@TrentOster statement does read like an apology at all which is disappointing to say the least. I expected more humility in his statements. Another reason to not pick up Dragonspear.
Funny, because he had nothing worth apologizing over.
@TrentOster statement does read like an apology at all which is disappointing to say the least. I expected more humility in his statements. Another reason to not pick up Dragonspear.
Funny, because he had nothing worth apologizing over.
I guess we will have to agree that we completely disagree with each other. I played the original BG1 back when it came out. I recently read Amber Scott's view on the game. There is no reverence for the past. Jahiera kicked butt in the BG1. I loved how strong she was. My daughter and I played through BG1 recently and her favorite character was Jaheira. There was no need to fix anything.
The developer changed the game with no reverence to the great game that was created in the past. I guess I have to remind you of Amber Scott's comments about BG1.
“If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism, [we tried to address that],” said writer Amber Scott. “In the original there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple, like Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy. We were able to say, ‘No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.’ In Siege of Dragonspear, Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad.”
Hello friend. I'm sorry to hear that you did not feel that Dragonspear for you. I feel that you are mistaken that Beamdog has no reverence for Baldur's Gate though. It's perfectly reasonable to love a game or a movie but still think "this small thing could be improved." After all there is no single work that is indisputably perfect in every way.
Hello friend. I'm sorry to hear that you did not feel that Dragonspear for you. I feel that you are mistaken that Beamdog has no reverence for Baldur's Gate though. It's perfectly reasonable to love a game or a movie but still think "this small thing could be improved." After all there is no single work that is indisputably perfect in every way.
Except for Terminator 2 of course.
I would love to hear your stance on Star Wars, not Terminator 2 lol. If you believe George Lucas was fine to go back to the prior movies and make edits of Star Wars events, people, etc then I guess I can understand how you think Beamdog was ok to go back to characters and actually change them. Most people though I believe would disagree with you. Have a reverence for the past and respect what has come before. There should have been a story arc for Jahiera's change. And this is where the writing is weak and falls apart. If Beamdog wished or felt the need to change characters then they should have created their own IP. Fundamentally this is the frustration people I know have with the game and why dozens of my friends refuse to purchase the new expansion. They and I do not understand nor agree with those changes.
If you believe George Lucas was fine to go back to the prior movies and make edits of Star Wars events, people, etc then I guess I can understand how you think Beamdog was ok to go back to characters and actually change them.
He might not have improved them, but it is his right, especially as the original versions are still around.
There should have been a story arc for Jahiera's change. And this is where the writing is weak and falls apart. If Beamdog wished or felt the need to change characters then they should have created their own IP. Fundamentally this is the frustration people I know have with the game and why dozens of my friends refuse to purchase the new expansion. They and I do not understand nor agree with those changes.
I don't feel that Jaheira has changed. Can you explain why you think she has? Obviously she has been somewhat expanded compared to BG 1 along, which was necessary if you want BG 2 style NPCs. But I think she is in line with both her BG 2 personality and what there was of her BG 1 personality.
If you believe George Lucas was fine to go back to the prior movies and make edits of Star Wars events, people, etc then I guess I can understand how you think Beamdog was ok to go back to characters and actually change them.
That's not at all what happened here, though. The dialogue from the original game was not changed. They made a sequel. Changing Leia's personality for Episode VII would be a much better comparison.
Hello friend. I'm sorry to hear that you did not feel that Dragonspear for you. I feel that you are mistaken that Beamdog has no reverence for Baldur's Gate though. It's perfectly reasonable to love a game or a movie but still think "this small thing could be improved." After all there is no single work that is indisputably perfect in every way.
Except for Terminator 2 of course.
I would love to hear your stance on Star Wars, not Terminator 2 lol. If you believe George Lucas was fine to go back to the prior movies and make edits of Star Wars events, people, etc then I guess I can understand how you think Beamdog was ok to go back to characters and actually change them. Most people though I believe would disagree with you. Have a reverence for the past and respect what has come before. There should have been a story arc for Jahiera's change. And this is where the writing is weak and falls apart. If Beamdog wished or felt the need to change characters then they should have created their own IP. Fundamentally this is the frustration people I know have with the game and why dozens of my friends refuse to purchase the new expansion. They and I do not understand nor agree with those changes.
