I couldn't at all care about these apparent 'controversial' points (Honestly didn't really pay much attention in-game to be honest, I don't have Minsc in my party and I barely talk to that cleric)
On the other hand though I can't at all in good concious give this a 'good' or recomended review when they've decided to arbitrarily screw up the UI's as bad as they did despite all the criticisms and critiques here leading up to launch.
That and the bugs all over the place makes this a 'Maybe a month or so from now I'd recommend it' from me.
Beamdog is censoring people on Steam for something even as simple as saying that bad writing is a valid reason to give a game a bad review. The desperation is real.
Though most people who complain about this type of stuff don't understand this, I'll lay it out for you. You don't have a RIGHT to post a Steam review. The First Amendment doesn't apply to video game message boards. The government is not denying your right to post a review, Steam and/or Beamdog is, and they have every right to do so. They have every right to delete the post I'm writing right now.
I couldn't at all care about these apparent 'controversial' points (Honestly didn't really pay much attention in-game to be honest, I don't have Minsc in my party and I barely talk to that cleric)
On the other hand though I can't at all in good concious give this a 'good' or recomended review when they've decided to arbitrarily screw up the UI's as bad as they did despite all the criticisms and critiques here leading up to launch.
That and the bugs all over the place makes this a 'Maybe a month or so from now I'd recommend it' from me.
Yeah this is a critical moment for Beamdog. They have a solid base of players but I think they need it to sell a little more and right now many people are held back by the bugs. They have got to deliver a fix but it takes time. I know I am spending time on this board that I had intended to spend playing the game over the weekend because of issues and as a result I can't really judge the game as a whole either.
When I read Trent's post I wondered if he was overreacting about a handful of negative reviews, but then I had a look at the Metacritic and GOG page, and the shitstorm in the review section is really brutal...
I don't understand why people are so up in arms about the transgender character... As far as I can tell from the screenshots that have been posted, the dialog looks perfectly in line with any number of other minor Baldur's Gate NPCs telling you their backstory when you talk to them. It might be a little unusual that the only allowed player responses are to express interest/empathy, but it's also understandable - because if they had added a joking or even cruel response, they'd have risked outrage from another subset of players. So I don't think Beamdog did anything wrong there.
However, when it comes to Minsc's GamerGate line and the reactions to it, I feel that Beamdog was pretty much "asking for it". Others in this thread have defended it by comparing it to existing popculture references in BG. But there's a big difference: Those references were politically benign, and came from a position of admiration and fandom, not antagonism. "Larry, Darryl, and Darryl" were clearly added by someone who loved that sitcom, for example. With the "It's really about ethics..." line, on the other hand, Beamdog's writers are not expressing admiration for a pop culture phenomenon, they are throwing a punch in a long-running Internet flamewar. It is designed to mock, and comes across in the spirit of "Ha, that'll show 'em". Well, yes, it sure "showed" the beehive, and the bees came flying. That was as predictable as it was unnecessary.
I find the whole thing sad, because I really want the game to sell well so that Beamdog continues to deliver patches and maybe someday creates a BG3 or IWD3...
PS: I can't follow Trent's plea to balance out the negative reviews with positive ones, because I cannot in good conscience write a review for an expansion that I have not played myself yet. But I hope to get around playing it soon - I already bought it of course
When I read Trent's post I wondered if he was overreacting about a handful of negative reviews, but then I had a look at the Metacritic and GOG page, and the shitstorm in the review section is really brutal...
I don't understand why people are so up in arms about the transgender character... As far as I can tell from the screenshots that have been posted, the dialog looks perfectly in line with any number of other minor Baldur's Gate NPCs telling you their backstory when you talk to them. It might be a little unusual that the only allowed player responses are to express interest/empathy, but it's also understandable - because if they had added a joking or even cruel response, they'd have risked outrage from another subset of players. So I don't think Beamdog did anything wrong there.
However, when it comes to Minsc's GamerGate line and the reactions to it, I feel that Beamdog was pretty much "asking for it". Others in this thread have defended it by comparing it to existing popculture references in BG. But there's a big difference: Those references were politically benign, and came from a position of admiration and fandom, not antagonism. "Larry, Darryl, and Darryl" were clearly added by someone who loved that sitcom, for example. With the "It's really about ethics..." line, on the other hand, Beamdog's writers are not expressing admiration for a pop culture phenomenon, they are throwing a punch in a long-running Internet flamewar. It is designed to mock, and comes across in the spirit of "Ha, that'll show 'em". Well, yes, it sure "showed" the beehive, and the bees came flying. That was as predictable as it was unnecessary.
