Sorry, but the differences look even clearer than ever now that you've posted them side-by-side.
That's because BG1 has so little banter and personality sharing that you seem to have filled in the blanks yourself in your head and dressed the few lines of conversation in BG1 with context, traits and characterization that jsut isn't there. I do the same sometimes when a character isn't fleshed out enought to fill in all the blanks.
So saying that your PERSONAL interpretation of Safana differs from Beamdogs and that theirs is wrong and yours is right is kinda childish and, to be frank, just plain incorrect.
I haven't played SoD but I truly wonder if it would have been the same reactions to male companions, like if say Kagain got a personality upgrade. It often feels like most reactions stems down to it being a FEMALE that changes and a MALE who reacts to it. Whenever females stop being just sexual beings, alot of boys get threatened because the picking order has been changed.
1. Whatever Safana got it wasn;t an 'upgrade'. 2. As for the comment "Whenever females stop being just sexual beings"; this is just wrong. As has been well covered, the original Safana exercised her own sexual agency. The new Safana on the other hand is a whiny annoyance wanting all the boys to give her compliments and presents. Indeed, if you want to put things in terms of SJW tropes (as you seem to), then I'd say the new Safana is a more sexist caricature than the old one.
1: Still, that's a personal opinion and not a fact. So you want her to be a sexy, sultry, seducting adultress to not spoil the imagination and the action going on under your blanket at night? Fine by me, but stop stating that the upgrade is a "change" since you can't "change" something that isn't there to begin with. Then you make/create something, and in this case it's an expansion to a fairly one-dimensional NPC. 2: Stating something is "wrong" doesn't make it wrong. I'm open for discussion, but you gotta add some more explanations to back this up since otherwise you just sound rather childish. "3": I don't even know what "SJW tropes" are, but if you want to say I put things in those terms, then so be it. But instead of debating the way I express myself, perhaps you could adress what I say?
@Skatan As for "3" I was debating what you say, and the observation of how you say it (or your ideological preferences) was only in passing. As for "2" it is wrong as a matter of fact. No one is saying Safana "stops being a sexual being". The argument is that her established sexual agency has been neutered and replaced with neediness (and consequently she is annoying; and what a well worn trope the 'needy' woman is). As for "wrong", you will note that I made a statement then followed it up with a fact ("As has been well covered" - it has, read the thread, I will not repeat arguments ad infinitum). As for "childish". I will let petty ad hominems like that speak for themselves. As for "1", I suggest your look to your own foppish crudites ("'not spoil the imagination and the action going on under your blanket at night?") before accusing me of "childishness". Moreover, as I have previously stated Safana is painted with broad stokes in BG1, but the nature of her character is quite plain and that character has not been consistently developed in SoD. That is demonstrable by evidence adduced numerous times on these boards and hardly bears repeating again.
@Skatan As for "3" I was debating what you say, and the observation of how you say it (or your ideological preferences) was only in passing. As for "2" it is wrong as a matter of fact, and has been mentioned by me and others numerous times, here on this thread. You will note that I made a statement then followed it up with a fact ("As has been well covered"). As for "childish". I will let petty ad hominems like that speak for themselves. As for "1", I suggest your look to your own foppish crudites ("'not spoil the imagination and the action going on under your blanket at night?") before accusing me of "childishness". Moreover, as I have previously stated Safana is painted with broad stokes in BG1, but the nature of her character is quite plain and that character has not been consistently developed in SoD. That is demonstrable by evidence adduced numerous times on these boards and hardly bears repeating again.
As bengoshi showed above, her character development in BG1 is very limited and leaves alot room for personal interpretation. What some may think as sultry, others might see as something else. Again, just because you think and feel something doesn't make it so.
No, it is not "wrong as a matter of fact". That's my point, you can't take yours (and others) personal opinions and call them facts, no matter how many times you repeat yourself. I can call Earth flat thousands of times in hundres of threads, but that doesn't make Earth flat.
