I feel like this is going to be a new page in Anita Sarkeesian's book
Oh, how dare Amber follow Anita Sarkeesian. So do I and many others.
It says a lot about your obvious agenda and desperation when you need to dig up people's Twitter profile to prove a point.
Anita Sarkesian is famous for making videos attacking video games for being sexist, despite being on record as stating that she does not play video games. So if someone on the dev team is a fan of her, gamers are right to be worried.
Last time I checked, Anita Sarkeesian has nothing to do with BG, and I don't have to be a fan to follow somebody on Twitter - even I have disagreements with Anita. Are you going on witchhunts for simply having opinions now?
Amber is a writer for the game, she follows Anita Sarkeesian. It's not damning in itself, but it is worrying that someone intimately involved in the creative process of a game is a supporter of a notorious - probably *the* most notorious - anti-gamer, and the toxic ideology that she esposes.
Are we having McCarthy hearings for game developers based on who they follow on Twitter?? How can you seriously think this is "worrying" in any real sense of the term??
Who the hell mentioned "hearings"? Beamdog can employ whoever they want, but it's important that consumers are aware of the agenda that is being pushed here, actively by Amber and tacitly enabled by Beamdog.
This pisses me off to no end. Where are the negative reviews for Dragon Age or Mass Effect because they have homosexual romances and transgender characters? They don't exist, because the games are good.
Well for starters, it's Bioware, so its basically assumed that you can romance anything with 2 legs. The other issue is that there were FAR larger concerns at hand, such as reviews bought by EA and shoddy endings that only change the color of an explosion, or that Red Jenny elf looking like she was making a permanent lemon face.
There are actually negative user reviews about Krem and Iron Bull in DA:I (rewriting the Qunari slightly). Didnt like the character or feel changes were necessary but some people took way too much offense.
I made a account for this forum just for this post, and sharing my thoughts on the whole matter.
To start off, I love what you did with Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition, I liked the new characters you put in, while they could feel abit out of touch with the rest of the cast, I felt they provided some cool new stuff to play around with.
I bought these games 2 years ago, and it really reignited my love for DnD and Baldur's Gate in general, and i salute you for the hard work you put into those 2 Enhanced Editions, they were worth my money.
I recently bought Siege of Dragonspear, and the gameplay is there, the core Baldur's Gate gameplay is there, the combat is as fun as always, building your characters and loot is awesome, you did a really good job with the whole theme around the game and the whole Siege thing is a really cool thing to see, it feels good to see that, but here comes some of the more negative thoughts about it.
I really felt the writing in particular was bad, and not just for the previously mentioned reasons, but as a whole, it felt really lazy and I didn't enjoy it, and I really don't care if you put in a transexual character, but you removed the choices people had in dialogue, it felt like I was always forced to pick 3 lines of text that amounted to the same thing, it really felt like a shallow shell of what Baldur's Gate and DnD is all about - player choice.
Now, I will talk about the whole drama that has surrounded the game the last 24 hours, and I really feel like you guys dropped the ball here.
I really thought you guys had respect for the game, but when a writer says that the old Baldur's Gate are sexist, and then saying "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"
Safana was more of a seductive character yes, but that fits with her manipulative and deceiving personality, she isn't just a "sex object", she just doesn't share her past as much, and tries to deceive Gorions Ward when it suits her in BG2, you would have known that if you played it. Jaheira was the most badass character, it was her husband, Khalid, who was the cowardly one, Jaheria was the brave, strong druid who did whatever she wanted, only she chose to do it with the love of her life, Khalid, they gained strength from their love, Jaheria is not just a "joke at women's expense", if anything she is a character that is brave, strong and loving.
And you say that you stand behind writer when she says that these games are sexist, that there were only jokes poking fun at women and that they had no personality? That is really shitty, and I am utterly dissappointed by this, since I thought you, of all people, would understand what made Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate.
In my honest opinion, I think you deserve negative reviews for standing behind such statements, completely disrespecting the thing that put you guys on the map as developers, you could have had loads of respect for being passionate about a seemingly forgotten game, updating it and even making a bloody fantastic Baldur's Gate 3, but as it stands now I will not support you anymore, I feel like you are hamfisting political agendas into your games, and while you can put whatever you want and I even want to see you put progressive stuff into your games, you are doing it in such a bad way it just is forced, and then locking player responses to positive responses only, or even restricting the role playing aspect of the game as a whole because it feels "uncomfortable" to tackle issues from more than one viewpoint.
All in all, I really liked you guys, I was hyped for Siege of Dragonspear, and it really feels like a big slap in the face to people that enjoyed Baldur's Gate.
Thanks if you read this, I hope atleast now you can see why people are upset about this, it isn't just about the progressive side, it is the whole stance Beamdog took on the statements from one person.
Firstly, I have absolutely no issue with Trent asking for community support in an effort to mitigate intentional negativity wrought by those who have latched onto one or two extremely minor aspects in regard to the content of the game. Why would this possibly be an issue? He isn't asking anyone to lie or post fake reviews, he's asking for those who have enjoyed the game to show their support for it by utilizing the voting systems present on these digital distribution sites. Nothing unethical is being done, he is simply supporting the product that he and his team have invested their time and money in. There is no artificial manipulation of the user review system taking place.
Secondly, it is absolutely ridiculous that anyone would completely dismiss a product just because there is a line of dialogue they don't like, or they think one component of the writing for a character is bad. That shows not only an inability to examine and evaluate individual components of a product, but also an extreme level of immaturity. If you look hard enough, you can find slight issues with anything.
Finally, why is showing any kind of support or even just mentioning sexual orientation or gender identity considered so terrible? There are people out there in the world that don't share all of your views/values. That does not make them awful, nor does it mean that anyone who talks about those views/values has some agenda. Why is it not acceptable for a character to inform you, the player, that they are transgender, or have a homosexual preference, when this constantly occurs when that preference is straight? No-one loses their mind when Garrick lusts after a temple knight, or when a female Drow in the Underdark is looking for a male to mate with, or when Viconia flirts with you. There is even an encounter in the Underdark (in the original BG2) where, unless you can determine the correct dialogue options to bluff your way out of it, you have to sleep with a Drow female in order to not have the entire city turn hostile. Each of the previous situations announces sexual themes for straight characters.
