Ok, this will be the last post I make on this subject, but it will be a thorough one - which I hope clarifies where the criticism is coming from. I seriously hope Beamdog and other developers read this and learn from it, because it is coming from a die hard BG fan who means no harm to anyone - and honestly I just want to play good games (like the original BG and BG2). 1. Nobody (or at least not a significant number of people) is complaining about 1 or 2 lines with a transgender character in the game. This is the narrative of spin doctors, strawmen artists and other people who have nothing intelligent to contribute to the debate. Most people who complain have probably not even played the game. Most people are probably here after reading the dreadful interview on Kotaku by one of Beamdog's writers who said some incredibly inflamatory things about original BG, its characters and what's worse she said it in a spiteful manner that was bound to rub some people off the wrong way. Here is the link to the interview: http://kotaku.com/the-struggle-to-bring-back-baldur-s-gate-after-17-years-1768303595
When you call the original game sexist, when you call one of the original characters a sex object, when you describe the other one as the "nagging wife", and to top it off you even say you don't care what people will think of the changes you wanted to implement from that feminist perspective, you come off as a douchebag who has no respect for the original material. When you shit on your own foundations, is it strange that the fans of the originals will get upset and worried about where the franchise is going?
2. For those of you who still think that this criticism has no foundation and that people are over-reacting, I have to ask you - on which planet have you been living for the last 10-15 years? This is not the first time the "regressive" feminists are pushing their agenda into art. People had these same debates in the movie industry, then it was the music industry, then it was the comic industry with "lets change the original characters like Thor and Spiderman into women", then it was the atheist community with Atheism +, then they came to the gaming industry and this is where a lot of people said "ENOUGH!" We had Gamergate, we had Anita Sarkeesian shitting all over gaming industry how its sexist, we had gaming journalists calling gamers sexist pigs, misogonysts, and worse! We had feminist journalists advocating for the rights of pedophiles because some SJWs are documented pedophiles, we had feminists SJWs joining forces with Islamist extremists and calling anyone who is worried about Islamic extremism a racist,... AND PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF IT! Its the same shit every time! They stir up the hornets nest, people get pissed and fire back with arguments, and the regressive feminist SJWs just brush it off as "you are a racist, you hate trans people, you are this and that!" Many of us are tired of this SJW crap being pushed down our throat at every turn, and now its happening in our most beloved game!
3. You say its just a few lines, but the inteview that I posted tells a different story. It tells the story of change in direction for political means. I understand that each writer will bring their own political view to their work, but there is a way this can be done in a non-intrusive way. HINT: Do not advertise your political views on release date in a spiteful manner while shitting on the foundations many people hold close to their heart.
4. To make things worse, Beamdog took a jab at GamerGate, and their writer came off in full support of SJW narrative. If it isn't clear to you by everything I wrote why this is bad for gaming, I dont know what else to tell you. Imagine politics you disagree with being pushed into the thing you cherish the most. If you are a SJW and somebody was pushing into your favorite game pro-GamerGate messages, don't tell me you wouldn't get pissed off. Also you cannot tell me you would not storm the developer's forums, because I have personally seen you do far worse. Like calling people you disagree with at their workplace and trying to get them fired.
5. I decided I will keep my copy that I bought off Steam and I will give the game a fair chance. I will try to look at it with an open mind, but if it ends up being another feminist political pamphlet, Beamdog will lose a loyal fan. Why? Because I don't like playing badly written characters whose only purpose is to serve as feminist promotional pamphlets.
I swear to god if I hear the word "regressive" one more time this year my head is going to explode. It's the new catch phrase to make your arguments about political correctness seem intellectual and well-meaning. When people complain about "political correctness", what they are really saying is they are pissed they can't demean minority groups without any public backlash whatsoever. They want their speech, but they don't want to hear from YOU about it at all, and they want no consequences....
See? This is what I am was saying. When you have 0 arguments you will call people names, you will concoct some hidden meaning behind my words that does not exist and dance a victory dance. Please tell me how is this not regressive?!
I have no ill intent on minority groups. Some of my best friends are gay. I dont have a transexual friend, but I have nothing against them. But none of this matters. You already have your narrative and nothing I write will change that.
Well thanks for giving a live example at what a regressive leftist looks like.
The "regressive left" as you put it is a total straw-man. It has next to no application to real-life. It is the battlefield of Youtube comment sections and internet forums. And this discussion is proof-positive. It's a bullshit war we're fighting out in a completely separate world from the one we all actually live in. There is not one instance in your actual, tangible life where you will be negatively affected by a "regressive leftist". It won't happen. Meanwhile, in the real world, trans people are beat up for being so, do lose jobs, can't find housing. For god sakes, there was a story a few days ago about a interracial couple in Mississippi being thrown out of their trailer home because the owner of the trailer park didn't approve of their relationship. You know, ACTUAL problems that exist in everyday life that ACTUALLY affect people's lives....
Well, people are now convinced that games, like other forms of media, can have an effect on the way people are treated. Thus, they put more weight on what is shown.
So, to go through a few examples tossed about: removing an aspect of a character such as an acknowledgment of their own sensuality and enjoyment of their sexual nature would be seen as attempting to remove such aspects from the real world or imply it shouldn't exisit. A character's whose trans gender status becomes their defining status is seen as reinforcing the idea that people are defined by such things. Or the general trend towards only allowing strong totally in control women in games, while men run the gamut from there to... Khalid, so that only one gender is shown as potentially weak.
If we accept that video games can influence people's perceptions, these are all valid critiques and concerns. Certainly one could dispute whether or not the portrayal actually amounts to what is described, but once we accept games can change perception such critiques must at least be acknowledge as potentially important.
I know its very comfortable to sit on the fence and pretend you have the moral highground by being neutral, but sometimes that is just turning a blind eye to the real offenders.
You children are the offenders. You are getting butthurt about the videogame and you'll hear only what you wish to hear. SJWs are seeing you as a "-hobes" because that's what they want to see. You people (it's sad there is no equally disrespectful term for you) see writing material in the videogame as a some kind of danger, because that's what you want to see. Both sides are irrational and paranoid. And in this particular case, both sides are unable to see anything more than they little drama, as far as Siege of Dragonspear is concerned.
I'm especially amused by people with like 5-10 posts total, came here and adding to this drama, as if they knew anything about this game or the developers at all. Or really care about this game at all.