So you're saying a person can only have one personality trait? So just because one of Safana's traits was more common in BG1, that is the only which can be fleshed out in a sequel?
My point about the blanket action was a bit childish indeed, but it boils down to the fact that it's always boys who get the most aggregated when stuff like this happen, and it's usually because a female no longer meets their expectations on what a woman should be according to their regressive ideas.
Just a reminder to keep things civil, folks. Discussing the topic in a spirited manner is fine, but leave the ad hominems (direct or otherwise) out of it.
Skatan, Some of that seems a little... biased, perhaps, and experience will vary during life. I've heard the reverse to be true from others, and I disagree with that, but a blanket statement always seems silly to me... not to go off topic, but there's no disagree button :P
I also agree about Safana/Jaheira as I've mentioned before, my imagination made something more of what they gave me. Does that make it wrong? no. If I don't like what the writers of SoD did then I can play around it, an example I've used: Not liking their personality changes? kill them and write into your journal how they were dopplegangers, simple but keeps it clear(for me).
Anyway, thank you for sharing.
Edit: You know, I'm not really disagreeing with you Skatan actually, I'm more worried that so many RPG players(the detractors to "change") have trouble thinking outside the box and making it their own. /happythoughts
@Skatan As for "3" I was debating what you say, and the observation of how you say it (or your ideological preferences) was only in passing. As for "2" it is wrong as a matter of fact, and has been mentioned by me and others numerous times, here on this thread. You will note that I made a statement then followed it up with a fact ("As has been well covered"). As for "childish". I will let petty ad hominems like that speak for themselves. As for "1", I suggest your look to your own foppish crudites ("'not spoil the imagination and the action going on under your blanket at night?") before accusing me of "childishness". Moreover, as I have previously stated Safana is painted with broad stokes in BG1, but the nature of her character is quite plain and that character has not been consistently developed in SoD. That is demonstrable by evidence adduced numerous times on these boards and hardly bears repeating again.
As bengoshi showed above, her character development in BG1 is very limited and leaves alot room for personal interpretation. What some may think as sultry, others might see as something else. Again, just because you think and feel something doesn't make it so.
No, it is not "wrong as a matter of fact". That's my point, you can't take yours (and others) personal opinions and call them facts, no matter how many times you repeat yourself. I can call Earth flat thousands of times in hundres of threads, but that doesn't make Earth flat.
So you're saying a person can only have one personality trait? So just because one of Safana's traits was more common in BG1, that is the only which can be fleshed out in a sequel?
My point about the blanket action was a bit childish indeed, but it boils down to the fact that it's always boys who get the most aggregated when stuff like this happen, and it's usually because a female no longer meets their expectations on what a woman should be according to their regressive ideas.
And it's worth noting the BG1 character traits are still there despite what @Baeloth_Jnr and others keep falsely claiming, she flirts and you can flirt back as a male CHARNAME and have it lead to far more interesting dialogue than BG1, if you bring along a certain other male party member with her in the party and you're either a female CHARNAME or not interested she knocks boots with him...like, the things people say are "changed" are actually expanded upon in SoD, they just also expanded upon the BG1 one-liner from when she joins you and asserts a change in leadership is in order and she's the one to take over, her BG1 biography and her bitter/snappy bits of banter from BG1, and while expanding on those canon elements of her personality and background used them to create a link between those elements and who she is in BG2. Which SoD should do, given that it's, y'know, explicitly designed as a link between BG1 and BG2.
Like, I really feel like the detractors played a different series of Black Isle games and expansions than I did over and over back in the day, and especially playing them again now I just don't understand the complaints since they assert opinions that aren't supported by the game as facts. It's fine to assert opinions not supported by the games as your subjective wishes for things they never should have included in BG1 and BG2, but since those elements are there, it's not a "change" to expand on them.
Sorry, but the differences look even clearer than ever now that you've posted them side-by-side.
That's because BG1 has so little banter and personality sharing that you seem to have filled in the blanks yourself in your head and dressed the few lines of conversation in BG1 with context, traits and characterization that jsut isn't there. I do the same sometimes when a character isn't fleshed out enought to fill in all the blanks.
