Safana had no personality in vanilla BG. Most of the NPCs were blank slates.
Complaints about whatever 'changes' were made are nonsensical. You cannot change what didn't exist in the first place.
These cries fall into the category of 'throw it against the wall and see if it sticks'.
By that logic none of the NPCs had any personality in BG1. In fairness this is true. All of them mostly just had a personality trait. In an almost gimmick kind of way. Her tone and mannerism in SoD is completely different than in BG1 though.
By today's standards, yes. It should have come up in a conversation with her. Back then it was very good, though. You can't blame a game for not having had the same development in writing and dialogue etc, as games that came out last year etc. It is like bashing Super Mario 3 for poor graphics in 2016.
Super Mario 3 looks the way it does because of technological limitations. You don't need 2016 technology to write good.
'Write good.' As someone said to me before, "irony crisis."
Safana in bg1 was a character who played with her sexuality to get her ways.* She was a temptress. Now Safana is rather cynical and snarky most of the time you talk to her.
Really? Name 5 instances in BG1 where she played with her sexuality to get her ways. I give you 1, when you recruit her. Now name 4 more.
I agree though that the changes in Jahreia are rather mild, since she doesn't have that much to say anyways. Still Safana got a complete makeover like Amber Scott has stated.
Whever or not she is an important character is besides the point though. She was part of the orginal, and neither does it make sense that a character changes her personailty from one second to the other ( since this game neatly ties to bg1) nor is it honoring the memory of fans that one of their beloved characters is not the way we remembered her. making a statement that her personality is "improved" is simply arrogant and reeks of personal agenda.
Nah, the fact of the matter is that people mistake: 'makes flirty/sultry comments as default' with 'personality' also her voiced lines in BG1 were already plenty snarky (starts after Quayle): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZlQCRwkeB8#
funny how Scott has admitted of chaning her personality in the interview and you pretend it hasn't. your bias is obvious. you are really deserate defening your game aren't you? that fanboyism is obviously clouding your judgment.
i mean you stil lthink there is some gamergate conspiracy about baldurs gate and all negative reviews come from them. while there are plenty of people here who are not even any ways connected to gamergate critising the game.
your bias is so obvious. her personality change has been thoroughly discussed here now and is admitted by the writer. again, do your research before you make such statements.
Let's say for the sake of argument that the anti-Amber Scott crew are correct, and that she is simply "shoving her political agenda down your throat" (this is always the phrase that is used among the anti-PC crowd, which is telling in itself). Let's say she is a militant feminist who can't stand men and wants to take it out on them by any means necessary. And what we get is......a slight personality "change" to a PC who didn't have much more than a portrait and a sultry voice actor in the original, and a blink and you miss it joke about Gamergate. I don't know why everyone is wasting time complaining about it on internet forums. I think we should all organize a march on Washington as soon as possible so no more fragile sensibilities are damaged by isometric-RPG expansion packs.
By today's standards, yes. It should have come up in a conversation with her. Back then it was very good, though. You can't blame a game for not having had the same development in writing and dialogue etc, as games that came out last year etc. It is like bashing Super Mario 3 for poor graphics in 2016.
Super Mario 3 looks the way it does because of technological limitations. You don't need 2016 technology to write good.
I didn't mention technology when it came to writing, did I? I said development. That means games hadn't developed that far in terms of companion interaction yet. Ultima 7 had some, but that's really it. Bioware drove that part of gaming forward severely with BG2. Bg1 was more or less just the prototype for it.
I didn't mention technology when it came to writing, did I? I said development. That means games hadn't developed that far in terms of companion interaction yet.
Hadn't they? Final Fantasy VII came out two years before Baldur's Gate did. Say what you like about the quality of that game's writing, but the party members certainly have more to them than your average BG1 NPC.
I didn't mention technology when it came to writing, did I? I said development. That means games hadn't developed that far in terms of companion interaction yet.
Hadn't they? Final Fantasy VII came out two years before Baldur's Gate did. Say what you like about the quality of that game's writing, but the party members certainly have more to them than your average BG1 NPC.
Western rpgs hadn't caught up yet. Kind of obvious. Final Fantasy VII also had a lot fewer joinable NPCs too. Picture writing that many lines and doing that many cutscenes for all the variables in BG1 when it comes to party composition. There are over 20 joinable NPCs in BG1. Hence why they cut down on the NPC crowd in BG2 and gave each way more lines and interactions.
Western rpgs hadn't caught up yet. Kind of obvious. Final Fantasy VII also had a lot fewer joinable NPCs too. Picture writing that many lines and doing that many cutscenes for all the variables in BG1 when it comes to party composition. There are over 20 joinable NPCs in BG1. Hence why they cut down on the NPC crowd in BG2 and gave each way more lines and interactions.