I find the whole thing sad, because I really want the game to sell well so that Beamdog continues to deliver patches and maybe someday creates a BG3 or IWD3...
This is my thought on the situation. I absolutely love and respect the company for putting out new content in my favorite game series EVER. However, it was a bit of a gutpunch to see them disrespect me and folks like me using Minsc as a vehicle.
So, I'm torn. Do I support this, even though I'm not made to feel welcome? Wut do, as they say?
I don't understand why people are so up in arms about the transgender character... As far as I can tell from the screenshots that have been posted, the dialog looks perfectly in line with any number of other minor Baldur's Gate NPCs telling you their backstory when you talk to them.
To my mind it would seem the issue is less about the transgender character herself, and more about the poor writing skills of the creator of said character with that simply being an extremely egregious example of it upon which people are focusing on.
I find the whole thing sad, because I really want the game to sell well so that Beamdog continues to deliver patches and maybe someday creates a BG3 or IWD3...
Given what we've seen and heard so far, would we want a BG3 with more of this kind of writing in a sequel ?
What about the bugs you don't fix, and the support mails not answered ? Give people a working game and working multiplayer back, and you'll have less negative reviews, simple as that. Also, if you chose to put political stuff in your game, grow up some spine, people WILL react.
It would depend on how enjoyable SOD is as a whole which I can't judge at the moment. However, if we are talking about a few small pieces of writing that are poorly done over the course of the game then it can't be that bad can it? Also, they have hired on David G and you never know what flavor he may be able to add to the writing overall.
When I read Trent's post I wondered if he was overreacting about a handful of negative reviews, but then I had a look at the Metacritic and GOG page, and the shitstorm in the review section is really brutal...
I don't understand why people are so up in arms about the transgender character... As far as I can tell from the screenshots that have been posted, the dialog looks perfectly in line with any number of other minor Baldur's Gate NPCs telling you their backstory when you talk to them. It might be a little unusual that the only allowed player responses are to express interest/empathy, but it's also understandable - because if they had added a joking or even cruel response, they'd have risked outrage from another subset of players. So I don't think Beamdog did anything wrong there.
However, when it comes to Minsc's GamerGate line and the reactions to it, I feel that Beamdog was pretty much "asking for it". Others in this thread have defended it by comparing it to existing popculture references in BG. But there's a big difference: Those references were politically benign, and came from a position of admiration and fandom, not antagonism. "Larry, Darryl, and Darryl" were clearly added by someone who loved that sitcom, for example. With the "It's really about ethics..." line, on the other hand, Beamdog's writers are not expressing admiration for a pop culture phenomenon, they are throwing a punch in a long-running Internet flamewar. It is designed to mock, and comes across in the spirit of "Ha, that'll show 'em". Well, yes, it sure "showed" the beehive, and the bees came flying. That was as predictable as it was unnecessary.
I find the whole thing sad, because I really want the game to sell well so that Beamdog continues to deliver patches and maybe someday creates a BG3 or IWD3...
PS: I can't follow Trent's plea to balance out the negative reviews with positive ones, because I cannot in good conscience write a review for an expansion that I have not played myself yet. But I hope to get around playing it soon - I already bought it of course
I don't know. I'm Gamergate friendly as I mentioned before and a former supporter and I still support them to a degree. The line Minsc says doesn't really bother me that much. There's no real context. Minsc is liked. He's not some villain or guy beating his wife and then using that line. So, while I'm sure Amber (which I found out admited whether ironically or unironically that she's a "SJW") very much dislikes Gamergate, I don't see much harm done here. Otherwise, I'm inclined to agree with your post.
BTW, I haven't bought the game yet and that's mostly due to 1) I only have BG original and not BG EE and 2) I don't have the money to afford it for awhile but otherwise I'd be willing to give them my cash monies if there's a good game here with a good story and good dialogue sans some of the silly stuff.
Given what we've seen and heard so far, would we want a BG3 with more of this kind of writing in a sequel ?
Which part? Caelar as an antagonist fuckin' NAILED it. Of all the aspects of the expansion, my favorites WERE aspects of the writing, and most of my complaints were with gameplay. You can tell what parts were written by people with a Forgotten Realms mindset and what things werent.