In conclusion, it sure would be great if people could grow up and learn to have an open mind.
The feedback on bugs are valid and will be addressed. On the review request, I merely wanted to encourage people who actually played the game to share their story.
You specifically said you wanted to balance out political criticism, are you retracting or qualifying that statement (Because it would only be fair that people like me would retract or qualify their reviews)?
Also, you can see Steam users games collection and see if they own your game and your DLC or not. I've seen the most popular critical reviews and overall most popular reviews, most of them come from confirmed owners of the game and do not complain only about these matters or more often than not, at all.
I've come to the conclusion that the "pro forced diversity" people on here really have a mental disability. Literally NO ONE has complained about not liking LGBTXYZHDKGPT+ people. NO ONE HAS ANYTHING AGAINST THEM. What people have a problem with is awkwardly shoehorning them into a game where those political issues DO NOT EXIST. If they made an original game where there were problems about gays not having equal rights, it would make sense to bring up characters being gay. But they didn't make an original game (per Amber Scott's interview with Kotaku, that would be "too much effort" for Beamdog) and instead put these inconsistent parts into Baldur's Gate.
Again, NO ONE CARES about a character in a game being gay / bi / trans / dragon-kin. What they care about is it being awkwardly forced into a game if that type of character does not fit the existing game's lore / universe. It's literally all about being consistent within the in-game universe and maintaining consistency with characters between various chapters in the game. This is NOT hard to understand.
As someone who identifies within the LGBTQIAP community (although admittedly not trans* myself), I wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiment that "no one have anything against them (the so-labelled LGBTXYZHDKGPT+ people)." People do care that Beamdog wrote a trans character. Is bigotry the sole reason that some take issue with it? No. Is bigotry the sole reason that some take issue with it? Speaking from experience, its likely so.
And how does having a trans* character not fit the existing game's lore/universe? While heteronormativity is prevalent within the Baldur's Gate series (as well as the Forgotten Realms) I don't believe there is a canon source stating all persons identify as cis-gender. Is Mizrena a fully-fleshed out character? No. I admittedly wish that Beamdog had expanded the role of the NPC, because I think having a more involved character would have helped combat the (misplaced) criticism that Mizrena was simply a token nod to the LGBTQIAP community, but that in itself would be met with bigotry and criticism.
Firstly, I have absolutely no issue with Trent asking for community support in an effort to mitigate intentional negativity wrought by those who have latched onto one or two extremely minor aspects in regard to the content of the game. Why would this possibly be an issue? He isn't asking anyone to lie or post fake reviews, he's asking for those who have enjoyed the game to show their support for it by utilizing the voting systems present on these digital distribution sites. Nothing unethical is being done, he is simply supporting the product that he and his team have invested their time and money in. There is no artificial manipulation of the user review system taking place.
Secondly, it is absolutely ridiculous that anyone would completely dismiss a product just because there is a line of dialogue they don't like, or they think one component of the writing for a character is bad. That shows not only an inability to examine and evaluate individual components of a product, but also an extreme level of immaturity. If you look hard enough, you can find slight issues with anything.
Finally, why is showing any kind of support or even just mentioning sexual orientation or gender identity considered so terrible? There are people out there in the world that don't share all of your views/values. That does not make them awful, nor does it mean that anyone who talks about those views/values has some agenda. Why is it not acceptable for a character to inform you, the player, that they are transgender, or have a homosexual preference, when this constantly occurs when that preference is straight? No-one loses their mind when Garrick lusts after a temple knight, or when a female Drow in the Underdark is looking for a male to mate with, or when Viconia flirts with you. There is even an encounter in the Underdark (in the original BG2) where, unless you can determine the correct dialogue options to bluff your way out of it, you have to sleep with a Drow female in order to not have the entire city turn hostile. Each of the previous situations announces sexual themes for straight characters.
In conclusion, it sure would be great if people could grow up and learn to have an open mind.
Who the hell mentioned "hearings"? Beamdog can employ whoever they want, but it's important that consumers are aware of the agenda that is being pushed here, actively by Amber and tacitly enabled by Beamdog.
Well there goes any chance of me buying Siege of Dragonspear. Shame. I'd got really hopeful about some fresh new content after all these years.
Let me outline my reasons why:
1. The forced UI - The old one was great. It was easily understandable if you knew how the rules worked and fit with the character of the game. I actually learnt how to play tabletop D&D from playing BG1 and BG2. There is one reason, and one reason alone why this was changed - to dumb down the game in an attempt to appeal to a much larger market. In simple terms: Money. Not good when we've been told that SoD came from a love of the originals.
2. Amber Scott - If you're a LGBT activist, good for you. I don't have a problem with that, I don't have a problem with LGBTs. What I do have a problem with is hijacking an expansion pack in order to 'address the wrongs of the past' of a CLASSIC game series. Throughout the development of SoD she passed herself off as a massive fan of the games, but then posts a garbled statement about how terribly sexist the original games were(?) and that it needed addressing in their new work. To the people that actually find BG1 and BG2 sexist, let me offer some of Amber's own words on the issue "If people don't like that, then too bad". How can a game dev make a statement like that? If the majority of your target market say they don't like what you've done you admit you've made a mistake. You don't tell them their opinion is irrelevant. I had my concerns about the quality of her writing when I saw her being interviewed and when I read some of her stuff. I wasn't expecting it to be as bad as it is.
3. Bugs - Yes, this is inevitable. But to the extent that people are reporting? Come on guys, this has been in development for years.. Couldn't you hire just one professional bug tester? The crashes and issues are relentless. If a professional software developer tried to submit something like this then they might as well go ahead and pack their desk up. It's inexcusable. Especially after the emphasis that was put on the release date being at a time Beamdog could be confident in the quality of the product.