@silveralen: I think we need to put something to bed here - do you have any evidence that Safana's sensuality and enjoyment of her sexual nature has been removed? A screenshot, a line from the dialog.tlk, anything other than the willful misreading of the Kotaku interview that's being spread around? Hell, even if Amber Scott said exactly what you think she said, is that actually the case in the game?
I know its very comfortable to sit on the fence and pretend you have the moral highground by being neutral, but sometimes that is just turning a blind eye to the real offenders.
You children are the offenders. You are getting butthurt about the videogame and you'll hear only what you wish to hear. SJWs are seeing you as a "-hobes" because that's what they want to see. You people (it's sad there is no equally disrespectful term for you) see writing material in the videogame as a some kind of danger, because that's what you want to see. Both sides are irrational and paranoid. And in this particular case, both sides are unable to see anything more than they little drama, as far as Siege of Dragonspear is concerned.
I'm especially amused by people with like 5-10 posts total, came here and adding to this drama, as if they knew anything about this game or the developers at all. Or really care about this game at all.
I have read the interview, I have seen what one of the writers said and what she supports, I have seen the cheap jab at Gamergate, I have seen what she said about the original BG, etc. And here you come with nothing more than judgments on both parties - sitting high and mighty on your neutral fence.
You havent even read what I wrote, yet you judge me. You claim with no evidence that I dont care about the game. Why then did I buy it? Why did I not refund it? You see,... this is the thing with you neutrals. You just judge people and pretend like you have the moral high ground. In reality, you are just hypocrits. And yes, i know this is a judgment too, but at least I am basing it on something tangible, unlike you who just claims that we are both paranoid and irrational.
Am I paranoid and irrational for being tired of this fight and saying that Beamdog screwed up with that interview? Am I irrational by pointing out how this has been happening for 10-15 years? Am I paranoid by saying that I will give the game a fair chance? I mean... wow... why dont you get off that high horse you are riding and talk with people like we are humans?
@silveralen: I think we need to put something to bed here - do you have any evidence that Safana's sensuality and enjoyment of her sexual nature has been removed? A screenshot, a line from the dialog.tlk, anything other than the willful misreading of the Kotaku interview that's being spread around? Hell, even if Amber Scott said exactly what you think she said, is that actually the case in the game?
You do realize it is entirely impossible for me to prove an absence of a character trait without documenting every single time the character speaks, in dialogue or even on the field? Even then, I'd need to datamine the game to ensure I hadn't missed anything. In short, this is an absurdly unreasonable request. A single line lacking mention of it wouldn't prove it, unless she goes out of her way to denounce it or something similarly silly.
You do realize it is entirely impossible for me to prove an absence of a character trait without documenting every single time the character speaks, in dialogue or even on the field? Even then, I'd need to datamine the game to ensure I hadn't missed anything. In short, this is an absurdly unreasonable request. A single line lacking mention of it wouldn't prove it, unless she goes out of her way to denounce it or something similarly silly.
So you support the argument that Beamdog has tampered with an original BG character by taking away her sensual personality (since that's the example you brought up), you've attributed this to "poor overall writing" (your words), and you don't have so much as a single line of text taken from the game that demonstrates this point? Not even an anecdotal experience to extrapolate from? You can't point to a single instance in which Safana says something you believe she "wouldn't have said" in her unaltered state?
Because in lieu of that, what grounds do you have for making any kind of assumption about the writing?
You do realize it is entirely impossible for me to prove an absence of a character trait without documenting every single time the character speaks, in dialogue or even on the field? Even then, I'd need to datamine the game to ensure I hadn't missed anything. In short, this is an absurdly unreasonable request. A single line lacking mention of it wouldn't prove it, unless she goes out of her way to denounce it or something similarly silly.
So you support the argument that Beamdog has tampered with an original BG character by taking away her sensual personality (since that's the example you brought up), you've attributed this to "poor overall writing" (your words), and you don't have so much as a single line of text taken from the game that demonstrates this point? Not even an anecdotal experience to extrapolate from? You can't point to a single instance in which Safana says something you believe she "wouldn't have said" in her unaltered state?
Because in lieu of that, what grounds do you have for making any kind of assumption about the writing?
I personal have nothing against Safana besides my opinnion of her being not realy that interesting of a character and being more annoying than anything else she might bring to the table.
imho: Poor writing i would say is demonstrated by basicly everything that happens in regards to the Finale. Prior, During, After. Especialy the Dialog of Caelar prior to the final Bossfight.
You havent even read what I wrote, yet you judge me. You claim with no evidence that I dont care about the game. Why then did I buy it? Why did I not refund it? You see,... this is the thing with you neutrals. You just judge people and pretend like you have the moral high ground. In reality, you are just hypocrits.
And where's your evidence? Prove that the developers wrote the characters with ill will in mind. You can't? Shut your mouth, then. I've seen the interview too, and I disagree with what Amber Scott said. In what areas - I won't state. I'm not going to feed both sides with that.
I'm not judging you, but people with disposition similar to yours. One of problems with you people is your narrow view. Either someone is on your side, or is against you. It's second time you've shown this against me.
And sorry, you are involved in the process of "discussing" one aspect of the expansion that upsets you, and you don't seem to care anything besides that. f I'm wrong, prove it. The fact that you bought it didn't want a refund is pretty touching, but that doesn't tell me WHY. Don't expect me to believe you for a word (that you apparently care) when you have little to none contribution to this community.
And no, stop with this "moral high ground" thing. I am having more rational view on the matter, that's all there is to it. The difference of you and me is perspective. Not limiting myself to one of your sides enables me to see wider picture. And the way I see it, nothing constructive will come out of your chatter, especially considering how small the issue really is.
Ah. this one is directly for you. I believe you should check dictionary for "hypocrisy".
You havent even read what I wrote, yet you judge me. You claim with no evidence that I dont care about the game. Why then did I buy it? Why did I not refund it? You see,... this is the thing with you neutrals. You just judge people and pretend like you have the moral high ground. In reality, you are just hypocrits.
And where's your evidence? Prove that the developers wrote the characters with ill will in mind. You can't? Shut your mouth, then. I've seen the interview too, and I disagree with what Amber Scott said. In what areas - I won't state. I'm not going to feed both sides with that.
