Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Backers who think the line should stay, go ahead and argue for it. But stop pretending you speak for all of us. I think it's a one ****ty joke and it's beyond satire that there's this much anger about it, BEFORE Obsidian has made any decision at all

I'm not angry, but it's disappointing when companies cave to this type of frenzied social pressure. The people who are at the core of it aren't exactly good role models, and it's sad when they can get their way by just being the loudest. This specific type of incident isn't really unique to Obsidian, either. The tumblr "tolerance machine" has done far more damage than good.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sawyer's response to this in my opinion makes things worse for Obsidian by considerably limiting their options. They should have kept quite until a proper response and course of action were decided upon, unless it's already decided to remove it. :skeptical:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say this should be pulled myself. The backer can always be asked to submit a substitute text or be refunded.

 

You realize you literally have a rapist as your avatar right? You find things so horrible they need to be removed from the game after release, but THAT is how you choose to represent yourself?

Edited by deuxhero

Never negotiate. You will only encourage more acts of terror.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they already censored. Which is self censoring which is totally fine since they felt it was not fitting and they had no pressure at all back then.BUT and here is the big but, This was already approved and therefore it should stay in no matter what.   

 

 

 

Judging from Josh's quote, he wouldn't have approved it if he read it before release. I doubt most of the lead devs read these backer texts at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Backers who think the line should stay, go ahead and argue for it. But stop pretending you speak for all of us. I think it's a one ****ty joke and it's beyond satire that there's this much anger about it, BEFORE Obsidian has made any decision at all

No one is claiming that EVERYONE thinks it.

Only the majority. There's a difference. Just look at the threads. About 5 people saying to purge it, and about 30 or so defending it at least.

 

Maybe that's the real ratio and maybe I've been using the internet long enough to figure out that these threads are a magnet for the most vocal irregardless of their actual proportion among a fanbase. If you can't see how there might be a sliiiiiiiiiiiiight selection bias there then I know not to take your seriously now. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It seems to me like you really want to be the victim here. And i can define censorship. When you don't want something to exist just because you disagree with it, this is censorship. 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is related to this other one: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/72691-the-one-thing-about-the-game-that-has-irked-me/

 

I wrote in there what I think of this whole topic:

 

 

 

Well, I understand it was offered as reward, but then that was the mistake to start with. I mean, I'm sure there would have been a thousand ways to reward certain tiers of backer, and especially a thousand different ways to promote certain websites different than ruining the game's lore and immersion.

 

I don't know, I can't imagine watching the Lord of the Rings, the battle rages on, Dwarves charge downhill, the wraiths stand defiant. The rohiri ride across the battlefield as the elves shoot their silver arrows, Sauron himself awaiting atop an army of uruk-hai, when suddenly a modern airplane trails across the sky with a banner (www.mcdonalds.com. I'm lovin' it). 

 

Then you can say "But dude, McDonalds gave 500,000 dollars that helped make the movie!" and another person will say "Well you don't HAVE to look at the part of Mordor's sky where the boeing 747 is trailing across with the banner". 

 

Whatever, it's lame, and it shouldn't be there. 

 

For some people it might have been a minor thing, but we're talking about the storytelling of an immersive RPG... no, the storytelling of THE immersuve RPG being raped by a few dollars in a way that was really not necessary.

 

This kind of thing does not belong in a narrative RPG. It just defeats its whole purpose, and cheapens the product as a whole. It's a shame that these memorials were included. This doesn't have to sound drastic or dramatic, because I'm just one pre-order user that Obsidian likely wouldn't miss, but I'll personally double check if these tombstones are present in any future PoE DLC/sequel before purchasing. I personally can handle the jokes, but not the modern, real world references and website advertisement in a RPG like PoE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

Most of the people wouldn't even read the backer memorials, so it's not as if a vital part of the game will be removed.

 

Just because it isn't vital doesn't make it NOT a part of the game. Besides, reading these gravestones can be fun. Most of time fun as in "Cringy to the point of hilarity" fun, but fun none the less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outrage culture is getting reaaal old about now.

 

"Nice game you've got there. It would be a shame if someone came along and called you transphobic."

 

Please, please don't cave to this ridiculous request, as it is only the beginning. They're just feeling you out right now. These people are not noble champions of much of anything, and the backgrounds of e.g. the two Twitter-people trying to initially stir this up are... Well. Extensive and verifiable if anyone is actually wondering whether engaging with / catering to them is a good idea.