4. Trent Oster - Trent's a good guy. He's got the right ideas, passion, and knowhow. But this forum post is not right. He's either missed the point of the reviews or, what I fear more, he's trying to hide the point. The quantity of good to bad reviews doesn't matter, it's irrelevant. The point here is the content of the reviews. And when every bad review is saying the same thing (poor writing, too many bugs, LGBT agenda, unreasonable devs) it doesn't matter how many good reviews you have. Now either Trent has missed that, in which case I'm a little disappointed because I thought he was more switched on with this sort of stuff. OR, he knows full well and is trying to get people to drown out the number of negative reviews - which won't work given the uniformity of the content of said poor reviews. Whichever way that goes, it puts me in a position where I'm no longer confident in his ability to spearhead a company that is tampering with such classic and, too many, precious games.
5. The future - We're all confident that the long term plan is to develop a standalone game. Whether that be Baldur's Gate 3 or something new, we're less aware. But, given Beamdog's record now, I can't put my money towards that new development. BG1:EE, BG2:EE, and IWD:EE were all used as practice for Siege of Dragonspear, and with the release of all three EEs the reviews were the same - The original writing is nothing special, the new NPCs are nothing special, the new features are nothing special, and the games are buggier than the originals. Three times Beamdog were told these same facts, three times they've been ignored. Siege of Dragonspear has been released now and look at the reviews: The writing is nothing special, the NPCs are nothing special, the new features are nothing special, and the game is too buggy. I'm not about to put my hard-earned money into a company that has the inability to take note of feedback. There's further evidence of this disregard in the devs: Amber's nonchalance in brushing aside the very fans she's supposed to be giving to, Trent failing to admit they've swung and missed with the content. Sorry guys, but I expect criticisms to be taken into account, not blissfully ignored.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the Baldur's Gate games and I had every hope and optimism for SoD. I gave Beamdog the benefit of the doubt when people were criticising the EE editions, of which there were a lot. I liked the EE editions, if only for their Steam compatibility and more modern optimisation. But Siege of Dragonspear is where I will part company with Beamdog.
If Beamdog can admit that they've swung for glory and missed with this one, then I'm willing to wait and see what their next instalment may offer. But I can tell you right now, if Amber Scott has anything to do with their future work then I'm not interested.
As I said at the top of this post, these are MY reasons for not buying Siege of Dragonspear. I appreciate that people may disagree with what I have said, that is your right and I have no problem with that. What I will ask is that any posts in disagreement are targeted at the points I have made and not me individually. Thank you.
Firstly, I have absolutely no issue with Trent asking for community support in an effort to mitigate intentional negativity wrought by those who have latched onto one or two extremely minor aspects in regard to the content of the game. Why would this possibly be an issue? He isn't asking anyone to lie or post fake reviews, he's asking for those who have enjoyed the game to show their support for it by utilizing the voting systems present on these digital distribution sites. Nothing unethical is being done, he is simply supporting the product that he and his team have invested their time and money in. There is no artificial manipulation of the user review system taking place.
Secondly, it is absolutely ridiculous that anyone would completely dismiss a product just because there is a line of dialogue they don't like, or they think one component of the writing for a character is bad. That shows not only an inability to examine and evaluate individual components of a product, but also an extreme level of immaturity. If you look hard enough, you can find slight issues with anything.
Finally, why is showing any kind of support or even just mentioning sexual orientation or gender identity considered so terrible? There are people out there in the world that don't share all of your views/values. That does not make them awful, nor does it mean that anyone who talks about those views/values has some agenda. Why is it not acceptable for a character to inform you, the player, that they are transgender, or have a homosexual preference, when this constantly occurs when that preference is straight? No-one loses their mind when Garrick lusts after a temple knight, or when a female Drow in the Underdark is looking for a male to mate with, or when Viconia flirts with you. There is even an encounter in the Underdark (in the original BG2) where, unless you can determine the correct dialogue options to bluff your way out of it, you have to sleep with a Drow female in order to not have the entire city turn hostile. Each of the previous situations announces sexual themes for straight characters.
In conclusion, it sure would be great if people could grow up and learn to have an open mind.
Again, many of you keep repeating this yet I have shown this not to be true at all for the most popular reviews which are the ones most new comers and potential buyers are likely to view: most of them revolve around technical issues and some focus on bad writing with only passing commentary on political statements at best and active discouragement or intentional disregard for it too.
Why are you confabulating this to some sort of concentrated effort and not just a foot note in the page of perfectly valid criticism?
The feedback on bugs are valid and will be addressed. On the review request, I merely wanted to encourage people who actually played the game to share their story.
You specifically said you wanted to balance out political criticism, are you retracting or qualifying that statement (Because it would only be fair that people like me would retract or qualify their reviews)?
Also, you can see Steam users games collection and see if they own your game and your DLC or not. I've seen the most popular critical reviews and overall most popular reviews, most of them come from confirmed owners of the game and do not complain only about these matters or more often than not, at all.
Retract your fake review?
It serves this thread's violation of the Steam Terms of Service just right if you ask me but worry not I'll qualify it even of Trent here has no intention of retracting his statement which should absolutely be widely shown and distributed for all potential buyers to see.
Alright, as others have already mentioned, the problem here isn't that a character is homosexual, transgender or anything like that. The main problem here is partly how it's presented and the context of the setting as well as story.
Now, let me make it quite clear, this is just a minor character so it's technically not a big deal, but it still is something that can stick out like a sore thumb to some. I personally don't like this whole deal either but I can overlook it since it's a minor character (albeit one that you shop stuff from in that are). Now, I'm no expert on the setting, but isn't it a bit... Weird that a transgender person is so open about it and seemingly had very little struggle and trouble with it over the course of their life?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely transgenderism is hardly a norm in this world and I find it somewhat doubtful that it's socially acceptable either. I mean, we're talking about a world where people can barely overcome the differences between races so it seems a bit strange that someone would speak so openly about it. Now, if this had been in a setting where transgendered people are considered to be an normal part of society, I would not have thought anything of it.
