@Diogenes42 i agree with what you said. however i think u can control what happens at some extent by bringing someone who is mostly neutral and doesnt declare that he takes sides in political wars. at least thats the way i see it..
How interesting dear @vanilla_BG_purist so you want to censor potential future installments of views you do not like to abide an angry mob that for the most part not even seems to own the game?
This has been by far one of the most ridiculous things I have seen happening in the last few years and I have been observing it kind of dumbfounded by the petty, immature, hypocritical spectacle that has been going on, awed by it's sheer idiocy.
I have up till these last days generally been in sympathy for what I thought the Gamegaters stood for and claimed they were pushing for, as I thought that journalism in gaming as elsewhere should be ethical and give honest reviews given if possible by those without personal interests or stakes in the game/project they were reviewing, and agreed that the reported social media campaigns by apparent groups to censor/silence people who were not in agreement those of a reported 'social justice' position or who spoke in favour of GG position, or alter, censor or shut down projects or games that didn't seem to fit their ideas was wrong, as was seeking to get people fired etc. I agreed that developers, writers and artists should be free to create the projects they wished to do so, and put their visions out there, and have freedom of expression without interference or needing to meet some quota or pre-described vision etc from one social-political position or another, and whatever they own personal views, attitudes and politics etc should not affect them doing their job, or how they do it. And we could judge their works for ourselves if we enjoyed them, thought they had worth and so on, no matter what they personal views were (or if we felt so opposed to them, could just not buy or regard the works, games, films etc).
This at least, ethics and honesty in reviews and journalism, freedom of expression in creative work, lack of censorship and the right of developers to produce the games they wished to create with honest reviews of said projects was what I understood of GG from the outside and supported it as this was what I apprehended the how argument to be about.
That out the way, this how situation has been a complete eye-opener, and has left me with complete distaste and disgust for those in the GG movement as for the extremes on the other-side being called 'SWJ's, with the added factor of here that many of those under this banner seem to me to be completely hypocritical. Yes in retrospect Beamdog should have decided against the Minsc line (though I have yet to come across it personally yet) as it might (as it has) been seen by GG's as a poke at them (whether it was intended so or not).
But does this moment of bad judgement (combined with an interview in which one writer felt two of the stereotypes were of the BG1 npcs were sexist and wished to add depth to them for this belief, which I disagree with but rather as if all BG1 they are just basic stereotypes without much depth, and are sexist only in that all stereotypes are one-dimensional caricatures, but it's her right to see it that way) and the inclusion of a transgendered character justify this irrational response?
This review bombing, down-voting positive reviews that provide full reason for way they review it they way they do etc, the 0-1 reviews (which as a game, despite some bugs people are experiencing is still for the vast majority of players a fully playable game does not in any deserve) etc is a form of censorship and hounding of the company for one potentially ill-judged remark and possibly hamfisted dialogue (haven't got to that point myself yet so I can't speak to it) of a cleric who is transgendered (but apparently is other things with other things in the game and not just someone jumping out at you to tell you they are transgendered and for which apparently you have to ask about them to get to that dialogue, and therefore is already superior to the transgendered character in DA:I) is ridiculously. At worst you roll your eyes at their presentation and move one (as I did a little at the DA:I one when that seemed mostly all there was to that character, as well as the lack of RP opportunities to be anything be supportive of it, given elsewhere if you wish you can create a complete bigoted and racist character but that was fully understanding at that point). Don't buy it if it's such an issue and/or knock a point or 2 off your review of the game and put it under a con. But that is it, that's as far as this should go.
So far in playing this game I haven't seen anything of this apparent wider attempt to force some 'social justice' agenda down my throat, to address a few remarks besides the main ones, some economic re-distributive agenda (O_O really? ) in Baldur's Gate itself at the beginning particularly in the quest relating to getting your gold back. Well I don't see it, you have a number of different options, one only is that you decide they were justified and can go, the other is that whatever they grievances they were not right in robbing and hurting another, they agree with you and go to gaol. Or you can take your revenge on them, the same with crowds on the street or with the guy putting refugees up in his house and taking their money, you can take him to the authorities or decide to instead improve how he does things or leave him. Someone suggested a female theif was somehow evidence of a 'feminist' agenda with her being able to outwit and steal from male CHARNAME, well I came across what I assume they are referring to and she tries to steal from me (two characters now) I catch her out on it and she goes hostile and gets killed, like all thief encounters I've had in BG games, nothing has changed. Then it's Corwin and her daughter who hero-worships her mother which is apparently again a 'feminist' agenda, execpt the response is directed to female CHARNAME's as well, it's just a daughter who hero-worships her Mom and is protective of her (as she would be if the situation were her Dad assuming it was a male NPC instead). I didn't feel a feminist agenda behind any of these situations, and think people are now seeing things through selective glasses and seeing anything as apparently examples of social justice or feminist agendas, essentially falling to confirmation bias when they are completely innocuous, basically seeing social justice agendas everywhere much as certain extreme rad-fems see oppression and sexism everywhere and in everything.
