GrinningReaper659

Plainly because Intel, Microsoft's and HP's products aren't art. Processors and operating systems are utilities and I don't care about them. Those products are inherently neutral. How can you pack progressive ideology into a processor? Games I do care about, games are art. Therefore I will defend them from triggerhappy censors. I don't hate Obsidian, I just regret their choice. Okay, except that there's no reasonable argument that will define an ad created by Intel (a photograph which was planned out and edited to achieve the desired end product, with a bit or writing involved as well) as not being art, but will define a little poem made by a backer as art. Again, you're just singling this out and labeling it as art because it supports your agenda to do so. If Intel is "censoring" their ads so as not to offend people, then how is that better than Obsidian asking a backer if he wants to change his poem so as not to deal with people getting offended? Do you see how inconsistent that is?

I wasn't addressing you, I was addressing the blatant inconsistency of the people that are choosing to not buy from Obisidan because they now claim that Obsidian supports censorship while they continue to financially support many other companies that clearly do the same thing...

Good example. Injecting ideology into your business results in an inferior product. DA 2 (user score 4.4 on Metacritic) was worse than DA: Legends on Facebook released at the same time and I won't even buy Inquisition after Mass Effect 3 fiasco and DA 2. Bioware was a good company once. Now it is owned by Electronic Arts (Worst Company in America award of 2012 and 2013). It is your right to support the company you like of course. Ha, you think that their socially progressive ideology is what's wrong with Bioware? You really think that their political positions are what made DA2 a terrible game, give me a break. One thing has nothing to do with the other. People seem to be forgetting that we're talking about video game developers here. I see that you people have no issues buying your computer products from Intel, despite learning that they clearly support censorship (oh, that's right, it's different because it was an ad they wrote instead of a poem that someone who gave them some money wrote, okay). I'm going to keep buying games that I like, and I honestly don't give a single **** if some of the devs at the company I'm buying the game from don't match up exactly with my personal beliefs. Guess what, people are different, and so they have different beliefs, and demanding that your game developers have the exact same values as you is insane. Why are you choosing to take your stand against the strangled industry that is niche game development? Why don't you grind your axe by refusing to ever buy an Intel or Microsoft or HP or GE product again, because surely each one of them has jumped on the political correctness train and makes sure that nothing seemingly "offensive" ever gets published with their names attached to it. Do you really hold every company to this standard, or have you just arbitrarily decided to hate Obsidian because you're a follower and because it's more convenient to hate Obsidian than it is to hate Intel or some other huge company that you feel you just have to buy from?

I also have the issue with Hearth Harvest being oversized; running the latest Windows version from GOG. I love how all the people upset about the change are declaring the backer memorials to be art, as if saying that they're art gives them some special protection from alteration. Have you read the memorials? I've read every one I've come across, and I definitely wouldn't use the word art. The goal seems to be either to advertise, memorialize, or maybe entertain. But I guess you can label anything as art when it fits your agenda to do so. I'll have to use this at work some time, turn in a report with a bunch of vulgar drawings scribbled across it and inform my boss that it doesn't matter how much it bothers him because it's art, don't you know? I actually have been enjoying the memorials more than I thought I would, I was sort of worried that they would be jarring or inappropriately placed within the world but Obsidian did a great job of blending them in, and it's actually a lot of fun reading through them and seeing the messages that my fellow RPG fans have memorialized. What I am confused about is all the blank memorials. Did these backers simply not want to include a message, or could they not be contacted? It's a very minor issue of course, but it would probably look nicer if all the blank ones were put together in one memorial without the message display part of the interface. Also, there are a few misspellings, improper grammar, etc. I've noticed on a couple of them, it would be nice to do a pass just to clean that sort of thing up and maybe standardize the formatting (some backers sent little poems in with double spacing, some were single spaced, etc.). Maybe none of it's important enough to bother with, but it wouldn't hurt to make them look a bit nicer at some point down the road.

