Any news on improving patch roll-outs in the future to all platforms simultaneously?

I think they've mentioned they're working on a method for people to download patches manually from their site but I have no idea what process that might entail or when it might arrive etc.

 

The thing about GoG is they use their own "installer" and thus have to spend time testing/making sure a patch works with their installer. I don't know techs about that process either, but it's why GoG patches usually take 1-3 days longer, especially compared to Steam's easy to use (for the developer as well as the consumer) insta-process.

 

To be complete (and prove it wasn't my imagination, hehee), here's the link to the Dev. post that mentions it. So maybe a couple weeks?

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/75170-patch-103-is-live-on-steam/?p=1629253

Wow, 2 patches in 8 days! You guys are knockin' em out.

 

Thanks for all the hard work.

Wow, 2 patches in 8 days! You guys are knockin' em out.

 

Thanks for all the hard work.

Yeah the devs are doing a great job. Hope all the complaining isn't getting them down. I love the game!

The response to this from certain sides is absolutely unfair to Obsidian. That sucks.

 

It really does. But frankly, this isn't about a rhyme.

 

Look what this follows.

 

Look what the same group of people are outraged over.

 

A picture of a woman for promotional artwork.

years old jokes.

outfits.

That Metroid being a women isn't well known enough.

 

These are the people who have developers blacklisted.

Who's moral compass is so skewed that they gleefully ruin peoples careers because of percieved slights that are not even true.

 

People are not upset over the rhyme being changed.

People are upset over the reason it was changed. And that reason isn't because someone's feelings were hurt.

It still baffles me that there are people who actually read all these memorials.

 

You talk about a poem here but obviously don't give a damn that most of the memorials are just completely out of fiction and don't strengthen the game AT ALL. Hell, even most of the names on the memorial stones are so stupid and out of fiction that they break immersion in under a second. Obviously most backers didn't care about making the game BETTER with their contribution in the first place and now some of you claim that we all have to be angry about one of these stupid memorial stones because there was content on it Obsidian didn't see fit for their game? Hell, you guys suck. You really, REALLY suck. Not because I enjoy cencorship, but because you just make a big drama out of literally nothing, a non-issue, a no-brainer, something not even worth talking about.

 

If you want to discuss something, discuss why most of the memorials are just plain stupid and break immersion in a second instead of helping the game creating a even deeper and better atmosphere. Get your damn priorities straight. I thought backing this game was about making this game - made and created by Obsidian - the best possible one. We were supposed to HELP them. We weren't supposed to transform our own egos into this game, as were were something special that had to be curated without the possibility of criticism or doubt. The worst part of it is that this is actually just a private matter between Obsidian and that very backer who made that stuff and that nobody else should be even affected by that AT ALL. But I guess some people just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Fu*k the game, fu*k Obsidian, fu*k everything, it's about principles. But let me tell you something: the way to hell is pathed with good intentions based on such principles and you guys are damn straight on the direct way to hell with this stupid discussion. End it. ASAP. PLEASE.

 

Over and out. 

Not sure if you're serious or not. Regardless. Let's take that deep breath together. Inhale. One... Two... Three... Exhale. And again... Okay? I truly don't mean that to patronize you. I am actually concerned you are letting internet cats dancing across a keyboard affect your mood. Oh you weren't aware? That's all we are. Absolutely true. Cats somehow mashing out complete thoughts. Even this. So take this next bit with a grain of salt.

 

You can not deny this is a triviality if it affects you so. It is a triviality relatively speaking. Claims of alleged insensitivity or obsequiousness have a way of building malign towers to better cast stones. But that is fine. Because you know triviality when you see it, but more importantly... the cats. Hope you feel better LordCrash.

 

Sincerely,

Detruncate

 

 

I also bought Pillars of Eternity and support what Obsidian did.

You aren't special because you bought a video game.

 

 

What you said is in direct contrast to reality.