"Western RPGs hadn't caught up yet" isn't the fault of anyone but Western RPG developers. Neither is the fact that BG1 went for quantity over quality anyone's fault but the BG developers.
funny how Scott has admitted of chaning her personality in the interview and you pretend it hasn't. your bias is obvious.
Not at all dear @RacistGoblin as you again misrepresent her words: "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.”
Scott said, that Safana got an upgrade. As you can hear in her lines, she was apart from just sultry also already snarky.
Safana: "To lead this party, we need someone intelligent, preferably female and most likely me" OMG she was already a feminist SJW herself!
you are really deserate defening your game aren't you? that fanboyism is obviously clouding your judgment.
i mean you stil lthink there is some gamergate conspiracy about baldurs gate and all negative reviews come from them. while there are plenty of people here who are not even any ways connected to gamergate critising the game.
Not at all, I did not state that all negative reviews come from gamergate, I stated that a reviewbomb is taking place as evidenced by the differences of the reviews on steam (again average 72% positive) and the professionals (again on average 75% positive) versus votes and reviews on sites that do not require you to own the game.
Denying that a review bomb is taken place is rather disingenuous as is denying that this comes from gamergate circles. Who do you think you fool by denying it?
your bias is so obvious. her personality change has been thoroughly discussed here now and is admitted by the writer. again, do your research before you make such statements.
Actually the contrary is true, your representation of Scott her statement is false (again) and as you can hear from her lines she already had snarky and slight cynical undertones. What people here have been doing is claiming that her personality changed, which is 1. a bit of a joke because her character had little personality to begin with and 2. even in the lines that she did had, she already portrayed at least a little the characteristics she does in SoD
Western rpgs hadn't caught up yet. Kind of obvious. Final Fantasy VII also had a lot fewer joinable NPCs too. Picture writing that many lines and doing that many cutscenes for all the variables in BG1 when it comes to party composition. There are over 20 joinable NPCs in BG1. Hence why they cut down on the NPC crowd in BG2 and gave each way more lines and interactions.
"Western RPGs hadn't caught up yet" isn't the fault of anyone but Western RPG developers. Neither is the fact that BG1 went for quantity over quality anyone's fault but the BG developers.
Since BG is a western rpg....what is your point exactly? This is the same as blaming the country of Congo for not having developed the microchip. Different market in the west than in Japan at the time. All kinds of factors, really. The situation and the time being what it was, that was how games were made in 1998.
Can I make a request: If you have to refer to her by name, call her "Amber" or "Ms. Scott" or "Amber Scott".
Scott is the name of our lead programmer. It's very confusing to read, and a rather odd affectation (I don't frequently refer to people by their last name alone when discussing them in the third person).
Can I make a request: If you have to refer to her by name, call her "Amber" or "Ms. Scott" or "Amber Scott".
Scott is the name of our lead programmer. It's very confusing to read, and a rather odd affectation (I don't frequently refer to people by their last name alone when discussing them in the third person).
and a rather odd affectation (I don't frequently refer to people by their last name alone when discussing them in the third person).
Interesting cultural difference Where I live it is the contrary to affection and its far more weird to use a first name of a person you are not aqainted with and mr or Mrs when you are not actually speaking with them
so forgive me @Dee if I forget to conciencely apply what you ask in the future
You know. If you don't like the new Safana, there is a fix for it. Start a private multiplayer game. Use your PC and add a thief character. Use Safana's portrait and add her old voice set. Then set up her stats and skills the way they are supposed to be. And just kill the other character when she shows up.
Since BG is a western rpg....what is your point exactly? This is the same as blaming the country of Congo for not having developed the microchip. Different market in the west than in Japan at the time. All kinds of factors, really. The situation and the time being what it was, that was how games were made in 1998.
My point is that saying Baldur's Gate had good writing "for the time" doesn't mean anything when "the time" didn't have any actual limitations on what they could write. The quality of the writing was not out of their hands.
funny how Scott has admitted of chaning her personality in the interview and you pretend it hasn't. your bias is obvious.
Not at all dear @RacistGoblin as you again misrepresent her words: "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.”
Scott said, that Safana got an upgrade. As you can hear in her lines, she was apart from just sultry also already snarky.
Safana: "To lead this party, we need someone intelligent, preferably female and most likely me" OMG she was already a feminist SJW herself!
you are really deserate defening your game aren't you? that fanboyism is obviously clouding your judgment.
i mean you stil lthink there is some gamergate conspiracy about baldurs gate and all negative reviews come from them. while there are plenty of people here who are not even any ways connected to gamergate critising the game.
Not at all, I did not state that all negative reviews come from gamergate, I stated that a reviewbomb is taking place as evidenced by the differences of the reviews on steam (again average 72% positive) and the professionals (again on average 75% positive) versus votes and reviews on sites that do not require you to own the game.
