Why did you guys have to take a jab at GG with Minsc of all characters? Why Amber did you have to give that interview and go full retard? Why Trent did you panic and make that post and add fuel to the fire? Why did you guys change Jaheiras and Safanas already existing personalities for? We loved them the way they were.
I hope everyone involved is happy with the outcome, you all deserve it. The only one I feel really sorry for is Phill. He seems like he really put his heart into it because he loves his job and the source material.
You guys could of got your views across in a different way, it's a shame that you all chose a game that is very close to a lot of peoples hearts that don't give a **** about GG or SJW views. We just wanted Baldur's Gate back.
I stopped playing after talking to the tranny and the stoner character it was just too much. May as well have an npc talk about who he's following on twitter and who he thinks is going to win the European cup this year or how much he likes john oliver.
The word "racist" popping up was out of place too. That is a fairly modern real-world term. Felt off in the FR setting. Surely they could have come up with a different word for racist that would fit more with the forgotten realms world?
I recently learned about this whole fiasco, and unfortunately the despicable attitude of Amber Scott and others to take a timeless franchise and use it for their agenda is disgusting.
I am all for treating LGBT individuals as human beings; I own both BGEE and BG2EE, in spite of the inclusion of homosexuals. I would likewise own them with the inclusion of transsexuals too. However, when you take a franchise that is at its very core inclusive of all people from all backgrounds and enforce your narrow views on others, I am outraged.
The Baldur's Gate series is a series where I feel I can safely play any style of individual I wish. I have read Mizhena's "offensive" dialogue, and admittedly it's not as bad as the opposition made it out to be. However, after reading some of Amber's comments specifically, I cannot in good conscience give a penny to such a work. Based on Amber's comment, she seeks to exclude anyone who may have differing moral viewpoints.
Before you claim there is no room for different moral systems, firstly who are you to claim your moral system is better? Second, Baldur's Gate clearly gives room for characters with different views; Keldorn is a Lawful Good racist, for instance. Third, you are telling me how to roleplay if you say I cannot refuse to accept a character.
I admit, I am not exactly in the LGBT crowd. I support giving them their rights, but I do not perceive their behavior as moral. It's fine if you disagree with me, and it's fine if you want to make your own game that promotes your agenda. However, when you take something that never had any agenda and warp it to meet your politics, you are little more than a base fan-fiction author.
Censor me if you want, but I've said it. If you had just included a transsexual, everything would be okay. But you had to go a step further and make everyone who disagrees feel bad about it. Talk about being inclusive, jerks.
P.S. I left my review on the other sites; based off of the Beamdog staff's reaction and comments, they are well-deserving of their poor ratings, and I pray this is their last work in the Baldur's Gate world. Beamdog has utterly annihilated the Baldur's Gate spirit not necessarily in their product but in their attitude.
Dragonspear's best quality is that it is wholly optional. Thank God I can play the series as originally intended.
I stopped playing after talking to the tranny and the stoner character it was just too much. May as well have an npc talk about who he's following on twitter and who he thinks is going to win the European cup this year or how much he likes john oliver.
But all the fourth wall breaking out of character cameos and silly encounters in the originals were totally cool, right? A dude called Lord Foreshadow literally walks up to you and starts talking about Neverwinter Nights.
So does the possibility of someone not identifying as their born sex, as Ed Greenwood's post states. You ask her about her name. She tells you how she got it. Immersion shattered. Brilliant character? Hell no. Fits in the lore and gameworld? Check.
So does the possibility of someone not identifying as their born sex, as Ed Greenwood's post states. You ask her about her name. She tells you how she got it. Immersion shattered. Brilliant character? Hell no. Fits in the lore and gameworld? Check.
Please read the reasons above why we who do not have a "DOG" in this fight are not pleased.
I stopped playing after talking to the tranny and the stoner character it was just too much. May as well have an npc talk about who he's following on twitter and who he thinks is going to win the European cup this year or how much he likes john oliver.
But all the fourth wall breaking out of character cameos and silly encounters in the originals were totally cool, right? A dude called Lord Foreshadow literally walks up to you and starts talking about Neverwinter Nights.
Didn't really notice it in the originals because it was subtle and well written. SoD may as well have big rainbow neon signs everywhere That say ITS 2016 PEOPLE
So does the possibility of someone not identifying as their born sex, as Ed Greenwood's post states. You ask her about her name. She tells you how she got it. Immersion shattered. Brilliant character? Hell no. Fits in the lore and gameworld? Check.
