Creslin321

LOL Ableism !!!!

My view is this... I think that Obsidian, being the developers of PoE have every right to do whatever they want to it. If Josh Sawyer is politically progressive, and he doesn't want a joke that can be construed as transphobic in his game, then more power to him, he is the project lead after all. So if someone on Twitter just told Sawyer about the joke and he removed it because he thinks it's wrong, then that's fine. That said, I don't really like it when people try to bully or shame a developer into removing some kind of content. So I can't really get behind the Twitter outrage brigade shaming Obsidian for daring to include this joke. That's kind of ridiculous. If you are upset with something, just let the developer know, if they change it, they change it, if not, oh well. Don't go on a tirade about how they are so horrible for daring to include a (IMO rather mild) joke. Now as for this specific instance? Given the Josh Sawyer supports FemFreq, I'm inclined to believe that he probably wouldn't want this joke in his game. So I don't think he was "bullied" into removing it, it just seems like something he would have done anyway. And that's perfectly fine.

I wrote a reply but the thread got locked before I had time to post it. Fortunately I saved it: Those are pretty good questions actually. I'm not all that interested in endgames. I see culture as more of a process and find it more interesting and productive to identify things wrong with it and then attempt to change them, and also make constant course corrections in case of unintended consequences or more pressing concerns coming up. I would like to live in a kinder world: one where it matters less where you were born and who your parents were, which provides more second chances when you screw up, and where generosity and cooperation are valued more than possession and competition. I don't think games "need" to represent anyone in particular at all. However: I observe that in actual point of fact, until very recently games have overwhelmingly represented and catered to a pretty small and IMO not all that interesting subset of the population. If the protagonist isn't a macho square-jawed space marine type, she's a big-boobed scantily-clad package of fapping material, the occasional exception or half-accidental Fem-Shep aside. Men by and large are presented as characters you want to be, women as objects you want to possess. It's formulaic, tired, and clichéd, and it's unappealing to a very large number of people. I would like to see that change. Not that there won't be any games with white straight male lantern-jawed space-marine type protagonists, but that that will no longer be the default expectation for the protagonist. So yeah, if a new game is being made, I count it as a point in its favor if it features an Inuit mother-of-five and a Polynesian scholar as companions, and if the dominant technological and cultural power happens to consist of people with dark skin. I also feel very strongly that games should not shy away from difficult themes and materials. I don't, generally speaking, like "safe" or bowdlerized stuff. Again, P:E does this rather well. It references rape, child murder, genocide, and all kinds of heavy stuff, but does it intelligently and coherently. I don't want every game to be suitable for everybody. However, I would like to see more games suitable for and representing more people. Partly it's for altruistic reasons -- I think it'd be cool if we saw more non-white non-males here -- and partly because I myself find it interesting to vicariously see the world through other eyes. In summary: I observe a problem, namely that gaming culture in general and places like this forum in particular are not comfortable places to be if you're not white, straight, male, and argumentative, and I would like that to change. Finally, I don't think there is a "formula" for this. It's all about intent and self-understanding. I detest transparent attempts at being "politically correct." DA:I for example. It's ghastly. Randomizing everybody's race and making half the characters gay without any examination of what that would mean, while leaving in things like the transparent and hideously racist "Qunari = Arabs" is worse than naively oblivious racism and sexism. It's not about what's in the game; it's about approaching it thoughtfully and intelligently. And finally finally, I do agree that a bunch of people on the "social justice" side of the fence go to ridiculous extremes with this. I do not want trigger warnings on everything, jazz hands instead of applause, or the removal of spiders. Nor am I in favor of censorship -- i.e., an outside authority determining what should or shouldn't be in a game. I am, however, strongly in favor of critique and criticism, and I'm thrilled if the critique and criticism changes things for the better, as the backlash to GG has by and large done, DA:I idiocy notwithstanding. Did this help at all? Thanks for posting this, it helps to explain where you are coming from. One thing I would like to say though is that in my gaming experience (starting with Commodore 64), I have not noticed the same "domination" of white, male, macho characters, and sexpot female characters as you have. I'm not saying they aren't there, they certainly are, but at least to me, they seem to be only prevalent in certain genres. Those genres mainly being FPS, fighting games, and action adventure. I don't really notice genres like RPG, strategy, 4X, Adventure, Simulation, etc. really having any great bias towards these stereotypes. I mean, even RPGs in the 90's were very diverse. Just look at the old IE games or the classic SNES RPGs. And even a game like Starcraft, which literally has lantern jawed space marines, has a pretty diverse set of characters (if you want to argue that an insect queen is a sexpot...okay then lol ). So I kind of take issue with the argument that "gaming" has some kind of problem with representing different types of characters when that problem is really isolated only to specific genres. If you want to argue that you want more diverse characters in action games and FPS games, sure go for it. But honestly, I think most of those games are supposed to be marketed towards young men anyway, so the the developers are likely just trying to appeal to their target demo. Anyway, I honestly agree with you that Gears of War style machismo characters are boring...and this is part of why I don't play those kinds of games. I just don't see it as some kind of systemic issue in gaming because there are plenty, plenty of games that have always featured diverse characters. Do you see it differently?

