Well, that depends on how you define a "representative sample", isn't it? How many examples do you need? One?Two?Three?Four? Five?Six?Seven? (And that's not counting anyone who found those posts/threads insightful, agreeable or likeable.)
The issue here is not "does anybody agree with you". I don't have any trouble believing that a lot do. The issue is "is this a one-sided overwhelming verdict, or is there also a significant chunk of people who disagree with you", and I believe the latter to be true from my own experience on the forum at the time.
I can't say anything in particular about your plot bits, because I did my Hexxat romance playthrough about two years ago. I don't recall having any particular issues with the character such as you describe, so I may have seen those things differently or assumed a different explanation than you for certain bits. Should I do another one (since all my saves games got lost, I guess I need to do another evil runthrough sometime), then we can fight about it then.
You guys are doing great! I'm originally a PnP player but I've played every one of these games since they first came out 19 years ago or whenever it was, and I am so happy to have this new game. No, it's not perfect but it sure is fun and I think you did a great job bridging the gap. I hope Beamdog comes out with a whole new game (staying true to the DnD 2nd edition). Maybe Planescape?? Thanks for your hard work!!
So I'm curious, what is the lesson that they should learn from this? Is it:
(1) Don't include trans characters unless they have a major role (Miz was an NPC with 2 quests attached to her, who if you prompt her, shares that she is trans as flavor text)? (2) Remember that minorities must have fully fleshed out stories that go in very deep which explains their minority status, as they cannot just have that be a minor part of their character? (3) Self-censor your art before you release it out of fear of offending people?
What is the exact lesson that they should learn?
I'm not whitewashing anything but I'm saying there is a difference between a few angry post by individual gamers and then the widespread hate-movement against LGBTQ-community that you suggest. I don't scan the entire Internet for this so I could be wrong but the gaming forums I frequent are not filled with that kind of hate. But sure, if you use 4chan or 8chan or even to some extend Reddit then your experience may be different from mine. But does it really surprise you that with millions and millions of gamers out there that some are A-holes? As for enforcing your "ideology" that was more in reference to Minsc's line and not so much about the transgender char. But still I have to ask: if only about 0.2% of the population are trans why is it so important to include them in every game? I'm disabled and there are many, many more people with disabilities and yet we are pretty much never included in games. So I'm not saying transgenders shouldn't be included and I'm happy that Beamdog don't remove her but instead expand her character. That's good but tokenism is bad. I want interesting characters in my games - not labels like: transgender, disabled, gays, redheads, Danes or whatever token you can come up with.
I hope Beamdog learn that Baldur's Gate is not THEIR art and that the franchise should be handled with care. I hope they take the criticism of the writing to heart and find ways to be inclusive of all gamers like transgenders, disabled, GG'ers, antiGG'ers etc. And I do agree with you that the backlash straddles a fine line between criticism and self-censorship. I am very much in favour of free speech and against any kind of censorship (not counting libel, death threats etc.) but criticism does not equal harassment.
No one is making that claim about gamers in general, just GamerGate. And their history supports the claim about them.
You have already been shown with a scientific study why GG is not about harassment as much as you think. You then claimed the study was inaccurate and then without any evidence decided that the number of GG-harassers is much bigger when by your own words in this thread, most of the harassment posts are created by anonymous posters and since they are anonymous that means they can be GG, antiGG or 3rd party trolls and there is no way to tell but that doesn't stop you from making the baseless assumption that it's GG. So even in the face of an actual study that disproves your claim and that in your own words harassers are anonymous, you still claim GG is a hate-movement. Well, then there really isn't much to say is there?
I'm neutral, I have never used the GG-hashtag and I like to remain independent of any movement because I don't like dogma - be it 3rd wave feminism, MRA's, GG, antiGG, Christians, Muslims etc. But I do care about science and the truth. I have read a number of your posts and that you like to debate people and there is nothing wrong with that. Just remember that it's not about winning or pwnage but about finding the truth - at least ideally. Read Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" in which he devotes an entire chapter to scientific errors he made. He did that to show that science is always moving and that it's not about winning but about scientific facts and that if you are wrong then you must alter or abandon your hypothesis. Just food for thought for you.
@Grum because Dorn is open enough to be with literally anyone I'm torn between doing a Romance Dorn playthrough where I'm an elf mage or halfling shaman or something similarly at maximum distant from Dorn or one where I'm a NE human blackguard or NE half-orc fighter/cleric.
Halfling shaman. Because of the hilarious image that it conjures.
if I could manage to keep a straight face during a playthrough set up like this, a NG halfling shaman romancing Dorn and being "corrupted by his sexy evil ways" would be pretty top notch
Dorn: "I respect strength."
Halfling Shaman: "Haer'Dalis, play us a tune."
Dorn: "What?"
Halfling Shaman: "Shhh. Watch, and be enthralled by the power...of dance!"
For what it's worth, I wanted to put in my two cents.
I've been a fan of the Baldur's Gate series for a very long time, own the original games plus their expansions and even an extra copy of the 2nd game as it kept asking me for the 5th disk of 4 when installing. I love the work Beamdog has done on the enhanced editions / Icewind Dale and own them on both PC and android.
That being said, I have not bought Siege of Dragonspear. I haven't done it to make a statement after reading about the mentioned issues. Personally, I dislike the whole social justice crusade, present day feminist delusions and the vilification of a movement that likes to put gate behind an issue. However with the changes mentioned here, I will give it a shot.
So yeah, a step in the right direction. You have just sold me on your expansion.
'Tokenism' is only bad if you try to hide behind a token person being there: the 'i am not racist look i have a black friend' way of thinking.
The fact that Rodenberry put Uhura and Sulu on the bridge of the Enterprise simply because he wanted a diverse cast is not tokenism and neither is having a transgender character in a game when a writer simply wants to write more diverse characters.
Hence why the complaints about a transcharacter being a token character are rather dishonest
'Tokenism' is only bad if you try to hide behind a token person being there: the 'i am not racist look i have a black friend' way of thinking.
The fact that Rodenberry put Uhura and Sulu on the bridge of the Enterprise simply because he wanted a diverse cast is not tokenism and neither is having a transgender character in a game when a writer simply wants to write more diverse characters.
