PS: again lizzy is not part of gamergate. so what are you even talking about? discuss the details of her case with deepfreeze if you think there was some collusion. you have not shown evidance that deepfreeze is biased. you just made an accusation. the burden of proof is on you.
I have adequatly shown why gamergate is only after ethics on their targets, the actions of kotaku are listed but the same actions of a gamergate sympathizer are not. Your only defense is 'she is not gamergate' which is both debatable and irrelevant.
The question is why gamergate is only selective in its quest for ethics
Ahh how wonderfully you just ignored my request that i made 3 times in a row: SHOW ME PROOF THAT GAMERGATE IS BEHIND THE BAD REVIEWS. You still have not done it You use gamergate as a buzzword for everybody who gives this game a bad rating. that is as much pathetic as the CEO begging for positive reviews. It is just a plain as simple bullshit stragety to evade a discussion about the obvious flaws of this game, the terrible writing and the shoehorned propaganda.
You cannot proof it, you have no proof, all you do is make weird accusations, that all bad reviews are gamergaters lol. Yet you have not shown a single notable gamergater calling for a mob to review-bomb the game negatively. Because there is none.
Your attempts here, were as expected very poor. Just like many SJWs, you could not even put any weight behind any of your statements when confronted with reality and the demand for proof.
With this amazing lack of evidence that gamergate did anything, you have only confirmed the opposite. bad games, get bad reviews. simple as that. and people like you try to find excuses why their beloved game was rated badly.
And you have also not proven your weird lizzy case, which is 1. irrelevant to the discussion here, and 2. show me factual evidence of your claims and not some kotako and salon writers hating.
There IS a review bombing going on. You have to be blind not to see it. No point in denying it. Some have valid reasons for not being too favorable in their reviews. Most relate to bugs (which will be fixed anyway), and the writing. But the majority of the bad reviews are just review bombing.
if there were "review bombing" then who is doing it? how was it caused? it's strange how some sjws just want to point a finger at gamergate, a movement thatis about ethics in the gaming press, yet nobody is showing the slightest bit of evidance that gamergate was behind it.
many bad reviews are not review bombing , it just shows the game is very bad and very disliked by gamers.
I never said it was Gamergate doing it. I have seen plenty downright bigoted gamers giving the game a bad review because it is "SJW propaganda". Tons of them, actually. I see angry posts on forums and whatnot too. From people advicing others not to buy the game due to Mizhena.
I have also seen bad reviews, like the ones you pointed out, that have valid points.
Yes I agree, as i said there are a multitude of reasons why this game was rated poorly. And gamergate certainly isnt one of them. As the lack of evidance is quite damning in that case.
Some people dont like it for the bugs, some people dont like it for the writing some people dont like it for the character changes some dont like it for propaganda some dont like it because the multiplayer is broken and some dont like a transsexual in their game, which is an opinion they are allowed to have
and most players don't like it for a combination of those reasons.
It's time Beamdogs owns up to their bullshit and stops trying to blame some uninvolved groups for their own botched work. it's time they fix their stuff, especially in terms of bugs and writing.
There is no point in SJWs like mzachy trying to make excuses and accusations without evidance, when the core of the problem is simple that Beamdog did a poor job of satisfying a bigger audiance.
Sorry to hear that you aren't happy with how the game turned out friend. I hope you will come to enjoy the game in time when the bugs are smoothed out and the Mizhena character gets expanded on.
Ahh how wonderfully you just ignored my request that i made 3 times in a row: SHOW ME PROOF THAT GAMERGATE IS BEHIND THE BAD REVIEWS. You still have not done it
Ahh how wonderfully you just ignored my request that I made 3 times in a row: SHOW ME PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS!
I'm serious. I keep asking for direct quotes of your claims. You keep running away from it and trying to move on to the next topic. You believe in ethics in journalism? Show me direct quotes. I'm still waiting.
Ahh how wonderfully you just ignored my request that i made 3 times in a row: SHOW ME PROOF THAT GAMERGATE IS BEHIND THE BAD REVIEWS. You still have not done it
Ahh how wonderfully you just ignored my request that I made 3 times in a row: SHOW ME PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS!