So I love the concept of Trial of Iron, and I've even tried it a few times, but there are a few things that I think keep it from being that enjoyable. 1. You can't con MOBs/encounters to see how difficult they are. 2. You can't escape once you engage an encounter. The combination of these two things mean that you essentially have no idea how "beatable" an encounter is when prior to starting it, and if it turns out to be too hard, there is no escape, GG. The only way I see right now to do Trial of Iron is to have foreknowledge of how difficult every encounter is in the game, and plan your run down to the last detail based on a certain sequence of events. Because if you do not have foreknowledge of every encounter, you will inevitably run into an encounter that is too high level for you, and since there is no way to escape, you will wipe. This...doesn't seem very fun to me. It actually removes a lot of the danger and uncertainty that I think makes Trial of Iron fun because you literally have to know every nook and cranny of the game to not get stuck in an inescapable, unbeatable encounter. If they added the ability to con encounters/MOBs, and allow you some way of escaping an encounter (probably with losses to permadeath), then I think Trial of Iron would be a lot more fun, and not feel like something that you need to follow a meticulous list of instructions to accomplish. Thoughts?

Yeah you can't have rotation because everything is pre-rendered. BUT transparency should definitely be possible, and its absence is a big issue. Anytime I get in a fight behind a tree I feel like I'm screwed because I have no clue what is happening. As for solving the issues caused by lack of rotation, which is mainly when your allies or other enemies occlude something you need to see, I think that transparency could solve these as well. Just put in different "vision modes" that make allies or enemies transparent and unclickable so you can click on the character you want to click on.

Yeah I'm really leaning towards Cipher now. I think that Schyzm may be right that a priest is required, but I'm kind of curious to see if I can get by without one just for the heck of it. I'm not doing Trial of Iron (again) so it's no big deal if I die while I'm trying it haha. And I think Cipher is just too good for me to pass up.

So for this game, I'm going to recruit a full custom party, so the companions aren't a big concern. I've got a hard game that I'm in act 2 on where I'm using the companions, so I wanted my PotD game to be more Icewind Dale style. But yeah, Monk is very tempting, I've heard a lot of good things about them . Even if my PC isn't a monk, I am definitely going to recruit one.

Hmm you may have a point. I was hoping that I could get by with a druid for healing when needed, and a chanter for buffs, but I'm not sure if that will be enough...

I'm trying to decide on my protagonist's class for a PotD game, but I keep going back and forth. I really like trying out different party builds and since my protagonist will be the only character that I can't swap out of my party, I want to make him the one class that I basically "must have" in my party at all times. Right now, I'm debating between Cipher, Monk, and Druid. That said, what do you think? Is there a class that you feel like you always need to have in your party? Or that is extremely beneficial to any party?

This doesn't take into account misses. That is one of the reasons why Dex > Mig. Another aspect is that Dex also reduces all animation time and more crucially, recovery time. DR also doesn't reduce 100% dmg if you do less dmg than DR value. Does Dex effect accuracy? It doesn't say it does in the attrib description...

Thanks for the advice guys! One question though, what would you guys think of taking a druid? The druid seems like they have really good AoE DPS and decent utility with their spells, but I have very little experience with them. Any thought?

OMG, I just figured this out myself lol. I had thought for some reason that people not in your party got 0 exp because when I looked at them in the "swap" screen, they were still level 3 while all my guys were level 6. Then I realized that it's just because they had the exp, I just needed to level them up. LOL dumb me.