So saying that your PERSONAL interpretation of Safana differs from Beamdogs and that theirs is wrong and yours is right is kinda childish and, to be frank, just plain incorrect.
I didn't "interpret" the fact that she tries to endear herself to other characters in order to manipulate them into serving her goals. 1. It's explicitly stated in her bio that she does this. 2. She does the very same to you when you first meet her, in order to convince you to dispose of the cave's guardians on her behalf. 3. She continues to compliment NPCs even when they're insulting or dismissive toward her.
I haven't played SoD but I truly wonder if it would have been the same reactions to male companions, like if say Kagain got a personality upgrade. It often feels like most reactions stems down to it being a FEMALE that changes and a MALE who reacts to it. Whenever females stop being just sexual beings, alot of boys get threatened because the picking order has been changed.
Yes, it would've been the same - people complain about Quayle's perceived change in personality between BG1 and BG2, despite the fact that you barely even see him in the latter, and he isn't playable (plus most players didn't like him to begin with).
Sorry, but the differences look even clearer than ever now that you've posted them side-by-side.
That's because BG1 has so little banter and personality sharing that you seem to have filled in the blanks yourself in your head and dressed the few lines of conversation in BG1 with context, traits and characterization that jsut isn't there. I do the same sometimes when a character isn't fleshed out enought to fill in all the blanks.
So saying that your PERSONAL interpretation of Safana differs from Beamdogs and that theirs is wrong and yours is right is kinda childish and, to be frank, just plain incorrect.
I didn't "interpret" the fact that she tries to endear herself to other characters in order to manipulate them into serving her goals. 1. It's explicitly stated in her bio that she does this. 2. She does the very same to you when you first meet her, in order to convince you to dispose of the cave's guardians on her behalf. 3. She continues to compliment NPCs even when they're insulting or dismissive toward her.
I haven't played SoD but I truly wonder if it would have been the same reactions to male companions, like if say Kagain got a personality upgrade. It often feels like most reactions stems down to it being a FEMALE that changes and a MALE who reacts to it. Whenever females stop being just sexual beings, alot of boys get threatened because the picking order has been changed.
Yes, it would've been the same - people complain about Quayle's perceived change in personality between BG1 and BG2, despite the fact that you barely even see him in the latter, and he isn't playable (plus most players didn't like him to begin with).
Perceived? He went from young, cocky and arrogant to an old, wise mentor. That's an entirely different character.
I didn't "interpret" the fact that she tries to endear herself to other characters in order to manipulate them into serving her goals. 1. It's explicitly stated in her bio that she does this. 2. She does the very same to you when you first meet her, in order to convince you to dispose of the cave's guardians on her behalf. 3. She continues to compliment NPCs even when they're insulting or dismissive toward her.
You're obviously missing my piont. I'm not debating whether or not she is sultry or manipulative in BG1, I'm saying she most likely have more than just those character traits. Do you see the difference?
I'm saying that an expanded character means showing more than just one trait (you know, like all the humans in the entire history of the world?) whilst it seems so many Safana fans seem to think that any expanded character should be only about that one thing they consider to be the 'true' Safana personality.
Yes, it would've been the same - people complain about Quayle's perceived change in personality between BG1 and BG2, despite the fact that you barely even see him in the latter, and he isn't playable (plus most players didn't like him to begin with).
This is true to some extent, but where are the hundreds of posts about this massive personality change? Where are the legion of boys writing angrily about what a travesty that is and how 'they' completely destroyed Quayles persona from BG1? I've seen people talk about this indeed, but not aggressively, which is curious since Quayle really did go through a massive personality change.
where are the hundreds of posts about this massive personality change? Where are the legion of boys writing angrily about what a travesty that is and how 'they' completely destroyed Quayles persona from BG1? I've seen people talk about this indeed, but not aggressively, which is curious since Quayle really did go through a massive personality change.
we know where those boy-legions are, since they're more transparent to us than they are to themselves and they shove themselves under our noses constantly making all the transparent posts not dedicated to Quayle for transparent reasons, occasionally buttressed by people outside their legion who either don't find them transparent and take them at face value through this fault of interpersonal perceptiveness, have some bizarre reason to want to foist legitimacy onto their gross viewpoint, or both.
