I couldn't care less about SoD's writing and all the related SJW/GG/whatever else issues, as I've not purchased the expansion, knowing the quality of Beamdog's original content in the Enhanced Editions of Baldur's Gate games.
The one thing I would like to comment on, however, is that in Mr. Oster's statement, there's almost no mention (aside from multiplayer and "some bugs") of issues that actually matter - technical and gameplay related issues introduced by the distaster that is patch 2.0.: Horrible graphics "improvements", poorly thought out UI changes, completely silly, backwards design of the portrait system and character import list, utterly non-functional revert option to 1.3. and LOTS of bugs.
If it wasn't for this part, I wouldn't have commented at all: "We’ve received valuable feedback around some bugs we failed to catch for ship. We're hard at work right now patching up the issues that slipped through and we're striving to ship fixes and improvements quickly."
Just in my thread about 2.0. alone (not to mention all the other threads and bug reports), I've discovered DOZENS of bugs over quick, minimalistic runs of both EEs (therefore, FAR from actual thorough testing). I encountered several bugs in the first 20 MINUTES of playing. Saying that "some bugs slipped through" is a bit of an understatement, don't you think? I'm truly sorry for sounding harsh, but Beamdog's QA is a joke.
Not to be misunderstood - I loved the custodial work Beamdog has done up until now, but dislike their original writing and patch 2.0.. Speaking purely from the viewpoint of a person who didn't purchase anything new, but had the patch 2.0. forced on them (on Steam) to ruin a product I really liked (both EE games, version 1.3.).
Please disregard my post if this is off topic, but I feel like patch 2.0. is an integral enough part of the whole SoD release to warrant a comment.
That's exacty how I would express my feelings about 2.0 if I was writing in my home language. I also didn't enjoyed any Beamdog's extra content in EE, but I was also very pleased with the 1.3 versions of BG1EE and BG2EE.
The unique difference is that I had to give a try to Siege of Dragonspear, because I got so much interested in the Shinning Lady. Even if I knew it was beamdog's content, it was like mermaid's calling for my ears.
Well... But, please. @Dee and the rest of beamdog staff... Please, listen to the observations of @Mivsan, because you really ruined BG1 and BG2 with 2.0. And I even couldn't give a try yet to play SoD with this UI's mischaracterizations and bugs.
Just please stop. Stop making things for Baldur's Gate. Forget about Baldut's Gate, it's not a pinata.. STOP ruining the legacy of one of the Best RPGs of all time.
Make your own game, from the beginning, and add whatever you want to. Make it as real as possible. Add Politics, Religions, all the -isams , wars.... go for it! We need games to escape from reality, and not to stay in it...
You've said : "We will release the game when it's ready". And you've done it. SoD "spoke" to you. So what you released IS what you wanted. So why change it now? Why you want to change the game that "told" you that is the best you wanted to give us? Leave it as it is. Let it rise or fall as it is.
Now everyone is talking about SoD on the net, badmouthing it. I don't care about your SoD do what you want with it, just lose that Baldur's Gate out of it. I care about Baldur's Gate, and it's legacy.
That game means ALOT to people. That game, Baldur's Gate, kept me sane during the war. Every damn time electricity came back I played it, for hours. Even when bombs were falling, I played that game. It kept me sane, it pulled me away from all the death around me. It pulled me away from reality. The story, characters, locations...
Now look what you have done. Just look at all the mess.. and there it is, the name Baldur's Gate in center of it. You, Beamdog, destroyed it. Don't change anything, go down or up with your ship. Because it is the "perfect" ship you built for us, in your thoughts.
Make your own game, just PLEASE leave the legacy of Baldur's Gate alone.
You are ruining it.
Bravo, Beamdog, Bravo!
Everyone is entitled to escapism, including transgender people. Seeing themselves reflected in media both has verisimilitude and acknowledges that transgender people exist. I personally like seeing characters who are not straight in video games because it shows that people like me have a place in these imaginary worlds. So, escapism shouldn't cater to just one group (those who agree with you), but should be something available to everyone.