In short; yes. I want this company, sans a couple specific people, to make a new game in the Forgotten Realms.
When I read Trent's post I wondered if he was overreacting about a handful of negative reviews, but then I had a look at the Metacritic and GOG page, and the shitstorm in the review section is really brutal...
I don't understand why people are so up in arms about the transgender character... As far as I can tell from the screenshots that have been posted, the dialog looks perfectly in line with any number of other minor Baldur's Gate NPCs telling you their backstory when you talk to them. It might be a little unusual that the only allowed player responses are to express interest/empathy, but it's also understandable - because if they had added a joking or even cruel response, they'd have risked outrage from another subset of players. So I don't think Beamdog did anything wrong there.
However, when it comes to Minsc's GamerGate line and the reactions to it, I feel that Beamdog was pretty much "asking for it". Others in this thread have defended it by comparing it to existing popculture references in BG. But there's a big difference: Those references were politically benign, and came from a position of admiration and fandom, not antagonism. "Larry, Darryl, and Darryl" were clearly added by someone who loved that sitcom, for example. With the "It's really about ethics..." line, on the other hand, Beamdog's writers are not expressing admiration for a pop culture phenomenon, they are throwing a punch in a long-running Internet flamewar. It is designed to mock, and comes across in the spirit of "Ha, that'll show 'em". Well, yes, it sure "showed" the beehive, and the bees came flying. That was as predictable as it was unnecessary.
I find the whole thing sad, because I really want the game to sell well so that Beamdog continues to deliver patches and maybe someday creates a BG3 or IWD3...
This is my thought on the situation. I absolutely love and respect the company for putting out new content in my favorite game series EVER. However, it was a bit of a gutpunch to see them disrespect me and folks like me using Minsc as a vehicle.
So, I'm torn. Do I support this, even though I'm not made to feel welcome? Wut do, as they say?
Well, if I was you, and felt like writing a review, I would put the trolling in the "negatives" category and do a balancing test to arrive at a final score out of 10. I'd consider it a factor on the "cons" side of the scale, and then compare it with the "pros".
Perhaps you can say Beamdog's trolling makes a game that would otherwise be an 8/10 now a 7/10, or a game that you would have given a 9/10 is now an 8.5/10.
Giving it 1s across the board seems to be an overreaction.
For someone relatively unfamiliar with the whole Gamergate controversy, what exactly are you all fans of? From what I've read, most of their "work" seems to be harassment, including death and rape threats. Am I missing something here?
Hi everyone. I usually spend most of my time lurking here, but I'd like to ask a favour. It appears that having a transgendered cleric and a joke line by Minsc has greatly offended the sensibilities of some people. This has spurred these people into action, causing them to decide this is the worst game of all time and give it a zero review score on Steam, GoG and meta critic. Now, I'd like to ask for that favour. If you are playing the game and having a good time, please consider posting a positive review to balance out the loud minority which is currently painting a dark picture for new players.
Thank you. -Trent
If you think those are the main reasons why people are giving the game negative reviews, then I don't think you would feel any need to come out here and ask the fans and playerbase for positive reviews. Also doing so on Steam would be against that site's rules as devs of the game, if I remember correctly. Not sure about GOG's policy on that.
I understand you want your game to be successful, and honestly I was hoping the expansion was going to be good. But if people are saying it isn't good, then instead of going after those who aren't pleased with the game and the 2.0 patches perhaps it'd be better to take it on the chin and let everyone know you're going to do better. It doesn't look good when a dev feels a need to go out and ask people to provide positive reviews to counteract the negative ones, it shows little faith that their game's quality will show in the end once people play it.
One of the things I've heard people criticizing in the reviews is non-functioning multiplayer, which are some of the same complaints leveled at BG1EE and BG2EE when they came out. It's a legitimate complaint and when it's a pattern in your releases I don't think that's the playerbase's fault at all for giving the game a negative review.
When people are saying that the inclusion of LGBT isn't the issue, I don't think they are explaining what they mean. Someone brought up that Mass Effect and Dragon Age had playable characters that were gay, but that they didn't get bad reviews and wondered why. I think that is because it was integrated into their characters well, rather than coming off like a token inclusion simply so that the developer can say that they made the inclusion. I think it comes off as obnoxious, because people in real life (or well written fiction) don't immediately start going into their orientation right when you meet them. Joe Rogan has a great joke about vegans where he talks about how vegans just can't wait to tell you about it as soon as they meet you, as if they were holding their breath until they say it. It kinda comes off like that. The character becomes less like a character, and more of a way to virtue signal that the devs included an LGBT.
