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?
Not at all, I don't want the only interesting thing about the transsexual to be that he/she is a transsexual. I don't want him/her to be a token character that even myself refer to her as the transsexual character. And don't argue she's a cleric there are many dozens of clerics in the game they are not interesting. This all kicked up because A. Token character(as I explained) B. You don't get a characters sexual preferance/preference of gender straight off the bat from anyone in game, and when u do eventually get it. It either takes time or a character stat check and C. The majority of interesting characters you have evil choices to interact with them. Here transsexual the only thing making them interesting you can't be evil to.
I find that to be a good basic summary of the character.
Not at all, I don't want the only interesting thing about the transsexual to be that he/she is a transsexual. I don't want him/her to be a token character that even myself refer to her as the transsexual character.
Hexxat was called "the lesbian vampire" all the time. It doesn't matter WHAT Mizhena was - she was going to be "the transsexual character" to the sort of people who were going to put massive barriers to her "acceptability" in the game that have never existed for any other NPC.
Everything else you point out has been rebutted again, and again, and again. Oh, and you get tons of sexual preferences right off the bat from characters in all of the BG games - straight characters. For instance, it's the only first thing you find out about Safana.
The fact still remains that everything comes down to the fact you and others think there has to be a reason for a trans character to exist in the game. They can't just be like everyone else.
I don't want any humans to exist in the game unless there are good reason for their existence. I want to know why they HAD to be humans. And there better be a lot of dialogue before they reveal to me they are actually humans as opposed to deformed elves. Otherwise it's just human tokenism! Also, I should have dialogue choices to be racist to all of them. Every one. Otherwise it's just evidence of a clear pro-human agenda on Beamdog's part, shoving humans down my throat! It's not that I have any issue with humans, I just want the freedom to role-play as I see fit without humans damaging my immersion.
Not at all, I don't want the only interesting thing about the transsexual to be that he/she is a transsexual. I don't want him/her to be a token character that even myself refer to her as the transsexual character.
Hexxat was called "the lesbian vampire" all the time. It doesn't matter WHAT Mizhena was - she was going to be "the transsexual character" to the sort of people who were going to put massive barriers to her "acceptability" in the game that have never existed for any other NPC.
Everything else you point out has been rebutted again, and again, and again. Oh, and you get tons of sexual preferences right off the bat from characters in all of the BG games - straight characters. For instance, it's the only first thing you find out about Safana.
The fact still remains that everything comes down to the fact you and others think there has to be a reason for a trans character to exist in the game. They can't just be like everyone else.
I don't want any humans to exist in the game unless there are good reason for their existence. I want to know why they HAD to be humans. And there better be a lot of dialogue before they reveal to me they are actually humans as opposed to deformed elves. Otherwise it's just human tokenism! Also, I should have dialogue choices to be racist to all of them. Every one. Otherwise it's just evidence of a clear pro-human agenda on Beamdog's part, shoving humans down my throat! It's not that I have any issue with humans, I just want the freedom to role-play as I see fit without humans damaging my immersion.
If it's been rebutted over and over again why is it changing? Why did the devs come out and admit the character was underdeveloped and would be sorted soon? That part and the minsc part are changing eliminating most of the sjw Agenda put into it. Now it's just the bizarre safana and jaheira that for a few hours go completely out of character then back into character breaking immersion.
Since your so into immersion I would think completely changing characters personalities for a small expansion would be a biggy.
As someone into immersion, I just want to say this about BG2:
They added depth to the portrayal of Jaheira in BG2, and it added to my immersion. They added depth to the portrayal of Imoen in BG2, and it added to my immersion. They added depth to the portrayal of Edwin in BG2, and it added to my immersion. They added depth to the portrayal of Viconia in BG2, and it added to my immersion. They even added a tiny bit more depth to their portrayal of Minsc in BG2...and it added to my immersion!
So guess what? When a character as one dimensional as Safana gets depth added to her portrayal in SoD...it adds to my immersion! When Khalid, who is a one-note stutter/anxiety machine in BG1, has depth added to him in SoD, and it ties into and interweaves with depth added to Jaheira and explores their relationship and history further...wow, it adds to my immersion!!
As someone into immersion, I just want to say this about BG2:
They added depth to the portrayal of Jaheira in BG2, and it added to my immersion. They added depth to the portrayal of Imoen in BG2, and it added to my immersion. They added depth to the portrayal of Edwin in BG2, and it added to my immersion. They added depth to the portrayal of Viconia in BG2, and it added to my immersion. They even added a tiny bit more depth to their portrayal of Minsc in BG2...and it added to my immersion!
