Oh I think I see what's wrong. You guys are saying there's a difference between someone who cares about social justice and a SJW right? Sorry for the confusion friends.
I'd encourage you not to even use their bullshit acronym, which many of us hadn't even heard until a few days ago. The fact is, you can tell by the language they use how insular and fringe their views are, because they are essentially speaking in a different language they made up on their own.
I think you're assuming some form of retaliation that is not in evidence. I don't blame any one particular person at Beamdog any more than any of the others, this has been a collective venture from a small company.
So I am wrong in assuming that Amber is the source of the problem, and she is NOT the one pushing an agenda, despite being the writer of such 'poor' quality that produced the concerning dialogue with Mizhena? I've little clue who wrote the Minsc dialogue, but I can take a guess.
Review-bombing is not "pointing out" something. It is an action that is designed to hurt and damage, and violates both the review site rules and common decency to do it.
Well, let's say it's pointing out combined with a certain bite to gain attention.
Damn, I'm lost for words. +insightful but in a bad way
Just popped in to say that I had been unsure of whether or not I was going to get Dragonspear. I bought the EE when it came out, and it was a nice port but I wasn't blown away. Then Tumblr let me know about this nonsense of angry reviews all over the place about "social justice warriors ruining a classic." I laughed so hard and immediately came over and bought the game. So take heart everyone worried that these bad reviews are going to tank the game. For me at least, they were a sign that this was worth looking into.
All you pissed off people are so ridiculous. Every time a game gets inclusive and opens itself up, you cry pandering and stomp your feet all over the Internet. If someone gets in a dig about the awful behaviour in the past of people trying to stop inclusivity, you cry injustice. Just because so many of us gamers were bullied as kids doesn't mean we can't become bullies ourselves. In fact, we tend to make the worst bullies because so many of us refuse to let go of the idea we're the victims. And that's what's at the heart of this whole thing: You think you're victims. You think everyone is ganging up on you and taking away your toys.
But what you don't get is that these aren't YOUR toys. They're OUR toys. We are gamers too. Including stuff for us doesn't mean pushing stuff for you out. Imagine you had a bowl filled to the top with M&Ms. And we have a bowl that has only 5 candies in it. If someone takes 5 M&Ms from your bowl and puts them in ours, that's a HUGE difference to us. That's double our candy! It makes our day. Whereas you would hardly notice the difference since you have hundreds of them.
SJWs aren't coming in here and ruining your lives. They're not coming in your house and telling you your furniture is awful. They're saying that you're trying to dictate that EVERYONE'S furniture be like yours, and that it's uncomfortable.
You are not victims. Not here. Cry foul all you want, go rage on Metacritic and insist that this is about political correctness ruining a classic. Go red in the face about a throwaway line making fun of GamerGate. It won't make you any less the bullies here.
That's because it wasn't directed at you, but it hardly matters. They've been anything but subtle about it: they've given interviews to an SJW journalist for an SJW publication saying that they're proud SJWs who do not care if anyone has a problem with that, they've said that we're not real fans if we don't like what they're doing, etc. etc.
The cat is well and truly out of the bag, if you either genuinely don't see what's happening or prefer not to think that the company would behave in this fashion, then that's fine. If you understand what's happening and are just yanking my chain then that's fine too. I'm not unsure about what's going on.
Huh. Imagine that. One person on the Beamdog team becomes an issue to GG and they take it out on the entire community; fans and the company itself.
Where IS the justice in that, anyway?
I think you're assuming some form of retaliation that is not in evidence. I don't blame any one particular person at Beamdog any more than any of the others, this has been a collective venture from a small company.
All that's happened in response is that people have given their opinions of the game to some places that ask for people to do that. You're assuming that this is some form of organised campaign, but your assumption is all that you've got. It may be partially true (in so far as some people may've seen excerpts from the game that offended them and passed judgement on the basis of that alone, spontaneously and without being told to do so), and if it is then I don't agree with anyone who left a review without playing the game... but plenty of people who've bought and played the game on sites that require purchase confirmation have expressed the exact same sentiments. That's not some form of dastardly revenge.