I'm not judging you, but people with disposition similar to yours. One of problems with you people is your narrow view. Either someone is on your side, or is against you. It's second time you've shown this against me.
And sorry, you are involved in the process of "discussing" one aspect of the expansion that upsets you, and you don't seem to care anything besides that. f I'm wrong, prove it. The fact that you bought it didn't want a refund is pretty touching, but that doesn't tell me WHY. Don't expect me to believe you for a word (that you apparently care) when you have little to none contribution to this community.
And no, stop with this "moral high ground" thing. I am having more rational view on the matter, that's all there is to it. The difference of you and me is perspective. Not limiting myself to one of your sides enables me to see wider picture. And the way I see it, nothing constructive will come out of your chatter, especially considering how small the issue really is.
Ah. this one is directly for you. I believe you should check dictionary for "hypocrisy".
Where have I ever said that they wrote it with ill will in mind? I never mentioned their intent. My problem with SJW narrative in games is with bad writing where they sacrifice the quality of the story just so they could push in some SJW agenda. I have seen it in comics when they forcefully changed Thor into a female. I have seen it in movies with Rey in SW E7. I have seen it in every medium possible and it ALWAYS turns shit. I also have a problem with politics in gaming as a principle. I live for the old saying: "Art for art's sake". I know that SJWs mean well. But I dont care about their intent, because it ruins good things for us. If you disagree thats fine. We can have a discussion why you disagree, but dont tell me I just want to hear you agree with me, because thats not what I want. Again you are accusing me of things you have no basis for. You see, you judge again on completely false charges, and yet you want to criticize both parties. Tell me how is that not hypocritical?
I am not asking you to be on my side. I just ask you to talk to me like a human being and not as if I was one of your own strawmen.
You do realize it is entirely impossible for me to prove an absence of a character trait without documenting every single time the character speaks, in dialogue or even on the field? Even then, I'd need to datamine the game to ensure I hadn't missed anything. In short, this is an absurdly unreasonable request. A single line lacking mention of it wouldn't prove it, unless she goes out of her way to denounce it or something similarly silly.
So you support the argument that Beamdog has tampered with an original BG character by taking away her sensual personality (since that's the example you brought up), you've attributed this to "poor overall writing" (your words), and you don't have so much as a single line of text taken from the game that demonstrates this point? Not even an anecdotal experience to extrapolate from? You can't point to a single instance in which Safana says something you believe she "wouldn't have said" in her unaltered state?
Because in lieu of that, what grounds do you have for making any kind of assumption about the writing?
You seem to be conflating two discrete points, in one post I was explaining why we cannot dismiss criticism of the way the game handles characters if we accept that games can change the way people view the world. Those were examples I've seen others repeat (the only one I feel strongly about would actually be that the trans character was overly one dimensional and would've benefited from being better fleshed out and having more to her).
This is not generally related to my belief the expansion suffers from poor writing. If you wanted examples of that, I'd first and foremost point towards the extremely odd railroaded nature of much of the dialogue, which often gives little variance in response. This isn't actually lack of responses to choose from, but actually multiple responses that seem to carry the same implications, which is far more baffling to me. This is actually a common criticism of the dialogue with the cleric, but it is fairly strongly spread throughout the game, as if someone had extremely limited idea how characters might respond and simply repeated the same ideas. I'd also say that many of the characters simply felt lacking by comparison to BG 2, far closer to their monoline one dimensional counterparts from the original baldur's gate (I found the goblin particularly dull, which was a disappointment as they are a race I love playing as on the tabletop). The overall plot felt similarly a bit forced and not particularly connected to the series, despite extremely heavy foreshadowing and oddly random cameos. Part of this is the struggle to make an interlude actually carry weight I admit, but I still feel it falls a bit short.
That's a brief and fairly general critique of my issues with the writing, I can try to elaborate on certain points but I don't want to make it a full essay.
You do realize it is entirely impossible for me to prove an absence of a character trait without documenting every single time the character speaks, in dialogue or even on the field? Even then, I'd need to datamine the game to ensure I hadn't missed anything. In short, this is an absurdly unreasonable request. A single line lacking mention of it wouldn't prove it, unless she goes out of her way to denounce it or something similarly silly.
So you support the argument that Beamdog has tampered with an original BG character by taking away her sensual personality (since that's the example you brought up), you've attributed this to "poor overall writing" (your words), and you don't have so much as a single line of text taken from the game that demonstrates this point? Not even an anecdotal experience to extrapolate from? You can't point to a single instance in which Safana says something you believe she "wouldn't have said" in her unaltered state?
Because in lieu of that, what grounds do you have for making any kind of assumption about the writing?
Honestly, I was worried when I saw that line in the interview as well last night. However, after playing the game for the better part of the day, it seems like Safana has not been radically altered. The four of so interjections she's had so far have been consistent with how she was portrayed in the original game, just a little more in depth.
You do realize it is entirely impossible for me to prove an absence of a character trait without documenting every single time the character speaks, in dialogue or even on the field? Even then, I'd need to datamine the game to ensure I hadn't missed anything. In short, this is an absurdly unreasonable request. A single line lacking mention of it wouldn't prove it, unless she goes out of her way to denounce it or something similarly silly.
So you support the argument that Beamdog has tampered with an original BG character by taking away her sensual personality (since that's the example you brought up), you've attributed this to "poor overall writing" (your words), and you don't have so much as a single line of text taken from the game that demonstrates this point? Not even an anecdotal experience to extrapolate from? You can't point to a single instance in which Safana says something you believe she "wouldn't have said" in her unaltered state?
Because in lieu of that, what grounds do you have for making any kind of assumption about the writing?
Honestly, I was worried when I saw that line in the interview as well last night. However, after playing the game for the better part of the day, it seems like Safana has not been radically altered. The four of so interjections she's had so far have been consistent with how she was portrayed in the original game, just a little more in depth.
That is good news. I just dont understand why the hell did that writer say those things in the interview? I swear, that interview did more damage than any bad review ever could! I am still cheering for this game, but it will be a miracle if this disaster does not affect their sales. Even I - the greatest BG fan ever - was considering returning the game once I heard one of the writers shitting on the original. I thought... well, if that is her stance on the originals and knowing SJW writing from other mediums, this does not bode well.