As for Safana, I have no idea what people are talking about with altering her original character, so far her, and all the original characters are completely in tune with the character to the extent it was established in BG1 (or as it was expanded upon in BG2). And Safana, who in the joining quest, certain soundbites and some banters (and one last quest in BG2 where she betrays CHARNAME to wolfweres, never liked that ending to her character but there it is) is shown as a seductive femme fatale with a manipulative and at times dismissive (to Coran and Garrick if I remember while trying to pursue Kivan) and sarcastic aspect. That was it, and she is fully the same character with more depth and interest to her and now seems more active and well-rounded. To be honest I don't really care what motivated the writer to expand on her character, even if it was because they thought the previous one-note stereotype was 'sexist', I'm just enjoying the fact they have expanded her character and given it some depth while still retaining her playful, seductive aspect established in BG1. Here character has not been 'fundamentally changed' that I have seen nor is there any 'hijacking' of her for some express agenda, whatever reason the writer decided to give this character some attention, they have not injected any social justice agenda into it, just deepened and expanded her character (as some were in BG2). So I have encountered nothing yet that looks like a 'social justice' agenda or things being 'shoved down my throat', unless you go in and intentionally want to interpret everything as some 'social justice' conspiracy in the game it just isn't there to me.
So that leaves just the three things that started with, and none of that justifies this attempt to censor the game and affect Beamdog through negative review bombing in such numbers, and attempting to down-vote and suppress any positive reviews no matter what they say or how balanced they are, attempting to hurt the company in question with a number of this forum expressing the view that Amber Scott should neither be hired because of her views and should be writing for the game. An full attempt to censor the game and positive reviews about the game because one of it's writers has feminist views, and said she thought one or two stereotypes were sexist and was part of her artistic desire to see diversity in her writing (which I still haven't seen override the main priority of writing a heroic fantasy game), and because of a minor character with unrelated quest and other functions who happens to be transgendered and tells you her background in a perhaps hamfisted manner if you ask, and a ill-judged remark given to Minsc.
That's it and apparently that involves this primary example of first world problems going off, where a form of social censorship is being practised and a review bombing being practised to get back and seemingly hurt or get at Beamdog. And all being justified under some self-righteous belief that all this censorship, social media hounding and review bombing etc is justified because it's part 'defending' gaming culture from some 'cancer' of 'SJWs' and they are freedom defenders. And that this belief in their end justifies what seems to me to be rank hypocrisy from their stated principles and believes, if you don't like it, don't buy it, at most boycott it, and give a review marking the game down for these aspects but do it honestly (not a 0/1 which is complete rubbish and unfair to a functional game, even if you really believe it's terribly written etc), and mass down-voting positive reviews because they are positive and up voting negatives no matter what they say (whether they have salient points or not). This is outright attempt to censor the game, and the company and their artist expression, and does not seem honest and ethical reviewing at all to me. Basically all this is justified by some I've read here or condoned under the fact that it is for the greater cause of preventing any intrusion of something perceived at all a 'social justice' or pc, to win the self-declared culture war between two groups of armchair fanatics. And it's all done with the good concious and fevour of a true fanatic it seems.
One much earlier I think in this thread unironically posted the quote by CS Lewis concerning moral tyrannies, that is, 'Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.'
In this instance this is you, it describes the ridiculously self-righteous outrage and completely out of proportion response and assertion that they are locked in deadly combat for the soul of gaming. Right know you are the ones not ever stated, and keeping attacking both not just Beamdog but also other gamers position their own honest reviews and continuing an review-bombing assault in numbers all out of proportion to this game niche. And it is continued with full good conscience because it's all done for the good of gaming and to free it from 'social justice cancer'. It's sad, depressing and ridiculous, and this whole situation seems the definition of first world problem at it's finest.
To me now both GGs and SJWs are completely interchangeable just change a few terms around and both say the same things, both are fanatics to ridiculously agendas and some imaginary life-and-death culture war they wish to fight out between each other and drag the rest of us into it, which exists in their own minds. Both of you extremists are exactly the same as each other, and if there is a 'cancer' it's both of you and this faux war you brought into games and other areas, full of people on both sides just waiting to be outraged by anything and perceiving all things as evidence of this advance of 'sexism/pc culture (remove which one as appropriate depending which side one of these chooses to fall). And then attacking and doing all this in full good conscience because it's all for the good, for their version of progressiveness or for gaming to be free of what they see as political correctness or 'social justice'. All is justified it seems under this, it's silly and ridiculously to me. You are the same, and it's you both to me who are the problem in gaming if there is one.