There's no option for that currently (other than not installing the patch) and I doubt there will be, especially since the author of that tombstone text chose to change it himself (source). "Chose". Could you expand on that? I mean, the text you quoted included a source, which was the backer himself explicitly stating that he had a choice. Your response doesn't seem to have a source, and so it appears to be a pointless attempt to undermine the credible comment you quoted with no evidence. That being said, if you do have a source showing that the backer didn't have a choice in the matter, I'd love to see it. He "chose" in a situation where he was pressured into doing so, there was never any real choice. The situation should never have arisen to begin with, he shouldn't even have been asked. Had he contacted them himself, before the perpetually offended started their tirades of make-believe social justice, there might have been a point, but now? No, not really. In other words, you have nothing whatsoever to back up the belief. You're just inventing things to be angry about when Obsidian and the backer in question both say that they contacted him and asked him what he would like to do, given the issue that had arisen. You're deciding not to believe what the only relevant sources have to say simply because, if you believe them, you don't have anything to be upset about anymore. There's no real reason to believe that Obsidian would have forced the change, so at this point you're just deciding to believe the fantasy you've created because you want something to be angry about. So, you're pissed that they contacted him at all? Okay, that's a ridiculously specific standard you're holding them to. It's just like I said before, as soon as the complaint was brought up, unreasonable people on both sides said "If you don't respond to this exactly how I want you to, you're gonna pay." That's what you're doing here, because your only complaint about something that actually happened is that you're pissed that they contacted him in the first place. "If you even contact him and ask if he wants to change it, you're gonna pay" is just as ridiculous as "if you don't change it regardless of what the backer thinks, you're gonna pay." Obsidian didn't cater to either of these ridiculous, extreme demands and rather did what they thought was best, contacting the backer in question and asking what he wanted to do about it.

Fear leads to anger, and anger leads to hate. That's one degree of separation; this is dark side 101 here, come on.

There's no option for that currently (other than not installing the patch) and I doubt there will be, especially since the author of that tombstone text chose to change it himself (source). "Chose". Could you expand on that? I mean, the text you quoted included a source, which was the backer himself explicitly stating that he had a choice. Your response doesn't seem to have a source, and so it appears to be a pointless attempt to undermine the credible comment you quoted with no evidence. That being said, if you do have a source showing that the backer didn't have a choice in the matter, I'd love to see it.

These two things are not mutually exclusive, though. Except, to be real for a second, we saw it happen. In real time. And we have also seen, in the very same context, that this did nothing to lessen the perceived insult to the perpetually offended. To which group of perpetually offended are you referring here? The side you don't agree with I guess. The truth is that as soon as someone brought attention to the issue, unreasonable **** on each side dug their heels into the dirt and said "Obsidian, if you don't respond to this exactly how I want you to, you're gonna pay." It should be noted, too, that exactly what either side wanted involved alienating the other side. Obsidian responded how they thought was best, which actually didn't fully cater to either group's ridiculous demands: they asked the backer if he wanted to change the memorial due to the attention it was getting, how anyone could be pissed at them for that is beyond me; then they replaced it with the backer's direct barb toward those that were offended, but of course you remain unsatisfied. As for those who were offended by the joke in the first place, those of them who are still offended and talk about never supporting Obsidian again are equally ridiculous of course. Both of those groups are the perpetually offended, and you can spot them because they're all the people who are still offended right now, whether it's at Obsidian for changing it at all or for not changing it enough.

When did the devs ever state that the quest-XP system would keep characters from reaching max level before the end of the game?

And someone who likes to roleplay and not do all the quests would also like to reach the max level and will be a bit disappointed if the game is too challenging for him. Or some players just won't bother doing them all. The developers have intended from the start that people who do all the content will reach max level before the end. This happened in all the IE games. In BG2 if you did all the quests in Amn and the stronghold ones you would breeze trough the rest of the game till almost at the end because some quests should have been done in Act 5 when you return to Amn. Of course certain quests were a bit hard, especially Kangaxx or the Twisted Rune but even without cheesing the game it was still doable with some strategies and luck If the game is too easy play with a smaller party. You can just rotate companion to do their quests s you can see everything. If the XP is changed to fit most solutions here it would force everyone to do everything. Some people are completionists, myself included. Honestly I redid a small part of the game three times to do the quests of all factions. I understand how it is, to have a need to do everything. But not everyone is like that. Again some people roleplaying won't do some quests for a large number of roleplaying related reasons. To prevent roleplaying in an Role Playing Game is just dumb. Current system makes everyone happy, just that completionists need to employ certain self imposed challenges some of which range from minor ,like playing with a party of 5 instead of 6, to major, like not leveling up, if the game isn't challenging enough even on Path of the Dammed. Why put everyone on a disadvantage forcing them to play with a full party even on lower difficulties just because they need to do 95% content of the game to reach the max level. What if they don't like other party members? What if they like to play with a smaller party? Did you read what I wrote at all? Both solutions I proposed would not at all affect those who do only the main story stuff only. I know how it worked in the IE games. I don't see how any of what you said is an argument against the solutions I presented (which you quoted). Neither of them would "force everyone to do everything" as you put it because it doesn't matter at all to those who choose not to do any side-quests. The only difference that would be made by my two suggestions would be to slow the rate at which those who do choose to do everything reach the level cap. The only legitimate complaint you made is about how it will affect those who do some, but not all, of the side content. It's true that their progression would be somewhat affected by the side content giving less XP or higher levels progressing more slowly. I feel that there's a big motivation here of people that don't want to do all the quests but want to make damn sure that nobody out there is getting to a higher level than them, which is why full completion or near full completion bringing you to the level cap is so unnerving to some of you. Either way, I'm fine with it being a mod; please forget that I ever suggested otherwise since people are apparently adamant to not see any official changes made to XP progression.