 

"So one thing that, um, I really appreciate about Kickstarter is that its sorta given the game development community, um, more options in terms of what content it can produce. What sort of game ideas you can bring to the table, and the fact that it doesn't really have the publisher model involved but we're actually being financed directly by they players, who, we answer to anyway and I'd rather have them as the bosses. Um, that's sorta been a very new way of doing games that's been very, very exciting." - Chris Avellone, Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter video

 

Well, here's the problem with the idea that the backers are bosses: we both bought the game (I'm assuming you did even though you lack a visible backer badge, else why are you here?) so we're BOTH his bosses, right? I think Obsidian made the right choice, you think they made the wrong choice. So we cancel out.

 

Now, unless you think Obsidian should make all future decisions by Backer Committee (and what a cluster THAT would be!) we'll probably just have to agree that Obsidian is a private company that will do what it thinks is best for itself and its consumer, regardless of our individual opinions.

 

WE AREN'T SPECIAL WE JUST BOUGHT A VIDEO GAME. Honestly no one should listen to us because we clearly waste our money on frivolous nonsense.

 

 

So I'll use your own example to discredit you so you can more easily process it. The hardest truths are often the most difficult to swallow:

 

With your example, all backers are bosses, I went back to the first post of this thread and read to the end. I wrote down who was strongly against, didn't care so they remained neutral, and who were the opposite by being strongly supportive of the change to the memorial stone.

 

25 bosses felt strongly enough about the change to express their disappointment in the change. 9 of the bosses remained neutral, not caring either way. And 8 bosses were strongly supportive of the change.

 

In any democracy, or any boardroom as your example indicates this change would've never happened in the first place. The offended are the minority, they aren't even eclipsing the neutral party who have no feeling either way on the subject. They're dwarfed by the majority, yet the majority is expected to acquiesce? They aren't entitled to their criticism without their criticism being criticized?

 

The joke was a joke and all jokes come from the same place. Good jokes and bad jokes are born from the same womb. Just because it was in your opinion a "bad" joke doesn't mean he didn't have the right to attempt to be funny, and that definitely doesn't mean that you have the right to censor him because what they said in the pursuit of being funny was personally offensive to you.

 

 

"Censorship" in the sense many of you are referring to generally requires some sort of authority, typically governmental, removing content deemed inappropriate by the ruling regime.

 

A video game company altering some dialogue in their video game doesn't really rise to the level of censorship under Communism or Fascism you weirdos. Stop making the comparison; it makes you look insane.

Now, unless you think Obsidian should make all future decisions by Backer Committee (and what a cluster THAT would be!) we'll probably just have to agree that Obsidian is a private company that will do what it thinks is best for itself and its consumer, regardless of our individual opinions.

 

So you acknowledge that Obsidian is the authority ruling the regime (the development of the game)?

 

If you like, buddy. Self-censorship isn't really censorship in the sense people are using it, though. It's not an outside force imposing this on Obsidian. They could easily ignore the complaints and it would go away, the same way they're not paying much heed to your complaints, and you will eventually move on to the next outrage.

 

Honestly, the only difference between the so-called "SJWs" and the people who oppose them is what they find outrageous. It's the same tactics and often the same sense of entitlement.

 

Of course, the SJW group is responding to discrimination, whether real or perceived, while the anti-SJW group is claiming that listening to the SJWs will lead to the Fourth Reich, so one group strikes me as the more reasonable of the two.

 

 

"Self-censorship" is actually considerably more dangerous because it allows the perpetrators of the censorship to get away with it without taking the blame of what they're doing. Here is the definition of Self-censorship: control of what you say or do in order to avoid annoying or offending others, but without being told officially that such control is necessary:

 

If you're okay with Obsidian changing their art to avoid complaints, then that's okay, just don't forget that there are others in the world who expect others to stand for the things they create.

 

I got nothing to do with GamerGate and don't have to deal with SJWs enough to develop an opinion on them, but if this is the sort of thing that GG is about - not compromising your art while lying to your fanbase about why you're doing it (Which is probably the most bothersome part of this. Doesn't "fit the tone," come on guys) then GG probably has a reasonable point to make on this particular subject.

Edited April 4, 201510 yr by ikigai

 

 

With your example, all backers are bosses, I went back to the first post of this thread and read to the end. I wrote down who was strongly against, didn't care so they remained neutral, and who were the opposite by being strongly supportive of the change to the memorial stone.

 

 

 

What if I told you... they werent bosses?