However, that in and of itself is very minor. Just a lame line, then you move on. I think where the issue springs from, is putting that into context with statements made mostly by Amber in which she takes issue with certain aspects of the series before this. Many of these issues come off as insulting to the fans, and when you add that to the design decisions made it starts to give off the notion of an agenda. Not saying that there IS an agenda, that's just how it looks from the outside to some.
Finally, the Gamergate joke. Again, a minor thing per se, but like before when you put it in context it becomes insulting. There was no reason to bring that into the game. It doesn't do much harm to the in game universe, but you basically decided to put in an eye-roller of a joke just to say "heh heh, see how we took a shot at those goobergoobers?" I'm not even going to get into another argument about GG except to say that I fully support them, and a lot of people that do are your customers and fans. It was a dumb decision that didn't even have a pay off to it. That, again, is what gives the look of an agenda when they look at who put it in and statements she's made.
What I'm saying is that it's a good game despite the rather small flaws, and I don't think it is so much the game that people take issue with, but the developers. I think if the game had released without anyone seeing behind the scenes, there wouldn't be an issue right now.
When I read Trent's post I wondered if he was overreacting about a handful of negative reviews, but then I had a look at the Metacritic and GOG page, and the shitstorm in the review section is really brutal...
I don't understand why people are so up in arms about the transgender character... As far as I can tell from the screenshots that have been posted, the dialog looks perfectly in line with any number of other minor Baldur's Gate NPCs telling you their backstory when you talk to them. It might be a little unusual that the only allowed player responses are to express interest/empathy, but it's also understandable - because if they had added a joking or even cruel response, they'd have risked outrage from another subset of players. So I don't think Beamdog did anything wrong there.
However, when it comes to Minsc's GamerGate line and the reactions to it, I feel that Beamdog was pretty much "asking for it". Others in this thread have defended it by comparing it to existing popculture references in BG. But there's a big difference: Those references were politically benign, and came from a position of admiration and fandom, not antagonism. "Larry, Darryl, and Darryl" were clearly added by someone who loved that sitcom, for example. With the "It's really about ethics..." line, on the other hand, Beamdog's writers are not expressing admiration for a pop culture phenomenon, they are throwing a punch in a long-running Internet flamewar. It is designed to mock, and comes across in the spirit of "Ha, that'll show 'em". Well, yes, it sure "showed" the beehive, and the bees came flying. That was as predictable as it was unnecessary.
I find the whole thing sad, because I really want the game to sell well so that Beamdog continues to deliver patches and maybe someday creates a BG3 or IWD3...
This is my thought on the situation. I absolutely love and respect the company for putting out new content in my favorite game series EVER. However, it was a bit of a gutpunch to see them disrespect me and folks like me using Minsc as a vehicle.
So, I'm torn. Do I support this, even though I'm not made to feel welcome? Wut do, as they say?
Well, if I was you, and felt like writing a review, I would put the trolling in the "negatives" category and do a balancing test to arrive at a final score out of 10. I'd consider it a factor on the "cons" side of the scale, and then compare it with the "pros".
Perhaps you can say Beamdog's trolling makes a game that would otherwise be an 8/10 now a 7/10, or a game that you would have given a 9/10 is now an 8.5/10.
Giving it 1s across the board seems to be an overreaction.
Wholeheartedly agree. It's silly and juvenile to do so, and I haven't done so. However, my bigger concern is monetary support. I can take a 10/10 and pare it down to a 7 based on whether I liked it or not, but if I purchase this expansion, my $20 will be going towards paying the salary of someone (Amber Scott) who wants to make me feel unwelcome in my favorite series.
The amount of reviews on GOG are proof positive there is a campaign against this game being waged based on the transgender NPC. I visit that site almost daily and I have NEVER seen the amount of reviews Siege of Dragonspear has generated in this short of time, to the point where it probably has about 10 times Pillars of Eternity did during the same time frame.
So, I'm torn. Do I support this, even though I'm not made to feel welcome? Wut do, as they say?