Why can't you just leave the rest of us caught in the middle alone and take your faux war somewhere else.
tl'dr
This was long and rambling, but I'm pretty annoyed by this. Having been a GG sympathizer up to this point no more, this is hypocritical to their stated principles, ridiculously, and just wrong, the GGs are just the same as the SJW they despise so much. They seem to me mirror images of each other and I wish both would leave us out of it. And I want nothing to do with either, the conduct and behaviour of both sides is despicable to me.
And this game as far as I have played it is not some social justice agenda nor do I detect any, nor do any characters seem hijacked for this purpose. Please can this stop, and people just give the reviews they think are true, and either buy or not buy the game as they wish. Everything else is just so silly and it's really enough, can't people just get over themselves, their self-involved outrage and just move on with their lives.
Well, I guess the 990th reply decided it, not the 1000th
I tried really hard to get Trent to wait for another ten posts, but apparently doing the right thing was more important than hitting a post-count milestone.
@Purudaya - since this is your thread, I don't know if you want us to keep open to let the discussion continue, or if you'd like us to close it. Let me know.
I think the problem friend is that we all have different ideas of what is neutral. For example I think including trans or gay characters in Baldur's Gate to be neutral, there are such people in the real world so why not such people in a fantasy world? Another person might see that going too far in terms of trying to be "politically correct" while another might think it doesn't go far enough. The best we can do is treat others with respect and try to work these things out as friends and fans of a great game series.
So, it just occurred to me on the subject of introducing this sort of material into the series.
If we bounce back to BG2, we actually have an early 2000s "SJW" in the game: Nalia de'Arnise. Like, she is a dead ringer for a lot of elements of the archetype. This series has already metaphorically explored the concepts of social justice!
We'll see if any of these people change their 0-star reviews now. I hope the devs removed the line because they *really* believed it should be removed and not because of the harassment.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure if this will end until every single one of gamergate's complaints are addressed... I hope I'm wrong.
And I hope this doesn't set a dangerous precedent for groups like this to review bomb developers in the future. Not sure how I feel about this.
It's very bad news for creative freedom. You should never give an inch to bullies, because they will just keep coming back for more.
Prediction: the review bombing will never end, and when Beamdog folds they will move onto the next developer, and the next, and then the next.
Any group who uses the suggestion that someone cares about justice, social or otherwise, as an insult, is pretty much the D&D definition of evil, is it not?
Well, I guess the 990th reply decided it, not the 1000th
I tried really hard to get Trent to wait for another ten posts, but apparently doing the right thing was more important than hitting a post-count milestone.
@Purudaya - since this is your thread, I don't know if you want us to keep open to let the discussion continue, or if you'd like us to close it. Let me know.
I would like it to remain open until the review bombing campaign ends, which is what this thread was about. Also, closing it may cause several other threads to pop up in its place. But I'll trust you to make whatever call you feel is best for the community.
Well, I guess the 990th reply decided it, not the 1000th
I tried really hard to get Trent to wait for another ten posts, but apparently doing the right thing was more important than hitting a post-count milestone.
@Purudaya - since this is your thread, I don't know if you want us to keep open to let the discussion continue, or if you'd like us to close it. Let me know.
I would like it to remain open until the review bombing campaign ends, which is what this thread was about. Also, closing it may cause several other threads to pop up in its place. But I'll trust you to make whatever call you feel is best for the community.
That said, the thread has often veered off topic. Again, your call.
There are people who do abhorrent unspeakable things that are normal for the culture one culture puts babes born with any sort of birth defecet born in a shallow hole with rocks atop them ( this is a controversial cultural war for the last isolated tribe in the Amazon Christians want to stop them make them learn laws and be overeat chef by the government while left leaning Eco socialist want them left to govern themselves and kill who they like as their religion desegnated those babes as evil spirit touched)
@Fardragon "But that's the thing: there is no political agenda, SoD mealy reflects life in the 21st century, not the 19th. "
No, it reflects a political view (a divisive one) of how things should be; that is not 'life in the 21st century' it is /one/ view of it.
Sorry to bother you friend but what political view is this? That trans people exist? Is that not demonstrably clear at this point?
Do not reply withe a friend comment
The fact is the options for the character to reply in more than one case and the modern vocabulary the Mocs use and opinions they express are PC. Why would any one put a character in who kills babes and then have you unable to protest it? Why put the character im at all! The same holds true for some of the controversial modern junk herein
It's very bad news for creative freedom. You should never give an inch to bullies, because they will just keep coming back for more.