Baldur's Gate means a lot to a lot of people, including transgender people, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual people, including people of color, including women, including in general people that are not cisgender heterosexual white guys, and having content that is sensitive to their escapism (among other things) is a good thing.
You're looking at this from a proprietary perspective, seeing Baldur's Gate as something you have more of a right to than Beamdog, even though Beamdog includes several people who worked on the original Baldur's Gate. You're not the only person for whom Baldur's Gate meant anything, and you're not the only person who should get to see themselves reflected in video games and other media.
...the guy you quoted literally did not even mention sexuality. #ChipOnTheShoulder?
@ GenderNihilismGirdle "Philosophy departments, particularly epistemology and philosophy of language departments, everywhere in the world eagerly await your thesis,"
Try a dictionary. See also, e.g. Brian Barry, Poltical Argument (1967) at p20 on the distinction between "what these words (used by X) mean" and "What X means".
@ GenderNihilismGirdle "Philosophy departments, particularly epistemology and philosophy of language departments, everywhere in the world eagerly await your thesis,"
Try a dictionary. See also, e.g. Brian Barry, Poltical Argument (1967) at p20 on the distinction between "what these words (used by X) mean" and "What X means".
Just make sure to send your dictionary to a Wittgenstein scholar with a sticky note that says "Objective Meaning Within" so they can give up and retire, I'm sure they'll agree with you.
No, you have just asserted Safana's line is not SJW. You haven;t provided an argument to support your assertion. I did provided arguments as to why it is SJW content and a blatant change of character. You did not respond to those arguments except to assert it is not the case. That is a clear case of argument by assertion.
You didn't provide an argument as to why it is SJW content, you simply stated it was SJW content and provided an additional example.
It's not SJW content because the entire notion of "SJW content" exists strictly to give people like you a way to (you believe) make your complaints about inclusive media sound legitimate. Unfortunately for you, it only really works on the people who think like you, who hate the idea of having more balanced and interesting representation for women, people of color, disabled people, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, and transgendered people. To you, "SJW content" carries an obvious meaning because you're steeped in a subculture that is all about rejecting diversity. To the rest of us, your argument is basically nonsense.
...the guy you quoted literally did not even mention sexuality.
I mentioned it because the larger issue is that people of all kinds deserve to have escapism. I didn't say he mentioned sexuality, I mentioned my own sexuality (well, implied it, as I haven't stated my orientation directly) as an example of inclusive escapism that I enjoy.
Try reading the entire post next time, and skip the one-liners and ridiculous hashtags.
I've finally reached the army camp! So far, my overall impression is a positive one. Baldur's Gate felt very much alive with all the refugees swarming the streets, all with problems of their own (so to speak, it's not like all their problems are detailed, but you get the feeling there's much more that concerns people than you defeating Sarevok). Leaving the city north felt epic, with the crowds cheering and the soldiers following you, even more epic than the scene in which the Warden of Dragon Age goes off into the final battle (which has cheering as well). The companions I've met so far feel compelling and much more alive than they were in BG1. The voice acting is superb.
And of course, in the camp I finally got the chance to meet Mizhena and now I've met her, I completely fail to understand what all the fuss was about. I, as a SJW as the name seems to be (though I've never heard of it until 7 days ago), have been mingling in the discussions. But meeting Mizhena was an anti-climax. In-character asking what she said about the Lord of Battles didn't even trigger her telling she used to be a boy. Knowing I had to ask her about her name I clicked again and she told she was raised a boy and discovered she was truly a woman. Okay, so what? Nothing unusual there (like you can see of this forum, of all gamers here there's some 4 or 5 that came out for being trans). She's just a woman, who used to be born as a boy. OK, fine, but I'm much more interested in the healing services you can provide. And if there is something interesting about Mizhena, it's what she's telling about her name: it's build up of syllables of different languages and each has a special meaning to her. Getting to know her and know what the meaning of the syllables would be. As it is, there's nothing unusual about her.
Just as normal and common as trans people on the forum, in your daily lives, as colleagues, some who might become friends. Nothing to see here, please move on.
I feel absolutely silly now for letting myself get swept away in the feeling that there was so much going on, possible even a 'political agenda' in Baldur's Gate.
