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

Just on the topic of SJWs not actually having much power: anyone who has watched a Sarkeesian video, can you remember a specific game that she's complained about? I've watched three of those videos and I'm drawing a blank. I'll bet anyone who read a tweet against Pillars of Eternity and thought "yeah those guys are transphobes" have since gone on to make a sandwich or go to work or pet a cat and already forgot about the whole thing. 2 years from now when the game is 10 bucks on Steam they're going to buy it like everyone else will, regardless of the politics.

Gamergte is larger but not more organised. This is due to its decentralized nature and the fact it is a consumer revolt (in which everyone just does what they feel like they should to further its goals). The SJW mob has a great many figureheads who can direct and concentrate the attentions and actions of their brainwashed followers. This leads to them essentially orchestrating clinical strikes against whatever thing they're complaining about that week. Also I really don't get why you put SJW in quotation marks; that is the mantle they often choose for themselves. Even if it isn't, it is a fairly good way of summing up their wants. Personally I think threads get civil around page 5 because the people who post witty comments or unsound arguments get bored/less angry and leave.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47454079]Just on the topic of SJWs not actually having much power: anyone who has watched a Sarkeesian video, can you remember a specific game that she's complained about? I've watched three of those videos and I'm drawing a blank. I'll bet anyone who read a tweet against Pillars of Eternity and thought "yeah those guys are transphobes" have since gone on to make a sandwich or go to work or pet a cat and already forgot about the whole thing. 2 years from now when the game is 10 bucks on Steam they're going to buy it like everyone else will, regardless of the politics.[/QUOTE] Bayonetta, Hitman, GTA, all 3 of which she made things up about them. [editline]3rd April 2015[/editline] And honestly, in light of Firedorns post there, yeah I think Obsidian has done the right thing here and that was a good move on both parties parts.

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;47454085]Gamergte is larger but not more organised. This is due to its decentralized nature and the fact it is a consumer revolt (in which everyone just does what they feel like they should to further its goals). The SJW mob has a great many figureheads who can direct and concentrate the attentions and actions of their brainwashed followers. This leads to them essentially orchestrating clinical strikes against whatever thing they're complaining about that week. Also I really don't get why you put SJW in quotation marks; that is the mantle they often choose for themselves. Even if it isn't, it is a fairly good way of summing up their wants.[/QUOTE] Gamergate isn't really a consumer revolt anymore. There hasn't been an attempt to mask the anti-feminist viewpoints for months, and the vast majority of gamergate discussions are about social justice warriors instead of unethical journalistic practices. "SJWs" on the other hand, is a nebulous term coined by ideological opponents. It doesn't refer to any specific set of viewpoints like gamergate has begun to. (Also why I put it in quotation marks) To some people it means someone who gets offended easily regardless of political affiliation, to others it's someone who attempts to offend people on the political right to further their own goals, to others it means simply anyone who is a liberal/progressive. I'm not sure what gives you the impression that they "orchestrate clinical strikes", either. The internet is full of people complaining about everything 24/7, all of these complaints of *ism and *phobia are always just random scattershots from a few hundred people who reblog and retweet each other. It's gamergate that makes them look bigger, just like how it's the opponents of Sarkeesian, Wu, and Quinn that resulted in [i]their[/i] eventual success. Practically nobody chooses to call themselves a social justice warrior anymore, either. At least not non-ironically. [editline]3rd April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47454092] And honestly, in light of Firedorns post there, yeah I think Obsidian has done the right thing here and that was a good move on both parties parts.[/QUOTE] Obsidian managed to find a way to potentially make everyone happy (at least now that the full info is out) without the "help" of gamergate/anti-gamergate, like adults, and kudos to them. Sometimes I think game developers are too mature for their audience

While the joke isn't offense in any way, and it is silly some people got upset over it, I would not criticize Obsidian in their decision. If they wanted the poem to really stay in, they wouldn't have done anything, or addressed the situation themselves. It is their product at the end of the day.

[QUOTE=Everstvetita;47454028]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] All is well then. Everyone wins until the offended party gets wind that the new limerick actually pokes fun at their whining. And when they start whining again, no changes will be made, and everyone will forget about it a month or two after the new complaints.