That I disagree with. The actions here are reasonable. Even as someone on "Beamdog's side" (and who chuckled at "It's about ethics in adventuring"), it was a fairly questionable decision in the first place and backtracking on it is fair.
Keep in mind: despite the vocal minority of assholes, there have been people who have had decently phrased concerns and complaints. Nothing wrong with responding to those.
Well, I guess the 990th reply decided it, not the 1000th
I tried really hard to get Trent to wait for another ten posts, but apparently doing the right thing was more important than hitting a post-count milestone.
@Purudaya - since this is your thread, I don't know if you want us to keep open to let the discussion continue, or if you'd like us to close it. Let me know.
I would like it to remain open until the review bombing campaign ends, which is what this thread was about. Also, closing it may cause several other threads to pop up in its place. But I'll trust you to make whatever call you feel is best for the community.
Thanks for keeping it open, Purudaya. Hopefully the discussion on this will filter here, rather than ten million threads. I, and I'm sure many other longtime forumites, were looking forward to the release and talking about other parts of the game and are a little distraught that this topic is taking up half the forum. I think many people have been scared away from talking about other parts of the game in fear that this culture war stuff will bleed over into other threads.
While I don't think the gamergate line with Minsc was wise, I do worry that changing it encourages bad behavior. That said, now that it appears to be settled, maybe the forum will return to the awesome place it has been forever.
Hopefully we can get back to talking about the truly important things in life... like speculating about who could portray Glint in a well-funded Baldur's Gate television series produced by HBO starring Steven Strait as the Bhaalspawn.
It's very bad news for creative freedom. You should never give an inch to bullies, because they will just keep coming back for more.
That I disagree with. The actions here are reasonable. Even as someone on "Beamdog's side" (and who chuckled at "It's about ethics in adventuring"), it was a fairly questionable decision in the first place and backtracking on it is fair.
Keep in mind: despite the vocal minority of assholes, there have been people who have had decently phrased concerns and complaints. Nothing wrong with responding to those.
That doesn't really matter. The actual quality of the writing is irrelevant. What matters is the right of the writer to express themselves without fear of persecution. Moving at all will simply make the persecution worse.
@Fardragon All in all, I think Trent stood his ground. He didn't give up to bullies, as you put it. He was wise enough to recognize that the Minsc line was kinda out of character and addressed the Mizhena issue with style. I just to tell @TrentOster that many in this community will continue to support Beamdog. You created good content in the past and SoD is better than good. It's great content.
When presented with the "new" Mizhena, I have doubts that Gamergate will be more supportive now that she has *more* screen time. No matter what you write or how you write it, they will continue to cry SJW and claim that it could have still been better written ad absurdum. And that's because Gamergate is more anti trans inclusion than they are anti bad writing. I really, really hope Trent knows what he's doing.
I've heard a lot of "It's not just the trans character, the WHOLE GAME pushes an agenda" on these forums in the past few days. If you give a mouse a cookie...
@Fardragon All in all, I think Trent stood his ground. He didn't give up to bullies, as you put it. He was wise enough to recognize that the Minsc line was kinda out of character and addressed the Mizhena issue with style. I just to tell @TrentOster that many in this community will continue to support Beamdog. You created good content in the past and SoD is better than good. It's great content.
Nevertheless, the bigots will be encouraged by what they see as a partial victory to keep pushing for more. This won't stop it, it will make it worse.
Whatever happens, future developers are going to be afraid to include transexual characters in thier games, while the bigots move on to the next hated minority they want exterminated from the media.
Totally disagree with the choice by Beamdog to give in to an online intimidation campaign, as I don't believe it does anything but enable the ravenous hordes to demand more, and if you think they'll be satisfied or that the reviews will stop being bombed....well, I'm sorry to say that's not going to happen. That said, it's there decision to make, and they've made it.
@Fardragon All in all, I think Trent stood his ground. He didn't give up to bullies, as you put it. He was wise enough to recognize that the Minsc line was kinda out of character and addressed the Mizhena issue with style. I just to tell @TrentOster that many in this community will continue to support Beamdog. You created good content in the past and SoD is better than good. It's great content.
Nevertheless, the bigots will be encouraged by what they see as a partial victory to keep pushing for more. This won't stop it, it will make it worse.
And they'd see no movement as the SJW Illuminati taking over gaming and push back even harder next time, too.
The people who are being unreasonable are, by definition, unreasonable. You can't win with them. You can win with the sane people. And that's what Trent is doing.
