Azradun

They are evil. I bought a mod yesterday, Firelink Implements, for 0,92 Euros (scaled down the price to minimum). Tried it. It was an armor in a chest and a sword. The location of the item wasn't in description. The description didn't say that the armor hadn't the female version (he says he has now - but no screenshots whatsoever). The armor cannot be tempered and upgraded in-game (as all other armors can). Sure, he adds things... but this comes with *no warranty*. And after refunding, I have to wait "a few days" for my cash (still don't have it), and when it does, it is in Valve's Steam Vallet. So essentially *Valve doesn't lose it* like EVER I'm still forced to spend it on Steam so they practically keep it. Nice huh? With no additional investment from their side! No quality control! No responsibility! And mods will conflict with one another... oooh they will!

Already is. Petition is 97.000+ strong and rising. Last time I've seen so powerful a movement was a few years ago when they tried to pass ACTA in Poland. I actually worked back then in an open source foundation and spoke on the national radio against ACTA... ah, good times. Hundreds of thousands went to the streets and forced the Prime Minister to abandon the idea. I'm not naive to think my speech was the main or even significant reason, but I certainly did my part. But ValvEA is no Prime Minister who relies on popular votes... they are a corporate monopoly. We shall see what happens.

Or the Steam client will report those users to ValvEA to get their accounts banned.

Monopolies are *always* bad. Even the best people faced with absolute power become corrupt. Steam is too big now, and thought it could get away with anything. And money... money changes everything. I once lost a lifelong friend due to money.

This. It's not free market with 75% corporate tax. It's a blatant attempt to monetize something that was previously free. The discussion about "are mod makers free to get money for their work?" is deceptive since ValvEA and BethEAsda are taking 75% of the profts while leaving 100% of work, policing, quality control to users. Also paid modders aren't modders anymore, they become developers with all the responsibilities for their products, contrary to what ValvEA or BethEAsda says. This is all really laughable - for your cash, you get something that maybe works, maybe not. The refund process is also lengthy. I bought one item, which had a description of 2 lines of text and a few screenshots. Tried (the armor didn't even have a female version which is a standard for vanilla Skyrim!) and refunded - it told me to wait a few days until the cash gets back into my ValvEA Vallet. There is officially no support for conflicting mods whatsoever if not voluntarily provided by the modder (and there WILL be conflicts, as all who extensively use modded Skyrim know). The actual way of doing this paid mod system was very vile - taking an already established community and changing the rules overnight with a few people in the know behind non-disclosure agreements. Already paid mods are vanishing from free site Nexus entirely. A petition to remove this system has 74,093 supporters at this moment and is rapidly rising (began two days ago). This could have been done better. Way better.

Well, seems that assigning companions to Stronghold now doesn't strip away their voice... Good. But companions I had before that were voice-stripped are voice-stripped still. Bad. What I am to do with those I travelled with so far? Kill them off and make new ones? Lame.

Thank you for a good game, and thank you for being able to circumvent censorship via modding!

It also seems to influence new custom made recruits, as I have made three of them just a moment ago for testing, and none had a voice. It's irritating, since I have two of them in my group. Edit: It seems the thing that did it was that I had no empty slot in the group at the time - simple being in the rooster causes them to become silent. Edit2: I have the last patched game on Steam

Brad Wardell is maligned to this day, including by the (in)famous Brianna Wu, who openly called for boycotting him and his work (despite being a fellow games developer!). His wife and child got death threats from the "progressives" - I guess being related to an "offensive person" makes you a perfectly valid target of harassment. Matt Taylor should be able to live out his life without talentless hacks who didn't contribute anything of value to humanity watching and criticizing every one of his moves. Scientists put probes on comets, feminists put offense onto shirts. Reducing him to tears on television shows the true face of the progressive movement - the new Inquisition. Bullying great men won't get more girls into STEM, I assure you. I don't know much of Vox Day, but you using the term "an unrepentant piece of human garbage" automatically earns him my sympathy. It is very curious that if I'd use the same language about Anita Sarkeesian or Brianna Wu, that would easily earn a segment on a national television, yet you smearing a man with broad brush of insults is ok. Erika Victorious doesn't earn the same language yet she advocates for mass murder and concentration camps for men?

I don't see anyone from the other side condemning Erika for her views for "kill all men". But the MRAs and Gamergate are villified widely in press for any extremists they harbor. This is the problem. The extremists *are* the ones driving the "progressive movement", because no one inside denounces them, but are shielded from criticism by other feminists and progressives. Criticize one of them, and suddenly, you're facing a large and loud crowd of "moderates", plus their allies in press. When they get death threats, every outlet mobilizes instantly. When their opponents get death threats, it's all hush-hush in media. Very convenient, no? While still clinging to the dictionary definition that "feminism is for equality". Same for other progressives. Oh, and ask Polygon.com for JournoPros, that secret mailing list which existence was proven.

