Creslin321

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.

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.

Always applicable: [video link] Why should anyone care what Jim Sterling has to say about anything? Because it's relevant to the discussion and a pretty astute one as well? Always applicable: This is the definition of Censorship according to Wikipedia: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. Removing a joke because someone was offended clearly, unequivocally falls under this definition. My argument is that censorship is just a word and is not inherently good or bad. The key here is to argue whether the specific censorship in question in justified. The joke wouldn't even be in the game if it wasn't a backer submission someone paid to put it in. You call its removal censorship, I call it editing (assuming the person who submitted it is cool with it being removed, which I believe is the case). It's all about intention isn't it? If they remove it prior to release because they felt it wasn't appropriate for their game, then that's editing. If they remove it after release because it offended someone, then that's censorship. Once again, censorship is just a word, it is not inherently good or bad. Just to add to this, if you are watching network TV, and there is a naked guy with a black bar over his bits, then that is also censorship. But it is censorship that I have no problem with. See what I mean? Censorship is just a "thing" it is not inherently good or bad.

Well... no, it's not. It's certainly a crime, but there's no institution of prejudice behind it. That's like saying when Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK because he was a communist (or whatever the real reason was), that was a hate crime. The reason why hate crimes are punished more severely is in order to single out and challenge the widespread beliefs and attitudes in society that contribute to the act of violence. It doesn't seem to work, honestly, but there it is. So first, where are you getting this definition that there has to be an "institution" of prejudice behind a hate crime? Second, how would you define such an institution? And third, wouldn't you think that books being published about how the "bad" group as ruined the world, and the "good" group needs to take the world from them and fix it, qualify as an institution of prejudice? Especially when the author of said book went on to shoot someone from the "bad" group out of hate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto Don't ask me, I didn't invent the legislation, I'm just telling you the supposed reasons for it. Why are we talking about hate crime legislation? Isn't that a country-by-country sort of issue? Because my point is that if you censor a joke because one group got offended by it, then you have to censor ANY jokes that ANY groups are offended by to be fair. However, if you redefine hate speech to specify that it can only be against select groups, then you could in theory argue that you can selectively censor things that are only against certain groups, while letting things that offend other groups stay because it isn't hate speech. And then somehow hate speech just went to hate crime.

Well... no, it's not. It's certainly a crime, but there's no institution of prejudice behind it. That's like saying when Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK because he was a communist (or whatever the real reason was), that was a hate crime. The reason why hate crimes are punished more severely is in order to single out and challenge the widespread beliefs and attitudes in society that contribute to the act of violence. It doesn't seem to work, honestly, but there it is. So first, where are you getting this definition that there has to be an "institution" of prejudice behind a hate crime? Second, how would you define such an institution? And third, wouldn't you think that books being published about how the "bad" group as ruined the world, and the "good" group needs to take the world from them and fix it, qualify as an institution of prejudice? Especially when the author of said book went on to shoot someone from the "bad" group out of hate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong; hate speech has a very particular definition. If you want to talk about speech that targets someone based on simple group identity, okay, but it's something different. AFAIK, in the US, hate speech was defined in the earliest governmental publications as: Speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate. Speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes. Hate crimes are defined (legally) as: crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person.As I recall, the original provision didn't have all those categories, they've been added over the years. Anyhow, I've never seen anything that would indicate you had to be a "historically oppressed" to have a hate crime applied against you. Where you'd have an issue would be in proving it was a hate crime if you're not in a historically oppressed demographic as opposed to it being just a normal crime, but in theory it could happen. (Cue Gromnir correcting me on legal definitions; but as I always say, I'm not a lawyer, I don't play a lawyer on TV and this post does not constitute legal advice). Well said, and to give an example... If a paraplegic, half black, half native American, transsexual, homosexual woman shoots a Harvard educated cis white man because she hates white men...it's still a hate crime.

