Obsidian Entertainment Caves to a Vocal Minority: Controversial Backer Tombstone Changed in Pillars - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47453875]It's almost as though people are "pressuring" "social justice warriors" to "cave to pressure" and change their minds. But don't worry, I will not allow myself to be "censored".[/QUOTE] Not at all. Make all the games you want, do all the things you want, but if for instance, you change something I contributed to or enjoyed but you yourself aren't intending on playing, enjoying, or being around that game, why should you get to change it? Why does your voice get to be louder than mine? I'm not complaining you have one, I'm complaining when you're louder than me for no reason. But no, go ahead, call that hypocrisy. I don't want anyones mind forcefully changed, I don't want anyone to be made to change their work if they don't want to due to media pressures, I don't want anyone to believe their outrage gets to outweigh everyone elses voices too. When you say "Anyone can complain" and then follow that up with "Except the people I deem as hypocrites" you aren't really saying everyone gets a voice. I want you to have a voice, I want people who share that mindset to go make their own games, make their own things and if they can do it well then power to them.

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;47453903]I'm not saying debates are popularity contests in the slightest. I for one simply enjoy rating a person's post based upon what I think they have said. But sure dude. Lets just all stop rating posts and all get into hour long internet debates when we either agree, disagree, think something is useful, think something is dumb, think someone won at something... etc etc.[/QUOTE] Doesn't the mere existence of gamergate/anti-gamergate prove that there are a lot of people willing to debate these things? If you don't want to debate why even participate in one?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47453892]Debates aren't popularity contests so using ratings in debates is basically meaningless anyway.[/QUOTE] this isn't a debate either lol

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47453905]Not at all. Make all the games you want, do all the things you want, but if for instance, you change something I contributed to or enjoyed but you yourself aren't intending on playing, enjoying, or being around that game, why should you get to change it? Why does your voice get to be louder than mine? I'm not complaining you have one, I'm complaining when you're louder than me for no reason. But no, go ahead, call that hypocrisy. I don't want anyones mind forcefully changed, I don't want anyone to be made to change their work if they don't want to due to media pressures, I don't want anyone to believe their outrage gets to outweigh everyone elses voices too. When you say "Anyone can complain" and then follow that up with "Except the people I deem as hypocrites" you aren't really saying everyone gets a voice. I want you to have a voice, I want people who share that mindset to go make their own games, make their own things and if they can do it well then power to them.[/QUOTE] Your whole post falls straight back into the thing I've been talking about this whole time - you're assuming that my disagreement with and distaste of certain viewpoints means that I want to prevent them from existing. I don't want to be louder than you. I'm NOT louder than you. I'm not trying to forcibly change your mind, it's your decision whether you'll change it or not after reading my posts. Just as it was Obsidian's choice. [b]Nobody is trying to make you stop talking![/b] This is actually becoming infuriating, you keep doing this.

[QUOTE=Lium;47453591]Here lies Firedorn, a hero for sure Until SJWs appeared with [B]bottoms so sore[/B] They ranted and raved, it was a great shame Cause it was only a joke in a video game[/QUOTE] "Literally homophobic I am offended incredibly shut down Obsidian" Wouldn't put it past them if that ended up being put in in some way.