Hey All, So I think I may take the plunge and try PotD with Trial of Iron, I definitely want to build my full party custom, but I'm kind of agonizing over my party build. I was wondering if you guys had any advice. So far my plan is to have... 1 Fighter. Tank focused completely on defense. I'm thinking of having INT as a dump stat because it doesn't seem like AoE or duration is important for fighters. 1 Priest. It seems like priests have lots of great support spells, and they definitely seem to be the best at healing so I thought a priest would be important. 1 Cypher. In my current hard game my cypher does great consistent damage, so I thought one would be useful for AoE DPS and some CC. 1 Wizard. I like the versatility that a wizard gets with all the different spells, and fan of flames does such great damage for a level 1 spell. I'm a little unsure of the wizard still though, not sure if a druid or another cypher may be better... 1 Chanter. I like the AoE buffs the chants give, and their summon spells have worked out pretty well for me in my hard game. The last slot is open, I'm thinking maybe Barbarian to help the fighter out with some consistent DPS in the front line...I'm just worried that a barb would get melted too fast. Any thoughts?

LOL, I honestly thought it was more of a drunk joke.

Okay so how about this. I'm Jewish, the stereotypes that modern Jewish jokes are based on essentially formed arguments that led to the murder of 6 million Jews. IE Jews are greedy, Jews have lots of money, Jews are deceptive etc. etc. Yet I would not want them to be censored because I know that a joke is not the same as actual hate speech. If actual hate speech against jews was common and encouraged by society (ie. if you actually lived in Nazi Germany), how would you feel about people making jokes about the jews? I think that's an extreme example because it's hard to imagine a Jewish joke in Nazi Germany NOT being hate speech. But let's be honest, modern day America is nowhere close to Nazi Germany when it comes to Trans people. Yes, there are still hateful bigots out there, but there aren't exactly death camps. The very fact that we're discussing this joke the way we are basically proves that. Anyway, I really think you have to look at the overall intent and context of the joke. IMO, the joke we're talking about here isn't even explicitly about trans people. It contains no derogatory terms, and you have to make a lot of assumptions to even find it offensive. I don't really think it qualifies as hate speech.

...And you don't think that trans people may be better suited to judging whether a transphobic joke is indeed transphobic or not? I would agree with this. But I would also think that a priest is well qualified to determine what is offensive to religious people, a 45 year old soccer mom is well qualified to determine what's offensive to mothers, yet I wouldn't want them removing offensive content everywhere. Except, y'know, when priests or soccer moms voice their concerns over content being offensive to their peer group, the internet hate mob doesn't descend on them and dig through their facebook photos to mock them for not being feminine enough, which is a thing that happened to the person who complained about the limerick. Or so I've heard. What does that have to do with anything? I mean, it sucks sure, I don't endorse it, but it's completely irrelevant to whether the joke should be removed or not isn't it? It's a very specific gendered sort of harrassment that kind of proves her point (ie. transphobia generally being a thing), which is where the difference from, say, Jack Thompson lies. Okay so how about this. I'm Jewish, the stereotypes that modern Jewish jokes are based on essentially formed arguments that led to the murder of 6 million Jews. IE Jews are greedy, Jews have lots of money, Jews are deceptive etc. etc. Yet I would not want them to be censored because I know that a joke is not the same as actual hate speech.

I am offended by presence of witchcraft and other occult elements in the game. Can I get those removed? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Look up "false equivalency." Maybe try to see something from someone else's shoes instead of just dismissing outright? Isn't that what I'm doing? Instead of just seeing it from the trans communities point of view, I'm trying to see the removal of offensive material from a general point of view and be fair to everyone. My question is why is one person being offended more valid than another person being offended?

...And you don't think that trans people may be better suited to judging whether a transphobic joke is indeed transphobic or not? I would agree with this. But I would also think that a priest is well qualified to determine what is offensive to religious people, a 45 year old soccer mom is well qualified to determine what's offensive to mothers, yet I wouldn't want them removing offensive content everywhere. Except, y'know, when priests or soccer moms voice their concerns over content being offensive to their peer group, the internet hate mob doesn't descend on them and dig through their facebook photos to mock them for not being feminine enough, which is a thing that happened to the person who complained about the limerick. Or so I've heard. What does that have to do with anything? I mean, it sucks sure, I don't endorse it, but it's completely irrelevant to whether the joke should be removed or not isn't it? I mean, Jack Thompson was harassed, did that give any credence to his argument?