Hence why the complaints about a transcharacter being a token character are rather dishonest
In 1966, having a black female and an Asian man (with a gay actor too!) could easily be considered token, but not for the same reasons as today. Back then there was no political correctness, you could include a blatantly stereotypical token, or a minority to kill off with no real consequence. Star Trek was novel in the sense that minorities had incredibly significant roles, they were round and fleshed out. They challenged the racism of the era. To relate that back to SoD, of course there is more to it than whether or not a character was included, but HOW they were included. Many people continue to say they have no problem with inclusion, but simply want a deeper dialog and a less fake and/or forced appearance, which comes across as token. You continue to call that dishonest - I fail to see how criticism that is perfectly valid for any other character is now dishonest for a trans character.
'Tokenism' is only bad if you try to hide behind a token person being there: the 'i am not racist look i have a black friend' way of thinking.
The fact that Rodenberry put Uhura and Sulu on the bridge of the Enterprise simply because he wanted a diverse cast is not tokenism and neither is having a transgender character in a game when a writer simply wants to write more diverse characters.
Hence why the complaints about a transcharacter being a token character are rather dishonest
In 1966, having a black female and an Asian man (with a gay actor too!) could easily be considered token, but not for the same reasons as today. Back then there was no political correctness, you could include a blatantly stereotypical token, or a minority to kill off with no real consequence. Star Trek was novel in the sense that minorities had incredibly significant roles, they were round and fleshed out. They challenged the racism of the era. To relate that back to SoD, of course there is more to it than whether or not a character was included, but HOW they were included. Many people continue to say they have no problem with inclusion, but simply want a deeper dialog and a less fake and/or forced appearance, which comes across as token. You continue to call that dishonest - I fail to see how criticism that is perfectly valid for any other character is now dishonest for a trans character.
It is dishonest because people state to have 'nothing against transcharacters' and then keep making all sorts of excuses why a transcharacter should not be there for all kind of nonsense reasons such as 'it comes across as token' or 'it is not fitting for the setting' or 'reality is very different'. As Grum already stated: "Remember that minorities must have fully fleshed out stories that go in very deep which explains their minority status, as they cannot just have that be a minor part of their character?"
It is not the matter that transcharacters should not face valid criticism that also applies to other characters, it is that the transcharacter is singled out for such criticism.
'Tokenism' is only bad if you try to hide behind a token person being there: the 'i am not racist look i have a black friend' way of thinking.
The fact that Rodenberry put Uhura and Sulu on the bridge of the Enterprise simply because he wanted a diverse cast is not tokenism and neither is having a transgender character in a game when a writer simply wants to write more diverse characters.
Hence why the complaints about a transcharacter being a token character are rather dishonest
In 1966, having a black female and an Asian man (with a gay actor too!) could easily be considered token, but not for the same reasons as today. Back then there was no political correctness, you could include a blatantly stereotypical token, or a minority to kill off with no real consequence. Star Trek was novel in the sense that minorities had incredibly significant roles, they were round and fleshed out. They challenged the racism of the era. To relate that back to SoD, of course there is more to it than whether or not a character was included, but HOW they were included. Many people continue to say they have no problem with inclusion, but simply want a deeper dialog and a less fake and/or forced appearance, which comes across as token. You continue to call that dishonest - I fail to see how criticism that is perfectly valid for any other character is now dishonest for a trans character.
It is dishonest because people state to have 'nothing against transcharacters' and then keep making all sorts of excuses why a transcharacter should not be there for all kind of nonsense reasons such as 'it comes across as token' or 'it is not fitting for the setting' or 'reality is very different'. As Grum already stated: "Remember that minorities must have fully fleshed out stories that go in very deep which explains their minority status, as they cannot just have that be a minor part of their character?"
It is not the matter that transcharacters should not face valid criticism that also applies to other characters, it is that the transcharacter is singled out for such criticism.
And I believe that is a dishonest way of invalidating any and all criticism towards "protected groups."
'Tokenism' is only bad if you try to hide behind a token person being there: the 'i am not racist look i have a black friend' way of thinking.
The fact that Rodenberry put Uhura and Sulu on the bridge of the Enterprise simply because he wanted a diverse cast is not tokenism and neither is having a transgender character in a game when a writer simply wants to write more diverse characters.
Hence why the complaints about a transcharacter being a token character are rather dishonest
In 1966, having a black female and an Asian man (with a gay actor too!) could easily be considered token, but not for the same reasons as today. Back then there was no political correctness, you could include a blatantly stereotypical token, or a minority to kill off with no real consequence. Star Trek was novel in the sense that minorities had incredibly significant roles, they were round and fleshed out. They challenged the racism of the era. To relate that back to SoD, of course there is more to it than whether or not a character was included, but HOW they were included. Many people continue to say they have no problem with inclusion, but simply want a deeper dialog and a less fake and/or forced appearance, which comes across as token. You continue to call that dishonest - I fail to see how criticism that is perfectly valid for any other character is now dishonest for a trans character.
It is dishonest because people state to have 'nothing against transcharacters' and then keep making all sorts of excuses why a transcharacter should not be there for all kind of nonsense reasons such as 'it comes across as token' or 'it is not fitting for the setting' or 'reality is very different'. As Grum already stated: "Remember that minorities must have fully fleshed out stories that go in very deep which explains their minority status, as they cannot just have that be a minor part of their character?"
It is not the matter that transcharacters should not face valid criticism that also applies to other characters, it is that the transcharacter is singled out for such criticism.
And I believe that is a dishonest way of invalidating any and all criticism towards "protected groups."
I see both points of view. The only thing that sticks in my craw is that she acts like most other NPCs out there. In Nashkel you need to break down a door or pick a lock to get inside someone's house. 6 very well armed and armored warriors/mages/rogues flood into the small building. The person inside asks you to keep the noise down and immediately tells you that her husband is missing. Nobody bats a freaking eye at this. Do the same thing in Beregost and you are told by a woman that her husband is missing too and she is waiting for his letter. Bad writing? Poorly fleshed out? You betcha!
Go into Baldur's Gate. Go into a building and two little girls tell you that they are scared of a person they keep seeing outside of their window. Then a mage and druid just teleport into the house. WTF? It makes no sense. Break into another house in Baldur's Gate and get told that a gnome's friend was killed by Ankhegs and that she will pay for their shells. Is that any way to respond to a large band of warriors breaking into your home?
Compare Miz to just about any other NPC and she is already really well fleshed out, and her personal life doesn't come out until you specifically ask her about it. Most other NPCs blurt everything out without you saying anything.