 

Yes, the fact that someone that actively promotes genocide and someone that was a former neo-nazi got the ear of Obsidian so easily is pretty disturbing, the minimum background check should reveal this, the fact that veteran game developers with 20-30 years of experience in the industry bow down to the wishes of these people that are clearly crazy (and yes promoting genocide is crazy) is pretty troubling, these demands should have been dismissed immediately after people saw where they coming from.

Edited by Chaz
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

BUT IF THEY DON'T AGREE WITH IT, THAT MEANS IT HAS TO BE CENSORSHIP!

 

It's definitely censorship, but I think the flawed assumption here is that all censorship is "bad."

 

For example, I'm pretty sure that just about any major website would not allow the KKK to write articles for them.  Is this censorship?  Probably.  Is it "bad?"  Definitely not.

 

If that's censorship then the term is absolutely meaningless. That makes not allowing me to use your forum account to post my political opinions censorship.

 

 

Here is the definition of censorship from Wikipedia:

 

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

 

Now, the situation I painted clearly meets that definition.  And that's my main point, censorship is just a term to describe something.  It is not inherently good or bad.

 

So in my view, it isn't sufficient to just argue that something is bad because it's censorship.  You have to prove why it's bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It seems to me like you really want to be the victim here. And i can define censorship. When you don't want something to exist just because you disagree with it, this is censorship. 

 

 

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.

Edited by YourVoiceisAmbrosia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this whole mess can easily be corrected by a simple on/off option for backer related stuff. People who wants it to stay in can keep it and others can turn it off, everybody is happy and Obsidian can go back to bug crushing... Like correcting Raedric Hold so it doesn't become a pocket plane you aren't able to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It seems to me like you really want to be the victim here. And i can define censorship. When you don't want something to exist just because you disagree with it, this is censorship. 

 

 

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.

 

 

Hmm. What if the mayonnaise hater started claiming Obsidian's love of mayonnaise make them horrible unethical people, and raised a protest of a thousand people that marched to California and protested, until Obsidian declares a no-mayo policy just because it would be too much work and public relations disaster to do otherwise? 

 

It might count as censorship or it might not. But if one were to conclude "well it's Obsidian's choice", that's a very unfair definition of 'choice', too. 

 

(I'm not saying that analogy is exactly what is happening now, I'm just saying your current argumenta bout 'let Obsidian choose' is a bit narrow-sighted.)

 

(And as someone who has studied the history of censorship, you know, it's a definition that changes over time, and its boundaries in the U.S. for example has been heavily debated by legal scholars and philosophers throughout its entire history. It's hard to just say "x is censorship y is not, good bye".)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Outrage culture is getting reaaal old about now.

 

"Nice game you've got there. It would be a shame if someone came along and called you transphobic."

 

Please, please don't cave to this ridiculous request, as it is only the beginning. They're just feeling you out right now. These people are not noble champions of much of anything, and the backgrounds of e.g. the two Twitter-people trying to initially stir this up are... Well. Extensive and verifiable if anyone is actually wondering whether engaging with / catering to them is a good idea.

 

Yes, the fact that someone that actively promotes genocide and someone that was a former neo-nazi got the ear of Obsidian so easily is pretty disturbing, the minimum background check should reveal this, the fact that veteran game developers with 20-30 years of experience in the industry bow down to the wishes of these people are clearly crazy (and yes promoting genocide is crazy) is pretty telling, these demands should have been dismissed immediately after people saw where they coming from.

 

I'm looking forward to when this thread progresses to its natural conclusion and consists entirely of speculation over Zoe Quinn's sex life.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe that's the real ratio and maybe I've been using the internet long enough to figure out that these threads are a magnet for the most vocal irregardless of their actual proportion among a fanbase. If you can't see how there might be a sliiiiiiiiiiiiight selection bias there then I know not to take your seriously now. Thanks!

When all you have is a herring, then you have to use a herring.

 

It's safe to assume people who have a problem will be the most vocal. Yet even here, the people who have a problem with are the minority of the discussion.

 

It's also safe to assume that most people not talking about it are fine with it as is, so they don't feel a need to take a stand one way or the other. No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't care about the joke.  It's dumb.  I care about taking a stand against a group of people obsessed with fear, shame and power.

 

Gamergaters, you mean?

 

 

I would say it's whoever is trying to utilize fear and shame to enact some kind of agenda driven change at the moment.

