What's so hard to understand? If you provoke people with your political views in your game, people will provoke you back and they will downvote you (if they don't agree with you) This might not be up there with Bioware, but it's similar enough and people have had enough. Deal with it.
These disgruntled anti sjw types are just manipulating the scoring system and ranking of reviews which is basically bringing the user review system into disrepute. Its pathetic.
What's so hard to understand? If you provoke people with your political views in your game, people will provoke you back and they will downvote you (if they don't agree with you) This might not be up there with Bioware, but it's similar enough and people have had enough. Deal with it.
They're just manipulating the scoring system and ranking of reviews which is basically bringing the user review system into disrepute. Its pathetic.
Again: the top reviews are actually concerning mostly technical issues and bad writing criticism. The scoring system seems to be working just fine, if there's anyone attempting to manipulate the scoring system well go back to the original post here in this thread.
Have you read any of the hate reviews? This is absolutely what they're complaining about. If you don't like LGBTQ friendly content or generally can't stand that it's no longer 1953, that's fine. But trying to sink a game that people put so much effort into over a few lines of dialogue is despicable.
I left my reviews and hope other people do the same.
Yes, there's a couple of those. Most of them are actually fair because they do mention either the political choices along with the technical issues or even just the technical issues. Overall there's just an overwhelming majority of technical issues being discussed that actually shouldn't be drowned out by positive comments instigated by a political agenda from either party: the devs or the reactionary people commenting on a very narrow view of the game.
Among the written reviews, there are also multiple 0 ratings without written accompaniment. A game has be pretty much broken in order to receive a 0/10...unless that rating is based on hateful politics.
There are 4 user reviews on metacritic. 2 of them are positive. 2 of them are negative. One discusses bugs, the other your SJW stuff. Just calm down. It is too soon to really judge anything. Fallout 4 tanked on metacritic and steam in the beginning too.
The CEO of the company thinks it might be significant enough to harm sales. Fallout 4 is still selling copies like hotcakes today - small games like SoD depend a lot more on early purchases.
Even if it's not going to influence sales one way or the other, I'm frustrated by the principle of the thing. I would never give a game a 0 rating for including something that offended me because I'm not a petulant child. Judging by the insane number of downvotes for positive reviews on Steam, there seem to be hundreds of gamerbros willing to do just that.
Did you forget to read my earlier post that described how most of the negative steam reviews are because of bugs and broken multiplayer? Let me paste that here for you:
Let's look at some of these reviews, shall we? There are currently 12 negative reviews. 10 of these are considered "helpful". 8 of those reviews focuses on bugs and multiplayer not working. A few of them state that there are SJW themes in the game, but state that they are not going to comment on them. 2 reviews are focused only on the so-called LGBTQ content. One is a quote from Amber Scott about the original BG had "lots" of sexism. The second is discussing how it is not natural for someone to immediately state their sexuality after meeting them.
Quote: "It is not natural for a person to just come flat out and tell you their sexuality when you meet them for the first time. This is the mark of poor writing and SJWs trying to "represent" a minority that they themselves don't even understand, which by itself is pretentious and shallow as..."
This can easily be seen as a criticism of the writing rather than a criticism of LGBTQ themes.
Next time, do your research and don't strawman people.
Did someone just learn the word "strawman"?
I have researched the reviews quite extensively because this whole fiasco pisses me off to no end. It seems like you're conveniently leaving out those that attacked the game specifically for the inclusion of LGBTQ themes - I wonder why you would do that? As for the post you quoted, you can't possibly expect us to believe that a poster who uses the derisive term "SJW" would have been ok with the character if only she had MORE depth. And the hundreds of concentrated downvotes for positive reviews - those are because they're fired up about...technical issues? Is that right?
Sorry, but I'm not the one misrepresenting the other side's argument here.
So there are no technical issues? This is just about politics and you're not misrepresenting one side's argument? Funny that if I go to the steam store page right now I can see the exact opposite: mostly people complaining about technical issues and poor writing. Respectfully and with opinionated but valid points. The fact that they use a term you do not like does not takes away from what you quoted, in fact you actually are misrepresenting his entire point which is the same I'm making: negative reviews are mostly related to technical issues and SHOULD have a right to exist and be read.
Did I say that? For people who complain about strawmen, you all sure do use them a lot.
Of course there are technical issues with the game (although my playthrough has been bug free) and those reviews are perfectly valid. I'm talking about 0 star reviews attacking this game specifically for its (f***ing minimal!) LGBTQ friendly content. If you're telling me that you haven't been able to find SEVERAL of those, then I don't know how I can help you.
Also, did you want to address the flood of downvotes for positive reviews or is that too inconvenient to your argument?
My point has consistently been that calling out political disagreements is misleading. Go to the steam page, here I'll give you the link:
What's the first negative review? and the second? the third? All three are mostly about technical issues. Which coincidentally address your second point: those, and not the pure "trolling" reviews (which actually DO have a right to exist and be upvoted: you don't get to control people's political opinions) are clearly on the upfront. Those are valid, those are real problems potential new comers face. Those are the ones being upheld as the most popular reviews, your entire point fails by your own standard then.
Try vising other review sites as well, genius. But that said, I'll bite:
The 4th negative review (why did you stop at three, I wonder?) consists ONLY of a downrating and a verbatim quote from Amber Scott and nothing else. The 7th review downvotes this game solely because of the content of this thread's OP. The 8th cites "SJW propaganda" and the 10th had to be removed because the author called trans people "freaks" and Amber Scott a "c*nt."
If you want to find common cause with these people, then that's fine. But don't go pretending that this is about "bad writing." Try to stay intellectually honest.
What's so hard to understand? If you provoke people with your political views in your game, people will provoke you back and they will downvote you (if they don't agree with you) This might not be up there with Bioware, but it's similar enough and people have had enough. Deal with it.
They're just manipulating the scoring system and ranking of reviews which is basically bringing the user review system into disrepute. Its pathetic.