I think the best way to deal with this would be to either severely lower the XP rewards of side content only to the point that max level will be reached only when all or nearly all content is completed (again, we're not reducing the level reached by those not doing side content, this will just slow down how quickly those who do side content will hit max level); or to slow XP progression significantly starting at level 8 (or whichever level you reach by doing all main storyline content and no side content). I'm not that far in now, but I am a "completionist" I suppose and will be trying to see everything the story has to offer. I'll be a bit disappointed if the challenge disappears because I'm over-leveled halfway through the game. Either of the two solutions I mentioned should fix the issue without affecting in any way those who want to do only the main storyline content. Seeing as this doesn't negatively affect those that just play the main quest-line, hopefully one of these solutions will be implemented in an official patch at some point.

So, when they don't delete it, have you been proven wrong? No, you're right either way? Alrighty then.

Maybe it will be like if TotSC had been split into two parts: releasing a first part with Ulgoth's Beard, Werewolf Island, etc. and then a second part with Durlag's Tower. Hopefully apart from areas/quests, they'll add a few new NPCs as well.

So what should a woman with huge breasts do then? Some sort of chain mail bathing garment or mithril pasties would be the most logical way to accommodate her condition, I'd think.

Bikini Armor? No. It wasn't even all that. OK, Like, maybe 2 weeks into the kickstarter they released concept art for one of the potential companion NPCs. This one: And then, for 24 straight hours, because of that completely harmless picture, Hell broke loose. People whined. And the whines were about everything the human mind could possibly dream up about that one little picture. Sexual exploitation of Women; The impracticality of form-fitting armor; Obsidian trying to sell a kickstarter with sex! Even the Promancers came out of the woodwork and questioned the logic behind creating such 'suggestive' NPCs in a game that won't have romances. It was 24 hours of Nuts. And then, one day later, they changed the picture, and we got this: For some reason I still haven't figured out, this quieted everyone down, and for that I was happy. But again, that doesn't change the *thing*, here. On demand art isn't friggin Art. So, an artist isn't allowed to change their design based on feedback? If Obsidian peeps hear feedback about something and then decide that they agree with the feedback, do they not have the right to make revisions? I get it, you think that they were bullied into it, but it's just as likely that they legitimately decided that they agreed with the feedback. Just sayin' I happen to like the second one a hell of a lot more than the first one, but that's not really the point.

Strawman? I was making a joke to convey a generalized point, not suggesting that my fictional account was equal to the ridiculousness I was mocking, only similar in nature. I hope you didn't misconstrue my joke and take offense. And, "army?" Sheesh, looks like the hyperbole infantry is out in force around these parts. See, I can do it too.

This, however, is not fake. What? The offended are still not pleased after Obsidian bowed down to them and they demand more? I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY! /s. These people get off on bullying others and making big name companies like obsidian bow down and beg for forgiveness from them. Giving in to them on anything is the first mistake because they will always just come back demanding more. Maybe they're still not pleased because ::gasp:: Obsidian didn't actually bow down to them, hmm? If Obsidian's sole goal was to not offend these people, they wouldn't have replaced the original message with one that obviously insults the offended. And who gives a **** if they come back "demanding more," no skin off my or your or Obsidian's back so what's the issue exactly? People on both sides of this issue are being so single-mindedly ridiculous. The so-called SJWs say that the joke was directly referencing and intended to be hateful toward transgendered, that their hurt feelings mean it needs to be removed, and that the (also offensive I guess) message replacing it means they'll boycott Obsidian forever. The whiners on the other side are all preaching about how it's the end of the ******* world because Obisidian decided to edit a backer's contribution to the game (with his express consent, I might add). Obviously Obsidian bowed down and apologized and begged the forgiveness of the SJWs (source of the apologizing and begging for forgiveness?) and so now they'll boycott Obsidian forever because Obsidian hates freedom of speech and is clearly going to remove every potentially offensive thing from the game now. Both of these groups are acting like children and grossly misrepresenting the situation. Give me a break. If it were up to me, I never would have removed it. Luckily for you guys, though, it was Obsidian that made PoE and not me, so the decision was theirs. It was a business decision. They made it. Move on with your life.

