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 from the business side of things. It's the code monkeys and QA teams that focus on bugs, and QA seems to be on here all the time.
  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 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? The "vetting" might be super lax, they probably just posted that for people who were upset that they included it in the first place.
  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 for confirming this. I think more people need to read this.
  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 the means of a sticky of the user-made mod that removes it or adding a toggle to remove triggering content. It would be nice if they explained HOW that was offensive as well, considering it got past their veto process before (and its insulting to our intelligence to tell us it simply got past their checks). I don't know, being the very people who made this game a possibility makes me think they could at the very least be open with us, and establish some dialogue instead of appeasing people who are not even backers of this game (as evidenced by those twitter misandrists not even having forum accounts here). It's even more insulting that they NEVER allowed us to toggle off ALL backer content as widely requested before by people who actually owns the game, but will listen to a twitter hatemob at the drop of a hat. By the way, we were ALL affected by this. Not sure if you realize, but the patch changes the content of the game we all have installed. Okay, but here's the thing. Even if the majority of backers agree to have it kept, the one backer who actually paid for the pledge agreed to change it, and it was his or her money, not anyone else's. It'd be like if I bought a game, and through majority vote the community gets to decide what I do with it. Changing some text in a memorial isn't a big deal, in terms of man-hours. Changing all backer content to be togglable can be a nightmare in terms of programming, especially when there are other bugs to fix. Even just changing the text caused the entire memorial to teleport to a different area. And I wasn't affected by this, because I don't read any of the memorials because I realized that they have nothing to do with the game or any of the content, aside from being a pat on the back to backers.
  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 sort of behaviour affect the universe, story and future content that is still on the drawing board. I do not care what it does or not does. And even if it was just some small stone which it basically is. It is the principle of someone being offended by something most people do not even agree and then it get changed. IT is ridiculous how worse this **** has gotten thanks to twitter and co. No one ever should carve in to nutjobs and Yes Obsidian did exactly that and while I am no expressing my anger. I will also never by a Product of Obsidian since I am totally against censorship in any form. I live in Germany and I have to go against a ton of censorship regarding violence or nazi symbols in video games. It is just disgusting to me. Especially when there even was a mod to remove this messages. There was no need at all to remove this but now Obsdian has done it and now they have to live with the consequences. And how big they are will we see with their next game. Which I will certainly not buy. And many other people here seem to be the same. Okay, but you do realize that in having such an overblown reaction to this all you're doing is further validating these people and what they're saying, right? That they made some sort of grandiose victory in getting a backer poem in a memorial changed, even if it doesn't actually affect the game in any way. Let's say, hypothetically, that everyone suddenly stops supporting Obsidian, not because of the gameplay, not because of the design or the writing or the quality of the work, but simply because the backer poem was changed, with the backer's consent mind you. Let's assume, hypothetically, that Obsidian goes out of business and stops producing games. Who benefits in this regard? The very people you dislike, who want to see art removed. I hope you see the irony in this
  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 the game, there are even people requesting mods for it to all be removed. How, in any way, is this going to affect games in the future?
  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 this is a game where you can kill children, where kids with animal souls in them become ravenous undead, where genocide is seen with regularity, where a woman gets raped, and so on. I'm having difficulty seeing the developers do a complete 180 from this just because a backer agreed to change a poem, especially since virtually none of the backer content has any major effect on the main campaign and could be completely ignored altogether. This applies to the memorial itself, which actually has several immersion-breaking entries that the player needs to go deliberately out of the way to find. You can argue that it was a waste of time and a distraction from the patch, but really how long does emailing a backer take? I've seen some of the developers on here at 2 o' clock in the morning, discussing bugs on the forums. It's not like they all gathered in a conference room and had an 8 hour debate about the issue; they were probably more focused on fixing bugs. In the end of the day all I'm concerned about is the games. While I would have preferred for Obsidian to just ignore random people on the internet I'm not distrubed by this either, because I can't see how this will significantly affect content now or in the near future and this was ultimately something the backer consented to. I'm not really concerned about people on Twitter feeling victorious or "winning", because the politics don't really concern me and come off as petty. It's like boycotting Larian because they changed some character art; it didn't really impact the game, so I don't see why I should be upset by it aside from purely political motivations.
  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 sadly set a precedent where one person can fan a controversy and have the developers give in to whatever demand they put forth Which means that backer items aren't safe from being removed i.e. censored. If it turns out that Obsidian forgot to go over [some of] the backer items before putting them in and the item in question, hopefully along with others in order to show consistency, simply didn't adhere to a set of rules they had in place beforehand - Then ok. At this point in time it does seem like Obsidian simply choose to give in so that the nutters would get off their back. But we'll see what they have to say about this. It wasn't removed. It was changed. Now whether the backer contacted them and requested it to be changed, or Obsidian pressured the backer we don't know, but the backer's entry wasn't actually removed.
  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' themes and a wide range of potentially offensive actions available to the player. Some people will be offended by one or more of these themes and the actions the player can take, or the actions of others in the story. So what? Offended people have a choice. Buy the game or don't. Consume the content or don't. Obsidian is letting the offended make that choice for everyone, and that is wrong. And ****ing stupid. Yes, but here's the thing. If the backer requested it to be changed then Obsidian is basically obligated to comply, regardless of the devs' political leanings or views on censorship. He/she paid for the tier and gets to decide what he/she wants to do with it. Yes, it sucks that random people on the internet can sway people's opinions, but from a business perspective Obsidian needs to listen to their backers, and if that's what happened then that's what they did.
×
×
  • Create New...