So guess what? When a character as one dimensional as Safana gets depth added to her portrayal in SoD...it adds to my immersion! When Khalid, who is a one-note stutter/anxiety machine in BG1, has depth added to him in SoD, and it ties into and interweaves with depth added to Jaheira and explores their relationship and history further...wow, it adds to my immersion!!
I think we have a differing opinion of immersion. My thought behind immersion are based on remaining in the world, anything that sticks out from that world is immersion breaking(like personality swaps). If Something randomly happens that is not fluid, that breaks immersion.
Your definition of immersion is getting information, I call that being an RPG. Pillars of eternity has info dumps that break immersion, so I could say information does not mean immersion.
And we also have differing opinions on what the additions to Safana and Jaheira's characterizations are, you consider it a personality swap, I consider it an elaboration on what went before grounded in existing BG1 lines, scant as they were. It added complexity without taking away from who they were previously (and in Jaheira's case, SoD content was in line with the expansion on her character from BG2 as well, so it's consistent with both games in my opinion).
So it doesn't break my immersion precisely because it feels like a very natural elaboration on established content from BG1 and 2. In Safana's case, she actually immediately tries to take over the group and claims it needs better leadership and drops the sultry act as soon as you choose the option to allow her into the party after her intro quest in BG1, so the SoD elaboration on that "use and abuse" aspect of her is perfectly canon and in-line with BG1. There's only so many places you can go with a one-note depiction, and they do hit that note in SoD as well, they just choose to elaborate on one of the few other notes from BG1 to flesh her out in a way consistent with BG1 content.
And if info-dumps break your immersion, lots of BG1 and BG2 must have broken your immersion since they did that quite often, and in fact some of them are unavoidable like the ones from Elminster (and those moments are, at least among fans I know, considered great moments of the game).
Like, I don't get people saying they love the original games and then accusing SoD of something the originals were way guiltier of. It's almost like people forget what happens in the original games and they fill in some imaginary version of what happened in them...or they didn't play them all the way through or something, who knows!
Me personally? I love that SoD stays true to the infodump legacy of BG1 and 2, and I'm kinda glad they tone it down a bit for the most part even though I do love that aspect of the originals.
And we also have differing opinions on what the additions to Safana and Jaheira's characterizations are, you consider it a personality swap, I consider it an elaboration on what went before grounded in existing BG1 lines, scant as they were. It added complexity without taking away from who they were previously (and in Jaheira's case, SoD content was in line with the expansion on her character from BG2 as well, so it's consistent with both games in my opinion).
So it doesn't break my immersion precisely because it feels like a very natural elaboration on established content from BG1 and 2. In Safana's case, she actually immediately tries to take over the group and claims it needs better leadership and drops the sultry act as soon as you choose the option to allow her into the party after her intro quest in BG1, so the SoD elaboration on that "use and abuse" aspect of her is perfectly canon and in-line with BG1. There's only so many places you can go with a one-note depiction, and they do hit that note in SoD as well, they just choose to elaborate on one of the few other notes from BG1 to flesh her out in a way consistent with BG1 content.
And if info-dumps break your immersion, lots of BG1 and BG2 must have broken your immersion since they did that quite often, and in fact some of them are unavoidable like the ones from Elminster (and those moments are, at least among fans I know, considered great moments of the game).
No bg has nothing close to the pillar info dumps, get the biggest of both and match them up. He'll I would bet that the info dumps on pillars are atleast double the size and far more frequent. Bg being far longer of a game has not even a handful of half screen info dumps if any that big.
If it's all so cannon why are so many complaining about it? He'll iv read reviews And seen actual threads made on Jaheira alone and how weird she feels going from bg1 to SoD to bg2 not many have talked about safana tho but personally I barely used her. Does Jaheira nag at you and treat you motherly/be your conscience in sod?
The reason so many are complaining about it is because they claim to be BG fans but either never played or don't remember playing BG and/or they parrot what other people who never played BG/don't remember playing BG accurately are loudly trumpeting about in a way that's, frankly, pretty embarrassing to read as someone who is currently on a playthrough of BG1 and can plainly see how wrong they are.
Like, I don't get people saying they love the original games and then accusing SoD of something the originals were way guiltier of. It's almost like people forget what happens in the original games and they fill in some imaginary version of what happened in them...or they didn't play them all the way through or something, who knows!