It's not an assumption. I have constantly been providing stats that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is simply no way the amount of reviews Siege of Dragonspear is getting can be legit. I say this as a fan, but Siege is a insignificant release in the grand scheme of the gaming industry. A day one purchase for it's core fans, and a never purchase for 99% of the gaming community. Yet it has 4 times a many reviews on Metacritic as the Fallout 4 DLC, which came out a week earlier. Fallout 4 has sold 12 million copies. I'd be surprised if Siege has sold 100,000 copies at this point. There is no conceivable way Siege should be generating that many reviews based on it's very small niche market. The ONLY explanation is spammed negative reviews by people who have never played nor ever plan to play the game. If you can't figure that out, you have bigger problems....
Oh I think I see what's wrong. You guys are saying there's a difference between someone who cares about social justice and a SJW right? Sorry for the confusion friends.
Yes, there is a difference. Most anti-SJWs are not opposed to the idea of everyone receiving a fair shake and not being discriminated against. Being against SJWs is rejecting a certain brand of radical left-wing identity politics that comes with a lot of ideological baggage, e.g. concepts like "patriarchy", "rape culture", "cultural appropriation", gender schema theory, the concept of "privilege" that has to be "checked" or the idea that there absolutely always must be "inclusiveness", no matter how hamfisted or inapproriate, or that even fictional worlds based on medieval Europe must mirror modern day American racial demographics.
I made this analogy before: SJWs are to the Left what teabaggers are to the Right. They're the nutso fringe that somehow managed to take over the whole tent.
Being against SJWs is not about hating women, minorities, trans people or anyone else, it's a rejection of all that divide & conquer crap that has been poisoning the social and political discourse in the past couple of years and has been forcefully injected by the SJWs into the gaming realm. We have to keep up with that shit in RL, that can't be helped. But can we at least not have to deal with it in our escapism?
Just popped in to say that I had been unsure of whether or not I was going to get Dragonspear. I bought the EE when it came out, and it was a nice port but I wasn't blown away. Then Tumblr let me know about this nonsense of angry reviews all over the place about "social justice warriors ruining a classic." I laughed so hard and immediately came over and bought the game. So take heart everyone worried that these bad reviews are going to tank the game. For me at least, they were a sign that this was worth looking into.
All you pissed off people are so ridiculous. Every time a game gets inclusive and opens itself up, you cry pandering and stomp your feet all over the Internet. If someone gets in a dig about the awful behaviour in the past of people trying to stop inclusivity, you cry injustice. Just because so many of us gamers were bullied as kids doesn't mean we can't become bullies ourselves. In fact, we tend to make the worst bullies because so many of us refuse to let go of the idea we're the victims. And that's what's at the heart of this whole thing: You think you're victims. You think everyone is ganging up on you and taking away your toys.
But what you don't get is that these aren't YOUR toys. They're OUR toys. We are gamers too. Including stuff for us doesn't mean pushing stuff for you out. Imagine you had a bowl filled to the top with M&Ms. And we have a bowl that has only 5 candies in it. If someone takes 5 M&Ms from your bowl and puts them in ours, that's a HUGE difference to us. That's double our candy! It makes our day. Whereas you would hardly notice the difference since you have hundreds of them.
SJWs aren't coming in here and ruining your lives. They're not coming in your house and telling you your furniture is awful. They're saying that you're trying to dictate that EVERYONE'S furniture be like yours, and that it's uncomfortable.
You are not victims. Not here. Cry foul all you want, go rage on Metacritic and insist that this is about political correctness ruining a classic. Go red in the face about a throwaway line making fun of GamerGate. It won't make you any less the bullies here.
But what you don't get is that these aren't YOUR toys. They're OUR toys. We are gamers too. Including stuff for us doesn't mean pushing stuff for you out. Imagine you had a bowl filled to the top with M&Ms. And we have a bowl that has only 5 candies in it. If someone takes 5 M&Ms from your bowl and puts them in ours, that's a HUGE difference to us. That's double our candy! It makes our day. Whereas you would hardly notice the difference since you have hundreds of them.