...maybe grow up? It may have been a bad step on Beamdog's part, but it's been a bit blown out of proportion. One character and one line in a game with hundreds of characters would suddenly spoil it all? Of course, you can feel offended. Just keep it to yourself like a grown person and ignore it. Or don't buy the game. That's your right as a consumer.
When I read Trent's post I wondered if he was overreacting about a handful of negative reviews, but then I had a look at the Metacritic and GOG page, and the shitstorm in the review section is really brutal...
I don't understand why people are so up in arms about the transgender character... As far as I can tell from the screenshots that have been posted, the dialog looks perfectly in line with any number of other minor Baldur's Gate NPCs telling you their backstory when you talk to them. It might be a little unusual that the only allowed player responses are to express interest/empathy, but it's also understandable - because if they had added a joking or even cruel response, they'd have risked outrage from another subset of players. So I don't think Beamdog did anything wrong there.
However, when it comes to Minsc's GamerGate line and the reactions to it, I feel that Beamdog was pretty much "asking for it". Others in this thread have defended it by comparing it to existing popculture references in BG. But there's a big difference: Those references were politically benign, and came from a position of admiration and fandom, not antagonism. "Larry, Darryl, and Darryl" were clearly added by someone who loved that sitcom, for example. With the "It's really about ethics..." line, on the other hand, Beamdog's writers are not expressing admiration for a pop culture phenomenon, they are throwing a punch in a long-running Internet flamewar. It is designed to mock, and comes across in the spirit of "Ha, that'll show 'em". Well, yes, it sure "showed" the beehive, and the bees came flying. That was as predictable as it was unnecessary.
I find the whole thing sad, because I really want the game to sell well so that Beamdog continues to deliver patches and maybe someday creates a BG3 or IWD3...
This is my thought on the situation. I absolutely love and respect the company for putting out new content in my favorite game series EVER. However, it was a bit of a gutpunch to see them disrespect me and folks like me using Minsc as a vehicle.
So, I'm torn. Do I support this, even though I'm not made to feel welcome? Wut do, as they say?
Well, if I was you, and felt like writing a review, I would put the trolling in the "negatives" category and do a balancing test to arrive at a final score out of 10. I'd consider it a factor on the "cons" side of the scale, and then compare it with the "pros".
Perhaps you can say Beamdog's trolling makes a game that would otherwise be an 8/10 now a 7/10, or a game that you would have given a 9/10 is now an 8.5/10.
Giving it 1s across the board seems to be an overreaction.
The sheer amount of zero and 1 star reviews on GOG, Steam and Metacritic is all the proof you need of what is really behind this. There is simply no way in hell all these people have even played the game, much less finished it. Siege of Dragonspear is NOT a major release in the grand scheme of things. There is no way this game should even be generating this amount of reviews at all, positive or negative....
It probably got plastered up on an image board and a whole group of kids probably agreed to attack the game based the political issues alone. Over the last two days I have been following this board because I had nothing planned for the weekend other than to play SOD. I have seen some comments that are straight hate and I usually don't get involved in these sorts of conversations because it never solves anything but I was bored and I really do want Baldur's Gate to continue to be supported and do well. Anyhoo, I think I am done. This topic has left a nasty taste in my mouth. The community here really is good most of the time and I hope I haven't rubbed anyone to much in the wrong way. Later.
What Trent asks feels pretty legitimate in my opinion. It is true that on most cases, the happy part of any group of people will not make a fuss about it. In our case, they'll leave their rating, sometimes a 5-line review, and that's it. Now some of the unhappy, not to say frankly hating people feel like their voice matters more than that of those who are happy, and will, on top of leaving lengthy review explaining how this or that game is the worst ever, feel like it's necessary downvoting every positive reviews so that their oh-so-important review is read. Trent did not ask us to raid on metacritic and steam and leave outstanding reviews and downvote negative reviews. He asked us to leave our review, and honestly say whether we are happy or not. Now this might not look great because people should their review on their own, I agree with that. But Beamdog is not Ubisoft or Nintendo. Even if the reviews are bad, a lot of people would buy games and stuff from them. Yes, it might slightly affect their turnover, but that's one game over 10+ per year and it will not be that terrible anyway. Beamdog however is a small studio, one that is new to the video game market. If it is destroyed by comments on the first game they made, then they will suffer from it, and might even have a hard time surviving the blow. It reminds me of another small studio some of you might know of. Camelot software planning. They made the outstanding Golden Sun games on GBA. Both were excellent. Then they made a sequel on Nintendo DS. It was good. Better than many DS games. Yet purists frowned upon it because it was not as great as the original one. Since then, they have not made any other Golden Sun game and are struggling to survive. A big studio can stand such a blow or two and remain relatively unharmed, a smaller one can maybe stand one, and will not survive unscathed, and definitely any second blow will finish them off.
