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.
And that's the point I try to make.
Beamdog shouldn't have gotten involved.
No, I don't think "SJWs" would have gone to the extreme of trying to harm the developer by massive review bombing. They didn't try to do that with Pillars of Eternity, which featured a joke that they found offensive. The just shouted about it on the forums for a while and I think a handful of the more passionate ones returned their purchases. Stop trying to concoct a false equivalency.
Remember the new, widely panned Duke Nukem that came out a year or two ago? It was PACKED with shit to offend "SJWs" and wasn't faced with anything like this. Gamerbros like to talk about how people are always trying to shove a worldview down their throats, but that's exactly what they do by trying to eliminate content line this.
"Both sides are just as bad" is a great shield, though.
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.
And that's the point I try to make.
Beamdog shouldn't have gotten involved.
No, I don't think "SJWs" would have gone to the extreme of trying to harm the developer by massive review bombing. They didn't try to do that with Pillars of Eternity, which featured a joke that they found offensive. The just shouted about it on the forums for a while and I think a handful of the more passionate ones returned their purchases. Stop trying to concoct a false equivalency.
Remember the new, widely panned Duke Nukem that came out a year or two ago? It was PACKED with shit to offend "SJWs" and wasn't faced with anything like this. Gamerbros like to talk about how people are always trying to shove a worldview down their throats, but that's exactly what they do by trying to eliminate content line this.
"Both sides are just as bad" is a great shield, though.
You don't have to go further than the Dead or Alive fiasco to see what you're saying is utter nonsense.
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.
And that's the point I try to make.
Beamdog shouldn't have gotten involved.
No, I don't think "SJWs" would have gone to the extreme of trying to harm the developer by massive review bombing. They didn't try to do that with Pillars of Eternity, which featured a joke that they found offensive. The just shouted about it on the forums for a while and I think a handful of the more passionate ones returned their purchases. Stop trying to concoct a false equivalency.
Remember the new, widely panned Duke Nukem that came out a year or two ago? It was PACKED with shit to offend "SJWs" and wasn't faced with anything like this. Gamerbros like to talk about how people are always trying to shove a worldview down their throats, but that's exactly what they do by trying to eliminate content line this.
"Both sides are just as bad" is a great shield, though.
Not only everything you said, but I personally, one of the accused "SJWs" enjoy a game like Duke Nukem and Grand Theft Auto from time to time. I tend to view them as over the top spoofs, but mostly they don't bother me because they are just video games, and if there is one place where we should be able to tolerate stuff we don't care for in real life, it should be pixels on a screen we control with a keyboard or Dualshock. The people taking offense to this level have some SERIOUS issues and perspective problems. This is such a insignificant issue that it defies belief we are still talking about this 3 days later.
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?
There should not have been a GG reference at all. For or against.
Everything seems to be getting politicized nowadays. I play games to escape political garbage like that. Let me slay dragons, traverse haunted forests, steal magic artifacts, and rescue princes/princesses without passive-aggressive shots at some movement or other taking me right out of the game.
So yeah, poking fun at Anita Sarkeesian would upset me too. Either as a replacement or alongside what Minsc says.
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.
And that's the point I try to make.
Beamdog shouldn't have gotten involved.
No, I don't think "SJWs" would have gone to the extreme of trying to harm the developer by massive review bombing. They didn't try to do that with Pillars of Eternity, which featured a joke that they found offensive. The just shouted about it on the forums for a while and I think a handful of the more passionate ones returned their purchases. Stop trying to concoct a false equivalency.
Remember the new, widely panned Duke Nukem that came out a year or two ago? It was PACKED with shit to offend "SJWs" and wasn't faced with anything like this. Gamerbros like to talk about how people are always trying to shove a worldview down their throats, but that's exactly what they do by trying to eliminate content line this.
"Both sides are just as bad" is a great shield, though.