But people only complain about Miz, because she is a minority. Somehow being a minority means that she shouldn't be beholden to the rules that apply to every other NPC.
Now, if she was a recruitable party member, then I'd be more on board. I don't care who you are for a recruitable NPC, I demand good writing from them. For example, I am seriously not a fan of Hexxat. You can read my review of the EE NPCs if you want those thoughts. But Miz isn't one of them. She doesn't work by their rules.
So why do people demand that she follow the standards of a recruitable party member instead of the NPC she is? Doesn't that alone tell us that being a minority means that you can't just be...well, you? You have to be examined and coddled lest people get offended?
I really think that the best thing that could have happened would be for the internet to shrug their shoulders and say "trans NPC? Sure, give me some healing." Instead we have two very vocal factions. One of people who complained that she existed, and another who complained that she wasn't above NPC standards of interaction. I personally feel that both miss the point, and that at the end of the day, Miz just isn't a big deal.
'Tokenism' is only bad if you try to hide behind a token person being there: the 'i am not racist look i have a black friend' way of thinking.
The fact that Rodenberry put Uhura and Sulu on the bridge of the Enterprise simply because he wanted a diverse cast is not tokenism and neither is having a transgender character in a game when a writer simply wants to write more diverse characters.
Hence why the complaints about a transcharacter being a token character are rather dishonest
In 1966, having a black female and an Asian man (with a gay actor too!) could easily be considered token, but not for the same reasons as today. Back then there was no political correctness, you could include a blatantly stereotypical token, or a minority to kill off with no real consequence. Star Trek was novel in the sense that minorities had incredibly significant roles, they were round and fleshed out. They challenged the racism of the era. To relate that back to SoD, of course there is more to it than whether or not a character was included, but HOW they were included. Many people continue to say they have no problem with inclusion, but simply want a deeper dialog and a less fake and/or forced appearance, which comes across as token. You continue to call that dishonest - I fail to see how criticism that is perfectly valid for any other character is now dishonest for a trans character.
It is dishonest because people state to have 'nothing against transcharacters' and then keep making all sorts of excuses why a transcharacter should not be there for all kind of nonsense reasons such as 'it comes across as token' or 'it is not fitting for the setting' or 'reality is very different'. As Grum already stated: "Remember that minorities must have fully fleshed out stories that go in very deep which explains their minority status, as they cannot just have that be a minor part of their character?"
It is not the matter that transcharacters should not face valid criticism that also applies to other characters, it is that the transcharacter is singled out for such criticism.
And I believe that is a dishonest way of invalidating any and all criticism towards "protected groups."
Really? How, because that is simply what it boils down to... that there are people who cannot accept that a character can simply be there and state that she is trans without the setting making a big deal about it. When that is your problem, then the problem is not the setting nor the writing, the problem is yourself.
'Tokenism' is only bad if you try to hide behind a token person being there: the 'i am not racist look i have a black friend' way of thinking.
The fact that Rodenberry put Uhura and Sulu on the bridge of the Enterprise simply because he wanted a diverse cast is not tokenism and neither is having a transgender character in a game when a writer simply wants to write more diverse characters.
Hence why the complaints about a transcharacter being a token character are rather dishonest
In 1966, having a black female and an Asian man (with a gay actor too!) could easily be considered token, but not for the same reasons as today. Back then there was no political correctness, you could include a blatantly stereotypical token, or a minority to kill off with no real consequence. Star Trek was novel in the sense that minorities had incredibly significant roles, they were round and fleshed out. They challenged the racism of the era. To relate that back to SoD, of course there is more to it than whether or not a character was included, but HOW they were included. Many people continue to say they have no problem with inclusion, but simply want a deeper dialog and a less fake and/or forced appearance, which comes across as token. You continue to call that dishonest - I fail to see how criticism that is perfectly valid for any other character is now dishonest for a trans character.
It is dishonest because people state to have 'nothing against transcharacters' and then keep making all sorts of excuses why a transcharacter should not be there for all kind of nonsense reasons such as 'it comes across as token' or 'it is not fitting for the setting' or 'reality is very different'. As Grum already stated: "Remember that minorities must have fully fleshed out stories that go in very deep which explains their minority status, as they cannot just have that be a minor part of their character?"
It is not the matter that transcharacters should not face valid criticism that also applies to other characters, it is that the transcharacter is singled out for such criticism.
And I believe that is a dishonest way of invalidating any and all criticism towards "protected groups."
Really? How, because that is simply what it boils down to... that there are people who cannot accept that a character can simply be there and state that she is trans without the setting making a big deal about it. When that is your problem, then the problem is not the setting nor the writing, the problem is yourself.
I'm not saying that is my problem, but it definitely is a problem MANY people are expressing while others are foolishly just trying to write it off as transphobia. Of course there was bad writing in the originals, there was also excellent writing in the originals. That hardly justifies Beamdog adding even more bad writing when this is brand new content that they get to dictate the quality of. And if it really is such a nonissue, it simply would not be what Beamdog is addressing, and we know that's not the case.
Yes, there is transphobia. Yes, there are people who don't want a trans character at all. These people are a minority. A vocal minority, maybe, but a minority nonetheless.
The vast majority of people have no problem with a trans character, but we do have a problem with adding even more bad writing simply because there is already bad writing - the game doesn't need more of that. And it just doesn't do the trans representation justice. Yeah, it's a shame that if you want to represent a minority in a game, people are going to scrutinize that character more, but that's where we are as a society right now, it's no secret. Beamdog realizes this now and is already addressing it. Sure a cisgender, heterosexual, Caucasian male can have poor writing and maybe no one bats an eye, but bad writing is still bad writing, there's no reason to add more. If the goal is trans-representation, fine, by all means do that, but don't be surprised when people simply don't understand why the trans representation was so bluntly approached with a rather poorly written and very brief conversation. Multiple trans people have said this bothered them. It's not just transphobes having a problem here.
That's why people also had a problem with Minsc's line, and Jaheira and Safana's completely rewritten personalities. That's why there's a line in game "Take them alive!" before everyone gets completely butchered and absolutely no one is taken alive. It's poor writing overall, really, and no one is focusing on Mizhena more than the people who are saying "No it's not poor writing you're just a transphobe!" The scope of issues with SoD does not begin and end with Mizhena's existence.