Still looking for someone an honest man, by the way, Diogenes? Always. Something to keep in mind guys as well is that having dark things occur (hangings/racism etc) is different from having a joke about the same thing. We all know the hangings in Gilded Vale are messed up and when Durance calls women whores, we know he's a messed up dude and is not being endorsed by the text. The presentation of the joke in question is what hurts it the most I think. If some drunk jerk in a bar was singing it you could roll your eyes and think "oh this is one of *those* establishments." It's not though, its from a fourth wall breaking group of messages you find within the game. You know the joke wasn't written by a character in the context of the story/game universe but its just dumped in there by the developers/backers which changes the way in which you examine it. Jokes are a tricky thing in general. Its always harder to make a joke about dark subjects than to play them straight because you are expected to laugh and therefore agree with the point of view the joke is presenting to some extent. But what about shows like Family Guy or South Park that are chock full of jokes that offend several marginalized groups? If we decide to censor this joke in PoE, how can we, in good faith, allow these shows to exist without fighting them?

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong; hate speech has a very particular definition. If you want to talk about speech that targets someone based on simple group identity, okay, but it's something different. From Wikipedia: Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation. Male is a gender, looks like hatred of men qualifies to me.

Always applicable: This is the definition of Censorship according to Wikipedia: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. Removing a joke because someone was offended clearly, unequivocally falls under this definition. My argument is that censorship is just a word and is not inherently good or bad. The key here is to argue whether the specific censorship in question in justified.

I am not sure that I understand the distinction between commercial and artistic vision, since both are in view of the player. In fact, one needs to go out of his or her way to find the message. Mostly I'm just saying that acting like we're mangling some precious work of art by taking out a backer message and comparing it to the Charlie Hebdo situation is really pushing it. I would argue the debate does not depend on whether the work is precious or not, but rather the act of removing/censoring a message. The act of censorship is not good in any instance. Ehhh...I would disagree I would say that removing a message because it offends someone is, by definition, censorship. However, I would also say that not all censorship is bad. For example, I doubt most major news organizations would give a segment to the KKK. This is definitely censorship, but I am for the censoring of hate speech, so I regard it as good censorship. That said, I think that any policy of censorship really needs to be thought out carefully, and it needs to be applied fairly throughout society. You want to censor hate speech? Fine, but you need to clearly define what hate speech is, and you need to censor it REGARDLESS of the origin or the target. So when I look at the requests to censor this limerick, I basically see a request to censor a joke that offended someone. It is by no stretch of the imagination "hate speech." And if this joke were censored, then I would think it's only fair to censor any other jokes that offend someone. So if a blonde gets mad at a blonde joke, if a religious person gets mad at an offensive drawing of one of their figures, if a lawyer gets upset at a lawyer joke, then all those should be censored as well. Personally, I think that is going WAY too far, which is why I'm firmly AGAINST censoring this limerick. Except that the entire point of hate speech as a category is the target. Simply targeting someone because of the fact that they belong to some group isn't hate speech. It has to be a protected group that's historically been the victims of oppression. If the speech in question isn't contributing to systemic discrimination, it's toothless. I disagree here, hate speech against ANY group, regardless of a history of oppression, is hate speech. For example, I often see arguments that #KillAllMen is not hate speech on the grounds that men have not been historically oppressed. I disagree with this. Regardless of history, it STILL incites an attitude of hatred against people based on the unalterable traits they were born with. It also doesn't take systematic oppression for someone to pick up a gun and shoot someone (cough) Valerie Solanas (cough). Like, I think if I am some dude bleeding on the ground because I was shot by a radical feminist, I wouldn't think "oh well, at least I wasn't systematically oppressed."

More about removing a joke that targets an oppressed group and was painful to some of them to encounter. Alright, but does that warrant all out censorship of an idea or message as the first remedy? That being said, Pillars of Eternity also is a game that not only features lynchings, but also has characters glorify it. Is that not more troubling than a backer message that one has to go out of his or her way to find? Oh I agree with you in general, I don't think it should be censored at all. I just wanted to point out that in SOME cases, censorship is justified, BUT it needs to be applied fairly and hypocritically.

