That truly is a horrible argument, "people can't afford it" the transsexual is a cleric cast it on yourself, or get a single use scroll, or ask the other temple consisting of hundreds of other casters, or from your profits as a trader buy one, or to but an item that gives it, the belt only sells for a gold coin. I bet her stores consist of more the a few hundreds gold worth of items. Remember she is middle class not lower class.
misandists are our day feminists haven't u noticed?
I'm not super familiar with AD&D spellcasting beyond what is present in the BG games, but in 3.5/Pathfinder you'd be looking at Alter Self, which is a 2nd level spell (so 3rd level Cleric minimum) that only lasts for 1 minute per level. Let's be generous and say Mizhena is 6th level, so she gets to be a biological woman for a whopping six minutes.
To make such magic permanent, you're looking for Permanency, a 5th level Wizard/Sorcerer spell (so like 9th level minimum, IIRC). Alter Self isn't listed by the rules as Permanency-able, but let's say the GM is allowing it as they probably should because it's a story thing. Even if you're the caster, you're looking at a bare minimum component cost of 500gp, the lowest gold cost on the Permanency list. More likely, it'd cost about 2000 to 2500, since that is the most common cost range for Permanency. That's astronomically out of the budget of the average person in the Forgotten Realms. If Mizhena has a store with several hundred gold worth of items, she had to buy those items at or around cost, and is marking them up to sell for a profit. Her profit margin likely isn't going to be large enough to raise 2000 gold that she can afford to not re-invest in her business any time soon. After all, she has to keep buying more goods to sell in order to stay in business.
The belt sells for 1gp because it's cursed and does nothing practical for anybody other than someone who is trans. Also, you can't remove it, so you'd be stuck wearing it 24/7 unless you're willing to pay the two-hundred or so GP for a Cleric to remove it every day. That doesn't really solve a trans person's condition having a permanent reminder that their transformation is incomplete, nevermind the annoyance of having an article of clothing on your body at all times. That'd make taking off and putting on pants a nightmare.
You haven't once taken into account parents and friends and loans, 10yrs ago a pretty decent condition muscle car turned up in my city(1977 lx torana). It's body was excellent it's Driveline was crap and not working. Instead of its normal price 10k(or More) for good body and not working it was selling for 4k, but I didn't have 4k. So my mate brought it for me and I played him back. The option was from him "either I buy it for you to do up, or I buy it for me to resell for double". Your also forgetting about family inheritance and assistance.
If any part of myself felt strange I guarantee you My family and friends would do their utmost to help me. And being a cleric she has a temple to live in and food provided. It's easier in 2nd edition to additions after.
I never heard of gamergate. I skimmed the wikipedia article. How is the "ethics in heroic adventuring" line related to it? Would have went over my head.
There's a line associated with gamergate, although I have heard it was coined to mock gamergate (I don't know which is true): "Actually, it is about ethics in videogame journalism." That they were concerned about ethics in videogame journalism stemmed from a) the mistaken belief that Zoe Quinn had sex with a Kotaku journalist in exchange for a favorable review of her game Depression Quest. Given that Kotaku never actually reviewed Depression Quest, well you can see.
Another element that prompted gamergate backlash was when a handful of news sites posted "gamer as an identity is dead"-type articles, which upset a lot of people, and there were many accusations of collusion and other similar things.
As to whether these views are true or not I suggest researching and coming to your own conclusions. I have my own opinion but I don't think a debate over that would be appropriate on this forum.
So far not a single person has complained that the transsexual exists.
I'm not going to get into a huge back and forth, but this is objectively untrue. I don't know who was here on April 1st-2nd when this whole nightmare started, but there was a SWATH of people on these forums and throughout review sites who virulently objected to her inclusion altogether. Most of them have been banned for rule violations or left after finally running out of hate fuel, but this has never been *just* an argument about whether Mizhena could have been "better written." EDIT: Apparently I missed a few other posts that have already addressed this.
Also: It's extremely frustrating as a person who has extensively studied feminism to see someone who hasn't just carelessly label it "misandry." I sometimes imagine its how a nurse who's studied for years must feel after hearing some guy in the waiting room claim that vaccines cause autism while everyone nods their heads. Ah well, off topic.
Finally, the whole sex-change-through-magic argument: I'm not trans, but from what I've gathered their myriad experiences are often about a hell of a lot more than a desire to change their outer sex characteristics. Gender is separate from sex - I happen to know a trans guy who wants to feel comfortable in his own skin and be accepted for who he is, but he'll be damned if he's going to let anyone mess with his clitoris. Trying to explain why Mizhena hasn't just used magic to change her body parts is like asking why a real trans person hasn't undergone surgery to radically alter their body; some can't afford it, but others don't want it. Attempting to find magical "solutions" to her "problem" only strips Mizhena of what little nuance she already has.
It's very dangerous and expensive with our current technology. There is a very long line of problems and death is included In them. Ultimately any genitles are better then none. And u don't get the ability to reproduce.
2nd edition rule set its easy, of low-moderate(depending on how u do it) cost and death is not a factor. No risk.
It is reasonable to expect people to play it before railing against it though on matters that require playing it.
Ex You can decide not to purchase Duke Nukem for its sexism. But don't flood the company with complaints about gameplay, as you aren't qualified to complain about that. Also acknowledge that criticism about the game's writing comes from screenshots and reviews, not first hand experience.
Firstly, the entire point of reviews is so everyone doesn't have to buy stuff like Superman 64 to know it's garbage. The fact that reviews aren't particularly trustworthy these days is pretty sad (contrast to when I was growing up, I rarely if ever found a gaming magazine that steered me wrong).
However, secondly, this flaw has largely been mitigated by the ability to actually watch the game being played, view dialog options, and game content, through media forums such as Youtube and Twitch, allowing players to get a grasp of the contents of the game before they ever make that purchase. This setup is, interestingly, good for both the consumer and the developer for two different reasons.
1. If the game is good (and it should be) then the developer gets tons of free advertising and boosts to product awareness, attracting more people to the game.
2. It grants the consumer a way to decide whether or not they want to get a game, without forfeiting the only power they have in the arrangement. The consumer is in the most danger here in this current setup, because there's no guarantee. There's no 30 day warranty if you decide the game is crap. Steam only gives you about 2 hours from installation to decide if you want to refund the game, which anyone familiar with the genre knows will be scarcely past character creation.
Unfortunately, the only effective way to try before you forfeit your voice, is piracy. The situation, unfortunately, isn't particularly helpful to either side at the moment.