Are you saying it's time to get our torches and pitchforks out to confront those daemonic entities?
Because it seems you're desperately trying to do so. Making claims about 'the others' and their motives doesn't seem like a constructive thing to do. It might be time to take off your tinfoil hat there my friend.
Getting back to the issue here, it would make sense to go to the source. Wasn't it stated by one of the writers that the two characters in question were in fact changed? Saying that a character's personality has been upgraded means it has been altered, not just added to. It seems that any argument claiming that is not the case is rather dubious when the writer has stated it was.
False equivalency between changed and upgraded, between rewrite and upgraded, is an argument I've seen trotted out a few times.
When I upgrade the software on my phone, my phone doesn't transform into something different. I'd say this upgrade is like a 3.09 to a 3.12, not a 3.09 to a 4.0, and I upgrade tons of programs to the next full version up without taking anything away from the interface or functionality.
It's getting old, people making this "didn't someone SAY they were going to do the thing I'm accusing this of? let me twist the definition so it only fits my complaint"
just stop, there are plenty of people out there (myself included, in this thread even) who have pointed out how the only additions are additions that elaborate on content from Safana's dialogue when she joins and tries to take over the party and lets the seductive mask slip to reveal the callous self-serving person willing to step on others to get to the top (something reinforced by her BG1 biography) as well as provide a link between how she was depicted in BG1 to the dismissiveness and contempt in BG2 that reaches such heights she actually full on betrays you, otherwise left relatively unexplained, via elaborating on that content that is canon in BG1 I just mentioned.
these are not "changes" to existing games (i.e. BG1, ToSC, BG2, ToB), these are not "rewrites" of any existing content
it is content which bridges two depictions of her character taking place in an expansion that bridges the two games those depictions happen inside of, and if you have a subjective opinion that those aspects of her personality shouldn't have been elaborated, fine, but don't try to argue it's a change or a rewrite to somehow canonize your opinion without considering what went before.
When I upgrade the software on my phone, my phone doesn't transform into something different. I'd say this upgrade is like a 3.09 to a 3.12, not a 3.09 to a 4.0, and I upgrade tons of programs to the next full version up without taking anything away from the interface or functionality.
n odd comparison I must say. By upgrading the software on your phone you are indicatively changing the software, if it wasn't a change then you wouldn't need to upgrade it. Your phone doesn't change into a new model but the software it runs on is different to what it was before. It might seem the same from the interface, just as a character might still have the same model, but it's undeniably different on the inside.
As for as me having a subjective option, well it might be news but opinions are always subjective.
With that pedantic remark of mine out of the way, the way I see it is that something must have happened to Safana to change her way of thinking in BG2. The odd thing is that her character is different at the very start of the expansion as oppose to any progression we might get to experience. If the goal was to link the two games together in such a fashion then it doesn't make sense to implement said changes right at the very start of the expansion.
Again I must reiterate my previous point that if a writer says:
If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism... 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.
So depicted in bullet points:
Safana and Jaheira are sexist.
The writer didn't want to work with those tools
Safana has gotten a better personality upgrade.
So saying that nothing has changed in those character when it is clear as day that they have is a position you cannot hope to maintain. You are free to try off course.
@Rathenau "As for as me having a subjective option, well it might be news but opinions are always subjective."
Then why is anyone debating, it's all opinion anyways... probably time to let it go.
As for your next point, the original Safana told us she likes oranges, now she likes oranges and apples. Did she like apples before and just not tell us? Or is this a new facet of her personality that just developed I.E. she had an apple for the first time and liked. Besides the fact that people experience rapid changes in personality all the time...