I'm serious. I keep asking for direct quotes of your claims. You keep running away from it and trying to move on to the next topic. You believe in ethics in journalism? Show me direct quotes. I'm still waiting.
He's reading from the same boilerplate script all the GGs have been the last ~10 days. Your request is probably not covered in the approved talking points.
@mzachary so you are complaining about getting bad reviews from the audiance. fanboy much? the up and downvoting system is exactly for that. its about the audiance deceiding what they like and dislike. that most people dislike the game, should give you an insight at the fact that something is blantantly wrong.
On the contrary dear @RacistGoblin could you explain why the majority of reviews on steam (where it is required to own the game) are positive? Yet on metacritic and gog are mostly negative (where you don't have to own the game).
I shall give you the answer: reviewbombing by people not owning the game at all. The ability to up- or downvote is also not dependent on owning the game and can therefor not be an objective measure when it is obvious that reviewbombing and votebrigading is taking place.
So to make a statement about 'most people disliking the game' you need to do independent market research, or failing that the most reliable indicater thereafter, which is reviews by confirmed gamesowners who are 72% positive.
calling people a mob every time a game gets bad reviews shows how immature you are.
Is it? It seems that describing it as a 'mob' is simply a rather accurate description for a large group of angry people reviewbombing a game because they got triggered by its content.
and your statement that many people give it positive reviews is wrong to begin with*. many people complain about bugs, crashes, bad writing and propaganda. there is a multitude of errors in this game.
*False: as of this post Siege of Dragonspear is rated 72% positive on steam this is also reflected by professional reviews who are also around that percentage positive.
I guess it depends on where you get the information. I think 58% is more reasonable.
You know when George Lucas tampered with the old Star Wars trilogy? Same thing here. Change something people have loved for a long time and you get stick for it.
Improvement or not, this is why things heated up.
Again, this is a really bad analogy because this isn't about changes to the original game. None of the dialogue from the original game was altered. Siege of Dragonspear is a sequel, not an edit. I don't understand how people are overlooking that extremely obvious and important distinction.
@mzachary so you are complaining about getting bad reviews from the audiance. fanboy much? the up and downvoting system is exactly for that. its about the audiance deceiding what they like and dislike. that most people dislike the game, should give you an insight at the fact that something is blantantly wrong.
On the contrary dear @RacistGoblin could you explain why the majority of reviews on steam (where it is required to own the game) are positive? Yet on metacritic and gog are mostly negative (where you don't have to own the game).
I shall give you the answer: reviewbombing by people not owning the game at all. The ability to up- or downvote is also not dependent on owning the game and can therefor not be an objective measure when it is obvious that reviewbombing and votebrigading is taking place.
So to make a statement about 'most people disliking the game' you need to do independent market research, or failing that the most reliable indicater thereafter, which is reviews by confirmed gamesowners who are 72% positive.
calling people a mob every time a game gets bad reviews shows how immature you are.
Is it? It seems that describing it as a 'mob' is simply a rather accurate description for a large group of angry people reviewbombing a game because they got triggered by its content.
and your statement that many people give it positive reviews is wrong to begin with*. many people complain about bugs, crashes, bad writing and propaganda. there is a multitude of errors in this game.
*False: as of this post Siege of Dragonspear is rated 72% positive on steam this is also reflected by professional reviews who are also around that percentage positive.
I guess it depends on where you get the information. I think 58% is more reasonable.
yeah but some people are really desperate trying to whitewash the response this game got.
i'm not saying everything in the game is bad. but there are so many concerns that need to be adressed. and all he negative critism should not be just ignored by some people using gamergate as an excuse. as if these concerns don't come from a wide variety of people. if so many people have a problem with it, then maybe something IS wrong.
the star wars comparison really nailed it, i think. you don't change something that people love. there have been established characters and these characters don't change from one second to another into entirely diffrent personas. that seems shoehorned and not well written. (that is only one of the concerns of course)
@Diogenes42 thanks, i hope so too. i really want to enjoy baldurs gate again. i mean i plyed bg2 like 14 times or so.. thats how addicted i was to it.