Hello friend, thank you for asking my thoughts.
George Lucas was perfectly within his right to go back and edit his old movies. They were his movies and he was free to do as he wished with them. I think he didn't do a great job and the old versions should still be available alongside the updated versions (as is the case with Baldur's Gate) but otherwise there is nothing wrong with it. Disney came in recently after acquiring the IP and made a new Star Wars film and it was probably the best received Star Wars film since Return of the Jedi. Maybe even Empire Strikes Back! So I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a new team taking up the reins of an old IP. Again, I believe that Beamdog has a high level of respect for the old games. If you personally don't feel the writing was up to par then that is of course a valid opinion and I respect it.
George Lucas was perfectly within his right to go back and edit his old movies. They were his movies and he was free to do as he wished with them. I think he didn't do a great job and the old versions should still be available alongside the updated versions (as is the case with Baldur's Gate) but otherwise there is nothing wrong with it. Disney came in recently after acquiring the IP and made a new Star Wars film and it was probably the best received Star Wars film since Return of the Jedi. Maybe even Empire Strikes Back! So I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a new team taking up the reins of an old IP. Again, I believe that Beamdog has a high level of respect for the old games. If you personally don't feel the writing was up to par then that is of course a valid opinion and I respect it.
(Totally not related to the controversial cause I start stoping giving a **** about that)
There some people who work on the original BG in the current Beamdog team no ? (real question, i can't find the team list on the site)
Hello friend. I'm sorry to hear that you did not feel that Dragonspear for you. I feel that you are mistaken that Beamdog has no reverence for Baldur's Gate though. It's perfectly reasonable to love a game or a movie but still think "this small thing could be improved." After all there is no single work that is indisputably perfect in every way.
Except for Terminator 2 of course.
I would love to hear your stance on Star Wars, not Terminator 2 lol. If you believe George Lucas was fine to go back to the prior movies and make edits of Star Wars events, people, etc then I guess I can understand how you think Beamdog was ok to go back to characters and actually change them. Most people though I believe would disagree with you. Have a reverence for the past and respect what has come before. There should have been a story arc for Jahiera's change. And this is where the writing is weak and falls apart. If Beamdog wished or felt the need to change characters then they should have created their own IP. Fundamentally this is the frustration people I know have with the game and why dozens of my friends refuse to purchase the new expansion. They and I do not understand nor agree with those changes.
Hello friend, thank you for asking my thoughts.
George Lucas was perfectly within his right to go back and edit his old movies. They were his movies and he was free to do as he wished with them. I think he didn't do a great job and the old versions should still be available alongside the updated versions (as is the case with Baldur's Gate) but otherwise there is nothing wrong with it. Disney came in recently after acquiring the IP and made a new Star Wars film and it was probably the best received Star Wars film since Return of the Jedi. Maybe even Empire Strikes Back! So I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a new team taking up the reins of an old IP. Again, I believe that Beamdog has a high level of respect for the old games. If you personally don't feel the writing was up to par then that is of course a valid opinion and I respect it.
We would be lost without your wisdom, friend. But just you wait until Mickey Mouse makes his cameo, I don't know if even you can save us then.
George Lucas was perfectly within his right to go back and edit his old movies. They were his movies and he was free to do as he wished with them. I think he didn't do a great job and the old versions should still be available alongside the updated versions (as is the case with Baldur's Gate) but otherwise there is nothing wrong with it. Disney came in recently after acquiring the IP and made a new Star Wars film and it was probably the best received Star Wars film since Return of the Jedi. Maybe even Empire Strikes Back! So I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a new team taking up the reins of an old IP. Again, I believe that Beamdog has a high level of respect for the old games. If you personally don't feel the writing was up to par then that is of course a valid opinion and I respect it.
(Totally not related to the controversial cause I start stoping giving a **** about that)
There some people who work on the original BG in the current Beamdog team no ? (real question, i can't find the team list on the site)
Having had a brief look at a number of the previous comments it's clear we've gone way off topic. I think a large number of people will simply scroll past the mud flinging in the hopes that the conversation may get back to the game itself.
I do feel that the above several pages of comments illustrate one of the issues many people (of all stripes) have had with some of the content Beamdog has chosen to include and the way it has been implemented.