I never heard of gamergate. I skimmed the wikipedia article. How is the "ethics in heroic adventuring" line related to it? Would have went over my head.
To be brief:
GG wants goes to maintain gaming Lore over real world politics. A game should remain uncensored and unaltered. No real world politics in gaming. Defensive, trying to protect games.
Sjw's are a mess there are Many different types/groups with different agendas, basically they want political equality whether it fits the Lore of the game or not. Offensive, trying to alter games.
Example: removal of the tracer pose in overwatch was due to feminist sjw's, feminists seem to be the largest most vocal of the sjw groups. = victory for feminist sjw's, the pose was removed.
Example: The witcher 3 huge outrage on how beautiful the main female characters are, apparently they don't accurately depict realistic females, also lack of racial variation, no black or Asian or Indian elfs/dwarfs/humans. Cd project red stuck completely to the Lore and source material. =victory for GG, the game remained unaltered.
Both have done horrible things ultimately. But those are the sides.
Oh, I agree 100%. Just Beamdog made her the football when Amber Scott insulted the fanbase and political jabs were thrown
I am part of the fanbase. Amber Scott did not insult me. I asked you before to stop lying about this.
Online reactionaries are not "the fanbase". You and the people who agree with you are a small, vocal minority of gamers. That is it. That is all. You are not "the fanbase" of Baldur's Gate - AMBER SCOTT IS PART OF THE FANBASE OF BALDUR'S GATE.
Oh, I agree 100%. Just Beamdog made her the football when Amber Scott insulted the fanbase and political jabs were thrown
I am part of the fanbase. Amber Scott did not insult me. I asked you before to stop lying about this.
Online reactionaries are not "the fanbase". You and the people who agree with you are a small, vocal minority of gamers. That is it. That is all. You are not "the fanbase" of Baldur's Gate - AMBER SCOTT IS PART OF THE FANBASE OF BALDUR'S GATE.
Fine take it as she said "a large portion of the fanbase" it does not make her a liar if she doesn't say something ‰100 perfectly, not everything has to be politically correct. BGLOVER is the same straight to insults.
Fine take it as she said "a large portion of the fanbase" it does not make her a liar if she doesn't say something ‰100 perfectly, not everything has to be politically correct.
It has nothing to with "politically correct". It has to do with she, and the people in GG which she agrees with on basically everything, have repeatedly claimed and acted as if they are "the fanbase" and that therefore pointing out the obvious fact that Baldur's Gate had sexist elements and characters is "insulting the fanbase", "insulting the players", "insulting the customers" - all of which are statements used repeatedly here and elsewhere.
And all of which are clearly untrue. Without offering any value judgement on the "sexist elements and characters" statements above, it is simply true that a "large portion of the fanbase" agree with them. But that is something that a lot of people prefer not to acknowledge. They want the narrative to be that evuuuuul SJWs who don't care about the games at all came in and ruined them for their sinister political agenda of not having games be entirely populated by white/cis/straight people.
So, as I said, I already called Ashiel on this before. She and the people who agree with her are not the "fanbase". They are a vocal minority. They are a vocal minority on Anita Sarkeesian, they are a vocal minority on Baldur's Gate, and they are a vocal minority in gaming in general. That by itself does not make them wrong, but it does mean she and they should stop pretending like they are anything but a minority.
And they should especially stop doing it in order to lie about Amber Scott. She didn't insult the fanbase. She said something that a small minority of the fanbase took as an insult. There is a very, very big difference between the two.
2nd edition rule set its easy, of low-moderate(depending on how u do it) cost and death is not a factor. No risk.
Once again, Polymorph Other entails a system shock roll, so death is most certainly a factor through the most obvious way to do it.
And in no way, shape or form is it going to be cheap by the income standard of the common person (as opposed to nobility or successful adventurers).
(Not that it matters in SoD's case, since we do not know whether Mizhena transitioned.)
There is no such thing as a system shock roll in baldure's gate, sorry but there isn't. This is an altered second edition "2.5". No risk in 2.5.
And if he/she didn't transition why bother saying it? Just stick with "I made it up from stuff I love because I didn't like the one I was born with" my Pakistani mate' s name was Osama but he changed it to sami after 9/11, there is more to the story of why he changed it but it's irrelevant and I don't trust you.
Also: It's extremely frustrating as a person who has extensively studied feminism to see someone who hasn't just carelessly label it "misandry." I sometimes imagine its how a nurse who's studied for years must feel after hearing some guy in the waiting room claim that vaccines cause autism while everyone nods their heads. Ah well, off topic.
The difference is there's no real evidence to back up that vaccines cause autism. There are mountains of evidence, including major feminist literature that are obviously anti-male, from the violence produced at meetings about men's rights and the discussion of their terrible disadvantages in places like the judicial system and family courts, to rampant bigotry (virtually all forms of bigotry) that goes with identity politics, to the efforts of stripping and denying people their rights to fair trial for being accused of crimes by a woman, to blaming the invisible patriarchy in the sky for everything wrong with the world.
In fifteen minutes, I could produce enough actual evidence that suggests a rampant misandrist bent, whereas the evidence that vaccines cause autism seems to be missing.
Finally, the whole sex-change-through-magic argument: I'm not trans, but from what I've gathered their myriad experiences are often about a hell of a lot more than a desire to change their outer sex characteristics. Gender is separate from sex - I happen to know a trans guy who wants to feel comfortable in his own skin and be accepted for who he is, but he'll be damned if he's going to let anyone mess with his clitoris.
Is clitoris a euphemism for penis in this case? Do we also have our hanging ovaries too? Perhaps I seem cynical, but I don't see much point muddying our issues with incorrect wording. If we actually had things like a clitoris and ovaries, we wouldn't be trans in the first place, we'd simply be female (or for FtM, we'd simply be male since we didn't have ovaries and a vagina, but a penis and testicles).
As an aside, I really hope that medical science and perform some miracles (possibly with the cross technology of 3d printers, stem cells, and cloning research) and actually give some of a more authentic set of plumbing. As always, your mileage may vary.
Trying to explain why Mizhena hasn't just used magic to change her body parts is like asking why a real trans person hasn't undergone surgery to radically alter their body; some can't afford it, but others don't want it. Attempting to find magical "solutions" to her "problem" only strips Mizhena of what little nuance she already has.
Oh boy, we get to talk crunch. This is my favorite part.
The economics in Baldur's Gate is highly questionable since there's money just lying all over the place and everything is traded in gold pieces, but in 3E/Pathfinder, the amount of money that you can make and the cost of living is much easier to compare.