Again: the top reviews are actually concerning mostly technical issues and bad writing criticism. The scoring system seems to be working just fine, if there's anyone attempting to manipulate the scoring system well go back to the original post here in this thread.
70% of steam reviews are positive but top ones all negative including the anti-sjw ones. Definite manipulation of the scoring system by this horrible group.
Dorn and Hexxat aren't really forced. My experience has been Dorn coming on to my character and the whole thing ending with a respectful "I don't swing that way." and that being the end of it. Hexxat it just never came up because I didn't have a female character, and the fact that she didn't exactly embrace being a vampire was far more interesting than who she tries to share a bed with.
There are times when this sort of thing has to be flamboyant to get the point across. There are other times when subtlety is key. example: Albus Dumbledore. His sexuality was never brought up in the Harry Potter books because his romantic conquests were never an issue.
I didn't even know either of them were gay.
This is how it should be if you don't follow their romance path.
And why is that, exactly? I know plenty of gay people and I'm not romancing any of them. How do I know they're gay, you ask? Because its and integral part of who they are in a predominantly straight world. Expecting that you should never know a character is LGBTQ unless you REALLY dig for it denies a fundamental reality.
Woaw....Gender Politics in Baldur's Gate...I never tough I will write this in a sentence about one of my favorite RPG's. I wont even bother posting negative reviews about the DLC. I just wont buy it now. I'm glad that I did research about this DLC before consider buying it.
You could prepared better for this, as you knew this would happen. Dont dabble into divisive writing if you dont want to be center of political attention. Now, you earned your place alongside Tim Schafer as one of top enemies of Gamergate, and this position has its ups and downs. On positive side, Kotaku, RPS and all other outlets of holier-than-thou intelligentsia better pick this story up fast, and promote your game. Otherwise, Beamdog will be alone in this mess.
What is up with gamersgate and sod? I am completely lost at that.
Regarding the negative reviews BECAUSE OF the two jokes, i find them rather exaggerated. I dont know if it is because they think in Toril there cant be people who would like to have been born of a different gender (considering that in Toril there are people who want to become liches I dont see why there shouldnt be people who would like a different gender) or becuase they cant stand real life Transexuals. On any case, I think rating a game zero for that is unfair.
Woaw....Gender Politics in Baldur's Gate...I never tough I will write this in a sentence about one of my favorite RPG's. I wont even bother posting negative reviews about the DLC. I just wont buy it now. I'm glad that I did research about this DLC before consider buying it.
There are no gender politics in the game. It's a character whose parents named said character with a male name, and later in life that character chose a female name instead. Oh, she also heals and restores party members, regardless of whether you ask her mundane nonsense about her name.
Have you read any of the hate reviews? This is absolutely what they're complaining about. If you don't like LGBTQ friendly content or generally can't stand that it's no longer 1953, that's fine. But trying to sink a game that people put so much effort into over a few lines of dialogue is despicable.
I left my reviews and hope other people do the same.
Yes, there's a couple of those. Most of them are actually fair because they do mention either the political choices along with the technical issues or even just the technical issues. Overall there's just an overwhelming majority of technical issues being discussed that actually shouldn't be drowned out by positive comments instigated by a political agenda from either party: the devs or the reactionary people commenting on a very narrow view of the game.
Among the written reviews, there are also multiple 0 ratings without written accompaniment. A game has be pretty much broken in order to receive a 0/10...unless that rating is based on hateful politics.
There are 4 user reviews on metacritic. 2 of them are positive. 2 of them are negative. One discusses bugs, the other your SJW stuff. Just calm down. It is too soon to really judge anything. Fallout 4 tanked on metacritic and steam in the beginning too.
The CEO of the company thinks it might be significant enough to harm sales. Fallout 4 is still selling copies like hotcakes today - small games like SoD depend a lot more on early purchases.
Even if it's not going to influence sales one way or the other, I'm frustrated by the principle of the thing. I would never give a game a 0 rating for including something that offended me because I'm not a petulant child. Judging by the insane number of downvotes for positive reviews on Steam, there seem to be hundreds of gamerbros willing to do just that.
Did you forget to read my earlier post that described how most of the negative steam reviews are because of bugs and broken multiplayer? Let me paste that here for you:
Let's look at some of these reviews, shall we? There are currently 12 negative reviews. 10 of these are considered "helpful". 8 of those reviews focuses on bugs and multiplayer not working. A few of them state that there are SJW themes in the game, but state that they are not going to comment on them. 2 reviews are focused only on the so-called LGBTQ content. One is a quote from Amber Scott about the original BG had "lots" of sexism. The second is discussing how it is not natural for someone to immediately state their sexuality after meeting them.
Quote: "It is not natural for a person to just come flat out and tell you their sexuality when you meet them for the first time. This is the mark of poor writing and SJWs trying to "represent" a minority that they themselves don't even understand, which by itself is pretentious and shallow as..."
This can easily be seen as a criticism of the writing rather than a criticism of LGBTQ themes.
Next time, do your research and don't strawman people.
Did someone just learn the word "strawman"?
I have researched the reviews quite extensively because this whole fiasco pisses me off to no end. It seems like you're conveniently leaving out those that attacked the game specifically for the inclusion of LGBTQ themes - I wonder why you would do that? As for the post you quoted, you can't possibly expect us to believe that a poster who uses the derisive term "SJW" would have been ok with the character if only she had MORE depth. And the hundreds of concentrated downvotes for positive reviews - those are because they're fired up about...technical issues? Is that right?
Sorry, but I'm not the one misrepresenting the other side's argument here.
So there are no technical issues? This is just about politics and you're not misrepresenting one side's argument? Funny that if I go to the steam store page right now I can see the exact opposite: mostly people complaining about technical issues and poor writing. Respectfully and with opinionated but valid points. The fact that they use a term you do not like does not takes away from what you quoted, in fact you actually are misrepresenting his entire point which is the same I'm making: negative reviews are mostly related to technical issues and SHOULD have a right to exist and be read.