I feel like a lot of people would've liked it a lot more if this character had perhaps been more reluctant to share such information. Not necessarily because being transgender is innately wrong (That's a whole other can of worms and one I'd rather not open, nor does such discussion belong here I think), but because it'd make sense for them to be untrustworthy of strangers in a setting where their identity is possibly seen as unnatural and possibly even disgusting. The addition of more "evil" dialogue options would probably help too, partly for the roleplaying aspect and partly because it makes sense that a character might disagree or even dislike it.
Now again, I have no in-depth knowledge of the setting, I have only played the Baldurs Gate games and never gotten the opportunity to get into pen and paper D&D so I could be wrong but I feel that the basic reasoning behind the criticism towards the transgendered character comes mainly from either a lack of context or that the character herself simply does not fit in the current context of the setting. Anyway, it's clear in the Steam reviews that the main reason for negative reviews is not mainly due to the transgendere character, but a combination of bugs and parts of the game they feel has bad writing among other things.
I do hope a writer can read this and understand that I, and many others, don't think it's bad to include a transgendered character, just make sure to keep the setting and the context of the situation in mind and it should be fine. Yes yes, I know we generally don't bat an eye when it's a heterosexual, straight man or woman, but that is because it's the norm, it's considered normal both here and in the setting so there's no need to justify it, nor does their experiences as such shape them as people.
However, being a transgendered, most likely, does because it isn't considered to be "Normal", and as such are treated differently and this will help shape them as people. And yes, I understand if most of you at Beamdog find this all to be silly and blown out of proportions, but that's just how we, who play game not just to pass our time but treat it as a hobby, roll. We're just very very passionate and outspoken about or hobby and as such we can become rather nitpicky even over what others might consider to be small details not worth getting worked up over.
I still like the EE editions of Baldurs Gate 1 and 2 and I hope you will see this as a learning experience and also remember that even if we might get rather vocal, we do it because we love the games. Do not be afraid to stand your ground and refuse to remove content or change stuff because someone complains. I want you to change stuff because you feel that there's a compelling reason for it, one that might improve the game or a character, not just to shut people up.
Sorry if this got a bit long, comes with being a big nerd I guess.
I'm still playing the game and having a good time. The new NPCs are fun and one on them -- Corwin -- is better than most of the BG1 NPCs. The art is good, banters are well written and the story is engaging. If one compares this expansion to the last -- Tales of the Sword Coast -- it surpasses ToSC by a mile.
So, if you liked the original game or the ToSC expansion buy this expansion. If you liked Pillars of Eternity buy this game. If you like D&D, get it. This is Beamdog's best work to date.
Not that the game is perfect -- the UI has been uglified, the game is overly linear and the battles are more like Icewind Dale / Pillars battles than Baldur's Gate battles.
So, why would I give an imperfect game a perfect review?
Good question. I mean it surprises me since I hates fanboy reviews. And because I've criticized Beamdog's policies. And because I've critiqued Beamdog's productions. And because I've criticized the way the company deals with dissent. If you doubt this click on my profile and check out my last review.
Yet, I am giving this game a perfect score to balance out the asshats who are downgrading the game because it includes a trans NPC -- an NPC that you don't even need to deal with. For reals! I mean, what the hell?! People are telling you not buy a game because you might accidentally discover that trans people exist? Screw those guys.
If you don't heart hate you'll discover a good game well worth $20. Buy it. Buy it because it's a good game or -- hells -- buy it just to poke your finger in the eyes of the haters; now that's money well spent!
My criticisms of this alone wouldn't prevent me from buying the product, but they would if I don't see the development team and writers learn from this gaffe. Including diversity is fine, in my eyes, but poor writing can and should be fixed with a patch, and insulting potential customers via Minsc joke is something that should be addressed.
Is it a joke? Yes. Should I just roll with the punches? Probably! Are humans always so coldly logical? Sadly not!
So my problem is mostly with the Minsc GamerGate joke. I firmly believe that GG isn't the misogynistic hate-group bogeyman that the media says we are, and I say that because my interactions with the group have been nothing but good, even when I've disagreed with them. I personally just don't like hearing a character whose lines I've used as a freaking text ringtone because I love the guy that much, be used to bash something I firmly believe in. Personally, I don't think they should remove the line if they don't want to, because as much as it pains me to say it, they are the writers, the artists, and they have the final say in what goes in to the product. However, a public post saying that they didn't intend on making the joke antagonistic or used as ammunition against a particular online group, and that they would refrain from doing so in the future would go a long way towards securing my purchase and support.
Firstly, I have absolutely no issue with Trent asking for community support in an effort to mitigate intentional negativity wrought by those who have latched onto one or two extremely minor aspects in regard to the content of the game. Why would this possibly be an issue? He isn't asking anyone to lie or post fake reviews, he's asking for those who have enjoyed the game to show their support for it by utilizing the voting systems present on these digital distribution sites. Nothing unethical is being done, he is simply supporting the product that he and his team have invested their time and money in. There is no artificial manipulation of the user review system taking place.
Secondly, it is absolutely ridiculous that anyone would completely dismiss a product just because there is a line of dialogue they don't like, or they think one component of the writing for a character is bad. That shows not only an inability to examine and evaluate individual components of a product, but also an extreme level of immaturity. If you look hard enough, you can find slight issues with anything.
Finally, why is showing any kind of support or even just mentioning sexual orientation or gender identity considered so terrible? There are people out there in the world that don't share all of your views/values. That does not make them awful, nor does it mean that anyone who talks about those views/values has some agenda. Why is it not acceptable for a character to inform you, the player, that they are transgender, or have a homosexual preference, when this constantly occurs when that preference is straight? No-one loses their mind when Garrick lusts after a temple knight, or when a female Drow in the Underdark is looking for a male to mate with, or when Viconia flirts with you. There is even an encounter in the Underdark (in the original BG2) where, unless you can determine the correct dialogue options to bluff your way out of it, you have to sleep with a Drow female in order to not have the entire city turn hostile. Each of the previous situations announces sexual themes for straight characters.
In conclusion, it sure would be great if people could grow up and learn to have an open mind.