In those systems, anyone with an average Wisdom or Intelligence and a single rank in their skill, taking 10 on their profession or craft checks earns 7 gp / week for their work (result/2=GP). Untrained hobos earn an average of 1sp/day. Whereas the average cost of living is about 10 gp / month (most people with a trade, even if the trade is simply barmaid), or 3 gp / month for a poor living (for all the ditch diggers and porters and such).
This means that your typical professional is banking at least 18 gp/month beyond living expenses and taxes or 218 gp / year in profits (total income is 336 gp/year but 120 gp goes to housing, food, taxes, and small luxury items). Remember, this is a single individual of unremarkable levels of skill (a simple commoner with 1 rank in a Craft or Profession). A family of commoners working together earns even more (if both parents have a trade, double the results).
Now a hat of disguise costs 1,800 gp brand new. It allows you to continuously affect yourself as per a disguise self spell which makes no physical alterations to your body but through an illusion gives you a whopping +10 bonus to your disguise by changing your outward appearance. It doesn't actually change your plumbing, but it makes it virtually impossible for normal people to notice you're anything but whatever you appear to be unless they're examining you really hard (like frisking), and most don't get a check to see through your disguise in the first place.
Now back to our nobody non-adventurer non-heroic classed commoner. It'd take about eight years to buy one of these items brand new, as a luxury item. Which means that if it were something you wanted, you could start at the age of 15 (the age of adulthood for non-heroic characters in D&D) and by the time you were 23, you'd have your magical item. If you wanted to wait until 25, you could actually buy an elixir that permanently changes you into your actual gender, complete with the ability to have babies and not be a bit embarrassed when a random dispel magic is tossed your way.
Again, this is assuming only a single person doing it all themselves and having no friends (such as clergy) who can craft the item at a discount. If you add in family members chipping in, or clerics or wizards sympathetic to your plight, you could acquire it sooner relative to the amount they wanted to pitch in or discount the purchase (the hat only requires 900 gp worth of materials to create, the elixir 1125 gp).
Meanwhile, in the US, the average cost of living for a single person with no dependents is around $28,474 / year; while working at $15/hour job for 40 hours / week earns $28,880. The cost of your typical sexual reassignment costs $20,000 over a two year span. In all honesty, barring special help programs or insurance programs, the D&D commoners have better options.
Especially since they also have the cheapo option of getting all most will need from a few mundane items (such as masterwork tools) to grant them a +2 bonus to their disguise checks, which means that with a single rank in Disguise (showing the commoner has practiced passing), means your average person will never notice in most social situations.
For the record, it was these mundane options that Victoria was using.
Which side is winning? I'm true neutral so I'll join the losing side to balance it out.
Sjw were winning at first, but the changes are coming making it a fairly even match. The females will still be altered, but transsexual sorted and minsc line removed. Neither can celebrate. This thread will do very little to effect the game.
Scroll up to sjw Vs GG how I explained it and pick your side.
Oh, I agree 100%. Just Beamdog made her the football when Amber Scott insulted the fanbase and political jabs were thrown
I am part of the fanbase. Amber Scott did not insult me. I asked you before to stop lying about this.
Online reactionaries are not "the fanbase". You and the people who agree with you are a small, vocal minority of gamers. That is it. That is all. You are not "the fanbase" of Baldur's Gate - AMBER SCOTT IS PART OF THE FANBASE OF BALDUR'S GATE.
Being part of the fanbase doesn't mean you cannot insult the fanbase, in the same way my being tg cannot prevent me from clearly angering some of the other tg people in this thread. Make sense? Ok, let's continue.
What you call a small vocal minority needs a citation. Because from where I'm sitting it doesn't look like a small but vocal minority. There is a lot, and I mean a lot, of coverage on youtube, these forums, and the Steam forums, and what I've seen is pretty poor, even after the bannings. Friends I play BG with that don't even visit any of those forums also think it's stupid to change stuff about the game rather than adding new content.
So, as I said, I already called Ashiel on this before. She and the people who agree with her are not the "fanbase". They are a vocal minority. They are a vocal minority on Anita Sarkeesian, they are a vocal minority on Baldur's Gate, and they are a vocal minority in gaming in general. That by itself does not make them wrong, but it does mean she and they should stop pretending like they are anything but a minority.
Don't twist my words, please. It's very, very clear that a lot of fans were upset by this. Unless you can prove that they were the minority, don't bother claiming it. I never said the majority of the fanbase, but telling the fanbase that the game they loved was sexist and that you were changing it and tough if they didn't like it, well...yeah, that's insulting the fanbase.
I'm not pretending anything. I'm talking about why this controversy has hit the fan.
But I'll issue a challenge In hopes of getting somewhere in this discussion, do you have a point or a rebuttal for the claims put forth by those who aren't happy about this, rather than arguing over semantics?
@Ashiel I think it's telling how people opposed to Amber Scott appeal to stuff like "the gaming community doesn't like SJW agendas, the BG fanbase feels betrayed" on the one hand, and then turn around and go "look, the gaming community isn't a homogenous mass, don't put the hateful extremists among GG in with those of us with more refined critiques" (which, by the way, only seem to come from you on this thread, I haven't seen the refined critiques you present here commonly expressed anywhere but you can feel free to link me to some)
So which is it? Do you want to appeal to the authority of an abstracted majority [citation needed] or do you want to deny the homogenous character of an abstracted majority which includes differing opinions from yours?
Because I'm all for the latter position (especially given that gaming communities I'm a part of, online and off, cheer the kinds of stuff Amber Scott has said in interviews), but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If the latter position is true, and the gaming community/BG fanbase/what have you isn't a homogenous mass then how can Amber Scott have angered "the fanbase"? Don't you just mean "I was angered" and "other people were also angered"? Can you prove it's a "complaint of a majority of people" or "a common complaint"? How? Where do you pull these statistics from, I'd like to see you do what you demand of others before you demand it of them. Where are YOUR statistics to prove the commonality of complaints? By what margin are they common, how do you define common versus uncommon versus rare, those are vague terms, why don't you nail them down? Unless, of course, we're all just talking opinions here, which is what it seems like we are (except for you and people making arguments like yours, who keep trying to claim some kind of moral superiority via appeal to popular opinion without citation of its popularity, but we can all see it's just opinion when people do that which is why we're more honest about it and don't claim to be speaking for a "common" or "majority" opinion).
I guess it can be too difficult to turn a lens inward without assuming you have like-minded backup that agrees with what that lens sees, but it's weird how often it becomes "my backup is the gaming community, uncited, now please cite who agrees with you" in the arguments against SoD (and in particular the ones that center Amber Scott as having done some kind of wrong).