That is to say Beamdog have politicised a previously apolitical game and that has dragged a once beloved franchise, created many years before this wider controversy, through the mud.
It's a shame to see, I've often held up Baldur's Gate as a milestone in CRPGs and always recommend it. But I feel with everything that has happened whenever the name Baldur's Gate is uttered people will remember the controversy and not the game.
So much vitriol has tarnished something so loved; it's sad to see.
You may think Jar-Jar is an unfunny character for simpletons and children but you'd be wrong. Jar-Jar, like Oblomov & other characters in Russian literature deftly conceals wisdom behind an idiot's mask.
Perhaps the next installment of Baldur's Gate will have abortion clinics in it. Perhaps Donald Trump would disapprove of the transgender NPC but approve the reduction in Jaheira's feminism ?
You may think Jar-Jar is an unfunny character for simpletons and children but you'd be wrong. Jar-Jar, like Oblomov & other characters in Russian literature deftly conceals wisdom behind an idiot's mask.
Oh don't get me wrong, I can absolutely grasp the deep nature of Jar-Jar as the superfluous man he is, but with the way the character is generally regarded, I doubt this is the norm. I personally think adding Mickey Mouse in Star Wars would be blasphemy, but as far as BGEE goes, I'm happy with the presence of characters like Larry, Darryl, and Darryl - but who will appear next?
You may think Jar-Jar is an unfunny character for simpletons and children but you'd be wrong. Jar-Jar, like Oblomov & other characters in Russian literature deftly conceals wisdom behind an idiot's mask.
Oh don't get me wrong, I can absolutely grasp the deep nature of Jar-Jar as the superfluous man he is, but with the way the character is generally regarded, I doubt this is the norm. I personally think adding Mickey Mouse in Star Wars would be blasphemy, but as far as BGEE goes, I'm happy with the presence of characters like Larry, Darryl, and Darryl - but who will appear next?
I'd get a kick out of King Pellinore chasing after the Questing Beast in a little scene but I'm an old school nerd like that.
On the subject of games being political/apolitical. Consider the internal framework used to justify the typical RPG character being an active agent of good, a problem-solver, while practically everyone else is a passive non-entity, a prop in our ever-growing heroic journey.
They are not normal people - they're heroes. Heroes are always a little off-kilter, a little out-of-step with the rest of the world. After all, you have to be outside the world to change it - and to challenge others who would change the world for their own ends. Heroes are a kind of autogyro, correcting our equilibrium whenever some mad king or crazed wizard attempts to disrupt it. After all, that's where the word "hero" comes from: to protect or defend.
You can't save the world without deciding if the world if worth saving, or change the world without realising that it has to. Is it even right that one person has the power to do so? Can anyone become a hero, or is it only something that you are born with? Does Charname rise so high because they are a child of Bhaal and inherently better than other people or because of their will, their drive to fight and create a new world? That's political as heck!
You may think Jar-Jar is an unfunny character for simpletons and children but you'd be wrong. Jar-Jar, like Oblomov & other characters in Russian literature deftly conceals wisdom behind an idiot's mask.
Oh don't get me wrong, I can absolutely grasp the deep nature of Jar-Jar as the superfluous man he is, but with the way the character is generally regarded, I doubt this is the norm. I personally think adding Mickey Mouse in Star Wars would be blasphemy, but as far as BGEE goes, I'm happy with the presence of characters like Larry, Darryl, and Darryl - but who will appear next?
I'd get a kick out of King Pellinore chasing after the Questing Beast in a little scene but I'm an old school nerd like that.
On the subject of games being political/apolitical. Consider the internal framework used to justify the typical RPG character being an active agent of good, a problem-solver, while practically everyone else is a passive non-entity, a prop in our ever-growing heroic journey.
They aren't not normal people - they're heroes. Heroes are always a little off-kilter, a little out-of-step with the rest of the world. After all, you have to be outside the world to change it - and to challenge others who would change the world for their own ends. Heroes are a kind of autogyro, correcting our equilibrium whenever some mad king or crazed wizard attempts to disrupt it. After all, that's where the word "hero" comes from: to protect or defend.