 

 

 

I also bought Pillars of Eternity and support what Obsidian did.

You aren't special because you bought a video game.

 

 

What you said is in direct contrast to reality.

 

"So one thing that, um, I really appreciate about Kickstarter is that its sorta given the game development community, um, more options in terms of what content it can produce. What sort of game ideas you can bring to the table, and the fact that it doesn't really have the publisher model involved but we're actually being financed directly by they players, who, we answer to anyway and I'd rather have them as the bosses. Um, that's sorta been a very new way of doing games that's been very, very exciting." - Chris Avellone, Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter video

 

Well, here's the problem with the idea that the backers are bosses: we both bought the game (I'm assuming you did even though you lack a visible backer badge, else why are you here?) so we're BOTH his bosses, right? I think Obsidian made the right choice, you think they made the wrong choice. So we cancel out.

 

Now, unless you think Obsidian should make all future decisions by Backer Committee (and what a cluster THAT would be!) we'll probably just have to agree that Obsidian is a private company that will do what it thinks is best for itself and its consumer, regardless of our individual opinions.

 

WE AREN'T SPECIAL WE JUST BOUGHT A VIDEO GAME. Honestly no one should listen to us because we clearly waste our money on frivolous nonsense.

 

 

So I'll use your own example to discredit you so you can more easily process it. The hardest truths are often the most difficult to swallow:

 

With your example, all backers are bosses, I went back to the first post of this thread and read to the end. I wrote down who was strongly against, didn't care so they remained neutral, and who were the opposite by being strongly supportive of the change to the memorial stone.

 

25 bosses felt strongly enough about the change to express their disappointment in the change. 9 of the bosses remained neutral, not caring either way. And 8 bosses were strongly supportive of the change.

 

In any democracy, or any boardroom as your example indicates this change would've never happened in the first place. The offended are the minority, they aren't even eclipsing the neutral party who have no feeling either way on the subject. They're dwarfed by the majority, yet the majority is expected to acquiesce? They aren't entitled to their criticism without their criticism being criticized?

 

The joke was a joke and all jokes come from the same place. Good jokes and bad jokes are born from the same womb. Just because it was in your opinion a "bad" joke doesn't mean he didn't have the right to attempt to be funny, and that definitely doesn't mean that you have the right to censor him because what they said in the pursuit of being funny was personally offensive to you.

 

I wasn't offended by the limerick. But when someone else said they were, I thought to myself "Oh, they're offended. I personally am not, but I can't discount their personal views on the subject. So the poem in question should probably be changed." I'm a member of the majority who joins with the minority to make the change happen without having any personal stake. There are a lot of us, we just don't tend to be as loudmouthed as the regressives/reactionaries.

 

And actually minorities get rights all the time in democracies? Gay folks make up ten percent of the population but Indiana is facing nationwide boycotts over recent legislation. The US Supreme Court has made a number of rulings re: minority rights, even when a majority opposed what they did, which is how you got integrated schools and interracial marriage in the US thirty to forty years before it had popular approval.

 

And you know who has the right to censor what's in Obsidian's video game? Obsidian. And they did. You lose. Neener neener.

I wasn't offended by the limerick. But when someone else said they were, I thought to myself "Oh, they're offended. I personally am not, but I can't discount their personal views on the subject. So the poem in question should probably be changed."

Well I guess since so many people are offended by the change then by your logic it should be changed back 

 

 

 

 

I also bought Pillars of Eternity and support what Obsidian did.

You aren't special because you bought a video game.

 

 

What you said is in direct contrast to reality.

 

"So one thing that, um, I really appreciate about Kickstarter is that its sorta given the game development community, um, more options in terms of what content it can produce. What sort of game ideas you can bring to the table, and the fact that it doesn't really have the publisher model involved but we're actually being financed directly by they players, who, we answer to anyway and I'd rather have them as the bosses. Um, that's sorta been a very new way of doing games that's been very, very exciting." - Chris Avellone, Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter video

 

Well, here's the problem with the idea that the backers are bosses: we both bought the game (I'm assuming you did even though you lack a visible backer badge, else why are you here?) so we're BOTH his bosses, right? I think Obsidian made the right choice, you think they made the wrong choice. So we cancel out.

