Update 93: Patch 1.03 - Important Community Fixes

[Azradun]

 

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.

 

 

But it's not outright insulting that some loud and angry person on Twitter who yells "kill all men!" and her followers caused enough ruckus to remove content from the game and now are lauded in press? An interesting concept of "protecting free speech". Yes, it is I who reduce the choices of Obsidian and the backer to "being slaves and victims to some tweets", not the "perpetually offended" Internet party.

 

We should just all keep quiet and let the progressive extremists censor anything they want. Because it's offensive when we criticize the artists for caving in, but not problematic at all when they criticize their art and want it to change - right now! - immediately! Those extremists used their tactics for years, converting every culture and community by force of organized shaming campaigns. Comics, science-fiction, now video games. Because everyone just caved to them, taking the path of least resistance. Because companies fear controversy, thus giving one side all the ammo.

 

This is the truth. One person claiming offense can force a company like Obsidian into changing their content. You don't like it that it's "outright insulting to reduce their choices to being slaves and victims to some tweets"? Did they keep the original limerick or chose a PR-frendlier alternative?

[Azradun]

the funny part is that even bad publicity is good publicity and that's good for Obsidian

 

Absolutely - that's why Obsidian kept the original limerick and completely ignored the offended on Twitter.

[Kimuji]

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 think Obsidian did the right thing by getting in touch with Firedorn, he is the limerick's author so the twitter mob wasn't just after Obsidian, they were after him too. The tombstones epitaphs are not Obsidian's work, they can't treat it the same way as they do with the core game content. They can't ignore them like they'd ignore critics targetting their work. I think it would have been highly irresponsible of Obsidian to ignore the whole thing and let Firedorn deal with these people on his own, turning a blind eye on the critics would have been like denying him any right to answer them.

[Moira]

We should just all keep quiet and let the progressive extremists censor anything they want. Because it's offensive when we criticize the artists for caving in, but not problematic at all when they criticize their art and want it to change - right now! - immediately! Those extremists used their tactics for years, converting every culture and community by force of organized shaming campaigns. Comics, science-fiction, now video games. Because everyone just caved to them, taking the path of least resistance. Because companies fear controversy, thus giving one side all the ammo.

Weird thing that my comics, scifi and games continue to be full of good stuff. Well, some of them are rubbish, but no more so than they were ten or twenty years ago. What have your comics, scifi and games been converted into?

 

I'd like you to ponder on what your cause here is. Why isn't it okay to criticize a content perceived in a video game, if one disagrees with it? We criticize PoE here at the forums all the time. We demand Obsidian to change this and that, do these and those things better, and sometimes call them to be embarrassed of making it buggy/too easy/too difficult/whatever. I read that stuff here every day. Why is the critique on the limerick different?

[Azradun]

I think Obsidian did the right thing by getting in touch with Firedorn, he is the limerick's author so the twitter mob wasn't just after Obsidian, they were after him too. The tombstones epitaphs are not Obsidian's work, they can't treat it the same way as they do with the core game content. They can't ignore them like they'd ignore critics targetting their work. I think it would have been highly irresponsible of Obsidian to ignore the whole thing and let Firedorn deal with these people on his own, turning a blind eye on the critics would have been like denying him any right to answer them.

 

 

The epitaphs were made by backers who practically financed the game. Obsidian accepted their content. Yes, I can see no way of defending that content or the backer who wrote the limerick at all. Saying "he's one of the people who made this game possible" was simply out of the question.

 

At least they let Firedorn mock the offended, I give them that.

[Azradun]

 

We should just all keep quiet and let the progressive extremists censor anything they want. Because it's offensive when we criticize the artists for caving in, but not problematic at all when they criticize their art and want it to change - right now! - immediately! Those extremists used their tactics for years, converting every culture and community by force of organized shaming campaigns. Comics, science-fiction, now video games. Because everyone just caved to them, taking the path of least resistance. Because companies fear controversy, thus giving one side all the ammo.

