The whole 'crisis' stemmed through miscommunication and a PR problem, and should have been solved through PR. I don't see any of both sides caving in, since SWJ and GG are locked in a pissing contest even here at the forums it would seem, while members, mods and devs genuinely concerned about a beloved franchise see our collective dreams about greatness and future BG3 shattered. I really hope that Trent, Cameron, David Gaider, have enough pull in the industry to get past this with Beamdog relatively unscathed like Obsidian did. But Beamdog is not Obsidian and at this point, all they should really do is remove ammunition from their detractors by fixing the bugs and multiplayer.
... okay, I'm stumped. What other interpretations are there?
what does it mean in the first place? in the context of gamergate and all - why should some gg guy be upset?
"It's about ethics in journalism" is basically the slogan of Gamersgate. And they are mocking it.
Combine that with Amber Scotts admission that she's an SJW, and loves SJW things and can't wait to put SJW things into everything she does, it lends credence to the idea that GG'ers are presenting.
The idea that beamdog is trying to push a political agenda that doesn't belong in videogames.
Agree or disagree with GG'ers, you have to admit that there are a lot of them, and they are pissed.
I'm mad at Beamdog. They should have just stayed out of it. Now my beloved franchise is polarized.
... okay, I'm stumped. What other interpretations are there?
what does it mean in the first place? in the context of gamergate and all - why should some gg guy be upset?
"It's about ethics in journalism" is basically the slogan of Gamersgate. And they are mocking it.
Combine that with Amber Scotts admission that she's an SJW, and loves SJW things and can't wait to put SJW things into everything she does, it lends credence to the idea that GG'ers are presenting.
The idea that beamdog is trying to push a political agenda that doesn't belong in videogames.
Agree or disagree with GG'ers, you have to admit that there are a lot of them, and they are pissed.
I'm mad at Beamdog. They should have just stayed out of it. Now my beloved franchise is polarized.
Yet this all started because of an unethical journalist took something a female writer said out of context.
since SWJ and GG are locked in a pissing contest even here at the forums it would seem
Dude I had to look up what "SJW" stands for when people started posting all this nonsense this morning. There is no pissing contest between "SJW and GG" - there is just GG nutcases invading a peaceful message board and picking fights with friendly, sensible people.
Way to win people over to your cause, buddy.
Talk about PR misfires...
I'm not a GG'er, but I do think they have some valid points. SJW's do as well. You don't think GG'ers have any merit at all?
GG's and SJWS, at least the ones who are fighting, are just a bunch of whiny young pissants who spend so much time on the internet, they think that reality is affected by it. There are people who legitimately use both labels, but the majority of them are just people with nothing else to do but spout out half-baked versions of actual views and entrench themselves across forums. Sorry, I've just seen those people ruin a bunch of forums, and now I can't stand that they've been trying to turn this one into a battleground for their never ending pissing contest.
since SWJ and GG are locked in a pissing contest even here at the forums it would seem
Dude I had to look up what "SJW" stands for when people started posting all this nonsense this morning. There is no pissing contest between "SJW and GG" - there is just GG nutcases invading a peaceful message board and picking fights with friendly, sensible people.
Way to win people over to your cause, buddy.
Talk about PR misfires...
Thank you....I've heard about Gamergate forever, but was never exposed to them until the last two days. This site has a good reputation as being very friendly and I've even choose to end political discussions in the past in the off-topic section when I thought it was getting too heated to maintain the peaceful mood.
Then the Gamergate brigade broke through the front door, and I was exposed to acronyms I'd never heard before, and was dealt even more exposure to my least favorite term of all time, "regressive left". Fine, I'm a regressive leftist, you win. If I concede will they all go back to their echo chamber where I'm assuming all this crap comes from??
GG's and SJWS, at least the ones who are fighting, are just a bunch of whiny young pissants who spend so much time on the internet, they think that reality is affected by it. There are people who legitimately use both labels, but the majority of them are just people with nothing else to do but spout out half-baked versions of actual views and entrench themselves across forums. Sorry, I've just seen those people ruin a bunch of forums, and now I can't stand that they've been trying to turn this one into a battleground for their never ending pissing contest.
I agree completely. That's why I'm pissed at Beamdog for picking a side. Why couldn't they have just made a game?
GG's and SJWS, at least the ones who are fighting, are just a bunch of whiny young pissants who spend so much time on the internet, they think that reality is affected by it. There are people who legitimately use both labels, but the majority of them are just people with nothing else to do but spout out half-baked versions of actual views and entrench themselves across forums. Sorry, I've just seen those people ruin a bunch of forums, and now I can't stand that they've been trying to turn this one into a battleground for their never ending pissing contest.
I would prefer to never again have this conversation in my life. I didn't start my first day off from work yesterday hoping I could argue with a bunch of internet warriors about gender politics in a god damn Dungeons and Dragons game. They are just so insufferable and their victim complex is so massive that it's impossible not to respond to them.