I never said the inclusion of a transgendered character was any problem at all. Stop putting words in my mouth to further whatever agenda you are pushing at.
My only issue with the transgendered character is that she walks up and just explains her transgender situation to a complete stranger, and the player only gets nice and polite response options. An evil character would need a rude reply to the whole thing too. Especially if she is a cleric of a god that opposes the character's diety of choice.
Pop culture references are a positive thing, in my view, because they're a unifying force. The developers take something that they think their fans might appreciate and also enjoy on the basis that they like the game, and throw it a nod. If you get it, then it's a cool little moment and if you don't, then it's a little mystery or something you can enjoy on a replay or point out to a friend. I didn't understand Bub Snikt the first times I played Baldur's Gate, so when I revisited the gamer later and got to be "in" on the joke, that was awesome for me.
Inserting obvious and specific modernity into a game that's set in a setting like the Realms isn't a pop culture reference. Having a character sound like they just came from Tumblr does not make you go "Oh cool, Tumblr, I use that to talk about my headmates!" because it's not even a pop reference culture to Tumblr. It's just glaringly out of place.
How about The day comes when Tiax will point and click or I do not understand this mouse magic that makes me do your bidding or even just Omnipresent authority figure?
All very subtle and well written 4th wall breaks, right?
How about The day comes when Tiax will point and click or I do not understand this mouse magic that makes me do your bidding or even just Omnipresent authority figure?
All very subtle and well written 4th wall breaks, right?
1. Yes. That one is immersion breaking. That doesn't mean adding more stuff like that is excusable. One wrong doesn't make two wrongs right. 2. Omnipresent Authority figure could easily also mean the PC's role as the leader.
How about The day comes when Tiax will point and click or I do not understand this mouse magic that makes me do your bidding or even just Omnipresent authority figure?
All very subtle and well written 4th wall breaks, right?
Try "the day will come when tiax and his boyfriend will retire and adopt an african child"
Or "i do not undterstand this meme magic that makes fun of the LGBT community"
And finally "yesss oh omnipresent cis white male scum"
So does the possibility of someone not identifying as their born sex, as Ed Greenwood's post states. You ask her about her name. She tells you how she got it. Immersion shattered. Brilliant character? Hell no. Fits in the lore and gameworld? Check.
I never said the inclusion of a transgendered character was any problem at all. Stop putting words in my mouth to further whatever agenda you are pushing at.
My only issue with the transgendered character is that she walks up and just explains her transgender situation to a complete stranger, and the player only gets nice and polite response options. An evil character would need a rude reply to the whole thing too. Especially if she is a cleric of a god that opposes the character's diety of choice.
I agree that there should be evil options. I play an evil party and was pretty miffed that I couldn't just say "sod off weakling" or something like that. But she doesn't just walk up to you and start talking about it. She's got a weird name, and if you're curious about it, you can ask how she got it. She made it up because her old one didn't fit who she was. Cool. Like I said, not an especially well written character. What I do think is ridiculous is people saying this is some vile, SJW ruination of the series. It's such a complete overreaction to an infinitesimally small part of the expansion.
How about The day comes when Tiax will point and click or I do not understand this mouse magic that makes me do your bidding or even just Omnipresent authority figure?
All very subtle and well written 4th wall breaks, right?
1. Yes. That one is immersion breaking. That doesn't mean adding more stuff like that is excusable. One wrong doesn't make two wrongs right. 2. Omnipresent Authority figure could easily also mean the PC's role as the leader.
1. Matter of taste. Many of us BG fans lije the occassinal 4th wall breakage. Hell, ToB had the hilarious encounter with the adventurers who reloaded the game. 2. Authority figure, maybe. Omnipresent? She also says it when she is party leader.
So does the possibility of someone not identifying as their born sex, as Ed Greenwood's post states. You ask her about her name. She tells you how she got it. Immersion shattered. Brilliant character? Hell no. Fits in the lore and gameworld? Check.
I never said the inclusion of a transgendered character was any problem at all. Stop putting words in my mouth to further whatever agenda you are pushing at.
My only issue with the transgendered character is that she walks up and just explains her transgender situation to a complete stranger, and the player only gets nice and polite response options. An evil character would need a rude reply to the whole thing too. Especially if she is a cleric of a god that opposes the character's diety of choice.