If you want detailed statistics and citations for things, but then assert stuff about gamers at large as if you have secret statistics somewhere showing the % of gamers who are "disappointed" or "offended" or what have you, it's utter hypocritical nonsense and I'm tired of seeing those arguments. Just say "this is my opinion" since we all already know that "the fanbase" or "the community" just mean "the fanbase of one" and "the community of me"
Either that or, in your own words, "Unless you can prove it, don't bother claiming it."
@Ashiel I think it's telling how people opposed to Amber Scott appeal to stuff like "the gaming community doesn't like SJW agendas, the BG fanbase feels betrayed" on the one hand, and then turn around and go "look, the gaming community isn't a homogenous mass, don't put the hateful extremists among GG in with those of us with more refined critiques" (which, by the way, only seem to come from you on this thread, I haven't seen the refined critiques you present here commonly expressed anywhere but you can feel free to link me to some)
So which is it? Do you want to appeal to the authority of an abstracted majority [citation needed] or do you want to deny the homogenous character of an abstracted majority which includes differing opinions from yours?
Because I'm all for the latter position (especially given that gaming communities I'm a part of, online and off, cheer the kinds of stuff Amber Scott has said in interviews), but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If the latter position is true, and the gaming community/BG fanbase/what have you isn't a homogenous mass then how can Amber Scott have angered "the fanbase"? Don't you just mean "I was angered" and "other people were also angered"? Can you prove it's a "complaint of a majority of people" or "a common complaint"? How? Where do you pull these statistics from, I'd like to see you do what you demand of others before you demand it of them. Where are YOUR statistics to prove the commonality of complaints? By what margin are they common, how do you define common versus uncommon versus rare, those are vague terms, why don't you nail them down? Unless, of course, we're all just talking opinions here, which is what it seems like we are (except for you and people making arguments like yours, who keep trying to claim some kind of moral superiority via appeal to popular opinion without citation of its popularity, but we can all see it's just opinion when people do that which is why we're more honest about it and don't claim to be speaking for a "common" or "majority" opinion).
I guess it can be too difficult to turn a lens inward without assuming you have like-minded backup that agrees with what that lens sees, but it's weird how often it becomes "my backup is the gaming community, uncited, now please cite who agrees with you" in the arguments against SoD (and in particular the ones that center Amber Scott as having done some kind of wrong).
If you want detailed statistics and citations for things, but then assert stuff about gamers at large as if you have secret statistics somewhere showing the % of gamers who are "disappointed" or "offended" or what have you, it's utter hypocritical nonsense and I'm tired of seeing those arguments. Just say "this is my opinion" since we all already know that "the fanbase" or "the community" just mean "the fanbase of one" and "the community of me"
Either that or, in your own words, "Unless you can prove it, don't bother claiming it."
Good. Point for both sides, neither are majority and neither and minority, that is why I stick to"a large chunk". Enough noise and posting and reviews have been placed everywhere to indicate a large amount, whether it's more or less we will never know. So your point that others keep using as the "vocal minority" is wrong of them to state.
And like, on the subject of "majorities" and "minorities" even the early petulance of the Steam reviews by people with 0.9 and less hours of gameplay complaining about a character they couldn't possibly have encountered eventually gave way to the present 70%+ positive reviews from an early "mixed" that had it pegged at close to half and half neg/pos reviews.
I'd say most fans are actually quite happy, and if you subtracted the reviews of people with less than 2 hours of time in-game, I'm sure that % of positive reviews would go up substantially, and that's on Steam, where the forums were among the most negative (again, forums of people commenting who often didn't even own the other BG titles which I guess counts as "the BG fanbase" to some people).
Being part of the fanbase doesn't mean you cannot insult the fanbase,
So you're saying she insulted herself? Balogna.
Also, I'm part of the fanbase. She didn't insult me. Many people here on the forum are clearly part of the fanbase and not insulted. Ergo, she did not insult the fanbase. She said something that a small minority of the fanbase took as an insult.
What you call a small vocal minority needs a citation. Because from where I'm sitting it doesn't look like a small but vocal minority.
On Steam, the portal where you actually have to own the game to review it, the majority of the reviews are and always have been positive. This is despite the fact that quite a few of the negative reviews were done after a very short time of playing the game (and thus likely involved buying the game, reviewing it and immediately returning it).
Even at the height of the review bombing, the small, vocal minority that agrees with you could barely manage to get 30% of the reviews negative.
Also, of course, mainstream coverage is completely at odds with the small, vocal minority that hate SoD for anti-"SJW" reasons. If you want to complain about how this proves mainstream gaming media bias and what-have-you, that's fine, but it's beside the point: it further proves how this side of the debate is not "the fanbase", but a small, vocal minority of the fanbase.
Just like you people who hate Anita Sarkeesian and think she's this and that bad thing are a small, vocal minority that is dwarfed 10 to 1 by the people who like her, let alone the people that don't have a strong opinion about her either way.
Pretending that you represent a vast silent majority that you clearly do not both implicitly denies the existence of the many people who disagree with you (I'm not insulted by this thing that "insulted the Baldur's Gate fanbase", so, what, I don't exist?), and betrays a lack of confidence in your own convictions. Are you only right if you believe that most people stand behind you?
There is a lot, and I mean a lot, of coverage on youtube, these forums, and the Steam forums, and what I've seen is pretty poor, even after the bannings. Friends I play BG with that don't even visit any of those forums also think it's stupid to change stuff about the game rather than adding new content.
Anecdotal evidence is worthless. Everyone I talk to thinks Gamergate harasses women and doesn't care one whit about ethics in game journalism except as cover. Is that going to change your mind about them? No? Then what you see on youtube and what your friends say doesn't really matter, either.
Don't twist my words, please. It's very, very clear that a lot of fans were upset by this.
You're twisting your own words. You said she "insulted the fanbase". She did not. If you want to say "a lot of fans were upset by what she said", then you won't hear a peep out of me, because that is indeed true. But "a lot of fans" is not "all fans" or even "most fans".
I never said the majority of the fanbase, but telling the fanbase that the game they loved was sexist and that you were changing it and tough if they didn't like it, well...yeah, that's insulting the fanbase.
1) I am not insulted. 2) I am part of the fanbase.
Therefore:
3) The fanbase is not insulted, and you are wrong. Stop saying things that are wrong.