I am offended by presence of witchcraft and other occult elements in the game. Can I get those removed?

...And you don't think that trans people may be better suited to judging whether a transphobic joke is indeed transphobic or not? I would agree with this. But I would also think that a priest is well qualified to determine what is offensive to religious people, a 45 year old soccer mom is well qualified to determine what's offensive to mothers, yet I wouldn't want them removing offensive content everywhere.

This really sounds like a recipe for a lot of meaningless arguments about semantics. It's totally fine to give a word a more specific definition in a certain context, and indeed academics do this all the time...but you NEED To define the word first before using it in a way that goes against the common (dictionary) definition. If you just say "that's not censorship because of XYZ" but you are going off your own undisclosed personal definition, while the person you are arguing with is going off of the common definition...then what are you even arguing over? A rose is a rose by any other name, but if I start calling a rose a tulip and insisting that tulips are red, then that would be confusing wouldn't it? If you read my post again you see that is what I said mostly. In academic context one needs to define every term that they think is important for the academic work at question, even if you use most common definitions that there are, because it is important in academic work that there is as less room as possible for different interpretation of meaning of those terms. Dictionaries are written by authors and those authors have their own world views that dictate them how they construct their work. There are studies done on dictionaries which so that they have bias towards major society culture and certain its sub cultures, causing it that they don't usually reflect well in how minority populations uses of words. Ah I see, my fault...my eyes are strained so I think I'm missing things lol .

Frankly, judging by the fact that the dude couldn't even spell "light", I'd be astonished if it turned out backer submissions were even read at all, much less vetted for appropriateness. And you might be right. Regardless though, if they remove something solely on the grounds that it has offended or might offend someone, then it's censorship by definition. Even if they did it pre-release, if they looked at that limerick, and said "this might offend someone, we should take it out," then that's censorship. Once again, not good or bad, just fits the definition. I don't think it's a very useful definition then. (Also, typical GGer dogwhistle, which makes me even more hesitant to use the word.) It's not my definition though. I'm getting it from Wikipedia, but many other sources define it similarly. I know that people have given it a negative stigma, but I think a large part of that is people that reflexively argue that "that's not censorship!" whenever someone accuses something of being censored. When in reality, it's definitely censorship, but it's not necessarily wrong. Words don't have solid definitions, but instead their definition changes from speaker to speaker and from writer to writer. Dictionaries and other word definition instances are invented to catalog those meanings and let people have some ability to have understanding what they speak or write to each other. So when you say that you speak that act of censorship is bad then it would be recommendable to define what you include in that definition. If you borrow somebody else's definition you probably should mention if you have difference of opinion with it or parts of it. But this case don't fit in Wikipedia's definition of censorship because the group of people that ask/demands removing that memorial don't hold any power over Obsidian, meaning that Obsidian is absolute free to decide will they keep memorial, remove or edit it. You could say that it is self censorship, which maybe the case if they don't self feel that it is inappropriate text but edit/remove it in anyway to please people (this is by Wikipedia's definition) or that Obsidian censors backer who submitted it, but that is in my opinion bit far fetched as it is additional content to Obsidian's art work and Obsidian has editorial rights over it, it would be same as claim that moderator here censor us, when they make us to follow forum's rules. This really sounds like a recipe for a lot of meaningless arguments about semantics. It's totally fine to give a word a more specific definition in a certain context, and indeed academics do this all the time...but you NEED To define the word first before using it in a way that goes against the common (dictionary) definition. If you just say "that's not censorship because of XYZ" but you are going off your own undisclosed personal definition, while the person you are arguing with is going off of the common definition...then what are you even arguing over? A rose is a rose by any other name, but if I start calling a rose a tulip and insisting that tulips are red, then that would be confusing wouldn't it?

Its one of those words that are a victim of their ability be used as a bludgeon in discourse. It has too much emotive weight/baggage even though in and of itself is really a neutral concept (the problem is always how it's used and censorship is used every day in a wide variety of forms). Quite so. ...Since when is "dark content" offensive? Occult concepts are very offensive to certain religious groups. Violence is offensive to some people as well. And, ironically enough, gay people are offensive to some people. I would never want any of this stuff censored, just pointing it out.

LOL, I can imagine them throwing their hands up in the air when the discussion resurfaced under another thread. But honestly, I'm happy that they are allowing it to happen. I don't think anyone here is being excessively rude.