I agree that there should be evil options. I play an evil party and was pretty miffed that I couldn't just say "sod off weakling" or something like that. But she doesn't just walk up to you and start talking about it. She's got a weird name, and if you're curious about it, you can ask how she got it. She made it up because her old one didn't fit who she was. Cool. Like I said, not an especially well written character. What I do think is ridiculous is people saying this is some vile, SJW ruination of the series. It's such a complete overreaction to an infinitesimally small part of the expansion.
She said she put all of that and more in there for those exact reasons. In the interview.
How about The day comes when Tiax will point and click or I do not understand this mouse magic that makes me do your bidding or even just Omnipresent authority figure?
All very subtle and well written 4th wall breaks, right?
1. Yes. That one is immersion breaking. That doesn't mean adding more stuff like that is excusable. One wrong doesn't make two wrongs right. 2. Omnipresent Authority figure could easily also mean the PC's role as the leader.
1. Matter of taste. Many of us BG fans lije the occassinal 4th wall breakage. Hell, ToB had the hilarious encounter with the adventurers who reloaded the game. 2. Authority figure, maybe. Omnipresent? She also says it when she is party leader.
It is perfectly ok to like it. I am just stating my own opinion about it. Completely a subjective thing.
Jaheira says it even if she is the party leader, yes. But the player character is the real leader anyway. We all know this.
How about The day comes when Tiax will point and click or I do not understand this mouse magic that makes me do your bidding or even just Omnipresent authority figure?
All very subtle and well written 4th wall breaks, right?
1. Yes. That one is immersion breaking. That doesn't mean adding more stuff like that is excusable. One wrong doesn't make two wrongs right. 2. Omnipresent Authority figure could easily also mean the PC's role as the leader.
1. Matter of taste. Many of us BG fans lije the occassinal 4th wall breakage. Hell, ToB had the hilarious encounter with the adventurers who reloaded the game. 2. Authority figure, maybe. Omnipresent? She also says it when she is party leader.
"You must Diversify your party before venturing forth."
So does the possibility of someone not identifying as their born sex, as Ed Greenwood's post states. You ask her about her name. She tells you how she got it. Immersion shattered. Brilliant character? Hell no. Fits in the lore and gameworld? Check.
I never said the inclusion of a transgendered character was any problem at all. Stop putting words in my mouth to further whatever agenda you are pushing at.
My only issue with the transgendered character is that she walks up and just explains her transgender situation to a complete stranger, and the player only gets nice and polite response options. An evil character would need a rude reply to the whole thing too. Especially if she is a cleric of a god that opposes the character's diety of choice.
I agree that there should be evil options. I play an evil party and was pretty miffed that I couldn't just say "sod off weakling" or something like that. But she doesn't just walk up to you and start talking about it. She's got a weird name, and if you're curious about it, you can ask how she got it. She made it up because her old one didn't fit who she was. Cool. Like I said, not an especially well written character. What I do think is ridiculous is people saying this is some vile, SJW ruination of the series. It's such a complete overreaction to an infinitesimally small part of the expansion.
For me, my anger is based off of Amber's hatred for parts of the Baldur's Gate fanbase; after reading the offending dialogue, I saw Mizhena sounded like a bratty Tumblr user but little more, and I could have let that pass. However, Amber is actively seeking to make sure those with differing moral views feel unwelcome here, and that goes excessively against the Forgotten Realms spirit. She is an affront to Dungeons and Dragons.
Seriously, Amber Scott alone has ruined any respect I previously had for Beamdog. She should be ashamed for tarnishing the Baldur's Gate name like she has, changing it from an all-inclusive, timeless RPG experience into an agenda-filled piece of SJW propaganda. Note, I don't mean the game itself is the propaganda, but rather her attitude is pushing Dragonspear as such.
I am saddened, as I feel excluded from this community now. I felt welcome here, in spite of my different morals, and I had a great time discussing Baldur's Gate with pro-LGBT and non-pro-LGBT alike. Then Amber gave me the middle finger.
So does the possibility of someone not identifying as their born sex, as Ed Greenwood's post states. You ask her about her name. She tells you how she got it. Immersion shattered. Brilliant character? Hell no. Fits in the lore and gameworld? Check.
I never said the inclusion of a transgendered character was any problem at all. Stop putting words in my mouth to further whatever agenda you are pushing at.
My only issue with the transgendered character is that she walks up and just explains her transgender situation to a complete stranger, and the player only gets nice and polite response options. An evil character would need a rude reply to the whole thing too. Especially if she is a cleric of a god that opposes the character's diety of choice.
