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.
On steam we have more positive reviews than negative yet every positive review is massively downrated (since that doesnt require purchase) and every negative review uprated. When someone posted a negative rating because of mod support it initially had 86%, he switched it to positive since it was fixed with an edit and within a few hours it dropped to 90% negative. If that doesnt scream review manipulation to you then your trolling.
I am certainly not, because people who find negative reviews helpful tend to be people who came to the decision not to make the purchase.
Furthermore, even if you are right then the only manipulation that's taking place is that people who agree with the negative reviews from game owners are upvoting those reviews. That's what they're supposed to do. That's how the system works.
What people going back and reversing all their votes is natural behaviour. You're a troll.
I guess I'm the only one who liked the original's story/writing? Well fuck me.
You're not alone here, mate.
I feel the original story/writing was nice and simple. Like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. It was easy to follow. The first time I played Baldur's Gate, I was 12 years old and my english was terrible. I didn't understand half of the conversations. My uncle was occasionally explaining the iron crisis for me. But it became clear to me on my own why Baldur's Gate was closed until Chapter 5. Why I had to return to Candlekeep. Who was Sarevok. What was my true heritage. Why Jon Irenicus captured me, etc etc.
Hah, I probably didn't even understand I was a Bhaalspawn until the second game (as far as I was concerned I just wanted to murder Sarevok for killing my awesome wizard dad). Not really knowing English and being a kid does that.
What people correctly object to is the claim that SoD mostly promotes an ominous "agenda", and that therefore mobs of Gamersgaters manipulating the scores is somehow the right counteraction to take.
It takes an incredibly closed-minded person to think that every person criticizing this game is simply doing so because they are bigoted scumbags.
Grow up.
Not all people who like what you hate are bad.
Not all people who hate what you like are bad.
(And yes, this applies to both sides of this controversy.)
You joined the forum after never posting before just to make that comment. You're a troll.
Ever considered the possibility that a lot of people have joined recently because they want to make their opinion known? That's what you do when you join a forum.
What people correctly object to is the claim that SoD mostly promotes an ominous "agenda", and that therefore mobs of Gamersgaters manipulating the scores is somehow the right counteraction to take.
To use your own kind of language, I've yet to see any evidence of these ominous "Gamergaters" making a concentrated effort of rigging reviews against the game.
It takes an incredibly closed-minded person to think that every person criticizing this game is simply doing so because they are bigoted scumbags.
Grow up.
Not all people who like what you hate are bad.
Not all people who hate what you like are bad.
(And yes, this applies to both sides of this controversy.)
You joined the forum after never posting before just to make that comment. You're a troll.
I don't see how what he's saying is in any way trollish.
His initial line isn't to be fair, but there is clear manipulation in Steam by an angry group. He has joined just to post that comment when it is pretty obvious that sites are being review bombed. I agree that some of the criticism is valid, but loads of 0/10 as people are doing on Metacritic is clear and obvious manipulation.
Ever considered the possibility that a lot of people have joined recently because they want to make their opinion known? That's what you do when you join a forum.
It's still a lot like people complaining about politics, after not going to vote. The Amber Scott interview (which was absolutely fine IMO) was out months before the release.
It takes an incredibly closed-minded person to think that every person criticizing this game is simply doing so because they are bigoted scumbags.
Grow up.
Not all people who like what you hate are bad.
Not all people who hate what you like are bad.
(And yes, this applies to both sides of this controversy.)
You joined the forum after never posting before just to make that comment. You're a troll.
I don't see how what he's saying is in any way trollish.
His initial line isn't to be fair, but there is clear manipulation in Steam by an angry group. He has joined just to post that comment when it is pretty obvious that sites are being review bombed. I agree that some of the criticism is valid, but loads of 0/10 as people are doing on Metacritic is clear and obvious manipulation.
I ain't going to argue whether or not 0/10's are Faux outrage or not, but that there are lot of 0/10's doesn't in any way prove there is an organized effort to reviewbomb. Baldur's gate is an old and beloved franchise, when it involves itself in a huge controversy like this it's not surprising to see a huge reaction to it. Are a lot of the 0/10 pro GG? Maybe. But that doesn't mean it's an organized effort to do what's happening. For that claim you need... wait for it... proof.