The scope of issues with SoD does not begin and end with Mizhena's existence.
Just to add to this: It didn't help that Beamdog, prior to this statement, was pushing hard on that false narrative which in effect set up the trap you see used so often on these forums and in the media: "didn't like something? you must just be a bigot".
I don't think that's fair to anyone, including true bigots. I mean, you see those guys out there with their inflammatory protest signs - they don't care to mince words much in real life, so why go the extra mile online? You can make the argument for bigot 2.0, but I don't think it carries much weight. Especially here.
'Tokenism' is only bad if you try to hide behind a token person being there: the 'i am not racist look i have a black friend' way of thinking.
The fact that Rodenberry put Uhura and Sulu on the bridge of the Enterprise simply because he wanted a diverse cast is not tokenism and neither is having a transgender character in a game when a writer simply wants to write more diverse characters.
Hence why the complaints about a transcharacter being a token character are rather dishonest
In 1966, having a black female and an Asian man (with a gay actor too!) could easily be considered token, but not for the same reasons as today. Back then there was no political correctness, you could include a blatantly stereotypical token, or a minority to kill off with no real consequence. Star Trek was novel in the sense that minorities had incredibly significant roles, they were round and fleshed out. They challenged the racism of the era. To relate that back to SoD, of course there is more to it than whether or not a character was included, but HOW they were included. Many people continue to say they have no problem with inclusion, but simply want a deeper dialog and a less fake and/or forced appearance, which comes across as token. You continue to call that dishonest - I fail to see how criticism that is perfectly valid for any other character is now dishonest for a trans character.
It is dishonest because people state to have 'nothing against transcharacters' and then keep making all sorts of excuses why a transcharacter should not be there for all kind of nonsense reasons such as 'it comes across as token' or 'it is not fitting for the setting' or 'reality is very different'. As Grum already stated: "Remember that minorities must have fully fleshed out stories that go in very deep which explains their minority status, as they cannot just have that be a minor part of their character?"
It is not the matter that transcharacters should not face valid criticism that also applies to other characters, it is that the transcharacter is singled out for such criticism.
And I believe that is a dishonest way of invalidating any and all criticism towards "protected groups."
Really? How, because that is simply what it boils down to... that there are people who cannot accept that a character can simply be there and state that she is trans without the setting making a big deal about it. When that is your problem, then the problem is not the setting nor the writing, the problem is yourself.
I'm not saying that is my problem, but it definitely is a problem MANY people are expressing while others are foolishly just trying to write it off as transphobia. Of course there was bad writing in the originals, there was also excellent writing in the originals. That hardly justifies Beamdog adding even more bad writing when this is brand new content that they get to dictate the quality of. And if it really is such a nonissue, it simply would not be what Beamdog is addressing, and we know that's not the case.
Yes, there is transphobia. Yes, there are people who don't want a trans character at all. These people are a minority. A vocal minority, maybe, but a minority nonetheless.
The vast majority of people have no problem with a trans character, but we do have a problem with adding even more bad writing simply because there is already bad writing - the game doesn't need more of that. And it just doesn't do the trans representation justice. Yeah, it's a shame that if you want to represent a minority in a game, people are going to scrutinize that character more, but that's where we are as a society right now, it's no secret. Beamdog realizes this now and is already addressing it. Sure a cisgender, heterosexual, Caucasian male can have poor writing and maybe no one bats an eye, but bad writing is still bad writing, there's no reason to add more. If the goal is trans-representation, fine, by all means do that, but don't be surprised when people simply don't understand why the trans representation was so bluntly approached with a rather poorly written and very brief conversation. Multiple trans people have said this bothered them. It's not just transphobes having a problem here.
That's why people also had a problem with Minsc's line, and Jaheira and Safana's completely rewritten personalities. That's why there's a line in game "Take them alive!" before everyone gets completely butchered and absolutely no one is taken alive. It's poor writing overall, really, and no one is focusing on Mizhena more than the people who are saying "No it's not poor writing you're just a transphobe!" The scope of issues with SoD does not begin and end with Mizhena's existence.
Could you explain your thoughts on the review bombing that beamdog went through? What do you think motivated it?
You see, I haven't played the game yet. I am waiting for the IoS release. So I can't say that the game is good or bad. I can only work off the screenshots and dialogue that has been discussed. As such, I haven't written any reviews. However, on sites that don't require you to purchase the game to review, the reviews were far lower than on sites that require you to purchase the game to make a review.
Also, and I am not being facetious here, how did they completely rewrite Safana's character? Again, I haven't played SoD so I can't defend them or attack them here. But I have played BG1 many times and have often used Safana. She only has dialogue when you recruit her (where she shows obvious manipulation to the males in your group to get them to go on a treasure hunt). The only other things she does in the game is say things when you click on her like "I feel so...sensual" and "I'll do anything, darling."
That's all there is to her character in BG1. How much of a change from that does SoD do to warrant being called a "complete rewrite"?
Could you explain your thoughts on the review bombing that beamdog went through? What do you think motivated it?
To be honest, I'm not yet convinced there was any kind of "review bombing." There may very well have been, I simply don't know the truth of the matter. I only know it's being strongly asserted there was some coordinated review bombing, but not a single person has presented some kind of hard evidence of people organizing a review bombing. I think SoD got reviews that reflected what people thought of the game, deserved or not (e.g. whether they even bought it or not). Metacritic and GoG were the most negatively reviewed and one can chalk that up to *some* reviewers not owning the game - but that doesn't mean this kind of reviewing is new. They may review negatively based on their religious, political, or social beliefs, or they read a negative article, or other reviews. Just because those reviewers may not own the game does not tell you if their negative reviews were coordinated, or if they were part of some radical group. So let's address Steam where the reviews were more positive and you must own the game to review. It's still only mostly positive, there's still about a third of confirmed SoD purchasers who are negatively reviewing this game. I can only assume they feel negatively about it, I don't know. There's definitely a disparity between Metacritic/GoG and Steam, but not a huge one, and not one that anyone can definitively point to any cause, so I really think it's a moot point. Metacritic has in the past been accused of conflicts of interest and for having critic reviews that are wildly different from user reviews; at what point do you stop blaming the hundreds to thousands of reviewers and start blaming the critics who may be best buds with the developer who's game they're reviewing?