Did I say that? For people who complain about strawmen, you all sure do use them a lot.
Of course there are technical issues with the game (although my playthrough has been bug free) and those reviews are perfectly valid. I'm talking about 0 star reviews attacking this game specifically for its (f***ing minimal!) LGBTQ friendly content. If you're telling me that you haven't been able to find SEVERAL of those, then I don't know how I can help you.
Also, did you want to address the flood of downvotes for positive reviews or is that too inconvenient to your argument?
My point has consistently been that calling out political disagreements is misleading. Go to the steam page, here I'll give you the link:
What's the first negative review? and the second? the third? All three are mostly about technical issues. Which coincidentally address your second point: those, and not the pure "trolling" reviews (which actually DO have a right to exist and be upvoted: you don't get to control people's political opinions) are clearly on the upfront. Those are valid, those are real problems potential new comers face. Those are the ones being upheld as the most popular reviews, your entire point fails by your own standard then.
Try vising other review sites as well, genius. But that said, I'll bite:
The 4th negative review (why did you stop at three, I wonder?) consists ONLY of a downrating and a verbatim quote from Amber Scott and nothing else. The 7th review downvotes this game solely because of the content of this thread's OP. The 8th cites "SJW propaganda" and the 10th had to be removed because the author called trans people "freaks" and Amber Scott a "c*nt."
If you want to find common cause with these people, then that's fine. But don't go pretending that this is about "bad writing." Try to stay intellectually honest.
"It's about bad writing in gaming"
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. However, you need to stop pretending that all of those who don't like the LGBTQ etc. characters are all horrible misogynists, nazis, and (insert word here)phobes. Some of us don't like bad writing, especially when it forces an agenda. Bad writing is bad enough, but with the duo of bad writing and agenda thumping, it gets worse. (Not to say that having LGBTQ characters with good writing is impossible. See earlier post by me.)
I can see how it's annoying to have reviews - downvoted that talk positively about the game (without mentioning a TG cleric or Minsc's ethics) - upvoted that talk about pandering to SJWs or not liking the queer
The release is probably a crucial period, so one-issue review and vote brigading based on all of 3-4(?) lines misrepresents the actual quality of the game: you know, the parts about exploring dungeons and fighting monsters.
The most popular and upvoted comments talk about technical issues and bad writing. They even have to preface it with "I have nothing against LGBT people" because they know they'll be misrepresented for calling out bad writing and lo and behold, apparently it was necessary.
Ugh. Steam. It's not the only platform out there, you know! >< Gah. Rubbish.
2nd Steam review //86% helpful
I don't have any problem with having gay, trans etc NPCs, but
5th Steam review //68% helpful (why did you stop at 3? 5 are in the front page)
“If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism, [we tried to address that],” said writer Amber Scott. “In the original there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple, like Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy. We were able to say like, ‘No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.’ In Siege of Dragonspear, Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad.”-Amber Scott, writer for new Baldur's Gate
upvoted 33/42 found helpful - entirely about social justice
While the mechanics of the game are in line with the originals, the story falls short. It sacrifices the narrative and world building of the original Baldur's Gate in order to break the 4th wall and beat players over the head with messages about social issues with the grace and subtlety of a Saturday morning cartoon from the 90's. There is no problem with having messages about social issues in a game. The problem comes when one hijacks another franchise, gut out its soul and fill it with vapid maxims and fables in its place. That is one of the surest ways to kill off a franchise, and it is especially odious when it happens to a well-loved franchise. Want social justice? Sure, but stop hijacking the industry and make your own games. You're not going to improve the industry, you're just going to kill it from the inside out.
downvoted 7 of 51 found helpful - entirely anti-the above review
People are really leaving reviews of 1 because of a transgender cleric? Please grow up, children. I think i'm about halfway through the game now and it's been really fun so far! Looking forward to playing it again multiplayer.
downvoted 6/20 found helpful - entirely about the gameplay with no mention of social justice content
Gives you a reason not to skip Durlag's Tower and go straight to BG2. You'll want a well-equipped higher level character for SoD if you enjoy higher difficulty settings. In this expansion, you get some pretty fun fights: a couple massive battles (bigger than anything else in the BG series), dragons, and a few surprise fights. The AI on the Core+ difficulties is also much tougher than in the original game (still not decided if it's SCS level, but it's good). Plus, on higher difficulties you run into larger and more varied enemy groups, like in Pillars of Eternity. End boss is also real fun and a nice surprise for fans. . . .
1) Yeah, I think most developers would agree Steam is a much bigger deal than gog.com. I'm not saying is better, I'm not saying is ideal, I'm just stating reality: gog is orders of magnitude less popular even for niche RPG games
2) Right you've quoted reviews that mostly criticize the writing of the game. Calling out a supposed fallacy doesn't invalidates the argument that the user thought it was forced in. You might disagree, that's valid. But you're implying that these reviews are mostly trolling about something that's not going on here. We have seen this in gamer gate time and time again: people insists on trying to discredit legitimate criticism with cherry picked, mostly irrelevant voices that do troll. What about the multiplayer issues? What about the lines being out character for a medieval inspired setting? What about the fact that even if you disagree with those views, there is no legitimate reason to call out people to "balance out" things you don't agree with politically?
Thats a riot coming from someone who cherry-picks arguments and replies as hard as you do.
If you can show me where I've done so and haven't addressed it, please do.
Every single top voted Steam review is negative right now, and there are multiple reviews there and on other platforms giving this game 0 ratings for the LGBT issue ALONE. If you agree with people trying to manipulate the reviews that way, fine - but then you don't get to attack Trent Oster for trying to balance that out by calling for people who enjoyed the game to say so.
I can see how it's annoying to have reviews - downvoted that talk positively about the game (without mentioning a TG cleric or Minsc's ethics) - upvoted that talk about pandering to SJWs or not liking the queer
The release is probably a crucial period, so one-issue review and vote brigading based on all of 3-4(?) lines misrepresents the actual quality of the game: you know, the parts about exploring dungeons and fighting monsters.