This is EXTREMELY important, and if I could make a call to action for more people to quote this block of text and give this man some 'agrees' on account of it having strong merit...
Of course, that may be seen as 'manipulating' some system, but I truly believe this man's post should see more light than it probably will.
I think you're assuming some form of retaliation that is not in evidence. I don't blame any one particular person at Beamdog any more than any of the others, this has been a collective venture from a small company.
So I am wrong in assuming that Amber is the source of the problem, and she is NOT the one pushing an agenda, despite being the writer of such 'poor' quality that produced the concerning dialogue with Mizhena? I've little clue who wrote the Minsc dialogue, but I can take a guess.
Carrying on about this IS a form of retaliation.
That's correct. Amber Scott is not the source of the problem. She worked with another writer, and the higher-ups in the company OKed what they produced. They're all responsible.
How is "carrying on" a form of retaliation? You mean discussing things in a forum? You mean leaving an honest review for a game you've played on sites asking for playing feedback? Is this some sort of "safe space" nonsense where you're damaged by the mere existence of dissent?
You're not, you know. Beamdog isn't entitled to anyone's money. Those who want to buy the game are free to do so, those who don't are free to do that, and both groups can listen to whomever they wish to when making that decision. No one is lying about the game, are they?
That's correct. Amber Scott is not the source of the problem. She worked with another writer, and the higher-ups in the company OKed what they produced. They're all responsible.
How is "carrying on" a form of retaliation? You mean discussing things in a forum? You mean leaving an honest review for a game you've played on sites asking for playing feedback? Is this some sort of "safe space" nonsense where you're damaged by the mere existence of dissent?
You're not, you know. Beamdog isn't entitled to anyone's money. Those who want to buy the game are free to do so, those who don't are free to do that, and both groups can listen to whomever they wish to when making that decision. No one is lying about the game, are they?
Interesting, so you believe the issue is not solved by uprooting the cause? I apologize for the hounding, but I am desperately trying to figure out just what in the hells is going through your minds.
Being against SJWs is rejecting a certain brand of radical left-wing identity politics that comes with a lot of ideological baggage, e.g. concepts like "patriarchy", "rape culture", "cultural appropriation", the concept of "priviledge" that has to be "checked" or the idea that there absolutely always must be "inclusiveness", no matter how hamfisted or inapproriate, or that even fictional worlds based on medieval Europe must mirror modern day American racial demographics.
Not to be obtuse friend but... all those things are real concepts? Baldur's Gate also is not based on Medieval Europe. People making inappropriate arguments should be gently assisted though I can agree with that.
I think you're assuming some form of retaliation that is not in evidence. I don't blame any one particular person at Beamdog any more than any of the others, this has been a collective venture from a small company.
So I am wrong in assuming that Amber is the source of the problem, and she is NOT the one pushing an agenda, despite being the writer of such 'poor' quality that produced the concerning dialogue with Mizhena? I've little clue who wrote the Minsc dialogue, but I can take a guess.
Carrying on about this IS a form of retaliation.
That's correct. Amber Scott is not the source of the problem. She worked with another writer, and the higher-ups in the company OKed what they produced. They're all responsible.
How is "carrying on" a form of retaliation? You mean discussing things in a forum? You mean leaving an honest review for a game you've played on sites asking for playing feedback? Is this some sort of "safe space" nonsense where you're damaged by the mere existence of dissent?
You're not, you know. Beamdog isn't entitled to anyone's money. Those who want to buy the game are free to do so, those who don't are free to do that, and both groups can listen to whomever they wish to when making that decision. No one is lying about the game, are they?
For one thing, TONS of people are lying about the game and spamming negative reviews on sites, which I've already provided compare and contrast hard numbers with in relation to games that are INFINITELY more popular. For another, they aren't "responsible" for anything, because they didn't do anything wrong. Their only obligation is to fix the bugs and multiplayer. They don't owe you anything even resembling an explanation about the trans NPC or the Gamergate joke, nor should they provide it.