I've been thinking about that 'political agenda': there's nothing political about equal rights for everyone. It's a human right not to be discriminated upon and everyone, from the left to the right of the political spectrum agrees to that. It's only on the extreme right that you find people willing to deny the rights of gays, lesbians, trans people. Here, even the right wing liberal party is all for human rights, though their economic views are very conservative. It's only in America, Russia and some other countries that has a more voluminous extreme right that wants to deny the rights of LGBT people. The whole discussion feels like a local American 'culture war' is forced upon the rest of the world with the internet and fora about gaming as it's medium.
I've got such a void feeling, now that there's nothing to be found in the game that's controversial. I mean, the game doesn't feel void at all, but all that time and energy I wasted putting into following the discussions that reveal themselves to be much ado about nothing. Well, there were true attacks going on of course, but there's nothing in the game to be found that would justify any uproar. As I said, meeting Mizhena was very anti-climactic. Finding there's a chest behind were with my stash raised more emotions in me than that minor talk with a minor NPC who can provide healing. No token ID, no hidden agenda, just a woman who used to be boy. Until she gets more fleshed out like Trent Oster promised, she's just a healer. And that said, I'm healed of the longing for fiery discussions and am glad that most of the forum is again about other aspects of the game.
@ GenderNihilismGirdle "Philosophy departments, particularly epistemology and philosophy of language departments, everywhere in the world eagerly await your thesis,"
Try a dictionary. See also, e.g. Brian Barry, Poltical Argument (1967) at p20 on the distinction between "what these words (used by X) mean" and "What X means".
Pretty much everyone with an understanding of language knows that dictionaries are reference materials that do not provide thoroughly definitive explanations of words. You're not going to get a philosophical dissertation out of a dictionary, so it is entirely useless as a reference for any kind of philosophical debate.
Not a boy but my brain is behind a zipper on my skull which is useful for measuring it because I can count off the teeth in the zipper and just measure one tooth and multiply.
I will say, when reading law words sometimes do have objective meaning.
Anthropology of Law is a neat class if your university has one, it's all about how Imperial Roman Law as filtered through Medieval Europe and Renaissance Europe into the present isn't One Objective Legal System at all but in fact one isolated example among a multitude of conceptions of legality, and if you add a touch of anarchist critiques of criminology itself to the mix, you've got law/legality as its own set of nested subjective cultural frameworks which are not only not objective but perhaps not even necessary. It's all very fascinating stuff if you care to pop the terms I've mentioned here into a search engine and read about it yourself!
Laws are subject to subjective interpretations. Otherwise, we wouldn't need judges and juries.
That is incorrect, especially when it comes to juries, who are given very limited leeway to "interpret" law. Judges often seek to apply the black-letter law (that term exists for a reason). It is called the Plain Meaning Rule http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plain-Meaning+Rule
Also law is not limited to statutes. In contracts, especially between "sophisticated business-people", words are often defined objectively.
Laws are subject to subjective interpretations. Otherwise, we wouldn't need judges and juries.
That is incorrect, especially when it comes to juries, who are given very limited leeway to "interpret" law. Judges often seek to apply the black-letter law (that term exists for a reason). It is called the Plain Meaning Rule http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plain-Meaning+Rule
Also law is not limited to statutes. In contracts, especially between "sophisticated business-people", words are often defined objectively.
Anyhoo, way off topic
Not incorrect at all. If law were purely objective then how to apply it in every case would be obvious and we wouldn't need anyone to interpret the law and make a decision based on that interpretation.
I absolutely love Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment, and the Infinity Engine modding community. I've preordered every Enhanced Edition Beamdog has made and I hope every IE game gets its day in the spotlight. I truly love the revitalization of the genre.
I haven't yet spent enough time playing Sod to review it, I've actually spent more time working on mods, but I did keep myself up to date with all the reviews that were flooding in.
My thoughts on:
Mizhena - I literally could not care less about her sexual orientation, gender, or anatomy. I respect all humans and demi-humans whether gay or straight, transgender or cisgender. With that being said, she ABSOLUTELY needed more development and I'm very glad this feedback is being listened to. Unfortunately there will always be people who don't care how much development she has and will respond with bigotry. I feel bad for them, really.