Again, many of you keep repeating this yet I have shown this not to be true at all for the most popular reviews which are the ones most new comers and potential buyers are likely to view: most of them revolve around technical issues and some focus on bad writing with only passing commentary on political statements at best and active discouragement or intentional disregard for it too.
Why are you confabulating this to some sort of concentrated effort and not just a foot note in the page of perfectly valid criticism?
Because its unnatural for there to be more positive reviews and yet have every one of those downvoted as not being helpful with many being like 9% for a perfectly good review and every negative one has a 70-90% helpful rating regardless of if it even has anything relevant in it. For example your fake review that says nothing about the game itself has 86% approval. That is bogus and a clear attempt to manipulate the review system.
In my eyes, the simple fact that this ever fell to personal attack is proof enough that there simply isn't enough content there to be this worked up over.
Not sure why the snark. Diversity is a fine goal, albeit one that is very telling if it is forced, or done improperly. I don't think Amber Scott has the writing chops to do it naturally, to tell the truth, and so she forces it. I don't think calling it out for being forced is a problem. Do you?
FYI - In KotakuInAction (the unnofficial gamergate sub-reddit), 5 of the top 10 links are about BG:SOD. 3 of them are about this very thread and it's only 3 hours old. This will get much bigger yet.
This is the risk you (Beamdog) take when you put politics into your games. The damage has already been done and hopefully you have learned a lesson and don't try to double down on your next effort. It's really not smart to alienate half of your audience from the get go.
TL;DR: They're pissed that you exploit them for political "brownie points" among your friends and make the public think that trans people are assholes trying to force their way into every facet of media, even if it doesn't fit the story / universe.
I'm still playing the game and having a good time. The new NPCs are fun and one on them -- Corwin -- is better than most of the BG1 NPCs. The art is good, banters are well written and the story is engaging. If one compares this expansion to the last -- Tales of the Sword Coast -- it surpasses ToSC by a mile.
So, if you liked the original game or the ToSC expansion buy this expansion. If you liked Pillars of Eternity buy this game. If you like D&D, get it. This is Beamdog's best work to date.
Not that the game is perfect -- the UI has been uglified, the game is overly linear and the battles are more like Icewind Dale / Pillars battles than Baldur's Gate battles.
So, why would I give an imperfect game a perfect review?
Good question. I mean it surprises me since I hates fanboy reviews. And because I've criticized Beamdog's policies. And because I've critiqued Beamdog's productions. And because I've criticized the way the company deals with dissent. If you doubt this click on my profile and check out my last review.
Yet, I am giving this game a perfect score to balance out the asshats who are downgrading the game because it includes a trans NPC -- an NPC that you don't even need to deal with. For reals! I mean, what the hell?! People are telling you not buy a game because you might accidentally discover that trans people exist? Screw those guys.
If you don't heart hate you'll discover a good game well worth $20. Buy it. Buy it because it's a good game or -- hells -- buy it just to poke your finger in the eyes of the haters; now that's money well spent!
I find it funny that people call my review false but this isn't called out false even when it clearly is by your own admission.
I'm still playing the game and having a good time. The new NPCs are fun and one on them -- Corwin -- is better than most of the BG1 NPCs. The art is good, banters are well written and the story is engaging. If one compares this expansion to the last -- Tales of the Sword Coast -- it surpasses ToSC by a mile.
So, if you liked the original game or the ToSC expansion buy this expansion. If you liked Pillars of Eternity buy this game. If you like D&D, get it. This is Beamdog's best work to date.
Not that the game is perfect -- the UI has been uglified, the game is overly linear and the battles are more like Icewind Dale / Pillars battles than Baldur's Gate battles.
So, why would I give an imperfect game a perfect review?
Good question. I mean it surprises me since I hates fanboy reviews. And because I've criticized Beamdog's policies. And because I've critiqued Beamdog's productions. And because I've criticized the way the company deals with dissent. If you doubt this click on my profile and check out my last review.
Yet, I am giving this game a perfect score to balance out the asshats who are downgrading the game because it includes a trans NPC -- an NPC that you don't even need to deal with. For reals! I mean, what the hell?! People are telling you not buy a game because you might accidentally discover that trans people exist? Screw those guys.
If you don't heart hate you'll discover a good game well worth $20. Buy it. Buy it because it's a good game or -- hells -- buy it just to poke your finger in the eyes of the haters; now that's money well spent!
I find it funny that people call my review false but this isn't called out false even when it clearly is by your own admission.
Well he talks about the game in his review unlike yours.
Firstly, I have absolutely no issue with Trent asking for community support in an effort to mitigate intentional negativity wrought by those who have latched onto one or two extremely minor aspects in regard to the content of the game. Why would this possibly be an issue? He isn't asking anyone to lie or post fake reviews, he's asking for those who have enjoyed the game to show their support for it by utilizing the voting systems present on these digital distribution sites. Nothing unethical is being done, he is simply supporting the product that he and his team have invested their time and money in. There is no artificial manipulation of the user review system taking place.
Secondly, it is absolutely ridiculous that anyone would completely dismiss a product just because there is a line of dialogue they don't like, or they think one component of the writing for a character is bad. That shows not only an inability to examine and evaluate individual components of a product, but also an extreme level of immaturity. If you look hard enough, you can find slight issues with anything.
Finally, why is showing any kind of support or even just mentioning sexual orientation or gender identity considered so terrible? There are people out there in the world that don't share all of your views/values. That does not make them awful, nor does it mean that anyone who talks about those views/values has some agenda. Why is it not acceptable for a character to inform you, the player, that they are transgender, or have a homosexual preference, when this constantly occurs when that preference is straight? No-one loses their mind when Garrick lusts after a temple knight, or when a female Drow in the Underdark is looking for a male to mate with, or when Viconia flirts with you. There is even an encounter in the Underdark (in the original BG2) where, unless you can determine the correct dialogue options to bluff your way out of it, you have to sleep with a Drow female in order to not have the entire city turn hostile. Each of the previous situations announces sexual themes for straight characters.
In conclusion, it sure would be great if people could grow up and learn to have an open mind.