Then you really don't know much about SJWs, they've done far worse things than that. That tried to get one game (from a female developer, no less) pulled from steam greenlight because she took gamergate's side. They went after Stardock after Brad Wardell made comments that don't fit with their narrative, and they even attacked one of their own prominent campaigners because she dared to have lunch Wardell to discuss the situation calmly and rationally. They tried and succeeding in getting Grand Theft Auto V removed from shelves in Australia because a sandbox game didn't specifically make female characters immune to violence. They try to get people fired all the frickin' time and have succeeded more than once, simply because they disliked their opinions. They've sent people syringes through the mail with notes telling the target to kill himself.
"Review bombing" sites... if that's even a "thing" and not just "more people than you like having an opinion different from your own" is much too mild a tactic for SJWs. They don't want to discourage people from buying something they don't like it, they want what they don't like to be changed and the person who made it destroyed. That's their standard modus operandi, it's what they live for.
Everyone pretending to care about what Minsc says only because it "breaks immersion" must have never played any RPG that has ever been released. Nearly every one I have ever played has an easter egg or pop culture reference hidden in some (or multiple) corners, or sitting out in plain site for that matter.
All these comments about developers "ruining your hobby" by making games with slivers of content you don't like are really baffling. It's my hobby too.
I have another hobby, actually – reading books. I don't care for the trash that Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly crank out every six months or so, but it doesn't *ruin* my hobby. I just don't read it. And if a book I AM reading has something in it that offends me, I don't feel like I'm owed something by the author or that my fragile little mind should never have been exposed to it in the first place. I just accept that some people have different beliefs and priorities than me and I move on. I sure as hell don't mosey on over to Goodreads and try to tank the book with a 0 review.
ESPECIALLY if I haven't read it and nobody's making me read it. That would be beyond entitled.
No, I don't think "SJWs" would have gone to the extreme of trying to harm the developer by massive review bombing. They didn't try to do that with Pillars of Eternity, which featured a joke that they found offensive. The just shouted about it on the forums for a while and I think a handful of the more passionate ones returned their purchases.
Well, in that example the developers went on twitter to appease the outraged crowd very very quickly, and removed the controversial text in a patch, thus the controversy never had a chance to gain much momentum (not counting the counter-controversy that followed). So I don't think the comparison is apt.
All these comments about developers "ruining your hobby" by making games with slivers of content you don't like are really baffling. It's my hobby too.
I have another hobby, actually – reading books. I don't care for the trash that Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly crank out every six months or so, but it doesn't *ruin* my hobby. I just don't read it. And if a book I AM reading has something in it that offends me, I don't feel like I'm owed something by the author or that my fragile little mind should never have been exposed to it in the first place. I just accept that some people have different beliefs and priorities than me and I move on. I sure as hell don't mosey on over to Goodreads and try to tank the book with a 0 review.
ESPECIALLY if I haven't read it and nobody's making me read it. That would be beyond entitled.
With the thousands upon thousands of games on Steam, the hundreds of thousands if not millions of hours of playtime available for anyone to pick from, some people are actually taking a FEW SECONDS out of a minor expansion pack to a two decade old game and deciding that they have declared war on their pastime and must be stopped at all costs. It's not just that they have a lack of perspective, it's taking your perspective, locking it in a shed, and dropping a nuclear bomb on it so you make sure you can never see anything clearly ever again. It's approaching a psychosis....
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.
And that's the point I try to make.
Beamdog shouldn't have gotten involved.
No, I don't think "SJWs" would have gone to the extreme of trying to harm the developer by massive review bombing. They didn't try to do that with Pillars of Eternity, which featured a joke that they found offensive. The just shouted about it on the forums for a while and I think a handful of the more passionate ones returned their purchases. Stop trying to concoct a false equivalency.
Remember the new, widely panned Duke Nukem that came out a year or two ago? It was PACKED with shit to offend "SJWs" and wasn't faced with anything like this. Gamerbros like to talk about how people are always trying to shove a worldview down their throats, but that's exactly what they do by trying to eliminate content line this.