[QUOTE=Rahu X;47454223]All is well then. Everyone wins until the offended party gets wind that the new limerick actually pokes fun at their whining. And when they start whining again, no changes will be made, and everyone will forget about it a month or two after the new complaints.[/QUOTE] Anyone who complained previously about transphobia who continues complaining now is basically being intellectually dishonest and kind of deserves to be made fun of, surprising coming from me, I know. If their goal was to attempt to protect the sensibility of a marginalized group then they've succeeded and should move on. I suspect most will.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47454124]Gamergate isn't really a consumer revolt anymore. There hasn't been an attempt to mask the anti-feminist viewpoints for months, and the vast majority of gamergate discussions are about social justice warriors instead of unethical journalistic practices. [/QUOTE] See I knew you don't read the corruption in game journalism thread. It's not really fair either to call all gamergate discussions anti-feminist when all you look at is the kotakuinaction subreddit.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;47454251]See I knew you don't read the corruption in game journalism thread. It's not really fair either to call all gamergate discussions anti-feminist when all you look at is the kotakuinaction subreddit.[/QUOTE] I read it occasionally. I'll outright admit that Facepunch's take on gamergate is far better than any other, but it's still mostly about things like what's happening in this thread. Right now the last couple threads are about exactly this, and a debate about race. I can jump to any random page in the thread and the vast majority of the posts on that page are about gender/race politics.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;47454251]See I knew you don't read the corruption in game journalism thread. It's not really fair either to call all gamergate discussions anti-feminist when all you look at is the kotakuinaction subreddit.[/QUOTE] So you're gonna deny that most of that thread is a small group of people grumbling about the "sjws" rather than unethical journalistic practice? Because every time I've swung by I'm greeted by at least one dump of tweets from irrelevant people like Wu. The last thing I think I can safely say was on topic was that post about Gawker possibly being crippled as a result of all this. But the rest of the thread is largely complete shit in terms of a "consumer revolt".

Hell, if the thread was actually about video game journalism I'd participate in it because I want to shit on Kotaku as much as the next guy. Hey let's make every second article a fake article that's actually an ad!

[QUOTE=TheHydra;47453805]twitter has proven that brevity really isn't the soul of wit[/QUOTE] People aren't even brief on Twitter. They have to write things in multiple tweets, use twitlonger, or a 5+ minute long YouTube video.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;47454339]People aren't even brief on Twitter. They have to write things in multiple tweets, use twitlonger, or a 5+ minute long YouTube video.[/QUOTE] This is why twitter is awful for anything serious. Anyone using it to argue is doing a huge disservice to their cause. Forums like this, somethingawful, etc are basically the only place you can have productive debates online because twitter forces you to remove any nuance from your posts, reddit outright hides dissenting opinions, and 4chan has always acknowledged that it isn't for serious things

[QUOTE]A poem he wrote in jest was misread[/QUOTE] I see what he did there

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47454268]I read it occasionally. I'll outright admit that Facepunch's take on gamergate is far better than any other, but it's still mostly about things like what's happening in this thread. Right now the last couple threads are about exactly this, and a debate about race. I can jump to any random page in the thread and the vast majority of the posts on that page are about gender/race politics.[/QUOTE] The thing is, from the very beginning they were poisoning the well with the idea that it's really about misogyny and that GG should be ignored in it's entirety. It's that high horse of "social justice" that is both the glue that binds these cliques together and what they use to stop any discussion before it even begins. But their tactic of holding everyone accountable by the actions of the few puts them in a position where if just a few of their major figures turned out to be hypocritical or just all around awful people, then they would be forced to admit that either they are just as bad as anyone else and have no business playing the innocent victim of evil gamers, or admit that you can't use guilt by association to discredit people. So while we've still made a decent amount of progress, I think it would be a Pyrrhic victory sleazeballs succeeded in selling their once-sided story. So the reason you see so much talk about "SJWs" is because it's one of the main things ties these cliques together, it's pretty much the sole weapon with which they use to discredit GG, and people feel vindicated by the mainstream by exposing and discrediting the one side of the story the mainstream ever heard.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47454342]4chan has always acknowledged that it isn't for serious things[/QUOTE] More like 4/8chan posters constantly like to shitpost, so it's hard to take anyone there seriously. Seriously, the vast amount of shitposting on chans just gets boring and tedious to sort through. It was maybe fun when I was 16, but chans are not really a good place for discussion. Not to mention they essentially suffer from the same problem SJWs from Tumblr have, with it essentially being an echo chamber with the loudest opinion always prevailing. And it doesn't take much to have a loud opinion on a chan. Just keep making posts over and over again until it catches on. But I don't go on chans anymore, so I'll stop my rambling here.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;47454437]The thing is, from the very beginning they were poisoning the well with the idea that it's really about misogyny and that GG should be ignored in it's entirety. It's that high horse of "social justice" that is both the glue that binds these cliques together and what they use to stop any discussion before it even begins. But their tactic of holding everyone accountable by the actions of the few puts them in a position where if just a few of their major figures turned out to be hypocritical or just all around awful people, then they would be forced to admit that either they are just as bad as anyone else and have no business playing the innocent victim of evil gamers, or admit that you can't use guilt by association to discredit people. So while we've still made a decent amount of progress, I think it would be a Pyrrhic victory sleazeballs succeeded in selling their once-sided story. So the reason you see so much talk about "SJWs" is because it's one of the main things ties these cliques together, it's pretty much the sole weapon with which they use to discredit GG, and people feel vindicated by the mainstream by exposing and discrediting the one side of the story the mainstream ever heard.[/QUOTE] It's not surprising that "misogynistic" was the first criticism levied at gamergate when the entire movement was born out of attacking a female game developer for cheating on her boyfriend before it was even verified that it happened. There was a sincere attempt by gg to distance themselves from that whole bullshit a little while in but the Ethics in Videogame Journalism narrative fell apart really quickly because talking about video game journalism is really fucking boring