Weird thing that my comics, scifi and games continue to be full of good stuff. Well, some of them are rubbish, but no more so than they were ten or twenty years ago. What have your comics, scifi and games been converted into?

 

I'd like you to ponder on what your cause here is. Why isn't it okay to criticize a content perceived in a video game, if one disagrees with it? We criticize PoE here at the forums all the time. We demand Obsidian to change this and that, do these and those things better, and sometimes call them to be embarrassed of making it buggy/too easy/too difficult/whatever. I read that stuff here every day. Why is the critique on the limerick different?

 

 

A good question. The answer is: ideology.

 

If you want to change something because you don't like it, it's ok. But if you just want to impose your beliefs on others, it is an entirely different scenario. For example: radical Christians hate magic. My own cousin didn't watch "The Witcher" on Polish TV because it was an anathema to him. Now, imagine my dear cousin petitioning Obsidian to remove all spells from the game.

 

Same is with radical feminists like "Killallmen" Erika who was offended by the joke. I spent my childhood under communist censorship, and believe me, it's was not an easy matter. Also this example about my cousin is no hyperbole - in Poland we actually have a law that can send to jail anyone "offending religious beliefs of others". A few artists stood trial for that in recent years, thanks to good old bishops of the Catholic church and their political fanboys. I find no real difference between authoritarians from the left and the right.

 

Also there is another difference. In America, as I am told, being offended could lead to a lawsuit. Not liking something, not so much. So the pressure on the company is of an entirely different kind.

 

Edit: like -> don't like

Edited April 8, 2015 by Azradun

[Dragoonlordz]

I'm transgendered and I have to say I do not care about the original poem or the replacement, I do not even care that Obsidian changed it. It seems to me both sides of the fence are making mountains out of molehills. Old joke was lame, new one is lame but both are just some lame text in a video game and hardly worth grabbing torches and pitchforks no matter which side your on. People offended by the lame text prior overreacted but likewise the people whining about the fact it was changed are overreacting, both sides acting like petulant children in the aftermath.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Dragoonlordz

[Moira]

A good question.

Thanks for answering! (Really.)

 

The answer is: ideology.

 

If you want to change something because you don't like it, it's ok. But if you just want to impose your beliefs on others, it is an entirely different scenario. For example: radical Christians hate magic. My own cousin didn't watch "The Witcher" on Polish TV because it was an anathema to him. Now, imagine my dear cousin petitioning Obsidian to remove all spells from the game.

Yup, I'm totally with you here. By which I mean that I understand your examples and I, as well, view with suspicion and distaste attempts at imposing beliefs on others.

 

Where it gets trickier in my book is when we get to hegemony and vulnerability. To put it extremely simply, in a situation where one thing is repeated enough and conflicting things do not exist (or are vilified or are in extreme minority), this thing becomes de facto truth. It's the truth of the hegemony. Such a truth carries weight and is stronger beyond itself because it has the enforcement of the hegemony behind it. Such truths are arduous to contest - and sometimes they well and truly need to be contested - because of this, and such efforts may seem quite threatening both to those to whom the hegemony is accepted reality and those who are moderate and don't like strife. Hegemony is powerful, and when threatened, can cause grave harm. So that there can be freedom of speech, it may be necessary to protect the vulnerable speakers against the powerful that might harm them.

 

Now, would this limerick constitute such an "artefact" of a truth of the hegemony that it's okay to attack it in Twitter and beyond and demand its unraveling? Many on these forums think not, many think yes. I'm personally not very invested in whether the limerick was offensive or not. I can afford not to be invested because I'm privileged; it doesn't affect my life or my peace of mind one way or another. But I'm not so privileged that I wouldn't know that currently people who express gender and/or sexuality in non-majority ways are in real life under very real threat all the time. Here's the vulnerability part in this case, non-majority gender and sexuality expressions are vulnerable and under threat.