"Both sides are just as bad" is a great shield, though.
Not only everything you said, but I personally, one of the accused "SJWs" enjoy a game like Duke Nukem and Grand Theft Auto from time to time. I tend to view them as over the top spoofs, but mostly they don't bother me because they are just video games, and if there is one place where we should be able to tolerate stuff we don't care for in real life, it should be pixels on a screen we control with a keyboard or Dualshock. The people taking offense to this level have some SERIOUS issues and perspective problems. This is such a insignificant issue that it defies belief we are still talking about this 3 days later.
Agreed. I love the GTA games and they make fun of people like me all the time. The whole last season of South Park did as well, and I watched almost every episode. Hell, I watch Portlandia, a show almost dedicated to lampooning people of my political persuasion. It's about being able to take a joke and maybe laugh at yourself once in a while.
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.
And that's the point I try to make.
Beamdog shouldn't have gotten involved.
No, I don't think "SJWs" would have gone to the extreme of trying to harm the developer by massive review bombing. They didn't try to do that with Pillars of Eternity, which featured a joke that they found offensive. The just shouted about it on the forums for a while and I think a handful of the more passionate ones returned their purchases. Stop trying to concoct a false equivalency.
Remember the new, widely panned Duke Nukem that came out a year or two ago? It was PACKED with shit to offend "SJWs" and wasn't faced with anything like this. Gamerbros like to talk about how people are always trying to shove a worldview down their throats, but that's exactly what they do by trying to eliminate content line this.
"Both sides are just as bad" is a great shield, though.
Not only everything you said, but I personally, one of the accused "SJWs" enjoy a game like Duke Nukem and Grand Theft Auto from time to time. I tend to view them as over the top spoofs, but mostly they don't bother me because they are just video games, and if there is one place where we should be able to tolerate stuff we don't care for in real life, it should be pixels on a screen we control with a keyboard or Dualshock. The people taking offense to this level have some SERIOUS issues and perspective problems. This is such a insignificant issue that it defies belief we are still talking about this 3 days later.
Agreed. I love the GTA games and they make fun of people like me all the time. The whole last season of South Park did as well, and I watched almost every episode. Hell, I watch Portlandia, a show almost dedicated to lampooning people of my political persuasion. It's about being able to take a joke and maybe laugh at yourself once in a while.
And on the other hand, while I enjoy playing them, I could easily see how a woman sitting down to play either of those games would say, "this is disgusting and repulsive." Not ALL women, maybe not most women, certainly not most men. But alot of people probably do have problems with them. But they don't do this, and if they have, it certainly wasn't effective.
No, I don't think "SJWs" would have gone to the extreme of trying to harm the developer by massive review bombing. They didn't try to do that with Pillars of Eternity, which featured a joke that they found offensive. The just shouted about it on the forums for a while and I think a handful of the more passionate ones returned their purchases.
Well, in that example the developers went on twitter to appease the outraged crowd very very quickly, and removed the controversial text in a patch, thus the controversy never had a chance to gain much momentum (not counting the counter-controversy that followed). So I don't think the comparison is apt.
That controversy was just as stupid, and I commented multiple times it was no different than the song "Lola" by The Kinks or "The Crying Game". not to mention the fact that you could play the game 100 times and NEVER see the offending limerick. Nothing like this happened, and the entire "controversy" was confined to obscure blogs and message boards. I barely even managed to hear about it by happenstance. And Obsidian didn't need to cave on that either. It was a non-issue, just like this....
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),
I don't know what KiA is, but people have already admitted that this is happening, in this very thread. And there have been documented examples where honest people left normal reviews based on their actual experience with the game, and those reviews were down voted to oblivion by the GG mobs. That's *actual* censorship. And it violates everything GG claims to stand for.
[Beamdog] also have to live with the consequences of what they've done, whether that's reduced sales, negative PR or whatnot.
