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?
I hadn't checked or anything, but that was my assumption. It's unimportant. The SocJus cliché that's being inappropriately invoked here is the Strong Independent Woman Who Doesn't Need Anyone. It's mildly less obnoxious if she doesn't need women as well as men, but that's hardly the significant part. It's not even the cliché that's necessarily the problem, it's putting it in the mouth of a child at a grossly unrealistic time precisely in order to punishing a player for selecting a line of dialogue that is offered as bait in order to "catch out" players whose characters might be guilty of wrongthink.
But regardless, it is in the game and so not a lie to mention it in a review.
In any case, does someone have a link to where GG discusses the topic (and potentially organizes their response)? Or is it non-public?
What? People could be communicating in private? No way, they wouldn't organize a sabotage campaign privately, would they?
It was an honest question, not a rhetorical one, so no need for sarcasm...
I really would be interested in seeing the GG discussion on this, if it is publicly accessible.
If it isn't, then oh well. But how many people can one realistically organize via private chatrooms and the like? We've seen hundreds of reviews and downvotes, and GG has thousands of followers who only know each other over the Internet, right? Part of it has to be done in public, unless I'm vastly underestimating their nefarious organizational capabilities.
I hadn't checked or anything, but that was my assumption. It's unimportant. The SocJus cliché that's being inappropriately invoked here is the Strong Independent Woman Who Doesn't Need Anyone. It's mildly less obnoxious if she doesn't need women as well as men, but that's hardly the significant part. It's not even the cliché that's necessarily the problem, it's putting it in the mouth of a child at a grossly unrealistic time precisely in order to punishing a player for selecting a line of dialogue that is offered as bait in order to "catch out" players whose characters might be guilty of wrongthink
Don't you think it is at all possible that you're interpreting something into it that isn't there?
I don't think there is anything unusual about a kid venerating their parent and thinking that their parent is the toughest person in the world & doesn't need protection.
[...] but that's hardly the significant part. It's not even the cliché that's necessarily the problem, it's putting it in the mouth of a child at a grossly unrealistic time precisely in order to punishing a player for selecting a line of dialogue that is offered as bait in order to "catch out" players whose characters might be guilty of wrongthink.
But regardless, it is in the game and so not a lie to mention it in a review.
Punishing a player? Punishing? Man up, sweetheart.
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.
Quoting this dude 'cause he speaks the truth.
Also, some people should just go get a sense of humor. Really. "Useful talent toi have" as someone very wise once said...
"Oh no, a trans character in a world full of elves and dragons, my game is ruined." "Oh no, a one line joke at my expense, I feel so insulted."
I mean, if the game was poorly written, I could probably understand all the backlash but people who have actually played the game (unlike myself, for now but also unlike all those idiots out there with their 0 reviews) tend to report most of it is pretty decent. So yeah, f*** those guys. And let Beamdog work on what actually matters ie bugs and stuff.
GG doesnt need to orchestrate anything or notify their supporters about anything, because their sites occupy unique spot on global market of ideas. Anti-GG needs this because if you're pro-democracy in its current mainstream sense then theres a lot of destinations for you, a lot of organizations trying to get your attention and appease you, a lot of competition. If you anti-democracy however, then theres chans, KiA, Vox Day, Breitbart and thats mostly it. GGs enemies cant even create false competition, or provoke splits, because trying to divert these people into trapped lairs means articulating their points more, losing control over mainstream narrative more.
Pillars of Eternity didn't deliberately go out of their way to offend their own players. I think that increases the likelihood that people are going to want to say something significantly.
On the other hand, if people are leaving reviews without having tried the game, then they absolutely should not be doing that.
My friend, neither did Beamdog when they created the great game Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear.
Minsc has a line that is directed towards Gamergaters. It has no other purpose.
I'm not a GG'er, but make no mistake, Beamdog fired shots.
Pillars of Eternity didn't deliberately go out of their way to offend their own players. I think that increases the likelihood that people are going to want to say something significantly.
On the other hand, if people are leaving reviews without having tried the game, then they absolutely should not be doing that.
My friend, neither did Beamdog when they created the great game Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear.
Minsc has a line that is directed towards Gamergaters. It has no other purpose.
I'm not a GG'er, but make no mistake, Beamdog fired shots.
I'm sorry friend but I must respectfully disagree that the line in question is meant to "fire shots" at Gamergaters.