Well, I guess the 990th reply decided it, not the 1000th
These seem to be the biggest reasons why people are objecting to the "SJW content" in this game: -A complete stranger that blurts out their sexual identity to you on the street -The Minsc Gamergate Joke -Changing the personalities of several already well established characters to be less "sexist" in the eyes of a writer who proudly calls herself an SJW -Appealing to Feminist Frequency and Kotaku to defend the game -A lack of dialogue options. Where is the option to reject or respond negatively to the trans character? There was a scene where you pretty much catch a woman red-handed after murdering her husband, and you are railroaded into "well, he probably deserved it".
It is good to see some acknowledgement of negative feedback towards Mizhena and the Minsc joke, but as you can see this is only part of the reason why people are objecting to the SJW content in this game. Personally I don't even care if a trans character is in the game. If I don't like a character, then I just won't use them - but when you radically change existing characters that I actually do like using then you should not be surprised when the game gets a poor rating.
If I don't like a character, then I just won't use them - but when you radically change existing characters that I actually do like using then you should not be surprised when the game gets a poor rating.
You should be happy to learn that none of the characters from the previous games have been radically changed then friend.
I appreciate your decision to expand Mizhena and i personally think it is one of the major requirements of SoD.
Future petitions: - Captain Corwin, tweak the dialog slightly so it doesn't imply mansplaining her. - Refugees dialog, add another dialog option that isn't biased towards them - Restore Safana to her teasing nature - try to add various dialog responses on minor situations
I appreciate your decision to expand Mizhena and i personally think it is one of the major requirements of SoD.
Future petitions: - Captain Corwin, tweak the dialog slightly so it doesn't imply mansplaining her. - Refugees dialog, add another dialog option that isn't biased towards them - Restore Safana to her teasing nature - try to add various dialog responses on minor situations
Totally disagree with the choice by Beamdog to give in to an online intimidation campaign, as I don't believe it does anything but enable the ravenous hordes to demand more, and if you think they'll be satisfied or that the reviews will stop being bombed....well, I'm sorry to say that's not going to happen. That said, it's there decision to make, and they've made it.
I agree with you on principle 100%. On strategy, this might be the intention:
1. Once they hear the announcement, they will lay off until the new Mizhena content is released. 2. By the time the new Mizhena content is released, they will have moved on.
I don't agree with the ethics of it, but it may have been a necessary move depending on how much harm the abuse was doing to the company. This is all just conjecture, of course – I have no insights into Beamdog's financial situation.
What's sad is that if people would have just asked nicely and with positive intentions for a better Mizhena on the forums, they probably wouldn't gotten it. Unfortunately, that's not what Gamergate really wants.
If I don't like a character, then I just won't use them - but when you radically change existing characters that I actually do like using then you should not be surprised when the game gets a poor rating.
You should be happy to learn that none of the characters from the previous games have been radically changed then friend.
I don't think that this is true at all. I've partied with Safana before. She never acted like this.
I don't think that this is true at all. I've partied with Safana before. She never acted like this.
In Baldur's Gate she acted sexy all the time and that was about it. In Dragonspear she acts sexy all the time too. I didn't do her romance, does she calm down or something if you do that?
Totally disagree with the choice by Beamdog to give in to an online intimidation campaign, as I don't believe it does anything but enable the ravenous hordes to demand more, and if you think they'll be satisfied or that the reviews will stop being bombed....well, I'm sorry to say that's not going to happen. That said, it's there decision to make, and they've made it.
I agree with you on principle 100%. On strategy, this might be the intention:
1. Once they hear the announcement, they will lay off until the new Mizhena content is released. 2. By the time the new Mizhena content is released, they will have moved on.
I don't agree with the ethics of it, but it may have been a necessary move depending on how much harm the abuse was doing to the company. This is all just conjecture, of course – I have no insights into Beamdog's financial situation.
What's sad is that if people would have just asked nicely and with positive intentions for a better Mizhena on the forums, they probably wouldn't gotten it. Unfortunately, that's not what Gamergate really wants.
It's not worth fighting about anymore. Sadly, these are the type of people who win. What's the line from Yeats?? "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity". It proves itself again here. In my experience in these situations, even after they've won, they can't help continuing to beat the other side over the head with it until they are knocked out. The last scene in Deadwood, when Hearst has gotten everything he wanted, and he still can't help running his mouth as he leaves town, and Bullock says to him "Every bully I ever met never knew when to shut his mouth". We'll see I guess. Rack up another win for the bad guys....
The fact is the options for the character to reply in more than one case and the modern vocabulary the Mocs use and opinions they express are PC. Why would any one put a character in who kills babes and then have you unable to protest it? Why put the character im at all! The same holds true for some of the controversial modern junk herein
I had some difficulty reading your comment, so I apologize if I'm misunderstanding. Are you saying that being trans is in the same category as killing babies, i.e., something that is allegedly tolerated in some cultures but that you find morally repugnant?