Oh, right. Forgot to ask. Can some of the folks who have played give me some perspective on the bugginess of the expansion? How serious/frequent are we talking? Has Beamdog stayed pretty good about turning around patches quickly, at least?
@RedKnight Should I stop talking to you like a human being, so that you could see the difference? I reckon you don't want that.
SJWs can negatively impact the game story, but here it's not the case. Neither Safana's personality, neither Corwin's, neither some trans-character who's apparently there, affect the main story. True, the characters are there, but they characterization isn't taking off from main story. And here's where your limited worldview comes into play. You are focused - no, you are being paranoid about - details, that doesn't damage the overall story, but you insist they are. I don't see how those details affect the important story elements such as
The Shining Lady, her whole cause, battles that are taking place, betrayals, Belhifet, the plot twists at the end, conversation with Irenicus and the tying the game to BG2
. You are focused on your own little drama, and are ignoring the rest. Not you alone, though.
Thor might be good example. I'm not a comicbook fan, I don't know. With Rey, however, you failed miserably. Given how she was living on her own for a long time, had to endure hardships etc. the fact that she turned out to be capable by herself, with rather strong character is justified. And I know that some rabid feminist enjoyed that, but that's not enough to say it was their doing.
You ask me how I can judge people on completely false charges. And I ask you: are you sure about that? That they are false? Because I just shown you above ("SJW agenda vs the plot" ) how insignificant is that little drama of yours. Now, the overall game is talked badly about, pretty much every aspect of it is ignored because social justice warriors have their little drama with cave men. You are barking at each other over nothing.
Rational people are capable of seeing both what's good and bad about one topic. But both sides here are seeing only their own drama. that's why this game isn't treated fairly.
Oh, right. Forgot to ask. Can some of the folks who have played give me some perspective on the bugginess of the expansion? How serious/frequent are we talking? Has Beamdog stayed pretty good about turning around patches quickly, at least?
i had 10 Hard-Crashes all in all, mostly because i did trial and error to reproduce the crash (always resting in the area after i killed the Green Dragon btw.), a lot of times where i ordered all Chars to move somewhere and there is almost always at least one Char that gets stuck somewhere. A few Sidequests that didnt trigger properly. But all in all nothing that hinders the gameplay much. Also the new Quicksave Slots helped a lot.
I really hope someone in Beamdog finally understand that it's not about Mizhena. I'm not an eloquent writer so here's an article by someone much wiser than me that perfectly resumes my feelings, and the feelings of many other hardcore Baldur's Gate fans on the matter.
“Reeeeaaally, it’s all about ethics in heroic adventuring.”
This out-of-character jab at the GamerGate consumer movement has provoked a rather passionate response from members of the Baldur’s Gate community. In many ways, it’s been obscured by its coupling with complaints about a transgender character also featured in Beamdog’s new expansion to the Enhanced Edition of Baldur’s Gate.
Many people seek to equate the problems, classifying both as symptoms of a trend toward injecting personal politics into a game’s narrative. This argument is, quite frankly, a poor one. When arguing for the rights of a creator to express themselves in their work, you cannot then immediately turn upon expressions with which you do not agree. Sorry, but that’s just not how freedom of expression works.
So what’s the difference?
The problem with Minsc’s dig at #GamerGate isn’t that it breaks the fabled “Fourth Wall.” After all, Minsc is already making a jump through the fourth wall with his delightful pet Spelljammer reference. Heck, Baldur’s Gate is just as happy to reference The Bob Newhart Show and Monty Python as it is murder and betrayal.
Rather, the problem lies in Beamdog’s level of respect — or lack thereof — for a character that is deeply meaningful to an entire generation of gamers. Minsc is the lovable hamster-toting warrior of both Baldur’s Gate titles. His legacy extends into novelization and comic books, and he’s been praised by just about every conceivable gaming publication at one time or another. He’s an intellectual innocent, a gentle giant.
With one quip, they’ve turned that great big teddy bear of a hero into a passive-aggressive tool to insult a portion of their potential customers. It’s a cynical decision, and a needless one. It’s intentionally sarcastic and insulting, stooping to the tactics that people consistently ladle onto anyone who has ever participated in the #GamerGate conversation, without offering any useful rebuttal.
Not only is it grossly out of character for Minsc, it’s a little bit of the Internet’s ugliness that quite simply didn’t need to be there. Where the transgender character is an expression of the developer’s intentions toward inclusion, Minsc’s dig is designed to exclude people with whom Beamdog disagrees. It’s trite, it’s catty, and it makes Beamdog’s other in-game statements come off as posturing rather than sincere.
Beamdog’s response to the controversy hasn’t been extremely constructive and suggests a very loose grasp on the heart of the problem. While the internet is quick to cry censorship for every locked forum topic, it’s well within Beamdog’s right to lock down arguments that devolve into personal attacks, even if it’s their product that has set the precedent.
Unfortunately, that’s not where it ends. Amber Scott’s interview with Kotaku on the creation of Dragonspear depicts a very shallow understanding of the property itself.
If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism, [we tried to address that]. In the original there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple, like Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy. We were able to say, “No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.” In Siege of Dragonspear, Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad.
Let’s take a closer look at this argument.
First off, Safana is less of a “sex object” than a classic femme fatale, with the martial skills to easily back up her swagger. She spins ludicrous tales of her past exploits as a matter of bravado, and her lack of trustworthiness is a theme that runs through both games. She’s confident, “sex-positive,” and capable, but she’s also flawed and inherently self-interested. Dismissing her character as a “sex object” is not only disingenuous, it’s thoughtless. Whether you dislike a character, or simply do not understand them, why not write another? Why dredge your way through someone else’s creative vision rather than make a statement of your own?
Jaheira is an even more glaring example. In the original games, Jaheira is a war refugee characterized by her jaded cynicism toward the fates of others. She isn’t willing to accept the protagonist as a sort of de facto savior. Instead she watches, critiques, then makes her own judgment. She is intelligent but cynical, hardened by traumatic experience, but utterly devoted to those for whom she cares. Labeling Jaheira as a stereotypical “nagging wife” suggests little respect or understanding of both the character and the world she inhabits.
Hacking apart characters created by your forebears is a disservice to the people who love them. Using the story’s most gentle character to make an exclusionary insult out of a casual conversation is a disservice to your other messages, and makes the whole thing feel petty. It’s just a bit of ugliness, added for sport.