When I read Trent's post I wondered if he was overreacting about a handful of negative reviews, but then I had a look at the Metacritic and GOG page, and the shitstorm in the review section is really brutal...
I don't understand why people are so up in arms about the transgender character... As far as I can tell from the screenshots that have been posted, the dialog looks perfectly in line with any number of other minor Baldur's Gate NPCs telling you their backstory when you talk to them. It might be a little unusual that the only allowed player responses are to express interest/empathy, but it's also understandable - because if they had added a joking or even cruel response, they'd have risked outrage from another subset of players. So I don't think Beamdog did anything wrong there.
However, when it comes to Minsc's GamerGate line and the reactions to it, I feel that Beamdog was pretty much "asking for it". Others in this thread have defended it by comparing it to existing popculture references in BG. But there's a big difference: Those references were politically benign, and came from a position of admiration and fandom, not antagonism. "Larry, Darryl, and Darryl" were clearly added by someone who loved that sitcom, for example. With the "It's really about ethics..." line, on the other hand, Beamdog's writers are not expressing admiration for a pop culture phenomenon, they are throwing a punch in a long-running Internet flamewar. It is designed to mock, and comes across in the spirit of "Ha, that'll show 'em". Well, yes, it sure "showed" the beehive, and the bees came flying. That was as predictable as it was unnecessary.
I find the whole thing sad, because I really want the game to sell well so that Beamdog continues to deliver patches and maybe someday creates a BG3 or IWD3...
This is my thought on the situation. I absolutely love and respect the company for putting out new content in my favorite game series EVER. However, it was a bit of a gutpunch to see them disrespect me and folks like me using Minsc as a vehicle.
So, I'm torn. Do I support this, even though I'm not made to feel welcome? Wut do, as they say?
Well, if I was you, and felt like writing a review, I would put the trolling in the "negatives" category and do a balancing test to arrive at a final score out of 10. I'd consider it a factor on the "cons" side of the scale, and then compare it with the "pros".
Perhaps you can say Beamdog's trolling makes a game that would otherwise be an 8/10 now a 7/10, or a game that you would have given a 9/10 is now an 8.5/10.
Giving it 1s across the board seems to be an overreaction.
Wholeheartedly agree. It's silly and juvenile to do so, and I haven't done so. However, my bigger concern is monetary support. I can take a 10/10 and pare it down to a 7 based on whether I liked it or not, but if I purchase this expansion, my $20 will be going towards paying the salary of someone (Amber Scott) who wants to make me feel unwelcome in my favorite series.
That's a tough moral quandary to solve.
Well, for me, personally.... I don't have much time for George Soros, but DAMN does JetBlue distinguish itself from other airlines with its in-flight entertainment and amenities. Being able to watch ESPN on a flight is worth the peace-of-mind I would gain from abstaining.
If I thought I would enjoy the game, I'd buy it. I do think you should express your displeasure as well (which you seem to be doing very civilly and articulately)
Somewhat off/on topic but GOG, as much as I adore them, needs to implement a system where only those who bought/own the game can review it. I understand people might own it on Steam, etc. but let them review it there. I've had at least one (too many imo) nasty arguments with people just pooping on a game they didn't like that they didn't own, not even telling the truth about said game. Doing it just to troll.
Beamdog is censoring people on Steam for something even as simple as saying that bad writing is a valid reason to give a game a bad review. The desperation is real.
Though most people who complain about this type of stuff don't understand this, I'll lay it out for you. You don't have a RIGHT to post a Steam review. The First Amendment doesn't apply to video game message boards. The government is not denying your right to post a review, Steam and/or Beamdog is, and they have every right to do so. They have every right to delete the post I'm writing right now.
I never said they don't have the legal right to do it, but it doesn't change the fact that they're censoring people to boost sales. And it SHOULD be against Steam's policy for a developer to be able to ban people from discussing the game on the Steam forums.
When a writer of the expansion comes out and says that shes a SJW that finds the old games sexist and problematic, shes asking for a shitstorm. Good way to attract attention to a tumblr or a blog, to make a name for yourself in the clique of "progressive" people. Not so good when what you say has effects on the company as a whole and their chances of selling the game to a bunch of old die hard fans that may see those words as insults to the originals.