Denying that a review bomb is taken place is rather disingenuous as is denying that this comes from gamergate circles. Who do you think you fool by denying it?
your bias is so obvious. her personality change has been thoroughly discussed here now and is admitted by the writer. again, do your research before you make such statements.
Actually the contrary is true, your representation of Scott her statement is false (again) and as you can hear from her lines she already had snarky and slight cynical undertones. What people here have been doing is claiming that her personality changed, which is 1. a bit of a joke because her character had little personality to begin with and 2. even in the lines that she did had, she already portrayed at least a little the characteristics she does in SoD
As heard here (35:09)
Or are you now seriously denying her actual lines in BG1?
Hahaha its funny you trying to deny the obvious without providing any proof at all. You simply say that gamgergate is resposinble. You keep crying for proof the entire last pages and i allways provided. yet you are so amazingly unable to provide any proof that gamergaters called for a hatemob to downvote the game. no gamergater did. you have no proof. if you cannot provide proof this discussion is basically over. all you did was make a fool out of yourself.
show me the quotes, posts and videos of notable gamergaters calling for a reviewbomb. nothing of such exsist. and you know it. are you saying that gamergaters have some supernatural mental connection and they dont need to communicate through human means? you are such a joke man.
all you do is purposfully misrepresenting a movement and using it as a scapegoat so you don#t need to adress the obvious political bias in this game, that was even admitted by amber scott.
as well as her admitting the chracter change. whever you call it improvment makes no diffrece, she changed her. and she admitted it.
so one last time: where is your proof of any gamergate involvement? if you got none: then the statement we allready established is still true: bad games get bad reviews from people. simple as that.
Can I make a request: If you have to refer to her by name, call her "Amber" or "Ms. Scott" or "Amber Scott".
Scott is the name of our lead programmer. It's very confusing to read, and a rather odd affectation (I don't frequently refer to people by their last name alone when discussing them in the third person).
Interesting. Funnily enough, of the people I know in the Army, I only know them by their last name. Out of everyone...I know the first names of two people. And I can't call them by that because it just feels weird.
Since BG is a western rpg....what is your point exactly? This is the same as blaming the country of Congo for not having developed the microchip. Different market in the west than in Japan at the time. All kinds of factors, really. The situation and the time being what it was, that was how games were made in 1998.
My point is that saying Baldur's Gate had good writing "for the time" doesn't mean anything when "the time" didn't have any actual limitations on what they could write. The quality of the writing was not out of their hands.
BG1 had incredible written quality. The issue of this context was bios not being "necessary," but rather replace them with some story. That is more modern.
Since BG is a western rpg....what is your point exactly? This is the same as blaming the country of Congo for not having developed the microchip. Different market in the west than in Japan at the time. All kinds of factors, really. The situation and the time being what it was, that was how games were made in 1998.
My point is that saying Baldur's Gate had good writing "for the time" doesn't mean anything when "the time" didn't have any actual limitations on what they could write. The quality of the writing was not out of their hands.
No it wasn't. True enough. But there wasn't much to gain from adding it. Companion interaction was a very new concept in western rpgs. Not counting the Ultima games very very few rpgs even had joinable npcs at all. In most rpgs you created a party of silent protagonists. No market for it, so nothing to gain from the effort at the time. One of the requests that popped up a lot after BG1 came out was that the players wished the NPCs had had more interaction. Step forward.
then the statement we allready established is still true: bad games get bad reviews from people. simple as that.
Gamergate may not be responsible, but it's still pretty suspect when there's such a discrepancy between reviews on a site where you're required to own the game versus ones where you aren't.
Can I make a request: If you have to refer to her by name, call her "Amber" or "Ms. Scott" or "Amber Scott".
Scott is the name of our lead programmer. It's very confusing to read, and a rather odd affectation (I don't frequently refer to people by their last name alone when discussing them in the third person).
(Totaly not related to the main subject but can be usefull for the futur for being polite. What term in this three one she prefer ? / I use "Amber Scott" most of time but given i have a very rare opportunity to ask for the preference / If the question is to intrusive there no need to answers, my apologise by advance if it's the case)
Can I make a request: If you have to refer to her by name, call her "Amber" or "Ms. Scott" or "Amber Scott".
Scott is the name of our lead programmer. It's very confusing to read, and a rather odd affectation (I don't frequently refer to people by their last name alone when discussing them in the third person).
How about we call him mister Scott instead? Why is it that the male, presumably white, gets the Scott name by default?
No it wasn't. True enough. But there wasn't much to gain from adding it. Companion interaction was a very new concept in western rpgs. Not counting the Ultima games very very few rpgs even had joinable npcs at all. In most rpgs you created a party of silent protagonists. No market for it, so nothing to gain from the effort at the time. One of the requests that popped up a lot after BG1 came out was that the players wished the NPCs had had more interaction. Step forward.