I would prefer to never again have this conversation in my life. I didn't start my first day off from work yesterday hoping I could argue with a bunch of internet warriors about gender politics in a god damn Dungeons and Dragons game. They are just so insufferable and their victim complex is so massive that it's impossible not to respond to them.
Agreed, now I don't know about you, but I'm going to get on SoD right now and bash some creatures while blasting Murder Train.
I don't think that they need to remove anything regarding the trans character.
If they should remove something, it's just Minsc's line because it's directly poking a hornet's nest.
I'm unhappy about this launch because I love Baldur's Gate. The BG series have been my favourite games since BG1 launched in 1999. The idea of getting more content in this series was an incredibly pleasant surprise after all these years of feeling like the games industry inexplicably moved on from what I think was the best executed RPG ever (BG2).
But the launch has basically been derailed because of bad PR/Marketing. All of this stuff would have blown over with a generic PR marketing statement. I get that Amber and the other devs have their personal views and that's all great, but as a customer who wants more BG and more isometric DnD RPGs, I would have rather Beamdog just played it safe and stayed out of what is currently obviously a very contentious issue on the internet.
The game didn't need to directly reference modern day internet drama and Beamdog employees didn't need to pour fuel on the fire.
Sometimes you have to learn a thing or two from the giant corporations of the world about saying generic, banal things in interviews or on public spaces (forums, twitter).
... okay, I'm stumped. What other interpretations are there?
what does it mean in the first place? in the context of gamergate and all - why should some gg guy be upset?
"It's about ethics in journalism" is basically the slogan of Gamersgate. And they are mocking it.
doesn't have to be mocking. maybe it's a neutral homage to the spirit of the times y'know. maybe it's a pro-gg reference! some people have even thought that - who knows?
truly, it can be easily construed as a slight poke, not realy as "mocking", but it can also be construed to have other meanings or no meaning at all.
... this is in Off-Topic now? I disagree with that. I think it's very much a SoD topic, which belonged in the SoD section. Oh well, discussing forum moderation is never wise, so I'll just shush now :x
Minsc is a character that is beloved by pretty much everyone. On this very forum you've got people who oppose the whole GG controversy upset that Beamdog have turned Minsc into the Dudebro GG strawman, and those who support GG upset that one of their favourite characters is outright mocking what they believe to be legitimate issues which were brought up at the start of GG and then purposely buried in the harassment narrative.
I'm sure Beamdog meant well with this line, but it has backfired on them from both sides.
Feel free to watch this video by Liana Kerzner, who explains the reaction in further detail.
[...]
Thanks for the explanation. I ended up listening to the link. Liana says she has no opinion on the GG debate, so for her it was even being reminded of those "dark times". I'm an outsider, i don't understand how this could be so upsetting, but ok I take it on faith that it is upsetting.
So the question becomes, should a company remove content merely because its upsetting to some people? Obviously no. Its impossible when removing the content will be upsetting to other people. A faction to side with has to be chosen.
Like @bob_veng and others, suggested, it's unclear what the message was. Was minsc poking the GG people directly, or that the whole controversy itself is a joke? With the Amber Scott history, and that the fact that Minsc is a protector of women, I personally see it as in line for Minsc to be against Gamer Gaters and their alleged bully tactics and misogynistic views. Its also in character for him to be against internet wars, Swords, not words.
If you feel slighted by the Minsc line, you are on the opposite side of an issue as Beamdog. Thats a really shitty place to be put in by a trusted friend. I hear calls for redaction. Ok, maybe they should reconsider. But those who call for this should just as well consider that they are on the wrong side of the issue. Maybe you don't want to associate yourself with a hashtag that has so much baggage. Maybe you should take these internet warz less seriously.
Maybe beamdog should have stayed out of it, but for whatever reason they thought this was something important to say. I think redaction of this line in particular is a bad move. With the score of metacritic 0/10 reviews, it seems apparent that there is a real life smear campaign being waged against Beamdog. The behaviour is unethical and should be resisted.
TC must be kidding. I've been following the GG shitstorm since Aug 2014, and it's pretty much a lynch mob of cultural reactionaries throwing temper tantrums because the demographics of gaming changed and it's not a boy's club anymore. It says a lot when their attempted boycotts of Kotaku and various "SJW" websites failed miserably, with Intel realizing their mistakes and instead donated to encourage more women in the industry. Also it's very telling when the entire mainstream media took a glance at GG and ignored it for the storm in a teacup it is, and pretty much the only news website to give a damn about GG is Breitbart, a right-wing website notorious for its doctored videos. So much for "ethics in games journalism", when they are not even willing to apply the same standards to their side.