 

Now, unless you think Obsidian should make all future decisions by Backer Committee (and what a cluster THAT would be!) we'll probably just have to agree that Obsidian is a private company that will do what it thinks is best for itself and its consumer, regardless of our individual opinions.

 

WE AREN'T SPECIAL WE JUST BOUGHT A VIDEO GAME. Honestly no one should listen to us because we clearly waste our money on frivolous nonsense.

 

 

So I'll use your own example to discredit you so you can more easily process it. The hardest truths are often the most difficult to swallow:

 

With your example, all backers are bosses, I went back to the first post of this thread and read to the end. I wrote down who was strongly against, didn't care so they remained neutral, and who were the opposite by being strongly supportive of the change to the memorial stone.

 

25 bosses felt strongly enough about the change to express their disappointment in the change. 9 of the bosses remained neutral, not caring either way. And 8 bosses were strongly supportive of the change.

 

In any democracy, or any boardroom as your example indicates this change would've never happened in the first place. The offended are the minority, they aren't even eclipsing the neutral party who have no feeling either way on the subject. They're dwarfed by the majority, yet the majority is expected to acquiesce? They aren't entitled to their criticism without their criticism being criticized?

 

The joke was a joke and all jokes come from the same place. Good jokes and bad jokes are born from the same womb. Just because it was in your opinion a "bad" joke doesn't mean he didn't have the right to attempt to be funny, and that definitely doesn't mean that you have the right to censor him because what they said in the pursuit of being funny was personally offensive to you.

 

I wasn't offended by the limerick. But when someone else said they were, I thought to myself "Oh, they're offended. I personally am not, but I can't discount their personal views on the subject. So the poem in question should probably be changed." I'm a member of the majority who joins with the minority to make the change happen without having any personal stake. There are a lot of us, we just don't tend to be as loudmouthed as the regressives/reactionaries.

 

And actually minorities get rights all the time in democracies? Gay folks make up ten percent of the population but Indiana is facing nationwide boycotts over recent legislation. The US Supreme Court has made a number of rulings re: minority rights, even when a majority opposed what they did, which is how you got integrated schools and interracial marriage in the US thirty to forty years before it had popular approval.

 

And you know who has the right to censor what's in Obsidian's video game? Obsidian. And they did. You lose. Neener neener.

 

 

Just curious - if I were to find someone offended by the game's involving rapes and abortions, will you also not discount their personal views on the subject and agree that the content should be changed to something that will offend /less/ people?

 

I wasn't offended by the limerick. But when someone else said they were, I thought to myself "Oh, they're offended. I personally am not, but I can't discount their personal views on the subject. So the poem in question should probably be changed."

Well I guess since so many people are offended by the change then by your logic it should be changed back 

 

If that's how Obsidian wants to respond, they are free to do so. I would oppose it because people have said they find the language hurtful and I have no rationale for denying that experience. And Obsidian agrees, so gone it will stay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also bought Pillars of Eternity and support what Obsidian did.

You aren't special because you bought a video game.

 

 

What you said is in direct contrast to reality.

 

"So one thing that, um, I really appreciate about Kickstarter is that its sorta given the game development community, um, more options in terms of what content it can produce. What sort of game ideas you can bring to the table, and the fact that it doesn't really have the publisher model involved but we're actually being financed directly by they players, who, we answer to anyway and I'd rather have them as the bosses. Um, that's sorta been a very new way of doing games that's been very, very exciting." - Chris Avellone, Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter video

 

Well, here's the problem with the idea that the backers are bosses: we both bought the game (I'm assuming you did even though you lack a visible backer badge, else why are you here?) so we're BOTH his bosses, right? I think Obsidian made the right choice, you think they made the wrong choice. So we cancel out.

 

Now, unless you think Obsidian should make all future decisions by Backer Committee (and what a cluster THAT would be!) we'll probably just have to agree that Obsidian is a private company that will do what it thinks is best for itself and its consumer, regardless of our individual opinions.

 

WE AREN'T SPECIAL WE JUST BOUGHT A VIDEO GAME. Honestly no one should listen to us because we clearly waste our money on frivolous nonsense.

