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:
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.
I'm not going to comment on the transgender character, but I will say that I don't think Beamdog can be surprised by the backlash for the Minsc quote. I can care less about gamergate, butI don't really like the idea of using my second favorite videogame character (after Boo) in order to troll people.
If you are going to troll someone, then you can't really be shocked when there is backlash... because that is exactly what you were looking for in the first place.
That said, I do think its a bit weird that some gamergate people, who are so protective of their own free speech are so willing to use the heckler's veto to remove content they don't like from the game.
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?
Yes, I do. I think that diversity is a moral imperative, not a "fine goal," and I think advocating strict standards about the "proper" way to promote diversity is reactionary nonsense that's primarily used as a smokescreen to impede social progress. I think we can aspire to do better than bare tokenism, but I think tokenism is vastly superior to complete exclusion. If this was "forced," all that tells me is that the devs care about diversity, and I applaud them for that.
Wow, that Metacritic score is abysmal. This is the first time I've found the anti-SJW crowd to be way worse than the SJW crowd. Who cares that you get 20+ more hours of the world's best game with story and gameplay that is holding up when there are like TWO LINES about SJW culture in the game?!?!
Also completely optional lines, since I complerely missed them during my entire playthrough.
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:
I just did: it still holds water since the top comments do mention the politics but virtually ALL talk about game breaking bugs, "barely working net code" and bad, out of character writing.
That said, I do think its a bit weird that some gamergate people, who are so protective of their own free speech are so willing to use the heckler's veto to remove content they don't like from the game.
There are causes and there are people. And personalities don't always flock to just one cause or the other.
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.
There is a time and a place for discussing gender politics. A unique IP would be one of them (such as when Dragon Age and Mass Effect decided to include them as part of original universes). Awkwardly shoehorning them into a nearly 20 year old game where those issues conflict with the rest of the game universe is NOT the way to do it. As has been stated more times than you're capable of reading, NO ONE CARES about there being gay / trans / whatever characters in video games - they care about a game's universe having a consistent feel and forcing modern politics into a 20 year old D&D game both breaks the immersion and clashes with the rest of the content in the game. The only people who need to "grow up" are the ones who feel the need to force the political views into EVERYTHING they do. Even trans people who have bought the expansion have posted online complaining about how it negatively impacts the game and also makes trans people look like they're trying to rewrite history by changing a classic game to include trans characters.
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:
I just did: it still holds water since the top comments do mention the politics but virtually ALL talk about game breaking bugs, "barely working net code" and bad, out of character writing.
I count at least 13 reviews that give low ratings based solely or primarily on the LGBTQ issue, and that's going by pretty conservative standards. How many would it take for you to finally admit that people are targeting this game for political reasons? 130? 1300?
Wow... and wow... I will have to wait to make a final statement about the game itself, either way Beamdog has got my money, since I already pre-purchased SOD on Beamdog, and earlier today before hearing all the uproar I also purchased once again all 4 games on GOG for another 40 bucks as a gift. And this does not count the extra versions I bought previously for my PC, Android, and for other family members, lets just say hundreds of dollars have been spent on Beamdog products. While I am not naive, since I know there have been steamy and controversial mods made for BG in the past, but these were always optional. I had planned to start a new BG1 game and play all the way through... but we'll see . And, while I don't support LBT agenda or this BG version of Jennergate circus hopefully I can just by-pass this and enjoy the rest of the game, it should be my choice, but its sounding like it isn't...sad day. Lets just say that I'm just bummed out since I was really hyped about SOD. and now meh.... By the way didn't anyone see this in beta testing as a potential story/consumer problem? I never heard anything, but then again maybe they couldn't say anything...just wondering.
I'm not going to comment on the transgender character, but I will say that I don't think Beamdog can be surprised by the backlash for the Minsc quote. I can care less about gamergate, butI don't really like the idea of using my second favorite videogame character (after Boo) in order to troll people.
If you are going to troll someone, then you can't really be shocked when there is backlash... because that is exactly what you were looking for in the first place.