Well, if you check out the first couple dozen or so of negative Steam reviews then you can see that the whole SJW stuff does only barely play a role at all. Without counting, I would guess that among the first 30 reviews, there are maybe 5 complaining about a perceived "agenda".
The overwhelming majority of people, however, are complaining about bugs, crashes, a poor multiplayer experience, poor writing (in general... not just the two lines in question), graphics and engine issues, lack of mod support, not being able to even launch the game etc. etc. etc.
So even without the SJW controversy, it seems that many people are not happy with the product. I would therefore advise against jumping to false conclusions, namely that the SJW is the sole reason for the poor scores. That clearly does not seem to be the case...
Well, if you check out the first couple dozen or so of negative Steam reviews then you can see that the whole SJW stuff does only barely play a role at all. Without counting, I would guess that among the first 30 reviews, there are maybe 5 complaining about a perceived "agenda".
The overwhelming majority of people, however, are complaining about bugs, crashes, a poor multiplayer experience, poor writing (in general... not just the two lines in question), graphics and engine issues, lack of mod support, not being able to even launch the game etc. etc. etc.
So even without the SJW controversy, it seems that many people are not happy with the product. I would therefore advise against jumping to false conclusions, namely that the SJW is the sole reason for the poor scores. That clearly does not seem to be the case...
The AMOUNT of reviews is completely and utterly disproportionate to the actual popularity of the game. Siege of Dragonspear should not, under any normal circumstances, be generating the amount of reviews that it is.
That's correct. Amber Scott is not the source of the problem. She worked with another writer, and the higher-ups in the company OKed what they produced. They're all responsible.
How is "carrying on" a form of retaliation? You mean discussing things in a forum? You mean leaving an honest review for a game you've played on sites asking for playing feedback? Is this some sort of "safe space" nonsense where you're damaged by the mere existence of dissent?
You're not, you know. Beamdog isn't entitled to anyone's money. Those who want to buy the game are free to do so, those who don't are free to do that, and both groups can listen to whomever they wish to when making that decision. No one is lying about the game, are they?
Interesting, so you believe the issue is not solved by uprooting the cause? I apologize for the hounding, but I am desperately trying to figure out just what in the hells is going through your minds.
Who's to say that she is the cause? I don't know what she wrote and what Andrew Foley wrote, but there are plenty of opportunities for editing, balancing out, expanding the staff, etc. and I have no reason to believe that Scott's positions in representing the company are not representative of the company.
You may have trouble figuring out what's going on in my head due to my ability to tolerate different points of view. I don't want anyone to be fired, I don't want anyone to go bankrupt, I'm not demanding that anyone change their beliefs to be in accordance with mine. I just want to express my opinion and discuss the situation, and I probably don't even want to do that for very much longer.
Here is another problem I have with the game friends. Siege of Dragonspear includes an excellent voice set by the gret David Warner. However I can't use it because Irenicus's portrayal is so excellent and powerful, it feels like my character is just trying to copy him.
Who's to say that she is the cause? I don't know what she wrote and what Andrew Foley wrote, but there are plenty of opportunities for editing, balancing out, expanding the staff, etc. and I have no reason to believe that Scott's positions in representing the company are not representative of the company.
You may have trouble figuring out what's going on in my head due to my ability to tolerate different points of view. I don't want anyone to be fired, I don't want anyone to go bankrupt, I'm not demanding that anyone change their beliefs to be in accordance with mine. I just want to express my opinion and discuss the situation, and I probably don't even want to do that for very much longer.
She wrote and defends the content in question. If she were removed prior to its writing, it would not have been written, most likely. So it stands to reason that it would fix the issue in the future.
Carrying on is a form of retaliation because the more the snowballs, the less chance there is of this company running an entire campaign of their own, and thus at the very least delaying us a good new D&D game in the infinity engine, if not removing the chance altogether. Beamdog's in a state of blooming, they've barely had time to be a true developer before this shit rained down on them.