Amber Scott - What she said, "too bad," that wasn't cool. But I get it, we're all human and I sympathize. I think she realized that her response wasn't the most appropriate, and that people can criticize a game with a trans character without necessarily being transphobic (remember that new and very sexist female-only Ghostbuster's flop and the misogyny claims?) But I really disapprove of any harassment she is receiving. That's just wrong, and I would like to apologize to her on behalf of the community. You deserve the respect of any other human being.
Minsc's line - Utterly humorless, 100% out of character (socio-political commentary from Minsc, really? Boo, maybe, but not Minsc.), 4th-wall breaking in the worst of ways, and really just another slap in the face to the gamer, who may not share your views on what you were referencing. The Bob Newhart reference was hilarious and well-meshed into the Sword Coast, it fit into the game seamlessly. There was TIME between the show and the game, that's not the case with this SoD reference. Neither did people feel strongly positive or negative towards the show that they would be offended by the reference; not the case with Minsc's quote. I hate the quote - but removing it? I just don't know. Obsidian wrote Pillars of Eternity, a mature game, and later ended up censoring something that could be interpreted as referencing a transgender or cross-dressing individual. They sided with the SJWs and "caved," thus making their mature game more politically correct to avoid offense. Well, I HAVEN'T BOUGHT AN OBSIDIAN GAME SINCE. I don't like the Minsc quote, but this is just the reverse scenario of PoE.
You made a politically-correct SJW game and got negative reviews from the opposition and are now censoring to prevent offense. Even if I hate the quote, censorship to prevent offense always feels wrong to me. Maybe there's no right way to solve this. I guess changing it is preferable to removing it, but that's what Obsidian did. Maybe real-world socio-political commentary and the author's stance on the issue has no place in video games. You don't always have to write from a straight white male's perspective, no one wants that, but neither does a video game have to be a safe-space for anyone, nor do I agree with representation for representations sake. Develop characters, make them round, their gender and sexuality should come up late, if at all. It is a facet of their being, it's not their defining characteristic. Remember how J.K. Rowling made Dumbledore gay? Brilliant. Although you don't have to be even that far removed from it, but with her - that was so realistic. He wasn't a token gay man. He was a man, who happened to be gay, but that wasn't important. You didn't know because it didn't matter to the story or the depth of his character. Same with Mizhena. Perhaps a romance could have been interesting, you get close to her and then she finally reveals her secret to you, not wanting to betray your trust and sleep with you first. Then you add positive, neutral, and yes, negative feedback to give her, that's realistic. Let the character choose to love or hate a trans character, or just not care.
@Dantos4 I believe it was implied friend. I could be wrong however, I am always delight to discover so.
I believe you are wrong friend. No where did the person mention transsexuality and mainly spoke about how Beamdog should create a new game rather than changing BG.
...the guy you quoted literally did not even mention sexuality.
I mentioned it because the larger issue is that people of all kinds deserve to have escapism. I didn't say he mentioned sexuality, I mentioned my own sexuality (well, implied it, as I haven't stated my orientation directly) as an example of inclusive escapism that I enjoy.
Try reading the entire post next time, and skip the one-liners and ridiculous hashtags.
A rather unnecessarily long example. It's fine to admit when you were wrong, you know. For your information I did read your entire post.
Perhaps you should skip the one liners, ad hominem attacks and ridiculous assumptions next time.
I will say, when reading law words sometimes do have objective meaning.
Anthropology of Law is a neat class if your university has one, it's all about how Imperial Roman Law as filtered through Medieval Europe and Renaissance Europe into the present isn't One Objective Legal System at all but in fact one isolated example among a multitude of conceptions of legality, and if you add a touch of anarchist critiques of criminology itself to the mix, you've got law/legality as its own set of nested subjective cultural frameworks which are not only not objective but perhaps not even necessary. It's all very fascinating stuff if you care to pop the terms I've mentioned here into a search engine and read about it yourself!
In the US we are mostly about common law, which is based more on precedent (and thus applied more objectively) than the Roman-influenced civil law, which is based mostly on codified statutes. Except Louisiana. They are weird.