Also, and I am not being facetious here, how did they completely rewrite Safana's character? Again, I haven't played SoD so I can't defend them or attack them here. But I have played BG1 many times and have often used Safana. She only has dialogue when you recruit her (where she shows obvious manipulation to the males in your group to get them to go on a treasure hunt). The only other things she does in the game is say things when you click on her like "I feel so...sensual" and "I'll do anything, darling."
That's all there is to her character in BG1. How much of a change from that does SoD do to warrant being called a "complete rewrite"?
Again, this is a valid point, but I'm really speaking more of the complaints I keep hearing and less of my personal complaints. It's true that the character styles differ between BG1 and BG2, and that any character who was playable in the first but not the second doesn't have much going for them. But that's not to say they're a blank slate. In game one, we knew Safana was perfectly comfortable with using her sexuality as a means to an end, I believe even her innate ability reflected this. It's been blatantly declared that Jaheira's nagging and whatever is sexist about Safana was changed, so we can't say nothing happened and the fans just perceived it; we know this was something they actively worked on. We don't have a whole lot to compare it to, but Safana now comes across as a petulant child with entirely too much snark for even a Bioware game and absolutely none of the sultry not-ashamed-of-her-sexuality Safana that we never even knew all too well. I've even said before that perhaps we're simply seeing a side of Safana that was always there (behind the text), but a side we never saw. I just don't think that was what happened. There was a clear goal of reducing the perceived sexism of Jaheira and Safana, while blatantly ignoring the misandry that defines Shar-teel. I actually wrote about this in length before and mentioned that some has to do with how well a character's personality is defined, if you want to change or add to it, and Safana was not well-defined. Possibly what makes this an issue for so many, myself included, is the reason behind it. Personalities have flaws, whether they be nagging or expressing sensuality. Were Jaheira and Safana sexist? Maybe, but I don't believe so. They were both on a completely different level from Shar-teel who apparently isn't a problem at all. And what about Khalid? A nagging wife is sexist, but the spineless coward of a man married to her says nothing at all? I think they chose a very odd way to go about this, and there may very well be no detectable issue in their changes had they not come right out and said they're trying to remove any sexism. If you want to talk about my personal complaints, that's at the top of my list. Make all the new characters you want, but don't consciously change existing characters thinking it's an improvement. That's arguable with Safana, but Jaheira is the nag we all know and love and she should not be changed for any reason, perceived sexism included.
Could you explain your thoughts on the review bombing that beamdog went through? What do you think motivated it?
To be honest, I'm not yet convinced there was any kind of "review bombing." There may very well have been, I simply don't know the truth of the matter. I only know it's being strongly asserted there was some coordinated review bombing, but not a single person has presented some kind of hard evidence of people organizing a review bombing. I think SoD got reviews that reflected what people thought of the game, deserved or not (e.g. whether they even bought it or not). Metacritic and GoG were the most negatively reviewed and one can chalk that up to *some* reviewers not owning the game - but that doesn't mean this kind of reviewing is new. They may review negatively based on their religious, political, or social beliefs, or they read a negative article, or other reviews. Just because those reviewers may not own the game does not tell you if their negative reviews were coordinated, or if they were part of some radical group. So let's address Steam where the reviews were more positive and you must own the game to review. It's still only mostly positive, there's still about a third of confirmed SoD purchasers who are negatively reviewing this game. I can only assume they feel negatively about it, I don't know. There's definitely a disparity between Metacritic/GoG and Steam, but not a huge one, and not one that anyone can definitively point to any cause, so I really think it's a moot point. Metacritic has in the past been accused of conflicts of interest and for having critic reviews that are wildly different from user reviews; at what point do you stop blaming the hundreds to thousands of reviewers and start blaming the critics who may be best buds with the developer who's game they're reviewing?
Also, and I am not being facetious here, how did they completely rewrite Safana's character? Again, I haven't played SoD so I can't defend them or attack them here. But I have played BG1 many times and have often used Safana. She only has dialogue when you recruit her (where she shows obvious manipulation to the males in your group to get them to go on a treasure hunt). The only other things she does in the game is say things when you click on her like "I feel so...sensual" and "I'll do anything, darling."
That's all there is to her character in BG1. How much of a change from that does SoD do to warrant being called a "complete rewrite"?
Again, this is a valid point, but I'm really speaking more of the complaints I keep hearing and less of my personal complaints. It's true that the character styles differ between BG1 and BG2, and that any character who was playable in the first but not the second doesn't have much going for them. But that's not to say they're a blank slate. In game one, we knew Safana was perfectly comfortable with using her sexuality as a means to an end, I believe even her innate ability reflected this. It's been blatantly declared that Jaheira's nagging and whatever is sexist about Safana was changed, so we can't say nothing happened and the fans just perceived it; we know this was something they actively worked on. We don't have a whole lot to compare it to, but Safana now comes across as a petulant child with entirely too much snark for even a Bioware game and absolutely none of the sultry not-ashamed-of-her-sexuality Safana that we never even knew all too well. I've even said before that perhaps we're simply seeing a side of Safana that was always there (behind the text), but a side we never saw. I just don't think that was what happened. There was a clear goal of reducing the perceived sexism of Jaheira and Safana, while blatantly ignoring the misandry that defines Shar-teel. I actually wrote about this in length before and mentioned that some has to do with how well a character's personality is defined, if you want to change or add to it, and Safana was not well-defined. Possibly what makes this an issue for so many, myself included, is the reason behind it. Personalities have flaws, whether they be nagging or expressing sensuality. Were Jaheira and Safana sexist? Maybe, but I don't believe so. They were both on a completely different level from Shar-teel who apparently isn't a problem at all. And what about Khalid? A nagging wife is sexist, but the spineless coward of a man married to her says nothing at all? I think they chose a very odd way to go about this, and there may very well be no detectable issue in their changes had they not come right out and said they're trying to remove any sexism. If you want to talk about my personal complaints, that's at the top of my list. Make all the new characters you want, but don't consciously change existing characters thinking it's an improvement. That's arguable with Safana, but Jaheira is the nag we all know and love and she should not be changed for any reason, perceived sexism included.
Thank you for your reasoned response. Glad to see that our forum is moving back on track towards a more positive way of having discourse.
'Tokenism' is only bad if you try to hide behind a token person being there: the 'i am not racist look i have a black friend' way of thinking.
The fact that Rodenberry put Uhura and Sulu on the bridge of the Enterprise simply because he wanted a diverse cast is not tokenism and neither is having a transgender character in a game when a writer simply wants to write more diverse characters.