I remember the writer working on the (pretty great) Jem comic making a comment something to the effect of: "What was really hard wasn't just trying to match how good the original was, but trying to match how good people remembered it being."
Like, I don't get people saying they love the original games and then accusing SoD of something the originals were way guiltier of. It's almost like people forget what happens in the original games and they fill in some imaginary version of what happened in them...or they didn't play them all the way through or something, who knows!
I remember the writer working on the (pretty great) Jem comic making a comment something to the effect of: "What was really hard wasn't just trying to match how good the original was, but trying to match how good people remembered it being."
Yeah, I think this is a big part of the problem. People misremember their preferences of today existing in the game of yesterday, and SoD tried to be faithful to the actual game of yesterday rather than the misremembered preferences. That's the most charitable view, anyway. I tend to think a lot of them never played the game and just wanted to complain about "SJW politics" because they want to shove a political agenda down actual BG fans' throats, but the charitable view is probably true of some of them.
If it's all so cannon why are so many complaining about it?
Some people legitimately think that SoD Jaheira and Safana aren't compatible with their counterparts in the original games, to greater or lesser degrees.
Some people are spoiling for any fight because they have marked Amber Scott as an enemy (despite her not actually being the lead writer) due to some comments taken out of context and are thus zeroing in on Safana and Jaheira because she mentioned them (notice how there's no discussions about anybody else? Apparently every other original game NPC was perfect!).
And some people don't think there's any problem with either or both of them.
It is not really a stretch to point out that tone and keywords (like "SJW", "Amber Scott", "agenda", also pointing out Mizhena) of most of the people complaining about Jaheira and Safana marks them as being in the second category.
Which isn't to say there may not be some issue with them. Or with Jaheira anyways; I've already said my piece on Safana. Only way to tell is to play with an open mind and decide for yourself.
If it's all so cannon why are so many complaining about it?
Some people legitimately think that SoD Jaheira and Safana aren't compatible with their counterparts in the original games, to greater or lesser degrees.
Some people are spoiling for any fight because they have marked Amber Scott as an enemy (despite her not actually being the lead writer) due to some comments taken out of context and are thus zeroing in on Safana and Jaheira because she mentioned them (notice how there's no discussions about anybody else? Apparently every other original game NPC was perfect!).
And some people don't think there's any problem with either or both of them.
It is not really a stretch to point out that tone and keywords (like "SJW", "Amber Scott", "agenda", also pointing out Mizhena) of most of the people complaining about Jaheira and Safana marks them as being in the second category.
Which isn't to say there may not be some issue with them. Or with Jaheira anyways; I've already said my piece on Safana. Only way to tell is to play with an open mind and decide for yourself.
Iv never heard anyone say all the characters are perfect, each has their own quirks. Males are probably More hard off then females tho. Atleast females get Imoen who is basically a normal person. Keldorn is the only male I can think of that does not have some sort of severe character defect, tho it's mainly because he is old.
Actually I played through the entire thing a month ago prepping for this.
By 'this' do you mean the game or the controversy?
The controversy hasn't been around anything close to a month, why would the controversy even enter your head a month ago?
Because this might have been a planned take down. Were people in your community alerted that there could be 'sjw' content in the forthcoming game?
No this all kicked up a few days after release once people had played the content. not on the release day. There is no indication it was planned, tho there was indication sjw content would be injected into it. No one knew how much tho.
.... not everything has to be politically correct. BGLOVER is the same straight to insults.
I'm not insulting you Mephiston87.
I pointed out that something you said was incorrect.
You replied that I had taken what you said out of context.
I explained that I hadn't, and that what you had said was indeed incorrect, and that by saying it you were misrepresenting what had happened and being disingenuous.
You replied that I 'endlessly' repeat the same things, and that I don't have good points and that I basically call 'people dishonest, liars and endlessly word picking. That seems to be your entire argument'.
I decided that there was nothing positive to be gained from saying anything else and so didn't post again.
And then later on, you decide to have another go and say 'BGLOVER is the same straight to insults'.
Perhaps we can just share a hug and leave it at that?
@GenderNihilismGirdle Point taken. Although you might be surprised what you can get from asking a question -- even from someone who will inevitably answer in the voice of their online persona.