and @grum, if you still don't know what we are talking about, how about you look up the damn interview - it's not in any way hidden, it's on kotaku. i am not your google search engine. the interview is what has been thourougly discussed throughout this entire thread and more. the quotes of it have been posted like 50 times, even on the last 2 pages. i can't help you if you pretend to be blind.
i posted the evidence and other people posted the interview a multitude of times, you didn't post any evidance.
your bullshit claim that gamergate is behind it, has not been fruitful, without the tiniest shred of evidance. other than one 8chan post. that's hardly amounts for this huge wave of bad reviews. especially since the post on 8chan came after beamdogs response to the bad reviews and not before. lol
You know when George Lucas tampered with the old Star Wars trilogy? Same thing here. Change something people have loved for a long time and you get stick for it.
Improvement or not, this is why things heated up.
Again, this is a really bad analogy because this isn't about changes to the original game. None of the dialogue from the original game was altered. Siege of Dragonspear is a sequel, not an edit. I don't understand how people are overlooking that extremely obvious and important distinction.
The characters got tampered with.
And via the patch and the upgrades to the game, they managed to actually ruin my BG game completely with the graphics update. I am colourblind so the new update makes the game unplayable. All my saves got messed up. And there is no way to patch the game down to the previous version. And I can't even download a previous version since the only one available is the fully patched one.
I've read the last two pages. I see you making unsupported claims that intentionally misstate what was said for your agenda. If it is so easy to find, post the exact passages. Surely it's not that hard? Prove me wrong.
You know when George Lucas tampered with the old Star Wars trilogy? Same thing here. Change something people have loved for a long time and you get stick for it.
Improvement or not, this is why things heated up.
Again, this is a really bad analogy because this isn't about changes to the original game. None of the dialogue from the original game was altered. Siege of Dragonspear is a sequel, not an edit. I don't understand how people are overlooking that extremely obvious and important distinction.
A sequel though, is build upon the foundation the original has set. and it is simply very artifical to give certain characters complete personality makeovers when the story is supposedly playing directly after the events of bg1. that is just an example of bad writing. no character development. just a jumpcut to a diffrent persona.
if they wanted to tell a story about new characters, they should have created those and let the old ones stay the way they were and the way fans remember them.
You know when George Lucas tampered with the old Star Wars trilogy? Same thing here. Change something people have loved for a long time and you get stick for it.
Improvement or not, this is why things heated up.
Again, this is a really bad analogy because this isn't about changes to the original game. None of the dialogue from the original game was altered. Siege of Dragonspear is a sequel, not an edit. I don't understand how people are overlooking that extremely obvious and important distinction.
Your kidding right? How can you make this statement? Beamdog changes characters in between BG1 and BG2, how is that ok? Are Jaheira and Safana the same? According to Amber Scott on Safana... "she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad." According to Amber Scott on Jaheira... "Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy."
This would have been fine if Beamdog chose to create new IP but it is not when they go back to the Baldur's Gate world. Creating new characters fine, but messing with old ones are not ok in a 1.5 product in my opinion. This is also why I upset about the Minsc statement.
You know when George Lucas tampered with the old Star Wars trilogy? Same thing here. Change something people have loved for a long time and you get stick for it.
Improvement or not, this is why things heated up.
Again, this is a really bad analogy because this isn't about changes to the original game. None of the dialogue from the original game was altered. Siege of Dragonspear is a sequel, not an edit. I don't understand how people are overlooking that extremely obvious and important distinction.
The characters got tampered with.
And via the patch and the upgrades to the game, they managed to actually ruin my BG game completely with the graphics update. I am colourblind so the new update makes the game unplayable. All my saves got messed up. And there is no way to patch the game down to the previous version. And I can't even download a previous version since the only one available is the fully patched one.
So yeah. It is very much like what Lucas did.
Did they get tampered with in the original?
I really don't know what your issues with the colors in the patch have to do with anything else in this discussion.
You know when George Lucas tampered with the old Star Wars trilogy? Same thing here. Change something people have loved for a long time and you get stick for it.
Improvement or not, this is why things heated up.