100% agree. BUT those consequences should not include dishonest reviews and manipulations of the review process. Anyone who engages in that kind of thing loses all credibility in my eyes. And, by the way, in everyone else's eyes. The GG folks may pay themselves on the backs in their little echo chambers on 4chan and Reddit, but they are actually shooting themselves in the foot here.
KiA=Kotaku in Action. A subreddit where a lot of GG stuff happens. I don't really frequent it myself, I'm not an "active GG'er". I just sympathize heavily with them. An easy way to prove it's happening would be to find a giant thread there organizing review bombing.
"People have admitted it"? How does anyone saying it's happening in this thread equate to proof that it's happening? I'm not sure I follow. People can independently be spurred into action against something they despise.
"100% agree. BUT those consequences should not include dishonest reviews and manipulations of the review process."
Again, I've yet to see any proof that's happening. I mean, sure, there are probably some dishonest folks there. There always are. But I'm talking about the organized "review bombing" aspect.
"The GG folks may pay themselves on the backs in their little echo chambers on 4chan and Reddit, but they are actually shooting themselves in the foot here. " I disagree. If it was proven to be an "omg muh outrage" kneejerk reaction to the inclusion of a trans character in itself, resulting in a giant concentrated effort to review bomb the game, then sure I'd agree. But like I said, I've yet to see any evidence pointing towards this.
No, I don't think "SJWs" would have gone to the extreme of trying to harm the developer by massive review bombing. They didn't try to do that with Pillars of Eternity, which featured a joke that they found offensive. The just shouted about it on the forums for a while and I think a handful of the more passionate ones returned their purchases.
Well, in that example the developers went on twitter to appease the outraged crowd very very quickly, and removed the controversial text in a patch, thus the controversy never had a chance to gain much momentum (not counting the counter-controversy that followed). So I don't think the comparison is apt.
That's not true. It was backer content that the original author decided to tweak. I was actually there and in the forums when this happened, and the change didn't happen overnight. In the meantime, the so-called SJWs didn't even begin to take action like what is being taken against Beamdog now.
As for the Dead or Alive series... aren't they still making games?
I think something we all need to remind ourselves of is that both sides of this argument love games. One side wants games to include things that they feel more comfortable with while the other is already comfortable and is worried that they might not be in the future. We are all here on a forum for an updated version of a ridiculously old videogame because we love games so much that we want to talk about them with others. Nobody wants to ruin videogames for anyone else, we all just want the Baldur's Gate that feels right to us in our hearts. I think thats a good thing. So lets be good fellows and figure our how we can all do this noble thing. Thank you for reading my thoughts.
All these comments about developers "ruining your hobby" by making games with slivers of content you don't like are really baffling. It's my hobby too.
I have another hobby, actually – reading books. I don't care for the trash that Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly crank out every six months or so, but it doesn't *ruin* my hobby. I just don't read it. And if a book I AM reading has something in it that offends me, I don't feel like I'm owed something by the author or that my fragile little mind should never have been exposed to it in the first place. I just accept that some people have different beliefs and priorities than me and I move on. I sure as hell don't mosey on over to Goodreads and try to tank the book with a 0 review.
ESPECIALLY if I haven't read it and nobody's making me read it. That would be beyond entitled.
I think something we all need to remind ourselves of is that both sides of this argument love games. One side wants games to include things that they feel more comfortable with while the other is already comfortable and is worried that they might not be in the future. We are all here on a forum for an updated version of a ridiculously old videogame because we love games so much that we want to talk about them with others. Nobody wants to ruin videogames for anyone else, we all just want the Baldur's Gate that feels right to us in our hearts. I think thats a good thing. So lets be good fellows and figure our how we can all do this noble thing. Thank you for reading my thoughts.
I'm absolutely 100% perfectly fine with games SJW's want existing. Holy sheet I don't want to remove games they like from the market, far from it. However, what I'm against is them changing an already existing (and beloved) franchise to suit their agenda. Make your own IP!