I am not sure that I understand the distinction between commercial and artistic vision, since both are in view of the player. In fact, one needs to go out of his or her way to find the message. Mostly I'm just saying that acting like we're mangling some precious work of art by taking out a backer message and comparing it to the Charlie Hebdo situation is really pushing it. I would argue the debate does not depend on whether the work is precious or not, but rather the act of removing/censoring a message. The act of censorship is not good in any instance. Ehhh...I would disagree I would say that removing a message because it offends someone is, by definition, censorship. However, I would also say that not all censorship is bad. For example, I doubt most major news organizations would give a segment to the KKK. This is definitely censorship, but I am for the censoring of hate speech, so I regard it as good censorship. That said, I think that any policy of censorship really needs to be thought out carefully, and it needs to be applied fairly throughout society. You want to censor hate speech? Fine, but you need to clearly define what hate speech is, and you need to censor it REGARDLESS of the origin or the target. So when I look at the requests to censor this limerick, I basically see a request to censor a joke that offended someone. It is by no stretch of the imagination "hate speech." And if this joke were censored, then I would think it's only fair to censor any other jokes that offend someone. So if a blonde gets mad at a blonde joke, if a religious person gets mad at an offensive drawing of one of their figures, if a lawyer gets upset at a lawyer joke, then all those should be censored as well. Personally, I think that is going WAY too far, which is why I'm firmly AGAINST censoring this limerick.

N-space is inherently racist, and I demand that it be censored as it refers to slave housing in antebellum America. N-Space is game developer that currently is making Sword Coast Legends with Digital Extremes, so that memorial is actually their advertisement Sorry, I was kidding. It is funny that something as ridiculous as I said would be taken seriously in this climate though lol . I knew that you were kidding, but I thought to point out that memorial in question is actually bit questionable by itself, but it is to Obsidian to decide what they want to show in their game (people are of course free to disagree). Yeah there's no argument that these memorials definitely break the 4th wall, and they are out of place in the game world. But w/e, the game wouldn't exist without the backers, and they are at most a minor annoyance that can be easily avoided, so they don't bother me much.

N-space is inherently racist, and I demand that it be censored as it refers to slave housing in antebellum America. N-Space is game developer that currently is making Sword Coast Legends with Digital Extremes, so that memorial is actually their advertisement Sorry, I was kidding. It is funny that something as ridiculous as I said would be taken seriously in this climate though lol .

N-space is inherently racist, and I demand that it be censored as it refers to slave housing in antebellum America.

I think you present some valid points on how a trans person may genuinely be upset at this joke. And I actually empathize with them to a degree, and I think that their feelings are definitely genuine. That said, here is the other side of the coin... Imagine that you are a person that knows, not believes, KNOWS that God is real and that he has given humanity his law. And if you live by his law, then you will live on in paradise for eternity after you die. But if you break his laws, then your soul will be damned to eternal torment. You know this, yet every day you see people breaking God's law and, even worse, insulting his holy prophet. Nothing in the world could upset you more, not only are these people evil by nature, but they constantly publish their heathen blasphemies in popular media that your children love to watch. What if they influence your children? We are talking about not only your children's lives here, but their very souls. Clearly, this must be stopped, these people should not be able to publish anything that could corrupt the minds and souls of our children. ---------------- That said... I stand firmly against censoring art on the grounds of religious morality. I do this knowing that the art in question extremely offends religious people. How can I stand against censoring art on religious grounds, but stand for censoring art because it offends someone and not be a hypocrite?