"there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple,"
This is the part of the quote that you could focus on if you'd like to go on and on about something. It is vague at best, saying that there is "sooo much of this" and then adding "well maybe not sooo much, but a little at least" just sounds silly, maybe just to me though.
Is that an open invitation, cause I'll try I guess. Meh, the writer says they were expanding on the characters and giving them more to work with(see apples and oranges above) and now it's just your opinion that Safana and Jaheira cannot act like that. If I decide to like or do something new and change to reflect that... wtf happened to me? Do I explode for trying new things and stepping out of my programmed box?
@Rathenau I get that that's the way you see it. That's fine. The way I see it is nothing had to happen to Safana to change her way of thinking in BG2. It was a way of thinking they pointed out in her BG1 bio, so no changes were needed. And none happened. You see there being a necessary change that would have had to happen, I see it as a continuation of existing content. I play BG1, I meet Safana, she coos at me for a bit until I agree to go to a cave, I go to the cave, she asks to join, I say yes, she immediately becomes more dismissive of me.
No more Safana dialogue outside of party banter occurs.
Now it's SoD, and the progression from when I met her to when she joined gets another extension, nothing seems to have changed since the last choice-based dialogue I had with her, and in fact the last time anything I chose in a conversation tree had any kind of impact, she showed evidence of exactly this personality that I'm seeing in SoD! Her dismissive attitude ratchets up as she relaxes into her role with the party. Also in line with her BG1 bio, no surprises here, it makes perfect sense. We get lots more in-depth characterization, she sleeps with a party member so her nature as a sexual being isn't actually edited out at all.
So you think it doesn't make sense to "implement all the changes" at the start of the expansion. I'm of the opinion that she's elaborating on something pre-existing in BG1 in such a way that it doesn't actually constitute a change in personality, and in fact it WOULD be a change to have her go back to the "pre-join" phase of her interactive dialogue with you where she's not dismissive of you and attempting to put her own goals and influence before yours. I would have been ok with that change in personality, if they had decided to do what you suggest and start her off with a backtrack in personality to before she joins the group, basing her more off of selection soundbites than the actual dialogue that happens for her to join up with you...but I would have considered it a bit of a "change" from the jumping off point we're left with.
Whereas what we actually got was picking up where we left off, so SoD's intent is accomplished for me!
Next it's BG2, we see the culmination of her manipulation as she dismisses you into the grave (so she thinks, things backfire for her), and now SoD, in light of this, makes even more sense! It feels even more in line with the Black Isle games (subjectively, to me)! Fantastic! Great stuff!
I don't think anything needed to change to justify BG1 to BG2, just an elaboration on existing points...and that's what we got!
In SoD, we see her BG1 bio and the BG2 appearance linked. Nothing got changed, new content was written though. So you're right, my comparison was poor. Because it's more like downloading a new app while the other apps that company made don't change a line. Since nothing in the originals was changed. At all. Safana remains the same. Nothing was undeniably different on the inside of Safana's character, since BG1 is still canon, and so is BG2.
And as an old school fan of Baldur's Gate and Black Isle, I gotta say, this fan's subjective opinion is that I am happy to read that Amber Scott quote every time I see it, but your bullet points don't match up with it. My bullet points would read:
Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy.
“No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.”
Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade
and I would agree with all three, the jokes are really obvious if you play BG1, I agree a story 100% focused on those jokes would not be interesting to me compared to a more complex story, and I agree Safana did get her own storyline and that her personality exists outside of limited party banter and selection soundbites, which seems like an upgrade to me! and I enjoyed it, so it was a FUN upgrade too!
so as part of the fanbase supposedly insulted by these words, I gotta say I felt deeply respected by someone who took my own personal growth and intelligence into consideration when crafting a successor, without removing their personalities to make the new stories (you DO know Safana is flirty in this one? and that she shacks up with a certain male party member if they're both left to their own devices?) in order to make the stories more than the 1-dimensional story we were left with by only really having Safana involved in her own joining quest in BG1 without actually redacting established elements of her personality. There's elaboration, not an attempt to retcon, and anyone who played the Black Isle games back in the day can see plain as day there's no retcon in sight.