That said, I do think its a bit weird that some gamergate people, who are so protective of their own free speech are so willing to use the heckler's veto to remove content they don't like from the game.
How is anybody doing that? Saying you don't like the gaming isn't preventing anyone from purchasing, playing it and deciding for themselves. As I said before, you cannot demonstrate anything other than pure, unadultered speculation that there is a concentrated and coordinated effort to downvote positive reviews. It is in fact more easy to see the opposite is true: most popular reviews are only passively or succinctly critical of the political angle (If at all) and instead focus on talking about terrible bugs, terrible netcode, terrible writing. All valid criticism.
Saying "I don't like gender politics to be included in this game" is questionable yet valid criticism and doesn't makes people some sort of group of political boogie men secretly lead by Thunderf00t or Sargon of Akkad, it just means people don't like to see that on their games for good or ill, period. And even if you disagree with all of these points, it's still a minority of the overall criticism making this entire line of reasoning an exercise in futility as time will show I'm sure.
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:
I just did: it still holds water since the top comments do mention the politics but virtually ALL talk about game breaking bugs, "barely working net code" and bad, out of character writing.
I count at least 13 reviews that give low ratings based solely or primarily on the LGBTQ issue, and that's going by pretty conservative standards. How many would it take for you to finally admit that people are targeting this game for political reasons? 130? 1300?
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:
I just did: it still holds water since the top comments do mention the politics but virtually ALL talk about game breaking bugs, "barely working net code" and bad, out of character writing.
I count at least 13 reviews that give low ratings based solely or primarily on the LGBTQ issue, and that's going by pretty conservative standards. How many would it take for you to finally admit that people are targeting this game for political reasons? 130? 1300?
He won't admit it because he's a troll and has been leaving fake reviews.
I'm not going to comment on the transgender character, but I will say that I don't think Beamdog can be surprised by the backlash for the Minsc quote. I can care less about gamergate, butI don't really like the idea of using my second favorite videogame character (after Boo) in order to troll people.
If you are going to troll someone, then you can't really be shocked when there is backlash... because that is exactly what you were looking for in the first place.
That said, I do think its a bit weird that some gamergate people, who are so protective of their own free speech are so willing to use the heckler's veto to remove content they don't like from the game.
How is anybody doing that? Saying you don't like the gaming isn't preventing anyone from purchasing, playing it and deciding for themselves.
People on this thread have said things like "the proper response would be to fix the game and exclude the parts I don't like" or something of that sort. I don't feel like digging through this tiresome thread full of antagonism on both sides to find it, but it is the reason I qualified by saying some gamer people (I even italicized the word "some" it in my original post for emphasis)
Bingo. They knew it was going to make people mad, which is why Amber said in the interview that anyone who doesn't like their "new vision" of what Baldur's Gate should be can fuck off. They know most Baldur's Gates fans would be made about them making an expansion that's inconsistent with the original series, yet now they're trying to play innocent victims. They spit on Baldur's Gate and they spit in the face of their potential customers, they have no one but themselves to blame for this.
And, while I don't support LBT agenda or this BG version of Jennergate circus hopefully I can just by-pass this and enjoy the rest of the game
This is what people should do. Thank you for being reasonable, and ignoring the parts that you don't agree with.
Here's the thing though, this shit is like a cancer. It metastasizes and grows if you don't cut it out. In SoD it's a few minor new NPCs and two drastic personality changes for existing NPCs (as well as a foolish meme line given to Minsc). But if people don't criticize it now, it won't be long until most of the game is annoying moralizing to push a political agenda and then people just don't buy the game and the company goes bankrupt. It's happened to companies in the past and it'll happen again to those who refuse to learn from history. Cramming your political views into media, ESPECIALLY games, does not end well for the political ideologue promoting their agenda.
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:
I just did: it still holds water since the top comments do mention the politics but virtually ALL talk about game breaking bugs, "barely working net code" and bad, out of character writing.
I count at least 13 reviews that give low ratings based solely or primarily on the LGBTQ issue, and that's going by pretty conservative standards. How many would it take for you to finally admit that people are targeting this game for political reasons? 130? 1300?