Again, this is a really bad analogy because this isn't about changes to the original game. None of the dialogue from the original game was altered. Siege of Dragonspear is a sequel, not an edit. I don't understand how people are overlooking that extremely obvious and important distinction.
Your kidding right? How can you make this statement?
Because they didn't change the characters in the original? This is not a subtle point, guys.
this kind of showhorned personality change is what is riling up a lot o people. and not at all acceptable.
@Grum quote has been posted on the last 2 pages several times, excatly like she said it. nothing changed to fit my agenda. but apparently it doens't fit yours, as you are so hard trying to evade to look at it. i guess you have no arguments to begin with. otherwise you would have allready read the interview we are all talking about, and apparently everybody here knows excactly what is written in it. since the 2 quotes are everywhere here. if you are so desperate maybe try gamerghazi to hate against GGs.
this kind of showhorned personality change is what is riling up a lot o people. and not at all acceptable.
@Grum quote has been posted on the last 2 pages several times, excatly like she said it. nothing changed to fit my agenda. but apparently it doens't fit yours, as you are so hard trying to evade to look at it. i guess you have no arguments to begin with. otherwise you would have allready read the interview we are all talking about, and apparently everybody here knows excactly what is written in it. since the 2 quotes are everywhere here. if you are so desperate maybe try gamerghazi to hate against GGs.
Oh no. If it is so easy then post it. Specifically, you made these claims:
""the part where she talked about her writing being fored and fake, you left out. whom are you trying to manipulate here? it's not ethical to cherry pick parts of the interview that i didn't even adress."
She talked about her writing being forced and fake.
You NEVER posted any evidence for this. You just keep telling others to check the interview when YOU made these facetious claims. You are dancing around this and trying to run away by shifting responsibility.
Do you believe in ethics in journalism? Then prove it by doing your part. Prove that you are right. Pull up the interview, link it, and show the exact quotes. Do that and I'll shut up.
And I'm not hating on GG here. I'm keeping you honest by demanding that when claims are made that they are properly supported.
If a SWJ was making claims against GG, wouldn't you want them to provide their sources? Would you accept them refusing to do so and just off-handedly referring to an interview without providing anything concrete to back up their attacks?
If you make an incendiary claim, you should be able to back it up. Post the quotes and show us where she said that her writing is forced and fake.
You know when George Lucas tampered with the old Star Wars trilogy? Same thing here. Change something people have loved for a long time and you get stick for it.
Improvement or not, this is why things heated up.
Again, this is a really bad analogy because this isn't about changes to the original game. None of the dialogue from the original game was altered. Siege of Dragonspear is a sequel, not an edit. I don't understand how people are overlooking that extremely obvious and important distinction.
Your kidding right? How can you make this statement?
Because they didn't change the characters in the original? This is not a subtle point, guys.
The character is a certain way in Baldur's Gate 1. The character changes in 1.5 (Dragonspear) and then goes back to how they were Baldur's Gate 2 and you do not see this as disjointed? I feel Amber Scott was wrong in her interpretation of the characters and should not have changed them. She is not the original author to make that assessment.
I didn't even get a chance to play the game yet and all I heard about was some controversy involving Minsc and another character.
All I can say is people are way too sensitive and these microaggressions that have become all too common in just about everything these days aren't cute. People seriously have nothing better to do with their time?
this kind of showhorned personality change is what is riling up a lot o people. and not at all acceptable.
@Grum quote has been posted on the last 2 pages several times, excatly like she said it. nothing changed to fit my agenda. but apparently it doens't fit yours, as you are so hard trying to evade to look at it. i guess you have no arguments to begin with. otherwise you would have allready read the interview we are all talking about, and apparently everybody here knows excactly what is written in it. since the 2 quotes are everywhere here. if you are so desperate maybe try gamerghazi to hate against GGs.
Oh no. If it is so easy then post it. Specifically, you made these claims:
""the part where she talked about her writing being fored and fake, you left out. whom are you trying to manipulate here? it's not ethical to cherry pick parts of the interview that i didn't even adress."
She talked about her writing being forced and fake.