Oh, and she said there were PARTS of the game that were sexist, which is not at all the same as "the game was sexist". Also, she's one of the people who loved the game. If you hate people twisting your words so much, stop doing it to her.
But I'll issue a challenge In hopes of getting somewhere in this discussion, do you have a point or a rebuttal for the claims put forth by those who aren't happy about this, rather than arguing over semantics?
What claims, specifically, are you referring to? There have been an enormous amount of claims by the vocal minority who are upset about this.
And like, on the subject of "majorities" and "minorities" even the early petulance of the Steam reviews by people with 0.9 and less hours of gameplay complaining about a character they couldn't possibly have encountered eventually gave way to the present 70%+ positive reviews from an early "mixed" that had it pegged at close to half and half neg/pos reviews.
I'd say most fans are actually quite happy, and if you subtracted the reviews of people with less than 2 hours of time in-game, I'm sure that % of positive reviews would go up substantially, and that's on Steam, where the forums were among the most negative (again, forums of people commenting who often didn't even own the other BG titles which I guess counts as "the BG fanbase" to some people).
It's a bad example the devs started begging for good reviews. The reviews have been significantly altered by both sides.
There is no Chance a conclusion can be drawn at all from reviews. And ayiekie has just filled out a whole post doing exactly what u said was bad lol.
It's a bad example the devs started begging for good reviews. The reviews have been significantly altered by both sides.
There is no Chance a confusion can be drawn at all from reviews.
Actually if what you're saying is true, then that means when Beamdog put out the call, a majority of the fanbase wasn't offended or insulted because they listened to Beamdog.
Wow, what a concept, maybe you just proved that the complaints are a small, vocal minority!
I mean, I don't buy your argument. It's probably more the case that at first, the only people reviewing were people with less than 2 hours of gametime and the people who actually wanted to give a good review took longer to do so because they wanted to be fair instead of political so they actually, y'know, played the game extensively first, but your option is just as damning of the review bombers being a vocal minority as my theory so if I'm wrong and you're right it's the same conclusion!
There is no such thing as a system shock roll in baldure's gate, sorry but there isn't. This is an altered second edition "2.5". No risk in 2.5.
There is no such thing as a spell that changes gender is Baldur's Gate, either. Polymorph Other turns people into a squirrel. You have never resolved this contradiction.
And if he/she didn't transition why bother saying it?
Because CHARNAME asked why the name she was given by her parents didn't suit her.
She directly answered a direct question.
You would never, ever complain about any other NPC answering a simple question with a simple answer (even though they often do so with very personal information, and you often don't even need to ask), and neither would anyone else, were is not for the fact she is transgender.
There is no conceivable world where the most well-known NPC from SoD - known to many people who have not played or even bought the game - is a minor character who pops up in a couple of questlines and offers cleric healing services, except the one where she happens to be transgender.
It's a bad example the devs started begging for good reviews. The reviews have been significantly altered by both sides.
There is no Chance a confusion can be drawn at all from reviews.
Actually if what you're saying is true, then that means when Beamdog put out the call, a majority of the fanbase wasn't offended or insulted because they listened to Beamdog.
Wow, what a concept, maybe you just proved that the complaints are a small, vocal minority!
I mean, I don't buy your argument. It's probably more the case that at first, the only people reviewing were people with less than 2 hours of gametime and the people who actually wanted to give a good review took longer to do so because they wanted to be fair instead of political so they actually, y'know, played the game extensively first, but your option is just as damning of the review bombers being a vocal minority as my theory so if I'm wrong and you're right it's the same conclusion!
So your saying the opposite now? That a conclusion can be made from it being bombed with both ways and your guessing that game devs and angry gamers hold equal sway to the games audience? Your contradicting yourself massively mate.
So your saying the opposite now? That a conclusion can be made from it being bombed with both ways and your guessing that game devs and angry gamers hold equal sway to the games audience? Your contradicting yourself massively mate.
I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote the first time and what I wrote in reply to you, but to be honest seeing your track record in this thread I don't think I want to dive into this black hole with you.
There is no such thing as a system shock roll in baldure's gate, sorry but there isn't. This is an altered second edition "2.5". No risk in 2.5.
There is no such thing as a spell that changes gender is Baldur's Gate, either. Polymorph Other turns people into a squirrel. You have never resolved this contradiction.
And if he/she didn't transition why bother saying it?
Because CHARNAME asked why the name she was given by her parents didn't suit her.
She directly answered a direct question.
You would never, ever complain about any other NPC answering a simple question with a simple answer (even though they often do so with very personal information, and you often don't even need to ask), and neither would anyone else, were is not for the fact she is transgender.
There is no conceivable world where the most well-known NPC from SoD - known to many people who have not played or even bought the game - is a minor character who pops up in a couple of questlines and offers cleric healing services, except the one where she happens to be transgender.
That is a limitation in game not Lore, else there would be a million choices or more and selection would take hours per cast. Why chose 3rd edition rules when 5th edition is now out? Because it suits you more? Stick with second edition please 3rd and above is not relevant.
You just said direct and simple answer when she replied about her name. That would = "I like the name better" that is direct and simple, as it should be. Your contradicting yourself also, but I do agree with you it should be direct and simple because the question was simple and direct.
So your saying the opposite now? That a conclusion can be made from it being bombed with both ways and your guessing that game devs and angry gamers hold equal sway to the games audience? Your contradicting yourself massively mate.
I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote the first time and what I wrote in reply to you, but to be honest seeing your track record in this thread I don't think I want to dive into this black hole with you.
Huh I agreed with your post it was simple And straight to the point, no conclusion can be drawn for either side because no one has the statistics. We can't figure out the fake accounts, we can't figure out who holds more sway when they try to bomb/beg for reviews and we have no idea of the numbers of purchasers and we have no idea how many people actually care to put up a review.
Your correct. Neither side can claim to be the majority or minority or hint as to either one and be correct.
It's a bad example the devs started begging for good reviews. The reviews have been significantly altered by both sides.
A dev said that if you liked the game, it would be good if you could leave a good review to counterbalance the enormous amount of bad reviews being left by people who didn't play the game and were doing so as an anti-"SJW" statement.
That is not exactly the same thing. Like, at all.
Also, before this happened, Steam reviews were still more positive than negative.
At no point has the side represented by you and Ashiel (amongst others) ever shown any indication of being the numerical majority.
Therefore, it is incorrect for her to talk about "the fanbase" as if all or a majority of them agree with her. They don't. You've even agreed as much in your post above:
"Point for both sides, neither are majority and neither and minority, that is why I stick to"a large chunk". Enough noise and posting and reviews have been placed everywhere to indicate a large amount, whether it's more or less we will never know."