NOBODY KNOWS. Seriously, nobody knows. Everyone seemed to think that the Windows patch wouldn't even be out until around Monday until it showed up, so nobody here has any idea I'm sure. As this is a GOG issue, the only (still unlikely) chance of finding an answer to that question will be on the GOG support forums I imagine. Good luck.

I'm not commenting on the politics of any particular discussion, but if you think a third party created an injustice, don't let them create another one by denying you the enjoyment of the game on top of it. Whatever politics abound, it's still a game, you own it, and it would be a shame if you let someone else deprive you of its use. I know tempers are running hot on this issue, but I just hope you reconsider and at least give the game a shot. Hell, even if you really love it, I'm not saying come back and praise the game. Keep complaining if you want, but at least get the use of the product you've purchased. :Cant's Dutch uncle icon: It wasn't a third party that created the "injustice" though. It was Obsidian, who decided, to pursue a policy of censorship and displayed themselves as anti-free speech. It feels wrong for me that my money has gone to a company, whose values, are entirely against my own. I am a strong proponent and believer in free speech and dislike censorship, which is a polar opposite to the values Obsidian displayed in this situation. It feels wrong for me to play a game, knowing that it was produced by a developer who does not believe in the right of free speech and easily caves in to special interests just to make a quick buck. I feel you, man. I recently discovered that the manufacturer of my dishwasher, and I don't like to name names in such sensitive situations, decided to not include any homophobic jokes (or any jokes at all!!) in their owner's manual. Worse than that, I learned that a technical writer at the company did in fact attempt to include such a wonderful joke in an early draft of the manual, and that the evil CEO decided to do away with it after it was discovered during the editing process! Needless to say, as I am in full support of all companies including such jokes in their works and therefore against their removal under any and all circumstances, I must now wash all of my dishes by hand. Life, it's pretty rough when you've got real principles like I do. As for the sales figures, looks like things are going pretty well. Good to see.

That comparison is ridiculous, though. There's no reasonable reason you'd want to do that, whereas PoE is shock-full of situations where you'd want to do something that is quite reasonable, but you can't do it, because... why? That being said, I fully support you being able to cast Magic Missiles on the ground. It would be silly to stop you from doing that. It was not included because it was not considered relevant. Here, the issue of "Combat Only" abilities have been brought up time and time again, because it stops us from doing something quite reasonable, in a lot of cases. Is it unreasonable that you would be unable to cast Magic Missile on the ground? Arguably, but I don't think anyone ever had an issue with it's omission, because it ultimately had no bearing on the game. In PoE, "Combat Only" abilities most definitely does. What's more, the developers have acknowledged it as an issue, and said that they'd want to do away with it through patching or expansion(s), but that it was required as a work-around. It was mentioned during the latter parts of the beta where this was discussed extensively. To now suddenly go back on that for what amounts to very flimsy reasoning is odd, to say the least. No, the comparison isn't ridiculous, the argument I'm mocking and my analogous example are ridiculous though. Just because you agree with the point, doesn't mean anyone's argument in support of it is apt. Saying that not allowing pre-buffing is bad because there's no in-game explanation for it is as silly as saying the same thing about magic missiles, this doesn't have anything to do with whether or not pre-buffing should be in, just that the argument put forth in favor of it in that instance was ridiculous. I don't really get why people want pre-buffing so desperately, to be honest. So, do you want all the encounters to be designed around not pre-buffing as they are now, and then some people can choose to pre-buff if they want to just steamroll through any enounter? I mean, I don't give a **** if people do want to do that, but asking the developers to implement the ability when you could just lower the difficulty seems silly. They decided to design encounters with parties not pre-buffing in mind, so how does it make sense to allow it? I'm so tired of people whining about having their play styles restricted and "why do you care how I play my single player game" nonsense. Nobody cares how you're playing, I sure as hell don't, but it's a game. Games are a series of restrictions and limitations within a setting used to guide the player through a story. If pre-buffing isn't a part of the design intent, then it shouldn't be in. There's no need for me to ever cast a magic missile at the ground in BG2 because the game wasn't designed with that in mind, and there's no need for me to pre-buff in PoE because the game wasn't designed with that in mind, how is that not the end of the conversation? It's like demanding that they include the option to have an interface pop up before each combat allowing you to apply one of several optional debuffs to your enemies before the fight starts, even though the encounters were clearly designed without such a system in mind. So, would that be good simply because it adds complexity or simply because people are demanding to have it? The arguments being used in support of allowing pre-buffing make no sense. Just to be clear, I do like the idea of pre-buffing. If the encounters had been designed with pre-buffing in mind, I would have been happy to see it included. That's just not the case, though. As far as I can tell, the idea was that pre-buffing is a "no-brainer" choice that every player will mindlessly waste time doing before each combat if encounters are designed with it in mind, which does kind of make sense.