The most popular and upvoted comments talk about technical issues and bad writing. They even have to preface it with "I have nothing against LGBT people" because they know they'll be misrepresented for calling out bad writing and lo and behold, apparently it was necessary.
You're still not acknowledging that the ones about bad writing are pretty much only citing the trans character as an example. Someone stating they don't have anything against LGTB people in the intro to their review doesn't really mean anything.
"I'm not racist, but......."
I agree that technical difficulties are mentioned the most... It should also be mentioned that a few of these state that they enjoy the content that they have played and will change it to a positive if the issues are addressed... I'm also quite sure that certain people are up-voting negative reviews and down voting positive, no matter the content. I have personally downvoted the SJW ones and upvoted a couple of the ones about technical difficulties even though I am personally not experiencing any. Why? Because those reviews make sense.
Hehe, @Vlad you once asked me at BWL to tell you 3 advantages that BGEE has over vanilla. I sincerely wanted to do just that, but then I thought I'm not that suicidal. Whatever I'd said it wouldn't change your mind, so I backed off. Your post above just confirms this. And saying that area graphics in SoD is just made from pieces of existing art is well... unjust to put it mildly. Look, you obviously didn't played SoD, so just throwing insults, because you don't like Beamdog? Try it out for gods sake, you may be even surprised!
Still not the answer. I'm just looking at the screenshots and recognise the areas or pieces of areas from different games. I really like the area graphics in BG, but only Ray Muzyka could do the best original art. By the way, why is it suicidal? Come to BWL, and we'll discuss it if you want. In particular, now when we released Keldorn Romance with a lot of new creative content. Still for free.
I would probably have made a review eventually, positive or negative, but now I can't in good conscience do either. Dee seems more reasonable though, and had I not already had my view colored, I would most definitely made one. Though to be fair, even critiquing the writing of of a single character is still valid, though not enough to make an overall bad review. Also, obviously letting a writer splurge at will to some site on the internet, you'd be mad not to expect bad PR. That article was terrible. Anyway, hope for a lot more from you guys, you're generally doing a great job, bringing me back to a game I literally own 5 legal copies of (bought as part of packs and upgrades to dvds etc with technology) and having me buy one more, and then making another expansion. Keep on keeping on.
Dorn and Hexxat aren't really forced. My experience has been Dorn coming on to my character and the whole thing ending with a respectful "I don't swing that way." and that being the end of it. Hexxat it just never came up because I didn't have a female character, and the fact that she didn't exactly embrace being a vampire was far more interesting than who she tries to share a bed with.
There are times when this sort of thing has to be flamboyant to get the point across. There are other times when subtlety is key. example: Albus Dumbledore. His sexuality was never brought up in the Harry Potter books because his romantic conquests were never an issue.
I didn't even know either of them were gay.
This is how it should be if you don't follow their romance path.
And why is that, exactly? I know plenty of gay people and I'm not romancing any of them. How do I know they're gay, you ask? Because its and integral part of who they are in a predominantly straight world. Expecting that you should never know a character is LGBTQ unless you REALLY dig for it denies a fundamental reality.
There's nothing wrong with it coming out even when you aren't romancing them, but there's a time and a place for it. Given that your party members are actively out adventuring and not chasing tail, it's not like their preference in partners is particularly relevant 99% of the time. If/when it comes up, it should feel like a natural conversation, not as a proclamation to the player that so and so is this or that.
Have you read any of the hate reviews? This is absolutely what they're complaining about. If you don't like LGBTQ friendly content or generally can't stand that it's no longer 1953, that's fine. But trying to sink a game that people put so much effort into over a few lines of dialogue is despicable.
I left my reviews and hope other people do the same.
Yes, there's a couple of those. Most of them are actually fair because they do mention either the political choices along with the technical issues or even just the technical issues. Overall there's just an overwhelming majority of technical issues being discussed that actually shouldn't be drowned out by positive comments instigated by a political agenda from either party: the devs or the reactionary people commenting on a very narrow view of the game.
Among the written reviews, there are also multiple 0 ratings without written accompaniment. A game has be pretty much broken in order to receive a 0/10...unless that rating is based on hateful politics.
There are 4 user reviews on metacritic. 2 of them are positive. 2 of them are negative. One discusses bugs, the other your SJW stuff. Just calm down. It is too soon to really judge anything. Fallout 4 tanked on metacritic and steam in the beginning too.
The CEO of the company thinks it might be significant enough to harm sales. Fallout 4 is still selling copies like hotcakes today - small games like SoD depend a lot more on early purchases.
Even if it's not going to influence sales one way or the other, I'm frustrated by the principle of the thing. I would never give a game a 0 rating for including something that offended me because I'm not a petulant child. Judging by the insane number of downvotes for positive reviews on Steam, there seem to be hundreds of gamerbros willing to do just that.
Did you forget to read my earlier post that described how most of the negative steam reviews are because of bugs and broken multiplayer? Let me paste that here for you:
Let's look at some of these reviews, shall we? There are currently 12 negative reviews. 10 of these are considered "helpful". 8 of those reviews focuses on bugs and multiplayer not working. A few of them state that there are SJW themes in the game, but state that they are not going to comment on them. 2 reviews are focused only on the so-called LGBTQ content. One is a quote from Amber Scott about the original BG had "lots" of sexism. The second is discussing how it is not natural for someone to immediately state their sexuality after meeting them.
Quote: "It is not natural for a person to just come flat out and tell you their sexuality when you meet them for the first time. This is the mark of poor writing and SJWs trying to "represent" a minority that they themselves don't even understand, which by itself is pretentious and shallow as..."
This can easily be seen as a criticism of the writing rather than a criticism of LGBTQ themes.
Next time, do your research and don't strawman people.
Did someone just learn the word "strawman"?