I ain't going to argue whether or not 0/10's are Faux outrage or not, but that there are lot of 0/10's doesn't in any way prove there is an organized effort of reviewbombing. Baldur's gate is an old and beloved franchise, when it involves itself in a huge controversy like this it's not surprising to see a huge reaction to it. Are a lot of the 0/10 pro GG? Maybe. But that doesn't mean it's an organized effort to do what's happening. For that claim you need... wait for it... proof.
I agree that the Gamergaters tend to behave more like a mob than an organised group. That there is a mob dynamic abetted by the Gamergaters causing people who never played the game to give fauxs 0/10 is pretty clear.
I ain't going to argue whether or not 0/10's are Faux outrage or not, but that there are lot of 0/10's doesn't in any way prove there is an organized effort of reviewbombing. Baldur's gate is an old and beloved franchise, when it involves itself in a huge controversy like this it's not surprising to see a huge reaction to it. Are a lot of the 0/10 pro GG? Maybe. But that doesn't mean it's an organized effort to do what's happening. For that claim you need... wait for it... proof.
I agree that the Gamergaters tend to behave more like a mob than an organised group. That there is a mob dynamic abetted by the Gamergaters causing people who never played the game to give fauxs 0/10 is pretty clear.
I actually haven't really looked at it myself, but there very much might be people dropping reviews who have never played the game. If this is the case I heavily condemn it, and I'm pro GG. I'm not sure where you're coming from when you say that this is an organized effort (by GG or not) to review bomb the game. Like I've said many times here now, feel free to give me some evidence this is happening. Like an operation thread on KiA or something like that. If someone can show me something like that I'll be the first to go and tell them to sort their shit out. But until then, all I can conclude is that these are individuals who act on their own beliefs, and not some organized effort. At this point all I see this as is yet another attempt to smear GG for something it's not responsible for.
It's not a mask, the quality of the writing is an additional problem to the social justice agenda, which is less of a conspiracy and more of something that one of the writers freely and openly admitted to... not that it requires a conspiracy for a small group of people to write something governed by their political beliefs...
I would still like to have an example of that beside the cleric you seem to dislike.
I'll be more than happy to oblige, my good person.
There's a part of the early game where refugees who have been taken in to the city of Baldur's Gate have attacked someone who has given at least a little indication that he might be a "vulnerable person" and beaten him half to death, in order that they might mug him and the very large amount of gold he is carrying, which happens to belong the protagonist.
The protagonist confronts these individuals and it transpires that they stole the money because they were hungry and thought it belonged to the Dukes, and spent some of the gold on a feast while distributing it to other needy refugees.
The player has three choices at the end of the conversation.
The first (and in my opinion, by far the most positively framed) is to let the group go and with rather glowing approval.
The second is to tell them that their hearts were in the right places, but explain that they unfortunately have to be arrested because of what they did to the man they mugged
The third is the "total asshole" response where you just start slaughtering everyone.
This is an incredibly loaded presentation of these events. Stealing from wealthy people is meant to make everything better even if take you in and shelter you in your time of need; You are encouraged, through positive framing, to let them go for being such swell guys just because they gave other people's money to their mates; and you cannot choose to enforce the law without telling them that they basically did the right thing. For that matter, why is gold the barrier to these people getting fed? Isn't the ability to produce and provide food generally more of a factor in situations like this? That wouldn't fit with a SocJus narrative though...
Well, what if you don't think they did the right thing? What if you think mugging someone is a bad thing? What if you think theft of huge amounts of gold isn't that easy to justify? That's not a permissible alternative. You either agree with the SocJus view that refugees are poor and downtrodden regardless of their crimes, rich people deserve to get robbed, and beating someone half to death is totally OK if he's more privileged than you; Or you're a monster and can do the "kill everyone" thing.
This is bad as a series of resolution choices even before we consider this is D&D / a roleplaying game... but this is D&D. What's a Lawful Neutral character meant to think? For that matter, if you think their hearts were in the right places then why would you be arresting them at all? Is that part only there to inject some SocJus feels into the "have justice done" choice instead of making that an internally consistent option within itself? What's a gold-loving Neutral character meant to do?
These problems are compounded by the fact that in the very same part of the game we're presented with the image of a powerful woman standing in armour over the near naked bodies of a bunch of men who had been brawling in the streets because they were bored (because, that's what men DO, right?) and she tells them off for repaying their hosts' generosity by causing a commotion in the streets. You end up being her message delivery boy so that she can get back up against the near-naked, co-operating men.