I would say there was a clear market for it and WRPGs just weren't taking advantage, but that's a whole different discussion. My original point about the bios was that if they're just a heap of fluff that doesn't amount to anything, I'm not bothered if someone decides to take liberties.
I think what gets a lot of wires crossed is GG being the strange thing it is. Like any group approaching the size of GG there will be people on the fringe that do things the rest wouldn't agree with. And then there will be nasties that have nothing to do with GG being lumped into it just because they kind of sort of might as well be (convenient tactic). GG I think functions better as a hashtag than as an actual movement because it shouldn't really be a movement to want most the things they want. This is why you see all kinds of different people being in GG: different social, political, etc backgrounds. Academics are doing studies on it.
That said discussion here could do to be a bit more friendly.
No it wasn't. True enough. But there wasn't much to gain from adding it. Companion interaction was a very new concept in western rpgs. Not counting the Ultima games very very few rpgs even had joinable npcs at all. In most rpgs you created a party of silent protagonists. No market for it, so nothing to gain from the effort at the time. One of the requests that popped up a lot after BG1 came out was that the players wished the NPCs had had more interaction. Step forward.
I would say there was a clear market for it and WRPGs just weren't taking advantage, but that's a whole different discussion. My original point about the bios was that if they're just a heap of fluff that doesn't amount to anything, I'm not bothered if someone decides to take liberties.
Now a days they just stuff that bit into a codex in the journal. It seems to be the recent trend.
I think what gets a lot of wires crossed is GG being the strange thing it is. Like any group approaching the size of GG there will be people on the fringe that do things the rest wouldn't agree with. And then there will be nasties that have nothing to do with GG being lumped into it just because they kind of sort of might as well be (convenient tactic). GG I think functions better as a hashtag than as an actual movement because it shouldn't really be a movement to want most the things they want. This is why you see all kinds of different people being in GG: different social, political, etc backgrounds. Academics are doing studies on it.
That said discussion here could do to be a bit more friendly.
The issue is calling a philosophy a group. You can do it with feminism or GG. Feminism is the belief in equality of the sexes and genders, GG is about ethical journalism. But we all know people believe feminism is about hating men because some people who are feminist do that, and that GG is about harassment because some people who support ethical journalism do that, for whatever reason. It would be simpler if one could just say they support equality/ethics without being lumped into any group.
Comments
you are really deserate defening your game aren't you? that fanboyism is obviously clouding your judgment.
i mean you stil lthink there is some gamergate conspiracy about baldurs gate and all negative reviews come from them. while there are plenty of people here who are not even any ways connected to gamergate critising the game.
your bias is so obvious. her personality change has been thoroughly discussed here now and is admitted by the writer. again, do your research before you make such statements.
Scott said, that Safana got an upgrade. As you can hear in her lines, she was apart from just sultry also already snarky.
Safana: "To lead this party, we need someone intelligent, preferably female and most likely me" OMG she was already a feminist SJW herself!
Denying that a review bomb is taken place is rather disingenuous as is denying that this comes from gamergate circles. Who do you think you fool by denying it? Actually the contrary is true, your representation of Scott her statement is false (again) and as you can hear from her lines she already had snarky and slight cynical undertones. What people here have been doing is claiming that her personality changed, which is 1. a bit of a joke because her character had little personality to begin with and 2. even in the lines that she did had, she already portrayed at least a little the characteristics she does in SoD
As heard here (35:09)
Or are you now seriously denying her actual lines in BG1?
Scott is the name of our lead programmer. It's very confusing to read, and a rather odd affectation (I don't frequently refer to people by their last name alone when discussing them in the third person).
so forgive me @Dee if I forget to conciencely apply what you ask in the future
You keep crying for proof the entire last pages and i allways provided. yet you are so amazingly unable to provide any proof that gamergaters called for a hatemob to downvote the game.
no gamergater did. you have no proof.
if you cannot provide proof this discussion is basically over.
all you did was make a fool out of yourself.
show me the quotes, posts and videos of notable gamergaters calling for a reviewbomb.
nothing of such exsist. and you know it.
are you saying that gamergaters have some supernatural mental connection and they dont need to communicate through human means? you are such a joke man.
all you do is purposfully misrepresenting a movement and using it as a scapegoat so you don#t need to adress the obvious political bias in this game, that was even admitted by amber scott.
as well as her admitting the chracter change. whever you call it improvment makes no diffrece, she changed her. and she admitted it.
so one last time: where is your proof of any gamergate involvement? if you got none:
then the statement we allready established is still true: bad games get bad reviews from people. simple as that.
That said discussion here could do to be a bit more friendly.
It would be simpler if one could just say they support equality/ethics without being lumped into any group.