Bulivyf

Why do you keep posting Wu-Tang pictures???

And yet it was doable. People just opted not to do it. Of cource it was doable. Your point is? The spells weren't balanced for you to use them in every fight, and that was clear in most people minds.(people with functioning minds at least). Yes, it was very easy to sidestep the restriction, abuse the system. So what? If someone didn't make the correlation between :game too easy->spamming 3 dragon's breath in every encounter, chances are he was to dumb to win otherwise and should be thankfull that the BG2 devs allowed for an ingame easy/cheat mode. So it was the devs giving a freebie to less-autistic players and not them using what was an easily exploitable system that was easily exploited? Holy ****, take off your nostalgia goggles. This is absurd. No, it was an exploit, and IE games were easily exploitable. So is PoE in a different way. What of it?

Serdan circling to his right, Nerdwing throwing out the jab. Serdan's moving well, he's moving but not sticking, he's eating jabs from Ner-OHHHHHHHHHHHH OVERHAND RIGHT FROM NERDWING. SERDAN DOWN. SERDAN DOWN. THE REF CALLS IT. NERDWING KNOCKS OUT SERDAN. btw, she fights girls because she identifies as one. Fair right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder" Paedophiles are not at fault for their condition and deserve to be treated fairly. As a group they are at very high risk of suicide due to their difficulty with having a functional sex-life and in extreme cases it is an outright impossibility. On top of that they are vilified by society as a whole. Whatever his morals, Darji is completely right when he points out that many otherwise progressive people will fail on this issue. To be clear: You will never see me defend child-abusers. If you are unable to distinguish between the condition of being attracted to children and the act of abusing children (something that does not require you to be a paedophile) then that is your problem, not mine. I will defend and show compassion for any who suffer through no fault of their own, whatever the cause of that suffering, and let the condemnations of ignorant fools be damned. I sort of agree with this, and I see what you're trying to say, but people will call you an uninformed bigot etc. for saying transsexualism is a mental disorder. I'll also never defend someone who abuses a child, but, at the same time I can be empathetic to someone experiencing something out of their control, some chemical imbalance in their brain that tells them that this is what they are. I feel empathy for transsexuals as well, it seems tortorous to be trapped in a body that mentally you don't identify with, it's a complete genetic desynchronization. It is true though, I've seen it first hand. Progressives are pushing an agenda of total acceptance no matter what, even if it infringes on the rights of another person. The big stink was raised because transsexuals claim that the limerick is exactly the type of joke that contributes to a society where transsexuals are beaten or murdered by sexual partners after they find out their true gender. Uhhh... okay? How about you give mutual respect to your potential sexual partner before the act and allow them the freedom of choice.

The funniest thing about this entire issue is that by manufacturing this torrent of fake outrage over such an innocuous joke by claiming it's this massive dehumanizing transphobic social problem when it never was and then, more egregiously, continuing that narrative despite being proven wrong by the guy who wrote the memorial saying it never was about what you're claiming it is you're only proving your ignorance. Not only that, you're putting your energy into actively giving power to people that are truly trans/homophobic by showing how thin of skin you have and how easy it is to get a rise out of you, which by the way, you're the ones instigating yourselves lol. You're fighting a battle that is only hurting yourself in the end.

1) Should have never been asked in the first place. 2) That's what it is. You contradicted yourself with this because it was in the game originally thus indicating that Obsidian was fine with it and only changed it after the fake outrage. 3) Sorry, I misread your third thing. You're still taking the stance that the stone by Firedorn was a mockery of transgendered people? You got that from the context you were given did you? You're wrong. Firedorn himself even says that it wasn't in reference to transgendered.

1) Should have never been asked in the first place. 2) That's what it is. You contradicted yourself with this because it was in the game originally thus indicating that Obsidian was fine with it and only changed it after the fake outrage. 3) Debating isn't mocking. If someone has a different idea of what is acceptable when it comes to censorship like this it doesn't mean that they're personally attacking or mocking them. Their views maybe, but not their lifestyle or gender choice. Sorry that you misinterpreted it that way.

