Feargus Urquhart quote on addressing hate in games

[evensong]

Another obvious parallel in PoE to the real world is the similarities between animancy and genetic modification; questions of whether unrestrained intellectual curiosity is an inherently good thing, whether or not traditional morals are useful as a bounding tool for it, tampering with things we don't understand that can have catastrophic consequences, and so on. See also: weapons of mass destruction, The Godhammer etc., there's a million things to look at here.

 

More fundamentally, there HAS to be a huge overlap between any fictional universe we're supposed to relate to, and our own - how do you relate to a moral conflict if you have no conception of what right and wrong means in the society where the conflict takes place?

 

The alternative would be a completely unrelatable society, which could probably make the basis of Umberto Eco's worst short story yet.

Edited April 10, 2015 by evensong

[ChipMHazard]

 

"It was something we, not anybody, had read"

 

I call bull**** on that. Someone obviously read it as someone obviously wrote it into the game.

 

Ctrl-C.

 

Ctrl-V.

 

500-odd times.

 

And you think it's hard to believe that somebody missed one?

 

 

Firstly I do find it harder to believe that just one made it through. It seems to be a rather convenient truth, given the situation. 

Secondly someone still read it, although it is certainly possible that the person [some poor intern?] just mindlessly copied the text from the backers into the game. 

 

If Firedorn's poem wasn't vetted then I think it would be far more reasonable to assume that others also weren't vetted, given that they could just have been copying them into the game after a while without paying much attention to the content. The other memorials simply haven't given rise to any complaints, beyond them being... Not very lore friendly. 

Edited April 10, 2015 by ChipMHazard

[gkathellar]

All I know is that if I were putting those memorials in, my brain would turn off at a certain point and I would probably start browsing forums whenever my bosses weren't looking.

 

The alternative would be a completely unrelatable society,

 

... Canada?

Edited April 10, 2015 by gkathellar

[Ichthyic]

roflmao.

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[Emptiness]

Ctrl-C.

 

Ctrl-V.

 

 

Secondly someone still read it, although it is certainly possible that the person [some poor intern?] just mindlessly copied the text from the backers into the game. 

 

I seem to recall one of the memorials being in an foreign script...Korean, I'm guessing, but I'm no expert on Southeast Asian languages.  That one at least probably took more effort to get into the game than a simple copy-paste.

 

God help us all if anyone ever figures out what that one says...

Edited April 11, 2015 by Emptiness

[MotelOK]

I can sympathize with wanting to address serious issues, but since Feargus is a businessman I can't understand why he would want to take on the huge risk discussing these issues. What's the payoff? You're far more likely to trigger one of the moon people on twitter and bring bad publicity to your product than you are to win an award for your content.

I wouldn't risk it, but I don't own a company like Mr. Urquhart. Just can't understand it.

[Bryy]

More thread madness.

 

Much too much seriousness for a video game set in a fantasy setting that has no parallels to our society, etc.

 

I mean...the game is talking about manipulating souls here.  At that point, all morality goes out the window.  You can't put the cat back into the bag once it is out - so...

 

Just have fun.

 

Leave morality issues for RL.

Did you even read the article?

 

"It was something we, not anybody, had read"

 

I call bull**** on that. Someone obviously read it as someone obviously wrote it into the game.

 

"We can tal about hate, and we can explore hate, but that we don't promote hate is the key thing in the end"

 

Aye, indeed. But what does that have to do with the poem? Was he insinuating that Firedorn's poem was promoting hatred towards a group of people? Well, I guess it did promote hatred towards silly bigots whom think running off a cliff is a rational way of handling an akward situation. 

You know, there's really no point in debating whether or not he is right or wrong in your personal opinion. It's his game. He can do what he wants, and you don't have to agree with it just because it is Obsidian Entertainment. You don't need to justify why someone you like doesn't think like you. You don't need to agree with him in order to like his product.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Bryy

[gkathellar]

I can sympathize with wanting to address serious issues, but since Feargus is a businessman I can't understand why he would want to take on the huge risk discussing these issues. What's the payoff? You're far more likely to trigger one of the moon people on twitter and bring bad publicity to your product than you are to win an award for your content.

I wouldn't risk it, but I don't own a company like Mr. Urquhart. Just can't understand it.

 

Principles?

 

... principles before principals, yo.

[MotelOK]

 

I can sympathize with wanting to address serious issues, but since Feargus is a businessman I can't understand why he would want to take on the huge risk discussing these issues. What's the payoff? You're far more likely to trigger one of the moon people on twitter and bring bad publicity to your product than you are to win an award for your content.

I wouldn't risk it, but I don't own a company like Mr. Urquhart. Just can't understand it.