Funnily enough, as a human, I'm well aware that people can be offended by things. 4 out of 5 humans (if you read into certain psychopathic study groups) often are by certain things. However what categorizes someone (in my book) as a SJW is a very thin-skin regarding things that the vast majority of people would not find offensive at all. Look at this game, you don't have to read the tombstones and 99% of people didn't give any shits about the poem or interpreted it in a different manner. It was this 1% of people (who frankly need to harden the fuck up and realize that part of being mature is being able to handle being offended) who caused them to change it. The fact of the matter is that this 1% of people now focus their efforts in order to effect their SJW goals. In the past if a few people said 'I'm offended' then no-one would really care. GG rightfully believes that people such as this pursue an agenda together because if they didn't then they wouldn't get the results they do.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47453892] "I'm upset by this" is a completely rational opinion to have on things, and something that has existed long before gamergate appeared and will continue existing long after. It's only recently that people have begun believing (widespread) that the mere existence of these viewpoints is an attempt to suppress them.[/QUOTE] It's really not recent. I don't think it's recent, and at the very least it's not recent on my end. There's been trends of this nature for a while, it's not like it's the end of the world. Offense at small things is common place and has been for years, it's been used to fight all sorts of battles in society and sure video games isn't a big field but why not at least speak up when I see ridiculous things like a motion by someone who unironically tweets #killallmen. [editline]3rd April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;47453924]Your whole post falls straight back into the thing I've been talking about this whole time - you're assuming that my disagreement with and distaste of certain viewpoints means that I want to prevent them from existing. I don't want to be louder than you. I'm NOT louder than you. I'm not trying to forcibly change your mind, it's your decision whether you'll change it or not after reading my posts. Just as it was Obsidian's choice. [b]Nobody is trying to make you stop talking![/b] This is actually becoming infuriating, you keep doing this.[/QUOTE] I'm not speaking about you. I'm speaking about the people who actually got something changed to suit them.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47453911]Doesn't the mere existence of gamergate/anti-gamergate prove that there are a lot of people willing to debate these things? If you don't want to debate why even participate in one?[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that I don't want to debate with you. I'm simply saying that those who don't want to or don't have the time to should be free to rate posts as they see fit (which then illustrates that the SJW zealots who argue a certain way are the minority). You're just salty because it isn't the other way around and people don't dumb posts who disagree with you.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47453924]Your whole post falls straight back into the thing I've been talking about this whole time - you're assuming that my disagreement with and distaste of certain viewpoints means that I want to prevent them from existing. I don't want to be louder than you. I'm NOT louder than you. I'm not trying to forcibly change your mind, it's your decision whether you'll change it or not after reading my posts. Just as it was Obsidian's choice. [b]Nobody is trying to make you stop talking![/b] This is actually becoming infuriating, you keep doing this.[/QUOTE] you personally may not be pressuring anyone to change anything but that doesn't mean no one else is doing that [editline]3rd April 2015[/editline] which other people are, that is undeniable

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47453937] I'm not speaking about you. I'm speaking about the people who actually got something changed to suit them.[/QUOTE] Why would you think differently of their tweets if Obsidian didn't change anything? The tweets would have been the same.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47453924]Just as it was Obsidian's choice [to keep the limerick in or cave to pressure][/QUOTE] Yeah dude, they were totally giving them a choice here. If Obsidian said 'absolutely not, we will not be removing this poem' that would've been respected as their choice by the peeps campaigning for its removal. No, it wouldn't have. The shitfit would have intensified. SJWs don't give people choices, they throw a tantrum until they get what they want.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47453829]Remember how I said I'm fine with both sides complaining all they want? What I'm not fine with is the blatant hypocrisy exhibited by people complaining about the removal. [/QUOTE] I mean you call out against hypocrisy here which I am always for, but you're falsely accusing people of that hypocrisy in my opinion, at least on my end and you're using that false hypocrisy to say that we're wrong. You're not censoring us sure but you're not really addressing some of the concerns voiced either.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47453950]you personally may not be pressuring anyone to change anything but that doesn't mean no one else is doing that [editline]3rd April 2015[/editline] which other people are, that is undeniable[/QUOTE] Well to some degree everyone wants people who disagree with them to change their mind and the whole purpose of arguing is to try and convince them to do so. But the choice to not change is always available and as long as that's the case nobody's freedom of expression is being violated.

I think the joke should have stayed, but it's Obsidian's right to change it if they want, and it's not anything big enough to care that much about.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47453957]Why would you think differently of their tweets if Obsidian didn't change anything? The tweets would have been the same.[/QUOTE] We wouldn't think differently about them all. We'd simply be applauding Obsidian for having balls enough to stand up to a group of perpetually offended people (98.9% of whom probably won't even give a shit a few weeks from now that it is changed).