And I am glad this thread has been allowed to continue as long as it has. I have a much better sense of GG now. I think they really do believe that they are a force preventing the realization of a misandrist, drow-like society. It's been both eye opening and saddening.
The narrative 'fans were unhappy with the product' is a powerful one ; the narrative 'group fears that misandrist forces are gaining ground' less so.
And thanks @Mephiston87 for answering the question.
@GenderNihilismGirdle Point taken. Although you might be surprised what you can get from asking a question -- even from someone who will inevitably answer in the voice of their online persona.
And I am glad this thread has been allowed to continue as long as it has. I have a much better sense of GG now. I think they really do believe that they are a force preventing the realization of a misandrist, drow-like society. It's been both eye opening and saddening.
The narrative 'fans were unhappy with the product' is a powerful one ; the narrative 'group fears that misandrist forces are gaining ground' less so.
And thanks @Mephiston87 for answering the question.
No worries mate, in all truth when I knew there would be hints of sjw stuff in the game I thought it was going to be like the usual stuff. Yeh sure maybe some more racial variety, ultimately I took offence to minsc becoming sjw+jaheira Changing+token transsexual. I originally thought sod would be like the enhanced editions. a new story fitted in with some polish maybe a few new characters and everything remains as is and I believe a decent portion of gamers thought the same.
I drew battle lines at how the token transsexual, changing minsc+jaheira my favourite character was implemented.
Minsc is too dumb to know about ethics that is why I love him.
@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?
I've been going through the thread using the find-tool to try to determine what you're talking about.
I never mentioned gaming culture until the 10th page of this thread, in any context other than talking about how it is one of the most diverse and accepting of cultures, and the 10th page was only when I said Anita Sarkeesian, due to being a fraud, has not contributed anything to the gaming culture; making a total of 3 references to gaming culture through 10 pages (2 talking about it being good, 1 talking about a person's contribution to that culture).
On the 12th page, I said I didn't want transgendered people to be lumped into the ranks of groups that have been unfriendly gaming culture. On page 13, I once again noted that gaming culture was very diverse and accepting (noting that I've met more fellow transgendered people through gaming than any other way). On the 14th page, I said I didn't identify as a GGer, but I did think that ethics in gaming journalism (and most journalism) was indeed crap. On the 16th page, I said I rarely found a review in a gaming magazine that steered me wrong (contrasting to today). We are now on the 17th page.
I have said nothing about the gaming community's opinions of SJWs. Not. One. Damned. Thing. Nor have I claimed, not once, to speak for all of the members of any group I belong to. I haven't said much about GamerGate either, nor have I asked anyone to not lump me in with them, nor claimed my critiques were more refined.
So, there has been no appeal to authority, but you do have a straw man fallacy on your hands.
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"?
Because there are many fans that have been angered. Simple enough. I didn't say that she angered all the fans, nor most of the fans, nor a minority of fans but that she angered fans. Which is true. No one has exact figures currently, but it is clear that there are quite a lot of people upset (if it were in fact an insignificant amount of blowhards, I strongly doubt Beamdog would have reacted as they have), but I never claimed a majority. Nor did I rule out a minority.
You explicitly claimed a minority, for which I asked for the burden of proof because saying that she only pissed off a minority of fans is no better than someone saying she pissed off a majority of fans.
Can you prove it's a "complaint of a majority of people"
Since I didn't claim that, I don't see why I should prove that. You made a claim of minority however, so as the one making the claim, the onus of proof is on you. My claim is provable by simply demonstrating how much backlash has come from people who are fans of the game, but I cannot tell you the exact % of fans pissed off, or even the exact % of fans aware of the situation.
or "a common complaint"?
That I can certainly prove. As TrentOster noted:
"We’ve received feedback around Mizhena, a supporting character who reveals she is transgender. In retrospect, it would have been better served if we had introduced a transgender character with more development. This is a lesson we will be carrying forward in our development as creators and we will be improving this character in a future update.
The last few days have showed us how passionately many of our fans care for our games. We've had a lot of great feedback from players who love the expansion and are having a great time experiencing the first new Baldur's Gate story in 15 years. While we appreciate all feedback we receive from our fans, both positive as well as negative,..." - Source.
I can get more evidence of common complaints if you'd like.
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.
There ya go!
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).
*"One straw man, two straw men, knocking on your door, three straw men, four straw men, how to straw more!?" - *Sings*
I'm still holding myself to a higher standard. I've also spent all day at work turning the lens inward. It has been...troubling to say the least, but no less emboldening. Perhaps moreso, for new reasons.