 

Here's my analysis. Now that the limerick was rewritten, the original problematic content, whether it was offensive or not, is no longer an issue and the new content pokes fun at people who take (possibly undue) offense (possibly to an undue degree). Nothing in the game's story was touched or censored. The change also was so small and the way it was handled so reasonable that I don't see any reason to interpret it as a gateway into a future of any noteworthy content censoring. Thus I feel that the outcome is on the side of good. From freedom-philosophical point of view I think it's not only important to allow people to have an opinion but also the freedom to change their mind. And that's why I think it's not cool to reduce the limerick writing backer's choice into caving under pressure.

 

Azradun (and others), we can agree to disagree about this if that's the case. Thanks for having the conversation, that's awesome.

[Bryy]

At least they let Firedorn mock the offended, I give them that.

I see it as not mocking, but rather, it's an inoffensive change.

 

But it's very clear by now that you and others don't care about facts. It was all the evil SJWs fault. They forced Firedom to change the poem. It can't possibly be be that he, you know, wanted to. Obsidian must hate "SJWs", it can't possibly be that the new poem is tame.

 

If you have to distort reality in order to make yourself feel secure in your worldview, that's pretty sad, dude. 

Edited April 8, 2015 by Bryy

[Azradun]

 

A good question.

Thanks for answering! (Really.)

 

I can afford not to be invested because I'm privileged; it doesn't affect my life or my peace of mind one way or another. But I'm not so privileged that I wouldn't know that currently people who express gender and/or sexuality in non-majority ways are in real life under very real threat all the time. Here's the vulnerability part in this case, non-majority gender and sexuality expressions are vulnerable and under threat.

 

They are so very vulnerable and under threat that they write "kill all men" and "put them in concentration camps" on Twitter. Look up Erika's tweets (the offended person). That's the sign of vulnerability all right - openly advocating for killing the oppressors and receiving no punishment (even Twiiter didn't block her). But what do I know about oppression, I've been but beaten at work once some years ago. I drink my daily medications with privilege.

 

Edit: also thank you for a civilized conversation.

 

Edit2: debating is always good when it's done with mutual respect. A good discussion adressing arguments and not based on personal attacks enriches everyone involved.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Azradun

[Azradun]

 

If you have to distort reality in order to make yourself feel secure in your worldview, that's pretty sad, dude. 

 

 

Well, I've seen him on Twitter saying that he wouldn't change the poem if not of the entire situation, so I'm pretty sure I'm not deluding myself. And my worldview changes periodically - depending on which side is currently most obnoxious and self-righteous. Right now it's the SJWs.

 

Anyway, thank you all for an interesting conversation (Bryy and Moira both). By the way, the game *is* good (bought it anyway). Have a pleasant day or night depending on the timezone.

[Moira]

 

I can afford not to be invested because I'm privileged; it doesn't affect my life or my peace of mind one way or another. But I'm not so privileged that I wouldn't know that currently people who express gender and/or sexuality in non-majority ways are in real life under very real threat all the time. Here's the vulnerability part in this case, non-majority gender and sexuality expressions are vulnerable and under threat.

 

They are so very vulnerable and under threat that they write "kill all men" and "put them in concentration camps" on Twitter. Look up Erika's tweets (the offended person). That's the sign of vulnerability all right - openly advocating for killing the oppressors and receiving no punishment (even Twiiter didn't block her). But what do I know about oppression, I've been but beaten at work once some years ago. I drink my daily medications with privilege.