[QUOTE=hrak;47453961]Yeah dude, they were totally giving them a choice here. If Obsidian said 'absolutely not, we will not be removing this poem' that would've been respected as their choice by the peeps campaigning for its removal. No, it wouldn't have. The shitfit would have intensified. SJWs don't give people choices, they throw a tantrum until they get what they want.[/QUOTE] So an exact mirror of the shitfit thrown by the people who wanted it to stay in then? Obsidian would never be able to "win" in this situation. You keep it in, you annoy some people and make others happy, you take it out, you annoy some people and make others happy. No matter what choice they made they would have received shit from a vocal minority trying to get them to reverse the decision. Whilst most sane people just don't give a fuck enough to raise hell because it honestly doesn't make the game any different no matter the outcome.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47453963]I mean you call out against hypocrisy here which I am always for, but you're falsely accusing people of that hypocrisy in my opinion, at least on my end and you're using that false hypocrisy to say that we're wrong. You're not censoring us sure but you're not really addressing some of the concerns voiced either.[/QUOTE] It's totally fair that you think I'm wrong about the hypocrisy I believe exists. But I think I've addressed your concerns: you believe Obsidian was essentially coerced into making this change and I completely disagree. They would have been fine had they not changed it, and they knew it. The developer of Hotline Miami 2 faced similar backlash and chose to not make a change, and that game has been hugely successful. They felt leaving in the part of the game people complained about was crucial to the art they wanted to make. Obsidian, on the other hand, outright says that it's something that shouldn't have been there in the first place and removed it. Do you think they're lying? I would disagree, because I don't think any game developer [i]wants[/i] this shitstorm anywhere near them. Basically no developers have come out on either side of this whole gamergate thing because both sides are bad for business. Really, their only winning move would have been to not play - ignore the tweets, but they chose to listen to them and change the poem anyway.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47453980]It's totally fair that you think I'm wrong about the hypocrisy I believe exists. But I think I've addressed your concerns: you believe Obsidian was essentially coerced into making this change and I completely disagree. They would have been fine had they not changed it, and they knew it. The developer of Hotline Miami 2 faced similar backlash and chose to not make a change, and that game has been hugely successful. They felt leaving in the part of the game people complained about was crucial to the art they wanted to make. Obsidian, on the other hand, outright says that it's something that shouldn't have been there in the first place and removed it. Do you think they're lying? I would disagree, because I don't think any game developer [i]wants[/i] this shitstorm anywhere near them. [B]Really, their only winning move would have been to not play - ignore the tweets, but they chose to listen to them and change the poem anyway.[/B][/QUOTE] so really we agree and we just have been arguing about virtually nothing

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47453989]so really we agree and we just have been arguing about virtually nothing[/QUOTE] We agree that leaving the poem in would have been no big deal, yes. But we disagree about removing it. You think they were backed into a corner and had no choice, I don't. I think the backlash against the poem was unnecessary, but I think the backlash against removing it is [i]unfair[/i], while I think you feel oppositely.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47453969]But the choice to not change is always available and as long as that's the case nobody's freedom of expression is being violated.[/QUOTE] It's not about a moral choice here, if you think Obsidian approached this issue as a moral conundrum you're being willfully ignorant. This was a simple business decision: there are lots of people complaining, we can make this bad PR go away by changing something, let's change it. This wasn't a case of people alerting the devs to a possible moral issue issue with their game, this was a case of people making a concerted effort to make it economically unviable to keep that thing they don't like in the game, calling for boycotts and slandering the company. That shit is textbook censorship.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47453937] I'm not speaking about you. I'm speaking about the people who actually got something changed to suit them.[/QUOTE] So honestly it really just sounds like sour grapes. I don't think the joke was offensive at all and I haven't seen a single post explaining how exactly it's transphobic but Obsidian felt like enough people were complaining about it to ask the original backer if he was cool with submitting a new one and everything worked out. Looking from the outside in it seems like everyone won in this situation so I don't understand why people in this thread have their feelings hurt by it.

Zeke any resistance from Obsidian would have had their name dragged through the mud by zealous SJWs. Do you deny the fact that this coterie of people wouldn't have just let it rest? Hell, they're still complaining now that the new poem mocks them. 'Muh feelings' indeed.

