DavidHansen
-
Posts
29 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by DavidHansen
-
-
Maybe it's a 24 hour bonus and resting is 8 hours?
-
Oh wow, that's a big difference from BG2
Thanks -
So I started on Normal, but might restart on Easy just to spend less time caring about stats and more on the story.
But I read that difficulty affects number of enemies as well. Does this place you behind on experience? How to recover?
-
How are higher level spells for Foe-only AoE? I might not have the patience to carefully aim all my AoE spells.
-
Semi unrelated - looking for some views on Godlike abilities. Are they worth it for giving up headgear?
-
Visitors, note my summary on page 2: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/75387-controversial-limerick-discussion-2/?p=1632465 . This is going nowhere because all has been said.
-
Also this thread is totally off topic by now, as everything that can be said on it has been said.
-
Now, the person who originally tweeted that complaint consistently comes across as a sociopathic monster in her tweets. So maybe Obsidian should not have treated a tweet from a person like that seriously. On the other hand, Obsidian couldn't necessarily know that this person was like that.
Link?
fixed: http://i.imgur.com/2k5C7dV.jpg
it might seem to be silly jokes, but it's all like that, and not jokingly
Even if I bought into the way it's been framed it is obviously hyperbole to call her a sociopathic monster (and dehumanising).
Him. Eric. Don't you get it? They get to decide what her name and gender is. Her identity is their property.
Whether someone gets to decide what their name and gender is will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Still, anyone else gets to have a view on this, like they get to have a view on everything else.
If someone claims to be serving food that is Spanish, you can opine "That food is not Spanish", and even say "The food is not Spanish". It would often be considered rude and inappropriate though. But if they act like an a*****e then there's not great reason to be polite to them, and people might end up looking for insults that would hurt them.
-
Now, the person who originally tweeted that complaint consistently comes across as a sociopathic monster in her tweets. So maybe Obsidian should not have treated a tweet from a person like that seriously. On the other hand, Obsidian couldn't necessarily know that this person was like that.
Link?
fixed: http://i.imgur.com/2k5C7dV.jpg
it might seem to be silly jokes, but it's all like that, and not jokingly
Even if I bought into the way it's been framed it is obviously hyperbole to call her a sociopathic monster (and dehumanising).
I disagree that it's hyperbole. I think it's perfectly descriptive and very warranted. Still, anyone can form their own opinion on it by looking at the posts.
-
I'm not going to be nice to a man who preeches Kill All Men.
Could have saved us a lot of trouble just saying that you were a transphobe instead of dressing it up in that whole freedom of speech cloak.
Please avoid calling people "transphobe" for reacting negatively to "kill all men".
Especially because I've seen the Kill All men dude's picture. If you just showed that to someone there's no way they'd think he was female.Not even in a "can't pass" way, there's no sign he's even trying to look female.
Are you going to keep pretending or are you going to admit that this is what it is?
That's not hatred of all transsexuals. It's hatred of a single transsexual, which is very warranted.
Hating a gay person does not make you homophobic, unless you hate all gay people.
So it's his (and your) right to decide if someone is really transgender, as opposed to "passing".
Again, do you want to keep pretending or admit what it is?
Also, hatred]/i] is ok.
It's everyone's right to have an opinion on it. Like you can have an opinion on whether someone is grumpy or stupid or paranoid or happy or competent or a good father or Spanish.
Sure, those insults might hurt. But using group-related insults ("he's compensating for a tiny d***") doesn't mean that someone hates all of that group.
-
Now, the person who originally tweeted that complaint consistently comes across as a sociopathic monster in her tweets. So maybe Obsidian should not have treated a tweet from a person like that seriously. On the other hand, Obsidian couldn't necessarily know that this person was like that.
Link?
fixed: http://i.imgur.com/2k5C7dV.jpg
it might seem to be silly jokes, but it's all like that, and not jokingly
-
I'm not going to be nice to a man who preeches Kill All Men.
Could have saved us a lot of trouble just saying that you were a transphobe instead of dressing it up in that whole freedom of speech cloak.
Please avoid calling people "transphobe" for reacting negatively to "kill all men".
Especially because I've seen the Kill All men dude's picture. If you just showed that to someone there's no way they'd think he was female.Not even in a "can't pass" way, there's no sign he's even trying to look female.
Are you going to keep pretending or are you going to admit that this is what it is?
That's not hatred of all transsexuals. It's hatred of a single transsexual, which is very warranted.
Hating a gay person does not make you homophobic, unless you hate all gay people.
-
I'm not going to be nice to a man who preeches Kill All Men.
Could have saved us a lot of trouble just saying that you were a transphobe instead of dressing it up in that whole freedom of speech cloak.