So, "causing a commotion in the streets" (stuipid men and their roughhousing!) is a scandalous abuse of good will that absolutely must be dealt with, but mugging and nearly killing a vulnerable citizen for the gold that he's carrying, which you presumed belonged to your hosts, makes you a hero (because SocJus)! There's no mention of abuse of hospitality within a mile of that conversation.
There you go, one example. As with all these examples, there's room for doubt and leeway when you consider it individually, and I know that.
Not all people criticizing the game are bigoted scumbags. I'm also sure that there are valid criticisms to be made. Hell, I'm not even putting Amber Scott's opinions above criticism.
However, everyone here accusing Beamdog of having a "SJW-libtard-PC-leftist agenda" is a delusional person. Moreover, a lot of them declare themselves sympathetic to a movement who claims to be legitimate/righteous and yet is ALWAYS to be found nearby when there's shady business involving sexism, harassment, death threats, doxxing and (in this particular case) review-bombing. Then they have the gall to point out to its own fluidity/lack of centralization/general anonimity/lack of manifesto as a way of saying "we had nothing to do with that and even if we had, you can't prove it."
I don't have anything to do with the SJW movement (nor do I want to). I believe this so-called Cultural War to only exist in the head of the slacktivists involved.
What I do believe is that GamerGaters are nothing but a bunch of tantrum-throwing bullies who are not above abusing people to make themselves heard. If you sympathize with this group, you are either gullible or malicious.
I actually haven't really looked at it myself, but there very much might be people dropping reviews who have never played the game. And if this is the case I heavily condemn it. And I'm pro GG. So I'm not sure where you're coming from when you say that this is an organized effort by GG to review bomb the game. Like I've said many times here now, feel free to give me some evidence this is happening. Like an operation thread on KiA or something like that. If someone can show me something like that I'll be the first to go and tell them to sort their shit out. But until that point, all I can conclude is that these are individuals who act on their own beliefs, and not some organized effort.
As said, it's not organised in the sort that there is a central Gamergate Action Comittee that orders evil minions to go and give bad reviews to SoD.
you can clearly observe the internal mob dynamics churning. And there are threads out there. There are also people on the Codex proudly explaining how they left the game running in the background for an hour so that they can review the game on Steam and then get a refund.
I actually haven't really looked at it myself, but there very much might be people dropping reviews who have never played the game. And if this is the case I heavily condemn it. And I'm pro GG. So I'm not sure where you're coming from when you say that this is an organized effort by GG to review bomb the game. Like I've said many times here now, feel free to give me some evidence this is happening. Like an operation thread on KiA or something like that. If someone can show me something like that I'll be the first to go and tell them to sort their shit out. But until that point, all I can conclude is that these are individuals who act on their own beliefs, and not some organized effort.
As said, it's not organised in the sort that there is a central Gamergate Action Comittee that orders evil minions to go and give bad reviews to SoD.
you can clearly observe the internal mob dynamics churning. And there are threads out there.
Of course people in GG are going to talk about what's happening. Duh. It's kind of their field of interest. But where are the operation threads being maintained which organizes said reviewbombing? Because that's what people claim when they say "organized effort".
It's not a mask, the quality of the writing is an additional problem to the social justice agenda, which is less of a conspiracy and more of something that one of the writers freely and openly admitted to... not that it requires a conspiracy for a small group of people to write something governed by their political beliefs...
I would still like to have an example of that beside the cleric you seem to dislike.
You just opened up a can of worms, my friend. Prepare to hear about how the entire game is pushing a "hamfisted" liberal agenda. Apparently there's even a little girl at the beginning who makes you lick her mother's boots because you're a man. It's all very terrifying and threatening.
You're offering the scenario where your choices are:
1 - Get insulted for saying something friendly 2 - Bootlick 3 - Asshole
As evidence for your side of the discussion? That's an unorthodox tactic.
I actually haven't really looked at it myself, but there very much might be people dropping reviews who have never played the game. And if this is the case I heavily condemn it. And I'm pro GG. So I'm not sure where you're coming from when you say that this is an organized effort by GG to review bomb the game. Like I've said many times here now, feel free to give me some evidence this is happening. Like an operation thread on KiA or something like that. If someone can show me something like that I'll be the first to go and tell them to sort their shit out. But until that point, all I can conclude is that these are individuals who act on their own beliefs, and not some organized effort.
