Update 93: Patch 1.03 - Important Community Fixes

[kenu13579]

 

Yes, uh hello. I am just curious if there is a way that when I buy this game later that I could still have the one joke in there along with the patch? Just idk feels like I would be getting jipped otherwise

 

There's a mod for that in the Nexus, if you'd rather have the old text than the new (the tombstone wasn't removed, it just moved to a different place when the text was changed).

 

Oh also forgot to say, thanks for the response

[Kimuji]

Yes, uh hello. I am just curious if there is a way that when I buy this game later that I could still have the one joke in there along with the patch? Just idk feels like I would be getting jipped otherwise

Jipped how?

 

- Almost no nobody reads theses epitahps because they break immersion and most of them are private jokes that don't make any sense to the common player. This is totally optional and backer BONUS content not even remotely related to the game itself, only those how who backed high enough to get their own message put into the game should really care about it. You are not missing anything at all.

 

- The only person entitled to feel "jipped" would be Firedorn the author of the limerick, and guess what, he is satisfied with the way things went with Obsidian. He came on this very forum to tell everyone the real facts. The new limerick is also his doing, he wrote it and he suggested it, not Obsidian. Don't believe all the crap you read about it on Twitter and all the other social networks, people are using the whole affair, distorting facts, for their own benefit and don't care about the game or Firedorn. Those talking about censorship don't know **** about what really happened.

 

- There's a mod if you so want to have the original limerick back in the game (and good luck finding the right tombstone to read it). Even if, like I said, there's little point putting it back if you are not Firedorn himself.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Kimuji

[Moira]

That is interesting to hear, though I generally don't like trusting third party mods due to their dubious nature and possible problem with future patches. I would though like to know if there would perhaps be an option not to have it removed officially? Idk, it just bugs me otherwise

 

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).

[kenu13579]

 

That is interesting to hear, though I generally don't like trusting third party mods due to their dubious nature and possible problem with future patches. I would though like to know if there would perhaps be an option not to have it removed officially? Idk, it just bugs me otherwise

 

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).

 

Well thats depressing. Oh well I guess. Thanks for your polite response ^^

 

 

Yes, uh hello. I am just curious if there is a way that when I buy this game later that I could still have the one joke in there along with the patch? Just idk feels like I would be getting jipped otherwise

Jipped how?

 

- Almost no nobody reads theses epitahps because they break immersion and most of them are private jokes that don't make any sense to the common player. This is totally optional and backer BONUS content not even remotely related to the game itself, only those how who backed high enough to get their own message put into the game should really care about it. You are not missing anything at all.

 

- The only person entitled to feel "jipped" would be Firedorn the author of the limerick, and guess what, he is satisfied with the way things went with Obsidian. He came on this very forum to tell everyone the real facts. The new limerick is also his doing, he wrote it and he suggested it, not Obsidian. Don't believe all the crap you read about it on Twitter and all the other social networks, people are using the whole affair, distorting facts, for their own benefit and don't care about the game or Firedorn. Those talking about censorship don't know **** about what really happened.

 

- There's a mod if you so want to have the original limerick back in the game (and good luck finding the right tombstone to read it). Even if, like I said, there's little point putting it back if you are not Firedorn himself.

 

I mean any one that owns the game entitled to feel jipped. Feeling jipped isn't  exactly a restrictive emotion. I am sorry if me feeling a bit saddened by this has upset you. Seems thats all I do and I don't even mean it

[Ineth]

I cannot see version 1.03 for Linux on GOG.com.  Is there an estimate as to when the patch will be available for Linux please?

 

It already is, though not as a patch - they simply updated the archive for the Linux version so you'll have to download the whole 6.4GB again.

 

It shows as "version 1.1.0.2" on the download page but that's just the GOG version number; it's actually the "1.0.3.0530" game version.

 

PS: Someone on the GOG forum has turned it into a 130MB patch and hosted it on some inofficial download site, in case you're impatient (or paying for bandwidth).

[Kimuji]

 

I mean any one that owns the game entitled to feel jipped. Feeling jipped isn't  exactly a restrictive emotion. I am sorry if me feeling a bit saddened by this has upset you. Seems thats all I do and I don't even mean it

 

It's ok, no harm done.