I have researched the reviews quite extensively because this whole fiasco pisses me off to no end. It seems like you're conveniently leaving out those that attacked the game specifically for the inclusion of LGBTQ themes - I wonder why you would do that? As for the post you quoted, you can't possibly expect us to believe that a poster who uses the derisive term "SJW" would have been ok with the character if only she had MORE depth. And the hundreds of concentrated downvotes for positive reviews - those are because they're fired up about...technical issues? Is that right?
Sorry, but I'm not the one misrepresenting the other side's argument here.
So there are no technical issues? This is just about politics and you're not misrepresenting one side's argument? Funny that if I go to the steam store page right now I can see the exact opposite: mostly people complaining about technical issues and poor writing. Respectfully and with opinionated but valid points. The fact that they use a term you do not like does not takes away from what you quoted, in fact you actually are misrepresenting his entire point which is the same I'm making: negative reviews are mostly related to technical issues and SHOULD have a right to exist and be read.
Did I say that? For people who complain about strawmen, you all sure do use them a lot.
Of course there are technical issues with the game (although my playthrough has been bug free) and those reviews are perfectly valid. I'm talking about 0 star reviews attacking this game specifically for its (f***ing minimal!) LGBTQ friendly content. If you're telling me that you haven't been able to find SEVERAL of those, then I don't know how I can help you.
Also, did you want to address the flood of downvotes for positive reviews or is that too inconvenient to your argument?
My point has consistently been that calling out political disagreements is misleading. Go to the steam page, here I'll give you the link:
What's the first negative review? and the second? the third? All three are mostly about technical issues. Which coincidentally address your second point: those, and not the pure "trolling" reviews (which actually DO have a right to exist and be upvoted: you don't get to control people's political opinions) are clearly on the upfront. Those are valid, those are real problems potential new comers face. Those are the ones being upheld as the most popular reviews, your entire point fails by your own standard then.
Try vising other review sites as well, genius. But that said, I'll bite:
The 4th negative review (why did you stop at three, I wonder?) consists ONLY of a downrating and a verbatim quote from Amber Scott and nothing else. The 7th review downvotes this game solely because of the content of this thread's OP. The 8th cites "SJW propaganda" and the 10th had to be removed because the author called trans people "freaks" and Amber Scott a "c*nt."
If you want to find common cause with these people, then that's fine. But don't go pretending that this is about "bad writing." Try to stay intellectually honest.
"It's about bad writing in gaming"
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. However, you need to stop pretending that all of those who don't like the LGBTQ etc. characters are all horrible misogynists, nazis, and (insert word here)phobes. Some of us don't like bad writing, especially when it forces an agenda. Bad writing is bad enough, but with the duo of bad writing and agenda thumping, it gets worse. (Not to say that having LGBTQ characters with good writing is impossible. See earlier post by me.)
I keep hearing about this "agenda" that the game is trying to "push" and "force" though its <10 seconds of dialogue.
Sorry to portray you in a bad light, but don't you think that asking your playerbase for such a move (despite the sinister behaviour from people, who are zero-ing the game purely because of 2 minor details) will act as extra ammo against you? I might be doomsaying but I can imagine people saying things such as "This game's so bad devs are begging people to make positive reviews!", effectively leading to a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I find the game to be sweet so please see this as my personal concern rather than an aggressive approach.
I concur with this man. It's best to let things play out as they will, review averages always even out after some time passes; let it roll.
Have you read any of the hate reviews? This is absolutely what they're complaining about. If you don't like LGBTQ friendly content or generally can't stand that it's no longer 1953, that's fine. But trying to sink a game that people put so much effort into over a few lines of dialogue is despicable.
I left my reviews and hope other people do the same.
Yes, there's a couple of those. Most of them are actually fair because they do mention either the political choices along with the technical issues or even just the technical issues. Overall there's just an overwhelming majority of technical issues being discussed that actually shouldn't be drowned out by positive comments instigated by a political agenda from either party: the devs or the reactionary people commenting on a very narrow view of the game.
Among the written reviews, there are also multiple 0 ratings without written accompaniment. A game has be pretty much broken in order to receive a 0/10...unless that rating is based on hateful politics.
There are 4 user reviews on metacritic. 2 of them are positive. 2 of them are negative. One discusses bugs, the other your SJW stuff. Just calm down. It is too soon to really judge anything. Fallout 4 tanked on metacritic and steam in the beginning too.
The CEO of the company thinks it might be significant enough to harm sales. Fallout 4 is still selling copies like hotcakes today - small games like SoD depend a lot more on early purchases.
Even if it's not going to influence sales one way or the other, I'm frustrated by the principle of the thing. I would never give a game a 0 rating for including something that offended me because I'm not a petulant child. Judging by the insane number of downvotes for positive reviews on Steam, there seem to be hundreds of gamerbros willing to do just that.
Did you forget to read my earlier post that described how most of the negative steam reviews are because of bugs and broken multiplayer? Let me paste that here for you:
Let's look at some of these reviews, shall we? There are currently 12 negative reviews. 10 of these are considered "helpful". 8 of those reviews focuses on bugs and multiplayer not working. A few of them state that there are SJW themes in the game, but state that they are not going to comment on them. 2 reviews are focused only on the so-called LGBTQ content. One is a quote from Amber Scott about the original BG had "lots" of sexism. The second is discussing how it is not natural for someone to immediately state their sexuality after meeting them.
Quote: "It is not natural for a person to just come flat out and tell you their sexuality when you meet them for the first time. This is the mark of poor writing and SJWs trying to "represent" a minority that they themselves don't even understand, which by itself is pretentious and shallow as..."
This can easily be seen as a criticism of the writing rather than a criticism of LGBTQ themes.
Next time, do your research and don't strawman people.
Did someone just learn the word "strawman"?
I have researched the reviews quite extensively because this whole fiasco pisses me off to no end. It seems like you're conveniently leaving out those that attacked the game specifically for the inclusion of LGBTQ themes - I wonder why you would do that? As for the post you quoted, you can't possibly expect us to believe that a poster who uses the derisive term "SJW" would have been ok with the character if only she had MORE depth. And the hundreds of concentrated downvotes for positive reviews - those are because they're fired up about...technical issues? Is that right?