I agree that there should be evil options. I play an evil party and was pretty miffed that I couldn't just say "sod off weakling" or something like that. But she doesn't just walk up to you and start talking about it. She's got a weird name, and if you're curious about it, you can ask how she got it. She made it up because her old one didn't fit who she was. Cool. Like I said, not an especially well written character. What I do think is ridiculous is people saying this is some vile, SJW ruination of the series. It's such a complete overreaction to an infinitesimally small part of the expansion.
The character does not ruin the game in any way. I agree. But the character could have been written a bit differently so she would fit more into the game. The way she is written now she just comes off as a political add, and not a character.
Here are my thoughts as a Baldur's Gate fan friends: Be cool and excellent to one another. This includes NPCs and writers of videogames that we all love. If you all truly believe that the only problem with the character is "bad writing" then simply move on and acknowledge that the writer was maybe having an off day when they wrote that dialogue and then enjoy the rest of the good times the game offers. Thank you all for being such strong advocates of Baldur's Gate.
Well, certainly Ed has a point when he says that the FR is a place were transexual people (or gay) fits perfectly. FR is relatively full of halfs-whatever and some people (not many, but I have read some) rant about a transexual minor npc?
Altough, truth to be said, the controversy is not just about that, but about several other things:
First of all, some people think the writing of the character could have been better. On that I agree. In fact I think even Amber Scott agrees, but no writer can always give a character all the depth he/she would have liked, and no writer is always at his/her best everytime.
Second of all, the joke about GG wasnt a good idea, but dont overblow things. It was just a joke.
Third, and here is the real problem. In this controversy there seems to be two sides that have been quarreling for long, and not just in this game, but several others (Pillars of Eternity and Divinity, for example). One side seems to think, to a bigger or lesser extent, that "social justice" (although I am not really sure what that term means) must be felt through videogames, and that means, among other things, that characters and games as a whole must be made up to certain "standards" of that social justice (examples, no jokes about women, not using or depicting women in certain ways, putting LGBT characters in game...). The other side seems to think that these kind of things should be left out of videogames or, at least, should be introduced in ways that made sense with the story at hand.
Both sides, as far as I have seen, are very soft skinned. That struck me from the begining, and only when I started to see that this was about a years long quarrel did I began to understand many things that were being said and many weird (for me) reactions.
One side has been using reviews as a way to boycott the game. I am not saying all bad reviews are fake (because they make several good points, bugs, multiplayer problems and UI mess are there for everybody to see, apart from the fact that some chracters have been changed) but, after having read a lot of them, I feel a certain kind of attempt at boycott (truth to be said, erasing several reviews and asking for positive votes didnt help) due to reasons that are just partially related to the game. This side seems to autojustify its actions in the fact that, the other side, has also boycotted (or harrased) games that made things they didnt like (examples: in Pillars of Eternity one of the backers put a sentence in a minor place of the game which some people felt it denigrated women, and, after makign quite of a fuss about it, the sentence was finally taken out. In Divinity, one of the women at the games cover was showing too much breast for this sides liking, so that women was covered).
As you see, we are in the middle of a crossfire between to groups that have been quarreling for long. Baldurs Gate is just their last field of battle. And the game is "suffering" these things due to reasons that are only partially related to it.
Here are my thoughts as a Baldur's Gate fan friends: Be cool and excellent to one another. This includes NPCs and writers of videogames that we all love. If you all truly believe that the only problem with the character is "bad writing" then simply move on and acknowledge that the writer was maybe having an off day when they wrote that dialogue and then enjoy the rest of the good times the game offers. Thank you all for being such strong advocates of Baldur's Gate.
I agree with what you're saying but that one OFF day might cost us any and/or all Baldur's Gate material in the future.
Well, certainly Ed has a point when he says that the FR is a place were transexual people (or gay) fits perfectly. FR is relatively full of halfs-whatever and some people (not many, but I have read some) rant about a transexual minor npc?
Altough, truth to be said, the controversy is not just about that, but about several other things:
First of all, some people think the writing of the character could have been better. On that I agree. In fact I think even Amber Scott agrees, but no writer can always give a character all the depth he/she would have liked, and no writer is always at his/her best everytime.
Second of all, the joke about GG wasnt a good idea, but dont overblow things. It was just a joke.