 

 

I didn't mean Erika (I know nothing of them except that I don't like their tweets), I meant the people who suffer from the vilifying of expressing gender and/or sexuality in non-majority ways. In this case many homosexuals and transgender people. (And for the record, I don't think the oppression they suffer from makes anyone else's suffering less important.) That said, vulnerability leads to fear, fear leads to anger, anger may lead to radicalism... so maybe Erika's crazy tweets grow from being oppressed? But it's beside the point, the important points in my opinion are: 1) did the original limerick contribute to vilifying of expressing gender and/or sexuality in non-majority ways, 2) did the changing of the limerick oppose vilifying of expressing gender and/or sexuality in non-majority ways, and 3) was the changing of the limerick a violation against freedom of expression. I argue that 1) possibly (very much depends on interpretation and can be argued either way), 2) maybe kinda; mainly it sidesteps the original controversy but I think it's also a message that there was no intention of vilifying, and there's some merit in such a message, 3) if it was, it was very minor since no story content was touched and the backer was approached respectfully by Obsidian.

 

Edit2: debating is always good when it's done with mutual respect. A good discussion adressing arguments and not based on personal attacks enriches everyone involved.

 

Absolutely! 

[yaggaz]

"You shouldn't be hindered from playing the game as we have made sure that all physical copies of the game were also given a digital copy."

 

Unless of course a major selling point for Champion was to give the Digital Key away to a friend, like YOU GUYS pointed out in the description, we are quite hindered from playing.

[yaggaz]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

SJW anger

 

[Bryy]

 

 

If you have to distort reality in order to make yourself feel secure in your worldview, that's pretty sad, dude. 

 

 

Well, I've seen him on Twitter saying that he wouldn't change the poem if not of the entire situation

Well, yeah. 

 

But correlation is not the same as causation. If I did something and it caused bad stuff to happen, I'd fix it, too. If it didn't, I wouldn't.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Bryy

[slopesandsam]

Several years ago, Intel released this ad.  Before it was released they realised it was bad and tried to pull it, but one media outlet still published it.

 

The reason I mention this particular ad is because it seems like an apt comparison to the limerick situation.  Why?  Well, because any reasonable person can look at that ad and see what Intel intended it to mean: the runners represent the fast processors, which are reading to spring into action for your business.  It's even believable that it might have been vetted by a handful of people who didn't realise it was problematic (although someone at Intel eventually did, given that they tried to pull the ad before it was published), because all they saw was the intended message, and weren't thinking about any other connotations.

 

However, even if you don't notice it at first, once it's pointed out to you that this is a picture of six black men in poses that look very much like they're bowing down to one white man, the racial connotations of the ad become obvious - prominent even.

 

If you could somehow guarantee that the people who made this ad, and everyone who ever saw it, remained ignorant of the unintended racial connotations, you would have grounds to argue that the ad is harmless - because it would be.  But you can never guarantee something like that - and, indeed, as soon as the ad was published a whole lot of people immediately pointed out the racial connotations.

 

And so here is the thing: Once you become aware of the racial connotations of the ad, standing by it, arguing that it's harmless, that it should be taken as it was intended and not as it's been interpreted, is no longer a position that a reasonable person can take.  Claiming that the ad is okay is, at best, claiming that the racial connotations just don't matter, and at worst, saying that you endorse the racial connotations.  Knowing about the racial connotations makes it morally impossible to simply shrug them off.

 

The reason this seems so much more clear-cut than the limerick issue is because we have all grown up in a society that abhors racial intolerance.  We've been conditioned by a lifetime of input from both people we know and all kinds of media to be sensitive to racial issues.  We have not, on the other hand, grown up in a society that abhors intolerance towards homosexuality or the transgendered - but that's starting to change now.

 

And so whether the problematic nature of the limerick was pointed out by someone on twitter or says that all men should be killed, or a howling internet mob, or one person working at Obsidian who said "Um, hey, maybe we shouldn't put this in our game", the point is that once you know about it, you can no longer defend it without implicitly endorsing it.

 

Obsidian's version of what happened is almost certainly true: the content wasn't vetted properly, and they've now corrected their mistake.  But even if that isn't true, that doesn't mean that Obsidian caved.  What it means is that someone pointed out why the limerick was problematic, and once Obsidian knew and understood this, they took the moral path.