As said, it's not organised in the sort that there is a central Gamergate Action Comittee that orders evil minions to go and give bad reviews to SoD.
you can clearly observe the internal mob dynamics churning. And there are threads out there. There are also people on the Codex proudly explaining how they left the game running in the background for an hour so that they can review the game on Steam and then get a refund.
Reading that thread just makes me despair for humanity. It's the same as ultra lefties perceiving racism, sexism where none exists.
You're offering the scenario where your choices are:
1 - Get insulted for saying something friendly 2 - Bootlick 3 - Asshole
As evidence for your side of the discussion? That's an unorthodox tactic.
Because 1 never happened to you in real life, right? All the kids out there are super rational and courteous.
If only that were the point! That would have been fine. Sadly, this is the part of the game where people are lauding you as the Hero of Baldur's Gate and you get to make heroic and inspiring speeches. This is not a "sometimes life is hard" moment, and any actual consideration of the material should make that obvious.
It's also not characterization of the daughter as a hero-worshipper because it's conditional on you choosing the "bait" answer, which is unfit to purpose, and choosing the SocJus bootlicker answer provides a response that's in no way "hero worship"-like.
The lengths people are going to in order to avoid picking up on the obvious pattern in ridiculous. So are the claims that people seeing an SJW agenda here are delusional, given that one of the writers has said that is precisely her intention.
Interpret it in its context instead of trying to fight the obvious, already.
You're offering the scenario where your choices are:
1 - Get insulted for saying something friendly 2 - Bootlick 3 - Asshole
As evidence for your side of the discussion? That's an unorthodox tactic.
Because 1 never happened to you in real life, right? All the kids out there are super rational and courteous.
If only that were the point! That would have been fine. Sadly, this is the part of the game where people are lauding you as the Hero of Baldur's Gate and you get to make heroic and inspiring speeches. This is not a "sometimes life is hard" moment, and any actual consideration of the material should make that obvious.
It's also not characterization of the daughter as a hero-worshipper because it's conditional on you choosing the "bait" answer, which is unfit to purpose, and choosing the SocJus bootlicker answer provides a response that's in no way "hero worship"-like.
The lengths people are going to in order to avoid picking up on the obvious pattern in ridiculous. So are the claims that people seeing an SJW agenda here are delusional, given that one of the writers has said that is precisely her intention.
Interpret it in its context instead of trying to fight the obvious, already.
I just looked at that dialogue again.
First off, answer 2 can in no way be qualified as bootlicking. Respectful sure, but bootlicking?
And answer 3 is definitely not an asshole answer. It could (for example) also be the answer of a person who is either uncomfortable just around children or feeling awkward because of the imminent seperation of mother and child. Corwin also goes not seem to give mind you using answer 3.
To summarize, I feel that dialogue is perfectly fine.
It's not a mask, the quality of the writing is an additional problem to the social justice agenda, which is less of a conspiracy and more of something that one of the writers freely and openly admitted to... not that it requires a conspiracy for a small group of people to write something governed by their political beliefs...
I would still like to have an example of that beside the cleric you seem to dislike.
I'll be more than happy to oblige, my good person.
There's a part of the early game where refugees who have been taken in to the city of Baldur's Gate have attacked someone who has given at least a little indication that he might be a "vulnerable person" and beaten him half to death, in order that they might mug him and the very large amount of gold he is carrying, which happens to belong the protagonist.
The protagonist confronts these individuals and it transpires that they stole the money because they were hungry and thought it belonged to the Dukes, and spent some of the gold on a feast while distributing it to other needy refugees.
The player has three choices at the end of the conversation.
The first (and in my opinion, by far the most positively framed) is to let the group go and with rather glowing approval.
The second is to tell them that their hearts were in the right places, but explain that they unfortunately have to be arrested because of what they did to the man they mugged
The third is the "total asshole" response where you just start slaughtering everyone.
This is an incredibly loaded presentation of these events. Stealing from wealthy people is meant to make everything better even if take you in and shelter you in your time of need; You are encouraged, through positive framing, to let them go for being such swell guys just because they gave other people's money to their mates; and you cannot choose to enforce the law without telling them that they basically did the right thing. For that matter, why is gold the barrier to these people getting fed? Isn't the ability to produce and provide food generally more of a factor in situations like this? That wouldn't fit with a SocJus narrative though...
Well, what if you don't think they did the right thing? What if you think mugging someone is a bad thing? What if you think theft of huge amounts of gold isn't that easy to justify? That's not a permissible alternative. You either agree with the SocJus view that refugees are poor and downtrodden regardless of their crimes, rich people deserve to get robbed, and beating someone half to death is totally OK if he's more privileged than you; Or you're a monster and can do the "kill everyone" thing.
