Jump to content
  • Sign Up

liniger4312

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

About liniger4312

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator
  1. Way to keep it classy people. Humour is and always will be subjective, and that is just fine. Haven't finished the game yet mind you, but so far there have been some decent moments that got a smile out of me. Nothing that had me in tears, but neither am I expecting that from this game.
  2. He seems to be covering his bases more than anything. And I get that, he's a businessman after all. What I did find interesting in that quote (I haven't read the full article so maybe he addresses this further) is the part about wanting to create discussion. Have mature even offensive content, have it spark debates. I absolutely agree on that, and encourage it. And I think that is where they may have made a mistake with the poem. Instead of taking it down when someone took offence, perhaps they should have encouraged people to discuss it. Why is it offensive to person A? Why do some think it's targeted at trans people? Why does Person B find it funny? Why should anyone even care about an obscure poem in a giant game with quite heavy and mature topics? If we're following the idea of encouraging debate and discussion, that poem should probably have been kept around. At least for a while. As it stands the quick removal skipped all of that and jumped straight over to a heated and crazy debate about the idea of censorship, SJWs, gamergate and I think I saw a mention or 2 regarding Nazis too (they always manage to sneak into online arguments though so not sure they count).
  3. Just stop posting in the topic if you aren't interested. If people spam new threads or derail topics I'm sure the mods will deal with it. Censoring things because you feel it isn't interesting or you personally feel it's run its course is rather silly, imho.
  4. Let me counter your question with: Does my right become more right if I am in a minority, and am I allowed to be more of a **** if I am? Does my right become more right if I also rile up people around me, who have no idea what my emotions are or who I am but they simply feel emotional because I am emotional? Take Denmark's embassy in the Middle-East (Yes, I am comparing with that, if you know what I am talking about), where islamists got riled up because a Danish artists had made a painting of "He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named" (lol). Whilst marching towards the embassy, the crowd became larger and larger, and no one in the crowd had any idea what it was all about, but someone had made a painting, probably, and they were yelling and got angry and tossed **** around them and eventually they burned down the embassy... except they burned down the Norwegian embassy too (They probably didn't know which one was which so they burned down both). Does that right make them more right, because they were offended by a cartoon of Mohammed, and that made it right of them to rile up thousands of people around them? What if Obsidian hadn't listened to Erika, would she be allowed to burn down Obsidian's offices and spread hate about them because of a poem? I know my example is a bit extreme, but do you understand what I am saying? Read: I think (2) fits into it. A bit extreme? Of course she wouldn't be allowed to destroy property or hurt people because she got freaking offended, what kind of a question is that? I'm a huge supporter of free speech and I reserve the right to walk around in public with a t-shirt with a graphic of the danish cartoon with Muhammad wearing a bomb as a turban. But I also have the right to not wear that shirt if I don't feel like it. If Obsidian had removed the poem in order to appease a group threatening violence against them, I'd be pissed, but that's not what went down at all. First of all, it's likely that they overlooked it and legitimately don't like it or want it in the game in the first place. That would be their right to include whatever the **** they want in their work. Furthermore, they didn't remove it or apologize and they weren't responding to threats of violence. They chose to ask the backer if he wanted to change it in light of the situation, and he decided to do so. Period. That's the entire story. Nobody caved to threats of violence and no censorship was forced on anybody. Obsidian decided that they wanted to give the backer an opportunity to change something that was causing a lot of people to **** on twitter and the forums, the backer decided to do so, Obsidian published his rewrite which directly insulted those who got offended in the first place. It's amazing how much imaginary bs all of you are attaching to this situation. As a show of example to see how much people read into a comment (this is the second one by the way). I never said that there were threats of violence against Obsidian. I didn't even insinuate that there ever was. I was asking rethorical questions and making rethorical parallels. Using an extreme example (I got it right this time). Deceptive, I know, sorry about that. It was somewhat intentional. You applied the rest of the meaning yourself. I was re-reading my post a couple of times and thinking "Yeah, it is A LOT of extreme, maybe I should edit that 'bit' out of it? Nah. Whatever, someone is going to get pissed about it". I made a conscious choice to keep it there so I could elaborate as well as hope I could see some people understanding what I was talking about, and also show how literal people are and how they apply their own meanings to things. How people have difficulty in seeing from other people's point of views. Most of the time because they aren't trying* (I've read your post, at this point in time, 3 4 times now Grinning, just to give you some perspective and that I am trying to understand other people's thoughts too ). I never said anything about Obsidian being forced to censor anything. What happened was a woman who wanted to force Obsidian to censor, because she perceived the poem to be "All about me". Whilst the threats were not of the "I will burn down your office"-kind, it was of the "I will not buy your game if you don't fix this and I will tell all kinds of people to not get your game because of this poem"-kind. "Censor this, or else!" (and