Hence why the complaints about a transcharacter being a token character are rather dishonest
Well, in this case tokenism does become bad when any criticism of the writing of that transgender character is met with "you are just transphobic or a GG'er". Most people don't want her removed, they want her fleshed out so she fits better with a setting that already has belts and potions to change your sex. As others have said: if Beamdog didn't hide behind that transgender character and used her as a shield against criticism then it would be easier to agree with you.
Sure we can agree that the negative response and review bombing is out of place and overblown but when Beamdog then throws oil on that fire by asking Sarkeesian for help and the gaming press, then people with legitimate criticisms gets angry.
Me. Not Beamdog. Me. On my personal account, with a pair of tweets that I have since deleted and apologized for, and that had nothing to do with the legitimate critiques about the game's writing but rather about the more abusive things that were being said.
Why does the existence of gender changing belts or spells make any difference, though? I haven't bought the game yet, so I'm just going by quotes, so tell me if I missed something. But Mizhena just says that she was raised a boy, realized she was a woman, and changed her name to a female name. She doesn't say anything about if/how she changed her physical body.
So why are so many people assuming that she didn't or can't change her body (the "it doesn't fit with the setting because it's easy to change your gender" complaints)? Why should she need the PC's help to transition (with the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity, or some other quest)?
I like the fact that Mizhena being trans is just a thing that is, not something that's only allowed to be mentioned because it's relevant to a quest or something. No, Mizhena doesn't have to be trans, but that's the whole point. A lot of people complaining about Mizhena (whether they're saying she should be "better written" or being outright transphobic) seem to be coming from the perspective that characters should by default be straight, white, able-bodied males unless there's a reason for them not to be. And I think Amber Scott consciously trying to avoid that default setting is a good thing.
@dee I wouldn't want to be in your place. I hope you and the company make it though this period.
Having said that I wish you would stop apologizing for your tweets. Why would you apologize for telling twitter and jezebel that GG was attacking your employer? I like Jezebel. I like Bitchmedia. I wish you had done more to spread the word.
Even if you do believe that apologizing is the right thing to do -- and, again, I don't know why you would -- apologies aren't delivering the goods. The GG crowd takes each apology as a victory and each victory encourages them to push harder. [*]
Apologies won't stop the review bombing. Banning members and deleting posts won't make the issue go away. [**] Like it or not, your best strategy is to inspire allies to come to your aid. And apologizing for *mentioning* a website admired by potential allies will not help you achieve that goal.
[*] Check out 'Mundane Matt'. One of the youtube channels that 'reviewed' the game even though they hadn't played it. Nonetheless, the trolls are celebrating the win.
[**] Check out the fresh review bombs on metacritic.
Me. Not Beamdog. Me. On my personal account, with a pair of tweets that I have since deleted and apologized for, and that had nothing to do with the legitimate critiques about the game's writing but rather about the more abusive things that were being said.
I wasn't aware of that and kudos to you for doing so. That just makes me want to buy the expansion even more when I get my next paycheck.
Why does the existence of gender changing belts or spells make any difference, though? I haven't bought the game yet, so I'm just going by quotes, so tell me if I missed something. But Mizhena just says that she was raised a boy, realized she was a woman, and changed her name to a female name. She doesn't say anything about if/how she changed her physical body.
So why are so many people assuming that she didn't or can't change her body (the "it doesn't fit with the setting because it's easy to change your gender" complaints)? Why should she need the PC's help to transition (with the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity, or some other quest)?
The best analogy I can come up with is that it would be like if Superman got a Supermobile. Sure you can introduce a car to Superman with a big "S" on it that he can drive around in but you would still have to come up with a good reason for why someone who can fly would use a car. You can do it, but you must explain why - and that's the same with the transgender character in BG. Just flesh out her backstory and make it believable.
A transgender character in BG needs no more explanation than any other character in BG.
You're right, they don't. I want them held to the same standards. That's why I don't like the argument that there is already bad writing, so just add more. There's also good writing and more of that should be added; that's the standard all NPCs should be held to. We now know people care deeply about the writing, it's getting worked on, let's see how people react and how much we can still blame on the character's trans status. I think this will all blow over with better writing and may have never even happened in the first place.
That's why people also had a problem with Minsc's line, and Jaheira and Safana's completely rewritten personalities. That's why there's a line in game "Take them alive!" before everyone gets completely butchered and absolutely no one is taken alive. It's poor writing overall, really, and no one is focusing on Mizhena more than the people who are saying "No it's not poor writing you're just a transphobe!" The scope of issues with SoD does not begin and end with Mizhena's existence.
Could you explain your thoughts on the review bombing that beamdog went through? What do you think motivated it?
You see, I haven't played the game yet. I am waiting for the IoS release. So I can't say that the game is good or bad. I can only work off the screenshots and dialogue that has been discussed.
The original BGs were beloved games and considered iconic among the RPG community. Anything that attempts to expand on those games is naturally going to draw a lot of attention from among that community beforehand - and a corresponding amount of criticism afterward, should it fail to live up to that community's expectations.
As far as the issues with the game,
1. The story and exploration are VERY linear and restrictive, and the combat is more akin to IWD's than BG's (i.e.: waves of nameless goons/creatures).
2. Mechanically, the game suffers from a lack of available tank NPCs IMO (keeping in mind that Dorn and Minc are really more appropriate as flankers rather than tanks).
2. At least one MAJOR plot point of BG1 was altered in order for SoD's story to proceed:
Entar had been raised from the dead, despite the fact that BG1's entire climax hinged on the fact that he was dead and gone for good.
3. The side quests are often poorly conceived and/or executed IMO. It's hard for me to illustrate that point for someone who hasn't played the game, but as an example:
There's a quest where someone asks you to deliver a pouch filled with gold to someone else. On the way there, you get pickpocketed by a thief. The game journal then tells you that you are now left with only two options - either advise the person that you were robbed, or replace the gold out of your own pocket. However, I had no difficulty shooting down the thief as she was walking away, and reclaiming the original gold (plus extra), so the whole "quest" is really just a non-sequitur.
4. Dialogue options are often insufficient and/or inappropriate for the situation. For example,
In order to agree to this quest, you have to tell the officer that you're "always happy to assist the city's defenders," which is simply not true for my own character and almost certainly many other players' characters as well. A simple, "Yes, I'll do it," would've sufficed in this instance.