Goes both ways. You're contradicting yourself again with reality. You made the boss analogy, I simply enlightened you as to how it was wrong. If you change something said in jest because it's "offensive", where does it end? Who decides what is okay and what isn't? You? If so, why are you suddenly speaking for me and in effect taking away my liberties of reading the joke. Why do I, as an adult, need another adult to run in front of me waving their hands telling me that what I'm about to read or watch is so offensive that I'm not allowed to even judge it for myself? That's what you're doing and advocating right now. The infantilization of the LGB and transgendered community in particular is disgusting to me. Why are you treating them like children who don't have the common sense to just, skip past reading something that offends them? Why do they need you to defend them when they aren't asking for it, and frankly, don't need it. Obsidian decides because it's their game. And yes, different types of content are held to different standards. This is not controversial. Edit: And you don't have a "right" to read or watch anything. Obsidian can produce whatever content they desire and decided that this content was not appropriate for their game. They didn't take away your right to read it, and insisting they keep it tramples on THEIR rights to decide what is in their game, Your rights end where they intrude on the rights of another. This is your third contradiction, so technically, you're out. You can keep going if you want though. Obsidian did decide. It was in the original game. It wasn't removed until the fake PC hate pandering victimized ragestorm on Twitter, that you self-admittedly are directly contributing to, made it something it wasn't. Obsidian did produce what they desired, and they forced to change it by people like you who feel that your being offended outweighs every other person's right to even BE offended if they so choose wish. You've taken that ability from people to decide for themselves. I know that you're having trouble comprehending this but how isn't that considered the definition of censorship? Obsidian just said, in a post from their CEO today, that they were unhappy with the content and asked the backer to change it. So if you're accusing them of lying, more power to ya. And let's say, for the sake of argument, that they liked it at first but changed their mind when they were criticized. That's still Obsidian making the decision. And I have a hard time calling it censorship unless Obsidian's hand was forced, and I see no evidence of that. They seemed to take the criticism to heart immediately and took steps to correct the issue with their very first patch. Edit: And none of you are in a position to say what her motivations were for complaining. And it hardly matters either way, since there appear to be plenty of people who agree with her regardless. And if she really was looking for attention and this bothers you, I'm sure she's really hurting now that a bunch of nerds decided to go to war over the issue. You're wrong and here's why. A business, who was practically bankrupt and brought out of the fires by Kickstarter, being threatened with financial ramifications because of a joke in their game leaves them little recourse except to censor the joke in question. They had a choice, and that choice was summarily taken from them by people like you. Her motivations are easily deciphered from her twitter posts, this is the person you're defending.

You're contradicting yourself again with reality. You made the boss analogy, I simply enlightened you as to how it was wrong. If you change something said in jest because it's "offensive", where does it end? Who decides what is okay and what isn't? You? If so, why are you suddenly speaking for me and in effect taking away my liberties of reading the joke. Why do I, as an adult, need another adult to run in front of me waving their hands telling me that what I'm about to read or watch is so offensive that I'm not allowed to even judge it for myself? That's what you're doing and advocating right now. The infantilization of the LGB and transgendered community in particular is disgusting to me. Why are you treating them like children who don't have the common sense to just, skip past reading something that offends them? Why do they need you to defend them when they aren't asking for it, and frankly, don't need it. Obsidian decides because it's their game. And yes, different types of content are held to different standards. This is not controversial. Edit: And you don't have a "right" to read or watch anything. Obsidian can produce whatever content they desire and decided that this content was not appropriate for their game. They didn't take away your right to read it, and insisting they keep it tramples on THEIR rights to decide what is in their game, Your rights end where they intrude on the rights of another. This is your third contradiction, so technically, you're out. You can keep going if you want though, that's your right. Obsidian did decide. It was in the original game. It wasn't removed until the fake PC hate pandering victimized ragestorm on Twitter, that you self-admittedly are directly contributing to, made it something it wasn't. Obsidian did produce what they desired, and they were forced to change it by people like you who feel that your being offended outweighs every other person's right to even BE offended if they so wish. You've taken that ability from people to decide for themselves. I know that you're having trouble comprehending this but how isn't that considered the definition of censorship?