[Luckmann]

 

That is interesting to hear, though I generally don't like trusting third party mods due to their dubious nature and possible problem with future patches. I would though like to know if there would perhaps be an option not to have it removed officially? Idk, it just bugs me otherwise

 

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".

[rjshae]

- The only person entitled to feel "jipped" would be Firedorn the author of the limerick, and guess what, he is satisfied with the way things went with Obsidian. He came on this very forum to tell everyone the real facts. The new limerick is also his doing, he wrote it and he suggested it, not Obsidian. Don't believe all the crap you read about it on Twitter and all the other social networks, people are using the whole affair, distorting facts, for their own benefit and don't care about the game or Firedorn. Those talking about censorship don't know **** about what really happened.

 

I enjoyed the limerick. It seemed harmless enough; a mirthful play on a socially embarrassing situation (for some). Plus it fit the setting better than many of the epitaphs I've read (although there are some other good ones as well). Maybe that means I haven't been sufficiently indoctrinated by the PC thought police?

Edited April 7, 2015 by rjshae

[Kimuji]

Then you probably enjoyed the new one as well. I for one, don't care about the PC thought police I just trust Firedorn's words over all other theories and don't have any definitive opinion on those who liked it or felt offended by it (genuinly that is). The real issue here are those who in the first place accused Obsidian of putting transphobic content into the game and those who after Firedorn's own clarifications still claim that Obsidian censored the game in order to appease the twitter mob.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Kimuji

[GrinningReaper659]

 

 

That is interesting to hear, though I generally don't like trusting third party mods due to their dubious nature and possible problem with future patches. I would though like to know if there would perhaps be an option not to have it removed officially? Idk, it just bugs me otherwise

 

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.

[Voltaire]

 

Yes, uh hello. I am just curious if there is a way that when I buy this game later that I could still have the one joke in there along with the patch? Just idk feels like I would be getting jipped otherwise

Jipped how?

 

- Almost no nobody reads theses epitahps because they break immersion and most of them are private jokes that don't make any sense to the common player. This is totally optional and backer BONUS content not even remotely related to the game itself, only those how who backed high enough to get their own message put into the game should really care about it. You are not missing anything at all.

 

- The only person entitled to feel "jipped" would be Firedorn the author of the limerick, and guess what, he is satisfied with the way things went with Obsidian. He came on this very forum to tell everyone the real facts. The new limerick is also his doing, he wrote it and he suggested it, not Obsidian. Don't believe all the crap you read about it on Twitter and all the other social networks, people are using the whole affair, distorting facts, for their own benefit and don't care about the game or Firedorn. Those talking about censorship don't know **** about what really happened.

 

- There's a mod if you so want to have the original limerick back in the game (and good luck finding the right tombstone to read it). Even if, like I said, there's little point putting it back if you are not Firedorn himself.

 

 

With all due respect to your opinion, it is only your opinion which does not override anyone else's. Feeling jipped does not require any kind of “entitlement”, it just something that people either feel or don't feel – other people's opinions won't change that.

 

I've just now been reading about this event after the fact, but the one thing that seems clear to me is that different people have different feelings and opinions, and yet both sides are trying to *prove* that their view is the correct one. There is no correct answer; some people liked the original content while others didn't.  The other observation is that the content in question is clearly trivial and meaningless (to the game), but the principle of what happened (to the backers) is obviously important to many.

 

I haven't downloaded the mod or the patch yet, but it appears that players have a choice, which is all I would have wanted.

[Kimuji]

 

I've just now been reading about this event after the fact, but the one thing that seems clear to me is that different people have different feelings and opinions, and yet both sides are trying to *prove* that their view is the correct one.

Better listen to the epitaph author's own words than all the wild speculations around it, right? That's what I did, this is not a matter of opinion but a matter of sources and Firedorn is the best we have. All the rest comes from people's imagination.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Kimuji

[Bryy]

I mean any one that owns the game entitled to feel jipped. Feeling jipped isn't  exactly a restrictive emotion. I am sorry if me feeling a bit saddened by this has upset you. Seems thats all I do and I don't even mean it

How does an easily missable memorial put in the game just for fun make you feel ripped off? Regardless of "right opinons" or whatever, you're basically saying you feel ripped-off because a line of text has been changed.