He won't admit it because he's a troll and has been leaving fake reviews.
I already invited you to read my edit of the review since I decided to take the higher road. Are you capable of doing the same instead of insisting on pointless ad hominem?
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
Sorry, by pushing an agenda on gamers, a zero is deserved. I'm off to post my thoughts on the matter, which I do not think you will like.
But if people don't criticize it now, it won't be long until most of the game is annoying moralizing to push a political agenda and then people just don't buy the game and the company goes bankrupt.
Oh wow, so actually you guys are here to save Beamdog. Great.
I love how you can not see that many Transgender people are criticizing you for doing the shit you have done. Yeah you are all for Social Justice without respecting wishes and concerns people actually experiencing this. Here is a great example how what you did is not only bad writing but also harmful and disrespectful to transgender people.
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:
I just did: it still holds water since the top comments do mention the politics but virtually ALL talk about game breaking bugs, "barely working net code" and bad, out of character writing.
I count at least 13 reviews that give low ratings based solely or primarily on the LGBTQ issue, and that's going by pretty conservative standards. How many would it take for you to finally admit that people are targeting this game for political reasons? 130? 1300?
I shall count how this is "solely" or "primarily" based on that issue then. Again I must insist not on 13 random reviews but the top reviews that are, by popular demand, the most likely to be read:
1 "A poor attempt at continuing the franchise of Baldur's Gate. Writing is not up to scratch at all, featuring 'dank memes' and shoe-horned gender politics ill-befitting a Baldur's Gate game (a medieval fantasy game)"
Surely you will count this as "solely" and "primary" based on the issue, yet for most people the logical central focus of the comment is "Bad writting". Let's call it contested
2 "I've played the original Baldur's Gate a ton and the writing of this expansion so many years later just doesn't seem to fit with the original game, it doesn't flow well. Not to mention that it released with quite a few bugs."
No mention of politics at all, just bad writing and technical issues
3 "It would be too harsh to give this game a 0 as it is a playable game. But the writing is not what I was expecting from a proper title in the Baldurs Gate legacy. Aside from the obvious LBGT and silly 4th wall breaking "jokes" that constantly remind you you're playing a game developed by the same kind of people damaging the gaming industry that you love so much..- It's not without it's bugs either. I'm sure there can be a patch fixing some of these glitches and bugs as the reports come in, but I have a feeling that the writing will continue to irritate me. I just can't give this a positive review in any respect. It doesn't feel like a Baldur's Gate title."
Politics are mentioning but there is no explicit disagreement here just again, pointing out bad writing and saying these politics do not fit the game, regardless of agreement with them or not.
4 "I don't appreciate it when a game developer tries to shove toxic identity politics down my throat. I don't need to be educated on the nature of transgender by some third-rate hack at Beamdog. It's patronizing and arrogant. Oh, and one of my characters got stuck behind the sarcophagus in the third room of the first dungeon about 3 minutes into the game, forcing me to restart. That must be a new record."
So I can concede the "primarily" here but not the "solely" at all since it mentions a game breaking bug for about half of the overall content in his writing. Contended at best.
5 "Alert! The developer is begging people on their website to come to meta-critic and post "10" reviews to "offset" the negative reaction they've gotten from actual players.
Another timeless classic gets modernized. But in this case, modernizing means changing the personalities of already existing characters and adding technical issues where they didn't previously exist. Throw in some sprinkling of modern internet memes into a fantasy role-playing world, and pass it off as an update. Compared to the original, the writing is shallow and forgettable. A "new" feature, (scare quotes because it was also used in Icewind Dale,) is that you must remove your own characters from your party to add NPCs for many of the side quests. These NPCs are terribly written and have the effect of knocking the player out of their immersion with the type of dialogue you might hear in a modern setting as opposed to the fantasy world you are otherwise supposed to be a part of. The actual voice acting is pretty good though. You can almost hear them cringing when they had to deliver some of the poorly written lines. I don't mind the politicization of the NPCs as much as many of the detractors. What I do mind is that it is delivered in such a ham-fisted fashion. The politics of the writers are going to shine through in any work. But in this case, they repeatedly club you with it. There have been many complaints of technical issues, although I've only run into about half of them. Check out the Steam forums for details as Beamdog mercilessly deletes any criticism from their own sites.