What you said is in direct contrast to reality. "So one thing that, um, I really appreciate about Kickstarter is that its sorta given the game development community, um, more options in terms of what content it can produce. What sort of game ideas you can bring to the table, and the fact that it doesn't really have the publisher model involved but we're actually being financed directly by they players, who, we answer to anyway and I'd rather have them as the bosses. Um, that's sorta been a very new way of doing games that's been very, very exciting." - Chris Avellone, Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter video Well, here's the problem with the idea that the backers are bosses: we both bought the game (I'm assuming you did even though you lack a visible backer badge, else why are you here?) so we're BOTH his bosses, right? I think Obsidian made the right choice, you think they made the wrong choice. So we cancel out. Now, unless you think Obsidian should make all future decisions by Backer Committee (and what a cluster THAT would be!) we'll probably just have to agree that Obsidian is a private company that will do what it thinks is best for itself and its consumer, regardless of our individual opinions. WE AREN'T SPECIAL WE JUST BOUGHT A VIDEO GAME. Honestly no one should listen to us because we clearly waste our money on frivolous nonsense. So I'll use your own example to discredit you so you can more easily process it. The hardest truths are often the most difficult to swallow: With your example, all backers are bosses, I went back to the first post of this thread and read to the end. I wrote down who was strongly against, didn't care so they remained neutral, and who were the opposite by being strongly supportive of the change to the memorial stone. 25 bosses felt strongly enough about the change to express their disappointment in the change. 9 of the bosses remained neutral, not caring either way. And 8 bosses were strongly supportive of the change. In any democracy, or any boardroom as your example indicates this change would've never happened in the first place. The offended are the minority, they aren't even eclipsing the neutral party who have no feeling either way on the subject. They're dwarfed by the majority, yet the majority is expected to acquiesce? They aren't entitled to their criticism without their criticism being criticized? The joke was a joke and all jokes come from the same place. Good jokes and bad jokes are born from the same womb. Just because it was in your opinion a "bad" joke doesn't mean he didn't have the right to attempt to be funny, and that definitely doesn't mean that you have the right to censor him because what they said in the pursuit of being funny was personally offensive to you. I wasn't offended by the limerick. But when someone else said they were, I thought to myself "Oh, they're offended. I personally am not, but I can't discount their personal views on the subject. So the poem in question should probably be changed." I'm a member of the majority who joins with the minority to make the change happen without having any personal stake. There are a lot of us, we just don't tend to be as loudmouthed as the regressives/reactionaries. And actually minorities get rights all the time in democracies? Gay folks make up ten percent of the population but Indiana is facing nationwide boycotts over recent legislation. The US Supreme Court has made a number of rulings re: minority rights, even when a majority opposed what they did, which is how you got integrated schools and interracial marriage in the US thirty to forty years before it had popular approval. And you know who has the right to censor what's in Obsidian's video game? Obsidian. And they did. You lose. Neener neener. Just curious - if I were to find someone offended by the game's involving rapes and abortions, will you also not discount their personal views on the subject and agree that the content should be changed to something that will offend /less/ people? That depends, is the rape and abortion content part of a Backer-submitted joke poem that isn't explored or deconstructed by the game or its story? I'm not saying that games shouldn't have negative things in them. If we did that we wouldn't have a lot of stories left to tell. For example, Pillars could explore racism (and does!) and even use racial slurs, but if a Backer submitted a poem full of racial slurs I would expect it to be rejected. There's a difference between storytelling and thematic elements, and some fluff included to reward a contributor. TLDR: It's ok for Mark Twain to write the n-word, but it isn't ok for you to walk up to a black guy and call him that. DU-DU-DOUBLE STANDARD. Go to bed.