 

Principles?

 

... principles before principals, yo.

 

Principles don't pay bills.

[Taritu]

Principles often pay bills. If people get to know you have no principles they stop doing business with you.

 

As for killing in PoE, I don't recall killing anyone in the game who didn't try to kill me.  Yes, you can, just like IRL, but you don't have to.

 

People really have no idea how violent Europe was before the modern era. Let's start with something simple: there were virtually no police, and large cities were particularly violent, while bandits and pirates were a routine problem for travelers.

[gkathellar]

Principles don't pay bills.

 

Paying bills is not the only motivation people have in life. Risk/Reward calculations that are designed for human beings but which fail to include self-actualization as a legitimate reward (and alienation as a risk) are inherently flawed, because self-actualization and alienation are what most people actually care about. Sometimes you have to pay bills to pursue other motivations, but getting interviewed by Polygon is not about to put Obsidian under.

[Kimuji]

I'm glad twitter didn't exist when Fallout 2 came out. I can't imagine the mess it would have been.

[sparklecat]

 

 

I can sympathize with wanting to address serious issues, but since Feargus is a businessman I can't understand why he would want to take on the huge risk discussing these issues. What's the payoff? You're far more likely to trigger one of the moon people on twitter and bring bad publicity to your product than you are to win an award for your content.

I wouldn't risk it, but I don't own a company like Mr. Urquhart. Just can't understand it.

 

Principles?

 

... principles before principals, yo.

 

Principles don't pay bills.

 

Kickstarter apparently does.

[Katarack21]

Feargus isn't *just* a business man. His field of business is a creative field--he is in many ways an artist as well. He has to balance his business savy with his artistic sense and desires.

[ChipMHazard]

You know, there's really no point in debating whether or not he is right or wrong in your personal opinion. It's his game. He can do what he wants, and you don't have to agree with it just because it is Obsidian Entertainment. You don't need to justify why someone you like doesn't think like you. You don't need to agree with him in order to like his product.

 

You know, there is every reason to debate whether or not I think he's telling the actual truth or not. Mainly because I think debates should almost always be welcomed. 

Aye I have no control over his descision making, nor would I want to. I however fail to see what your point is, but you're right in one respect. I won't take his word for it simply because he is the CEO, same as I didn't take Obsidian's official statement at face value.  

 

The rest of your post* doesn't make much sense to me, as in I don't really understand what you're referring to. Who's the "you" in your statement?

 

*You don't need to justify why someone you like doesn't think like you. You don't need to agree with him in order to like his product.

Edited April 11, 2015 by ChipMHazard

[RedSocialKnight]

Here again is the topic quote from Feargus Urquhart.

 

Is it about language? Yes. But it’s not specifically about language. It’s about talking about things that adults talk about. They talk about where are they going in life. They talk about — in the case of Eternity — about souls and a lot about what happens with children that are being born without souls.

 

Mature to us ... is talking about things that matter, that are difficult, that are worth talking about with adults.

 

I think the question, ultimately, is it’s all coming down to hate, right? Is hate a topic that is being explored in a game, or is the game saying something hateful about someone? And so I think that’s the line.

 

I think for any of us, whether we’re making a movie, or if we’re making a comic book, or we’re writing a novel, or we’re making a game it’s [a matter of] are we exploring the subject in a way that makes people think, or are we saying something hateful through it. And if there’s any red line, that’s the red line for me.

 

We can talk about hate, and we can explore hate, but that we don’t promote hate is the key thing in the end.

 

 

[Prideaux]

Weirdly incoherent, since soulless children have nothing at all to do with hate speech, nor are they something adults sit around and chat about as if it is a concept that matters.

 

This game actually really fails at talking about anything that matters, because the story is centered on pure fantasy concepts that don't relate to the real world.  So if exploring 'things that matter' was actually a goal, the game fails utterly.  On the other hand, if its about providing ~40 hours of amusing (but empty) fantasy violence, then it is pretty successful.

 

After reading the Lore books and playing the game, there clearly are many things drawn from the real world. But they are stuck on a pedestal and use to beat their audience up, like typical US style story telling. I have read a few people who found the discrimation that appears in the game made them realise something about their own behaviour. I found that the whole soulless kids thing quite interesting.

 

 

Just because it means nothing to you, that doesnt mean you cant respect the opinions of those it does. I dont need to agree with every word he said, but I dont stand in judgement (or hate) and make myself feel morally superior by putting others peoples hard work down to makes myself seem more important.

 

Its a fine line to make people question hate, intolrance etc, through telling those tales, than actually being intolrant and hateful.

[Nerdwing]

Nice gender identity ya got there...