Conclusion: A technically competent but creatively ugly work by authors that are obviously not well-versed with the source material and environment. Luckily, this means the flaws are somewhat fixable through good modding. I would wait for the price to come down and to see if such mods materialize before I'd drop money on this. Collapse"
So this is one explicitly says he doesn't minds NPCs politicization but the problem is that it was done so poorly. Score another one for bad writting he's clearly not a troll and fair in his assesstment
6 "Siege of Dragonspear has huge amount of game breaking bugs and barely working netcode. Writing is also fanfic tier garbage. If you enjoyed the original Baldur's gate series games stay away from this one."
Again not even a passing mention of politics here, technical issues and bad writing.
7 "I may get past the numerous bugs, I may reacquire new muscle memory and adapt to the new stupid UI, I may even disregard being educated in the proper etiquette of talking politely to transgender badly written characters with railroaded dialogue in the name of modernism, I may even laugh off the poor form of the devs insulting Baldur's Gate writing and labeling it sexist, and biting more than she can shew, but I will certainly not forgive twisting the character of Minsc the beloved icon of my beloved games to push forward Sjw nonsense. That get this add-on an automatic zero and a request for refund. Won't support this so called developers out of touch with reality again"
Well rounded if a tad overly critical of the political side, contested I say.
8 "Too many bugs to count, a graphical downgrade, a messy and quircky UI, coupled with amateur tier grade writing made this expansion to one of the greatest RPGs ever a complete and utter disappointment. Also Trent Oster CEO of Beamdog asking specifically on the forums for people and I quotte ''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." Maybe the effort could be better spent on ironing bugs and teaching Amber Scott how to write believable RPG NPCs without pushing some political agenda who no one cares about and antagonizing Baldur's Gate fanbase by stating the original game is sexist. You called down the thunder, well now you have it. Pathetic, just pathetic."
He does mention politics but not without a well rounded round of criticism: Bad UI, Bad writing, technical problems gallore. Contested leaning on reasonable
9 "Really bad writing. Devs are not happy that people aren't letting them shove their identity politics down your throat. He's asking for positive reviews on Steam, GOG, and Metacritic. " Fellow thread commenter I'm sure, this one is surely politic based, conceded.
10 "I started playing this game with high hopes, and had a positive first impression. However it soon became obvious that Beamdog has chosen to give Baldur's Gate a 'politically correct overhaul'. I think making such alterations to an old classic is in very poor form, and wish the devs would've been professional enough to leave their politics out of their work.
The game eventually became more annoying than enjoyable, and so I quit playing mid-game.
I strongly recommend against purchasing this game if you sympathize with my reasons for quitting."
Another 50/50 which is mostly what I'd consider reasonable criticism of the political angle on the writing, I only partially concede his comment since I think is fairly classy that he has specific reasons for quitting implying other customers could overlook or not be bothered by.
So do you really think that the worst case scenario you called me out on, metacritic, is "solely" and "primarily" focused on political dissent here? Or maybe people just feel this is a poor game with poor coding and poor writing, because but not limited to poor characterization due to gender politics? A far cry from "Trolls are intentionally posting bad reviews!"
what you did is not only bad writing but also harmful and disrespectful to transgender people.
Oh wow, so actually you guys are here to save transgender people. Great.
No I am here to treat everyone the same. It is horrible to treat people when they are "different" as something special. They are not they do not need to be protected. You want an example? Ok it is not about transgender people but rather disabled one. My niche is disabled the is in a wheelchair for most of the time and has spastics.
She does not want to be treated as something broken or special. She just wants to be treated like everyone else. And she actually gets really sad and frustrated if you try to pity her.
This is why its bad and even dangerous writing. This is what creates prejudices against minority groups. You want to bring in more diversity. Great I will support it but for gods sake write them like they are human beings. For example the best written gay character in video games is still Bill from the Last of us (Ellie does not count since I believe she is bi). His preferences were never point of a character. And only were mentioned once by the end of it.