Either that or, in your own words, "Unless you can prove it, don't bother claiming it."
Proved everything claimed, and verified much of your post/claims was utter chicken fluff. Honesty really does seem the best policy, hm?
Oh, and just so we're clear on the whole insult thing...
insult [verb in-suhlt; noun in-suhlt] verb (used with object) 1. to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront. 2. to affect as an affront; offend or demean.
fan [fan] noun 1. an enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport, pastime, celebrity, etc.:
While you, individually, may have been unoffended, that doesn't mean that the insult did not happen. Merely, you were not offended by the insult. She did, in fact, disparage the game, for which many of us are enthusiastic devotees, followers, or admirers of.
Generally speaking, it is only natural for people to be offended when something that they enjoy is insulted, especially when it is insulted on moral or ethical grounds, as that strongly implies moral or ethical approval of the fanbase. The insult is even more likely to be offensive when it is unsubstantiated.
While you, may have been unoffended, the insult was quite clearly placed and I'd dare say unsubstantiated.
There's been an awful lot of dodging, dancing around, and circular arguments in the last few pages, so let's cut to the chase:
1. You call Mizhena a "token," a term which is belied by the fact that she has more content than any other side NPC in the game. Either you want her removed or you want to hold her to a different standard than all other NPCs by requiring layers of nuance and obfuscation unheard of for side characters in the BG series.
2. You complain about changes to Jaheira (probably my favorite character in the entire series) but I haven't seen any concrete examples (if I missed any in the 16 pages of muck behind me, please repost). Do you have any? Maybe a quote or a line you didn't like? Because I've played through SoD twice and I don't know what in the hell you're talking about.
3. The Minsc line was a tongue in cheek Easter egg, FFS. It's not *meant* to be in character. That said, it was removed in yesterday's patch due to hurting gamergate's fragile feelings - you're complaining about something that is no longer in the game. It's over.
This has been going on for 16 days. If you still have something to argue about that hasn't already been stated and debunked a hundred times on these forums, let's cut to the meat of it so we can move on.
(Funny how people say the Amber Scott interview is "insulting" and it's an issue but in the same time talking about other people by saying they are evil is not at all a problem)
(Funny how people say the Amber Scott interview is "insulting" and it's an issue but in the same time talking about other people by saying they are evil is not at all a problem)
"There are a lot of people being dismissive in the thread too (I won't name any names), but I hope that it stops and we can actually talk without having people trying to tell each other how evil each other are." - Ashiel
That said, Mephistan defined his view of what was evil, so while I didn't approve of it, I understood what he was saying, so I didn't challenge it a whole lot, since he clarified that he was talking about the nature of forcing things on others. I wasn't fine with the word used, but its use was clarified, and in that clarified context, I couldn't actually disagree because I had no ground to stand on.
EDIT: Likewise, seeing someone insult someone out of indignant anger is more understandable than shots fired without provocation. As such, my forgiveness is easier.
EDIT 2: Further, let's not be deceptive. The point was why some fans were upset. Not whether or not Amber Scott's insult was in some way in question as far as moral position is concerned.
EDIT 3: This actually is something that's bugging me. Instead of actually bring points to the head, there are a few posters being passive aggressive and trying to make implications by twisting the subject, because they apparently cannot deal with a point rather than attempt to defame it.
The real crime is that there is a female cleric of Tempus who is not Branwen. Of all of the BG1 NPCs, Branwen was one of the most legit. Besides, we could have discovered that she was actually Tranwen all along.
The real crime is that there is a female cleric of Tempus who is not Branwen. Of all of the BG1 NPCs, Branwen was one of the most legit. Besides, we could have discovered that she was actually Tranwen all along.
Branwen never gets enough love. Cool idea, though. Branwen being a transgendered character would have worked well.
Comments
A. Token character(as I explained)
B. You don't get a characters sexual preferance/preference of gender straight off the bat from anyone in game, and when u do eventually get it. It either takes time or a character stat check and
C. The majority of interesting characters you have evil choices to interact with them. Here transsexual the only thing making them interesting you can't be evil to.
I find that to be a good basic summary of the character.
Everything else you point out has been rebutted again, and again, and again. Oh, and you get tons of sexual preferences right off the bat from characters in all of the BG games - straight characters. For instance, it's the
onlyfirst thing you find out about Safana.The fact still remains that everything comes down to the fact you and others think there has to be a reason for a trans character to exist in the game. They can't just be like everyone else.