Please avoid calling people "transphobe" for reacting negatively to "kill all men".
-
3
-
-
Brief rundown of events
1) Someone posted on Twitter that a particular poem in the game was "transmisogynistic". It was then retweeted by a journalist (?), and Obsidian responded to both that they would look into it.
Now, the person who originally tweeted that complaint consistently comes across as a sociopathic monster in her tweets. So maybe Obsidian should not have treated a tweet from a person like that seriously. On the other hand, Obsidian couldn't necessarily know that this person was like that.
2) A poll was run on the boards showing that 98% of something like 100 participants wanted to keep this in game.
Now, maybe Obsidian should have paid greater attention to that poll and the scarcity of people who found this offensive, or maybe it was OK that they didn't.
3) Obsidian then changes the limeric, and posts an update saying that the content 'failed their vetting process' and that they have 'worked with many other backers to change ("itinerate") content that didn't fit with the tone of the game', and that they have been supplied with new content by the backer, Firedorn. This is interpreted as that they forced a change, and caved to pressure from a crazy person / a tiny minority with no sense of humor.
4) The person who originally wrote the poem, Firedorn, says that Obsidian contacted them by email and gave them free choice as to whether to change it. Whilst this is hard to reconcile with Obsidian's update, there's some theories that allow it (their message was meant as marketing to defuse criticism from SJWs).
5) Overall there's nothing really to follow up on - the backer has said he had a free choice, and the replacement poem isn't too bad and pokes fun at the whole deal. Questions that remain aren't large enough to cause a lot of noise over.
IMO this can be closed. We aren't really getting anywhere new after this.
-
No. No "but"s. He was dishonest with paying customers, potential customers and funders. Period.
I never accused Firedorn of lying, only Obsidian.
Obsidian's response in that letter was nothing but a **** you to the above and emboldenment to the kill all men crowd (as can be seen with how Eric bragged about it on Twitter and immediantly started thinking about how if everyone were so gullable he'd be throwing men in concnertation camps already)
Yes, Feargus was probably a tad dishonest with you, but:We don't actually know what "vetting" entails. For all we know the process could just be skimming it, making sure no one posted a Michael Jordan fanfic, and then putting it in the game.
"Prior to release, we worked with many of our backers to iterate on content they asked to be put into the game that didn't strike the right tone." = we just glance at it to see whether there's a Michael Jordan fanfic and then we put it in the game.
-
No. No "but"s. He was dishonest with paying customers, potential customers and funders. Period.
I never accused Firedorn of lying, only Obsidian.
Obsidian's response in that letter was nothing but a **** you to the above and emboldenment to the kill all men crowd (as can be seen with how Eric bragged about it on Twitter and immediantly started thinking about how if everyone were so gullable he'd be throwing men in concnertation camps already)
Yes, Feargus was probably a tad dishonest with you, but:Seconded.
Longknife, unless you edit or apologise for the post above, I'm going to respond in kind.
-
Well, if Firedorn asserts that he had a choice, contrary to what the "failed our vetting process" and "worked with many of our backers to iterate on content that didn't strike the right tone" statement implies, then I'm not going to call that a lie.
I still find Obsidian's post on it bizarre and heavily implying that they would have forced a change.
-
2
-
-
It might suggest Obsidian just didn't notice it could be controversial. Which is a fail in their vetting process, because the current discussion is bad PR & hurting the game - no matter what specific opinion you might have on the subject.They said that your content 'failed their vetting process'. How do you reconcile that? I struggle a lot to reconcile it myself. Why would they even say that if it meant nothing in terms of removing it?
"It's come to our attention that a piece of backer-created content has made it into Pillars of Eternity that was not vetted. "
"Prior to release, we worked with many of our backers to iterate on content they asked to be put into the game that didn't strike the right tone."
"It is completely the backer's choice whether they want to include the text they originally submitted or whether they want to change it"
Is there any of the statements above that seem contradictory to the other?
-
1
-
-
"Whoa, okay. When did you guys start another thread on this? And how did it get to 20 pages while I was out having dinner?
Look, we're fine with you guys talking about this, or whatever you want to talk about (as long as it's not, I don't know, endorsing piracy). But like with everything else, you don't need to start a new thread every time you think you have something so important to say that you need a new thread, instead of posting like everybody else.
Continue here:
http://forums.obsidi...cussion/page-26"
========
ZOMG CENSORSHIP NAZI!!!!!!
Actually, the other thread was linked to by a mod as the place to continue the discussion. Like, mod A closes a thread and links to that one, mod B closes that one and says "how did you start this?"