So, while you may not agree with me that your side is a vocal minority, you are at least in agreement that Ashiel should stop talking as if "the fanbase" was insulted by what Amber Scott said. And that's the primary point here.
If you want to disagree about the vocal minority thing, that's cool, but there's a lot of things out there beyond this issue which is why I'm assuming the GG/anti-"SJW" side are a small but loud minority of gamers as a whole.
Still, that's a debate beyond the scope of this thread, so I'll cease using that descriptor unless it's directly relevant to the subject at hand.
It's a bad example the devs started begging for good reviews. The reviews have been significantly altered by both sides.
A dev said that if you liked the game, it would be good if you could leave a good review to counterbalance the enormous amount of bad reviews being left by people who didn't play the game and were doing so as an anti-"SJW" statement.
That is not exactly the same thing. Like, at all.
Also, before this happened, Steam reviews were still more positive than negative.
At no point has the side represented by you and Ashiel (amongst others) ever shown any indication of being the numerical majority.
Therefore, it is incorrect for her to talk about "the fanbase" as if all or a majority of them agree with her. They don't. You've even agreed as much in your post above:
"Point for both sides, neither are majority and neither and minority, that is why I stick to"a large chunk". Enough noise and posting and reviews have been placed everywhere to indicate a large amount, whether it's more or less we will never know."
So, while you may not agree with me that your side is a vocal minority, you are at least in agreement that Ashiel should stop talking as if "the fanbase" was insulted by what Amber Scott said. And that's the primary point here.
If you want to disagree about the vocal minority thing, that's cool, but there's a lot of things out there beyond this issue which is why I'm assuming the GG/anti-"SJW" side are a small but loud minority of gamers as a whole.
Still, that's a debate beyond the scope of this thread, so I'll cease using that descriptor unless it's directly relevant to the subject at hand.
-removed the beginning of this it served little purpose. Ashiel said "the fan base" it's a general term, no specifics were stated. It's more a neutral not right or wrong. Probably vague enough to be wrong in the way it was said.
You just said direct and simple answer when she replied about her name. That would = "I like the name better" that is direct and simple, as it should be.
By that standard, the answer all NPCs would give to questions is "Yes", "No", and "Because".
If someone asks why you got a car, and you say "I liked it better" when the reasons actually were "It gets better gas mileage than the other one I was looking at, and the seats were really comfortable when I tried it out", yes, you may have given a "direct and simple" answer (and it's not actually a lie), but you didn't really answer the question.
The funny thing is, Mizhena DOES give the answer you want: when you ask her why her name is strange, she gives a "direct and simple" answer that doesn't mention her transgenderism at all. It is only if charname isn't satisfied and asks for more detail that she gives a more detailed (but still short and straightforward) answer that reveals it (and only it; she doesn't talk about extraneous details like how and when she found out, if she magically transitioned, etc.).
So, that's exactly what you wanted, right? There's no problem, right?
Comments
If any part of myself felt strange I guarantee you My family and friends would do their utmost to help me. And being a cleric she has a temple to live in and food provided. It's easier in 2nd edition to additions after.
Another element that prompted gamergate backlash was when a handful of news sites posted "gamer as an identity is dead"-type articles, which upset a lot of people, and there were many accusations of collusion and other similar things.
As to whether these views are true or not I suggest researching and coming to your own conclusions. I have my own opinion but I don't think a debate over that would be appropriate on this forum.
2nd edition rule set its easy, of low-moderate(depending on how u do it) cost and death is not a factor. No risk.
However, secondly, this flaw has largely been mitigated by the ability to actually watch the game being played, view dialog options, and game content, through media forums such as Youtube and Twitch, allowing players to get a grasp of the contents of the game before they ever make that purchase. This setup is, interestingly, good for both the consumer and the developer for two different reasons.
1. If the game is good (and it should be) then the developer gets tons of free advertising and boosts to product awareness, attracting more people to the game.
2. It grants the consumer a way to decide whether or not they want to get a game, without forfeiting the only power they have in the arrangement. The consumer is in the most danger here in this current setup, because there's no guarantee. There's no 30 day warranty if you decide the game is crap. Steam only gives you about 2 hours from installation to decide if you want to refund the game, which anyone familiar with the genre knows will be scarcely past character creation.
Unfortunately, the only effective way to try before you forfeit your voice, is piracy.
The situation, unfortunately, isn't particularly helpful to either side at the moment.
GG wants goes to maintain gaming Lore over real world politics. A game should remain uncensored and unaltered. No real world politics in gaming.
Defensive, trying to protect games.
Sjw's are a mess there are Many different types/groups with different agendas, basically they want political equality whether it fits the Lore of the game or not.
Offensive, trying to alter games.
Example: removal of the tracer pose in overwatch was due to feminist sjw's, feminists seem to be the largest most vocal of the sjw groups.
= victory for feminist sjw's, the pose was removed.
Example: The witcher 3 huge outrage on how beautiful the main female characters are, apparently they don't accurately depict realistic females, also lack of racial variation, no black or Asian or Indian elfs/dwarfs/humans. Cd project red stuck completely to the Lore and source material.
=victory for GG, the game remained unaltered.
Both have done horrible things ultimately. But those are the sides.
But I'm glad cd project red told them to go screw themselves they are not changing it. http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/13/8533059/the-witcher-3-review-wild-hunt-PC-PS4-Xbox-one
Lowest review the witcher got from An sjw. Even tho they collected nearly every game of the year that exists. Minus 1-2 points on score because it stayed true to its Lore.
Online reactionaries are not "the fanbase". You and the people who agree with you are a small, vocal minority of gamers. That is it. That is all. You are not "the fanbase" of Baldur's Gate - AMBER SCOTT IS PART OF THE FANBASE OF BALDUR'S GATE.
And all of which are clearly untrue. Without offering any value judgement on the "sexist elements and characters" statements above, it is simply true that a "large portion of the fanbase" agree with them. But that is something that a lot of people prefer not to acknowledge. They want the narrative to be that evuuuuul SJWs who don't care about the games at all came in and ruined them for their sinister political agenda of not having games be entirely populated by white/cis/straight people.
So, as I said, I already called Ashiel on this before. She and the people who agree with her are not the "fanbase". They are a vocal minority. They are a vocal minority on Anita Sarkeesian, they are a vocal minority on Baldur's Gate, and they are a vocal minority in gaming in general. That by itself does not make them wrong, but it does mean she and they should stop pretending like they are anything but a minority.