If you have no goal, what is the point of your opinion? Not to sound crass, but without a call to action you should not be so invested.
Not to be obtuse friend but... all those things are real concepts?
No, they're not "real". At best they are flimsy hypotheses, at worst they are agenda-driven ideological drivel. They're ideas that existed in alsmost complete isolation within American gender studies departments for a few decades and have been picked up rather recently by the mainstream media as if some sort of consensus existed outside of Feminist academia.
Most of that stuff is remarkably light on actual empirical evidence, which is probably one of the reasons why academic Feminists tend to reject the principle of empiricism and instead like to resort to postmodernist tosh like the concept of "lived experiences" and similar gobbledygook.
It's not an assumption. I have constantly been providing stats that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is simply no way the amount of reviews Siege of Dragonspear is getting can be legit.
You've shown that a game which had an online controversy erupt at release, has many more reviews than games with uneventful releases.
This means it's safe to say that most negative reviews are from people who were drawn in by the controversy rather than legitimate reviews by people who played the game, but I don't think it proves the "organized" part as much as you think it does. Don't underestimate the destructive potential of spontaneous Internet mobs that form from an avalanche of angry retweets and reblogs.
In any case, does someone have a link to where GG discusses the topic (and potentially organizes their response)? Or is it non-public?
but I just ask that you stop saying it's a campaign, implying organization.
Wut?
I'm sorry - if you can "clearly see" that a line in the game that is facially neutral must surely have malicious intent behind it, then you can also clearly see that there is a concerted effort going on on the GOG and Metacritic site. Regular players who are unrelated to Brandog and write actual reviews based on gameplay, and didn't give the game a perfect score but an above-average score, being down voted to oblivion.
It's been documented, and people here who have identified with GamerGate have outright admitted that others in the group are doing it. It's not cool - it is literally censorship - and it violates everything GamerGate profess to support.
If you're seriously going to sit here and claim it's not happening, then you are bald-faced lying, and you have zero credibility.
Please re-read my post. Never did I claim it's not happening. It's obvious to anyone with eyes and a working internet connection that it is. However, I stated that *in large GamerGate-related forums* there has been no call to brigade, no organization of review bombing.
Are some GGers likely doing it. Yes. Are some of the ones doing it probably trolls from 4chan and baphomet? Yes.
However, my point was "Is there a concerted, organized campaign to do it?" And that answer is no.
I think you're assuming some form of retaliation that is not in evidence. I don't blame any one particular person at Beamdog any more than any of the others, this has been a collective venture from a small company.
So I am wrong in assuming that Amber is the source of the problem, and she is NOT the one pushing an agenda, despite being the writer of such 'poor' quality that produced the concerning dialogue with Mizhena? I've little clue who wrote the Minsc dialogue, but I can take a guess.
Carrying on about this IS a form of retaliation.
That's correct. Amber Scott is not the source of the problem. She worked with another writer, and the higher-ups in the company OKed what they produced. They're all responsible.
How is "carrying on" a form of retaliation? You mean discussing things in a forum? You mean leaving an honest review for a game you've played on sites asking for playing feedback? Is this some sort of "safe space" nonsense where you're damaged by the mere existence of dissent?
You're not, you know. Beamdog isn't entitled to anyone's money. Those who want to buy the game are free to do so, those who don't are free to do that, and both groups can listen to whomever they wish to when making that decision. No one is lying about the game, are they?
For one thing, TONS of people are lying about the game and spamming negative reviews on sites, which I've already provided compare and contrast hard numbers with in relation to games that are INFINITELY more popular. For another, they aren't "responsible" for anything, because they didn't do anything wrong. Their only obligation is to fix the bugs and multiplayer. They don't owe you anything even resembling an explanation about the trans NPC or the Gamergate joke, nor should they provide it.