Again, many of you keep repeating this yet I have shown this not to be true at all for the most popular reviews which are the ones most new comers and potential buyers are likely to view: most of them revolve around technical issues and some focus on bad writing with only passing commentary on political statements at best and active discouragement or intentional disregard for it too.
Why are you confabulating this to some sort of concentrated effort and not just a foot note in the page of perfectly valid criticism?
Why don't you head over to metacritic right now and see if your argument still holds water. Here's the link:
Firstly, I have absolutely no issue with Trent asking for community support in an effort to mitigate intentional negativity wrought by those who have latched onto one or two extremely minor aspects in regard to the content of the game. Why would this possibly be an issue? He isn't asking anyone to lie or post fake reviews, he's asking for those who have enjoyed the game to show their support for it by utilizing the voting systems present on these digital distribution sites. Nothing unethical is being done, he is simply supporting the product that he and his team have invested their time and money in. There is no artificial manipulation of the user review system taking place.
Secondly, it is absolutely ridiculous that anyone would completely dismiss a product just because there is a line of dialogue they don't like, or they think one component of the writing for a character is bad. That shows not only an inability to examine and evaluate individual components of a product, but also an extreme level of immaturity. If you look hard enough, you can find slight issues with anything.
Finally, why is showing any kind of support or even just mentioning sexual orientation or gender identity considered so terrible? There are people out there in the world that don't share all of your views/values. That does not make them awful, nor does it mean that anyone who talks about those views/values has some agenda. Why is it not acceptable for a character to inform you, the player, that they are transgender, or have a homosexual preference, when this constantly occurs when that preference is straight? No-one loses their mind when Garrick lusts after a temple knight, or when a female Drow in the Underdark is looking for a male to mate with, or when Viconia flirts with you. There is even an encounter in the Underdark (in the original BG2) where, unless you can determine the correct dialogue options to bluff your way out of it, you have to sleep with a Drow female in order to not have the entire city turn hostile. Each of the previous situations announces sexual themes for straight characters.
In conclusion, it sure would be great if people could grow up and learn to have an open mind.
Again, many of you keep repeating this yet I have shown this not to be true at all for the most popular reviews which are the ones most new comers and potential buyers are likely to view: most of them revolve around technical issues and some focus on bad writing with only passing commentary on political statements at best and active discouragement or intentional disregard for it too.
Why are you confabulating this to some sort of concentrated effort and not just a foot note in the page of perfectly valid criticism?
Why don't you head over to metacritic right now and see if your argument still holds water. Here's the link:
Funnily enough if the dev of a game comes out and asks people to give positive reviews of their game on media, that actually invokes a lot of people to do the exact opposite.
Regardless of your take on Gamergate/SJW, this was a really bad move. Coming out so openly on such a controversial issue *will* have repercussions. Pro-GG devs are very careful to not include such material in their games, or post about it in public. Pro-SJWs should probably be sure to do the same.
I'm afraid that due to recent patterns in journalism and game localization, this topic has become a massive hotbed, regardless how small the actual event is.
You may not make people happy, but if you at least want their respect, you need to
1) Not be condescending or insulting to their viewpoint. 2) Tell them that it is your game, your content, your decision. And they are welcome to play other games. 3) Do not get dragged into an extensive discussion on the nature of social justice, ethics, twitter, or other social media. Just keep it as "Our Decision. Period." And drop it.
This is the best advice I can give you from my experiences. I have not followed your recent comments on the subject. I hope its not too late.
Comments
I made a account for this forum just for this post, and sharing my thoughts on the whole matter.
To start off, I love what you did with Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition, I liked the new characters you put in, while they could feel abit out of touch with the rest of the cast, I felt they provided some cool new stuff to play around with.
I bought these games 2 years ago, and it really reignited my love for DnD and Baldur's Gate in general, and i salute you for the hard work you put into those 2 Enhanced Editions, they were worth my money.
I recently bought Siege of Dragonspear, and the gameplay is there, the core Baldur's Gate gameplay is there, the combat is as fun as always, building your characters and loot is awesome, you did a really good job with the whole theme around the game and the whole Siege thing is a really cool thing to see, it feels good to see that, but here comes some of the more negative thoughts about it.
I really felt the writing in particular was bad, and not just for the previously mentioned reasons, but as a whole, it felt really lazy and I didn't enjoy it, and I really don't care if you put in a transexual character, but you removed the choices people had in dialogue, it felt like I was always forced to pick 3 lines of text that amounted to the same thing, it really felt like a shallow shell of what Baldur's Gate and DnD is all about - player choice.
Now, I will talk about the whole drama that has surrounded the game the last 24 hours, and I really feel like you guys dropped the ball here.
I really thought you guys had respect for the game, but when a writer says that the old Baldur's Gate are sexist, and then saying "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"
Safana was more of a seductive character yes, but that fits with her manipulative and deceiving personality, she isn't just a "sex object", she just doesn't share her past as much, and tries to deceive Gorions Ward when it suits her in BG2, you would have known that if you played it.
Jaheira was the most badass character, it was her husband, Khalid, who was the cowardly one, Jaheria was the brave, strong druid who did whatever she wanted, only she chose to do it with the love of her life, Khalid, they gained strength from their love, Jaheria is not just a "joke at women's expense", if anything she is a character that is brave, strong and loving.
And you say that you stand behind writer when she says that these games are sexist, that there were only jokes poking fun at women and that they had no personality?
That is really shitty, and I am utterly dissappointed by this, since I thought you, of all people, would understand what made Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate.
In my honest opinion, I think you deserve negative reviews for standing behind such statements, completely disrespecting the thing that put you guys on the map as developers, you could have had loads of respect for being passionate about a seemingly forgotten game, updating it and even making a bloody fantastic Baldur's Gate 3, but as it stands now I will not support you anymore, I feel like you are hamfisting political agendas into your games, and while you can put whatever you want and I even want to see you put progressive stuff into your games, you are doing it in such a bad way it just is forced, and then locking player responses to positive responses only, or even restricting the role playing aspect of the game as a whole because it feels "uncomfortable" to tackle issues from more than one viewpoint.