Beamdog need not to cave in to the demands of a minority of agitators. And what TC is demanding, even by GG's definitions, is censorship, and if the same standards are applied to the devs of Hatred or DOAX3, they would be screaming for blood.
Sorry, Tilly, you know I think highly of you but hell no on all of this.
1. GamerGaters have never, ever, in the history of their existence as a "movement", done anything to promote better representation of minorities in games. They don't organize workshops, they don't give talks at gay gamer events, they don't support Kickstarters for games like Read Only Memories or Sunset or Undertale (because those games are, of course, "Tumblr SJW Games"). This group is not interested in minorities beyond using them to promote their own positions.
2. It is absolutely possible to make Mizhena a deeper, more compelling character if that's something Amber and Andrew want to pursue. These changes should not be made as concessions to Internet bullies, especially since they'll just find another way to complain about her anyway.
3. I didn't think openly asking for reviews was a good idea, and said so. That said, it's done. And the counterbalance will be showing up as soon as people finish playing SoD anyway.
4. GamerGate is not interested in representation of minorities. Their narrative here, which has popped up again and again, is that Amber Scott is a SJW who pushed her agenda onto a classic game. Not a word about Andrew Foley - you know, the other lead writer - not a word about Chris Avellone's role as consultant, not a word about Phil Daigle who was promoting SoD right alongside Amber in those Twitch streams. But somehow it's all Amber's fault. Beamdog absolutely does not need to appease anyone who holds that view.
Comments
Combine that with Amber Scotts admission that she's an SJW, and loves SJW things and can't wait to put SJW things into everything she does, it lends credence to the idea that GG'ers are presenting.
The idea that beamdog is trying to push a political agenda that doesn't belong in videogames.
Agree or disagree with GG'ers, you have to admit that there are a lot of them, and they are pissed.
I'm mad at Beamdog. They should have just stayed out of it. Now my beloved franchise is polarized.
IRONY I tell you IRONY Crisis.
Beamdog should just focus on what they can control , there are too many hater in the internet , you can't find solutions to satisfy them forever
You don't think GG'ers have any merit at all?
I don't care, i'm too busy playing the game
Then the Gamergate brigade broke through the front door, and I was exposed to acronyms I'd never heard before, and was dealt even more exposure to my least favorite term of all time, "regressive left". Fine, I'm a regressive leftist, you win. If I concede will they all go back to their echo chamber where I'm assuming all this crap comes from??
If they should remove something, it's just Minsc's line because it's directly poking a hornet's nest.
I'm unhappy about this launch because I love Baldur's Gate. The BG series have been my favourite games since BG1 launched in 1999. The idea of getting more content in this series was an incredibly pleasant surprise after all these years of feeling like the games industry inexplicably moved on from what I think was the best executed RPG ever (BG2).
But the launch has basically been derailed because of bad PR/Marketing. All of this stuff would have blown over with a generic PR marketing statement. I get that Amber and the other devs have their personal views and that's all great, but as a customer who wants more BG and more isometric DnD RPGs, I would have rather Beamdog just played it safe and stayed out of what is currently obviously a very contentious issue on the internet.
The game didn't need to directly reference modern day internet drama and Beamdog employees didn't need to pour fuel on the fire.
Sometimes you have to learn a thing or two from the giant corporations of the world about saying generic, banal things in interviews or on public spaces (forums, twitter).
truly, it can be easily construed as a slight poke, not realy as "mocking", but it can also be construed to have other meanings or no meaning at all.
So the question becomes, should a company remove content merely because its upsetting to some people? Obviously no. Its impossible when removing the content will be upsetting to other people. A faction to side with has to be chosen.
Like @bob_veng and others, suggested, it's unclear what the message was. Was minsc poking the GG people directly, or that the whole controversy itself is a joke? With the Amber Scott history, and that the fact that Minsc is a protector of women, I personally see it as in line for Minsc to be against Gamer Gaters and their alleged bully tactics and misogynistic views. Its also in character for him to be against internet wars, Swords, not words.
If you feel slighted by the Minsc line, you are on the opposite side of an issue as Beamdog. Thats a really shitty place to be put in by a trusted friend. I hear calls for redaction. Ok, maybe they should reconsider. But those who call for this should just as well consider that they are on the wrong side of the issue. Maybe you don't want to associate yourself with a hashtag that has so much baggage. Maybe you should take these internet warz less seriously.
Maybe beamdog should have stayed out of it, but for whatever reason they thought this was something important to say. I think redaction of this line in particular is a bad move. With the score of metacritic 0/10 reviews, it seems apparent that there is a real life smear campaign being waged against Beamdog. The behaviour is unethical and should be resisted.
Nothing more needs to be said
Beamdog need not to cave in to the demands of a minority of agitators. And what TC is demanding, even by GG's definitions, is censorship, and if the same standards are applied to the devs of Hatred or DOAX3, they would be screaming for blood.