And going back to this char. No one sane in his/her mind would just tell any stranger her backstory in such a way. Especially not when she was threaten because of it in her past.
Look on the bright side guys, as long as the forums are being burned and flame bait reviews are being written that means these people have had to take a break from burning the devil worshiping Dungeons and Dragons manuals and Ozzy Ozbourne records. Over 30 years and nothing has changed. The availability of controversial art or the people that fight against it.
Comments
If you are going to troll someone, then you can't really be shocked when there is backlash... because that is exactly what you were looking for in the first place.
That said, I do think its a bit weird that some gamergate people, who are so protective of their own free speech are so willing to use the heckler's veto to remove content they don't like from the game.
Also completely optional lines, since I complerely missed them during my entire playthrough.
Sigh.
Saying "I don't like gender politics to be included in this game" is questionable yet valid criticism and doesn't makes people some sort of group of political boogie men secretly lead by Thunderf00t or Sargon of Akkad, it just means people don't like to see that on their games for good or ill, period. And even if you disagree with all of these points, it's still a minority of the overall criticism making this entire line of reasoning an exercise in futility as time will show I'm sure.
I love how you can not see that many Transgender people are criticizing you for doing the shit you have done. Yeah you are all for Social Justice without respecting wishes and concerns people actually experiencing this. Here is a great example how what you did is not only bad writing but also harmful and disrespectful to transgender people.
1 "A poor attempt at continuing the franchise of Baldur's Gate. Writing is not up to scratch at all, featuring 'dank memes' and shoe-horned gender politics ill-befitting a Baldur's Gate game (a medieval fantasy game)"
Surely you will count this as "solely" and "primary" based on the issue, yet for most people the logical central focus of the comment is "Bad writting". Let's call it contested
2 "I've played the original Baldur's Gate a ton and the writing of this expansion so many years later just doesn't seem to fit with the original game, it doesn't flow well. Not to mention that it released with quite a few bugs."
No mention of politics at all, just bad writing and technical issues
3 "It would be too harsh to give this game a 0 as it is a playable game. But the writing is not what I was expecting from a proper title in the Baldurs Gate legacy. Aside from the obvious LBGT and silly 4th wall breaking "jokes" that constantly remind you you're playing a game developed by the same kind of people damaging the gaming industry that you love so much..- It's not without it's bugs either. I'm sure there can be a patch fixing some of these glitches and bugs as the reports come in, but I have a feeling that the writing will continue to irritate me. I just can't give this a positive review in any respect. It doesn't feel like a Baldur's Gate title."
Politics are mentioning but there is no explicit disagreement here just again, pointing out bad writing and saying these politics do not fit the game, regardless of agreement with them or not.
4 "I don't appreciate it when a game developer tries to shove toxic identity politics down my throat. I don't need to be educated on the nature of transgender by some third-rate hack at Beamdog. It's patronizing and arrogant. Oh, and one of my characters got stuck behind the sarcophagus in the third room of the first dungeon about 3 minutes into the game, forcing me to restart. That must be a new record."
So I can concede the "primarily" here but not the "solely" at all since it mentions a game breaking bug for about half of the overall content in his writing. Contended at best.
5 "Alert! The developer is begging people on their website to come to meta-critic and post "10" reviews to "offset" the negative reaction they've gotten from actual players.
Another timeless classic gets modernized. But in this case, modernizing means changing the personalities of already existing characters and adding technical issues where they didn't previously exist. Throw in some sprinkling of modern internet memes into a fantasy role-playing world, and pass it off as an update. Compared to the original, the writing is shallow and forgettable. A "new" feature, (scare quotes because it was also used in Icewind Dale,) is that you must remove your own characters from your party to add NPCs for many of the side quests. These NPCs are terribly written and have the effect of knocking the player out of their immersion with the type of dialogue you might hear in a modern setting as opposed to the fantasy world you are otherwise supposed to be a part of. The actual voice acting is pretty good though. You can almost hear them cringing when they had to deliver some of the poorly written lines. I don't mind the politicization of the NPCs as much as many of the detractors. What I do mind is that it is delivered in such a ham-fisted fashion. The politics of the writers are going to shine through in any work. But in this case, they repeatedly club you with it. There have been many complaints of technical issues, although I've only run into about half of them. Check out the Steam forums for details as Beamdog mercilessly deletes any criticism from their own sites.