How exactly are they lying? Something isn't a lie just because you don't subjectively agree with their stance. What factual points in the things that are commonly brought up are not based on objective reality? The line from Minsc is real. The railroading is real. The multiplayer issues are real. The mod compatibility problems are real. The little girl telling you her mother doesn't need you is in the game. All of it's true whether or not you personally thinks it constitutes what the reviewers think it constitutes.
You've already given your theory on why it's getting so many reviews, but like I said before... this game deliberately provokes its own players. People are more likely to post a negative review on the basis that a game offended them than they are on the basis that they just didn't find it particularly entertaining.
I've also already saisd that there may be some truth your theory. It's still hard to construe that into some sort of hate campaign to burn the ground and sow it with salt. If it is a campaign then it's incredibly tame, they aren't even going after the retailers and asking them to pull it. Your theory also does not give evidence for organisation which is what a campaign implies. Plenty of gamers are just sick of this stuff ruining their hobby and more than capable of acting on their own initiative.
I think you're assuming some form of retaliation that is not in evidence. I don't blame any one particular person at Beamdog any more than any of the others, this has been a collective venture from a small company.
So I am wrong in assuming that Amber is the source of the problem, and she is NOT the one pushing an agenda, despite being the writer of such 'poor' quality that produced the concerning dialogue with Mizhena? I've little clue who wrote the Minsc dialogue, but I can take a guess.
Carrying on about this IS a form of retaliation.
That's correct. Amber Scott is not the source of the problem. She worked with another writer, and the higher-ups in the company OKed what they produced. They're all responsible.
How is "carrying on" a form of retaliation? You mean discussing things in a forum? You mean leaving an honest review for a game you've played on sites asking for playing feedback? Is this some sort of "safe space" nonsense where you're damaged by the mere existence of dissent?
You're not, you know. Beamdog isn't entitled to anyone's money. Those who want to buy the game are free to do so, those who don't are free to do that, and both groups can listen to whomever they wish to when making that decision. No one is lying about the game, are they?
For one thing, TONS of people are lying about the game and spamming negative reviews on sites, which I've already provided compare and contrast hard numbers with in relation to games that are INFINITELY more popular. For another, they aren't "responsible" for anything, because they didn't do anything wrong. Their only obligation is to fix the bugs and multiplayer. They don't owe you anything even resembling an explanation about the trans NPC or the Gamergate joke, nor should they provide it.
How exactly are they lying? Something isn't a lie just because you don't subjectively agree with their stance. What factual points in the things that are commonly brought up are not based on objective reality? The line from Minsc is real. The railroading is real. The multiplayer issues are real. The mod compatibility problems are real. The little girl telling you her mother doesn't need you is in the game. All of it's true whether or not you personally thinks it constitutes what the reviewers think it constitutes.
You've already given your theory on why it's getting so many reviews, but like I said before... this game deliberately provokes its own players. People are more likely to post a negative review on the basis that a game offended them than they are on the basis that they just didn't find it particularly entertaining.
I've also already saisd that there may be some truth your theory. It's still hard to construe that into some sort of hate campaign to burn the ground and sow it with salt.
You are aware that the girl tells you her mother doesn't need you even if you are playing a woman, right?
Comments
Carrying on about this IS a form of retaliation.
All you pissed off people are so ridiculous. Every time a game gets inclusive and opens itself up, you cry pandering and stomp your feet all over the Internet. If someone gets in a dig about the awful behaviour in the past of people trying to stop inclusivity, you cry injustice. Just because so many of us gamers were bullied as kids doesn't mean we can't become bullies ourselves. In fact, we tend to make the worst bullies because so many of us refuse to let go of the idea we're the victims. And that's what's at the heart of this whole thing: You think you're victims. You think everyone is ganging up on you and taking away your toys.
But what you don't get is that these aren't YOUR toys. They're OUR toys. We are gamers too. Including stuff for us doesn't mean pushing stuff for you out. Imagine you had a bowl filled to the top with M&Ms. And we have a bowl that has only 5 candies in it. If someone takes 5 M&Ms from your bowl and puts them in ours, that's a HUGE difference to us. That's double our candy! It makes our day. Whereas you would hardly notice the difference since you have hundreds of them.