You NEVER posted any evidence for this. You just keep telling others to check the interview when YOU made these facetious claims. You are dancing around this and trying to run away by shifting responsibility.
Do you believe in ethics in journalism? Then prove it by doing your part. Prove that you are right. Pull up the interview, link it, and show the exact quotes. Do that and I'll shut up.
And I'm not hating on GG here. I'm keeping you honest by demanding that when claims are made that they are properly supported.
If a SWJ was making claims against GG, wouldn't you want them to provide their sources? Would you accept them refusing to do so and just off-handedly referring to an interview without providing anything concrete to back up their attacks?
If you make an incendiary claim, you should be able to back it up. Post the quotes and show us where she said that her writing is forced and fake.
“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.”
You know when George Lucas tampered with the old Star Wars trilogy? Same thing here. Change something people have loved for a long time and you get stick for it.
Improvement or not, this is why things heated up.
Again, this is a really bad analogy because this isn't about changes to the original game. None of the dialogue from the original game was altered. Siege of Dragonspear is a sequel, not an edit. I don't understand how people are overlooking that extremely obvious and important distinction.
Your kidding right? How can you make this statement?
Because they didn't change the characters in the original? This is not a subtle point, guys.
The character is a certain way in Baldur's Gate 1. The character changes in 1.5 (Dragonspear) and then goes back to how they were Baldur's Gate 2 and you do not see this as disjointed? I feel Amber Scott was wrong in her interpretation of the characters and should not have changed them. She is not the original author to make that assessment.
OK. I didn't say it's not disjointed (although I don't think it is). I said it's not analogous to changing the original Star Wars trilogy.
this kind of showhorned personality change is what is riling up a lot o people. and not at all acceptable.
@Grum quote has been posted on the last 2 pages several times, excatly like she said it. nothing changed to fit my agenda. but apparently it doens't fit yours, as you are so hard trying to evade to look at it. i guess you have no arguments to begin with. otherwise you would have allready read the interview we are all talking about, and apparently everybody here knows excactly what is written in it. since the 2 quotes are everywhere here. if you are so desperate maybe try gamerghazi to hate against GGs.
Oh no. If it is so easy then post it. Specifically, you made these claims:
""the part where she talked about her writing being fored and fake, you left out. whom are you trying to manipulate here? it's not ethical to cherry pick parts of the interview that i didn't even adress."
She talked about her writing being forced and fake.
You NEVER posted any evidence for this. You just keep telling others to check the interview when YOU made these facetious claims. You are dancing around this and trying to run away by shifting responsibility.
Do you believe in ethics in journalism? Then prove it by doing your part. Prove that you are right. Pull up the interview, link it, and show the exact quotes. Do that and I'll shut up.
And I'm not hating on GG here. I'm keeping you honest by demanding that when claims are made that they are properly supported.
If a SWJ was making claims against GG, wouldn't you want them to provide their sources? Would you accept them refusing to do so and just off-handedly referring to an interview without providing anything concrete to back up their attacks?
If you make an incendiary claim, you should be able to back it up. Post the quotes and show us where she said that her writing is forced and fake.
“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.”
"the part where she talked about her writing being fored and fake, you left out"
The cited text
“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.”
The disconnect
Nowhere there does she talk about her writing being forced or fake. RacistGoblin keeps doubling down on this and saying that the interview shows that he is right, but he can't show me any evidence.
You posted something which says absolutely nothing about her writing being forced or fake. The link you provided has nothing in it about her writing being forced or fake.
The conclusion
1. RacistGoblin is a liar or; 2. RacistGoblin has an agenda to push and it has blinded him to the point where he misremembers what he read or; 3. RacistGoblin has the quotes needed to back up his argument but is too lazy to find them and; 4. You, Panthros, didn't understand what it is that I am asking RacistGoblin to prove.
He made a very specific claim. That Amber Scott "talked about her writing being forced and fake." He has said several times in this thread that there is proof of it.
One thing that really grinds my gears is people with an agenda falsifying information to make their opposition look bad.
If he wants to prove me wrong, then post a quote. I will tip my hat to him, tell him that he is right, and move on. But only if he can show me where Amber Scott talked about her writing being forced and fake with a link to the interview.