You can't save the world without deciding if the world if worth saving, or change the world without realising that it has to. Is it even right that one person has the power to do so? Can anyone become a hero, or is it only something that you are born with? Does Charname rise so high because they are a child of Bhaal and inherently better than other people or because of their will, their drive to fight and create a new world? That's political as heck!
Another once and future king fan? A well deserved like for you!
Hello friend. I'm sorry to hear that you did not feel that Dragonspear for you. I feel that you are mistaken that Beamdog has no reverence for Baldur's Gate though. It's perfectly reasonable to love a game or a movie but still think "this small thing could be improved." After all there is no single work that is indisputably perfect in every way.
Except for Terminator 2 of course.
Ugh! I was trying so hard to stay out of this thread, but now you've done it! Terminator 2 was a fantastic film, great in many ways, and might have been perfect were it not for that '2' on the end. It totally undid the perfect time loop from one of my all-time favorite films, and that is (almost) an unforgivable sin. As long as I can treat the two films as entirely unrelated, then I am happy, but T2 is far from perfect, I'm afraid that it is merely exceptionally good.
@Diogenes42 Apolitical was the wrong word,however,I think the thrust of what the person was saying is that Baldur's Gate was never a game that stuck its nose into real world politics. The game has politics in it but it is akin to the fantasy world, it is within the continuity of its established lore, in the D&D universe. You did not see 90s issues, like Bill Clinton, the Gulf War, and music censorship in Baldur's gate. Why? Because Faerun is supposed to be another world, with its own problems.
@GreenWarlock A good point and well made friend, I can accept this.
@Camus34 I feel like this is slightly disingenuous since Siege of Dragonspear doesn't do this either. If you are referring to the Minsc line then it was a fourth wall breaking joke of which there were many in Baldur's Gate and in any case it has since been removed. If you are referring to in the inclusion of a trans character then that is not really a modern phenomenon obviously, just a hot topic in modern discussions.
You may feel that such an inclusion in itself is inherently political. That's fine.
Let's think about this: The plot of Baldur's Gate is the manipulation of economics through shadowy manoeuvring by the main villain. Later you learn that he is attempting to force the country into a pointless war to achieve his political goals and become more powerful.
You may or may not see this as some kind of metaphor for the First Gulf War. However you cannot escape the implicit views of the writers that it is wrong to do such things.
Thank you for letting my voice my thoughts friends and I look forward to hearing what you think.
@GreenWarlock A good point and well made friend, I can accept this.
@Camus34 I feel like this is slightly disingenuous since Siege of Dragonspear doesn't do this either. If you are referring to the Minsc line then it was a fourth wall breaking joke of which there were many in Baldur's Gate and in any case it has since been removed. If you are referring to in the inclusion of a trans character then that is not really a modern phenomenon obviously, just a hot topic in modern discussions.
You may feel that such an inclusion in itself is inherently political. That's fine.
Let's think about this: The plot of Baldur's Gate is the manipulation of economics through shadowy manoeuvring by the main villain. Later you learn that he is attempting to force the country into a pointless war to achieve his political goals and become more powerful.
You may or may not see this as some kind of metaphor for the First Gulf War. However you cannot escape the implicit views of the writers that it is wrong to do such things.
Thank you for letting my voice my thoughts friends and I look forward to hearing what you think.
I'm not going to rehash everything that I wrote about the Minsc line, but comparing it to the fourth wall breakers in the original game is what I would call disingenuous, as they were not allusions to months of vicious debate between two socio-polical entities. If you are interested on the rest of what I wrote on the Minsc line, it is on pg.13 of this thread just CTRL F and type Camus34.
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Now on that point about the Gulf War actually being 'referenced' in Baldur's Gate; that is confirmation bias, starting a war to try and gain power can be analogous to any war in history, but it is not analogous to any one war in particular. The only way that it can become a direct reference (as is), is if you just say that it is in your own head. The Gulf war did not start over brittle Iron, doppelgangers killing and replacing a guild, and an increase in banditry, it was a slow boiling process that began in 1974 when the CIA and Henry Kissinger hung the Kurds out to dry and crowned Saddam Hussein as monster of Iraq. Your analogy misses all the history, and politics behind the first Gulf War.