 

 

So I'll use your own example to discredit you so you can more easily process it. The hardest truths are often the most difficult to swallow:

 

With your example, all backers are bosses, I went back to the first post of this thread and read to the end. I wrote down who was strongly against, didn't care so they remained neutral, and who were the opposite by being strongly supportive of the change to the memorial stone.

 

25 bosses felt strongly enough about the change to express their disappointment in the change. 9 of the bosses remained neutral, not caring either way. And 8 bosses were strongly supportive of the change.

 

In any democracy, or any boardroom as your example indicates this change would've never happened in the first place. The offended are the minority, they aren't even eclipsing the neutral party who have no feeling either way on the subject. They're dwarfed by the majority, yet the majority is expected to acquiesce? They aren't entitled to their criticism without their criticism being criticized?

 

The joke was a joke and all jokes come from the same place. Good jokes and bad jokes are born from the same womb. Just because it was in your opinion a "bad" joke doesn't mean he didn't have the right to attempt to be funny, and that definitely doesn't mean that you have the right to censor him because what they said in the pursuit of being funny was personally offensive to you.

 

I wasn't offended by the limerick. But when someone else said they were, I thought to myself "Oh, they're offended. I personally am not, but I can't discount their personal views on the subject. So the poem in question should probably be changed." I'm a member of the majority who joins with the minority to make the change happen without having any personal stake. There are a lot of us, we just don't tend to be as loudmouthed as the regressives/reactionaries.

 

And actually minorities get rights all the time in democracies? Gay folks make up ten percent of the population but Indiana is facing nationwide boycotts over recent legislation. The US Supreme Court has made a number of rulings re: minority rights, even when a majority opposed what they did, which is how you got integrated schools and interracial marriage in the US thirty to forty years before it had popular approval.

 

And you know who has the right to censor what's in Obsidian's video game? Obsidian. And they did. You lose. Neener neener.

 

 

Just curious - if I were to find someone offended by the game's involving rapes and abortions, will you also not discount their personal views on the subject and agree that the content should be changed to something that will offend /less/ people?

 

That depends, is the rape and abortion content part of a Backer-submitted joke poem that isn't explored or deconstructed by the game or its story?

 

I'm not saying that games shouldn't have negative things in them. If we did that we wouldn't have a lot of stories left to tell. For example, Pillars could explore racism (and does!) and even use racial slurs, but if a Backer submitted a poem full of racial slurs I would expect it to be rejected. There's a difference between storytelling and thematic elements, and some fluff included to reward a contributor.

 

TLDR: It's ok for Mark Twain to write the n-word, but it isn't ok for you to walk up to a black guy and call him that.

 

Just curious - if I were to find someone offended by the game's involving rapes and abortions, will you also not discount their personal views on the subject and agree that the content should be changed to something that will offend /less/ people?

 

 

The difference is that the game approaches those themes with an appropriate seriousness and does not take them lightly. Not the same as making a joke at the expense of a group of people that have historically been oppressed and still severely are in large parts of the world.

What I understood from the joke was that on the world Eora an Aumaua guy mistook a wood elf male to be a female and later got very upset.

 

Why does this upset some humans on earth????

 

Sorry I am confused now. Get to know more lore perhaps!

While I consider the change essentially caving. I for one welcome the replacement that tells people who got mad at the original poem in the first place to **** off. Thanks Obsidian.

I wasn't offended by the limerick. But when someone else said they were, I thought to myself "Oh, they're offended. I personally am not, but I can't discount their personal views on the subject. So the poem in question should probably be changed." I'm a member of the majority who joins with the minority to make the change happen without having any personal stake. There are a lot of us, we just don't tend to be as loudmouthed as the regressives/reactionaries.

 

And actually minorities get rights all the time in democracies? Gay folks make up ten percent of the population but Indiana is facing nationwide boycotts over recent legislation. The US Supreme Court has made a number of rulings re: minority rights, even when a majority opposed what they did, which is how you got integrated schools and interracial marriage in the US thirty to forty years before it had popular approval.

 

And you know who has the right to censor what's in Obsidian's video game? Obsidian. And they did. You lose. Neener neener.