Laws are subject to subjective interpretations. Otherwise, we wouldn't need judges and juries.
That is incorrect, especially when it comes to juries, who are given very limited leeway to "interpret" law. Judges often seek to apply the black-letter law (that term exists for a reason). It is called the Plain Meaning Rule http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plain-Meaning+Rule
Also law is not limited to statutes. In contracts, especially between "sophisticated business-people", words are often defined objectively.
Anyhoo, way off topic
Not incorrect at all. If law were purely objective then how to apply it in every case would be obvious and we wouldn't need anyone to interpret the law and make a decision based on that interpretation.
The fact that it needs interpretation does not mean it is subjective. Also, what you call interpretation is usually just application.
One of the issues I have with the "Different take" on the characters is that it's mostly from what I can tell men, telling a woman that the female characters were fine, and "strong" and "sex positive" and that really irks me. You're allowed to have preferences but you need to stop holding up stuff that was written in a video game before some forum members here were probably even born as sacred and beyond criticism.
No offence, but people can do what they like. You're allowed to have preferences. End of. Nobody "needs" to stop telling anybody to do anything.
Being a specific gender does not qualify or disqualify anybody from having a legitimate opinion of a video game character.
Nobody said anything was beyond criticism - I said Amber's interpretations of Jaheira specifically were very, very different to my own. I consider her interpretation incorrect and wrong. I have every right to refuse to buy the game on the grounds that I dislike the changes. I don't "need" to stop anything and find the suggestion rather offensive.
Thank you very much.
Edit: In fact, why does this even "irk" you? Why does men having an opinion on a female character being strong "irk" you?
When that opinion revolves entirely around how their trans-ness is presented, then no, your opinion is not as equally valid. This is not an area of expertise for you and looking at your other posts you have a clear agenda against the idea of representation.
The problem is you're so used to being babbied on this and being treated as if you have something valid and intelligent to say. It messes with your self image when someone tells you "actually no".
@booinyoureyes we could take this conversation off this thread if we wanted to continue it as it's wildly off topic, but I'd argue we're working with different (subjective even!) definitions of "objective" if law being done differently in different places constitutes "objective" in every instance despite being dissimilar between those instances (i.e. between US and Canadian law, between North American and UK interpretations of British-derived law, between UK and French law, between those examples and Chinese law, etc, etc), given that if the "object" is a series of different subjectivities (i.e. those Louisiana subjects to law vs those Vermont subjects to law) and it differs between them, then that hews closer to subjective than objective in the definition I was meaning (but we all bring subjective meaning to definitions so it's impossible to talk objectively about what is objective with all this subjectivity floating around in interpersonal communication, donchaknow)
tl;dr both codified statutes and precedent-setting are not objectively the law, they're just mutually agreed upon by a multiplicity of subjectivies as what is law, and fulfilling that condition has never made something objective afaik
@GenderNihilismGirdle It is not even a matter of whether law is objectively applied, but whether words have objective meaning when law is read. But again, perhaps we will talk about this another time in another thread, as I have to go and actually read some law before class tomorrow!
SJWs: "I support Beamdog and transsexual people. There's nothing wrong with transsexuality."
99% of people: "Buggy game. Poorly written. v2.0 isn't ideal. No problems with transsexuality"
SJWs: "I support Beamdog and transsexual people. There's nothing wrong with transsexuality."
Why even bother.
/thread
Literally 13% of people in the poll wanted the character completely removed so how can you say 99% of people?
Also given the pattern of reviews it's obvious that the review bombs were coordinated and don't represent a true consensus. Can't believe we're even having this argument.
You can walk away from this with zero consequence to your life. Being trans, it's not so easy, since I need ot know the latest thing that people are going to use to hit me over the head with.
"No problems with transsexuality" is a lie too so please get lost with that. Just because you say you don't have a problem with something doesn't mean your views aren't completely awful.