 

There is no conspiracy theory.  This movement isn't being driven by a howling mob of crazies (even if that howling mob actually exists).  It's a much larger and broader movement than that.  Society is changing, that's all.

[Azradun]

And so whether the problematic nature of the limerick was pointed out by someone on twitter or says that all men should be killed, or a howling internet mob, or one person working at Obsidian who said "Um, hey, maybe we shouldn't put this in our game", the point is that once you know about it, you can no longer defend it without implicitly endorsing it.

 

(...)

 

Obsidian's version of what happened is almost certainly true: the content wasn't vetted properly, and they've now corrected their mistake.  But even if that isn't true, that doesn't mean that Obsidian caved.  What it means is that someone pointed out why the limerick was problematic, and once Obsidian knew and understood this, they took the moral path.

 

There is no conspiracy theory.  This movement isn't being driven by a howling mob of crazies (even if that howling mob actually exists).  It's a much larger and broader movement than that.  Society is changing, that's all.

 

"Moral path", "implicitly endorsing it", "broader movement", "society is changing". No. Intel's ad is a commercial, game and limerick are art. First, this is only your American society, we in Poland didn't keep black slaves or kill Indians, so I give nothing about your racial connotations. Stop pushing your political agenda in internationally released computer games. Second, censoring "problematic" content in art won't lead to anything good.

 

"What it means is that someone pointed out why the limerick was problematic, and once Obsidian knew and understood this, they took the moral path." And if they didn't, they would automatically become immoral, and so acceptable target to anything, right? If this "immorality" is so contagious, then you are supporting genocide and mass murder by siding with Erika Victorious ("kill all men", "put them in concentration camps"). But of course sexism against men isn't a thing, because "sexism = prejudice + power" according to McIntosh and Sarkeesian, wink wink?

[Azradun]

But correlation is not the same as causation. If I did something and it caused bad stuff to happen, I'd fix it, too. If it didn't, I wouldn't.

 

 

He didn't consider it a bad thing until it was forced upon him.

[Azradun]

 

 

I can afford not to be invested because I'm privileged; it doesn't affect my life or my peace of mind one way or another. But I'm not so privileged that I wouldn't know that currently people who express gender and/or sexuality in non-majority ways are in real life under very real threat all the time. Here's the vulnerability part in this case, non-majority gender and sexuality expressions are vulnerable and under threat.

 

They are so very vulnerable and under threat that they write "kill all men" and "put them in concentration camps" on Twitter. Look up Erika's tweets (the offended person). That's the sign of vulnerability all right - openly advocating for killing the oppressors and receiving no punishment (even Twiiter didn't block her). But what do I know about oppression, I've been but beaten at work once some years ago. I drink my daily medications with privilege.

 

 

I didn't mean Erika (I know nothing of them except that I don't like their tweets), I meant the people who suffer from the vilifying of expressing gender and/or sexuality in non-majority ways. In this case many homosexuals and transgender people. (And for the record, I don't think the oppression they suffer from makes anyone else's suffering less important.) That said, vulnerability leads to fear, fear leads to anger, anger may lead to radicalism... so maybe Erika's crazy tweets grow from being oppressed? But it's beside the point, the important points in my opinion are: 1) did the original limerick contribute to vilifying of expressing gender and/or sexuality in non-majority ways, 2) did the changing of the limerick oppose vilifying of expressing gender and/or sexuality in non-majority ways, and 3) was the changing of the limerick a violation against freedom of expression. I argue that 1) possibly (very much depends on interpretation and can be argued either way), 2) maybe kinda; mainly it sidesteps the original controversy but I think it's also a message that there was no intention of vilifying, and there's some merit in such a message, 3) if it was, it was very minor since no story content was touched and the backer was approached respectfully by Obsidian.