The black lives matter movement is pushed by perceived threats and bad influence of rap music more than anything else. Extreme liberals often speak how white on white crime is never reported on TV news, and same for black on black crime. But when there's white on black crime, or black on white, it has more news coverage than it deserves.
These same people suddenly forget that fact and starts the blacklivesmatter movement, based on a few exceptions ( and boy can you find any kind of story among a 300 million strong population ) and years of brainwashing by the ultra black rap music still rapping about slavery centuries later.
Where are the fathers? They should be the no 1 influence, not rap music that teaches them to act like thugs, commit small time crime, and that white people are the enemy.
Black on black crime IS reported frequently in the news, especially on channels like FOX News. However, they never seem to mention the fact that white on white crime is almost as high. The reality is that more often than not, people are killed by someone from the same race and FBI statistics validate my claim. The reason behind this is that individuals frequently live in clusters of people who are mostly from their own race. This is why you see mostly white neighborhoods, mostly black areas, etc... The reason why the black on black crime rate is slightly (only 8% difference) higher than whites is that black neighborhoods are often very poor and poverty breeds crime. We saw the same thing in the Irish ghettos in New York when they immigrated there during the potato famine. Crime was rampant and it mostly involved Irish people victimizing each other.
The rest of your post is pretty much just a series of statements based entirely on racial stereotypes and seem to be red herrings.
Black Lives Matters exists because of racial injustice within society. Specifically, it exists due to the amount of black people who are shot by police. The root of this problem is racial profiling. More black people are killed by police because they are unfairly targeted and stopped by police. Logically, more encounters with police will also lead to a larger number of incidents where something bad happens. If we stop racial profiling then we will see a substantial decrease in the number of black people being killed by police.
Rap music is completely irrelevant here. This seems to be a red herring designed to move the conversation away from the issue of racial injustice. First it assumes motive. BLM have clearly stated their views and why they exist and you are making a baseless claim about their true motives based entirely on speculation. I could just as easily say you have a problem with BLM because you are a racist who has been brainwashed by racist white reactionaries on YouTube. Both of our comments assume motive without actually having evidence. If you want to say you THINK that is why BLM exists, that is fine but it is still assuming motive. However, you definitely shouldn't be posting it as a factual statement unless you have evidence to support it.
"Where are the fathers? They should be the no 1 influence, not rap music that teaches them to act like thugs, commit small time crime, and that white people are the enemy."
Again, more stereotypes. First of all, the myth that black fathers aren't involved with their kids has been debunked endlessly. Here is an example from a few years ago. This is from the CDC:
I think the most telling word in your posts is the use of the word "thug" in that sentence. From my perspective, this speaks volumes abut your view of black people. Every single time I have seen a white person use that word it is exclusively used to describe a black person. I never see them call other white people thugs, even though a lot of white people certainly fit that description. From my perspective, you are most likely a bigot if you are using a word with a negative connotation specifically against only one racial group, gender, religion, etc...
@GreenWarlock A good point and well made friend, I can accept this.
@Camus34 I feel like this is slightly disingenuous since Siege of Dragonspear doesn't do this either. If you are referring to the Minsc line then it was a fourth wall breaking joke of which there were many in Baldur's Gate and in any case it has since been removed. If you are referring to in the inclusion of a trans character then that is not really a modern phenomenon obviously, just a hot topic in modern discussions.
You may feel that such an inclusion in itself is inherently political. That's fine.
Let's think about this: The plot of Baldur's Gate is the manipulation of economics through shadowy manoeuvring by the main villain. Later you learn that he is attempting to force the country into a pointless war to achieve his political goals and become more powerful.
You may or may not see this as some kind of metaphor for the First Gulf War. However you cannot escape the implicit views of the writers that it is wrong to do such things.
Thank you for letting my voice my thoughts friends and I look forward to hearing what you think.
I'm not going to rehash everything that I wrote about the Minsc line, but comparing it to the fourth wall breakers in the original game is what I would call disingenuous, as they were not allusions to months of vicious debate between two socio-polical entities. If you are interested on the rest of what I wrote on the Minsc line, it is on pg.13 of this thread just CTRL F and type Camus34.