Doing both of these things without any sort of understanding as to why it would antagonize devoted fans of the series, or worse intentionally antagonizing them, isn’t just tone-deaf, it’s the sort of jaded cynicism that Amber Scott decided should require a “way better personality upgrade.”
TechRaptor received a statement from Beamdog CEO Trent Oster that lambasts the pot-shots taken at Dragonspear without identifying or resolving the root of the complaint:
I find the controversy ridiculous. Yes, we have a transgendered character. I know a number of transgendered people and they are genuine, wonderful humans. Yes, we also have a character who cracks a joke about ethics. The original Baldur’s Gate had a whole sequence about the Bob Newhart show. If this generates controversy it makes a sad statement about the world we live in.
Oster reduces the backlash to being solely about identity politics, but the reality is that gamers have been waiting fifteen years (not counting the hack-and-slash spinoff Dark Alliance titles) for a new adventure in the Baldur’s Gate series. Expectations were high, and even some of the most ardent fans have been quite understandably dismayed to find character rewrites and needless insults of the audience in their long awaited homecoming. Being told that if they didn’t like it, “too bad,” hasn’t helped the situation.
Perhaps members of Beamdog have more in common with their projected perception of Jaheira than even they realize. Ironically, they might have avoided these pitfalls by better understanding the characters they’ve purchased.
Oh, right. Forgot to ask. Can some of the folks who have played give me some perspective on the bugginess of the expansion? How serious/frequent are we talking? Has Beamdog stayed pretty good about turning around patches quickly, at least?
Personally I haven't run into any that ruined the experience at all. There's a few things not quite right, but the only main bugs I'm running into revolve around my trying to eekeeper certain things and running that in SoD. Maybe I'm lucky but SoD (even the DL) has all gone smooth for me.
@RedKnight Should I stop talking to you like a human being, so that you could see the difference? I reckon you don't want that.
SJWs can negatively impact the game story, but here it's not the case. Neither Safana's personality, neither Corwin's, neither some trans-character who's apparently there, affect the main story. True, the characters are there, but they characterization isn't taking off from main story. And here's where your limited worldview comes into play. You are focused - no, you are being paranoid about - details, that doesn't damage the overall story, but you insist they are. I don't see how those details affect the important story elements such as
The Shining Lady, her whole cause, battles that are taking place, betrayals, Belhifet, the plot twists at the end, conversation with Irenicus and the tying the game to BG2
. You are focused on your own little drama, and are ignoring the rest. Not you alone, though.
Thor might be good example. I'm not a comicbook fan, I don't know. With Rey, however, you failed miserably. Given how she was living on her own for a long time, had to endure hardships etc. the fact that she turned out to be capable by herself, with rather strong character is justified. And I know that some rabid feminist enjoyed that, but that's not enough to say it was their doing.
You ask me how I can judge people on completely false charges. And I ask you: are you sure about that? That they are false? Because I just shown you above ("SJW agenda vs the plot" ) how insignificant is that little drama of yours. Now, the overall game is talked badly about, pretty much every aspect of it is ignored because social justice warriors have their little drama with cave men. You are barking at each other over nothing.
Rational people are capable of seeing both what's good and bad about one topic. But both sides here are seeing only their own drama. that's why this game isn't treated fairly.
Well, I wont get into a debate about Ray, because atm that is irrelevant, but i disagree with your analysis. All I will say is that I think she is a Mary Sue who can do too many things extraoridnary to be a believable character. You can perhaps explain it with some ad hoc rationalizations, but I still find her character too perfect. I mean, she can even speak Wookie, even though she grew up on a planet where there are no wookies.
When it comes to BG DoS, I can see how it might look like I am paranoid IF and only IF you ignore my previous experiences with SJW content, the interview where the writer shits on original content by calling it sexist, and IF you start with the premise that the small details dont matter. Those are 3 big IFs that I am not so willing to just let go.
I am not saying the game is good or bad. I have not yet put out my judgment on the game, nor have I voted on any site. I care about BG legacy far too much to allow myself to jump on the hate wagon just because I disagree with writer's political stances. But I would be lying if her comments didnt make me feel uneasy considering what I have witnessed when politics take over art.
Sometimes I think we were better off in the mid 90s, when the internet was gaining prevalence, but wasn't used to solve most of life's concerns. The Internet mob can tank game reviews, movie reviews... it is actually quite a spectacle to behold.
It has it's uses, but based on what I'm reading, it really seems to be going for the throat this time. Ouch.
Sometimes I think we were better off in the mid 90s, when the internet was gaining prevalence, but wasn't used to solve most of life's concerns. The Internet mob can tank game reviews, movie reviews... it is actually quite a spectacle to behold.
It has it's uses, but based on what I'm reading, it really seems to be going for the throat this time. Ouch.
The biggest tragedy would be if the game is actually good and it sells horrible due to political debate surrounding it. But seriously, what the hell was Beamdog thinking?! They know how much controversy SJWs have with the gaming community, they know their playerbase is very well informed since they are all in their late 20s and 30s. To stir the hornets nest with SJW provocations on launch date,... *shakes his head in disbelief*
Well, and the rather terse comment from the writer that if people don't like it they can just deal with it (paraphrasing) certainly doesn't help matters.
@Foggy: I don't know whether Nate Church is smarter than you, but he either fails basic fact-checking or is deliberately distorting the truth - Amber Scott's Kotaku interview wasn't a response to the backlash, it was months before launch. And nobody cared about her comments then. The only reason it's a talking point now is because GGers twisted it around to make it sound like she flipped fans off after they started protesting Mizhena.
I really hope someone in Beamdog finally understand that it's not about Mizhena. I'm not an eloquent writer so here's an article by someone much wiser than me that perfectly resumes my feelings, and the feelings of many other hardcore Baldur's Gate fans on the matter.
“Reeeeaaally, it’s all about ethics in heroic adventuring.”
This out-of-character jab at the GamerGate consumer movement has provoked a rather passionate response from members of the Baldur’s Gate community. In many ways, it’s been obscured by its coupling with complaints about a transgender character also featured in Beamdog’s new expansion to the Enhanced Edition of Baldur’s Gate.