Because pre-buffing is tedious and if you allowed it you would need to balance encounters around this thus forcing everyone to pre-buff. This one doesn't make any sense(IN-GAME). There is no justification for this whatsoever IN-GAME. It is absolutely contrived. What, there is an invisible god in the sky who bans certain spells from being used until enemies see you? Please.. Yeah, kind of like how in BG2 I had to click on a target to cast magic missile, right? Like, is there some invisible god who just hates the idea of me casting magic missile at a patch of dirt, some sort of dirt god? Absolutely contrived.

I'm right there with you, sort of anyway. I've had a laptop exclusively for years, just because it's easier for me to be able to take my computer with me if necessary and I can't really afford a dektop and a laptop at the moment. I generally just keep my laptop on my desk on a laptop stand hooked up to my external hard drive, mouse, keyboard, and speakers. I finally bought a 1920x1080 monitor to hook up to my laptop a couple weeks ago to make sure to experience PoE in all of it's glory. I mean, having a 24" monitor is obviously an improvement over my 17" laptop screen for doing pretty much everything, but PoE pushed me to finally get it.

Water offends me. "Never touch the stuff. Fish **** in it."

This is fair enough, and perhaps salient to the issue, but I don't think the same limerick modified to include an Asian female killing herself because she was shamed by sleeping with a 'white' male should be restricted. It would be in poor taste, but worthy of this? How about a Catholic for sleeping with a Muslim? I haven't even seen the limerick, but I would have to say that your point, though well taken, doesn't really change my mind. I would like to think, as someone who doesn't grave offense at such things, that I would likewise not be offended at 'white men have small reproductive organs' jokes. Actually, since I have seen such jokes in cinema and in print and *not* been offended or angry, I guess I do more than think I wouldn't take grave offense. I'm certain I wouldn't. Well, to be fair, this whole issue is framed around Obsidian being mindful of the sensitivites of others. I can't imagine myself being offended by any joke. Some are clearly in poor taste and others are often not too funny, but I don't think that comedy should be restricted by the sensitivities of others in a general sense. In this specific instance, however, we're discussing a specific company's product. What we're talking about here is people who want Obsidian to be sensitive to a certain group and people who don't want them to. If the "anti-SJW" folks in this thread will promote jokes which are insensitive to one group and protest jokes which are equally insensitive to another group, then they're being inconsistent no matter how you look at it. As for whether or not Obsidian should pull this, that's a business decision. I don't think it was intended as a trans issue in the first place, but rather a joke about an idiot who got drunk and slept with another guy and upon discovering this, killed himself. So, some guy who killed himself over sleeping with another man, not necessarily a biological man who self identifies as a woman. Does it offend me? Absolutely not. Could it offend some overly sensitive people? Maybe. I think it would be pretty stupid to pull it personally, but it's not my call. As long as we're comfortable with them crafting their content based on cultural sensitivities regarding race, religion, etc., then we don't have much ground to stand on when we try to arbitrarily pick and choose which sensitivities they shouldn't be mindful of.

I don't really think the joke you mention about the black woman, and the one in the game are really analogous. The one about the black woman hinges on the idea of racism. The only reason someone would be very upset if they slept with a black person is if they are racist...and I think we all agree that it's not really acceptable to be racist. But the one in the game is about sexual preference. As far as I know, we are still able to have sexual preference without being some kind of "ist." I mean, just because I don't want to have sex with men, doesn't make me homophobic. And vice versa for a gay person. Basically what I'm saying is that someone should always be free to have their own sexual preferences. And I don't think we should ever get the point where we persecute anyone who isn't bisexual for being homo or hetero phobic. They're only not analogous if you force them to not be. The guy in the original limerick doesn't necessarily hate men and the guy in my example doesn't necessarily hate black people; but the former does hate the idea of sleeping with a man and the latter does hate the idea of sleeping with a black woman. There's nothing wrong with not being attracted to men and there's nothing wrong with not being attracted to black women in my opinion.