YourVoiceisAmbrosia

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Jesus christ people, read the thread. They didn't remove the backer entry.

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.

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.

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? Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It could have been that the backer asked for it to be changed to stop the drama.

I hope, if it actually did get removed, it was by accident and not a creative decision Almost everyone argued to keep it, there was even a 30 page thread that had to be locked because the same points were getting repeated over and over again

Merely not wanting something to exist is not censorship. I hate mayonnaise. I want all of it destroyed forever. It's gross. Censorship is when I somehow manage to get it outlawed against the will of the people or when my army of robots (which I totally don't have! *ahem*) somehow enforce my magical anti-mayo will on the world. Obsidian deciding "Hey, let's get rid of this thing?". Not censorship. It's a choice. If the government of California marched down to Irvine and made Obsidian change the game? Censorship. I mean this in the nicest way possible but if you care so much about a thing you need to learn about what it is and isn't. These two instances aren't comparable. Yes, you are free to dislike mayonnaise all you want, but first of all mayonnaise is a physical product, not an expression of ideas or speech. Second of all you, along with about a dozen of other people on the internet aren't applying societal pressure to have the creators of mayonnaise destroy their product.

Yes it is. If you really believe that censorship can only be enforced by the Government you really should wake up from your utopia world you live in. WTF kinda nonsense is this? None of this would be considered if Twitter cry babies hadn't started a campaign for self censorship. This is what their goal is. Take out the stuff we don't like. That's their goal. How in the hell is that not censorship? This certainly is a censorship issue. It may not be, say, a first amendment violation, and nothing illegal is going on, but it's still a discussion of censorship. Meanwhile, back in the real world, here's what's actually happening! 1) Obsidian exercised their free speech rights in publishing the game. 2) Other people exercised their free speech rights in objecting to some content. 3) Obsidian will now exercise their free speech rights by either leaving the game as is, or by changing it. See how that works? It's not a violation of rights, but it's still censorship. If, for example, a documentary "bleeps" out curse words, they are still self-censoring even though it was their decision and they weren't forced to by the government. If Obsidian decides to remove the joke they are still self-censoring, even though it is legal and within their right to do so.

This certainly is a censorship issue. It may not be, say, a first amendment violation, and nothing illegal is going on, but it's still a discussion of censorship.

We also don't know if Lightbringer was actually a real person in Pillars of Eternity's universe, poems and jokes like this are often exaggerated or made up. It's possible that none of this actually happened within the context of the game world, which would mean that it's a fictional portrayal of a fictional character in a fictional universe.

All we know is that Sawyer said he'll "talk to the producers" about it, which was pretty vague. To reiterate, we as the player don't even know if this had anything to do with a "trans" person, it could have actually been a male who still identifies as a male and the character who was involved was so drunk that he didn't notice. I am also having difficulty with the idea that people are offended by a relatively obscure limerick that you practically need to go out of your way to search for, that arguably insults Lightbringer instead of the other individual, yet have absolutely no issue with the racism, discrimination, murders, mass genocides, and rape present in the game that are practically required to be seen in order to proceed through the main campaign. Furthermore the world of Pillars of Eternity is portrayed as grim and prejudiced, and is also influenced by historical civilizations that have also shared these prejudices. Portraying them in the game is not indicative of the developer's views nor is it an endorsement, especially when taking into consideration that this is practically a one-time instance that you have to deliberately go out of your way to find. A character acting bigoted in a bigoted fictional world does not mean that the creators are bigoted, nor does it mean they support the notion of being bigoted. In fact, we as the player don't even know if the limerick is actually historically accurate within the game world. Many poems that are like this are made up or fictional. For all we know there could have never actually been an individaul in the game world's history called Lightbringer and he could've just been made up for the sake of the poem.

I'm going to have to call you out on that one - So by your logic nothing is allowed, anywhere? Because I'll bet you that we can find plenty of examples of harmless jokes aimed at any culture, sexual preference and even race in the world. Now and then. Personally I'm not a big fan of kicking people who are already down, particularly when it's a group that has a near 50% lifetime suicide rate. Ten times the US average. Stuff like this, the "it's just a joke, stop being so easily offended, man up," it matters because it contributes to that. It's not harmless because it is a part of the larger societal treatment that is ultimately a major factor in driving people to kill themselves. And with that, I'm bowing out of this discussion because I'm getting too upset myself, now. So then why is portraying mass genocide and all of the other bigotry in the game perfectly fine? The first town is filled with corpses from people who were hung, and it's also clear that anyone who worships Eothas is heavily discriminated against. There was also a woman who was raped when you go to Caed Nua. Portraying these are okay, but one limerick in a memorial is offensive?

I don't know if the devs are actually reading this, but please don't remove it. Even if we were to assume that this, somehow, can be interpreted as offensive, it should also be noted that the world of Pillars of Eternity is grim and filled with cultural clashes. The first town you walk into has a giant tree hanging with corpses of innocent people. Portraying bigotry in a world like this is not the same as actively endorsing it, it's just fitting in with how some of the characters would behave within the context of the game's world. Furthermore, it would be disrespectful to the backers to get rid of it simply because one random guy on the internet complained about getting offended, and the vast majority of forum members appear to agree that there is nothing wrong with it. Please don't get wrapped up in the politics of groups like these, they are only concerned with "victories" and not with games.

I like most of what I've seen from Project Eternity thus far. I can understand the controversy surrounding objective XP vs kill XP, but at the same time I can see how both have their advantages and disadvantages and can be implemented both well and poorly. I'm hoping that the world of Project Eternity will have some sort of alien or bizarre aspect to it (much akin to Torment) or that it would make an attempt to subvert typical conventions and expectations found in most role playing games. We have Elves and Dwarves, which are commonly seen and found in most fantasy games and have been the norm for quite some time, and much of what we have seen is very reminiscent of Baldur's Gate. That's certainly not a bad thing at all; in fact, that's what the Kickstarter advertised to begin with, but Baldur's Gate follows many fantasy tropes that have been done many times before and I wouldn't mind seeing something that most role playing games never try. I guess the main concern I have is that Obsidian feels pressured to "play it safe" and avoid taking artistic risks. I can understand why they would feel this way; they've been given a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make a game without executive meddling and there appears to be a lot of pressure on them from their fanbase to make a "good" RPG with this one shot. However, part of what made games like Torment and KOTOR II memorable is that they deviated from the tried-and-true methods we see in most setting and games and took these risks to deliver a unique experience. Granted, I'm not trying to say that what we're seeing is completely generic; it seems like there has been a lot of attention to detail in making a consistent and believable world, which is another aspect I really like. Also, much of the writing has not been revealed (I'm assuming for good reason) so it's not fair to pass judgement yet. In fact, we really don't know much of anything about this game at all, aside from some of the basics, so this post may just come off as silly in the end. All I can really say is that I hope the people at Obsidian make the game that they want. The dream game that they always wanted to play, but never could because the state of the industry wouldn't let them. It may not seem like it from a lot of these forum posts, but I am led to believe the people who backed this project did so because they wanted to give you creative freedom that would not normally exist in most publisher models. If you just "played it by the book" because you're worried of displeasing your fanbase, then, ironically enough, it won't be much different from how publishers would want you to "play it by the book" to net more sales. Do whatever comes natural, because it appears, at least to me, that most of the people here like it when you do what you want.