 

 

You're contradicting yourself again with reality. You made the boss analogy, I simply enlightened you as to how it was wrong.

 

If you change something said in jest because it's "offensive", where does it end? Who decides what is okay and what isn't? You? If so, why are you suddenly speaking for me and in effect taking away my liberties of reading the joke. Why do I, as an adult, need another adult to run in front of me waving their hands telling me that what I'm about to read or watch is so offensive that I'm not allowed to even judge it for myself? That's what you're doing and advocating right now.

 

The infantilization of the LGB and transgendered community in particular is disgusting to me. Why are you treating them like children who don't have the common sense to just, skip past reading something that offends them? Why do they need you to defend them when they aren't asking for it, and frankly, don't need it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also bought Pillars of Eternity and support what Obsidian did.

You aren't special because you bought a video game.

 

 

What you said is in direct contrast to reality.

 

"So one thing that, um, I really appreciate about Kickstarter is that its sorta given the game development community, um, more options in terms of what content it can produce. What sort of game ideas you can bring to the table, and the fact that it doesn't really have the publisher model involved but we're actually being financed directly by they players, who, we answer to anyway and I'd rather have them as the bosses. Um, that's sorta been a very new way of doing games that's been very, very exciting." - Chris Avellone, Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter video

 

Well, here's the problem with the idea that the backers are bosses: we both bought the game (I'm assuming you did even though you lack a visible backer badge, else why are you here?) so we're BOTH his bosses, right? I think Obsidian made the right choice, you think they made the wrong choice. So we cancel out.

 

Now, unless you think Obsidian should make all future decisions by Backer Committee (and what a cluster THAT would be!) we'll probably just have to agree that Obsidian is a private company that will do what it thinks is best for itself and its consumer, regardless of our individual opinions.

 

WE AREN'T SPECIAL WE JUST BOUGHT A VIDEO GAME. Honestly no one should listen to us because we clearly waste our money on frivolous nonsense.

 

 

So I'll use your own example to discredit you so you can more easily process it. The hardest truths are often the most difficult to swallow:

 

With your example, all backers are bosses, I went back to the first post of this thread and read to the end. I wrote down who was strongly against, didn't care so they remained neutral, and who were the opposite by being strongly supportive of the change to the memorial stone.

 

25 bosses felt strongly enough about the change to express their disappointment in the change. 9 of the bosses remained neutral, not caring either way. And 8 bosses were strongly supportive of the change.

 

In any democracy, or any boardroom as your example indicates this change would've never happened in the first place. The offended are the minority, they aren't even eclipsing the neutral party who have no feeling either way on the subject. They're dwarfed by the majority, yet the majority is expected to acquiesce? They aren't entitled to their criticism without their criticism being criticized?

 

The joke was a joke and all jokes come from the same place. Good jokes and bad jokes are born from the same womb. Just because it was in your opinion a "bad" joke doesn't mean he didn't have the right to attempt to be funny, and that definitely doesn't mean that you have the right to censor him because what they said in the pursuit of being funny was personally offensive to you.

 

I wasn't offended by the limerick. But when someone else said they were, I thought to myself "Oh, they're offended. I personally am not, but I can't discount their personal views on the subject. So the poem in question should probably be changed." I'm a member of the majority who joins with the minority to make the change happen without having any personal stake. There are a lot of us, we just don't tend to be as loudmouthed as the regressives/reactionaries.

 

And actually minorities get rights all the time in democracies? Gay folks make up ten percent of the population but Indiana is facing nationwide boycotts over recent legislation. The US Supreme Court has made a number of rulings re: minority rights, even when a majority opposed what they did, which is how you got integrated schools and interracial marriage in the US thirty to forty years before it had popular approval.

 

And you know who has the right to censor what's in Obsidian's video game? Obsidian. And they did. You lose. Neener neener.

 

 

Just curious - if I were to find someone offended by the game's involving rapes and abortions, will you also not discount their personal views on the subject and agree that the content should be changed to something that will offend /less/ people?

 

That depends, is the rape and abortion content part of a Backer-submitted joke poem that isn't explored or deconstructed by the game or its story?