[QUOTE=Zyler;47453643]Here's an explanation I posted in the Corruption thread for how people like this function: Students of Gender Studies and other newer-er social sciences use the post-structural and postmodern methodology of examining context and "core messages" AKA "keep digging until I find whatever I'm looking for". This is where you get things like "the color blue means rape". It's not about the creator's intention, in fact the creator's intention is completely pointless because the creator is most likely unaware of the postmodern messages they are delivering and the individual reader's opinion, interpretation and "headcanon" is more important (see "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author]Death of the author[/url]"). This is actually a huge issue with the late postmodernism of the 80s-90s that came into effect due to the rise of technology (suddenly everybody could be an artist and not just people with decades of study), the fact that the rest of the world moved on from postmodern thought after 9/11 further segregated these ideological groups from the rest of society and created the circle-jerking thought-boxes we see today in academia. Putting it very simply, Postmodern thinking was originally seen as a way of fighting against the Modernists who believed that there was a single, perfect way of designing things. Postmodernism is all about deconstructing and analyzing art, design, culture and society by isolating, creating copies and objectively studying a piece of work or a element of culture in order to create remixed interpretations and new insights. Postmodernism is said to be post-structural because it doesn't rely on a specific set of rules or instructions to be applied and this was a pretty big deal before computers came out and it was easy to remix, edit and create new things from already existing works without any design skill whatsoever. Postmodernism was ultimately designed as a way of criticizing egotists who claimed to come up with a perfect means of communication. As technology advanced it became filled with the same egotists who claimed their postmodernist theory was the be all and end all of literally analysis and cultural criticism. They claimed that because their works were an objective analysis and their own personal opinion that they were immune to criticism. They derided or outright ignored the claim of original artists upon their own work while ravenously defending their own copies. They claimed their work was objective rather than other works which were subjective and flawed. They relied and still rely on a single method of thinking in everything they do. So here's the fantastic irony of the whole thing, Postmodernists criticize Modernists for being too structural and applying things such as the scientific process but in the end they rely on a single methodology to do their critique, which cannot be deviated from under any circumstances and gives the same result each time. The whole idea of internet culture and internet memes infuriates cultural theorists like Jonathan McIntosh and many, many Gender Studies university lecturers because it deviates from the Pluralism and core ideas and patterns that they've established as existing within society, it simply doesn't make sense to them. The underlying problem is that they need something to attack and criticize in order to exist and for their grungy, moody rhetoric to gain any traction. The stuff we're seeing now in modern media has effectively been repeated multiple times throughout the last twenty years or so, the biggest example of which I can think of being the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars]Science Wars[/url] of the mid to late 90s, which was a huge conflict between actual Scientists and Gender Studies professors in which [b]Postmodernist Cultural Theorists argued that the study of Science and intellectual study itself was not inclusive enough and that we needed to increase diversity by abolishing the entire scientific method and the way we do science altogether and replace it with postmodernist rhetoric[/b] ("Guys, don't you know that science is just a social construct?"). That argument has basically just continued into Atheism+ and eventually video games, comics, the internet and new media. They ultimately want to abolish all empirical, rational and scientific reasoning and replace it with their own late postmodernist cultural theory where no piece of work means what it says it means and in reality everything is just sexist and racist and offensive, etcetera. It's what they believe.[/QUOTE] Really informative post, it's actually the first time I hear about Science Wars so thanks for that. It's actually really interesting to see how some things do repeat through time. (e.g. [url]http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/fromm.html[/url]) This was written in 1997: [i]"Namely, that somehow, for all its pious mouthings of "democracy," the academic left has become a profoundly mendacious and totalitarian establishment, crushing all voices other than its own. It is the ugly mirror image of the radical right. "[/i] It's kinda scary how relevant it still is.

[QUOTE=hrak;47454002]It's not about a moral choice here, if you think Obsidian approached this issue as a moral conundrum you're being willfully ignorant. This was a simple business decision: there are lots of people complaining, we can make this bad PR go away by changing something, let's change it. This wasn't a case of people alerting the devs to a possible moral issue issue with their game, this was a case of people making a concerted effort to make it economically unviable to keep that thing they don't like in the game, calling for boycotts and slandering the company. That shit is textbook censorship.[/QUOTE] If it was purely a business decision they made the wrong one. In current gaming culture doing anything that can be interpreted as "siding with SJWs" could be disastrous. Leaving in the poem would have done nothing and I guarantee the backlash would have gone no further than twitter/tumblr and the publicity gained would only have been useful. [editline]3rd April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bunguer;47454009]Really informative post, it's actually the first time I hear about Science Wars so thanks for that. It's actually really interesting to see how some things do repeat through time. (e.g. [url]http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/fromm.html[/url]) This was written in 1997: [i]"Namely, that somehow, for all its pious mouthings of "democracy," the academic left has become a profoundly mendacious and totalitarian establishment, crushing all voices other than its own. It is the ugly mirror image of the radical right. "[/i] It's kinda scary how relevant it still is.[/QUOTE] Keep in mind the Sokal Affair is not something unique to the humanities. Peer-reviewed hard science journals have let through blatantly falsified things before. Ironically for Alan Sokal, the Bogdanov affair is an example of a physics journal letting through crap. Neither of these are good criticisms of the humanities or physics, but of the peer review system itself.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47454010]If it was purely a business decision they made the wrong one. In current gaming culture doing anything that can be interpreted as "siding with SJWs" could be disastrous. Leaving in the poem would have done nothing and I guarantee the backlash would have gone no further than twitter/tumblr and the publicity gained would only have been useful. .[/QUOTE] Yes, which is why Obsidian is also receiving some small measure of criticism for removing it (but who can really blame them when you're under that kind of pressure and just trying to focus on your game)