All in all, I really liked you guys, I was hyped for Siege of Dragonspear, and it really feels like a big slap in the face to people that enjoyed Baldur's Gate.
Thanks if you read this, I hope atleast now you can see why people are upset about this, it isn't just about the progressive side, it is the whole stance Beamdog took on the statements from one person.
Secondly, it is absolutely ridiculous that anyone would completely dismiss a product just because there is a line of dialogue they don't like, or they think one component of the writing for a character is bad. That shows not only an inability to examine and evaluate individual components of a product, but also an extreme level of immaturity. If you look hard enough, you can find slight issues with anything.
Finally, why is showing any kind of support or even just mentioning sexual orientation or gender identity considered so terrible? There are people out there in the world that don't share all of your views/values. That does not make them awful, nor does it mean that anyone who talks about those views/values has some agenda. Why is it not acceptable for a character to inform you, the player, that they are transgender, or have a homosexual preference, when this constantly occurs when that preference is straight? No-one loses their mind when Garrick lusts after a temple knight, or when a female Drow in the Underdark is looking for a male to mate with, or when Viconia flirts with you. There is even an encounter in the Underdark (in the original BG2) where, unless you can determine the correct dialogue options to bluff your way out of it, you have to sleep with a Drow female in order to not have the entire city turn hostile. Each of the previous situations announces sexual themes for straight characters.
In conclusion, it sure would be great if people could grow up and learn to have an open mind.
And how does having a trans* character not fit the existing game's lore/universe? While heteronormativity is prevalent within the Baldur's Gate series (as well as the Forgotten Realms) I don't believe there is a canon source stating all persons identify as cis-gender. Is Mizrena a fully-fleshed out character? No. I admittedly wish that Beamdog had expanded the role of the NPC, because I think having a more involved character would have helped combat the (misplaced) criticism that Mizrena was simply a token nod to the LGBTQIAP community, but that in itself would be met with bigotry and criticism.
Let me outline my reasons why:
1. The forced UI - The old one was great. It was easily understandable if you knew how the rules worked and fit with the character of the game. I actually learnt how to play tabletop D&D from playing BG1 and BG2. There is one reason, and one reason alone why this was changed - to dumb down the game in an attempt to appeal to a much larger market. In simple terms: Money. Not good when we've been told that SoD came from a love of the originals.
2. Amber Scott - If you're a LGBT activist, good for you. I don't have a problem with that, I don't have a problem with LGBTs. What I do have a problem with is hijacking an expansion pack in order to 'address the wrongs of the past' of a CLASSIC game series. Throughout the development of SoD she passed herself off as a massive fan of the games, but then posts a garbled statement about how terribly sexist the original games were(?) and that it needed addressing in their new work. To the people that actually find BG1 and BG2 sexist, let me offer some of Amber's own words on the issue "If people don't like that, then too bad". How can a game dev make a statement like that? If the majority of your target market say they don't like what you've done you admit you've made a mistake. You don't tell them their opinion is irrelevant.
I had my concerns about the quality of her writing when I saw her being interviewed and when I read some of her stuff. I wasn't expecting it to be as bad as it is.
3. Bugs - Yes, this is inevitable. But to the extent that people are reporting? Come on guys, this has been in development for years.. Couldn't you hire just one professional bug tester? The crashes and issues are relentless. If a professional software developer tried to submit something like this then they might as well go ahead and pack their desk up. It's inexcusable. Especially after the emphasis that was put on the release date being at a time Beamdog could be confident in the quality of the product.
4. Trent Oster - Trent's a good guy. He's got the right ideas, passion, and knowhow. But this forum post is not right. He's either missed the point of the reviews or, what I fear more, he's trying to hide the point. The quantity of good to bad reviews doesn't matter, it's irrelevant. The point here is the content of the reviews. And when every bad review is saying the same thing (poor writing, too many bugs, LGBT agenda, unreasonable devs) it doesn't matter how many good reviews you have.
Now either Trent has missed that, in which case I'm a little disappointed because I thought he was more switched on with this sort of stuff. OR, he knows full well and is trying to get people to drown out the number of negative reviews - which won't work given the uniformity of the content of said poor reviews. Whichever way that goes, it puts me in a position where I'm no longer confident in his ability to spearhead a company that is tampering with such classic and, too many, precious games.
5. The future - We're all confident that the long term plan is to develop a standalone game. Whether that be Baldur's Gate 3 or something new, we're less aware. But, given Beamdog's record now, I can't put my money towards that new development. BG1:EE, BG2:EE, and IWD:EE were all used as practice for Siege of Dragonspear, and with the release of all three EEs the reviews were the same - The original writing is nothing special, the new NPCs are nothing special, the new features are nothing special, and the games are buggier than the originals. Three times Beamdog were told these same facts, three times they've been ignored. Siege of Dragonspear has been released now and look at the reviews: The writing is nothing special, the NPCs are nothing special, the new features are nothing special, and the game is too buggy. I'm not about to put my hard-earned money into a company that has the inability to take note of feedback. There's further evidence of this disregard in the devs: Amber's nonchalance in brushing aside the very fans she's supposed to be giving to, Trent failing to admit they've swung and missed with the content. Sorry guys, but I expect criticisms to be taken into account, not blissfully ignored.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the Baldur's Gate games and I had every hope and optimism for SoD. I gave Beamdog the benefit of the doubt when people were criticising the EE editions, of which there were a lot. I liked the EE editions, if only for their Steam compatibility and more modern optimisation. But Siege of Dragonspear is where I will part company with Beamdog.
If Beamdog can admit that they've swung for glory and missed with this one, then I'm willing to wait and see what their next instalment may offer. But I can tell you right now, if Amber Scott has anything to do with their future work then I'm not interested.
As I said at the top of this post, these are MY reasons for not buying Siege of Dragonspear. I appreciate that people may disagree with what I have said, that is your right and I have no problem with that. What I will ask is that any posts in disagreement are targeted at the points I have made and not me individually. Thank you.
Why are you confabulating this to some sort of concentrated effort and not just a foot note in the page of perfectly valid criticism?