SJWs aren't coming in here and ruining your lives. They're not coming in your house and telling you your furniture is awful. They're saying that you're trying to dictate that EVERYONE'S furniture be like yours, and that it's uncomfortable.
You are not victims. Not here. Cry foul all you want, go rage on Metacritic and insist that this is about political correctness ruining a classic. Go red in the face about a throwaway line making fun of GamerGate. It won't make you any less the bullies here.
I made this analogy before: SJWs are to the Left what teabaggers are to the Right. They're the nutso fringe that somehow managed to take over the whole tent.
Being against SJWs is not about hating women, minorities, trans people or anyone else, it's a rejection of all that divide & conquer crap that has been poisoning the social and political discourse in the past couple of years and has been forcefully injected by the SJWs into the gaming realm. We have to keep up with that shit in RL, that can't be helped. But can we at least not have to deal with it in our escapism?
Of course, that may be seen as 'manipulating' some system, but I truly believe this man's post should see more light than it probably will.
How is "carrying on" a form of retaliation? You mean discussing things in a forum? You mean leaving an honest review for a game you've played on sites asking for playing feedback? Is this some sort of "safe space" nonsense where you're damaged by the mere existence of dissent?
You're not, you know. Beamdog isn't entitled to anyone's money. Those who want to buy the game are free to do so, those who don't are free to do that, and both groups can listen to whomever they wish to when making that decision. No one is lying about the game, are they?
The overwhelming majority of people, however, are complaining about bugs, crashes, a poor multiplayer experience, poor writing (in general... not just the two lines in question), graphics and engine issues, lack of mod support, not being able to even launch the game etc. etc. etc.
So even without the SJW controversy, it seems that many people are not happy with the product. I would therefore advise against jumping to false conclusions, namely that the SJW is the sole reason for the poor scores. That clearly does not seem to be the case...
You may have trouble figuring out what's going on in my head due to my ability to tolerate different points of view. I don't want anyone to be fired, I don't want anyone to go bankrupt, I'm not demanding that anyone change their beliefs to be in accordance with mine. I just want to express my opinion and discuss the situation, and I probably don't even want to do that for very much longer.
Carrying on is a form of retaliation because the more the snowballs, the less chance there is of this company running an entire campaign of their own, and thus at the very least delaying us a good new D&D game in the infinity engine, if not removing the chance altogether. Beamdog's in a state of blooming, they've barely had time to be a true developer before this shit rained down on them.
If you have no goal, what is the point of your opinion? Not to sound crass, but without a call to action you should not be so invested.
Most of that stuff is remarkably light on actual empirical evidence, which is probably one of the reasons why academic Feminists tend to reject the principle of empiricism and instead like to resort to postmodernist tosh like the concept of "lived experiences" and similar gobbledygook.
But that veers much too far off topic.
This means it's safe to say that most negative reviews are from people who were drawn in by the controversy rather than legitimate reviews by people who played the game, but I don't think it proves the "organized" part as much as you think it does. Don't underestimate the destructive potential of spontaneous Internet mobs that form from an avalanche of angry retweets and reblogs.
In any case, does someone have a link to where GG discusses the topic (and potentially organizes their response)? Or is it non-public?
Are some GGers likely doing it. Yes.
Are some of the ones doing it probably trolls from 4chan and baphomet? Yes.
However, my point was "Is there a concerted, organized campaign to do it?" And that answer is no.
You've already given your theory on why it's getting so many reviews, but like I said before... this game deliberately provokes its own players. People are more likely to post a negative review on the basis that a game offended them than they are on the basis that they just didn't find it particularly entertaining.
I've also already saisd that there may be some truth your theory. It's still hard to construe that into some sort of hate campaign to burn the ground and sow it with salt. If it is a campaign then it's incredibly tame, they aren't even going after the retailers and asking them to pull it. Your theory also does not give evidence for organisation which is what a campaign implies. Plenty of gamers are just sick of this stuff ruining their hobby and more than capable of acting on their own initiative.