So if a black man loses a race, they award the prize to him? I'd refuse to go against a black man then to avoid being accused of racism - would that be offensive too? We have to go deeper than that... But I don't care about Apple's overpriced and inferior hipster products made in China and I'm not their customer and I'll never be.

Plainly because Intel, Microsoft's and HP's products aren't art. Processors and operating systems are utilities and I don't care about them. Those products are inherently neutral. How can you pack progressive ideology into a processor? Games I do care about, games are art. Therefore I will defend them from triggerhappy censors. I don't hate Obsidian, I just regret their choice. Okay, except that there's no reasonable argument that will define an ad created by Intel (a photograph which was planned out and edited to achieve the desired end product, with a bit or writing involved as well) as not being art, but will define a little poem made by a backer as art. Again, you're just singling this out and labeling it as art because it supports your agenda to do so. If Intel is "censoring" their ads so as not to offend people, then how is that better than Obsidian asking a backer if he wants to change his poem so as not to deal with people getting offended? Do you see how inconsistent that is? There is a clear distinction between an ad for a product and the product itself. I don't care about ads, I'm not a consumer of ads. I am a consumer of games and additional content for them. If that's not an enough explanation for you, then I'm sorry. But I don't see it as a problem. Edit: added "not"

My thoughts exactly when I think of the SJWs!

Plainly because Intel, Microsoft's and HP's products aren't art. Processors and operating systems are utilities and I don't care about them. Those products are inherently neutral. How can you pack progressive ideology into a processor? Games I do care about, games are art. Therefore I will defend them from triggerhappy censors. I don't hate Obsidian, I just regret their choice.

Good example. Injecting ideology into your business results in an inferior product. DA 2 (user score 4.4 on Metacritic) was worse than DA: Legends on Facebook released at the same time and I won't even buy Inquisition after Mass Effect 3 fiasco and DA 2. Bioware was a good company once. Now it is owned by Electronic Arts (Worst Company in America award of 2012 and 2013). It is your right to support the company you like of course.

What if Obsidian wants to make them though? The pointed PR gun in the hands of the campaigners is of no matter of course. "Pillars of Eternity Removes Offensive Limerick From the Game" - gamespot.com I'm sure if Obsidian or the backer didn't do anything, the campaigners would cease their pressure and refrained from "going after the backer", as one of the persons on this forum so colourfully described. But I wrote about it a few times already.

Resorting to name calling is often the best proof of lack of arguments.

Then we'll just have to agree that we disagree, and leave it at that. You are entitled to your opinion on this whole debacle, and I am entitled to mine.

Cool, I'd love to look into it. Can you give me a pointer to the source? Here you are: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2014.0492 An extract from the abstract: "Enlisting a 3 year longitudinal design, the present study assessed the relationship between video game use and sexist attitudes, using data from a representative sample of German players aged 14 and older (N=824). Controlling for age and education, it was found that sexist attitudes—measured with a brief scale assessing beliefs about gender roles in society—were not related to the amount of daily video game use or preference for specific genres for both female and male players. Implications for research on sexism in video games and cultivation effects of video games in general are discussed." Edit: A bit more detailed explanation of the methodologies here: http://techraptor.net/content/study-finds-no-link-sexism-gaming