Third, and here is the real problem. In this controversy there seems to be two sides that have been quarreling for long, and not just in this game, but several others (Pillars of Eternity and Divinity, for example). One side seems to think, to a bigger or lesser extent, that "social justice" (although I am not really sure what that term means) must be felt through videogames, and that means, among other things, that characters and games as a whole must be made up to certain "standards" of that social justice (examples, no jokes about women, not using or depicting women in certain ways, putting LGBT characters in game...). The other side seems to think that these kind of things should be left out of videogames or, at least, should be introduced in ways that made sense with the story at hand.
Both sides, as far as I have seen, are very soft skinned. That struck me from the begining, and only when I started to see that this was about a years long quarrel did I began to understand many things that were being said and many weird (for me) reactions.
One side has been using reviews as a way to boycott the game. I am not saying all bad reviews are fake (because they make several good points, bugs, multiplayer problems and UI mess are there for everybody to see, apart from the fact that some chracters have been changed) but, after having read a lot of them, I feel a certain kind of attempt at boycott (truth to be said, erasing several reviews and asking for positive votes didnt help) due to reasons that are just partially related to the game. This side seems to autojustify its actions in the fact that, the other side, has also boycotted (or harrased) games that made things they didnt like (examples: in Pillars of Eternity one of the backers put a sentence in a minor place of the game which some people felt it denigrated women, and, after makign quite of a fuss about it, the sentence was finally taken out. In Divinity, one of the women at the games cover was showing too much breast for this sides liking, so that women was covered).
As you see, we are in the middle of a crossfire between to groups that have been quarreling for long. Baldurs Gate is just their last field of battle. And the game is "suffering" these things due to reasons that are only partially related to it.
Well, that is my opinion.
Regards
I agree with all of this. It comes down to "SHOTS FIRED". The other side is now shooting back and we along with Baldur's Gate are caught in the crossfire.
Here are my thoughts as a Baldur's Gate fan friends: Be cool and excellent to one another. This includes NPCs and writers of videogames that we all love. If you all truly believe that the only problem with the character is "bad writing" then simply move on and acknowledge that the writer was maybe having an off day when they wrote that dialogue and then enjoy the rest of the good times the game offers. Thank you all for being such strong advocates of Baldur's Gate.
I agree with what you're saying but that one OFF day might cost us any and/or all Baldur's Gate material in the future.
I think if we support the game in general, help Beamdog to fix any bugs and such, give positive reviews so that others will try out the game and show off what a great desire we have for more Baldur's Gate material then it will happen friend. Be positive.
I havent SoD so I cant talk about things I dont know (about that character everyone is talking about), but I remember there is a belt in BG1 that changes your character to the opposite sex ( so Minsc can become a girl...) And in BG2 Edwin, the most arrogant male in the game, becomes a woman during a quest.
Comments
I hope everyone involved is happy with the outcome, you all deserve it. The only one I feel really sorry for is Phill. He seems like he really put his heart into it because he loves his job and the source material.
You guys could of got your views across in a different way, it's a shame that you all chose a game that is very close to a lot of peoples hearts that don't give a **** about GG or SJW views. We just wanted Baldur's Gate back.
May as well have an npc talk about who he's following on twitter and who he thinks is going to win the European cup this year or how much he likes john oliver.
I am all for treating LGBT individuals as human beings; I own both BGEE and BG2EE, in spite of the inclusion of homosexuals. I would likewise own them with the inclusion of transsexuals too. However, when you take a franchise that is at its very core inclusive of all people from all backgrounds and enforce your narrow views on others, I am outraged.
The Baldur's Gate series is a series where I feel I can safely play any style of individual I wish. I have read Mizhena's "offensive" dialogue, and admittedly it's not as bad as the opposition made it out to be. However, after reading some of Amber's comments specifically, I cannot in good conscience give a penny to such a work. Based on Amber's comment, she seeks to exclude anyone who may have differing moral viewpoints.
Before you claim there is no room for different moral systems, firstly who are you to claim your moral system is better? Second, Baldur's Gate clearly gives room for characters with different views; Keldorn is a Lawful Good racist, for instance. Third, you are telling me how to roleplay if you say I cannot refuse to accept a character.
I admit, I am not exactly in the LGBT crowd. I support giving them their rights, but I do not perceive their behavior as moral. It's fine if you disagree with me, and it's fine if you want to make your own game that promotes your agenda. However, when you take something that never had any agenda and warp it to meet your politics, you are little more than a base fan-fiction author.
