Amentep

Did it involve fava beans? o.O Even worse, okra. To this day the mere smell of cooking liver make me want to dry heave. I was having a "Silence of the Lambs" flashback. I like okra and I like fried liver, but I dunno that I've ever eaten both at once

Did it involve fava beans? o.O Pretty sure the current correct usage would be to say "she".

I did mention that he seems to currently have the biggest connection to the real issue at play.

If people can't engage in a dialogue, then how can they benefit from meeting the opinions of others? Many people have difficulty projecting empathy for people they have so much trouble understanding; not being able to engage in dialogue only furthers a lack of understanding (IMO). One question that was never significantly addressed, and as you seem passionate on the subject I'm curious as to your opinion - what about the original joke indicated transexuality (as opposed to either a transvestite + straight man or a gay man + straight man + alcohol or even 2 straight men + alcohol) While not all humor needs to press boundaries, I'd scarcely like a world where humor couldn't push boundaries. That said there's certainly room to argue that a throw-away tombstone with backer content in a gigantic ass game isn't necessarily the venue for pushing boundries of humor.

I don't think you have to be "in" or "against" the movement to talk about. Hurl's welcome IMO as we all are. And realistically, as both sides slip now and then to being about people than issues, its actually a fair point that Hurl makes that you really don't need to know who any of those people are because they're not the issue (at best someone like IMC might be symptomatic of the issues, but...)

I'll never forget a friend of mine explaining that the appeal of 2001 was lost on anyone who didn't see it at the theater during its original release... ...because at the time there would be enough people chain smoking marijuana that you'd get high too, even if you weren't smoking anything.

Not really. They should've just let it blow over. There'd still be the butthurt. Only difference would be we'd get "They didn't change it! They support hate! I'll never buy again!" instead of "They changed it! They support censorship! I'll never buy again!"

So rather than "cave" to some organized people on Twitter who felt the limerick offensive...they should "cave" to some organized people on Twitter that feels any change is censorship? I mean really Obsidian was screwed the minute someone found something offensive - it guaranteed that one side of the outrage brigade would be butthurt by any path they took.

...because neither side wants anything short of WWI style trench warfare with each other, fighting tooth and claw for every inch of ground. I feel bad for the backer and Obsidian to be stuck in the middle of two groups who care more about winning their mutual pissing contest than do about anything else.

Context for the quote (or some and for those interested in that kind of thing) from a transcript of a video with producers Errol Morris and Werner Herzog talking about the documentary film THE ACT OF KILLING by Joshua Oppenheimer, Christine Cynn, et al

Opinions. Opinions never changes. The Romans waged debate to gather influence and students. Religions built virtual empires from spreading their views to the masses. The internet was founded on the ideal of beating others over the head with your strongest held beliefs when not looking at lolcat photos. But Opinions never change.

Yeah, Gandalf the Grey kept needing people to save him.

^Anyone who thinks documentaries are the "truth" is deluding themselves. Anyone familiar with film - as Herzog is - could tell you that all film is biased by the narrative the primary decision maker creates (be it the director, the producer, the writer or the editor).

Don`t know what you are smoking that you get that impression. It'd be easy to get that impression - see all the people who are calling Obsidian "craven cowards" for "caving" to "a perpetually offended twitter user". Mix it liberally (or conservatively, I'm not judging) with the words "Censorship" and "refund" and "Never buying a game again from you" and "you're idots for not putting it in the patch notes because everyone knew you did it the moment you did it" and you pretty much have this forum, the STEAM forums and probably several others since Friday.

? I think he was drunk. I regret not being drunk when reading this thread.

Supposedly whatever exists of Morgan Creek has been pitching a cable TV show continuation of it, with Clive's involvement at some level. Barker's said he might revist the story. And there is a comic book continuation going on now from IDW. I watched THE STING (1973). Been awhile since I'd see it, so I only partially remember bits. Good film.

I've said it repeatedly - obsidian was screwed the minute this became an issue. There was no way that they could please both groups. If this had went the other way we'd be having the same kind of ****storm reaction, just from the other side.

I admit I don't get the "was also a card" reference. Can you explain? In this context: Card - a usually clownishly amusing person; a wag

The obvious choice would have been to write a script that alternates keeping the text in and removing it every time the game launches. This way they could have pissed off everybody, because there was sure no way they could please everybody.

According to others, its at the same memorial, but at the end of the list.

As an aside, its nice to see my assertion that once the issue came up that some group of people would be disappointed with whatever action Obsidian took is borne out. Don't Change the Text: "Obsidian supports hate against people! I'll never buy again!" Change the Text: "Obsidian supports twitter mob social justice irrationality! I'll never buy again!" I admit, most of my sympathy is for the backer who probably didn't realize he'd just walked on a landmine when he wrote that text, and Obsidian who basically can't win in this scenario since everyone is so polarized.

Unconfirmed word on the internet was that he was okay with it being changed; if true it'd seem logical he'd have been a part of the new text.

I'm saying that Obsidian had 8 months of Beta and who knows how long of internal testing. If they'd not found the bugs by that point (for whatever reason - lack of computer build variety, introducing errors fixing errors that the Beta introduced) more time probably was not going to reveal the bugs that they were already not getting. Perhaps it is too narrow; can't say. But to me at least, a game breaking bug is one in which the game can never be completed under any circumstances. Your mileage may vary. I beat Arcanum making sure I didn't re-hit the game ending bug. I didn't consider the game broken, it could be completed.

I don't disagree that some of the bugs are game-breaking either. That doesn't mean the game is broken though. This may sound like semantic nonsense, but to me a game being broken implies that it is, in essence, a paper weight. It won't play and there is no way to make it play. Or if it does play it can never be played to completion. I'd even call the uninstall bug of PoR2001 broken since the consequence of that bug was so very heavy. But a bug can be game breaking and not break the game. When I had my quest item eaten about 20 hours into Arcanum and I had no way to progress the essential quest, that broke my game. Other people had completed the game. I restarted and following tips on how not to encounter the bug got past that part (I don't recall it being fixed at that point). It was a game breaking bug; the game itself was not broken (even if the systems were broken). A recall was issued for something that was defective (in the case of the airbags, a design that was flawed in certain environments). It didn't mean the airbag was broken - it could work, it just didn't work properly. It was flawed. But again, I suppose we're getting into semantics arguments about how we interpret language at this point, so I'll probably bow out (barring something that I just *have* to comment on; you know how it is).

And again my fine fellow, I say that the core functionality isn't broken, people have beat the game without the issues you've experienced and your seeming wish for a bug free game would never be achieved unless Obsidian never released the game. No amount of additional time with the product would cure what ills you now with respect to your game experience. Then I am, indeed, a very lucky individual. So far. I dragged and dropped items. Lucky me. I see no reason to call a product that isn't broken broken. Clearly your experience has been suboptimal and I completely support your ability to bring this issue to the attention of Obsidian. But a game that people have been able to beat, a game that people have been able to complete without a showstopping bug isn't broken (which is, I suppose, the entire gist of my point).