They are so very vulnerable and under threat that they write "kill all men" and "put them in concentration camps" on Twitter. Look up Erika's tweets (the offended person). That's the sign of vulnerability all right - openly advocating for killing the oppressors and receiving no punishment (even Twiiter didn't block her). But what do I know about oppression, I've been but beaten at work once some years ago. I drink my daily medications with privilege. I didn't mean Erika (I know nothing of them except that I don't like their tweets), I meant the people who suffer from the vilifying of expressing gender and/or sexuality in non-majority ways. In this case many homosexuals and transgender people. (And for the record, I don't think the oppression they suffer from makes anyone else's suffering less important.) That said, vulnerability leads to fear, fear leads to anger, anger may lead to radicalism... so maybe Erika's crazy tweets grow from being oppressed? But it's beside the point, the important points in my opinion are: 1) did the original limerick contribute to vilifying of expressing gender and/or sexuality in non-majority ways, 2) did the changing of the limerick oppose vilifying of expressing gender and/or sexuality in non-majority ways, and 3) was the changing of the limerick a violation against freedom of expression. I argue that 1) possibly (very much depends on interpretation and can be argued either way), 2) maybe kinda; mainly it sidesteps the original controversy but I think it's also a message that there was no intention of vilifying, and there's some merit in such a message, 3) if it was, it was very minor since no story content was touched and the backer was approached respectfully by Obsidian. I am more oppressed by gay people than oppressing them - I was fired once by a gay boss because he openly favourited his lover over me in work (said lover could just refuse to do projects and still get his salary). Does that mean I get the same kind of benefit of the doubt as Erika does? Can I openly advocate mass murder and concentration camps for gay people on Twitter, getting sympathy at the same time, just because I was "oppressed" ("so maybe Erika's crazy tweets grow from being oppressed?")? No, of course not. Because *being oppressed doesn't exempt you from consequences of being evil*. Which is a truth many, many progressives seem to be blind to. Life isn't one-dimensional and can't be distilled just to the false dichotomy of "privilege-oppression". Ad 1) No, it didn't. Ad 2) Latest scientific long-term study proved that games don't perpetuate sexist stereotypes - so no, it didn't. Ad 3) Slow boiling of the frog. "This content was so minor, we could safely censor it and nothing of value was lost". Where this slippery slope will end? No. The bottom line is: art should not be forced to become the vessel for ideology or instrument of social change. Want your progressive games? Make them, don't change existing ones to conform to your worldview.

He didn't consider it a bad thing until it was forced upon him.

"Moral path", "implicitly endorsing it", "broader movement", "society is changing". No. Intel's ad is a commercial, game and limerick are art. First, this is only your American society, we in Poland didn't keep black slaves or kill Indians, so I give nothing about your racial connotations. Stop pushing your political agenda in internationally released computer games. Second, censoring "problematic" content in art won't lead to anything good. "What it means is that someone pointed out why the limerick was problematic, and once Obsidian knew and understood this, they took the moral path." And if they didn't, they would automatically become immoral, and so acceptable target to anything, right? If this "immorality" is so contagious, then you are supporting genocide and mass murder by siding with Erika Victorious ("kill all men", "put them in concentration camps"). But of course sexism against men isn't a thing, because "sexism = prejudice + power" according to McIntosh and Sarkeesian, wink wink?

Well, I've seen him on Twitter saying that he wouldn't change the poem if not of the entire situation, so I'm pretty sure I'm not deluding myself. And my worldview changes periodically - depending on which side is currently most obnoxious and self-righteous. Right now it's the SJWs. Anyway, thank you all for an interesting conversation (Bryy and Moira both). By the way, the game *is* good (bought it anyway). Have a pleasant day or night depending on the timezone.

Thanks for answering! (Really.) They are so very vulnerable and under threat that they write "kill all men" and "put them in concentration camps" on Twitter. Look up Erika's tweets (the offended person). That's the sign of vulnerability all right - openly advocating for killing the oppressors and receiving no punishment (even Twiiter didn't block her). But what do I know about oppression, I've been but beaten at work once some years ago. I drink my daily medications with privilege. Edit: also thank you for a civilized conversation. Edit2: debating is always good when it's done with mutual respect. A good discussion adressing arguments and not based on personal attacks enriches everyone involved.

Weird thing that my comics, scifi and games continue to be full of good stuff. Well, some of them are rubbish, but no more so than they were ten or twenty years ago. What have your comics, scifi and games been converted into? I'd like you to ponder on what your cause here is. Why isn't it okay to criticize a content perceived in a video game, if one disagrees with it? We criticize PoE here at the forums all the time. We demand Obsidian to change this and that, do these and those things better, and sometimes call them to be embarrassed of making it buggy/too easy/too difficult/whatever. I read that stuff here every day. Why is the critique on the limerick different? A good question. The answer is: ideology. If you want to change something because you don't like it, it's ok. But if you just want to impose your beliefs on others, it is an entirely different scenario. For example: radical Christians hate magic. My own cousin didn't watch "The Witcher" on Polish TV because it was an anathema to him. Now, imagine my dear cousin petitioning Obsidian to remove all spells from the game. Same is with radical feminists like "Killallmen" Erika who was offended by the joke. I spent my childhood under communist censorship, and believe me, it's was not an easy matter. Also this example about my cousin is no hyperbole - in Poland we actually have a law that can send to jail anyone "offending religious beliefs of others". A few artists stood trial for that in recent years, thanks to good old bishops of the Catholic church and their political fanboys. I find no real difference between authoritarians from the left and the right. Also there is another difference. In America, as I am told, being offended could lead to a lawsuit. Not liking something, not so much. So the pressure on the company is of an entirely different kind. Edit: like -> don't like