-
Backer ContentIt's come to our attention that a piece of backer-created content has made it into Pillars of Eternity that was not vetted. Once it was brought to our attention, it followed the same vetting process as all of our other content. Prior to release, we worked with many of our backers to iterate on content they asked to be put into the game that didn't strike the right tone.In the case of this specific content, we checked with the backer who wrote it and asked them about changing it. We respect our backers greatly, and felt it was our duty to include them in the process. They gave us new content which we have used to replace what is in the game. To be clear, we followed the process we would have followed had this content been vetted prior to the release of the product.We appreciate the faith you have all given us into making Pillars of Eternity the great game that it has become, and we appreciate the strength of conviction all of you bring to every conversation we have together.Sincerely,Feargus Urquhart, CEOObsidian Entertainment, Inc.
From Firedorn: I had the choice not to change it. They simply emailed me and asked if I was OK with changing it, but I could choose not to.
From CEO: It failed out vetting process. We have already worked to change ("iterate") other content that didn't strike the right tone. We include backers in this process.
I guess what seems surprising is Firedorn's assertion that it was his choice.
-
2
-
-
"Asked". Meaning "change it or we simply remove it". There was no choice involved for the person.
Actually, there was a choice. They asked me if I wanted to change in light of what happened. I chose to change it so that they can concentrate on the game instead of this PR nightmare. They weren't going to change it, they asked ME if I wanted to. I can find another platform to write my controversial crap, and I will. They, on the other hand, did the right thing and allowed me to decide the fate of the epitaph. I chose to turn into something that made fun of the bitch-bastards that were complaining.
They went above and beyond what I would have expected them to do.
Okay, so it was a choice. Can you confirm these talks with screenshots or something? Blank out sensitive info.
I find it kind of weird that Obsidian would be 100% okay with this staying but would avoid engaging at all with their backers about it in the first place.
I would like to ask you this, though: was offering this as a toggle a choice at any point? So that non-backers who didn't buy the game could remove whatever offended them and others could keep the game as it is?
Also, is there a reason why Obsidian has not been upfront about this?
You will have to take my word for it. I have no problems saying what's on my mind, as can be attested to, so I have no reason to BS. It was collaborative. There were emails back and forth and I don't have the inclination to start taking screenies and editing images.
Second, to clarify, they asked me if I wanted to change it in light of what was happening. I didn't even ask "what if I say no?". I immediately volunteered to do it.
Third, developing a software mechanism to allow users to turn them off and on is a lot tougher/longer than changing some data files. I am a software developer, so I can imagine what's involved.
And finally, I'm just assuming here, but Obsidian didn't want to say anything final until it was all done. Most companies don't want to declare anything as final until it's done.
They said that your content 'failed their vetting process'. How do you reconcile that? I struggle a lot to reconcile it myself. Why would they even say that if it meant nothing in terms of removing it?
It would help a lot if you posted the emails.
-
1
-
-
"If Firedorn is OK with it, I'm OK with it."
He really had no choice. They were gonna change it anyways. This was a way for him to still get his limerick in and still get a nice lashing on those who hate him. But, trust me, even if they told Firedorn that it was his choice it really wasn't. It was never his choice.
That's not how Firedorn says it went down. According to him Obsidian said they'd keep it if he wanted them to. All the information we have suggests you are wrong, but please tell me what you see that we don't.
The information that Obsidian wrote that it 'failed their vetting process' suggests that he's right.
-
"If Firedorn is OK with it, I'm OK with it."
He really had no choice. They were gonna change it anyways. This was a way for him to still get his limerick in and still get a nice lashing on those who hate him. But, trust me, even if they told Firedorn that it was his choice it really wasn't. It was never his choice.
I do not believe that. Firedorn already said that they left him the choice of a change. If they said keep it in I am sure they would have left it in.
They said that it 'failed their vetting process'. It's hard to interpret that as anything but that it was going to be either changed or removed.
-
1
-
-
Obsidian did not buckle under pressure. At the time, there really wasnt any pressure. They, as stated, were going to leave the message in. But the guy who made the message in question said "Naah, its not worth the PR trouble. I'll change it to a more tongue-in-cheek joke instead".
They stated that the poem 'failed their vetting process'. Unlike all the other content which had passed their vetting process.
I usually associate a piece of text 'failing the vetting process' with not being allowed.
That is the function of vetting generally. If it fails the vetting, it's not accepted.
"Hey guys, it failed our vetting, but we never had any intention of removing it, it just randomly occurred to us later that we might change it"
Thanks
Twitter outrage over the "[spoiler]" quest
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
Unfortunately for Obsidian, they already burnt that powder. They already confirmed that "all the other content" than the original limerick HAS been vetted.