[Voltaire]

 

 

I've just now been reading about this event after the fact, but the one thing that seems clear to me is that different people have different feelings and opinions, and yet both sides are trying to *prove* that their view is the correct one.

Better listen to the epitaph author's own words than all the wild speculations around it, right? That's what I did, this is not a matter of opinion but a matter of sources and Firedorn is the best we have. All the rest comes from people's imagination.

 

 

Yeah, I already read what he said about all this. That doesn't mean that people weren't, and still are, trying to prove or otherwise convince other people to change their opinions on the matter.  That was my only point – it's largely a waste of effort when people are not likely to “switch sides” once they have picked one. There are other similar events happening in the real world, at least in the U.S., that echo what happened here and I think that's why some people are so passionate about it.

 

Thank you for pointing out Firedorn's statements.  I'm sure there are people who might not have read that, and it's pretty key to understanding the big picture.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Voltaire

[Luj1]

Then you probably enjoyed the new one as well.

 

The new joke is even better, mind you. I stopped viewing this whole limerick ordeal as some kind of a defeat.

[Luckmann]

 

 

 

That is interesting to hear, though I generally don't like trusting third party mods due to their dubious nature and possible problem with future patches. I would though like to know if there would perhaps be an option not to have it removed officially? Idk, it just bugs me otherwise

 

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.

[Moira]

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is interesting to hear, though I generally don't like trusting third party mods due to their dubious nature and possible problem with future patches. I would though like to know if there would perhaps be an option not to have it removed officially? Idk, it just bugs me otherwise

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.

Oh man we would need a separate thread for the philosophy of this issue. Or maybe not, since there seems to be very little understanding to be gained (which is a pity - the underlying issues are both important and interesting). It baffles me that people very firmly believing in free speech also seem to consider the agency of people to be so fragile that, say, a single voice or even a mob howling in Twitter (not doxxing or swatting, just howling) nulls their views, choices and actions.

[Azradun]

Oh man we would need a separate thread for the philosophy of this issue. Or maybe not, since there seems to be very little understanding to be gained (which is a pity - the underlying issues are both important and interesting). It baffles me that people very firmly believing in free speech also seem to consider the agency of people to be so fragile that, say, a single voice or even a mob howling in Twitter (not doxxing or swatting, just howling) nulls their views, choices and actions.

 

 

Well, only one of the best scientists of our time was reduced to tears at the moment of his greatest tryumph and gave a forced apology, forced by a mob howling on Twitter (not doxxing or swatting, just howling) not so long time ago for wearing a shirt made by his female friend. Still, they didn't burn him on the stake or put him in jail, so maybe we should let it slide... allowing any loud voices to psychologically destroy people who make scientific discoveries or works of art?

 

After all, what a landing on a comet or a great game is worth compared to somebody's feelings, right?

[kenu13579]

 

I mean any one that owns the game entitled to feel jipped. Feeling jipped isn't  exactly a restrictive emotion. I am sorry if me feeling a bit saddened by this has upset you. Seems thats all I do and I don't even mean it

How does an easily missable memorial put in the game just for fun make you feel ripped off? Regardless of "right opinons" or whatever, you're basically saying you feel ripped-off because a line of text has been changed.

 

I said jipped and because I want the content how it was release. I don't want punches pulled from me and pulling the joke had a bit of emotional hit on me.

[Marianna]

I have to say, i'm quite baffled by what has transpired here. Not so much about how a harmless little jest caused a huge mudslide, but rather by who came out as the undeserved victor (apparently). And to be perfectly clear, there are only losers with this turn of events. We all lost, just some lost less.

 

This is the person that took the "moral high-ground" on claims of discrimination of whatever tickled her fancy, and got away with it.

 

https://archive.today/56XGn#selection-1292.2-1347.125

https://archive.today/GaUcF#selection-1248.2-1262.1

 

Sorry, but i feel ashamed that this person was a major factor in the outcome of this event. We are all entitled to our opinions but there is something deeply disturbing when the opinion of such radical or yes, agrressively delusional people should have such an impact before there was even any attempt to reach a reasonable conclusion. And yes, cutting out the original content and replacing it with a bitter comment about what happened is hardly reasonable.