I hadn't checked or anything, but that was my assumption. It's unimportant. The SocJus cliché that's being inappropriately invoked here is the Strong Independent Woman Who Doesn't Need Anyone. It's mildly less obnoxious if she doesn't need women as well as men, but that's hardly the significant part. It's not even the cliché that's necessarily the problem, it's putting it in the mouth of a child at a grossly unrealistic time precisely in order to punishing a player for selecting a line of dialogue that is offered as bait in order to "catch out" players whose characters might be guilty of wrongthink.
But regardless, it is in the game and so not a lie to mention it in a review.
You think that a child being agressive towards a stranger they don't trust and is promising to take care of one of their parent is unrealistic ?
There's a growing feeling all over Baldur that Charname isn't to be trusted because Charname is a child of bhaal too. It makes sense that the child wouldn't trust Charname. This line didn't shock me at all.
It's also on point because you discover during the romance with Corwin that the previous relationship didn't end well so the child would have extra reasons to be wary of strangers who are nice to her mother.
Pillars of Eternity didn't deliberately go out of their way to offend their own players. I think that increases the likelihood that people are going to want to say something significantly.
On the other hand, if people are leaving reviews without having tried the game, then they absolutely should not be doing that.
My friend, neither did Beamdog when they created the great game Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear.
Minsc has a line that is directed towards Gamergaters. It has no other purpose.
I'm not a GG'er, but make no mistake, Beamdog fired shots.
I'm sorry friend but I must respectfully disagree that the line in question is meant to "fire shots" at Gamergaters.
Minsc has a line that is directed towards Gamergaters. It has no other purpose.
That seems to give a LOT of credit to GamerGate. Don't you think maybe that line was aimed at eliciting a chuckle from the vastly larger set of people who have read about GamerGate but are not directly related to them?
That's what Occam's Razor suggests. The GamerGate peeps are seeing a slight where there is none.
It's entirely possible the game devs didn't realize how the line would be received by GamerGate themselves (obviously), but that suggests negligence, not malice. The difference is important.
You could be 100% right. We will never know what the writer hoped people would feel or think when he/she wrote it.
I'm just saying I can totally understand how someone might think it was a jab at their cause.
@ineth There need not be prior agreement or discussion by them, privately or otherwise; it's enough that they are aware of what's going on that they can subsequently act in unity. Surely you can see even from the downvotes alone that drowns even the most reasonable but positive reviews, that it must be more than just a coincidence, and something more like or is a concerted activity. And have you not been reading? Many here have already openly admitted it to be so. It's already 1:30am here and I feel sleepy already so I could just be misreading your post.
Pillars of Eternity didn't deliberately go out of their way to offend their own players. I think that increases the likelihood that people are going to want to say something significantly.
On the other hand, if people are leaving reviews without having tried the game, then they absolutely should not be doing that.
My friend, neither did Beamdog when they created the great game Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear.
Minsc has a line that is directed towards Gamergaters. It has no other purpose.
I'm not a GG'er, but make no mistake, Beamdog fired shots.
I'm sorry friend but I must respectfully disagree that the line in question is meant to "fire shots" at Gamergaters.
The GG'ers seem to think so.
I don't understand why GG are allowed to be offended by things like that but they seem to be against other people making similar claims regarding social issues. Sorry if thats rude.
For all of those upset by Minsc's reference to the Gamer Gate community, if the line had instead poked fun at Anita Sarkeesian, would you have been in uproar? Or even against its inclusion in the first place?
Pillars of Eternity didn't deliberately go out of their way to offend their own players. I think that increases the likelihood that people are going to want to say something significantly.
On the other hand, if people are leaving reviews without having tried the game, then they absolutely should not be doing that.
My friend, neither did Beamdog when they created the great game Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear.
Minsc has a line that is directed towards Gamergaters. It has no other purpose.
I'm not a GG'er, but make no mistake, Beamdog fired shots.
I'm sorry friend but I must respectfully disagree that the line in question is meant to "fire shots" at Gamergaters.
The GG'ers seem to think so.
I don't understand why GG are allowed to be offended by things like that but they seem to be against other people making similar claims regarding social issues. Sorry if thats rude.
Because both sides are at opposite ends. Both sides want to silence each other.
I just wanted to point out that Beamdog isn't innocent in all of this. I know you disagree, but you can make an argument that Beamdog started this with that line.
I have said in many posts on this forum, that I wish Beamdog had stayed out of it. Now my favorite game series might suffer.
Congrats, everyone – we might not get future BG content because people are actively trying to tank this game. If you've actually PLAYED SoD, I would strongly encourage you leave a review of your own.