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Now on that point about the Gulf War actually being 'referenced' in Baldur's Gate; that is confirmation bias, starting a war to try and gain power can be analogous to any war in history, but it is not analogous to any one war in particular. The only way that it can become a direct reference (as is), is if you just say that it is in your own head. The Gulf war did not start over brittle Iron, doppelgangers killing and replacing a guild, and an increase in banditry, it was a slow boiling process that began in 1974 when the CIA and Henry Kissinger hung the Kurds out to dry and crowned Saddam Hussein as monster of Iraq. Your analogy misses all the history, and politics behind the first Gulf War.
Thank you for your thoughts friend.
I think it is best if we don't get in a debate about whether the Gulf War was about oil prices/availability or not which is what I meant in terms of the Iron Crisis being able to be viewed as a metaphor. Obviously thats something that the individual can derive from the text and not necessarily the intent of the writers.
I think you can take the incredibly simplistic and generalised point though that "war is a bad thing" as an idea the writers want to forward. Also most of the nobles (and therefore the rich) you come across are idiotic fops with no regard for anyone but themselves.
You could make an interesting argument for a kind of (unintentional) push of anti-intellectualism throughout the game. One of the first people you meet-Phlydia is an absent minded dope and most of the monks in Candlekeep are portrayed or weak or cowardly. Wizards are self-absorbed, total loons or cackling evil masterminds. The only people of any use are those who go out and do things for themselves and use their hands. They can get things done, unlike those useless people who sit around in libraries all day. The player becomes a hero by going out and getting into fights, everyone else is useless because they sit around worrying about their problems. Notice the first major conflict of the game: the scholar Gorion is defeated by the man of action Sarevok.
Obviously this is all just for fun my friends and I'm not saying anyone who made the game wanted to perpetuate such ideas.
@GreenWarlock A good point and well made friend, I can accept this.
@Camus34 I feel like this is slightly disingenuous since Siege of Dragonspear doesn't do this either. If you are referring to the Minsc line then it was a fourth wall breaking joke of which there were many in Baldur's Gate and in any case it has since been removed. If you are referring to in the inclusion of a trans character then that is not really a modern phenomenon obviously, just a hot topic in modern discussions.
You may feel that such an inclusion in itself is inherently political. That's fine.
Let's think about this: The plot of Baldur's Gate is the manipulation of economics through shadowy manoeuvring by the main villain. Later you learn that he is attempting to force the country into a pointless war to achieve his political goals and become more powerful.
You may or may not see this as some kind of metaphor for the First Gulf War. However you cannot escape the implicit views of the writers that it is wrong to do such things.
Thank you for letting my voice my thoughts friends and I look forward to hearing what you think.
I'm not going to rehash everything that I wrote about the Minsc line, but comparing it to the fourth wall breakers in the original game is what I would call disingenuous, as they were not allusions to months of vicious debate between two socio-polical entities. If you are interested on the rest of what I wrote on the Minsc line, it is on pg.13 of this thread just CTRL F and type Camus34.
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Now on that point about the Gulf War actually being 'referenced' in Baldur's Gate; that is confirmation bias, starting a war to try and gain power can be analogous to any war in history, but it is not analogous to any one war in particular. The only way that it can become a direct reference (as is), is if you just say that it is in your own head. The Gulf war did not start over brittle Iron, doppelgangers killing and replacing a guild, and an increase in banditry, it was a slow boiling process that began in 1974 when the CIA and Henry Kissinger hung the Kurds out to dry and crowned Saddam Hussein as monster of Iraq. Your analogy misses all the history, and politics behind the first Gulf War.
Thank you for your thoughts friend.
I think it is best if we don't get in a debate about whether the Gulf War was about oil prices/availability or not which is what I meant in terms of the Iron Crisis being able to be viewed as a metaphor. Obviously thats something that the individual can derive from the text and not necessarily the intent of the writers.
I think you can take the incredibly simplistic and generalised point though that "war is a bad thing" as an idea the writers want to forward. Also most of the nobles (and therefore the rich) you come across are idiotic fops with no regard for anyone but themselves.