Sorry, but I'm not the one misrepresenting the other side's argument here.
So there are no technical issues? This is just about politics and you're not misrepresenting one side's argument? Funny that if I go to the steam store page right now I can see the exact opposite: mostly people complaining about technical issues and poor writing. Respectfully and with opinionated but valid points. The fact that they use a term you do not like does not takes away from what you quoted, in fact you actually are misrepresenting his entire point which is the same I'm making: negative reviews are mostly related to technical issues and SHOULD have a right to exist and be read.
Did I say that? For people who complain about strawmen, you all sure do use them a lot.
Of course there are technical issues with the game (although my playthrough has been bug free) and those reviews are perfectly valid. I'm talking about 0 star reviews attacking this game specifically for its (f***ing minimal!) LGBTQ friendly content. If you're telling me that you haven't been able to find SEVERAL of those, then I don't know how I can help you.
Also, did you want to address the flood of downvotes for positive reviews or is that too inconvenient to your argument?
My point has consistently been that calling out political disagreements is misleading. Go to the steam page, here I'll give you the link:
What's the first negative review? and the second? the third? All three are mostly about technical issues. Which coincidentally address your second point: those, and not the pure "trolling" reviews (which actually DO have a right to exist and be upvoted: you don't get to control people's political opinions) are clearly on the upfront. Those are valid, those are real problems potential new comers face. Those are the ones being upheld as the most popular reviews, your entire point fails by your own standard then.
Try vising other review sites as well, genius. But that said, I'll bite:
The 4th negative review (why did you stop at three, I wonder?) consists ONLY of a downrating and a verbatim quote from Amber Scott and nothing else. The 7th review downvotes this game solely because of the content of this thread's OP. The 8th cites "SJW propaganda" and the 10th had to be removed because the author called trans people "freaks" and Amber Scott a "c*nt."
If you want to find common cause with these people, then that's fine. But don't go pretending that this is about "bad writing." Try to stay intellectually honest.
"It's about bad writing in gaming"
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. However, you need to stop pretending that all of those who don't like the LGBTQ etc. characters are all horrible misogynists, nazis, and (insert word here)phobes. Some of us don't like bad writing, especially when it forces an agenda. Bad writing is bad enough, but with the duo of bad writing and agenda thumping, it gets worse. (Not to say that having LGBTQ characters with good writing is impossible. See earlier post by me.)
I keep hearing about this "agenda" that the game is trying to "push" and "force" though its <10 seconds of dialogue.
Can someone please explain what that agenda is? </p>
Trent didn't do that. He called on people to review the game if they were enjoying playing it to get some actual game reviews on there since the system is obviously being manipulated by anti-sjw trolls who are upvoting every negative review.
@Vlad I meant suicidal, because judging by your attitude to Beamdog, no matter what I write, won't change it. I can find dozens of things that I like more in EE than in vanilla, but it won't make a difference for you.
Anyway, I would love to try Keldorn Romance out, but I can't force myself to go back to vanilla again. And since you don't update the mod to play along with EE and also won't let some other modder to do it for you, I fear I may not try it at all Same goes for NEJ and TS, unfortunately.
People mostly saying that quality of creative content in SoD is great. It's the UI and bugs that bother them most. Sometimes I get the impression that you think only you can make top notch content for BG. C'mon don't be like that Don't judge a game for its screenshots.
Have you read any of the hate reviews? This is absolutely what they're complaining about. If you don't like LGBTQ friendly content or generally can't stand that it's no longer 1953, that's fine. But trying to sink a game that people put so much effort into over a few lines of dialogue is despicable.
I left my reviews and hope other people do the same.
Yes, there's a couple of those. Most of them are actually fair because they do mention either the political choices along with the technical issues or even just the technical issues. Overall there's just an overwhelming majority of technical issues being discussed that actually shouldn't be drowned out by positive comments instigated by a political agenda from either party: the devs or the reactionary people commenting on a very narrow view of the game.
Among the written reviews, there are also multiple 0 ratings without written accompaniment. A game has be pretty much broken in order to receive a 0/10...unless that rating is based on hateful politics.
There are 4 user reviews on metacritic. 2 of them are positive. 2 of them are negative. One discusses bugs, the other your SJW stuff. Just calm down. It is too soon to really judge anything. Fallout 4 tanked on metacritic and steam in the beginning too.
The CEO of the company thinks it might be significant enough to harm sales. Fallout 4 is still selling copies like hotcakes today - small games like SoD depend a lot more on early purchases.
Even if it's not going to influence sales one way or the other, I'm frustrated by the principle of the thing. I would never give a game a 0 rating for including something that offended me because I'm not a petulant child. Judging by the insane number of downvotes for positive reviews on Steam, there seem to be hundreds of gamerbros willing to do just that.
Yeah, that's really awful what happened to OVERWATCH. :^)
@Purudaya Because its and integral part of who they are in a predominantly straight world.
I know two gay man and neither for me nor for them their sexuality has ever been an "integral part of who they are". Luckily, because, if you want it to be considered as a non-issue, then it can not, by definition, an integral part of their identity, since it is not for straight people.
You might also give it a thought, why this, and every remotely recognicable fantasy world, has to be predominantly straight.
What's so hard to understand? If you provoke people with your political views in your game, people will provoke you back and they will downvote you (if they don't agree with you) This might not be up there with Bioware, but it's similar enough and people have had enough. Deal with it.
They're just manipulating the scoring system and ranking of reviews which is basically bringing the user review system into disrepute. Its pathetic.
Again: the top reviews are actually concerning mostly technical issues and bad writing criticism. The scoring system seems to be working just fine, if there's anyone attempting to manipulate the scoring system well go back to the original post here in this thread.
70% of steam reviews are positive but top ones all negative including the anti-sjw ones. Definite manipulation of the scoring system by this horrible group.