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47454476]It's not surprising that "misogynistic" was the first criticism levied at gamergate when the entire movement was born out of attacking a female game developer for cheating on her boyfriend before it was even verified that it happened. There was a sincere attempt by gg to distance themselves from that whole bullshit a little while in but the Ethics in Videogame Journalism narrative fell apart really quickly because talking about video game journalism is really fucking boring[/QUOTE] and yet somehow GG has managed to get gawkers advertising paired down to a fraction of what it used to be. I think it's a little dishonest to sum up the beginning of GG like that. GG sprang up because the initial post about Zoe(whether it was right or wrong, truth or fiction) became a lightning rod for bans, shadowbans, thread and post deletion. The resulting uproar about an issue being censored so fast was largely driven as a reaction.

the second poem flows better everyone wins

[QUOTE=hexpunK;47454286]So you're gonna deny that most of that thread is a small group of people grumbling about the "sjws" rather than unethical journalistic practice? Because every time I've swung by I'm greeted by at least one dump of tweets from irrelevant people like Wu. The last thing I think I can safely say was on topic was that post about Gawker possibly being crippled as a result of all this. But the rest of the thread is largely complete shit in terms of a "consumer revolt".[/QUOTE] Who?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47454496]and yet somehow GG has managed to get gawkers advertising paired down to a fraction of what it used to be. [/QUOTE] By gg's logic isn't that censorship [editline]3rd April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Tetsmega;47454520]Who?[/QUOTE] Are we looking at different threads?

They told the advertising companies its bad rep to be with them. I have yet to see any attacks at companies that still advertise on gawker.

[QUOTE=Sally;47454540]They told the advertising companies its bad rep to be with them.[/QUOTE] Bad rep that they created, so basically a reverse extortion racket

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47454529]By gg's logic isn't that censorship [/QUOTE] No it's a boycott. The majority of consumers have [B]dropped[/B] reading their articles completely. They weren't threatened with any blackmail. [QUOTE=Zeke129;47454529] Are we looking at different threads?[/QUOTE] No I'm just curious why someone keeps bringing up irrelevant people.

[QUOTE=Everstvetita;47454028]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] Updated the OP with this new info. Thanks for pointing this out.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;47454557]No it's a boycott. The majority of consumers have [B]dropped[/B] reading their articles completely. They weren't threatened with any blackmail.[/quote] On kotakuinaction people are encouraged to send bulk emails to various companies all at the same time. They pre-plan which companies they'll send emails to. "Operation disapproving nod" or whatever they called it. It has been discussed in the FP gamergate thread as well. [QUOTE=Tetsmega;47454557]No I'm just curious why someone keeps bringing up irrelevant people.[/QUOTE] It's not specific people, it's the whole thread.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47454573]On kotakuinaction people are encouraged to send bulk emails to various companies all at the same time. They pre-plan which companies they'll send emails to. "Operation disapproving nod" or whatever they called it. It has been discussed in the FP gamergate thread as well. It's not specific people, it's the whole thread.[/QUOTE] Ok but that doesn't change the viewer count on their articles read. Their articles were always shitty and they just happen to be called out hard on it when people started investigating corruption and ethics in gaming journalism. And I think I worded my post badly. I meant who were the people in those tweets hexpunk mentioned, because I've never seen them.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;47454602]Ok but that doesn't change the viewer count on their articles read. Their articles were always shitty and they just happen to be called out hard on it when people started investigating corruption and ethics in gaming journalism.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kotaku.com]But Kotaku's visitors have apparently been increasing[/url]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47454476]It's not surprising that "misogynistic" was the first criticism levied at gamergate when the entire movement was born out of attacking a female game developer for cheating on her boyfriend[/QUOTE] more specifically, for cheating on her boyfriend with game journalists and other folks who helped further her career as a gamemaker (which is what everyone was actually complaining about) I don't know why you try to editorialize the story like that, it's not as if we don't know what happened and aren't going to realize you're being deceptive

[QUOTE=hrak;47454643]more specifically, for cheating on her boyfriend with game journalists and other folks who helped further her career as a gamemaker (which is what everyone was actually complaining about) I don't know why you try to editorialize the story like that, it's not as if we don't know what happened and aren't going to realize you're being deceptive[/QUOTE] Her "game" was a virtual choose-your-own-adventure book, it was free, it was never actually reviewed, she wasn't the only developer, and she's yet to release any more games. Crash Override is the only thing she has "released" since and that's a non-profit for a good cause that only exists because gamergate harassed her. It's not a surprise that an indie dev sleeps with people involved in indie gaming and while cheating is awful and dishonest she hardly "furthered her career"