Many people seek to equate the problems, classifying both as symptoms of a trend toward injecting personal politics into a game’s narrative. This argument is, quite frankly, a poor one. When arguing for the rights of a creator to express themselves in their work, you cannot then immediately turn upon expressions with which you do not agree. Sorry, but that’s just not how freedom of expression works.
So what’s the difference?
The problem with Minsc’s dig at #GamerGate isn’t that it breaks the fabled “Fourth Wall.” After all, Minsc is already making a jump through the fourth wall with his delightful pet Spelljammer reference. Heck, Baldur’s Gate is just as happy to reference The Bob Newhart Show and Monty Python as it is murder and betrayal.
Rather, the problem lies in Beamdog’s level of respect — or lack thereof — for a character that is deeply meaningful to an entire generation of gamers. Minsc is the lovable hamster-toting warrior of both Baldur’s Gate titles. His legacy extends into novelization and comic books, and he’s been praised by just about every conceivable gaming publication at one time or another. He’s an intellectual innocent, a gentle giant.
With one quip, they’ve turned that great big teddy bear of a hero into a passive-aggressive tool to insult a portion of their potential customers. It’s a cynical decision, and a needless one. It’s intentionally sarcastic and insulting, stooping to the tactics that people consistently ladle onto anyone who has ever participated in the #GamerGate conversation, without offering any useful rebuttal.
Not only is it grossly out of character for Minsc, it’s a little bit of the Internet’s ugliness that quite simply didn’t need to be there. Where the transgender character is an expression of the developer’s intentions toward inclusion, Minsc’s dig is designed to exclude people with whom Beamdog disagrees. It’s trite, it’s catty, and it makes Beamdog’s other in-game statements come off as posturing rather than sincere.
Beamdog’s response to the controversy hasn’t been extremely constructive and suggests a very loose grasp on the heart of the problem. While the internet is quick to cry censorship for every locked forum topic, it’s well within Beamdog’s right to lock down arguments that devolve into personal attacks, even if it’s their product that has set the precedent.
Unfortunately, that’s not where it ends. Amber Scott’s interview with Kotaku on the creation of Dragonspear depicts a very shallow understanding of the property itself.
If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism, [we tried to address that]. In the original there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple, like Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy. We were able to say, “No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.” In Siege of Dragonspear, Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad.
Let’s take a closer look at this argument.
First off, Safana is less of a “sex object” than a classic femme fatale, with the martial skills to easily back up her swagger. She spins ludicrous tales of her past exploits as a matter of bravado, and her lack of trustworthiness is a theme that runs through both games. She’s confident, “sex-positive,” and capable, but she’s also flawed and inherently self-interested. Dismissing her character as a “sex object” is not only disingenuous, it’s thoughtless. Whether you dislike a character, or simply do not understand them, why not write another? Why dredge your way through someone else’s creative vision rather than make a statement of your own?
Jaheira is an even more glaring example. In the original games, Jaheira is a war refugee characterized by her jaded cynicism toward the fates of others. She isn’t willing to accept the protagonist as a sort of de facto savior. Instead she watches, critiques, then makes her own judgment. She is intelligent but cynical, hardened by traumatic experience, but utterly devoted to those for whom she cares. Labeling Jaheira as a stereotypical “nagging wife” suggests little respect or understanding of both the character and the world she inhabits.
Hacking apart characters created by your forebears is a disservice to the people who love them. Using the story’s most gentle character to make an exclusionary insult out of a casual conversation is a disservice to your other messages, and makes the whole thing feel petty. It’s just a bit of ugliness, added for sport.
Doing both of these things without any sort of understanding as to why it would antagonize devoted fans of the series, or worse intentionally antagonizing them, isn’t just tone-deaf, it’s the sort of jaded cynicism that Amber Scott decided should require a “way better personality upgrade.”
TechRaptor received a statement from Beamdog CEO Trent Oster that lambasts the pot-shots taken at Dragonspear without identifying or resolving the root of the complaint:
I find the controversy ridiculous. Yes, we have a transgendered character. I know a number of transgendered people and they are genuine, wonderful humans. Yes, we also have a character who cracks a joke about ethics. The original Baldur’s Gate had a whole sequence about the Bob Newhart show. If this generates controversy it makes a sad statement about the world we live in.
Oster reduces the backlash to being solely about identity politics, but the reality is that gamers have been waiting fifteen years (not counting the hack-and-slash spinoff Dark Alliance titles) for a new adventure in the Baldur’s Gate series. Expectations were high, and even some of the most ardent fans have been quite understandably dismayed to find character rewrites and needless insults of the audience in their long awaited homecoming. Being told that if they didn’t like it, “too bad,” hasn’t helped the situation.
Perhaps members of Beamdog have more in common with their projected perception of Jaheira than even they realize. Ironically, they might have avoided these pitfalls by better understanding the characters they’ve purchased.
Interesting take.
So this is what people mean when they say "It's not about the trans character being trans"?
Sometimes I think we were better off in the mid 90s, when the internet was gaining prevalence, but wasn't used to solve most of life's concerns. The Internet mob can tank game reviews, movie reviews... it is actually quite a spectacle to behold.
It has it's uses, but based on what I'm reading, it really seems to be going for the throat this time. Ouch.
The biggest tragedy would be if the game is actually good and it sells horrible due to political debate surrounding it. But seriously, what the hell was Beamdog thinking?! They know how much controversy SJWs have with the gaming community, they know their playerbase is very well informed since they are all in their late 20s and 30s. To stir the hornets nest with SJW provocations on launch date,... *shakes his head in disbelief*
Again, the fact that you think they "stirred a hornet's nest" by including a trans NPC that encompasses roughly .00001% of the story, and that one of the female developers DARES to have a Twitter account and follow the people she wants to follow....well, for the 100th time, it says nothing much about Beamdog, but everything about the people who have this much of a problem with it. Even the acronym "SJW" is just beyond obnoxious. It sounds like a professional wrestling stable, not a term anyone should take seriously.
@RedKnight Okay, you won't get into debate about Rey. Have your last word, why not. It's convenient for you.
I don't know your previous experiences with SJWs, I'm not a psychic. I reckon they weren't pleasant. That's one. Two, "shitting" and "criticizing" are two different things, even if critique is wrong at parts. For example, BG1 NPC had little characterization so calling a character "sex object", when pretty much every character was underdeveloped, was too going too far. And finally, no matter how you look at it, details are - well - details. The narrow, focused worldview is what makes you think of them as really important, and thus you start contributing to the drama.