Again, that's just not accurate: Most helpful review by popular choice is about technical issues only Second one mentions both technical issues and bad writing. Yes he mentions there was an agenda but he basically states it's distastefulness in the way it's written. How is that trolling?
Third one: 0 mention of any of these issues, mostly a valid criticism on modding compatibility.
Fourth one: "A lot of complaints are being directed at the blatant SJW writing in the game. Personally, it's something I couldn't care less about one way or the other. It's a non-point as far as I'm concerned.
What does bother me is the amount of bugs in the game. " Score another one for technical issues only.
Fifth one: "“If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism, [we tried to address that],” said writer Amber Scott. “In the original there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple, like Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy. We were able to say like, ‘No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.’ In Siege of Dragonspear, Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad.”-Amber Scott, writer for new Baldur's Gate" That's mostly political so that's actually the first one you have a point in being possibly unfairly upvoted if you believe political disagreement has no right to exist at all which is something I wouldn't agree with but regardless, is highly misrepresented as we're seeing
Sixth: "Beamdog: Please fix multiplayer!!!!!!!
I love BG: EE and I am sure I will love this expansion, if I could play it. The multiplayer is literally unplayable at the moment .
Please fix..." Technical issue 100%
Seventh: "EDIT: I would like to start out by saying I don't hate gays or transsexuals in any way. They do them, and I do me. I really don't care, because it doesn't affect me. What I do care about is when this is shoved down my throat and I am forced to mingle with it instead of letting me discover it for myself." I say it's mostly about bad writing but because of the language and political points I'm willing to concede this one as one for your "trolls are wining" argument.
Eight: " will recommend this once it has had a couple of patches. I'm not going to comment much on the SJW nonsense that has infected the reviews, other than to say I just want to review the game as I see it. I am sure the political war will rage on, I'd rather just enjoy what a game has to offer (and actually play it to fairly review its content.)
I have put in about 20 hours on this now, but I am putting it down for the moment due to some fairly unforgiveable bugs. More on that later." Specifically calls out to disregard political points to focus on technical issues.
Ninth: By yours truly in which I call out this specific thread as a reprehensible act of manipulation on the part of the developers. Like many others I tried to ignore the political agenda here but it was blatantly forced in by the devs.
Finally the tenth review: ">Cringey dialog >SJW propaganda >Baeloth out of nowhere >Doesn't even give minsc in the beginning "If you don't like it, too bad." Even though only one point is "trolling" I'm willing to concede the entire thing.
It still looks like your average new comer will mostly be presented with criticism about technical issues and issues with the writing, and there's actually more warnings about trying to ignore the political side of things than objections with the Trans character or Minsc Line.
By your own criteria, your points are demonstrably not accurate at all, goes for OP as well.
There's a difference between asking for a review for promotional purposes vs asking for positive reviews specifically to attempt to drown out criticism (whenever you feel it's legitimate or not).
When I started to read the post I thought the same, but there's no desperate plea for good reviews, more of a reminder than those of us more interested in enjoying the damned game could send in a review.
Still a moral gray zone, and I don't think this thread should have been started, but you're putting words into the proverbial Beamdog's mouth.
No doubt the reviews will 'balance out' whether this post existed or not, anyway.
I did nothing of the sort:
"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"
He's extremely specific in what he wants: he dislikes bad reviews that lean on the political side (which might or might not be legitimate criticism, that's besides the point I'm making) and he's asking to "balance out the loud minority" which is a very specific call to political action.
If anything is painting a dark picture for new players it's the bugs, which is the central point of contention everybody can see on the Steam page for example, yet he's calling on people's political sensibilities and flatout asking to basically censor dissent. This is fundamentally wrong, they do not own the steam platform and all users should have access to pertinent information like their incompetence in coding. This is not the first time people use what they admit is "a loud minority" to attempt to censor and silence even if it is by seer numbers.
that's what happens when politics get in the way of games.
oh yes, let's have a token trans character. let's use that person as a check box rather than anything.
let's pay a voice actor to say, petulantly, "it's actually about ethics in heroic adventuring".
I wouldit's obably have made a review eventually, positive or negative, but now I can't in good conscience do either. Dee seems more reasonable though, and had I not already had my view colored, I would most definitely made one. Though to be fair, even critiquing the writing of of a single character is still valid, though not enough to make an overall bad review. Also, obviously letting a writer splurge at will to some site on the internet, you'd be mad not to expect bad PR. That article was terrible. Anyway, hope for a lot more from you guys, you're generally doing a great job, bringing me back to a game I literally own 5 legal copies of (bought as part of packs and upgrades to dvds etc with technology) and having me buy one more, and then making another expansion. Keep on keeping on.
Just write an honest review. If its your opinion its your opinion.
Comments
The 4th negative review (why did you stop at three, I wonder?) consists ONLY of a downrating and a verbatim quote from Amber Scott and nothing else. The 7th review downvotes this game solely because of the content of this thread's OP. The 8th cites "SJW propaganda" and the 10th had to be removed because the author called trans people "freaks" and Amber Scott a "c*nt."
If you want to find common cause with these people, then that's fine. But don't go pretending that this is about "bad writing." Try to stay intellectually honest.
Regarding the negative reviews BECAUSE OF the two jokes, i find them rather exaggerated. I dont know if it is because they think in Toril there cant be people who would like to have been born of a different gender (considering that in Toril there are people who want to become liches I dont see why there shouldnt be people who would like a different gender) or becuase they cant stand real life Transexuals. On any case, I think rating a game zero for that is unfair.
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. However, you need to stop pretending that all of those who don't like the LGBTQ etc. characters are all horrible misogynists, nazis, and (insert word here)phobes. Some of us don't like bad writing, especially when it forces an agenda. Bad writing is bad enough, but with the duo of bad writing and agenda thumping, it gets worse. (Not to say that having LGBTQ characters with good writing is impossible. See earlier post by me.)