From Firedorn himself [url]https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/74461-controversial-limerick-discussion/page-25#entry1631723[/url] So It seems obsidian had no intentions of caving In, he had a choice and used it to make a poke at the "bitch-bastards" that were complaining.

[QUOTE=Glent;47453447]The patch has gone out (on Steam) and Obsidians' statement can be found in the OP. It's impossible to know if what Obsidian is saying is genuine or just a result of trying to cater to a specific demographic. I don't believe that demographic is their primary customer base, and something which Obsidian may have seen as innocent at first might have been coloured by people claiming it was 'transmysoginistic' or otherwise inappropriate. It's easier to see something as transphobic if somebody else tells you it is and you look at it in that light. Personally, I believe that Obsidian made their own decision to have the comment changed, but I think that decision was coloured by the way the comment was presented to them. However, if the backer is happy with the change,it seems like less of a problem, since he is the one who spent money for it. And I thought the replacement was funnier, too. But I don't think that they should have felt the need to change it in the first place. Kind of had a hard time saying what I was trying to say in this post, but hopefully you can understand what I mean.[/QUOTE] I think it's obvious that they, Obsidian, is being honest about it. For the reason you give, namely that in terms of money they are gaining no customers by removing it, and if they had left it in they would have lost no noticeable amount of customers. So why change it? Well, maybe they honestly don't want to be associated with offensive humor. Maybe they'd like their game to be untainted by jokes like this. Keep in mind that it's possible to not realize you've offended someone, but once you've been advised of the offense it does reflect on you in the way you handle the situation. Obsidian took the high road and changed it though it does not profit them to do so.

No you've got that backwards. Every sane GGer or even just neutral will agree that companies have to bow to pressure because otherwise their name will be slandered by the SJW crowd. Most GGers don't really give a fuck if a company is obligated to bow down to this pressure. It is far too easy to argue that the backlash would have subsided now that they've changed it. But me and evidently a fair few others would argue the opposite and say that the rabid SJW mob wouldn't have rested until Obsidian were forced to because of increasing bad publicity. Also how can you argue that the publicity gained would have been 'useful'? The SJW narrative was that they were being insensitive to trans people. No company concerned with its PR these days wants to be seen as intolerant.

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;47454032]No you've got that backwards. Every sane GGer or even just neutral will agree that companies have to bow to pressure because otherwise their name will be slandered by the SJW crowd. Most GGers don't really give a fuck if a company is obligated to bow down to this pressure. It is far too easy to argue that the backlash would have subsided now that they've changed it. But me and evidently a fair few others would argue the opposite and say that the rabid SJW mob wouldn't have rested until Obsidian were forced to because of increasing bad publicity. Also how can you argue that the publicity gained would have been 'useful'? The SJW narrative was that they were being insensitive to trans people. No company concerned with its PR these days wants to be seen as intolerant.[/QUOTE] You overestimate the power of "SJWs". Gamergate is larger and more organized, and far more capable of causing financial damage than a bunch of decentralized and disorganized twitter users could ever dream to be. Like I said, lately, being hated by "SJWs" is a badge of honour that will undoubtedly get a whole movement to rally behind you. The average gamer, on the other hand, doesn't care either way. We're talking a potential loss of hundreds of sales, not enough to make a difference. [editline]3rd April 2015[/editline] Also want to point out how weird it is that Facepunch threads always seem to become the most civil around page 5.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47454043] The average gamer, on the other hand, doesn't care either way. We're talking a potential loss of hundreds of sales, not enough to make a difference.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't even guess that high. As long as we are making rampant assumptions about the size of the people offended by the original limerick, I'm going to say a lot of the people catching feels off the change weren't going to buy the game either. Realistically this doesn't really matter and Obsidian shouldn't have given it the time of day but god fucking forbid we go more than 36 hours without a political correctness whine in tech/gaming.