Conversely I'm saddened by the fact that a series so close to my heart has been ruined by devs with an outspoken political message. The action itself isn't nearly as damaging as the political movement it is associated with, it'd be naive to assume otherwise.
Wrong, and this is the last reply I'll make to any post in this thread. It is your intolerance of the inclusion of any content you disagree with that has done this, not the devs. This is a great game with about the smallest trans reference I could possibly imagine, and yet it has engendered a backlash of hatred and vitriol totally disproportionate to the content.
I enjoy this game and I know a LOT of people on here do as well. People like you want to take that away from these players by negatively reviewing the game en masse because it offends your worldview.
You are like a child throwing a tantrum because you don't like what's on your plate. There's no need to purposefully ruin the meal for the rest of us. Enough.
Actually, He is right. Beamdog had no respect for the franchise and now its fanbase are striking back with their wallets. Now that's social justice.
For all of those upset by Minsc's reference to the Gamer Gate community, if the line had instead poked fun at Anita Sarkeesian, would you have been in uproar? Or even against its inclusion in the first place?
GG'ers would not have been upset, no.
But SJW's would have. It would have been the opposite.
Pillars of Eternity didn't deliberately go out of their way to offend their own players. I think that increases the likelihood that people are going to want to say something significantly.
On the other hand, if people are leaving reviews without having tried the game, then they absolutely should not be doing that.
My friend, neither did Beamdog when they created the great game Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear.
Minsc has a line that is directed towards Gamergaters. It has no other purpose.
I'm not a GG'er, but make no mistake, Beamdog fired shots.
I'm sorry friend but I must respectfully disagree that the line in question is meant to "fire shots" at Gamergaters.
The GG'ers seem to think so.
I don't understand why GG are allowed to be offended by things like that but they seem to be against other people making similar claims regarding social issues. Sorry if thats rude.
Because their entire argument in disingenuous, at best. I stick by my claim....the term "political correctness" is simply a catch all phrase and get out of jail free card for people who are quite simply just pissed that they can't spout their repulsive opinions without being called out on them. And they always act like there are ACTUAL rights of theirs that are being violated, when nothing of the sort is happening. Like all bullies, when they are hit in the mouth, they lose their shit....thankfully some of us learned how to deal with these type of people in elementary school....
Pillars of Eternity didn't deliberately go out of their way to offend their own players. I think that increases the likelihood that people are going to want to say something significantly.
On the other hand, if people are leaving reviews without having tried the game, then they absolutely should not be doing that.
My friend, neither did Beamdog when they created the great game Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear.
Minsc has a line that is directed towards Gamergaters. It has no other purpose.
I'm not a GG'er, but make no mistake, Beamdog fired shots.
I'm sorry friend but I must respectfully disagree that the line in question is meant to "fire shots" at Gamergaters.
The GG'ers seem to think so.
I don't understand why GG are allowed to be offended by things like that but they seem to be against other people making similar claims regarding social issues. Sorry if thats rude.
Because both sides are at opposite ends. Both sides want to silence each other.
I just wanted to point out that Beamdog isn't innocent in all of this. I know you disagree, but you can make an argument that Beamdog started this with that line.
I have said in many posts on this forum, that I wish Beamdog had stayed out of it. Now my favorite game series might suffer.
and you aren't rude. We are just talking.
Thank you for your thoughts friend. I think then perhaps if you and others truly believe Beamdog mis-stepped either by accident or on purpose then perhaps it is our duty as fan of Baldur's Gate to try and look past this and try and work together for the future of the series.
But SJW's would have. It would have been the opposite.
And that's the point I try to make.
I don't disagree with you on that. My point is that some the phrasing of some of the criticism (i.e. modernisms have no place in Baldur's Gate & Beamdog shouldn't include references from 2016) is hypocritical. Now I don't personally view the line to be overly inflammatory (although I don't remember the context in which it is brought up), but for a group that has fault with the sensitivity of "SJWs" and political correctness, I think the response is a bit much.
For all of those upset by Minsc's reference to the Gamer Gate community, if the line had instead poked fun at Anita Sarkeesian, would you have been in uproar? Or even against its inclusion in the first place?
I hope some of the commenters who felt strongly about this, will respond.
As far as I'm concerned though: As I said, I find the line slightly annoying 'cause when I'm playing an RPG I don't feel like being reminded of real-world Internet/politics nastiness, and I would find the equivalent anti-Sarkeesian jab from Minsc's mouth annoying as well, and for the same reason. Of course I wouldn't endorse boycotts or review-bombing in either case.