I have not played SoD yet, so I can't comment the quality of writing yet, but I will say that it is downright idiotic to give very low rating to a video game based on one character / couple of lines of dialog. Is that really the correct way to critique something? For me it is quite immature.
Do you give 0 rating to a film because of one akward scene? Or do you stop reading if a character in a otherwise fine novel says something you don't agree with?
Some young people only live through extremes. A game is either 10 or 0. There is not middle ground. And obviously they have difficult time understanding and respecting different world views. A game as medium can never mature if people playing are this one dimensional and insecure.
Whats the big deal really? Having a transgender character? We already had the belt that changed gender for instance, not to mention the Edwin thing in bg2.
I also think bashing old games was the wrong move. I don't mind the trans character and such, but I feel bad that she insulted the olg BG games. Still, I can see no one, devs or customers, caring about the biggest problem : the bugs the update brought...
I completely agree about too few dialogue options. Just add more, where the transgender character can be killed. It's a comic relief, since I've grown to support LGBT movement over the years, becoming more tolerant. Just add us some more dialogue branches, where the anti-LGBT ("gamergaters") can try and explore on their worldviews; if nothing will change their mind, give an option to kill the NPC. Maybe that will make them feel ashamed. Or wont.
Somewhat off/on topic but GOG, as much as I adore them, needs to implement a system where only those who bought/own the game can review it. I understand people might own it on Steam, etc. but let them review it there. I've had at least one (too many imo) nasty arguments with people just pooping on a game they didn't like that they didn't own, not even telling the truth about said game. Doing it just to troll.
That would be impossible to enforce properly, because of the fact some games on there are really old and some people may have played the game in the past (or own a copy elsewhere). Since they may be someone who loves the site and/or is a dedicated part of the community, they may want to leave a review for a game there even if they didn't purchase it or don't have it in their GOG library.
People should be able to edit their reviews after posting to account for patches/fixes sure, like ones that make a game playable or functional enough to give it a better recommendation maybe. But limiting it to only people who bought from GOG would be impossible, after all the Enhanced Editions Beamdog put out were released on other platforms before the game came to GOG.
Comments
On the other hand though I can't at all in good concious give this a 'good' or recomended review when they've decided to arbitrarily screw up the UI's as bad as they did despite all the criticisms and critiques here leading up to launch.
That and the bugs all over the place makes this a 'Maybe a month or so from now I'd recommend it' from me.
When I read Trent's post I wondered if he was overreacting about a handful of negative reviews, but then I had a look at the Metacritic and GOG page, and the shitstorm in the review section is really brutal...
I don't understand why people are so up in arms about the transgender character... As far as I can tell from the screenshots that have been posted, the dialog looks perfectly in line with any number of other minor Baldur's Gate NPCs telling you their backstory when you talk to them.
It might be a little unusual that the only allowed player responses are to express interest/empathy, but it's also understandable - because if they had added a joking or even cruel response, they'd have risked outrage from another subset of players. So I don't think Beamdog did anything wrong there.
However, when it comes to Minsc's GamerGate line and the reactions to it, I feel that Beamdog was pretty much "asking for it".
Others in this thread have defended it by comparing it to existing popculture references in BG. But there's a big difference: Those references were politically benign, and came from a position of admiration and fandom, not antagonism. "Larry, Darryl, and Darryl" were clearly added by someone who loved that sitcom, for example.
With the "It's really about ethics..." line, on the other hand, Beamdog's writers are not expressing admiration for a pop culture phenomenon, they are throwing a punch in a long-running Internet flamewar. It is designed to mock, and comes across in the spirit of "Ha, that'll show 'em".
Well, yes, it sure "showed" the beehive, and the bees came flying. That was as predictable as it was unnecessary.
I find the whole thing sad, because I really want the game to sell well so that Beamdog continues to deliver patches and maybe someday creates a BG3 or IWD3...
PS: I can't follow Trent's plea to balance out the negative reviews with positive ones, because I cannot in good conscience write a review for an expansion that I have not played myself yet. But I hope to get around playing it soon - I already bought it of course
So, I'm torn. Do I support this, even though I'm not made to feel welcome? Wut do, as they say?