I think something we all need to remind ourselves of is that both sides of this argument love games. One side wants games to include things that they feel more comfortable with while the other is already comfortable and is worried that they might not be in the future. We are all here on a forum for an updated version of a ridiculously old videogame because we love games so much that we want to talk about them with others. Nobody wants to ruin videogames for anyone else, we all just want the Baldur's Gate that feels right to us in our hearts. I think thats a good thing. So lets be good fellows and figure our how we can all do this noble thing. Thank you for reading my thoughts.
I don't fit into either of those two categories, unfortunately. I want developers to make the games they want to make and then I want to decide which ones to buy based on what's in them. I would never deign to demand that I never have to encounter certain content and I would never take action against a developer because they included something I didn't like. That's the difference.
I think something we all need to remind ourselves of is that both sides of this argument love games. One side wants games to include things that they feel more comfortable with while the other is already comfortable and is worried that they might not be in the future. We are all here on a forum for an updated version of a ridiculously old videogame because we love games so much that we want to talk about them with others. Nobody wants to ruin videogames for anyone else, we all just want the Baldur's Gate that feels right to us in our hearts. I think thats a good thing. So lets be good fellows and figure our how we can all do this noble thing. Thank you for reading my thoughts.
I'm absolutely 100% perfectly fine with games SJW's want existing. Holy sheet I don't want to remove games they like from the market, far from it. However, what I'm against is them changing an already existing (and beloved) franchise to suit their agenda. Make your own IP!
It is their IP at the moment, they have the rights to make games within the universe, bestowed upon them by Wizards of the Coast. If they want to throw Big Bird in as a boss at the end of a dungeon and Wizards of the Coast signs off on it they can....
All these comments about developers "ruining your hobby" by making games with slivers of content you don't like are really baffling. It's my hobby too.
I have another hobby, actually – reading books. I don't care for the trash that Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly crank out every six months or so, but it doesn't *ruin* my hobby. I just don't read it. And if a book I AM reading has something in it that offends me, I don't feel like I'm owed something by the author or that my fragile little mind should never have been exposed to it in the first place. I just accept that some people have different beliefs and priorities than me and I move on. I sure as hell don't mosey on over to Goodreads and try to tank the book with a 0 review.
ESPECIALLY if I haven't read it and nobody's making me read it. That would be beyond entitled.
See, now you sound like a GamerGater. Embrace it!
Except that's EXACTLY what "GamerGaters" are doing with SoD.
As for the Dead or Alive series... aren't they still making games?
They didn't release the game in the west because they felt the SJW climate was hostile to their product. That in itself can't really be blamed on SJW's directly trying to stop the game, though (although it's certainly bad in itself). What I referred to was when Play-Asia decided to localize and run with it in the west, and the SJW's jumped on them like a rabid horde. Thankfully Play-Asia didn't really give a *bleep*, but what happened speaks loudly about their character.
I think something we all need to remind ourselves of is that both sides of this argument love games. One side wants games to include things that they feel more comfortable with while the other is already comfortable and is worried that they might not be in the future. We are all here on a forum for an updated version of a ridiculously old videogame because we love games so much that we want to talk about them with others. Nobody wants to ruin videogames for anyone else, we all just want the Baldur's Gate that feels right to us in our hearts. I think thats a good thing. So lets be good fellows and figure our how we can all do this noble thing. Thank you for reading my thoughts.
I'm absolutely 100% perfectly fine with games SJW's want existing. Holy sheet I don't want to remove games they like from the market, far from it. However, what I'm against is them changing an already existing (and beloved) franchise to suit their agenda. Make your own IP!
It is their IP at the moment, they have the rights to make games within the universe, bestowed upon them by Wizards of the Coast. If they want to throw Big Bird in as a boss at the end of a dungeon and Wizards of the Coast signs off on it they can....
Yes they "own" the IP, but they didn't "create" it as far as I know. Am I mistaken?