 

I'm not saying that games shouldn't have negative things in them. If we did that we wouldn't have a lot of stories left to tell. For example, Pillars could explore racism (and does!) and even use racial slurs, but if a Backer submitted a poem full of racial slurs I would expect it to be rejected. There's a difference between storytelling and thematic elements, and some fluff included to reward a contributor.

 

TLDR: It's ok for Mark Twain to write the n-word, but it isn't ok for you to walk up to a black guy and call him that.

 

DU-DU-DOUBLE STANDARD.

 

Go to bed.

Well, there are two possibilities for Obsidian:

- Weather the outrage over the joke.

- Weather the outrage over removal of the joke.

I'm kind of sad about which one they chose.

 

And I still don't understand how this is even about transgender people and not, like, dragons. Both appear in the original text in equal numbers.

 

The difference is that the game approaches those themes with an appropriate seriousness and does not take them lightly. Not the same as making a joke at the expense of a group of people that have historically been oppressed and still severely are in large parts of the world.

 

 

You mean texts like "Also death to all men. Let the culling begin!", when men are dying daily in various conflicts around the world? Yes, that would be honoring some still warm bodies...

 

"

 

 

Just curious - if I were to find someone offended by the game's involving rapes and abortions, will you also not discount their personal views on the subject and agree that the content should be changed to something that will offend /less/ people?

 

 

The difference is that the game approaches those themes with an appropriate seriousness and does not take them lightly. Not the same as making a joke at the expense of a group of people that have historically been oppressed and still severely are in large parts of the world.

 

 

The joke had nothing to do with transgender. 

I wasn't offended by the limerick. But when someone else said they were, I thought to myself "Oh, they're offended. I personally am not, but I can't discount their personal views on the subject. So the poem in question should probably be changed." I'm a member of the majority who joins with the minority to make the change happen without having any personal stake. There are a lot of us, we just don't tend to be as loudmouthed as the regressives/reactionaries.

 

Oh no, someone was offended? On the Internet? Say it ain’t so. Whatever shall we do? Call the police? Stop the presses? Pass new laws and give up our personal freedoms and freedom of expression? Being offended obviously means something and gives said person special rights.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b48_1305790944

 

Also Feargus, how much things have changed, throwing your main customers under the bridge for a few nice articles in the press:

Well, there are two possibilities for Obsidian:

- Weather the outrage over the joke.

- Weather the outrage over removal of the joke.

I'm kind of sad about which one they chose.

 

And I still don't understand how this is even about transgender people and not, like, dragons. Both appear in the original text in equal numbers.

 

 

It wasn't.

 

Reality isn't a requirement when you're raging on twitter.

Well, there are two possibilities for Obsidian:- Weather the outrage over the joke.- Weather the outrage over removal of the joke.I'm kind of sad about which one they chose.And I still don't understand how this is even about transgender people and not, like, dragons. Both appear in the original text in equal numbers.

I showed it to a friend and he thought it was about a drunk guy who had sex with a man. I suppose it is vague, but as the replacement poem states ot was misread, perhaps the original poem meant to tell the story of a man who had been raped as he was too drunk to consent?

That depends, is the rape and abortion content part of a Backer-submitted joke poem that isn't explored or deconstructed by the game or its story?

 

I'm not saying that games shouldn't have negative things in them. If we did that we wouldn't have a lot of stories left to tell. For example, Pillars could explore racism (and does!) and even use racial slurs, but if a Backer submitted a poem full of racial slurs I would expect it to be rejected. There's a difference between storytelling and thematic elements, and some fluff included to reward a contributor.

 

TLDR: It's ok for Mark Twain to write the n-word, but it isn't ok for you to walk up to a black guy and call him that.

 

 

 

That's simply an absurd, subjective and arbitrary place to draw the line between what is allowed and what isn't. What counts explored or deconstructed to you? To me? To someone on twitter looking for more followers? Unless you buy their story about missing it during the vetting (Just as they missed the gamebanshee.com advertisement and the numerous other not-lore-friendly) then they clearly thought it fit the "tone" of their game until a twitter dust-up - the only reason it's out now is to avoid offending the sensibilities of some people and that's censorship anyway you cut it.