Now, let me make it quite clear, this is just a minor character so it's technically not a big deal, but it still is something that can stick out like a sore thumb to some. I personally don't like this whole deal either but I can overlook it since it's a minor character (albeit one that you shop stuff from in that are). Now, I'm no expert on the setting, but isn't it a bit... Weird that a transgender person is so open about it and seemingly had very little struggle and trouble with it over the course of their life?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely transgenderism is hardly a norm in this world and I find it somewhat doubtful that it's socially acceptable either. I mean, we're talking about a world where people can barely overcome the differences between races so it seems a bit strange that someone would speak so openly about it. Now, if this had been in a setting where transgendered people are considered to be an normal part of society, I would not have thought anything of it.
I feel like a lot of people would've liked it a lot more if this character had perhaps been more reluctant to share such information. Not necessarily because being transgender is innately wrong (That's a whole other can of worms and one I'd rather not open, nor does such discussion belong here I think), but because it'd make sense for them to be untrustworthy of strangers in a setting where their identity is possibly seen as unnatural and possibly even disgusting. The addition of more "evil" dialogue options would probably help too, partly for the roleplaying aspect and partly because it makes sense that a character might disagree or even dislike it.
Now again, I have no in-depth knowledge of the setting, I have only played the Baldurs Gate games and never gotten the opportunity to get into pen and paper D&D so I could be wrong but I feel that the basic reasoning behind the criticism towards the transgendered character comes mainly from either a lack of context or that the character herself simply does not fit in the current context of the setting. Anyway, it's clear in the Steam reviews that the main reason for negative reviews is not mainly due to the transgendere character, but a combination of bugs and parts of the game they feel has bad writing among other things.
I do hope a writer can read this and understand that I, and many others, don't think it's bad to include a transgendered character, just make sure to keep the setting and the context of the situation in mind and it should be fine. Yes yes, I know we generally don't bat an eye when it's a heterosexual, straight man or woman, but that is because it's the norm, it's considered normal both here and in the setting so there's no need to justify it, nor does their experiences as such shape them as people.
However, being a transgendered, most likely, does because it isn't considered to be "Normal", and as such are treated differently and this will help shape them as people. And yes, I understand if most of you at Beamdog find this all to be silly and blown out of proportions, but that's just how we, who play game not just to pass our time but treat it as a hobby, roll. We're just very very passionate and outspoken about or hobby and as such we can become rather nitpicky even over what others might consider to be small details not worth getting worked up over.
I still like the EE editions of Baldurs Gate 1 and 2 and I hope you will see this as a learning experience and also remember that even if we might get rather vocal, we do it because we love the games. Do not be afraid to stand your ground and refuse to remove content or change stuff because someone complains. I want you to change stuff because you feel that there's a compelling reason for it, one that might improve the game or a character, not just to shut people up.
Sorry if this got a bit long, comes with being a big nerd I guess.
My balanced 10 of 10 metacritic review:
I'm still playing the game and having a good time. The new NPCs are fun and one on them -- Corwin -- is better than most of the BG1 NPCs. The art is good, banters are well written and the story is engaging. If one compares this expansion to the last -- Tales of the Sword Coast -- it surpasses ToSC by a mile.
So, if you liked the original game or the ToSC expansion buy this expansion. If you liked Pillars of Eternity buy this game. If you like D&D, get it. This is Beamdog's best work to date.
Not that the game is perfect -- the UI has been uglified, the game is overly linear and the battles are more like Icewind Dale / Pillars battles than Baldur's Gate battles.
So, why would I give an imperfect game a perfect review?
Good question. I mean it surprises me since I hates fanboy reviews. And because I've criticized Beamdog's policies. And because I've critiqued Beamdog's productions. And because I've criticized the way the company deals with dissent. If you doubt this click on my profile and check out my last review.
Yet, I am giving this game a perfect score to balance out the asshats who are downgrading the game because it includes a trans NPC -- an NPC that you don't even need to deal with. For reals! I mean, what the hell?! People are telling you not buy a game because you might accidentally discover that trans people exist? Screw those guys.
If you don't heart hate you'll discover a good game well worth $20. Buy it. Buy it because it's a good game or -- hells -- buy it just to poke your finger in the eyes of the haters; now that's money well spent!
Is it a joke? Yes.
Should I just roll with the punches? Probably!
Are humans always so coldly logical? Sadly not!
So my problem is mostly with the Minsc GamerGate joke. I firmly believe that GG isn't the misogynistic hate-group bogeyman that the media says we are, and I say that because my interactions with the group have been nothing but good, even when I've disagreed with them. I personally just don't like hearing a character whose lines I've used as a freaking text ringtone because I love the guy that much, be used to bash something I firmly believe in. Personally, I don't think they should remove the line if they don't want to, because as much as it pains me to say it, they are the writers, the artists, and they have the final say in what goes in to the product. However, a public post saying that they didn't intend on making the joke antagonistic or used as ammunition against a particular online group, and that they would refrain from doing so in the future would go a long way towards securing my purchase and support.
TL;DR: They're pissed that you exploit them for political "brownie points" among your friends and make the public think that trans people are assholes trying to force their way into every facet of media, even if it doesn't fit the story / universe.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/baldurs-gate-siege-of-dragonspear/user-reviews
Regardless of your take on Gamergate/SJW, this was a really bad move. Coming out so openly on such a controversial issue *will* have repercussions. Pro-GG devs are very careful to not include such material in their games, or post about it in public. Pro-SJWs should probably be sure to do the same.
I'm afraid that due to recent patterns in journalism and game localization, this topic has become a massive hotbed, regardless how small the actual event is.
You may not make people happy, but if you at least want their respect, you need to
1) Not be condescending or insulting to their viewpoint.
2) Tell them that it is your game, your content, your decision. And they are welcome to play other games.
3) Do not get dragged into an extensive discussion on the nature of social justice, ethics, twitter, or other social media. Just keep it as "Our Decision. Period." And drop it.
This is the best advice I can give you from my experiences. I have not followed your recent comments on the subject. I hope its not too late.