 

I'm ashamed of this event. Obsidian has lost a lot of respect i formerly held for them. Not all, of course, but i can no longer say i'm positive about any future content that might feel the cut of the scissor because a tiny group of extremists got their way.

[GrinningReaper659]

 

 

 

 

That is interesting to hear, though I generally don't like trusting third party mods due to their dubious nature and possible problem with future patches. I would though like to know if there would perhaps be an option not to have it removed officially? Idk, it just bugs me otherwise

 

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.

[Moira]

 

Oh man we would need a separate thread for the philosophy of this issue. Or maybe not, since there seems to be very little understanding to be gained (which is a pity - the underlying issues are both important and interesting). It baffles me that people very firmly believing in free speech also seem to consider the agency of people to be so fragile that, say, a single voice or even a mob howling in Twitter (not doxxing or swatting, just howling) nulls their views, choices and actions.

 

Well, only one of the best scientists of our time was reduced to tears at the moment of his greatest tryumph and gave a forced apology, forced by a mob howling on Twitter (not doxxing or swatting, just howling) not so long time ago for wearing a shirt made by his female friend. Still, they didn't burn him on the stake or put him in jail, so maybe we should let it slide... allowing any loud voices to psychologically destroy people who make scientific discoveries or works of art?

 

After all, what a landing on a comet or a great game is worth compared to somebody's feelings, right?

I sincerely don't know how your anecdote responds to what I wrote.

 

Now,I completely understand that a person would rather not be a target of a crapstorm. In light of this limerick controversy I think it was at best considerate and at worst understandable from Obsidian to ask the backer whether they want to address their text. And I respect the backer's decision to rewrite it; I would have respected it either way.

 

I personally am not a fan of mob howling. I vastly prefer dialogue and constructive criticism over it. But it also seems to me that in this case the Twitter comments are painted with way too much power and used to nullify decisions made by the backer who wrote the limericks by folks that are unhappy with his decision.

[Azradun]

I personally am not a fan of mob howling. I vastly prefer dialogue and constructive criticism over it. But it also seems to me that in this case the Twitter comments are painted with way too much power and used to nullify decisions made by the backer who wrote the limericks by folks that are unhappy with his decision.

 

 

He said it himself that he chose to rewrite the limerick to "spare Obsidian a PR nightmare". So it was the Twitter comments which practically forced his decision. Also, the Twitter comments caused Obsidian to ask the backer to do something with the limerick in the first place. Yet they're "painted with way too much power"? Ask Mary Sue and PC Gamer then, they both ran articles about those comments and how they influenced "the offensive content" to be gone.

[Moira]

 

I personally am not a fan of mob howling. I vastly prefer dialogue and constructive criticism over it. But it also seems to me that in this case the Twitter comments are painted with way too much power and used to nullify decisions made by the backer who wrote the limericks by folks that are unhappy with his decision.

 

 

He said it himself that he chose to rewrite the limerick to "spare Obsidian a PR nightmare". So it was the Twitter comments which practically forced his decision. Also, the Twitter comments caused Obsidian to ask the backer to do something with the limerick in the first place. Yet they're "painted with way too much power"? Ask Mary Sue and PC Gamer then, they both ran articles about those comments and how they influenced "the offensive content" to be gone.

 

I support free speech and part of that is that people are allowed to voice their opinions on matters, also when I disagree with them or even think that their complaint is full of it. If I thought that people generally are so weak that they can't be trusted to make decisions, I wouldn't support free speech. Expression needs to be protected, which means that rules (e.g. on these forums) are needed and dialogue ought to be encouraged, but influencing opinions is not inherently evil.

 

Even if those tweets influenced the outcome, even if the backer and Obsidian reacted to the controversy, I think it's outright insulting to reduce their choices to being slaves and victims to some tweets.

[Sanquiz]

It's funny see accounts made just for say that not going to support obsidian, accounts with only one post, the funny part is that even bad publicity is good publicity and that's good for Obsidian, this people are really helping the game and the company.

 

Thanks trolls for all the fuss.