Another example,
In this instance, you're confronting a group of thugs who have just brutally beaten someone and stolen literally every ounce of gold that you started the game with - and yet 2 out of the 3 dialogue options actually require that you compliment the thugs. The only "angry" response requires that you also make a snobbish comment about them being "paupers," which is completely irrelevant to why you're angry at them. It's as though the game itself is trying to force you to have some sort of sympathy for these characters, regardless of what you yourself or your character should think. As above, there either should be more options, or the available options should be less detailed so as to be appropriate for a broader range of character types
If there are people who still like the game in spite of all these issues, then that's up to them. But I just can't see how there are people who vehemently deny that these issue exist in the first place.
Also, and I am not being facetious here, how did they completely rewrite Safana's character? Again, I haven't played SoD so I can't defend them or attack them here. But I have played BG1 many times and have often used Safana. She only has dialogue when you recruit her (where she shows obvious manipulation to the males in your group to get them to go on a treasure hunt). The only other things she does in the game is say things when you click on her like "I feel so...sensual" and "I'll do anything, darling."
That's all there is to her character in BG1. How much of a change from that does SoD do to warrant being called a "complete rewrite"?
By removing those very personality traits (i.e.: trying to endear herself to other party members in order to manipulate them into doing "dirty work" for her), and instead making her into someone snarky, sarcastic, and generally off-putting, more akin to Viconia than to her original persona.
Thanks for the long and detailed post. While I am trying to avoid spoilers as I can't wait to finally have a new infinity engine game to play, I appreciate you showing proof of how you feel. I am sorry to see that you didn't enjoy the game. With that said I can't wait to see if for myself.
I play a game to have fun. The problem is not gay/trans/whatever content. The problem is the way that the content is served. I am being lectured and I am quite frankly not having fun.
Needlees to say I returned the game. If Beamdog fixes the old characters and hire a writer or two with talent I will try it again in the future.
Comments
I can't say anything in particular about your plot bits, because I did my Hexxat romance playthrough about two years ago. I don't recall having any particular issues with the character such as you describe, so I may have seen those things differently or assumed a different explanation than you for certain bits. Should I do another one (since all my saves games got lost, I guess I need to do another evil runthrough sometime), then we can fight about it then.
I hope Beamdog learn that Baldur's Gate is not THEIR art and that the franchise should be handled with care. I hope they take the criticism of the writing to heart and find ways to be inclusive of all gamers like transgenders, disabled, GG'ers, antiGG'ers etc. And I do agree with you that the backlash straddles a fine line between criticism and self-censorship. I am very much in favour of free speech and against any kind of censorship (not counting libel, death threats etc.) but criticism does not equal harassment. You have already been shown with a scientific study why GG is not about harassment as much as you think. You then claimed the study was inaccurate and then without any evidence decided that the number of GG-harassers is much bigger when by your own words in this thread, most of the harassment posts are created by anonymous posters and since they are anonymous that means they can be GG, antiGG or 3rd party trolls and there is no way to tell but that doesn't stop you from making the baseless assumption that it's GG. So even in the face of an actual study that disproves your claim and that in your own words harassers are anonymous, you still claim GG is a hate-movement. Well, then there really isn't much to say is there?
I'm neutral, I have never used the GG-hashtag and I like to remain independent of any movement because I don't like dogma - be it 3rd wave feminism, MRA's, GG, antiGG, Christians, Muslims etc. But I do care about science and the truth. I have read a number of your posts and that you like to debate people and there is nothing wrong with that. Just remember that it's not about winning or pwnage but about finding the truth - at least ideally. Read Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" in which he devotes an entire chapter to scientific errors he made. He did that to show that science is always moving and that it's not about winning but about scientific facts and that if you are wrong then you must alter or abandon your hypothesis. Just food for thought for you.
I've been a fan of the Baldur's Gate series for a very long time, own the original games plus their expansions and even an extra copy of the 2nd game as it kept asking me for the 5th disk of 4 when installing. I love the work Beamdog has done on the enhanced editions / Icewind Dale and own them on both PC and android.
That being said, I have not bought Siege of Dragonspear. I haven't done it to make a statement after reading about the mentioned issues. Personally, I dislike the whole social justice crusade, present day feminist delusions and the vilification of a movement that likes to put gate behind an issue. However with the changes mentioned here, I will give it a shot.
So yeah, a step in the right direction. You have just sold me on your expansion.
The fact that Rodenberry put Uhura and Sulu on the bridge of the Enterprise simply because he wanted a diverse cast is not tokenism and neither is having a transgender character in a game when a writer simply wants to write more diverse characters.
Hence why the complaints about a transcharacter being a token character are rather dishonest
It is not the matter that transcharacters should not face valid criticism that also applies to other characters, it is that the transcharacter is singled out for such criticism.
Go into Baldur's Gate. Go into a building and two little girls tell you that they are scared of a person they keep seeing outside of their window. Then a mage and druid just teleport into the house. WTF? It makes no sense. Break into another house in Baldur's Gate and get told that a gnome's friend was killed by Ankhegs and that she will pay for their shells. Is that any way to respond to a large band of warriors breaking into your home?
Compare Miz to just about any other NPC and she is already really well fleshed out, and her personal life doesn't come out until you specifically ask her about it. Most other NPCs blurt everything out without you saying anything.
But people only complain about Miz, because she is a minority. Somehow being a minority means that she shouldn't be beholden to the rules that apply to every other NPC.
Now, if she was a recruitable party member, then I'd be more on board. I don't care who you are for a recruitable NPC, I demand good writing from them. For example, I am seriously not a fan of Hexxat. You can read my review of the EE NPCs if you want those thoughts. But Miz isn't one of them. She doesn't work by their rules.
So why do people demand that she follow the standards of a recruitable party member instead of the NPC she is? Doesn't that alone tell us that being a minority means that you can't just be...well, you? You have to be examined and coddled lest people get offended?
I really think that the best thing that could have happened would be for the internet to shrug their shoulders and say "trans NPC? Sure, give me some healing." Instead we have two very vocal factions. One of people who complained that she existed, and another who complained that she wasn't above NPC standards of interaction. I personally feel that both miss the point, and that at the end of the day, Miz just isn't a big deal.
Yes, there is transphobia.
Yes, there are people who don't want a trans character at all.