Conclusion: A technically competent but creatively ugly work by authors that are obviously not well-versed with the source material and environment. Luckily, this means the flaws are somewhat fixable through good modding. I would wait for the price to come down and to see if such mods materialize before I'd drop money on this. Collapse"
So this is one explicitly says he doesn't minds NPCs politicization but the problem is that it was done so poorly. Score another one for bad writting he's clearly not a troll and fair in his assesstment
6 "Siege of Dragonspear has huge amount of game breaking bugs and barely working netcode. Writing is also fanfic tier garbage. If you enjoyed the original Baldur's gate series games stay away from this one."
Again not even a passing mention of politics here, technical issues and bad writing.
7 "I may get past the numerous bugs, I may reacquire new muscle memory and adapt to the new stupid UI, I may even disregard being educated in the proper etiquette of talking politely to transgender badly written characters with railroaded dialogue in the name of modernism, I may even laugh off the poor form of the devs insulting Baldur's Gate writing and labeling it sexist, and biting more than she can shew, but I will certainly not forgive twisting the character of Minsc the beloved icon of my beloved games to push forward Sjw nonsense. That get this add-on an automatic zero and a request for refund. Won't support this so called developers out of touch with reality again"
Well rounded if a tad overly critical of the political side, contested I say.
8 "Too many bugs to count, a graphical downgrade, a messy and quircky UI, coupled with amateur tier grade writing made this expansion to one of the greatest RPGs ever a complete and utter disappointment.
Also Trent Oster CEO of Beamdog asking specifically on the forums for people and I quotte ''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."
Maybe the effort could be better spent on ironing bugs and teaching Amber Scott how to write believable RPG NPCs without pushing some political agenda who no one cares about and antagonizing Baldur's Gate fanbase by stating the original game is sexist. You called down the thunder, well now you have it. Pathetic, just pathetic."
He does mention politics but not without a well rounded round of criticism: Bad UI, Bad writing, technical problems gallore. Contested leaning on reasonable
9 "Really bad writing. Devs are not happy that people aren't letting them shove their identity politics down your throat. He's asking for positive reviews on Steam, GOG, and Metacritic. " Fellow thread commenter I'm sure, this one is surely politic based, conceded.
10 "I started playing this game with high hopes, and had a positive first impression. However it soon became obvious that Beamdog has chosen to give Baldur's Gate a 'politically correct overhaul'. I think making such alterations to an old classic is in very poor form, and wish the devs would've been professional enough to leave their politics out of their work.
The game eventually became more annoying than enjoyable, and so I quit playing mid-game.
I strongly recommend against purchasing this game if you sympathize with my reasons for quitting."
Another 50/50 which is mostly what I'd consider reasonable criticism of the political angle on the writing, I only partially concede his comment since I think is fairly classy that he has specific reasons for quitting implying other customers could overlook or not be bothered by.
So do you really think that the worst case scenario you called me out on, metacritic, is "solely" and "primarily" focused on political dissent here? Or maybe people just feel this is a poor game with poor coding and poor writing, because but not limited to poor characterization due to gender politics? A far cry from "Trolls are intentionally posting bad reviews!"
She does not want to be treated as something broken or special. She just wants to be treated like everyone else. And she actually gets really sad and frustrated if you try to pity her.
This is why its bad and even dangerous writing. This is what creates prejudices against minority groups. You want to bring in more diversity. Great I will support it but for gods sake write them like they are human beings. For example the best written gay character in video games is still Bill from the Last of us (Ellie does not count since I believe she is bi). His preferences were never point of a character. And only were mentioned once by the end of it.
And going back to this char. No one sane in his/her mind would just tell any stranger her backstory in such a way. Especially not when she was threaten because of it in her past.
Isn't that kind of what they did?