You could make an interesting argument for a kind of (unintentional) push of anti-intellectualism throughout the game. One of the first people you meet-Phlydia is an absent minded dope and most of the monks in Candlekeep are portrayed or weak or cowardly. Wizards are self-absorbed, total loons or cackling evil masterminds. The only people of any use are those who go out and do things for themselves and use their hands. They can get things done, unlike those useless people who sit around in libraries all day. The player becomes a hero by going out and getting into fights, everyone else is useless because they sit around worrying about their problems. Notice the first major conflict of the game: the scholar Gorion is defeated by the man of action Sarevok.
Obviously this is all just for fun my friends and I'm not saying anyone who made the game wanted to perpetuate such ideas.
I'm not trying to start a debate about the Gulf War, I mentioned the point at which the process began... As for the rest, I'll make this simple, do you think that the original Bladur's Gate made references to real life political problems in the 90s or not?
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Acknowledging the existence of trans people is not "politicking" anymore than having an atheist character in a game is a statement about religion. You can infer whatever you choose from it but the character's existence in the game is logically not a political statement of any kind. They are not saying you need to support transgendered people or LGBT issues by simply having the character in the game. You are choosing to draw this conclusion even though it is entirely baseless. According to your logic, the developers of games like Hatred must think that everyone should die because the main character is a pyschopath who murders people. Its a political statement!
Comments
The developer changed the game with no reverence to the great game that was created in the past. I guess I have to remind you of Amber Scott's comments about BG1.
“If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism, [we tried to address that],” said writer Amber Scott. “In the original there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple, like Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy. We were able to say, ‘No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.’ In Siege of Dragonspear, Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad.”
http://kotaku.com/the-struggle-to-bring-back-baldur-s-gate-after-17-years-1768303595
Except for Terminator 2 of course.
George Lucas was perfectly within his right to go back and edit his old movies. They were his movies and he was free to do as he wished with them. I think he didn't do a great job and the old versions should still be available alongside the updated versions (as is the case with Baldur's Gate) but otherwise there is nothing wrong with it. Disney came in recently after acquiring the IP and made a new Star Wars film and it was probably the best received Star Wars film since Return of the Jedi. Maybe even Empire Strikes Back! So I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a new team taking up the reins of an old IP. Again, I believe that Beamdog has a high level of respect for the old games. If you personally don't feel the writing was up to par then that is of course a valid opinion and I respect it.
There some people who work on the original BG in the current Beamdog team no ? (real question, i can't find the team list on the site)
I'm gonna stop facedesk for today. My head and my desk will really end up being broken.
Thank for the answer.
I do feel that the above several pages of comments illustrate one of the issues many people (of all stripes) have had with some of the content Beamdog has chosen to include and the way it has been implemented.
That is to say Beamdog have politicised a previously apolitical game and that has dragged a once beloved franchise, created many years before this wider controversy, through the mud.
It's a shame to see, I've often held up Baldur's Gate as a milestone in CRPGs and always recommend it. But I feel with everything that has happened whenever the name Baldur's Gate is uttered people will remember the controversy and not the game.
So much vitriol has tarnished something so loved; it's sad to see.
I personally think adding Mickey Mouse in Star Wars would be blasphemy, but as far as BGEE goes, I'm happy with the presence of characters like Larry, Darryl, and Darryl - but who will appear next?
*Wash her eyes*
*Re-read*
*Re-wash her eyes*
On the subject of games being political/apolitical. Consider the internal framework used to justify the typical RPG character being an active agent of good, a problem-solver, while practically everyone else is a passive non-entity, a prop in our ever-growing heroic journey.
They are not normal people - they're heroes. Heroes are always a little off-kilter, a little out-of-step with the rest of the world. After all, you have to be outside the world to change it - and to challenge others who would change the world for their own ends. Heroes are a kind of autogyro, correcting our equilibrium whenever some mad king or crazed wizard attempts to disrupt it. After all, that's where the word "hero" comes from: to protect or defend.
You can't save the world without deciding if the world if worth saving, or change the world without realising that it has to. Is it even right that one person has the power to do so? Can anyone become a hero, or is it only something that you are born with? Does Charname rise so high because they are a child of Bhaal and inherently better than other people or because of their will, their drive to fight and create a new world? That's political as heck!
I dispute thee!