You know when George Lucas tampered with the old Star Wars trilogy? Same thing here. Change something people have loved for a long time and you get stick for it.
Improvement or not, this is why things heated up.
Again, this is a really bad analogy because this isn't about changes to the original game. None of the dialogue from the original game was altered. Siege of Dragonspear is a sequel, not an edit. I don't understand how people are overlooking that extremely obvious and important distinction.
Your kidding right? How can you make this statement?
Because they didn't change the characters in the original? This is not a subtle point, guys.
The character is a certain way in Baldur's Gate 1. The character changes in 1.5 (Dragonspear) and then goes back to how they were Baldur's Gate 2 and you do not see this as disjointed? I feel Amber Scott was wrong in her interpretation of the characters and should not have changed them. She is not the original author to make that assessment.
OK. I didn't say it's not disjointed (although I don't think it is). I said it's not analogous to changing the original Star Wars trilogy.
Rogue One will be a good example. Disney is going to tell a new story in between 3 and 4 and they have created new characters. Smart move Disney. Beamdog could learn from you. There are plenty of new stories to tell without changing established character developments. My issue with Beamdog and Amber Scott is they chose to mess with characters we have come to love and respect. I have no problem with the transgender character though it felt rushed and out of place. This is about messing with established characters! Beamdog only respects Baldur's Gate from their perspective!
@Panthros: I hear you, it just seems like a weird thing to get hung up on. People make sequels to games, movies, comics, etc. all the time, and there's often not 100% overlap in the creative team. Was it even exactly the same team for BG1 and BG2? I don't know, but many characters came across differently in the latter. I know SoD is an "interquel" or whatever, and that makes it a bit different for Jaheira. That strikes me as a red herring, though, especially since more of the initial complaints were about Safana. I'm not even sure how much SoD Jaheira differs from BG2 Jaheira. Anyway, it's fine to think they did a good or bad job writing the characters you love, but people's apparent moral outrage about tampering with them at all is strange to me, given that this really isn't anything new.
You know when George Lucas tampered with the old Star Wars trilogy? Same thing here. Change something people have loved for a long time and you get stick for it.
Improvement or not, this is why things heated up.
Again, this is a really bad analogy because this isn't about changes to the original game. None of the dialogue from the original game was altered. Siege of Dragonspear is a sequel, not an edit. I don't understand how people are overlooking that extremely obvious and important distinction.
Indeed, which is why the "they changed my game!" rhetoric falls flat. But at least the George Lucas comparison acknowledges the reality that Beamdog is made up of people who actually worked on Baldur's Gate, rather than claiming they don't "own" it.
You know when George Lucas tampered with the old Star Wars trilogy? Same thing here. Change something people have loved for a long time and you get stick for it.
Improvement or not, this is why things heated up.
Again, this is a really bad analogy because this isn't about changes to the original game. None of the dialogue from the original game was altered. Siege of Dragonspear is a sequel, not an edit. I don't understand how people are overlooking that extremely obvious and important distinction.
Indeed, which is why the "they changed my game!" rhetoric falls flat. But at least the George Lucas comparison acknowledges the reality that Beamdog is made up of people who actually worked on Baldur's Gate, rather than claiming they don't "own" it.
Actually, and just to play the Devil's advocate the way I do, I see some relevance here. Star Wars didn't just change the originals, they made a new sequel. Beamdog didn't just change the originals, they made an expansion. However, your point that those two acts are different is very valid.
i see grum is still trying to make people believe that the interview didn't state that she doesnt care if people think her writing is forced or fake lol. i have a feeling you are actually mentally ill. but then again many sjws are.
the claim was exactly right and is just like she said it and how we have discussed the entire last pages. In short Grum is a liar. One thing that really grinds my gears is people with an agenda falsifying information to make their opposition look bad.
and you are too late to the party. we have allready moved on to the to topic of chracter personality change.
and a writer who saiys she doen't care if her writing is seen as fake or forced, is a shitty writer, and shows a blatant disintrest to make something that gamers enjoy.
