Reactionary Gamers.
loganultima
Member Posts: 109
Is it wrong to criticize a game for featuring one line of politically correct text in 50 hours of content?
The games before 2007 have had little to no 'politically correct' influence. Games used to be all about the story and the gameplay and about having fun.
This is one reason why old games are still better than "modern" ones.
The development of Siege of Dragonspear jumped on the bandwagon of the social justice warriors (they wanted to please this part of the community with a minor "easter egg" ) and got tanked by user reviews. For a good reason. Why ruin a great game with crap that you know breaks immersion and pisses off gamers? I've been browsing the forums on this issue and before you flood the post with "intolerant bigot" I want to attach this picture of a guy's reply to such a reaction.
Yes, it is a single line in 50 hour of game content. Surprised that the community reacts in such a way? You shouldn't be, over the past 8 years this swj infection has ruined so many games that being allergic to it is a natural social reaction.
A lot of people are saying that the game is attacked by a vocal minority of swj haters and lgbt haters. We have to understand the fact that we (who criticize) are accused by the deeds that the accusers themselves commit. SWJ and LGBT were/are a vocal minority of haters who frequently throw child-like tantrums if games don't contain gay romance or "diversity" and attempt to nit-pick any "sexist" addition. Just look at Pillars of Eternity scandal with the tombstone tranny joke.
Now this vocal minority is getting a dose of its own medicine. I haven't played SoD yet I am still re-playing Enhanced Edition, this post isn't about the game itself but rather the industry and where it's heading.
Why break the immersion with this easter egg? this guy gets has the same idea:
I hope this'll be a lesson to other devs too. Piss a community long enough with injections of political correctness and they will eventually become reactionary.
The games before 2007 have had little to no 'politically correct' influence. Games used to be all about the story and the gameplay and about having fun.
This is one reason why old games are still better than "modern" ones.
The development of Siege of Dragonspear jumped on the bandwagon of the social justice warriors (they wanted to please this part of the community with a minor "easter egg" ) and got tanked by user reviews. For a good reason. Why ruin a great game with crap that you know breaks immersion and pisses off gamers? I've been browsing the forums on this issue and before you flood the post with "intolerant bigot" I want to attach this picture of a guy's reply to such a reaction.
Yes, it is a single line in 50 hour of game content. Surprised that the community reacts in such a way? You shouldn't be, over the past 8 years this swj infection has ruined so many games that being allergic to it is a natural social reaction.
A lot of people are saying that the game is attacked by a vocal minority of swj haters and lgbt haters. We have to understand the fact that we (who criticize) are accused by the deeds that the accusers themselves commit. SWJ and LGBT were/are a vocal minority of haters who frequently throw child-like tantrums if games don't contain gay romance or "diversity" and attempt to nit-pick any "sexist" addition. Just look at Pillars of Eternity scandal with the tombstone tranny joke.
Now this vocal minority is getting a dose of its own medicine. I haven't played SoD yet I am still re-playing Enhanced Edition, this post isn't about the game itself but rather the industry and where it's heading.
Why break the immersion with this easter egg? this guy gets has the same idea:
I hope this'll be a lesson to other devs too. Piss a community long enough with injections of political correctness and they will eventually become reactionary.
Post edited by loganultima on
7
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Beamdog should have left well enough alone. Just imagine if they didn't knowingly and openly piss off GG how much better things could have been for this game and the franchise.
And on tops, we are known to enjoy games that would have been developed, well, primarily for you, really. For example, my favored immersion is to roll a female CHAR, but I do not go hostile on games that only have a male protagonist.
I am hopeful Beamdog will stick with it. At least I am with ya!
Those who want to be sourpusses over single line of dialogue over writing quality that exceeded my expectations, at least, are only reducing their own gaming joy needlessly in my opinion.
But you can't say Beamdog didn't invite this. When Minsc made a joke of GG'ers slogan, you can easily argue that Beamdog fired the first shot.
I just wish they have left it alone. Now Baldur's Gate is caught in this shitshow.
People on the interwebz are such p*ssies these days.
Pillars of Eternity was criticised for being harmful in the real world over an out-of-character gravestone joke and pressured to change or erase it immediately or face the mighty wrath of SocJus calling them bigots and transphobes... which in the past has been followed up by doxing, threats in the mail, demands to retailers to pull the game, etc.
Siege of Dragonspear has been panned by fans and some critics on discussion and user review sites for its content and tone. There are no widespread calls for anything to be changed, at least not from the GamerGate side.
How many people are allowed to dislike Siege of Dragonspear before it becomes "triggering" and constitutes some form of hate campaign? Can you give me a hard number?
Is the reaction proportionate? Well, here we get back to how you view or characterize the reaction. If you think people have never played the game and are just giving it zero scores to "stick it" to Beamdog... then yeah, that's still totally proportionate. It's wrong, but it's less wrong than acting like you're going to produce a faith bridge game between two old classics and then use the franchise's most beloved characters to belittle fans of the original after they've already given you their money. It's not like even a review from someone who hasn't played the game isn't based on the truth, and it's not like people using the review site would not benefit from hearing that truth before they decide whether or not they wish to purchase the game.
If you think people are just reviewing it honestly after having played it, then absolutely nothing wrong is happening.
I think there's plenty to talk about there!
But if you really don't want to, then I hope you have a good day too, and thanks for the conversation that we did have.
Also proportionality is different from responsibility is different from morality. If someone punches you in the face, it's proportionate to punch them in the face. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Siege of Dragonspear has been panned by no critics by the way the 2 reviews I've read were incredibly positive. On Steam most reviews are positive (since it requires a purchase). There are user reviews with legitimate complaints. There are plenty of user reviews purely moaning about SJW. Yet there's no coincidence that every single negative review had 85%+ helpful's and every positive review has <20% helpful's and people don't need to buy the game to vote on reviews. There was a review that was negative and had 85%+ likes, switched to positive as his concerns were addressed and that dropped to ~20% without a corresponding increase in the numbers that voted. That meant people actually went back and reversed their helpful/unhelpful rating. Pretty obvious manipulation by a group.
Thread closed.