himself when he finds out. It would never really get in the game, I'd imagine. And while race and gender are not the same thing, the implications here are enough that Obsidian isn't capitulating by reconsidering the content. It doesn't even matter if a backer put the content in there. If you're working on a project (and I say this as someone who has worked on big projects with Kickstarter backer content to put in game) and you have hundreds of things to input and it's you and one other person or whatever, you might miss a few things because you have a lead or a producer who is saying "We gotta get the backer data in by the next build!". Just because it got in doesn't mean it got in because it was approved necessarily. So, let's review: we have a scenario in the game that isn't necessarily about offense but is also about respectfully approaching a real problem within society and we have no indication that the content was given a stamp of approval outside of whoever's job it was to proof and do the data entry. The content itself has vulgar implications that do the studio a disservice and do a disservice to many customers. There's nothing "pro" about it. That's, I would suggest, a deliberately dishonest read of the content. I am aware of the danger that transgendered people are in, but I feel the limerick makes the transphobic subject of the limerick look like an idiot and a drama queen, and rightfully so. It reflects existing transphobic attitudes... and then mercilessly ridicules that attitude. Nowhere does the limerick imply it is horrifying, simply that the character is an unreasonable idiot for being horrified. Having a transphobic character doesn't make the limerick transphobic. At worst, it could be accused of as "triggering" for transgendered people who live through those real life issues - that may be considered in poor taste, but in no way can anyone with an open mind consider it to be offensive. I, personally, feel your read of the content is what you suggest mine is - deliberately dishonest, trying to create controversy. I can understand that people try to be more sensitive about transgendered issues but that doesn't mean adressing those issues in this manner is transphobic. Insensitive behaviour and discrimination are not the same. I'm glad to see that you're looking at this with an open mind and a fair outlook. I hope the people who are in the position of deciding this issue will see your post and understand the counterargument.