For someone who cares about the series legacy, you joined this community only yesterday. Where were you, in early stages EE's development, when your suggestions really mattered? Where were you during many discussions? Were you there, criticizing the game's element and direction? I won't even mention beta testing or volunteering. No. The fact that you joined yesterday doesn't speak well for your claim. Based on the facts, it is more likely that you joined here just to complain.
Finally, the writer's opinion is - well - an opinion. I personally disagree with Amber Scott on some things, as I'm not focusing on non existent problems. Actively seeking things to be offended at won't do anyone any good.
Comments
So, to go through a few examples tossed about: removing an aspect of a character such as an acknowledgment of their own sensuality and enjoyment of their sexual nature would be seen as attempting to remove such aspects from the real world or imply it shouldn't exisit. A character's whose trans gender status becomes their defining status is seen as reinforcing the idea that people are defined by such things. Or the general trend towards only allowing strong totally in control women in games, while men run the gamut from there to... Khalid, so that only one gender is shown as potentially weak.
If we accept that video games can influence people's perceptions, these are all valid critiques and concerns. Certainly one could dispute whether or not the portrayal actually amounts to what is described, but once we accept games can change perception such critiques must at least be acknowledge as potentially important.
I'm especially amused by people with like 5-10 posts total, came here and adding to this drama, as if they knew anything about this game or the developers at all. Or really care about this game at all.
You havent even read what I wrote, yet you judge me. You claim with no evidence that I dont care about the game. Why then did I buy it? Why did I not refund it? You see,... this is the thing with you neutrals. You just judge people and pretend like you have the moral high ground. In reality, you are just hypocrits. And yes, i know this is a judgment too, but at least I am basing it on something tangible, unlike you who just claims that we are both paranoid and irrational.
Am I paranoid and irrational for being tired of this fight and saying that Beamdog screwed up with that interview? Am I irrational by pointing out how this has been happening for 10-15 years? Am I paranoid by saying that I will give the game a fair chance? I mean... wow... why dont you get off that high horse you are riding and talk with people like we are humans?
Because in lieu of that, what grounds do you have for making any kind of assumption about the writing?
imho: Poor writing i would say is demonstrated by basicly everything that happens in regards to the Finale. Prior, During, After. Especialy the Dialog of Caelar prior to the final Bossfight.
I'm not judging you, but people with disposition similar to yours. One of problems with you people is your narrow view. Either someone is on your side, or is against you. It's second time you've shown this against me.
And sorry, you are involved in the process of "discussing" one aspect of the expansion that upsets you, and you don't seem to care anything besides that. f I'm wrong, prove it. The fact that you bought it didn't want a refund is pretty touching, but that doesn't tell me WHY. Don't expect me to believe you for a word (that you apparently care) when you have little to none contribution to this community.
And no, stop with this "moral high ground" thing. I am having more rational view on the matter, that's all there is to it. The difference of you and me is perspective. Not limiting myself to one of your sides enables me to see wider picture. And the way I see it, nothing constructive will come out of your chatter, especially considering how small the issue really is.
Ah. this one is directly for you. I believe you should check dictionary for "hypocrisy".
I am not asking you to be on my side. I just ask you to talk to me like a human being and not as if I was one of your own strawmen.
This is not generally related to my belief the expansion suffers from poor writing. If you wanted examples of that, I'd first and foremost point towards the extremely odd railroaded nature of much of the dialogue, which often gives little variance in response. This isn't actually lack of responses to choose from, but actually multiple responses that seem to carry the same implications, which is far more baffling to me. This is actually a common criticism of the dialogue with the cleric, but it is fairly strongly spread throughout the game, as if someone had extremely limited idea how characters might respond and simply repeated the same ideas. I'd also say that many of the characters simply felt lacking by comparison to BG 2, far closer to their monoline one dimensional counterparts from the original baldur's gate (I found the goblin particularly dull, which was a disappointment as they are a race I love playing as on the tabletop). The overall plot felt similarly a bit forced and not particularly connected to the series, despite extremely heavy foreshadowing and oddly random cameos. Part of this is the struggle to make an interlude actually carry weight I admit, but I still feel it falls a bit short.
That's a brief and fairly general critique of my issues with the writing, I can try to elaborate on certain points but I don't want to make it a full essay.
Good to hear some positive news.
Should I stop talking to you like a human being, so that you could see the difference? I reckon you don't want that.
SJWs can negatively impact the game story, but here it's not the case. Neither Safana's personality, neither Corwin's, neither some trans-character who's apparently there, affect the main story. True, the characters are there, but they characterization isn't taking off from main story. And here's where your limited worldview comes into play. You are focused - no, you are being paranoid about - details, that doesn't damage the overall story, but you insist they are. I don't see how those details affect the important story elements such as
Thor might be good example. I'm not a comicbook fan, I don't know. With Rey, however, you failed miserably. Given how she was living on her own for a long time, had to endure hardships etc. the fact that she turned out to be capable by herself, with rather strong character is justified. And I know that some rabid feminist enjoyed that, but that's not enough to say it was their doing.
You ask me how I can judge people on completely false charges. And I ask you: are you sure about that? That they are false? Because I just shown you above ("SJW agenda vs the plot" ) how insignificant is that little drama of yours. Now, the overall game is talked badly about, pretty much every aspect of it is ignored because social justice warriors have their little drama with cave men. You are barking at each other over nothing.
Rational people are capable of seeing both what's good and bad about one topic. But both sides here are seeing only their own drama. that's why this game isn't treated fairly.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/04/04/developers-response-to-baldurs-gate-controversy-misses-the-point/
“Reeeeaaally, it’s all about ethics in heroic adventuring.”
This out-of-character jab at the GamerGate consumer movement has provoked a rather passionate response from members of the Baldur’s Gate community. In many ways, it’s been obscured by its coupling with complaints about a transgender character also featured in Beamdog’s new expansion to the Enhanced Edition of Baldur’s Gate.
Many people seek to equate the problems, classifying both as symptoms of a trend toward injecting personal politics into a game’s narrative. This argument is, quite frankly, a poor one. When arguing for the rights of a creator to express themselves in their work, you cannot then immediately turn upon expressions with which you do not agree. Sorry, but that’s just not how freedom of expression works.