BTW, I haven't bought the game yet and that's mostly due to 1) I only have BG original and not BG EE and 2) I don't have the money to afford it for awhile but otherwise I'd be willing to give them my cash monies if there's a good game here with a good story and good dialogue sans some of the silly stuff.
In short; yes. I want this company, sans a couple specific people, to make a new game in the Forgotten Realms.
Perhaps you can say Beamdog's trolling makes a game that would otherwise be an 8/10 now a 7/10, or a game that you would have given a 9/10 is now an 8.5/10.
Giving it 1s across the board seems to be an overreaction.
I understand you want your game to be successful, and honestly I was hoping the expansion was going to be good. But if people are saying it isn't good, then instead of going after those who aren't pleased with the game and the 2.0 patches perhaps it'd be better to take it on the chin and let everyone know you're going to do better. It doesn't look good when a dev feels a need to go out and ask people to provide positive reviews to counteract the negative ones, it shows little faith that their game's quality will show in the end once people play it.
One of the things I've heard people criticizing in the reviews is non-functioning multiplayer, which are some of the same complaints leveled at BG1EE and BG2EE when they came out. It's a legitimate complaint and when it's a pattern in your releases I don't think that's the playerbase's fault at all for giving the game a negative review.
However, that in and of itself is very minor. Just a lame line, then you move on. I think where the issue springs from, is putting that into context with statements made mostly by Amber in which she takes issue with certain aspects of the series before this. Many of these issues come off as insulting to the fans, and when you add that to the design decisions made it starts to give off the notion of an agenda. Not saying that there IS an agenda, that's just how it looks from the outside to some.
Finally, the Gamergate joke. Again, a minor thing per se, but like before when you put it in context it becomes insulting. There was no reason to bring that into the game. It doesn't do much harm to the in game universe, but you basically decided to put in an eye-roller of a joke just to say "heh heh, see how we took a shot at those goobergoobers?" I'm not even going to get into another argument about GG except to say that I fully support them, and a lot of people that do are your customers and fans. It was a dumb decision that didn't even have a pay off to it. That, again, is what gives the look of an agenda when they look at who put it in and statements she's made.
What I'm saying is that it's a good game despite the rather small flaws, and I don't think it is so much the game that people take issue with, but the developers. I think if the game had released without anyone seeing behind the scenes, there wouldn't be an issue right now.
That's a tough moral quandary to solve.
Of course, you can feel offended. Just keep it to yourself like a grown person and ignore it. Or don't buy the game. That's your right as a consumer.
Trent did not ask us to raid on metacritic and steam and leave outstanding reviews and downvote negative reviews. He asked us to leave our review, and honestly say whether we are happy or not. Now this might not look great because people should their review on their own, I agree with that. But Beamdog is not Ubisoft or Nintendo. Even if the reviews are bad, a lot of people would buy games and stuff from them. Yes, it might slightly affect their turnover, but that's one game over 10+ per year and it will not be that terrible anyway. Beamdog however is a small studio, one that is new to the video game market. If it is destroyed by comments on the first game they made, then they will suffer from it, and might even have a hard time surviving the blow.
It reminds me of another small studio some of you might know of. Camelot software planning. They made the outstanding Golden Sun games on GBA. Both were excellent. Then they made a sequel on Nintendo DS. It was good. Better than many DS games. Yet purists frowned upon it because it was not as great as the original one. Since then, they have not made any other Golden Sun game and are struggling to survive. A big studio can stand such a blow or two and remain relatively unharmed, a smaller one can maybe stand one, and will not survive unscathed, and definitely any second blow will finish them off.
If I thought I would enjoy the game, I'd buy it. I do think you should express your displeasure as well (which you seem to be doing very civilly and articulately)
Do you give 0 rating to a film because of one akward scene? Or do you stop reading if a character in a otherwise fine novel says something you don't agree with?
Some young people only live through extremes. A game is either 10 or 0. There is not middle ground. And obviously they have difficult time understanding and respecting different world views. A game as medium can never mature if people playing are this one dimensional and insecure.
Whats the big deal really? Having a transgender character? We already had the belt that changed gender for instance, not to mention the Edwin thing in bg2.
People should be able to edit their reviews after posting to account for patches/fixes sure, like ones that make a game playable or functional enough to give it a better recommendation maybe. But limiting it to only people who bought from GOG would be impossible, after all the Enhanced Editions Beamdog put out were released on other platforms before the game came to GOG.