As predicted, giving in to the mob continues to embolden them to the point that posters in this thread now think they should get a say in how the trans character is rewritten. You were never entitled to anything for your $20 except the game Beamdog made and timely bug and multi-player fixes. Not an ounce more. Sadly, Beamdog caved to an intimidation campaign revolving around details so miniscule and insignificant that posters all over this section of the forum are offering suggestions and tips about how to make the game more how they PERSONALLY want it, as if they are part of the development team and the game is still in production instead of a finished, released product. I've never seen such a collection of entitled crybabies in my entire life.
Comments
The unique difference is that I had to give a try to Siege of Dragonspear, because I got so much interested in the Shinning Lady. Even if I knew it was beamdog's content, it was like mermaid's calling for my ears.
Well... But, please. @Dee and the rest of beamdog staff... Please, listen to the observations of @Mivsan, because you really ruined BG1 and BG2 with 2.0. And I even couldn't give a try yet to play SoD with this UI's mischaracterizations and bugs.
Try a dictionary.
See also, e.g. Brian Barry, Poltical Argument (1967) at p20 on the distinction between "what these words (used by X) mean" and "What X means".
It's not SJW content because the entire notion of "SJW content" exists strictly to give people like you a way to (you believe) make your complaints about inclusive media sound legitimate. Unfortunately for you, it only really works on the people who think like you, who hate the idea of having more balanced and interesting representation for women, people of color, disabled people, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, and transgendered people. To you, "SJW content" carries an obvious meaning because you're steeped in a subculture that is all about rejecting diversity. To the rest of us, your argument is basically nonsense.
Try reading the entire post next time, and skip the one-liners and ridiculous hashtags.
And of course, in the camp I finally got the chance to meet Mizhena and now I've met her, I completely fail to understand what all the fuss was about. I, as a SJW as the name seems to be (though I've never heard of it until 7 days ago), have been mingling in the discussions. But meeting Mizhena was an anti-climax. In-character asking what she said about the Lord of Battles didn't even trigger her telling she used to be a boy. Knowing I had to ask her about her name I clicked again and she told she was raised a boy and discovered she was truly a woman. Okay, so what? Nothing unusual there (like you can see of this forum, of all gamers here there's some 4 or 5 that came out for being trans). She's just a woman, who used to be born as a boy. OK, fine, but I'm much more interested in the healing services you can provide. And if there is something interesting about Mizhena, it's what she's telling about her name: it's build up of syllables of different languages and each has a special meaning to her. Getting to know her and know what the meaning of the syllables would be. As it is, there's nothing unusual about her.
Just as normal and common as trans people on the forum, in your daily lives, as colleagues, some who might become friends. Nothing to see here, please move on.
I feel absolutely silly now for letting myself get swept away in the feeling that there was so much going on, possible even a 'political agenda' in Baldur's Gate.
I've been thinking about that 'political agenda': there's nothing political about equal rights for everyone. It's a human right not to be discriminated upon and everyone, from the left to the right of the political spectrum agrees to that. It's only on the extreme right that you find people willing to deny the rights of gays, lesbians, trans people. Here, even the right wing liberal party is all for human rights, though their economic views are very conservative. It's only in America, Russia and some other countries that has a more voluminous extreme right that wants to deny the rights of LGBT people. The whole discussion feels like a local American 'culture war' is forced upon the rest of the world with the internet and fora about gaming as it's medium.
I've got such a void feeling, now that there's nothing to be found in the game that's controversial. I mean, the game doesn't feel void at all, but all that time and energy I wasted putting into following the discussions that reveal themselves to be much ado about nothing. Well, there were true attacks going on of course, but there's nothing in the game to be found that would justify any uproar. As I said, meeting Mizhena was very anti-climactic. Finding there's a chest behind were with my stash raised more emotions in me than that minor talk with a minor NPC who can provide healing. No token ID, no hidden agenda, just a woman who used to be boy. Until she gets more fleshed out like Trent Oster promised, she's just a healer. And that said, I'm healed of the longing for fiery discussions and am glad that most of the forum is again about other aspects of the game.
Put it back in the zipper, boys!
Also law is not limited to statutes. In contracts, especially between "sophisticated business-people", words are often defined objectively.
Anyhoo, way off topic
I haven't yet spent enough time playing Sod to review it, I've actually spent more time working on mods, but I did keep myself up to date with all the reviews that were flooding in.