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

~NOTTTTTT!~

[HozzM]

Bottomline for me is that it was a joke.  If a joke offends you, thats on you.  Go away and consume some content that does not offend you.

 

Obsidian did the wrong thing by editing the joke.  

[Prime-Mover]

Bottomline for me is that it was a joke.  If a joke offends you, thats on you.  Go away and consume some content that does not offend you.

 

Obsidian did the wrong thing by editing the joke.  

Wait, if I'm allowed to consume some other content if it offends me, why is Obsidian then not allowed to change the content if it offends them?

[Bryy]

It's just amazing to me that we have a topic to discuss if Obsidian's president was in the right to do something regarding his own product.

[OchreJelly]

This whole thing is basically someone blowing out of proportion their own misunderstanding of something, then some other people reacting out of proportion, which led to people reacting even more out of proportion in response, and then finally we end up here with a blown out of proportion response to the reaction of a reaction to a reaction.

[Bryy]

I mean, we're not talking about nazi stuff or child porn on one of their computers or something that would warrant actual, real discussion of a company or a person (because, let's face it, this thread is about attacking a person at this point). Say, like Chik-Fil-A, or Bank of America, or anti-vaxxers, or even Orson Scott Card's stance on homosexuals. You know, something that actually matters.

 

Let me say that again: something that actually matters. 

 

The fact that some people feel so friggin' strongly about something that was already resolved peacefully and with consent from both parties as to make posts about it trying to villify others or distort reality so that their views don't collide is stupid. It's plain stupid. To act like Obsidian somehow gave up their morals because of a few lines of trivial, inconsequential text is stupid. To put that at the level of censorship of art and denying free speech is stupid. To imply that the next step is a dystopian society or even oppression of social groups is stupid. 

 

If your line in the sand is a user-made poem that Obsidian themselves wanted changed and was changed by the original backer... if that's your line in the sand... then you'll have a real hard time when actual socio-political elements rear their heads in situations other than a video game.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Bryy

[ChipMHazard]

If that's the kind of argument you want to present... Okay, so why was the joke a big deal then? Why was a person being offended by it? Since that kind of oppression is nothing compared to what we've seen in other parts of history... People have been killed because of their beliefs, ancestry and how they were born. The original complainer didn't face anything even remotely close to this level of oppression. So by your logic it shouldn't matter, since it doesn't matter. One should never resort to fallacy of relative privation.

 

Why are we discussing anything regarding the game? Why is there even a forum for anything but reporting technical issues? Since anything else wouldn't be important when compared to the horrors that have been inflicted upon man throughout the ages, the injustices we see around the world etc.

 

Do you truly not understand how silly this kind of deflection is? You shouldn't debate this because there are more important issues to debate? Aye there are more "important" subjects to discuss and you're more than welcome to go to other forums and debate them there. Anything that has to do with Obsidian and Pillars of Eternity should be open to debate and this forum is the place to have such debates. 

 

The fact that some people feel so friggin' strongly about something that was already resolved peacefully and with consent from both parties as to make posts about it trying to villify others or distort reality so that their views don't collide is stupid. It's plain stupid. To act like Obsidian somehow gave up their morals because of a few lines of trivial, inconsequential text is stupid. To put that at the level of censorship of art and denying free speech is stupid. To imply that the next step is a dystopian society or even oppression of social groups is stupid. 

 

You know what's also stupid? Hyperbolizing

 

If your line in the sand is a user-made poem that Obsidian themselves wanted changed and was changed by the original backer... if that's your line in the sand... then you'll have a real hard time when actual socio-political elements rear their heads in situations other than a video game.

 

Ah, the good old "If this is the hill you want to die on" nonsense. This is not the last stand, this is just another example of the power of Twitter based social outrage possibly affecting a change that does nothing but damage the cause it was set out to help. I am perfectly able to discern video games from reality, something which apparently the original complainer has problems with.

This is also just me debating whether or not we should believe Obsidian's statements regarding this. Being sceptical isn't a bad thing. Discussing issues such as this shouldn't be discouraged simply because they don't deal with more far reaching issues. 

Obsidian didn't invite this particular social debate/outrage, but it found them anyway. As such I think it's completely fine to debate it. 

Edited April 11, 2015 by ChipMHazard

[Bryy]

Hyperbole is stupid, which is why I said it was.

 

Feargus actually had to publicly state TWICE why Obsidian changed the poem. So basically, at this point, you're arguing against the point that Obsidian should not be anti-hate speech. Literally, no matter how you cut it, Feargus said Obsidian is anti-hate, so what exactly do you think you are arguing against here other than that ideaology? That it wasn't hate speech? That's irrelevant, because they obviously thought it was.