Comments
I have up till these last days generally been in sympathy for what I thought the Gamegaters stood for and claimed they were pushing for, as I thought that journalism in gaming as elsewhere should be ethical and give honest reviews given if possible by those without personal interests or stakes in the game/project they were reviewing, and agreed that the reported social media campaigns by apparent groups to censor/silence people who were not in agreement those of a reported 'social justice' position or who spoke in favour of GG position, or alter, censor or shut down projects or games that didn't seem to fit their ideas was wrong, as was seeking to get people fired etc. I agreed that developers, writers and artists should be free to create the projects they wished to do so, and put their visions out there, and have freedom of expression without interference or needing to meet some quota or pre-described vision etc from one social-political position or another, and whatever they own personal views, attitudes and politics etc should not affect them doing their job, or how they do it. And we could judge their works for ourselves if we enjoyed them, thought they had worth and so on, no matter what they personal views were (or if we felt so opposed to them, could just not buy or regard the works, games, films etc).
This at least, ethics and honesty in reviews and journalism, freedom of expression in creative work, lack of censorship and the right of developers to produce the games they wished to create with honest reviews of said projects was what I understood of GG from the outside and supported it as this was what I apprehended the how argument to be about.
That out the way, this how situation has been a complete eye-opener, and has left me with complete distaste and disgust for those in the GG movement as for the extremes on the other-side being called 'SWJ's, with the added factor of here that many of those under this banner seem to me to be completely hypocritical. Yes in retrospect Beamdog should have decided against the Minsc line (though I have yet to come across it personally yet) as it might (as it has) been seen by GG's as a poke at them (whether it was intended so or not).
But does this moment of bad judgement (combined with an interview in which one writer felt two of the stereotypes were of the BG1 npcs were sexist and wished to add depth to them for this belief, which I disagree with but rather as if all BG1 they are just basic stereotypes without much depth, and are sexist only in that all stereotypes are one-dimensional caricatures, but it's her right to see it that way) and the inclusion of a transgendered character justify this irrational response?
This review bombing, down-voting positive reviews that provide full reason for way they review it they way they do etc, the 0-1 reviews (which as a game, despite some bugs people are experiencing is still for the vast majority of players a fully playable game does not in any deserve) etc is a form of censorship and hounding of the company for one potentially ill-judged remark and possibly hamfisted dialogue (haven't got to that point myself yet so I can't speak to it) of a cleric who is transgendered (but apparently is other things with other things in the game and not just someone jumping out at you to tell you they are transgendered and for which apparently you have to ask about them to get to that dialogue, and therefore is already superior to the transgendered character in DA:I) is ridiculously. At worst you roll your eyes at their presentation and move one (as I did a little at the DA:I one when that seemed mostly all there was to that character, as well as the lack of RP opportunities to be anything be supportive of it, given elsewhere if you wish you can create a complete bigoted and racist character but that was fully understanding at that point). Don't buy it if it's such an issue and/or knock a point or 2 off your review of the game and put it under a con. But that is it, that's as far as this should go.
So far in playing this game I haven't seen anything of this apparent wider attempt to force some 'social justice' agenda down my throat, to address a few remarks besides the main ones, some economic re-distributive agenda (O_O really? ) in Baldur's Gate itself at the beginning particularly in the quest relating to getting your gold back. Well I don't see it, you have a number of different options, one only is that you decide they were justified and can go, the other is that whatever they grievances they were not right in robbing and hurting another, they agree with you and go to gaol. Or you can take your revenge on them, the same with crowds on the street or with the guy putting refugees up in his house and taking their money, you can take him to the authorities or decide to instead improve how he does things or leave him. Someone suggested a female theif was somehow evidence of a 'feminist' agenda with her being able to outwit and steal from male CHARNAME, well I came across what I assume they are referring to and she tries to steal from me (two characters now) I catch her out on it and she goes hostile and gets killed, like all thief encounters I've had in BG games, nothing has changed. Then it's Corwin and her daughter who hero-worships her mother which is apparently again a 'feminist' agenda, execpt the response is directed to female CHARNAME's as well, it's just a daughter who hero-worships her Mom and is protective of her (as she would be if the situation were her Dad assuming it was a male NPC instead). I didn't feel a feminist agenda behind any of these situations, and think people are now seeing things through selective glasses and seeing anything as apparently examples of social justice or feminist agendas, essentially falling to confirmation bias when they are completely innocuous, basically seeing social justice agendas everywhere much as certain extreme rad-fems see oppression and sexism everywhere and in everything.