Out of curiosity, should a game (or a movie, or a book) avoid any mention of anything unpleasant? IE should there never be a racist character because it "normalizes racism"? Should a game not be able to have a misandrist like Shar-Teel because having the character exist supports the normalization of misandry? I admit I've read the memorial and I fail to see what the issue is; and I'm having a hard time rationalizing the argument from the other side. I think all topics are open for exploration in art. I'm a filmmaker. I'm anti-censorship. My last feature contains a whole bunch of difficult, challenging material. A lot of it is uncomfortable. The thing is - at no point does the film "punch down." You can totally approach ANY topic, but you have to be aware of what you are doing. When you cross lines, you need to be aware that you are crossing them, and you need to have a damn good reason for doing so. Otherwise you're being careless. No art should be careless or lazy. The issue with this particular thing is that it both crosses a line and has no purpose, save to punch down. It adds nothing to the game, and it reinforces some pretty effed up ideas. The limerick wasn't written by Obsidian - it isn't part of their vision for the game world. It is a backer add-on that should have been better vetted. I have a hard time figuring out why people are adamantly defending it. On the internet it is really easy to get caught up in an "us vs. them" mentality. It is harder to see nuance from where someone else is coming from. It is telling that you assume that I might think that all games, movies, or books should be sanitary and controversy free. Anyway, I hope you take this with the spirit it was intended. I'm not looking to fight with people, and I hope I've provided some context that is useful. Erm...all of the memorials have "no purpose" outside of being something (quasi) amusing for people to read, and letting the backer put their mark on the game. I've said this before, but you really have to stretch to find this joke offensive...it doesn't even say that the person Lightbringer slept with is trans. Also, even if it is offensive...there is TONS of humor on TV and other places that is by nature offensive to certain groups. Jewish jokes, black jokes, blonde jokes, lawyer jokes, religious jokes. Should these be censored just because someone got offended by it? I would say no. And given that, I see no reason to censor this limerick.

Sooo I killed those thieves that house Doemenel had hired to rob some dude. And I went to house Doemenel to shove the letter proving their involvement in this in their faces. They wanted me to finish the job for them, I said they can F themselves, one thing led to another, and I killed every man, woman, and child in their mansion. So now, my question is...will this somehow screw up the story? Am I okay continuing on with House Doemenel wiped out? Or should I reload?

It's not that FoF is OP, it's that it's just extremely imbalanced when compared to other spells. It's not the only one either, there are a lot of spells that just seem flat out better/worse to spells they should be on par with. So I'm not saying here to nerf FoF, I'm saying that the spells need to be brought in line with each other more. Noxious blast should not just be flat out better than fireball in all regards for example.

I think that, because of the heavy use of DR in PoE, there is a strong bias towards big, heavy hitting weapons. Smaller weapons seem to underperform in a lot of encounters because, even though they hit very fast, the majority of their damage is absorbed by DR. Big weapons on the other hand are much slower, but most of their damage will punch through DR, meaning higher DPS overall. I started out with my rogue using a rapier and dagger, and he wasn't doing that well. He now uses a huge greatsword and cuts through everything.

No... Just pointing out that it's imbalanced to the point of being useless. I mean you can argue about positioning with fan of flames and Fireball, but what about Fireball and Noxious Blast? Which are both the same level, but Noxious blast is better is just about every regard?

I also want to point out that Fireball is basically the iconic wizard spell. And in every D&D-esque game someone plays, they are always waiting for their wizard to get fireball so then they can start melting groups of mobs. So it's just disappointing to have Fireball in PoE be outclassed by just about every other damage spell in the game. Even level 1 damage spells.

What about noxious blast then? Which is the same level as fireball, has the same AoE, but also causes sicken, has longer range, and does more damage.

Fireball is a third level spell. It should not be balanced against a first level spell. That is not how balance works. Says who? Your pompous bold italic text? I'm gonna agree with Nameless here. A third level spell should have some advantage over a first level one. I'm not saying that first level spells should be useless, but I shouldn't be coveting my first level spells lots WAY more than my third level ones which is what i'm doing now. With the way the game is now, if I could trade my third level slots for more first level ones, I probably would. And I would think that's a sign of imbalance.

They do come into play, but FoF and fireball are both fire damage sooo... But yeah, the whole fireball is easier to get off due to it's range is a factor. Regardless though, I don't think it's a large enough factor for the damage differential here. I basically never use fireball because the damage is so low...by the time it gets through damage resistance, it rarely hits above 20 it seems.