Thread Topic: The artificial 3.6/10 score on Metacritic and similar scores on GoG re: concerted hate campaign. If you have actually played the game, please consider leaving an honest review on one of these sites.
I don't know about the word "artificial." I was reading the reviews on Metacritic and a good 90% of the poor reviews sounded like people who were genuinely disappointed with the writing in the game. And, factually, Overhaul's writing has been scrutinized and debated ever since Baldur's Gate 1: Enhanced Edition. Hell, I remember a lot of people saying they liked BG:EE for all of the enhancements, but genuinely didn't enjoy most, if not all of the new content… Often because they found the writing odd, out of place, or in the words of many, "just plain bad."
Now for BG:EE, liking the enhancements, but not liking the new content, means you leave the game a 80%-90% rating. For SoD? …Considerably less, because it's all new content. Does that justify all the zeroes? Probably not. And I did see a fair amount of zeroes for reasons of, in their words, "blatant SJWing." But many of them, and many others who did not even mention the political aspect, gave it a zero because they feel personally offended by the cracked state of their rose-tinted glasses. Nostalgia is a powerful thing, and anyone who says this game is getting poor reviews exclusively for a transgender NPC and an alleged GamerGate joke is deluding themselves.
I honestly think even if the political factor weren't here, the game would have very mixed reviews for this exact reason. A lot of people historically do not like Overhaul's writing. And I'll just go ahead and throw my own opinion in here, I've seen dozens of mods that are more true to the original NPCs' personalities than Overhaul has been in BG:EE, BGII:EE, and SoD. Not as if that's hard when they would dare to completely change a character's personality on a whim. If there's anything I'm going to rate this game low for, it'll be that. What they did to Safana is completely unforgivable.
And on the other hand, while I enjoy playing them, I could easily see how a woman sitting down to play either of those games would say, "this is disgusting and repulsive." Not ALL women, maybe not most women, certainly not most men. But alot of people probably do have problems with them. But they don't do this, and if they have, it certainly wasn't effective.
If it's GTA, the correct response is, "That's reeeal interesting babe. I'm just going to listen."
I think something we all need to remind ourselves of is that both sides of this argument love games. One side wants games to include things that they feel more comfortable with while the other is already comfortable and is worried that they might not be in the future. We are all here on a forum for an updated version of a ridiculously old videogame because we love games so much that we want to talk about them with others. Nobody wants to ruin videogames for anyone else, we all just want the Baldur's Gate that feels right to us in our hearts. I think thats a good thing. So lets be good fellows and figure our how we can all do this noble thing. Thank you for reading my thoughts.
I'm absolutely 100% perfectly fine with games SJW's want existing. Holy sheet I don't want to remove games they like from the market, far from it. However, what I'm against is them changing an already existing (and beloved) franchise to suit their agenda. Make your own IP!
It is their IP at the moment, they have the rights to make games within the universe, bestowed upon them by Wizards of the Coast. If they want to throw Big Bird in as a boss at the end of a dungeon and Wizards of the Coast signs off on it they can....
This. The game does not belong to you, it belongs to Beamdog and Wizards of the Coast. It's their IP and they can do with it whatever they please.
Luckily, that doesn't have to destroy your life. You can head over to GoG and buy the unaltered original masterpiece for $9.99 and play it *right now*.
I don't know about the word "artificial." I was reading the reviews on Metacritic and a good 90% of the poor reviews sounded like people who were genuinely disappointed with the writing in the game. And, factually, Overhaul's writing has been scrutinized and debated ever since Baldur's Gate 1: Enhanced Edition. Hell, I remember a lot of people saying they liked BG:EE for all of the enhancements, but genuinely didn't enjoy most, if not all of the new content…
But damn me, apparently, for truly thinking some of the writers need replaced on the team!
Comments
Remember the new, widely panned Duke Nukem that came out a year or two ago? It was PACKED with shit to offend "SJWs" and wasn't faced with anything like this. Gamerbros like to talk about how people are always trying to shove a worldview down their throats, but that's exactly what they do by trying to eliminate content line this.