My thoughts on:
Mizhena - I literally could not care less about her sexual orientation, gender, or anatomy. I respect all humans and demi-humans whether gay or straight, transgender or cisgender. With that being said, she ABSOLUTELY needed more development and I'm very glad this feedback is being listened to. Unfortunately there will always be people who don't care how much development she has and will respond with bigotry. I feel bad for them, really.
Amber Scott - What she said, "too bad," that wasn't cool. But I get it, we're all human and I sympathize. I think she realized that her response wasn't the most appropriate, and that people can criticize a game with a trans character without necessarily being transphobic (remember that new and very sexist female-only Ghostbuster's flop and the misogyny claims?) But I really disapprove of any harassment she is receiving. That's just wrong, and I would like to apologize to her on behalf of the community. You deserve the respect of any other human being.
Minsc's line - Utterly humorless, 100% out of character (socio-political commentary from Minsc, really? Boo, maybe, but not Minsc.), 4th-wall breaking in the worst of ways, and really just another slap in the face to the gamer, who may not share your views on what you were referencing.
The Bob Newhart reference was hilarious and well-meshed into the Sword Coast, it fit into the game seamlessly. There was TIME between the show and the game, that's not the case with this SoD reference. Neither did people feel strongly positive or negative towards the show that they would be offended by the reference; not the case with Minsc's quote.
I hate the quote - but removing it? I just don't know. Obsidian wrote Pillars of Eternity, a mature game, and later ended up censoring something that could be interpreted as referencing a transgender or cross-dressing individual. They sided with the SJWs and "caved," thus making their mature game more politically correct to avoid offense. Well, I HAVEN'T BOUGHT AN OBSIDIAN GAME SINCE.
I don't like the Minsc quote, but this is just the reverse scenario of PoE.
You made a politically-correct SJW game and got negative reviews from the opposition and are now censoring to prevent offense. Even if I hate the quote, censorship to prevent offense always feels wrong to me. Maybe there's no right way to solve this. I guess changing it is preferable to removing it, but that's what Obsidian did. Maybe real-world socio-political commentary and the author's stance on the issue has no place in video games. You don't always have to write from a straight white male's perspective, no one wants that, but neither does a video game have to be a safe-space for anyone, nor do I agree with representation for representations sake. Develop characters, make them round, their gender and sexuality should come up late, if at all. It is a facet of their being, it's not their defining characteristic. Remember how J.K. Rowling made Dumbledore gay? Brilliant. Although you don't have to be even that far removed from it, but with her - that was so realistic. He wasn't a token gay man. He was a man, who happened to be gay, but that wasn't important. You didn't know because it didn't matter to the story or the depth of his character.
Same with Mizhena. Perhaps a romance could have been interesting, you get close to her and then she finally reveals her secret to you, not wanting to betray your trust and sleep with you first. Then you add positive, neutral, and yes, negative feedback to give her, that's realistic. Let the character choose to love or hate a trans character, or just not care.
Perhaps you should skip the one liners, ad hominem attacks and ridiculous assumptions next time.
SJWs:
"I support Beamdog and transsexual people. There's nothing wrong with transsexuality."
99% of people:
"Buggy game. Poorly written. v2.0 isn't ideal. No problems with transsexuality"
SJWs:
"I support Beamdog and transsexual people. There's nothing wrong with transsexuality."
Why even bother.
/thread
The problem is you're so used to being babbied on this and being treated as if you have something valid and intelligent to say. It messes with your self image when someone tells you "actually no".
tl;dr both codified statutes and precedent-setting are not objectively the law, they're just mutually agreed upon by a multiplicity of subjectivies as what is law, and fulfilling that condition has never made something objective afaik
Also given the pattern of reviews it's obvious that the review bombs were coordinated and don't represent a true consensus. Can't believe we're even having this argument.
You can walk away from this with zero consequence to your life. Being trans, it's not so easy, since I need ot know the latest thing that people are going to use to hit me over the head with.
"No problems with transsexuality" is a lie too so please get lost with that. Just because you say you don't have a problem with something doesn't mean your views aren't completely awful.
Seriously don't listen to random cis trolls about how to write a trans woman.