 

And right now, that seems to be the people who are trying to get this censored.

 

I never got why we have to try to turn everything into an "us vs. them" dichotomy.  Why not talk about the individual issues instead?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

So what you're saying is it's not censorship unless you actually manage to censor it? Intention doesn't count? What? "Obsidian deciding". Yeah, right. And a big mob shouting at them surely didn't influence their decision in any way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember Chris Avellone saying in an interview once that there was an NPC in Fallout 2 that wasn't allowed to use racial slurs against an Asian person, yet the player was free to blow up children reverse-pickpocketing dynamite on them -- hell, you could just shoot children anytime you wanted in that game. And I remember him saying how political correctness was bull**** in that regard. And here we are, in 2015, allowing a hateful, overly sensitive Twitter personality dictate what should and shouldn't be in a game. If Obsidian caves in to that pressure, then they have no ****ing spine.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's definitely censorship, but I think the flawed assumption here is that all censorship is "bad."

 

For example, I'm pretty sure that just about any major website would not allow the KKK to write articles for them.  Is this censorship?  Probably.  Is it "bad?"  Definitely not.

 

 

While I actually am personally pretty much wholly against censorship in virtually any form, I do agree that people should feel free to challenge the notion that censorship is always bad. Ironically, treating "censorship" as some magical thing one must agree is evil is ITSELF censorship.

 

That being said, the reason I am against it is that people are ultimately pretty stupid.  Throughout history, we've always been wrong about pretty important things, and it's complete hubris to think we aren't wrong about important things now.  There are always going to be uncouth, "unacceptable" thoughts that are, in fact, actually correct.  In the future, people will look back at us in disbelief that we were so certain of our virtue in believing X, when Y was actually obviously true all along.

 

The kind of mob-based censorship we're seeing lately is predicated on the assumption that we've got it all figured out.  In some cases, some of the stuff that we've supposedly got all figured out is incredibly, impossibly complex.  It needs to be ok to talk about these things, because we are inevitably wrong about lots of them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the backer in question got a subsittute text I'd be happy if he used it to mock these people offended by everything directly.

 

Actually, if we're talking about changing text after release: The game has already been translated into a couple of different languages! What happens to those if start changing dialog?

Edited by deuxhero
  • Like 1

Never negotiate. You will only encourage more acts of terror.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Outrage culture is getting reaaal old about now.

 

"Nice game you've got there. It would be a shame if someone came along and called you transphobic."

 

Please, please don't cave to this ridiculous request, as it is only the beginning. They're just feeling you out right now. These people are not noble champions of much of anything, and the backgrounds of e.g. the two Twitter-people trying to initially stir this up are... Well. Extensive and verifiable if anyone is actually wondering whether engaging with / catering to them is a good idea.

 

Yes, the fact that someone that actively promotes genocide and someone that was a former neo-nazi got the ear of Obsidian so easily is pretty disturbing, the minimum background check should reveal this, the fact that veteran game developers with 20-30 years of experience in the industry bow down to the wishes of these people are clearly crazy (and yes promoting genocide is crazy) is pretty telling, these demands should have been dismissed immediately after people saw where they coming from.

 

I'm looking forward to when this thread progresses to its natural conclusion and consists entirely of speculation over Zoe Quinn's sex life.

 

 

Ok this is just derailment and if I may say so it's look like pretty obvious trolling. You dont seem to want to contribute anything to the discussion

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the problem I have with this whole "Is This Offensive®" game:

 

Even if it wasn't a joke... it's just the brief tale of a person doing something. It is not somehow a message brainwashing all of mankind into thinking negatively about certain people. If it had said "He found out something that made him angry, then over-reacted and killed the guy" but in a joking, rhyming fashion, would that warrant a whole thread about how Obsidian's allowing anti-life messages into the game?

 

Or, look at it another way: If the poem was about a transgender person finding out another transgender person they just slept with was the opposite gender than they expected, and was very upset by it. THEN would it be "anti-trans"? Or would it finally be an okay joke?


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

So what you're saying is it's not censorship unless you actually manage to censor it? Intention doesn't count? What? "Obsidian deciding". Yeah, right. And a big mob shouting at them surely didn't influence their decision in any way.

 

If that's your arguement, just know that none of you are allowed to demand a refund or try put pressure on Obsidian in this thread in any way.

Edited by Arouet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...