And they should especially stop doing it in order to lie about Amber Scott. She didn't insult the fanbase. She said something that a small minority of the fanbase took as an insult. There is a very, very big difference between the two.
And in no way, shape or form is it going to be cheap by the income standard of the common person (as opposed to nobility or successful adventurers).
(Not that it matters in SoD's case, since we do not know whether Mizhena transitioned.)
And if he/she didn't transition why bother saying it? Just stick with "I made it up from stuff I love because I didn't like the one I was born with" my Pakistani mate' s name was Osama but he changed it to sami after 9/11, there is more to the story of why he changed it but it's irrelevant and I don't trust you.
See what I did there?
In fifteen minutes, I could produce enough actual evidence that suggests a rampant misandrist bent, whereas the evidence that vaccines cause autism seems to be missing. Is clitoris a euphemism for penis in this case? Do we also have our hanging ovaries too? Perhaps I seem cynical, but I don't see much point muddying our issues with incorrect wording. If we actually had things like a clitoris and ovaries, we wouldn't be trans in the first place, we'd simply be female (or for FtM, we'd simply be male since we didn't have ovaries and a vagina, but a penis and testicles).
As an aside, I really hope that medical science and perform some miracles (possibly with the cross technology of 3d printers, stem cells, and cloning research) and actually give some of a more authentic set of plumbing. As always, your mileage may vary. Oh boy, we get to talk crunch. This is my favorite part.
The economics in Baldur's Gate is highly questionable since there's money just lying all over the place and everything is traded in gold pieces, but in 3E/Pathfinder, the amount of money that you can make and the cost of living is much easier to compare.
In those systems, anyone with an average Wisdom or Intelligence and a single rank in their skill, taking 10 on their profession or craft checks earns 7 gp / week for their work (result/2=GP). Untrained hobos earn an average of 1sp/day. Whereas the average cost of living is about 10 gp / month (most people with a trade, even if the trade is simply barmaid), or 3 gp / month for a poor living (for all the ditch diggers and porters and such).
This means that your typical professional is banking at least 18 gp/month beyond living expenses and taxes or 218 gp / year in profits (total income is 336 gp/year but 120 gp goes to housing, food, taxes, and small luxury items). Remember, this is a single individual of unremarkable levels of skill (a simple commoner with 1 rank in a Craft or Profession). A family of commoners working together earns even more (if both parents have a trade, double the results).
Now a hat of disguise costs 1,800 gp brand new. It allows you to continuously affect yourself as per a disguise self spell which makes no physical alterations to your body but through an illusion gives you a whopping +10 bonus to your disguise by changing your outward appearance. It doesn't actually change your plumbing, but it makes it virtually impossible for normal people to notice you're anything but whatever you appear to be unless they're examining you really hard (like frisking), and most don't get a check to see through your disguise in the first place.
Now back to our nobody non-adventurer non-heroic classed commoner. It'd take about eight years to buy one of these items brand new, as a luxury item. Which means that if it were something you wanted, you could start at the age of 15 (the age of adulthood for non-heroic characters in D&D) and by the time you were 23, you'd have your magical item. If you wanted to wait until 25, you could actually buy an elixir that permanently changes you into your actual gender, complete with the ability to have babies and not be a bit embarrassed when a random dispel magic is tossed your way.
Again, this is assuming only a single person doing it all themselves and having no friends (such as clergy) who can craft the item at a discount. If you add in family members chipping in, or clerics or wizards sympathetic to your plight, you could acquire it sooner relative to the amount they wanted to pitch in or discount the purchase (the hat only requires 900 gp worth of materials to create, the elixir 1125 gp).
Meanwhile, in the US, the average cost of living for a single person with no dependents is around $28,474 / year; while working at $15/hour job for 40 hours / week earns $28,880. The cost of your typical sexual reassignment costs $20,000 over a two year span. In all honesty, barring special help programs or insurance programs, the D&D commoners have better options.
Especially since they also have the cheapo option of getting all most will need from a few mundane items (such as masterwork tools) to grant them a +2 bonus to their disguise checks, which means that with a single rank in Disguise (showing the commoner has practiced passing), means your average person will never notice in most social situations.
For the record, it was these mundane options that Victoria was using.
Sources
Gamemastering - Cost of Living
Profession - Income
Craft - Income
Disguise - Passing
Wondrous Items - Hat of Disguise
Wondrous Items - Elixir of Sex Shifting
Equipment - Masterwork tools and Disguise kits (they stack for +4)
USA - Cost of Living
Costs of Sexual Reassignment
Scroll up to sjw Vs GG how I explained it and pick your side.
What you call a small vocal minority needs a citation. Because from where I'm sitting it doesn't look like a small but vocal minority. There is a lot, and I mean a lot, of coverage on youtube, these forums, and the Steam forums, and what I've seen is pretty poor, even after the bannings. Friends I play BG with that don't even visit any of those forums also think it's stupid to change stuff about the game rather than adding new content. Don't twist my words, please. It's very, very clear that a lot of fans were upset by this. Unless you can prove that they were the minority, don't bother claiming it. I never said the majority of the fanbase, but telling the fanbase that the game they loved was sexist and that you were changing it and tough if they didn't like it, well...yeah, that's insulting the fanbase.
I'm not pretending anything. I'm talking about why this controversy has hit the fan.
But I'll issue a challenge In hopes of getting somewhere in this discussion, do you have a point or a rebuttal for the claims put forth by those who aren't happy about this, rather than arguing over semantics?
So which is it? Do you want to appeal to the authority of an abstracted majority [citation needed] or do you want to deny the homogenous character of an abstracted majority which includes differing opinions from yours?
Because I'm all for the latter position (especially given that gaming communities I'm a part of, online and off, cheer the kinds of stuff Amber Scott has said in interviews), but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If the latter position is true, and the gaming community/BG fanbase/what have you isn't a homogenous mass then how can Amber Scott have angered "the fanbase"? Don't you just mean "I was angered" and "other people were also angered"? Can you prove it's a "complaint of a majority of people" or "a common complaint"? How? Where do you pull these statistics from, I'd like to see you do what you demand of others before you demand it of them. Where are YOUR statistics to prove the commonality of complaints? By what margin are they common, how do you define common versus uncommon versus rare, those are vague terms, why don't you nail them down? Unless, of course, we're all just talking opinions here, which is what it seems like we are (except for you and people making arguments like yours, who keep trying to claim some kind of moral superiority via appeal to popular opinion without citation of its popularity, but we can all see it's just opinion when people do that which is why we're more honest about it and don't claim to be speaking for a "common" or "majority" opinion).