You're contradicting yourself again with reality. You made the boss analogy, I simply enlightened you as to how it was wrong. If you change something said in jest because it's "offensive", where does it end? Who decides what is okay and what isn't? You? If so, why are you suddenly speaking for me and in effect taking away my liberties of reading the joke. Why do I, as an adult, need another adult to run in front of me waving their hands telling me that what I'm about to read or watch is so offensive that I'm not allowed to even judge it for myself? That's what you're doing and advocating right now. The infantilization of the LGB and transgendered community in particular is disgusting to me. Why are you treating them like children who don't have the common sense to just, skip past reading something that offends them? Why do they need you to defend them when they aren't asking for it, and frankly, don't need it.

I agree. IMO Firedorn should have faked his own death after the "incident" and lives on that beach with the Alchemist in disguise as, ironically, a woman trying to revitalize the waning market for the HI-C drink 'Ecto Cooler'. He'd only speak in limerick and would have a considerable bulge in the front of his dress as the only indication as to who, and what he really was. "It's a bit hot out, why not have a nip, Woops I didn't mean THAT, I meant have a sip! Refresh yourself with some high-fructose corn syrup ol' timer, Check the packaging, that's Ghost Buster's Slimer!" (spoiler!: The bulge was a stash of Ecto Cooler! See how context changes things?)

What you said is in direct contrast to reality. "So one thing that, um, I really appreciate about Kickstarter is that its sorta given the game development community, um, more options in terms of what content it can produce. What sort of game ideas you can bring to the table, and the fact that it doesn't really have the publisher model involved but we're actually being financed directly by they players, who, we answer to anyway and I'd rather have them as the bosses. Um, that's sorta been a very new way of doing games that's been very, very exciting." - Chris Avellone, Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter video Well, here's the problem with the idea that the backers are bosses: we both bought the game (I'm assuming you did even though you lack a visible backer badge, else why are you here?) so we're BOTH his bosses, right? I think Obsidian made the right choice, you think they made the wrong choice. So we cancel out. Now, unless you think Obsidian should make all future decisions by Backer Committee (and what a cluster THAT would be!) we'll probably just have to agree that Obsidian is a private company that will do what it thinks is best for itself and its consumer, regardless of our individual opinions. WE AREN'T SPECIAL WE JUST BOUGHT A VIDEO GAME. Honestly no one should listen to us because we clearly waste our money on frivolous nonsense. So I'll use your own example to discredit you so you can more easily process it. The hardest truths are often the most difficult to swallow: With your example, all backers are bosses, I went back to the first post of this thread and read to the end. I wrote down who was strongly against, didn't care so they remained neutral, and who were the opposite by being strongly supportive of the change to the memorial stone. 25 bosses felt strongly enough about the change to express their disappointment in the change. 9 of the bosses remained neutral, not caring either way. And 8 bosses were strongly supportive of the change. In any democracy, or any boardroom as your example indicates this change would've never happened in the first place. The offended are the minority, they aren't even eclipsing the neutral party who have no feeling either way on the subject. They're dwarfed by the majority, yet the majority is expected to acquiesce? They aren't entitled to their criticism without their criticism being criticized? The joke was a joke and all jokes come from the same place. Good jokes and bad jokes are born from the same womb. Just because it was in your opinion a "bad" joke doesn't mean he didn't have the right to attempt to be funny, and that definitely doesn't mean that you have the right to censor him because what they said in the pursuit of being funny was personally offensive to you.

I didn't make the image, and technically, if the original creator chose to be politically correct which he may not have considering what passes for political correctness nowadays it would be "lady" not "she" since the original was "guy" not "he", but that's besides the point. I'll admit you are being very consistent, consistently assumptive and accusatory as to who and what I am, which is as you say typical SJW "tactics". What I expect from this thread: The Moderators will claim all of these posts criticizing the removal of the IG backers joke are OFF-TOPIC and either remove them or lock the thread despite the removal of the IG backers memorial being a part of the discussion.