So what’s the difference?
The problem with Minsc’s dig at #GamerGate isn’t that it breaks the fabled “Fourth Wall.” After all, Minsc is already making a jump through the fourth wall with his delightful pet Spelljammer reference. Heck, Baldur’s Gate is just as happy to reference The Bob Newhart Show and Monty Python as it is murder and betrayal.
Rather, the problem lies in Beamdog’s level of respect — or lack thereof — for a character that is deeply meaningful to an entire generation of gamers. Minsc is the lovable hamster-toting warrior of both Baldur’s Gate titles. His legacy extends into novelization and comic books, and he’s been praised by just about every conceivable gaming publication at one time or another. He’s an intellectual innocent, a gentle giant.
With one quip, they’ve turned that great big teddy bear of a hero into a passive-aggressive tool to insult a portion of their potential customers. It’s a cynical decision, and a needless one. It’s intentionally sarcastic and insulting, stooping to the tactics that people consistently ladle onto anyone who has ever participated in the #GamerGate conversation, without offering any useful rebuttal.
Not only is it grossly out of character for Minsc, it’s a little bit of the Internet’s ugliness that quite simply didn’t need to be there. Where the transgender character is an expression of the developer’s intentions toward inclusion, Minsc’s dig is designed to exclude people with whom Beamdog disagrees. It’s trite, it’s catty, and it makes Beamdog’s other in-game statements come off as posturing rather than sincere.
Beamdog’s response to the controversy hasn’t been extremely constructive and suggests a very loose grasp on the heart of the problem. While the internet is quick to cry censorship for every locked forum topic, it’s well within Beamdog’s right to lock down arguments that devolve into personal attacks, even if it’s their product that has set the precedent.
Unfortunately, that’s not where it ends. Amber Scott’s interview with Kotaku on the creation of Dragonspear depicts a very shallow understanding of the property itself.
If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism, [we tried to address that]. In the original there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple, like Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy. We were able to say, “No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.” In Siege of Dragonspear, Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad.
Let’s take a closer look at this argument.
First off, Safana is less of a “sex object” than a classic femme fatale, with the martial skills to easily back up her swagger. She spins ludicrous tales of her past exploits as a matter of bravado, and her lack of trustworthiness is a theme that runs through both games. She’s confident, “sex-positive,” and capable, but she’s also flawed and inherently self-interested. Dismissing her character as a “sex object” is not only disingenuous, it’s thoughtless. Whether you dislike a character, or simply do not understand them, why not write another? Why dredge your way through someone else’s creative vision rather than make a statement of your own?
Jaheira is an even more glaring example. In the original games, Jaheira is a war refugee characterized by her jaded cynicism toward the fates of others. She isn’t willing to accept the protagonist as a sort of de facto savior. Instead she watches, critiques, then makes her own judgment. She is intelligent but cynical, hardened by traumatic experience, but utterly devoted to those for whom she cares. Labeling Jaheira as a stereotypical “nagging wife” suggests little respect or understanding of both the character and the world she inhabits.
Hacking apart characters created by your forebears is a disservice to the people who love them. Using the story’s most gentle character to make an exclusionary insult out of a casual conversation is a disservice to your other messages, and makes the whole thing feel petty. It’s just a bit of ugliness, added for sport.
Doing both of these things without any sort of understanding as to why it would antagonize devoted fans of the series, or worse intentionally antagonizing them, isn’t just tone-deaf, it’s the sort of jaded cynicism that Amber Scott decided should require a “way better personality upgrade.”
TechRaptor received a statement from Beamdog CEO Trent Oster that lambasts the pot-shots taken at Dragonspear without identifying or resolving the root of the complaint:
I find the controversy ridiculous. Yes, we have a transgendered character. I know a number of transgendered people and they are genuine, wonderful humans. Yes, we also have a character who cracks a joke about ethics. The original Baldur’s Gate had a whole sequence about the Bob Newhart show. If this generates controversy it makes a sad statement about the world we live in.
Oster reduces the backlash to being solely about identity politics, but the reality is that gamers have been waiting fifteen years (not counting the hack-and-slash spinoff Dark Alliance titles) for a new adventure in the Baldur’s Gate series. Expectations were high, and even some of the most ardent fans have been quite understandably dismayed to find character rewrites and needless insults of the audience in their long awaited homecoming. Being told that if they didn’t like it, “too bad,” hasn’t helped the situation.
Perhaps members of Beamdog have more in common with their projected perception of Jaheira than even they realize. Ironically, they might have avoided these pitfalls by better understanding the characters they’ve purchased.
When it comes to BG DoS, I can see how it might look like I am paranoid IF and only IF you ignore my previous experiences with SJW content, the interview where the writer shits on original content by calling it sexist, and IF you start with the premise that the small details dont matter. Those are 3 big IFs that I am not so willing to just let go.
I am not saying the game is good or bad. I have not yet put out my judgment on the game, nor have I voted on any site. I care about BG legacy far too much to allow myself to jump on the hate wagon just because I disagree with writer's political stances. But I would be lying if her comments didnt make me feel uneasy considering what I have witnessed when politics take over art.
It has it's uses, but based on what I'm reading, it really seems to be going for the throat this time. Ouch.
So this is what people mean when they say "It's not about the trans character being trans"?
Okay, you won't get into debate about Rey. Have your last word, why not. It's convenient for you.
I don't know your previous experiences with SJWs, I'm not a psychic. I reckon they weren't pleasant. That's one. Two, "shitting" and "criticizing" are two different things, even if critique is wrong at parts. For example, BG1 NPC had little characterization so calling a character "sex object", when pretty much every character was underdeveloped, was too going too far. And finally, no matter how you look at it, details are - well - details. The narrow, focused worldview is what makes you think of them as really important, and thus you start contributing to the drama.
For someone who cares about the series legacy, you joined this community only yesterday. Where were you, in early stages EE's development, when your suggestions really mattered? Where were you during many discussions? Were you there, criticizing the game's element and direction? I won't even mention beta testing or volunteering. No. The fact that you joined yesterday doesn't speak well for your claim. Based on the facts, it is more likely that you joined here just to complain.
Finally, the writer's opinion is - well - an opinion. I personally disagree with Amber Scott on some things, as I'm not focusing on non existent problems. Actively seeking things to be offended at won't do anyone any good.