As for Safana, I have no idea what people are talking about with altering her original character, so far her, and all the original characters are completely in tune with the character to the extent it was established in BG1 (or as it was expanded upon in BG2). And Safana, who in the joining quest, certain soundbites and some banters (and one last quest in BG2 where she betrays CHARNAME to wolfweres, never liked that ending to her character but there it is) is shown as a seductive femme fatale with a manipulative and at times dismissive (to Coran and Garrick if I remember while trying to pursue Kivan) and sarcastic aspect. That was it, and she is fully the same character with more depth and interest to her and now seems more active and well-rounded. To be honest I don't really care what motivated the writer to expand on her character, even if it was because they thought the previous one-note stereotype was 'sexist', I'm just enjoying the fact they have expanded her character and given it some depth while still retaining her playful, seductive aspect established in BG1. Here character has not been 'fundamentally changed' that I have seen nor is there any 'hijacking' of her for some express agenda, whatever reason the writer decided to give this character some attention, they have not injected any social justice agenda into it, just deepened and expanded her character (as some were in BG2). So I have encountered nothing yet that looks like a 'social justice' agenda or things being 'shoved down my throat', unless you go in and intentionally want to interpret everything as some 'social justice' conspiracy in the game it just isn't there to me.
So that leaves just the three things that started with, and none of that justifies this attempt to censor the game and affect Beamdog through negative review bombing in such numbers, and attempting to down-vote and suppress any positive reviews no matter what they say or how balanced they are, attempting to hurt the company in question with a number of this forum expressing the view that Amber Scott should neither be hired because of her views and should be writing for the game. An full attempt to censor the game and positive reviews about the game because one of it's writers has feminist views, and said she thought one or two stereotypes were sexist and was part of her artistic desire to see diversity in her writing (which I still haven't seen override the main priority of writing a heroic fantasy game), and because of a minor character with unrelated quest and other functions who happens to be transgendered and tells you her background in a perhaps hamfisted manner if you ask, and a ill-judged remark given to Minsc.
That's it and apparently that involves this primary example of first world problems going off, where a form of social censorship is being practised and a review bombing being practised to get back and seemingly hurt or get at Beamdog. And all being justified under some self-righteous belief that all this censorship, social media hounding and review bombing etc is justified because it's part 'defending' gaming culture from some 'cancer' of 'SJWs' and they are freedom defenders. And that this belief in their end justifies what seems to me to be rank hypocrisy from their stated principles and believes, if you don't like it, don't buy it, at most boycott it, and give a review marking the game down for these aspects but do it honestly (not a 0/1 which is complete rubbish and unfair to a functional game, even if you really believe it's terribly written etc), and mass down-voting positive reviews because they are positive and up voting negatives no matter what they say (whether they have salient points or not). This is outright attempt to censor the game, and the company and their artist expression, and does not seem honest and ethical reviewing at all to me. Basically all this is justified by some I've read here or condoned under the fact that it is for the greater cause of preventing any intrusion of something perceived at all a 'social justice' or pc, to win the self-declared culture war between two groups of armchair fanatics. And it's all done with the good concious and fevour of a true fanatic it seems.
One much earlier I think in this thread unironically posted the quote by CS Lewis concerning moral tyrannies, that is, 'Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.'
In this instance this is you, it describes the ridiculously self-righteous outrage and completely out of proportion response and assertion that they are locked in deadly combat for the soul of gaming. Right know you are the ones not ever stated, and keeping attacking both not just Beamdog but also other gamers position their own honest reviews and continuing an review-bombing assault in numbers all out of proportion to this game niche. And it is continued with full good conscience because it's all done for the good of gaming and to free it from 'social justice cancer'. It's sad, depressing and ridiculous, and this whole situation seems the definition of first world problem at it's finest.
To me now both GGs and SJWs are completely interchangeable just change a few terms around and both say the same things, both are fanatics to ridiculously agendas and some imaginary life-and-death culture war they wish to fight out between each other and drag the rest of us into it, which exists in their own minds. Both of you extremists are exactly the same as each other, and if there is a 'cancer' it's both of you and this faux war you brought into games and other areas, full of people on both sides just waiting to be outraged by anything and perceiving all things as evidence of this advance of 'sexism/pc culture (remove which one as appropriate depending which side one of these chooses to fall). And then attacking and doing all this in full good conscience because it's all for the good, for their version of progressiveness or for gaming to be free of what they see as political correctness or 'social justice'. All is justified it seems under this, it's silly and ridiculously to me. You are the same, and it's you both to me who are the problem in gaming if there is one.