What you said is in direct contrast to reality. "So one thing that, um, I really appreciate about Kickstarter is that its sorta given the game development community, um, more options in terms of what content it can produce. What sort of game ideas you can bring to the table, and the fact that it doesn't really have the publisher model involved but we're actually being financed directly by they players, who, we answer to anyway and I'd rather have them as the bosses. Um, that's sorta been a very new way of doing games that's been very, very exciting." - Chris Avellone, Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter video

Oh god, why did I read this horrible thread? It's nothing but gamergaters and people trying to defend a dumb limerick as artistic integrity. Are you actually serious? This doesn't at all represent me. My goal in backing this project was not "I want a studio I love to make something that offends SJWs". And that quote. Jesus Christ man, that quote. You know if the limerick referred to laser guns and sci fi stuff you'd have no problem with it being changed, but the moment someone gets offended, it's the death of liberty to actually listen to them. This entire situation is still messed up though - who is the change for? It's not for the GGers because apparently the most important thing to them is that this game contains content that offends minorities. It's not for the people who were actually offended because it's obviously a dig against them. Third time's the charm, right?

If we happened to miss content, then yes, we will change it if we feel it is necessary. Like Feargus mentioned in the update, we worked with many backers to revise their content for myriad reasons. This is an obvious lie though. You changed it because you were pressured by a minority group on Twitter lol. You've alienated the people who saved your company from oblivion by backing this game on Kickstarter to appease the rampant SJW movement demanding anything they find offensive to be censored. The fact that you're lying about it now is even more disgusting and disrespectful. Be honest about it. "So this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause" has never been more relevant.

I personally identify as a Transdimensional Stillbornwichtotherkin. I find the entire first act offensive. Why hasn't it been changed yet? Why have my cries been ignored? Do Transdimensional Stillbornwichtotherkin not matter to Obsidian? Shame on Obsidian for their obvious prejudice against Transdimensional Stillbornwichtotherkin, I won't tolerate it.

Deekin Scalesinger, I don't think anyone is that serious about what they wrote here. You're reading way too far into it, sure some people may marginally feel the way that you're accusing them of, but keep in mind it's slightly difficult to interpret intent through text. Ah so the misconception that Bioware somehow killed RPG's isnt real then. Its just a big running joke, rather than a story weaved by manchildren? Ya got me! Boy is my face red! No, the misconception is that anyone that makes any kind of joke is 100% serious 100% of the time. Why is criticism suddenly a baseless "story" that has been "weaved" by manchildren, can't it just be criticism? There's no hidden agenda, this isn't a red pill vs. blue pill thing as much as people want to make it out to be.

Deekin Scalesinger, I don't think anyone is that serious about what they wrote here. You're reading way too far into it, sure some people may marginally feel the way that you're accusing them of, but keep in mind it's slightly difficult to interpret intent through text.

"Remember remember the eighteenth of November, Paid reviews, Political Correctness and David Gaider's plot(holes), I see no reason paid reviews, political correctness and David Gaider's plot(holes), Should ever be forgot..." - Nerdwing

Got Ya! Spooked Ya. We need a Spagett NPC in the next game

Makes me clap a bit, frankly.

Does anyone remember that interview Cameron Lee (Producer of Dragon Age: Inquisition) gave to GameSpot? I DO. ( http://www.gamespot.com/articles/dragon-age-inquisition-the-baldurs-gate-legacy-and/1100-6421016/ ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_8KR-n2fBQ

I just confronted Raedric and noticed there was unique dialogue options for every paladin order except the Shieldbearers of St. Elcga. As my PC is a Paladin of the Shieldbearers of St. Elcga I was kind of disappointed by this. Then again maybe it just doesn't tell you when you qualify for a unique dialogue option only when you disqualify?? Am I crazy? Did I miss it?