@Camus34 I feel like this is slightly disingenuous since Siege of Dragonspear doesn't do this either. If you are referring to the Minsc line then it was a fourth wall breaking joke of which there were many in Baldur's Gate and in any case it has since been removed. If you are referring to in the inclusion of a trans character then that is not really a modern phenomenon obviously, just a hot topic in modern discussions.
You may feel that such an inclusion in itself is inherently political. That's fine.
Let's think about this: The plot of Baldur's Gate is the manipulation of economics through shadowy manoeuvring by the main villain. Later you learn that he is attempting to force the country into a pointless war to achieve his political goals and become more powerful.
You may or may not see this as some kind of metaphor for the First Gulf War. However you cannot escape the implicit views of the writers that it is wrong to do such things.
Thank you for letting my voice my thoughts friends and I look forward to hearing what you think.
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Now on that point about the Gulf War actually being 'referenced' in Baldur's Gate; that is confirmation bias, starting a war to try and gain power can be analogous to any war in history, but it is not analogous to any one war in particular. The only way that it can become a direct reference (as is), is if you just say that it is in your own head. The Gulf war did not start over brittle Iron, doppelgangers killing and replacing a guild, and an increase in banditry, it was a slow boiling process that began in 1974 when the CIA and Henry Kissinger hung the Kurds out to dry and crowned Saddam Hussein as monster of Iraq. Your analogy misses all the history, and politics behind the first Gulf War.
The rest of your post is pretty much just a series of statements based entirely on racial stereotypes and seem to be red herrings.
Black Lives Matters exists because of racial injustice within society. Specifically, it exists due to the amount of black people who are shot by police. The root of this problem is racial profiling. More black people are killed by police because they are unfairly targeted and stopped by police. Logically, more encounters with police will also lead to a larger number of incidents where something bad happens. If we stop racial profiling then we will see a substantial decrease in the number of black people being killed by police.
Rap music is completely irrelevant here. This seems to be a red herring designed to move the conversation away from the issue of racial injustice. First it assumes motive. BLM have clearly stated their views and why they exist and you are making a baseless claim about their true motives based entirely on speculation. I could just as easily say you have a problem with BLM because you are a racist who has been brainwashed by racist white reactionaries on YouTube. Both of our comments assume motive without actually having evidence. If you want to say you THINK that is why BLM exists, that is fine but it is still assuming motive. However, you definitely shouldn't be posting it as a factual statement unless you have evidence to support it.
"Where are the fathers? They should be the no 1 influence, not rap music that teaches them to act like thugs, commit small time crime, and that white people are the enemy."
Again, more stereotypes. First of all, the myth that black fathers aren't involved with their kids has been debunked endlessly. Here is an example from a few years ago. This is from the CDC:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/20/local/la-me-black-dads-20131221
I think the most telling word in your posts is the use of the word "thug" in that sentence. From my perspective, this speaks volumes abut your view of black people. Every single time I have seen a white person use that word it is exclusively used to describe a black person. I never see them call other white people thugs, even though a lot of white people certainly fit that description. From my perspective, you are most likely a bigot if you are using a word with a negative connotation specifically against only one racial group, gender, religion, etc...
I think it is best if we don't get in a debate about whether the Gulf War was about oil prices/availability or not which is what I meant in terms of the Iron Crisis being able to be viewed as a metaphor. Obviously thats something that the individual can derive from the text and not necessarily the intent of the writers.
I think you can take the incredibly simplistic and generalised point though that "war is a bad thing" as an idea the writers want to forward. Also most of the nobles (and therefore the rich) you come across are idiotic fops with no regard for anyone but themselves.
You could make an interesting argument for a kind of (unintentional) push of anti-intellectualism throughout the game. One of the first people you meet-Phlydia is an absent minded dope and most of the monks in Candlekeep are portrayed or weak or cowardly. Wizards are self-absorbed, total loons or cackling evil masterminds. The only people of any use are those who go out and do things for themselves and use their hands. They can get things done, unlike those useless people who sit around in libraries all day. The player becomes a hero by going out and getting into fights, everyone else is useless because they sit around worrying about their problems. Notice the first major conflict of the game: the scholar Gorion is defeated by the man of action Sarevok.
Obviously this is all just for fun my friends and I'm not saying anyone who made the game wanted to perpetuate such ideas.