I don't want any humans to exist in the game unless there are good reason for their existence. I want to know why they HAD to be humans. And there better be a lot of dialogue before they reveal to me they are actually humans as opposed to deformed elves. Otherwise it's just human tokenism! Also, I should have dialogue choices to be racist to all of them. Every one. Otherwise it's just evidence of a clear pro-human agenda on Beamdog's part, shoving humans down my throat! It's not that I have any issue with humans, I just want the freedom to role-play as I see fit without humans damaging my immersion.
Since your so into immersion I would think completely changing characters personalities for a small expansion would be a biggy.
They added depth to the portrayal of Jaheira in BG2, and it added to my immersion. They added depth to the portrayal of Imoen in BG2, and it added to my immersion. They added depth to the portrayal of Edwin in BG2, and it added to my immersion. They added depth to the portrayal of Viconia in BG2, and it added to my immersion. They even added a tiny bit more depth to their portrayal of Minsc in BG2...and it added to my immersion!
So guess what? When a character as one dimensional as Safana gets depth added to her portrayal in SoD...it adds to my immersion! When Khalid, who is a one-note stutter/anxiety machine in BG1, has depth added to him in SoD, and it ties into and interweaves with depth added to Jaheira and explores their relationship and history further...wow, it adds to my immersion!!
Your definition of immersion is getting information, I call that being an RPG. Pillars of eternity has info dumps that break immersion, so I could say information does not mean immersion.
So it doesn't break my immersion precisely because it feels like a very natural elaboration on established content from BG1 and 2. In Safana's case, she actually immediately tries to take over the group and claims it needs better leadership and drops the sultry act as soon as you choose the option to allow her into the party after her intro quest in BG1, so the SoD elaboration on that "use and abuse" aspect of her is perfectly canon and in-line with BG1. There's only so many places you can go with a one-note depiction, and they do hit that note in SoD as well, they just choose to elaborate on one of the few other notes from BG1 to flesh her out in a way consistent with BG1 content.
And if info-dumps break your immersion, lots of BG1 and BG2 must have broken your immersion since they did that quite often, and in fact some of them are unavoidable like the ones from Elminster (and those moments are, at least among fans I know, considered great moments of the game).
Me personally? I love that SoD stays true to the infodump legacy of BG1 and 2, and I'm kinda glad they tone it down a bit for the most part even though I do love that aspect of the originals.
If it's all so cannon why are so many complaining about it? He'll iv read reviews And seen actual threads made on Jaheira alone and how weird she feels going from bg1 to SoD to bg2 not many have talked about safana tho but personally I barely used her. Does Jaheira nag at you and treat you motherly/be your conscience in sod?
Some people are spoiling for any fight because they have marked Amber Scott as an enemy (despite her not actually being the lead writer) due to some comments taken out of context and are thus zeroing in on Safana and Jaheira because she mentioned them (notice how there's no discussions about anybody else? Apparently every other original game NPC was perfect!).
And some people don't think there's any problem with either or both of them.
It is not really a stretch to point out that tone and keywords (like "SJW", "Amber Scott", "agenda", also pointing out Mizhena) of most of the people complaining about Jaheira and Safana marks them as being in the second category.
Which isn't to say there may not be some issue with them. Or with Jaheira anyways; I've already said my piece on Safana. Only way to tell is to play with an open mind and decide for yourself.
I pointed out that something you said was incorrect.
You replied that I had taken what you said out of context.
I explained that I hadn't, and that what you had said was indeed incorrect, and that by saying it you were misrepresenting what had happened and being disingenuous.
You replied that I 'endlessly' repeat the same things, and that I don't have good points and that I basically call 'people dishonest, liars and endlessly word picking. That seems to be your entire argument'.
I decided that there was nothing positive to be gained from saying anything else and so didn't post again.
And then later on, you decide to have another go and say 'BGLOVER is the same straight to insults'.
Perhaps we can just share a hug and leave it at that?
And I am glad this thread has been allowed to continue as long as it has. I have a much better sense of GG now. I think they really do believe that they are a force preventing the realization of a misandrist, drow-like society. It's been both eye opening and saddening.
The narrative 'fans were unhappy with the product' is a powerful one ; the narrative 'group fears that misandrist forces are gaining ground' less so.
And thanks @Mephiston87 for answering the question.