Censor me if you want, but I've said it. If you had just included a transsexual, everything would be okay. But you had to go a step further and make everyone who disagrees feel bad about it. Talk about being inclusive, jerks.
P.S. I left my review on the other sites; based off of the Beamdog staff's reaction and comments, they are well-deserving of their poor ratings, and I pray this is their last work in the Baldur's Gate world. Beamdog has utterly annihilated the Baldur's Gate spirit not necessarily in their product but in their attitude.
Dragonspear's best quality is that it is wholly optional. Thank God I can play the series as originally intended.
Please read the reasons above why we who do not have a "DOG" in this fight are not pleased.
My only issue with the transgendered character is that she walks up and just explains her transgender situation to a complete stranger, and the player only gets nice and polite response options. An evil character would need a rude reply to the whole thing too. Especially if she is a cleric of a god that opposes the character's diety of choice.
Inserting obvious and specific modernity into a game that's set in a setting like the Realms isn't a pop culture reference. Having a character sound like they just came from Tumblr does not make you go "Oh cool, Tumblr, I use that to talk about my headmates!" because it's not even a pop reference culture to Tumblr. It's just glaringly out of place.
How about
The day comes when Tiax will point and click
or
I do not understand this mouse magic that makes me do your bidding
or even just
Omnipresent authority figure?
All very subtle and well written 4th wall breaks, right?
2. Omnipresent Authority figure could easily also mean the PC's role as the leader.
Or "i do not undterstand this meme magic that makes fun of the LGBT community"
And finally "yesss oh omnipresent cis white male scum"
2. Authority figure, maybe. Omnipresent? She also says it when she is party leader.
She said she put all of that and more in there for those exact reasons. In the interview.
Jaheira says it even if she is the party leader, yes. But the player character is the real leader anyway. We all know this.
"You must Diversify your party before venturing forth."
Seriously, Amber Scott alone has ruined any respect I previously had for Beamdog. She should be ashamed for tarnishing the Baldur's Gate name like she has, changing it from an all-inclusive, timeless RPG experience into an agenda-filled piece of SJW propaganda. Note, I don't mean the game itself is the propaganda, but rather her attitude is pushing Dragonspear as such.
I am saddened, as I feel excluded from this community now. I felt welcome here, in spite of my different morals, and I had a great time discussing Baldur's Gate with pro-LGBT and non-pro-LGBT alike. Then Amber gave me the middle finger.
Altough, truth to be said, the controversy is not just about that, but about several other things:
First of all, some people think the writing of the character could have been better. On that I agree. In fact I think even Amber Scott agrees, but no writer can always give a character all the depth he/she would have liked, and no writer is always at his/her best everytime.
Second of all, the joke about GG wasnt a good idea, but dont overblow things. It was just a joke.
Third, and here is the real problem. In this controversy there seems to be two sides that have been quarreling for long, and not just in this game, but several others (Pillars of Eternity and Divinity, for example). One side seems to think, to a bigger or lesser extent, that "social justice" (although I am not really sure what that term means) must be felt through videogames, and that means, among other things, that characters and games as a whole must be made up to certain "standards" of that social justice (examples, no jokes about women, not using or depicting women in certain ways, putting LGBT characters in game...). The other side seems to think that these kind of things should be left out of videogames or, at least, should be introduced in ways that made sense with the story at hand.
Both sides, as far as I have seen, are very soft skinned. That struck me from the begining, and only when I started to see that this was about a years long quarrel did I began to understand many things that were being said and many weird (for me) reactions.
One side has been using reviews as a way to boycott the game. I am not saying all bad reviews are fake (because they make several good points, bugs, multiplayer problems and UI mess are there for everybody to see, apart from the fact that some chracters have been changed) but, after having read a lot of them, I feel a certain kind of attempt at boycott (truth to be said, erasing several reviews and asking for positive votes didnt help) due to reasons that are just partially related to the game. This side seems to autojustify its actions in the fact that, the other side, has also boycotted (or harrased) games that made things they didnt like (examples: in Pillars of Eternity one of the backers put a sentence in a minor place of the game which some people felt it denigrated women, and, after makign quite of a fuss about it, the sentence was finally taken out. In Divinity, one of the women at the games cover was showing too much breast for this sides liking, so that women was covered).
As you see, we are in the middle of a crossfire between to groups that have been quarreling for long. Baldurs Gate is just their last field of battle. And the game is "suffering" these things due to reasons that are only partially related to it.
Well, that is my opinion.
Regards