for a while, Erika thought Obsidian had censored it too). It was also appearantly escalating. My point is that if Obsidian hadn't communicated with her in some manner, she would've continued her campaign, spread more hate on Obsidian and been anti-Obsidian for the rest of her gaming career or even life, most likely. That pressure, is a d*ck move, and isn't much different from "terror". The way she gathered people to her cause, sentimentally, is not much different than the way that the islamists on the streets riled up and gathered people. My point is that there could've been a single people who started chanting on the streets "Danish idiot is making cartoon of our prophet!" and then let's pretend they went and protested against it. Similarly, Erika started on Twitter "Obsidian Backer idiot is making fun of our sexuality!" and then went and protested against it. No tolerancy in both cases. ^Do you see the parallell I made, more simplified, now^? *"They aren't trying" = lots of people become emotional on what they see on the surface, they jump to conclusions before understanding. I do this too, so I should really say "We". But using "they" is more provocative. I think anyone who read it understood your point the first time. As often when arguing online it's easier to attack you for using poor examples than it is to admit you may have a point and continue the debate from that. For what it's worth, the initial few instigators back then didn't plan for the burning of anything or for anyone dying. They lived in Denmark and did this to cause drama and perhaps earn some influence among people they had connections with down in the middle east. Quickly got out of control as it can do when using hatespeech and hyperbole to raise the awareness of a large crowd.
  5. English isn't your first language but you feel qualified to criticize the excellent writing in this game? Just wow... You dismiss someone's opinion on a games writing based on them not being a native English speaker? Just wow... FYI you don't have to be a stellar writer, to be critical of the writing of someone else.
  6. Pretty much this. It's been mentioned some times in this thread already and I fully agree. 8/10 is not a bad score, it's a really good score actually. And I can see why PoE would get that. It's not a perfect game, it is however a really good game...8/10. If there is an issue it is indeed that DA:I and similar AAA or indies friendly with the reviewer will get a crazy inflated score. That is why I stopped looking at review scores a long time ago. I'll rather spend a little longer reading forums and boards dedicated to games and gauge what the consumers have to say about it.
  7. ...wait you can sneak fast? God damn it I've wasted many minutes sneaking across maps.
  8. This, however, is not fake. Don't know. The way some people in this thread has now determined the other one being fake is actual fact. Don't be surprised if some will question the validity of this one. Disclaimer: I'm not saying the original tweet is surely a real one that got deleted later. I am however saying it's impossible to determine. Some people have decided it's "clearly fake" - which is just ridiculous and a cheap way to try and get their views across. Why do people always have to embellish?
  9. For what it's worth, I honestly don't see a lot of actual "Obsidian is RUINED" reactions in here, mostly snark and the usual derailed topic of whether or not SJWs are the coming of the apocalypse or saving the world (hyperbole very much intended). At any rate, fake or deleted is irrelevant for the purpose of this thread. Nothing will happen and I agree this should be closed.
  10. You mean gamergate? Yeah I think it is for the most part. I see this often, whenever people who are progamergate talk about anything but "ethics in journalism" many who oppose them get this "AHA, GOTCHA!!" reaction. Why? I am pretty sure the vast majority of supporters of gamergate are in fact gamers, with a large interest in games outside their involvement in gamergate. Being pro gamergate doesn't mean every opinion or discussion you have is made from that platform. As an example I'm a social democrat, doesn't mean every opinion and conclusion I come to is made with the mantle of social democrat.
  11. Give it a f*cking rest Calm down. Why even reply to it if you want the matter to dwindle, ignore it instead.
  12. There is no transgender mentioned in the original poem.
  13. Here is where your assumptions are wrong: I have a trans friend who sent me a text about this whole matter. She is far more livid about Obsidian caving than I am, I am mostly disappointed. You seem to assume that being trans means you speak for all trans people. Because you have some kind of hivemind? Sorry to break the news to you but trans people are just like everyone else, they come in all manner of personalities. They can be the greatest friends, annoying dramaqueens, the biggest d-bags and everything in between. Nobody gets a free pass on being a decent human being ever. Not because of your skincolour, your gender, your sexuality or your social status. The individual behind the twitter account that started all this seems to be quite a petty and spiteful person, regardles of what gender and sexuality she may have. To say I can't possibly make that conclusion because I'm not a trans myself I find both ridiculous and a tad insulting
  14. Wow that reads like any politician covering their failed election promises.
  15. Then start by being angry at Eric: the man who calls for all men, logically including those like him, to be murdered! I have no idea who Eric is, but the woman who first brought up this whole thing has indeed joked with "Kill all men." Very clearly joked. Are you seriously using that as an attack? Because that's... pretty darn hilarious, actually. It's like when I got called a eugenicist for doing a joke bit pretending to be an old-timey scientist. For someone so adamantly defending an offensive piece of humor, you really should pay more attention to what is and isn't serious! No, sadly the woman who brought up this whole thing wasn't joking. She is a manhater/misandrist. She has verified this as clear as day several times because indeed most peoples initial reaction is "surely this is a joke?".
×
×
  • Create New...