I drew battle lines at how the token transsexual, changing minsc+jaheira my favourite character was implemented.
Minsc is too dumb to know about ethics that is why I love him.
I never mentioned gaming culture until the 10th page of this thread, in any context other than talking about how it is one of the most diverse and accepting of cultures, and the 10th page was only when I said Anita Sarkeesian, due to being a fraud, has not contributed anything to the gaming culture; making a total of 3 references to gaming culture through 10 pages (2 talking about it being good, 1 talking about a person's contribution to that culture).
On the 12th page, I said I didn't want transgendered people to be lumped into the ranks of groups that have been unfriendly gaming culture. On page 13, I once again noted that gaming culture was very diverse and accepting (noting that I've met more fellow transgendered people through gaming than any other way). On the 14th page, I said I didn't identify as a GGer, but I did think that ethics in gaming journalism (and most journalism) was indeed crap. On the 16th page, I said I rarely found a review in a gaming magazine that steered me wrong (contrasting to today). We are now on the 17th page.
I have said nothing about the gaming community's opinions of SJWs. Not. One. Damned. Thing.
Nor have I claimed, not once, to speak for all of the members of any group I belong to. I haven't said much about GamerGate either, nor have I asked anyone to not lump me in with them, nor claimed my critiques were more refined.
So, there has been no appeal to authority, but you do have a straw man fallacy on your hands.
Because there are many fans that have been angered. Simple enough. I didn't say that she angered all the fans, nor most of the fans, nor a minority of fans but that she angered fans. Which is true. No one has exact figures currently, but it is clear that there are quite a lot of people upset (if it were in fact an insignificant amount of blowhards, I strongly doubt Beamdog would have reacted as they have), but I never claimed a majority. Nor did I rule out a minority.
You explicitly claimed a minority, for which I asked for the burden of proof because saying that she only pissed off a minority of fans is no better than someone saying she pissed off a majority of fans. Since I didn't claim that, I don't see why I should prove that. You made a claim of minority however, so as the one making the claim, the onus of proof is on you. My claim is provable by simply demonstrating how much backlash has come from people who are fans of the game, but I cannot tell you the exact % of fans pissed off, or even the exact % of fans aware of the situation. That I can certainly prove. As TrentOster noted: I can get more evidence of common complaints if you'd like.
I'm still holding myself to a higher standard. I've also spent all day at work turning the lens inward. It has been...troubling to say the least, but no less emboldening. Perhaps moreso, for new reasons. Proved everything claimed, and verified much of your post/claims was utter chicken fluff. Honesty really does seem the best policy, hm?
Generally speaking, it is only natural for people to be offended when something that they enjoy is insulted, especially when it is insulted on moral or ethical grounds, as that strongly implies moral or ethical approval of the fanbase. The insult is even more likely to be offensive when it is unsubstantiated.
While you, may have been unoffended, the insult was quite clearly placed and I'd dare say unsubstantiated.
There's been an awful lot of dodging, dancing around, and circular arguments in the last few pages, so let's cut to the chase:
1. You call Mizhena a "token," a term which is belied by the fact that she has more content than any other side NPC in the game. Either you want her removed or you want to hold her to a different standard than all other NPCs by requiring layers of nuance and obfuscation unheard of for side characters in the BG series.
2. You complain about changes to Jaheira (probably my favorite character in the entire series) but I haven't seen any concrete examples (if I missed any in the 16 pages of muck behind me, please repost). Do you have any? Maybe a quote or a line you didn't like? Because I've played through SoD twice and I don't know what in the hell you're talking about.
3. The Minsc line was a tongue in cheek Easter egg, FFS. It's not *meant* to be in character. That said, it was removed in yesterday's patch due to hurting gamergate's fragile feelings - you're complaining about something that is no longer in the game. It's over.
This has been going on for 16 days. If you still have something to argue about that hasn't already been stated and debunked a hundred times on these forums, let's cut to the meat of it so we can move on.
EDIT: Likewise, seeing someone insult someone out of indignant anger is more understandable than shots fired without provocation. As such, my forgiveness is easier.
EDIT 2: Further, let's not be deceptive. The point was why some fans were upset. Not whether or not Amber Scott's insult was in some way in question as far as moral position is concerned.
EDIT 3: This actually is something that's bugging me. Instead of actually bring points to the head, there are a few posters being passive aggressive and trying to make implications by twisting the subject, because they apparently cannot deal with a point rather than attempt to defame it.