Also, I have no doubt in my mind that if the line had poked fun at Sarkeesian instead of GG (especially if the devs had made corresponding remarks in interviews/comments), we would see an outrage storm from the "SJW"/feminist Internet right now, and from the GG part of the Internet we'd hear calls for free speech and "Don't censor art just because thin-skinned people are offended!"
I hadn't checked or anything, but that was my assumption. It's unimportant. The SocJus cliché that's being inappropriately invoked here is the Strong Independent Woman Who Doesn't Need Anyone. It's mildly less obnoxious if she doesn't need women as well as men, but that's hardly the significant part. It's not even the cliché that's necessarily the problem, it's putting it in the mouth of a child at a grossly unrealistic time precisely in order to punishing a player for selecting a line of dialogue that is offered as bait in order to "catch out" players whose characters might be guilty of wrongthink
Don't you think it is at all possible that you're interpreting something into it that isn't there?
I don't think there is anything unusual about a kid venerating their parent and thinking that their parent is the toughest person in the world & doesn't need protection.
I absolutely would if it weren't part of a consistent pattern. One swallow doesn't make a summer and all that. But here, we have swallows absolutely everywhere and they're chripring the same tune that the developers themselves are happily whistling over various forms of media. There's no doubt involved to make giving the benefit of the doubt an issue... which I would absolutely be prepared to do.
I mean, there were some fairly SocJus moments in Pillars of Eternity, but they didn't handicap response options to the same degree and they didn't deliberately attempt to offend their own players, so I have no problem with PoE. I think it's rather splendid as a matter of fact.
For all of those upset by Minsc's reference to the Gamer Gate community, if the line had instead poked fun at Anita Sarkeesian, would you have been in uproar? Or even against its inclusion in the first place?
Okay, first up: I'm a long time BG player. I haven't really been active on these forums because I've never had a reason to, though. But here you go:
Also got EE ages ago on steam:
Now, that out of the way. I would say I'm pretty partial towards GG. The way some people have been trying to undermine the hobby I've enjoyed since I was a child quite frankly disgusts me. However, I'll get to the point, I just thought I should lay bare my bias.
The point: I would probably not be "in an uproar", because, quite frankly, I'm not the one being targeted. However, I would not think it was "hilarious" or a "great fit for Minsc". It would still reduce my respect for whoever wrote it, as it's taking away from the game instead of adding to it. If anyone asked me I would quite easily agree that it probably shouldn't have been in the game in the first place. And if anti GG'ers/SJW's protested it for the same reason I see in this instance, I would understand them. Baldur's Gate is definitely not the place to "educate" or poke fun at real groups of people, or wage some kind of proxy war.
As for this whole fiasco... I'm not sure I'm for removing what's already been done, to be honest. They've written what they've written, and we all have to live with that now. However, it's also absurd to say that the people who despise this shouldn't voice their opinion with the direction the game has taken, whether you agree with it or not. Unless you can prove the majority of the reviews are left by people who haven't played the game, or that there is some kind of organized operation being undertaken by GG (on KiA for example), then I reject all this nonsense of admonishing people for "hating on" the game. Whether you like it or not, anyone has the right to leave a review with their opinions on a game they've played. The only instance where I think that becomes dodgy at best, is if they haven't played the game at all.
Like I said, though, I'm not really for changing the game now, what's done is done. However, they also have to live with the consequences of what they've done, whether that's reduced sales, negative PR or whatnot. All of this has put a very sour taste in my mouth, and I will personally not be buying this expansion anytime soon. I will view anything Beamdog releases with great skepticism from now on.
Comments
But regardless, it is in the game and so not a lie to mention it in a review.
I really would be interested in seeing the GG discussion on this, if it is publicly accessible.
If it isn't, then oh well. But how many people can one realistically organize via private chatrooms and the like? We've seen hundreds of reviews and downvotes, and GG has thousands of followers who only know each other over the Internet, right? Part of it has to be done in public, unless I'm vastly underestimating their nefarious organizational capabilities.
I don't think there is anything unusual about a kid venerating their parent and thinking that their parent is the toughest person in the world & doesn't need protection.
Also, some people should just go get a sense of humor. Really. "Useful talent toi have" as someone very wise once said...
"Oh no, a trans character in a world full of elves and dragons, my game is ruined."