Comments
The question is why gamergate is only selective in its quest for ethics
You still have not done it
You use gamergate as a buzzword for everybody who gives this game a bad rating. that is as much pathetic as the CEO begging for positive reviews.
It is just a plain as simple bullshit stragety to evade a discussion about the obvious flaws of this game, the terrible writing and the shoehorned propaganda.
You cannot proof it, you have no proof, all you do is make weird accusations, that all bad reviews are gamergaters lol.
Yet you have not shown a single notable gamergater calling for a mob to review-bomb the game negatively.
Because there is none.
Your attempts here, were as expected very poor. Just like many SJWs, you could not even put any weight behind any of your statements when confronted with reality and the demand for proof.
With this amazing lack of evidence that gamergate did anything, you have only confirmed the opposite.
bad games, get bad reviews. simple as that. and people like you try to find excuses why their beloved game was rated badly.
And you have also not proven your weird lizzy case, which is 1. irrelevant to the discussion here, and 2. show me factual evidence of your claims and not some kotako and salon writers hating.
And gamergate certainly isnt one of them. As the lack of evidance is quite damning in that case.
Some people dont like it for the bugs,
some people dont like it for the writing
some people dont like it for the character changes
some dont like it for propaganda
some dont like it because the multiplayer is broken
and some dont like a transsexual in their game, which is an opinion they are allowed to have
and most players don't like it for a combination of those reasons.
It's time Beamdogs owns up to their bullshit and stops trying to blame some uninvolved groups for their own botched work.
it's time they fix their stuff, especially in terms of bugs and writing.
There is no point in SJWs like mzachy trying to make excuses and accusations without evidance, when the core of the problem is simple that Beamdog did a poor job of satisfying a bigger audiance.
I'm serious. I keep asking for direct quotes of your claims. You keep running away from it and trying to move on to the next topic. You believe in ethics in journalism? Show me direct quotes. I'm still waiting.
http://web.archive.org/web/20160409153515/http://8ch.net/gamergatehq/res/321390.html
http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/baldurs-gate-enhanced-edition-siege-of-dragonspear/test/baldurs_gate_siege_of_dragonspear,51968,3270606.html
yeah but some people are really desperate trying to whitewash the response this game got.
i'm not saying everything in the game is bad. but there are so many concerns that need to be adressed. and all he negative critism should not be just ignored by some people using gamergate as an excuse.
as if these concerns don't come from a wide variety of people.
if so many people have a problem with it, then maybe something IS wrong.
the star wars comparison really nailed it, i think.
you don't change something that people love. there have been established characters and these characters don't change from one second to another into entirely diffrent personas. that seems shoehorned and not well written. (that is only one of the concerns of course)
@Diogenes42
thanks, i hope so too.
i really want to enjoy baldurs gate again.
i mean i plyed bg2 like 14 times or so.. thats how addicted i was to it.
and @grum, if you still don't know what we are talking about, how about you look up the damn interview - it's not in any way hidden, it's on kotaku. i am not your google search engine.
the interview is what has been thourougly discussed throughout this entire thread and more.
the quotes of it have been posted like 50 times, even on the last 2 pages. i can't help you if you pretend to be blind.
i posted the evidence and other people posted the interview a multitude of times, you didn't post any evidance.
your bullshit claim that gamergate is behind it, has not been fruitful, without the tiniest shred of evidance. other than one 8chan post. that's hardly amounts for this huge wave of bad reviews. especially since the post on 8chan came after beamdogs response to the bad reviews and not before. lol
And via the patch and the upgrades to the game, they managed to actually ruin my BG game completely with the graphics update. I am colourblind so the new update makes the game unplayable. All my saves got messed up. And there is no way to patch the game down to the previous version. And I can't even download a previous version since the only one available is the fully patched one.
So yeah. It is very much like what Lucas did.
I've read the last two pages. I see you making unsupported claims that intentionally misstate what was said for your agenda. If it is so easy to find, post the exact passages. Surely it's not that hard? Prove me wrong.
and it is simply very artifical to give certain characters complete personality makeovers when the story is supposedly playing directly after the events of bg1.
that is just an example of bad writing. no character development. just a jumpcut to a diffrent persona.
if they wanted to tell a story about new characters, they should have created those and let the old ones stay the way they were and the way fans remember them.