5th Steam review //68% helpful (why did you stop at 3? 5 are in the front page)
Try looking at the _other_ big game store:
https://www.gog.com/game/baldurs_gate_siege_of_dragonspear
upvoted
33/42 found helpful - entirely about social justice downvoted
7 of 51 found helpful - entirely anti-the above review downvoted
6/20 found helpful - entirely about the gameplay with no mention of social justice content 1) Yeah, I think most developers would agree Steam is a much bigger deal than gog.com. I'm not saying is better, I'm not saying is ideal, I'm just stating reality: gog is orders of magnitude less popular even for niche RPG games
2) Right you've quoted reviews that mostly criticize the writing of the game. Calling out a supposed fallacy doesn't invalidates the argument that the user thought it was forced in. You might disagree, that's valid. But you're implying that these reviews are mostly trolling about something that's not going on here. We have seen this in gamer gate time and time again: people insists on trying to discredit legitimate criticism with cherry picked, mostly irrelevant voices that do troll. What about the multiplayer issues? What about the lines being out character for a medieval inspired setting? What about the fact that even if you disagree with those views, there is no legitimate reason to call out people to "balance out" things you don't agree with politically?
Every single top voted Steam review is negative right now, and there are multiple reviews there and on other platforms giving this game 0 ratings for the LGBT issue ALONE. If you agree with people trying to manipulate the reviews that way, fine - but then you don't get to attack Trent Oster for trying to balance that out by calling for people who enjoyed the game to say so.
"I'm not racist, but......."
I agree that technical difficulties are mentioned the most... It should also be mentioned that a few of these state that they enjoy the content that they have played and will change it to a positive if the issues are addressed... I'm also quite sure that certain people are up-voting negative reviews and down voting positive, no matter the content. I have personally downvoted the SJW ones and upvoted a couple of the ones about technical difficulties even though I am personally not experiencing any. Why? Because those reviews make sense.
Can someone please explain what that agenda is?
Anyway, I would love to try Keldorn Romance out, but I can't force myself to go back to vanilla again. And since you don't update the mod to play along with EE and also won't let some other modder to do it for you, I fear I may not try it at all
People mostly saying that quality of creative content in SoD is great. It's the UI and bugs that bother them most. Sometimes I get the impression that you think only you can make top notch content for BG. C'mon don't be like that
meanwhile here's the truth of it. https://steamcommunity.com/app/228280/discussions/0/371918937271813341/?tscn=1459713798 i like the part were someone like you shits on a trans person because they don't like the trans character... even sees how it can be harmful to the trans community.
please. get your facts straight before diving in to a conspiracy theory.
I know two gay man and neither for me nor for them their sexuality has ever been an "integral part of who they are". Luckily, because, if you want it to be considered as a non-issue, then it can not, by definition, an integral part of their identity, since it is not for straight people.
You might also give it a thought, why this, and every remotely recognicable fantasy world, has to be predominantly straight.
Third one: 0 mention of any of these issues, mostly a valid criticism on modding compatibility.
Fourth one: "A lot of complaints are being directed at the blatant SJW writing in the game. Personally, it's something I couldn't care less about one way or the other. It's a non-point as far as I'm concerned.
What does bother me is the amount of bugs in the game. " Score another one for technical issues only.
Fifth one: "“If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism, [we tried to address that],” said writer Amber Scott. “In the original there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple, like Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy. We were able to say like, ‘No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.’ In Siege of Dragonspear, Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad.”-Amber Scott, writer for new Baldur's Gate" That's mostly political so that's actually the first one you have a point in being possibly unfairly upvoted if you believe political disagreement has no right to exist at all which is something I wouldn't agree with but regardless, is highly misrepresented as we're seeing
Sixth: "Beamdog: Please fix multiplayer!!!!!!!
I love BG: EE and I am sure I will love this expansion, if I could play it. The multiplayer is literally unplayable at the moment
Please fix..." Technical issue 100%
Seventh: "EDIT: I would like to start out by saying I don't hate gays or transsexuals in any way. They do them, and I do me. I really don't care, because it doesn't affect me. What I do care about is when this is shoved down my throat and I am forced to mingle with it instead of letting me discover it for myself." I say it's mostly about bad writing but because of the language and political points I'm willing to concede this one as one for your "trolls are wining" argument.
Eight: " will recommend this once it has had a couple of patches. I'm not going to comment much on the SJW nonsense that has infected the reviews, other than to say I just want to review the game as I see it. I am sure the political war will rage on, I'd rather just enjoy what a game has to offer (and actually play it to fairly review its content.)
I have put in about 20 hours on this now, but I am putting it down for the moment due to some fairly unforgiveable bugs. More on that later." Specifically calls out to disregard political points to focus on technical issues.
Ninth: By yours truly in which I call out this specific thread as a reprehensible act of manipulation on the part of the developers. Like many others I tried to ignore the political agenda here but it was blatantly forced in by the devs.
Finally the tenth review: ">Cringey dialog
>SJW propaganda
>Baeloth out of nowhere
>Doesn't even give minsc in the beginning
"If you don't like it, too bad." Even though only one point is "trolling" I'm willing to concede the entire thing.
It still looks like your average new comer will mostly be presented with criticism about technical issues and issues with the writing, and there's actually more warnings about trying to ignore the political side of things than objections with the Trans character or Minsc Line.
By your own criteria, your points are demonstrably not accurate at all, goes for OP as well.
oh yes, let's have a token trans character. let's use that person as a check box rather than anything.
let's pay a voice actor to say, petulantly, "it's actually about ethics in heroic adventuring".
never mind that trans people are turning up their nose at this obvious turd. https://steamcommunity.com/app/228280/discussions/0/371918937271813341/?tscn=1459713798
but really. I'm more concerned with the legality of it all.
all the force old jokes and the like seem to violate the contract of staying with in the setting. it seems to be a breach of such an agreement.
isn't that lovely? someone should tell the original people who worked on this game you know, before beamdog goes please with crocodile tears?