"Both sides are just as bad" is a great shield, though.
Edit: That is, the Play-Asia side of it.
Everything seems to be getting politicized nowadays. I play games to escape political garbage like that. Let me slay dragons, traverse haunted forests, steal magic artifacts, and rescue princes/princesses without passive-aggressive shots at some movement or other taking me right out of the game.
So yeah, poking fun at Anita Sarkeesian would upset me too. Either as a replacement or alongside what Minsc says.
"Review bombing" sites... if that's even a "thing" and not just "more people than you like having an opinion different from your own" is much too mild a tactic for SJWs. They don't want to discourage people from buying something they don't like it, they want what they don't like to be changed and the person who made it destroyed. That's their standard modus operandi, it's what they live for.
I have another hobby, actually – reading books. I don't care for the trash that Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly crank out every six months or so, but it doesn't *ruin* my hobby. I just don't read it. And if a book I AM reading has something in it that offends me, I don't feel like I'm owed something by the author or that my fragile little mind should never have been exposed to it in the first place. I just accept that some people have different beliefs and priorities than me and I move on. I sure as hell don't mosey on over to Goodreads and try to tank the book with a 0 review.
ESPECIALLY if I haven't read it and nobody's making me read it. That would be beyond entitled.
That controversy was just as stupid, and I commented multiple times it was no different than the song "Lola" by The Kinks or "The Crying Game". not to mention the fact that you could play the game 100 times and NEVER see the offending limerick. Nothing like this happened, and the entire "controversy" was confined to obscure blogs and message boards. I barely even managed to hear about it by happenstance. And Obsidian didn't need to cave on that either. It was a non-issue, just like this....
That it comes from Minsc, a fan-favorite, only adds insult to the injury.
"People have admitted it"? How does anyone saying it's happening in this thread equate to proof that it's happening? I'm not sure I follow. People can independently be spurred into action against something they despise.
"100% agree. BUT those consequences should not include dishonest reviews and manipulations of the review process."
Again, I've yet to see any proof that's happening. I mean, sure, there are probably some dishonest folks there. There always are. But I'm talking about the organized "review bombing" aspect.
"The GG folks may pay themselves on the backs in their little echo chambers on 4chan and Reddit, but they are actually shooting themselves in the foot here. "
I disagree. If it was proven to be an "omg muh outrage" kneejerk reaction to the inclusion of a trans character in itself, resulting in a giant concentrated effort to review bomb the game, then sure I'd agree. But like I said, I've yet to see any evidence pointing towards this.
As for the Dead or Alive series... aren't they still making games?
https://archive.is/KCGzN
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Now for BG:EE, liking the enhancements, but not liking the new content, means you leave the game a 80%-90% rating. For SoD? …Considerably less, because it's all new content. Does that justify all the zeroes? Probably not. And I did see a fair amount of zeroes for reasons of, in their words, "blatant SJWing." But many of them, and many others who did not even mention the political aspect, gave it a zero because they feel personally offended by the cracked state of their rose-tinted glasses. Nostalgia is a powerful thing, and anyone who says this game is getting poor reviews exclusively for a transgender NPC and an alleged GamerGate joke is deluding themselves.
I honestly think even if the political factor weren't here, the game would have very mixed reviews for this exact reason. A lot of people historically do not like Overhaul's writing. And I'll just go ahead and throw my own opinion in here, I've seen dozens of mods that are more true to the original NPCs' personalities than Overhaul has been in BG:EE, BGII:EE, and SoD. Not as if that's hard when they would dare to completely change a character's personality on a whim. If there's anything I'm going to rate this game low for, it'll be that. What they did to Safana is completely unforgivable.
Luckily, that doesn't have to destroy your life. You can head over to GoG and buy the unaltered original masterpiece for $9.99 and play it *right now*.
Sometimes I wonder why I form opinions at all.