"Oh no, a one line joke at my expense, I feel so insulted."
I mean, if the game was poorly written, I could probably understand all the backlash but people who have actually played the game (unlike myself, for now but also unlike all those idiots out there with their 0 reviews) tend to report most of it is pretty decent.
So yeah, f*** those guys. And let Beamdog work on what actually matters ie bugs and stuff.
I'm not a GG'er, but make no mistake, Beamdog fired shots.
http://status.vanillaforums.com/
EDIT: Ninja'd
There's a growing feeling all over Baldur that Charname isn't to be trusted because Charname is a child of bhaal too. It makes sense that the child wouldn't trust Charname. This line didn't shock me at all.
It's also on point because you discover during the romance with Corwin that the previous relationship didn't end well so the child would have extra reasons to be wary of strangers who are nice to her mother.
I'm just saying I can totally understand how someone might think it was a jab at their cause.
There need not be prior agreement or discussion by them, privately or otherwise; it's enough that they are aware of what's going on that they can subsequently act in unity. Surely you can see even from the downvotes alone that drowns even the most reasonable but positive reviews, that it must be more than just a coincidence, and something more like or is a concerted activity. And have you not been reading? Many here have already openly admitted it to be so. It's already 1:30am here and I feel sleepy already so I could just be misreading your post.
For all of those upset by Minsc's reference to the Gamer Gate community, if the line had instead poked fun at Anita Sarkeesian, would you have been in uproar? Or even against its inclusion in the first place?
I just wanted to point out that Beamdog isn't innocent in all of this. I know you disagree, but you can make an argument that Beamdog started this with that line.
I have said in many posts on this forum, that I wish Beamdog had stayed out of it. Now my favorite game series might suffer.
and you aren't rude. We are just talking.
But SJW's would have. It would have been the opposite.
And that's the point I try to make.
Beamdog shouldn't have gotten involved.
As far as I'm concerned though: As I said, I find the line slightly annoying 'cause when I'm playing an RPG I don't feel like being reminded of real-world Internet/politics nastiness, and I would find the equivalent anti-Sarkeesian jab from Minsc's mouth annoying as well, and for the same reason. Of course I wouldn't endorse boycotts or review-bombing in either case.
Also, I have no doubt in my mind that if the line had poked fun at Sarkeesian instead of GG (especially if the devs had made corresponding remarks in interviews/comments), we would see an outrage storm from the "SJW"/feminist Internet right now, and from the GG part of the Internet we'd hear calls for free speech and "Don't censor art just because thin-skinned people are offended!"
I mean, there were some fairly SocJus moments in Pillars of Eternity, but they didn't handicap response options to the same degree and they didn't deliberately attempt to offend their own players, so I have no problem with PoE. I think it's rather splendid as a matter of fact.
Also got EE ages ago on steam:
Now, that out of the way. I would say I'm pretty partial towards GG. The way some people have been trying to undermine the hobby I've enjoyed since I was a child quite frankly disgusts me. However, I'll get to the point, I just thought I should lay bare my bias.
The point: I would probably not be "in an uproar", because, quite frankly, I'm not the one being targeted. However, I would not think it was "hilarious" or a "great fit for Minsc". It would still reduce my respect for whoever wrote it, as it's taking away from the game instead of adding to it. If anyone asked me I would quite easily agree that it probably shouldn't have been in the game in the first place. And if anti GG'ers/SJW's protested it for the same reason I see in this instance, I would understand them. Baldur's Gate is definitely not the place to "educate" or poke fun at real groups of people, or wage some kind of proxy war.
As for this whole fiasco... I'm not sure I'm for removing what's already been done, to be honest. They've written what they've written, and we all have to live with that now. However, it's also absurd to say that the people who despise this shouldn't voice their opinion with the direction the game has taken, whether you agree with it or not. Unless you can prove the majority of the reviews are left by people who haven't played the game, or that there is some kind of organized operation being undertaken by GG (on KiA for example), then I reject all this nonsense of admonishing people for "hating on" the game. Whether you like it or not, anyone has the right to leave a review with their opinions on a game they've played. The only instance where I think that becomes dodgy at best, is if they haven't played the game at all.
Like I said, though, I'm not really for changing the game now, what's done is done. However, they also have to live with the consequences of what they've done, whether that's reduced sales, negative PR or whatnot. All of this has put a very sour taste in my mouth, and I will personally not be buying this expansion anytime soon. I will view anything Beamdog releases with great skepticism from now on.