 

I am more oppressed by gay people than oppressing them - I was fired once by a gay boss because he openly favourited his lover over me in work (said lover could just refuse to do projects and still get his salary). Does that mean I get the same kind of benefit of the doubt as Erika does? Can I openly advocate mass murder and concentration camps for gay people on Twitter, getting sympathy at the same time, just because I was "oppressed" ("so maybe Erika's crazy tweets grow from being oppressed?")? No, of course not. Because *being oppressed doesn't exempt you from consequences of being evil*. Which is a truth many, many progressives seem to be blind to. Life isn't one-dimensional and can't be distilled just to the false dichotomy of "privilege-oppression".

 

Ad 1) No, it didn't.

 

Ad 2) Latest scientific long-term study proved that games don't perpetuate sexist stereotypes - so no, it didn't.

 

Ad 3) Slow boiling of the frog. "This content was so minor, we could safely censor it and nothing of value was lost". Where this slippery slope will end? No.

 

 

The bottom line is: art should not be forced to become the vessel for ideology or instrument of social change. Want your progressive games? Make them, don't change existing ones to conform to your worldview.

[Moira]

Latest scientific long-term study proved that games don't perpetuate sexist stereotypes.

Cool, I'd love to look into it. Can you give me a pointer to the source?

[b0rsuk]

Linux version from GOG, I patched by downloading the new version, renaming old Pillars of Eternity directory to something else, unpacking the new version, and running ./start.sh in the new directory. I didn't move any savegames manually.

 

BUG in 1.03: Hearth Harvest, an unique hatchet found on a corpse on west edge of Wooden Plains, looks quite silly. Normally, weapon images in inventory are small and become enlarged when you click on them (pick them up to place in another inventory slot). After loading my game in 1.03, Hearth Harvest is enlarged ALL THE TME. It looks exactly the same when you're transferring it to another slot as when it's lying somewhere in your inventory.

 

BUGS still in 1.03:

Item descriptions still have lines which read like this:

Light Armo

Heavy Armo

 

'r' is missing on the end.

[Bryy]

 

But correlation is not the same as causation. If I did something and it caused bad stuff to happen, I'd fix it, too. If it didn't, I wouldn't.

 

 

He didn't consider it a bad thing until it was forced upon him.

 

But he still changed it. That's my entire point. You're putting the "forced" into it to continue going along your own view of events. Would Obsidian have asked him? Yes. Did Obsidian force him to rewrite it into what he did? No. That was his choice.

 

Az, he even came on to this forum and said what happened. He went on Twitter. And yet you're still saying "nu-uh". 

Edited April 9, 2015 by Bryy

[Serdan]

I see that the bigots are still at it.

[Azradun]

 

Latest scientific long-term study proved that games don't perpetuate sexist stereotypes.

Cool, I'd love to look into it. Can you give me a pointer to the source?

 

 

Here you are:

 

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2014.0492

 

An extract from the abstract:

 

"Enlisting a 3 year longitudinal design, the present study assessed the relationship between video game use and sexist attitudes, using data from a representative sample of German players aged 14 and older (N=824). Controlling for age and education, it was found that sexist attitudes—measured with a brief scale assessing beliefs about gender roles in society—were not related to the amount of daily video game use or preference for specific genres for both female and male players. Implications for research on sexism in video games and cultivation effects of video games in general are discussed."

 

Edit: A bit more detailed explanation of the methodologies here: http://techraptor.net/content/study-finds-no-link-sexism-gaming

Edited April 9, 2015 by Azradun

[Azradun]

 

But he still changed it. That's my entire point. You're putting the "forced" into it to continue going along your own view of events. Would Obsidian have asked him? Yes. Did Obsidian force him to rewrite it into what he did? No. That was his choice.

Az, he even came on to this forum and said what happened. He went on Twitter. And yet you're still saying "nu-uh". 

 

 

Then we'll just have to agree that we disagree, and leave it at that. You are entitled to your opinion on this whole debacle, and I am entitled to mine.