This is bad as a series of resolution choices even before we consider this is D&D / a roleplaying game... but this is D&D. What's a Lawful Neutral character meant to think? For that matter, if you think their hearts were in the right places then why would you be arresting them at all? Is that part only there to inject some SocJus feels into the "have justice done" choice instead of making that an internally consistent option within itself? What's a gold-loving Neutral character meant to do?
These problems are compounded by the fact that in the very same part of the game we're presented with the image of a powerful woman standing in armour over the near naked bodies of a bunch of men who had been brawling in the streets because they were bored (because, that's what men DO, right?) and she tells them off for repaying their hosts' generosity by causing a commotion in the streets. You end up being her message delivery boy so that she can get back up against the near-naked, co-operating men.
So, "causing a commotion in the streets" (stuipid men and their roughhousing!) is a scandalous abuse of good will that absolutely must be dealt with, but mugging and nearly killing a vulnerable citizen for the gold that he's carrying, which you presumed belonged to your hosts, makes you a hero (because SocJus)! There's no mention of abuse of hospitality within a mile of that conversation.
There you go, one example. As with all these examples, there's room for doubt and leeway when you consider it individually, and I know that.
I am not ignoring your answer, but I don't have a savegame near that point of the game so I will have to recheck the dialogue again myself later.
Yeah, bootlicking. You don't know Corwin is tough, you've known her for ten minutes.
In which she helped you defeat several assassins, escorted you through the city and assisted in even more fights. Very possibly against a Fire Elemental. It's also an educated guess given that she's an officer in the Flaming Fist.
She also failed to reach you in time during that fight, and those guys went down like they were nothing. It's not much to go on for such a positive assessment.
Contrast that against Corwin's stated opinion of Minsc, the veteran bodyguard with an exceptional strength score.
She also failed to reach you in time during that fight, and those guys went down like they were nothing. It's not much to go on for such a positive assessment.
Contrast that against Corwin's stated opinion of Minsc, the veteran bodyguard with an exceptional strength score.
Tough != exceptional strength score. It is entirely reasonable that the PC had enough time to get a good impression of her capabilities. If you won't concede even a clear point like this, I don't feel continuing this particular line of discussion is worthwhile.
It's not a clear point, it's highly subjective. You might think you had enough time. I think Dante puts flatterers in the eighth circle of Hell. Any given character's approval might be won very easily or only giving begrudgingly, so this line is poor as the acceptable default.
What people correctly object to is the claim that SoD mostly promotes an ominous "agenda", and that therefore mobs of Gamersgaters manipulating the scores is somehow the right counteraction to take.
Eh, then my statement doesn't apply to you, but people have been doing that.
There is a prior statement (not sure who it was) to the effect that the "bad writing" argument is a mask for bigotry.
Also, refer to the original thread where Trent Oster requests that people write positive reviews. IIRC, you needn't look further than the second or third comment.
His initial line isn't to be fair, but there is clear manipulation in Steam by an angry group. He has joined just to post that comment when it is pretty obvious that sites are being review bombed. I agree that some of the criticism is valid, but loads of 0/10 as people are doing on Metacritic is clear and obvious manipulation.
What exactly is trollish about the initial line? Because I used the expression closed-minded?
Did you perhaps miss the part where I said that my statement applies to both sides of the argument?
Comments
What people correctly object to is the claim that SoD mostly promotes an ominous "agenda", and that therefore mobs of Gamersgaters manipulating the scores is somehow the right counteraction to take.
The protagonist confronts these individuals and it transpires that they stole the money because they were hungry and thought it belonged to the Dukes, and spent some of the gold on a feast while distributing it to other needy refugees.
The player has three choices at the end of the conversation.
The first (and in my opinion, by far the most positively framed) is to let the group go and with rather glowing approval.
The second is to tell them that their hearts were in the right places, but explain that they unfortunately have to be arrested because of what they did to the man they mugged
The third is the "total asshole" response where you just start slaughtering everyone.
This is an incredibly loaded presentation of these events. Stealing from wealthy people is meant to make everything better even if take you in and shelter you in your time of need; You are encouraged, through positive framing, to let them go for being such swell guys just because they gave other people's money to their mates; and you cannot choose to enforce the law without telling them that they basically did the right thing. For that matter, why is gold the barrier to these people getting fed? Isn't the ability to produce and provide food generally more of a factor in situations like this? That wouldn't fit with a SocJus narrative though...