These people are a minority. A vocal minority, maybe, but a minority nonetheless.
The vast majority of people have no problem with a trans character, but we do have a problem with adding even more bad writing simply because there is already bad writing - the game doesn't need more of that. And it just doesn't do the trans representation justice. Yeah, it's a shame that if you want to represent a minority in a game, people are going to scrutinize that character more, but that's where we are as a society right now, it's no secret. Beamdog realizes this now and is already addressing it. Sure a cisgender, heterosexual, Caucasian male can have poor writing and maybe no one bats an eye, but bad writing is still bad writing, there's no reason to add more. If the goal is trans-representation, fine, by all means do that, but don't be surprised when people simply don't understand why the trans representation was so bluntly approached with a rather poorly written and very brief conversation. Multiple trans people have said this bothered them. It's not just transphobes having a problem here.
That's why people also had a problem with Minsc's line, and Jaheira and Safana's completely rewritten personalities. That's why there's a line in game "Take them alive!" before everyone gets completely butchered and absolutely no one is taken alive. It's poor writing overall, really, and no one is focusing on Mizhena more than the people who are saying "No it's not poor writing you're just a transphobe!"
The scope of issues with SoD does not begin and end with Mizhena's existence.
I don't think that's fair to anyone, including true bigots. I mean, you see those guys out there with their inflammatory protest signs - they don't care to mince words much in real life, so why go the extra mile online? You can make the argument for bigot 2.0, but I don't think it carries much weight. Especially here.
You see, I haven't played the game yet. I am waiting for the IoS release. So I can't say that the game is good or bad. I can only work off the screenshots and dialogue that has been discussed. As such, I haven't written any reviews. However, on sites that don't require you to purchase the game to review, the reviews were far lower than on sites that require you to purchase the game to make a review.
Also, and I am not being facetious here, how did they completely rewrite Safana's character? Again, I haven't played SoD so I can't defend them or attack them here. But I have played BG1 many times and have often used Safana. She only has dialogue when you recruit her (where she shows obvious manipulation to the males in your group to get them to go on a treasure hunt). The only other things she does in the game is say things when you click on her like "I feel so...sensual" and "I'll do anything, darling."
That's all there is to her character in BG1. How much of a change from that does SoD do to warrant being called a "complete rewrite"?
Sure we can agree that the negative response and review bombing is out of place and overblown but when Beamdog then throws oil on that fire by asking Sarkeesian for help and the gaming press, then people with legitimate criticisms gets angry.
So why are so many people assuming that she didn't or can't change her body (the "it doesn't fit with the setting because it's easy to change your gender" complaints)? Why should she need the PC's help to transition (with the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity, or some other quest)?
I like the fact that Mizhena being trans is just a thing that is, not something that's only allowed to be mentioned because it's relevant to a quest or something. No, Mizhena doesn't have to be trans, but that's the whole point. A lot of people complaining about Mizhena (whether they're saying she should be "better written" or being outright transphobic) seem to be coming from the perspective that characters should by default be straight, white, able-bodied males unless there's a reason for them not to be. And I think Amber Scott consciously trying to avoid that default setting is a good thing.
Having said that I wish you would stop apologizing for your tweets. Why would you apologize for telling twitter and jezebel that GG was attacking your employer? I like Jezebel. I like Bitchmedia. I wish you had done more to spread the word.
Even if you do believe that apologizing is the right thing to do -- and, again, I don't know why you would -- apologies aren't delivering the goods. The GG crowd takes each apology as a victory and each victory encourages them to push harder. [*]
Apologies won't stop the review bombing. Banning members and deleting posts won't make the issue go away. [**] Like it or not, your best strategy is to inspire allies to come to your aid. And apologizing for *mentioning* a website admired by potential allies will not help you achieve that goal.
[*] Check out 'Mundane Matt'. One of the youtube channels that 'reviewed' the game even though they hadn't played it. Nonetheless, the trolls are celebrating the win.
[**] Check out the fresh review bombs on metacritic.
The original BGs were beloved games and considered iconic among the RPG community. Anything that attempts to expand on those games is naturally going to draw a lot of attention from among that community beforehand - and a corresponding amount of criticism afterward, should it fail to live up to that community's expectations.
As far as the issues with the game,
1. The story and exploration are VERY linear and restrictive, and the combat is more akin to IWD's than BG's (i.e.: waves of nameless goons/creatures).
2. Mechanically, the game suffers from a lack of available tank NPCs IMO (keeping in mind that Dorn and Minc are really more appropriate as flankers rather than tanks).
2. At least one MAJOR plot point of BG1 was altered in order for SoD's story to proceed:
3. The side quests are often poorly conceived and/or executed IMO. It's hard for me to illustrate that point for someone who hasn't played the game, but as an example:
4. Dialogue options are often insufficient and/or inappropriate for the situation. For example,
In order to agree to this quest, you have to tell the officer that you're "always happy to assist the city's defenders," which is simply not true for my own character and almost certainly many other players' characters as well. A simple, "Yes, I'll do it," would've sufficed in this instance.
Another example,
In this instance, you're confronting a group of thugs who have just brutally beaten someone and stolen literally every ounce of gold that you started the game with - and yet 2 out of the 3 dialogue options actually require that you compliment the thugs. The only "angry" response requires that you also make a snobbish comment about them being "paupers," which is completely irrelevant to why you're angry at them. It's as though the game itself is trying to force you to have some sort of sympathy for these characters, regardless of what you yourself or your character should think. As above, there either should be more options, or the available options should be less detailed so as to be appropriate for a broader range of character types
And of course there's this, which plays out even if your character doesn't raise a fist to defend himself:
If there are people who still like the game in spite of all these issues, then that's up to them. But I just can't see how there are people who vehemently deny that these issue exist in the first place.
By removing those very personality traits (i.e.: trying to endear herself to other party members in order to manipulate them into doing "dirty work" for her), and instead making her into someone snarky, sarcastic, and generally off-putting, more akin to Viconia than to her original persona.
Thanks for the long and detailed post. While I am trying to avoid spoilers as I can't wait to finally have a new infinity engine game to play, I appreciate you showing proof of how you feel. I am sorry to see that you didn't enjoy the game. With that said I can't wait to see if for myself.
Needlees to say I returned the game. If Beamdog fixes the old characters and hire a writer or two with talent I will try it again in the future.