This would have been fine if Beamdog chose to create new IP but it is not when they go back to the Baldur's Gate world. Creating new characters fine, but messing with old ones are not ok in a 1.5 product in my opinion. This is also why I upset about the Minsc statement.
http://kotaku.com/the-struggle-to-bring-back-baldur-s-gate-after-17-years-1768303595
I really don't know what your issues with the colors in the patch have to do with anything else in this discussion.
this kind of showhorned personality change is what is riling up a lot o people. and not at all acceptable.
@Grum
quote has been posted on the last 2 pages several times, excatly like she said it. nothing changed to fit my agenda. but apparently it doens't fit yours, as you are so hard trying to evade to look at it.
i guess you have no arguments to begin with. otherwise you would have allready read the interview we are all talking about, and apparently everybody here knows excactly what is written in it. since the 2 quotes are everywhere here.
if you are so desperate maybe try gamerghazi to hate against GGs.
""the part where she talked about her writing being fored and fake, you left out. whom are you trying to manipulate here?
it's not ethical to cherry pick parts of the interview that i didn't even adress."
She talked about her writing being forced and fake.
You NEVER posted any evidence for this. You just keep telling others to check the interview when YOU made these facetious claims. You are dancing around this and trying to run away by shifting responsibility.
Do you believe in ethics in journalism? Then prove it by doing your part. Prove that you are right. Pull up the interview, link it, and show the exact quotes. Do that and I'll shut up.
And I'm not hating on GG here. I'm keeping you honest by demanding that when claims are made that they are properly supported.
If a SWJ was making claims against GG, wouldn't you want them to provide their sources? Would you accept them refusing to do so and just off-handedly referring to an interview without providing anything concrete to back up their attacks?
If you make an incendiary claim, you should be able to back it up. Post the quotes and show us where she said that her writing is forced and fake.
All I can say is people are way too sensitive and these microaggressions that have become all too common in just about everything these days aren't cute. People seriously have nothing better to do with their time?
“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
Ok, let's break this down.
The claim
@RacistGoblin
"the part where she talked about her writing being fored and fake, you left out"
The cited text
“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.”
The disconnect
Nowhere there does she talk about her writing being forced or fake. RacistGoblin keeps doubling down on this and saying that the interview shows that he is right, but he can't show me any evidence.
You posted something which says absolutely nothing about her writing being forced or fake. The link you provided has nothing in it about her writing being forced or fake.
The conclusion
1. RacistGoblin is a liar or;
2. RacistGoblin has an agenda to push and it has blinded him to the point where he misremembers what he read or;
3. RacistGoblin has the quotes needed to back up his argument but is too lazy to find them and;
4. You, Panthros, didn't understand what it is that I am asking RacistGoblin to prove.
He made a very specific claim. That Amber Scott "talked about her writing being forced and fake." He has said several times in this thread that there is proof of it.
One thing that really grinds my gears is people with an agenda falsifying information to make their opposition look bad.
If he wants to prove me wrong, then post a quote. I will tip my hat to him, tell him that he is right, and move on. But only if he can show me where Amber Scott talked about her writing being forced and fake with a link to the interview.
i have a feeling you are actually mentally ill. but then again many sjws are.
Here for you lazy propagandist is the real quote "“I consciously add as much diversity as I can to my writing and I don’t care if people think that’s ‘forced’ or fake." (amber scott) Link: http://steamed.kotaku.com/the-social-justice-controversy-surrounding-baldurs-gate-1769176581
the claim was exactly right and is just like she said it and how we have discussed the entire last pages.
In short Grum is a liar.
One thing that really grinds my gears is people with an agenda falsifying information to make their opposition look bad.
and you are too late to the party. we have allready moved on to the to topic of chracter personality change.
and a writer who saiys she doen't care if her writing is seen as fake or forced, is a shitty writer, and shows a blatant disintrest to make something that gamers enjoy.
the result is this games writing.