Well, what if you don't think they did the right thing? What if you think mugging someone is a bad thing? What if you think theft of huge amounts of gold isn't that easy to justify? That's not a permissible alternative. You either agree with the SocJus view that refugees are poor and downtrodden regardless of their crimes, rich people deserve to get robbed, and beating someone half to death is totally OK if he's more privileged than you; Or you're a monster and can do the "kill everyone" thing.
This is bad as a series of resolution choices even before we consider this is D&D / a roleplaying game... but this is D&D. What's a Lawful Neutral character meant to think? For that matter, if you think their hearts were in the right places then why would you be arresting them at all? Is that part only there to inject some SocJus feels into the "have justice done" choice instead of making that an internally consistent option within itself? What's a gold-loving Neutral character meant to do?
These problems are compounded by the fact that in the very same part of the game we're presented with the image of a powerful woman standing in armour over the near naked bodies of a bunch of men who had been brawling in the streets because they were bored (because, that's what men DO, right?) and she tells them off for repaying their hosts' generosity by causing a commotion in the streets. You end up being her message delivery boy so that she can get back up against the near-naked, co-operating men.
So, "causing a commotion in the streets" (stuipid men and their roughhousing!) is a scandalous abuse of good will that absolutely must be dealt with, but mugging and nearly killing a vulnerable citizen for the gold that he's carrying, which you presumed belonged to your hosts, makes you a hero (because SocJus)! There's no mention of abuse of hospitality within a mile of that conversation.
There you go, one example. As with all these examples, there's room for doubt and leeway when you consider it individually, and I know that.
However, everyone here accusing Beamdog of having a "SJW-libtard-PC-leftist agenda" is a delusional person. Moreover, a lot of them declare themselves sympathetic to a movement who claims to be legitimate/righteous and yet is ALWAYS to be found nearby when there's shady business involving sexism, harassment, death threats, doxxing and (in this particular case) review-bombing. Then they have the gall to point out to its own fluidity/lack of centralization/general anonimity/lack of manifesto as a way of saying "we had nothing to do with that and even if we had, you can't prove it."
I don't have anything to do with the SJW movement (nor do I want to). I believe this so-called Cultural War to only exist in the head of the slacktivists involved.
What I do believe is that GamerGaters are nothing but a bunch of tantrum-throwing bullies who are not above abusing people to make themselves heard. If you sympathize with this group, you are either gullible or malicious.
But if you look at these threads:
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4d832a/beamdog_founder_trent_oster_begs_sjws_for_the/
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4d20ju/amber_scott_writer_for_new_baldurs_gate_claims/
you can clearly observe the internal mob dynamics churning. And there are threads out there. There are also people on the Codex proudly explaining how they left the game running in the background for an hour so that they can review the game on Steam and then get a refund.
1 - Get insulted for saying something friendly
2 - Bootlick
3 - Asshole
As evidence for your side of the discussion? That's an unorthodox tactic.
It's also not characterization of the daughter as a hero-worshipper because it's conditional on you choosing the "bait" answer, which is unfit to purpose, and choosing the SocJus bootlicker answer provides a response that's in no way "hero worship"-like.
The lengths people are going to in order to avoid picking up on the obvious pattern in ridiculous. So are the claims that people seeing an SJW agenda here are delusional, given that one of the writers has said that is precisely her intention.
Interpret it in its context instead of trying to fight the obvious, already.
First off, answer 2 can in no way be qualified as bootlicking. Respectful sure, but bootlicking?
And answer 3 is definitely not an asshole answer. It could (for example) also be the answer of a person who is either uncomfortable just around children or feeling awkward because of the imminent seperation of mother and child. Corwin also goes not seem to give mind you using answer 3.
To summarize, I feel that dialogue is perfectly fine.
Contrast that against Corwin's stated opinion of Minsc, the veteran bodyguard with an exceptional strength score.
There is a prior statement (not sure who it was) to the effect that the "bad writing" argument is a mask for bigotry.
Also, refer to the original thread where Trent Oster requests that people write positive reviews. IIRC, you needn't look further than the second or third comment. What exactly is trollish about the initial line? Because I used the expression closed-minded?
Did you perhaps miss the part where I said that my statement applies to both sides of the argument?