I guess it can be too difficult to turn a lens inward without assuming you have like-minded backup that agrees with what that lens sees, but it's weird how often it becomes "my backup is the gaming community, uncited, now please cite who agrees with you" in the arguments against SoD (and in particular the ones that center Amber Scott as having done some kind of wrong).
If you want detailed statistics and citations for things, but then assert stuff about gamers at large as if you have secret statistics somewhere showing the % of gamers who are "disappointed" or "offended" or what have you, it's utter hypocritical nonsense and I'm tired of seeing those arguments. Just say "this is my opinion" since we all already know that "the fanbase" or "the community" just mean "the fanbase of one" and "the community of me"
Either that or, in your own words, "Unless you can prove it, don't bother claiming it."
I'd say most fans are actually quite happy, and if you subtracted the reviews of people with less than 2 hours of time in-game, I'm sure that % of positive reviews would go up substantially, and that's on Steam, where the forums were among the most negative (again, forums of people commenting who often didn't even own the other BG titles which I guess counts as "the BG fanbase" to some people).
Also, I'm part of the fanbase. She didn't insult me. Many people here on the forum are clearly part of the fanbase and not insulted. Ergo, she did not insult the fanbase. She said something that a small minority of the fanbase took as an insult. On Steam, the portal where you actually have to own the game to review it, the majority of the reviews are and always have been positive. This is despite the fact that quite a few of the negative reviews were done after a very short time of playing the game (and thus likely involved buying the game, reviewing it and immediately returning it).
Even at the height of the review bombing, the small, vocal minority that agrees with you could barely manage to get 30% of the reviews negative.
Also, of course, mainstream coverage is completely at odds with the small, vocal minority that hate SoD for anti-"SJW" reasons. If you want to complain about how this proves mainstream gaming media bias and what-have-you, that's fine, but it's beside the point: it further proves how this side of the debate is not "the fanbase", but a small, vocal minority of the fanbase.
Just like you people who hate Anita Sarkeesian and think she's this and that bad thing are a small, vocal minority that is dwarfed 10 to 1 by the people who like her, let alone the people that don't have a strong opinion about her either way.
Pretending that you represent a vast silent majority that you clearly do not both implicitly denies the existence of the many people who disagree with you (I'm not insulted by this thing that "insulted the Baldur's Gate fanbase", so, what, I don't exist?), and betrays a lack of confidence in your own convictions. Are you only right if you believe that most people stand behind you? Anecdotal evidence is worthless. Everyone I talk to thinks Gamergate harasses women and doesn't care one whit about ethics in game journalism except as cover. Is that going to change your mind about them? No? Then what you see on youtube and what your friends say doesn't really matter, either. You're twisting your own words. You said she "insulted the fanbase". She did not. If you want to say "a lot of fans were upset by what she said", then you won't hear a peep out of me, because that is indeed true. But "a lot of fans" is not "all fans" or even "most fans". 1) I am not insulted.
2) I am part of the fanbase.
Therefore:
3) The fanbase is not insulted, and you are wrong. Stop saying things that are wrong.
Oh, and she said there were PARTS of the game that were sexist, which is not at all the same as "the game was sexist". Also, she's one of the people who loved the game. If you hate people twisting your words so much, stop doing it to her. What claims, specifically, are you referring to? There have been an enormous amount of claims by the vocal minority who are upset about this.
There is no Chance a conclusion can be drawn at all from reviews. And ayiekie has just filled out a whole post doing exactly what u said was bad lol.
Wow, what a concept, maybe you just proved that the complaints are a small, vocal minority!
I mean, I don't buy your argument. It's probably more the case that at first, the only people reviewing were people with less than 2 hours of gametime and the people who actually wanted to give a good review took longer to do so because they wanted to be fair instead of political so they actually, y'know, played the game extensively first, but your option is just as damning of the review bombers being a vocal minority as my theory so if I'm wrong and you're right it's the same conclusion!
She directly answered a direct question.
You would never, ever complain about any other NPC answering a simple question with a simple answer (even though they often do so with very personal information, and you often don't even need to ask), and neither would anyone else, were is not for the fact she is transgender.
There is no conceivable world where the most well-known NPC from SoD - known to many people who have not played or even bought the game - is a minor character who pops up in a couple of questlines and offers cleric healing services, except the one where she happens to be transgender.
You just said direct and simple answer when she replied about her name. That would = "I like the name better" that is direct and simple, as it should be. Your contradicting yourself also, but I do agree with you it should be direct and simple because the question was simple and direct.
Your correct. Neither side can claim to be the majority or minority or hint as to either one and be correct.
That is not exactly the same thing. Like, at all.
Also, before this happened, Steam reviews were still more positive than negative.
At no point has the side represented by you and Ashiel (amongst others) ever shown any indication of being the numerical majority.
Therefore, it is incorrect for her to talk about "the fanbase" as if all or a majority of them agree with her. They don't. You've even agreed as much in your post above:
"Point for both sides, neither are majority and neither and minority, that is why I stick to"a large chunk". Enough noise and posting and reviews have been placed everywhere to indicate a large amount, whether it's more or less we will never know."
So, while you may not agree with me that your side is a vocal minority, you are at least in agreement that Ashiel should stop talking as if "the fanbase" was insulted by what Amber Scott said. And that's the primary point here.
If you want to disagree about the vocal minority thing, that's cool, but there's a lot of things out there beyond this issue which is why I'm assuming the GG/anti-"SJW" side are a small but loud minority of gamers as a whole.
Still, that's a debate beyond the scope of this thread, so I'll cease using that descriptor unless it's directly relevant to the subject at hand.
Ashiel said "the fan base" it's a general term, no specifics were stated. It's more a neutral not right or wrong. Probably vague enough to be wrong in the way it was said.
If someone asks why you got a car, and you say "I liked it better" when the reasons actually were "It gets better gas mileage than the other one I was looking at, and the seats were really comfortable when I tried it out", yes, you may have given a "direct and simple" answer (and it's not actually a lie), but you didn't really answer the question.
The funny thing is, Mizhena DOES give the answer you want: when you ask her why her name is strange, she gives a "direct and simple" answer that doesn't mention her transgenderism at all. It is only if charname isn't satisfied and asks for more detail that she gives a more detailed (but still short and straightforward) answer that reveals it (and only it; she doesn't talk about extraneous details like how and when she found out, if she magically transitioned, etc.).
So, that's exactly what you wanted, right? There's no problem, right?