Jump to content

YourVoiceisAmbrosia

Members
  • Content Count

    92
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

100 Excellent

About YourVoiceisAmbrosia

  • Rank
    (2) Evoker

Profile Information

  • Location
    California
  1. Yes, let's continue to dedicate entire threads to random people on Twitter and Reddit, who are clearly doing this for attention and who we can easily ignore
  2. M8, come on. I HIGHLY doubt the developers working on the bugs were the ones handling this ****storm. Sawyer said he would "talk to our producers about it". At the very least Feargus had his time wasted with it because he wrote the PR line. They mentioned technical issues prevented them from just editing the limerick so they had to delete it and add a new one. SOMEONE at least semi-qualifed to look over code had to have his or her time taken up with this nonsense. For all we know Feargus may have nothing to do with fixing bugs. As far as I'm aware he designs and handles things
  3. 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. Yep, sounds plausible.
  4. 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.
  5. 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. "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 t
  6. Dude, sending some emails doesn't take that long. Besides who's to say it was the programmers that did it? Maybe it was a PR guy.
  7. 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. Thank you f
  8. They don't have to explain themselves to anyone except the person affected. It does not affect the game in shape whatsoever, so why do they need to put into the patch notes? Self entitled people round here are as bad as the stupid moron on twitter who started all this. The fact that we are BACKERS and we didn't feel there was any need to remove it as demonstrated in these very forums warranted, at the very least, an honest discussion with us regarding this before the removal. They could also address why they opted to remove it instead of the many alternatives, like promoting with
  9. I don't believe I ever claimed that to be the case - I am pointing out that being told by a loud minority to change something is NOT censorship. The choice is still in their own hands. Of course you can debate the legitimacy of the concept of self-censorship, which is pretty much the core of the drama as far as most people seem to be concerned. If Obsidian caves this easily to a small group of loudmouthed people (who arguably haven't even played the game for the most part judging by twitter responses), what will be next on the "I am a minority and feel offended by ___"? And how will this s
  10. Where does it stop? Now that they know Obsidian will cave when confronted, what will they want when they come for the mile? Obsidian already gave them the inch. That is the problem. You say you are worried about the games. This WILL affect the games. Dude, listen to yourself. They changed a backer poem. In a memorial in the middle of nowhere, that serves no in-game purpose other than referencing the backers. They didn't even remove the entry, they changed it with the backer's consent and it mocks the people who wanted it removed. None of the backer content is even significant to
  11. In retrospect, this is getting a bit silly Obsidian didn't remove the backer entry, the developers contacted the backer who made it and he or she agreed to submit a different limerick, which mocks the people who wanted it removed. In this regard they aren't disrespecting the backer's wishes, because he or she paid for the tier and agreed to do it. I, personally, would have just ignored the tweet altogether, but at the same time I don't own or run a business. You can argue that it's a slippery slope, and Obsidian will make more major changes to avoid offending people in the future, but
  12. Yes, but the backer was the one who paid for the pledge and agreed to have the limerick changed into a different one. It's their money, they get to decide what to do with it.
  13. Jesus christ people, read the thread. They didn't remove the backer entry.
  14. Imo, Obs has the right to add or subtract anything they feel is in their best business interests. The "offending" memorial should have been addressed when it was submitted, not down the road when everyone craps themselves. Agreed. Ultimately it is up to them. I am going to wait until we get some offcial word about the reasoning behind this removal before I pass my personal judgment on Obsidian. If it does turn out that they removed this one memorial without giving a very compelling reason for doing so, then I will have to see it as giving into social media bullying. It would sa
  15. And this thing went from bad to worse... Oh boy. Well - I'm grateful I never backed this with more than the minimum required for the basegame. I feel so bad for the people who spent hundreds or more, only to be shat on. Maybe you should check to see if the backer agreed to the change before you go off the deep end? If the backer is ok with it, good for him. Its still not ok with me. What happened here was that Obsidian allowed a tiny number of twitter losers to edit content in their game. In *my* game. This is unacceptable. This is a big game with a lot of 'mature' the
×
×
  • Create New...