Why can't you just leave the rest of us caught in the middle alone and take your faux war somewhere else.
tl'dr
This was long and rambling, but I'm pretty annoyed by this. Having been a GG sympathizer up to this point no more, this is hypocritical to their stated principles, ridiculously, and just wrong, the GGs are just the same as the SJW they despise so much. They seem to me mirror images of each other and I wish both would leave us out of it. And I want nothing to do with either, the conduct and behaviour of both sides is despicable to me.
And this game as far as I have played it is not some social justice agenda nor do I detect any, nor do any characters seem hijacked for this purpose. Please can this stop, and people just give the reviews they think are true, and either buy or not buy the game as they wish. Everything else is just so silly and it's really enough, can't people just get over themselves, their self-involved outrage and just move on with their lives.
@Purudaya - since this is your thread, I don't know if you want us to keep open to let the discussion continue, or if you'd like us to close it. Let me know.
I think the problem friend is that we all have different ideas of what is neutral. For example I think including trans or gay characters in Baldur's Gate to be neutral, there are such people in the real world so why not such people in a fantasy world? Another person might see that going too far in terms of trying to be "politically correct" while another might think it doesn't go far enough. The best we can do is treat others with respect and try to work these things out as friends and fans of a great game series.
Well, its been swell, but the swelling's gone down. So see ya later.
If we bounce back to BG2, we actually have an early 2000s "SJW" in the game: Nalia de'Arnise. Like, she is a dead ringer for a lot of elements of the archetype. This series has already metaphorically explored the concepts of social justice!
Unfortunately, I'm not sure if this will end until every single one of gamergate's complaints are addressed... I hope I'm wrong.
And I hope this doesn't set a dangerous precedent for groups like this to review bomb developers in the future. Not sure how I feel about this.
Prediction: the review bombing will never end, and when Beamdog folds they will move onto the next developer, and the next, and then the next.
Any group who uses the suggestion that someone cares about justice, social or otherwise, as an insult, is pretty much the D&D definition of evil, is it not?
The fact is the options for the character to reply in more than one case and the modern vocabulary the Mocs use and opinions they express are PC. Why would any one put a character in who kills babes and then have you unable to protest it? Why put the character im at all! The same holds true for some of the controversial modern junk herein
Keep in mind: despite the vocal minority of assholes, there have been people who have had decently phrased concerns and complaints. Nothing wrong with responding to those.
While I don't think the gamergate line with Minsc was wise, I do worry that changing it encourages bad behavior. That said, now that it appears to be settled, maybe the forum will return to the awesome place it has been forever.
Hopefully we can get back to talking about the truly important things in life... like speculating about who could portray Glint in a well-funded Baldur's Gate television series produced by HBO starring Steven Strait as the Bhaalspawn.
I've heard a lot of "It's not just the trans character, the WHOLE GAME pushes an agenda" on these forums in the past few days. If you give a mouse a cookie...
Whatever happens, future developers are going to be afraid to include transexual characters in thier games, while the bigots move on to the next hated minority they want exterminated from the media.
The people who are being unreasonable are, by definition, unreasonable. You can't win with them. You can win with the sane people. And that's what Trent is doing.
-A complete stranger that blurts out their sexual identity to you on the street
-The Minsc Gamergate Joke
-Changing the personalities of several already well established characters to be less "sexist" in the eyes of a writer who proudly calls herself an SJW
-Appealing to Feminist Frequency and Kotaku to defend the game
-A lack of dialogue options. Where is the option to reject or respond negatively to the trans character? There was a scene where you pretty much catch a woman red-handed after murdering her husband, and you are railroaded into "well, he probably deserved it".
It is good to see some acknowledgement of negative feedback towards Mizhena and the Minsc joke, but as you can see this is only part of the reason why people are objecting to the SJW content in this game. Personally I don't even care if a trans character is in the game. If I don't like a character, then I just won't use them - but when you radically change existing characters that I actually do like using then you should not be surprised when the game gets a poor rating.
Future petitions:
- Captain Corwin, tweak the dialog slightly so it doesn't imply mansplaining her.
- Refugees dialog, add another dialog option that isn't biased towards them
- Restore Safana to her teasing nature
- try to add various dialog responses on minor situations
That's why you don't bow down to bullying.
Bad move.
1. Once they hear the announcement, they will lay off until the new Mizhena content is released.
2. By the time the new Mizhena content is released, they will have moved on.
I don't agree with the ethics of it, but it may have been a necessary move depending on how much harm the abuse was doing to the company. This is all just conjecture, of course – I have no insights into Beamdog's financial situation.
What's sad is that if people would have just asked nicely and with positive intentions for a better Mizhena on the forums, they probably wouldn't gotten it. Unfortunately, that's not what Gamergate really wants.
Calls for more have already started in this thread 20 minutes after you made your statement.