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.
Perhaps my memory is even worse than I thought (wouldn't surprise me), but I'm pretty sure it was Scar (the head of the Flaming Fist) that was dead and gone. Wasn't Entar the guy I found upstairs in the Flaming Fist compound being poisoned by a doppleganger, leading me to save him and take him to the harbourmaster for healing? Was there some report I missed of him being killed after that?
Perhaps my memory is even worse than I thought (wouldn't surprise me), but I'm pretty sure it was Scar (the head of the Flaming Fist) that was dead and gone. Wasn't Entar the guy I found upstairs in the Flaming Fist compound being poisoned by a doppleganger, leading me to save him and take him to the harbourmaster for healing? Was there some report I missed of him being killed after that?
Perhaps my memory is even worse than I thought (wouldn't surprise me), but I'm pretty sure it was Scar (the head of the Flaming Fist) that was dead and gone. Wasn't Entar the guy I found upstairs in the Flaming Fist compound being poisoned by a doppleganger, leading me to save him and take him to the harbourmaster for healing? Was there some report I missed of him being killed after that?
That's Eltan
Ah, I stand corrected. Always got the characters mixed up around that part of the game. Normally I get the two I mentioned confused ;p
Why is there a transgendered character to begin with? When theres magic(sometimes wild), potions... Belts.. Scrolls(think edwin/edwina)... Etc that can change one's gender....
It seems the writer(s).. Just shoved in as many SJW buzzword topics and trying to see what sticks without actually having played BG1 or BG2...
Characters need to be organic... The writing needs to unfold... not be forced with some political/social agenda.
Why is there a transgendered character to begin with? When theres magic(sometimes wild), potions... Belts.. Scrolls(think edwin/edwina)... Etc that can change one's gender....
The character in SoD may well have used magic to change their gender. There is nothing to suggest they didn't. And yes, Edwin was already a transgender character, so this was the second. It being so easy to simply choose your gender in the Forgotten Realms is why there is no prejudice about the issue.
Oh, and anyone who thinks calling someone a social justice warrior is anything other than a huge complement is in urgent need of a brain transplant.
So, please, stop telling about rewriting Safana in order to be in tune with her original personality.
SoD Safana is very much in tune with BG1 Safana, but with more banters, a romance and voiced lines.
It is nice to hear you found her in tune with the original!
Thing is, if she appears very loyal and unchanged to original in Siege, it means devs kinda failed with their intentions I guess. I wager most people got riled up by the pre-release Kotaku interview, rather than what is actually in-game.
One of the Beamdog devs had this to say about Safana's writing: “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.”'
I think approach and vision implied in quote above is what got people riled up pre-release, rather than anything that is actually in-game. All joinable NPCs in Baldur's Gate are mostly caricatures. None of them gets that much dialogue, so it was necessary to come up with something that stands out fast. As result,most all of them are somehow flawed or have a quirk or bright spot that can be communicated to players quickly and easily. Safana got accused of being bit of a slut. How much of a flaw is that, when you compare it to parade of schizophrenics, sociopaths, manic-depressive cases and borderline handicapped people that fill your party? Ultimately, I think this what got people riled up. Thought that somebody is so driven and eclipsed by some SJW agenda that a slutty fictional person appears more "broken" than equally fictional people with broken minds is kinda..obscene. I wonder how insulting this stuff appears to women who actually do consider themselves as sluts, heh. " Oh nice, I like sleeping around. Looks like there are people who feel my fictional counterparts are broken or obsolete in ways that makes them n need of more urgent repair than murderous schizophrenics. cool." ; o
TLDR I think the ourgage about Safana was due to pre-release buzz of an interview, rather than what is actually in game. I'm pretty sure Beamdogs knowingly used both sides of the utterly insufferable SJWvSGamegate thing in order to manufacture bit of an outrage. Good visibility. No clue if it paid off, or whether it translated to more people wanting to buy the expansion.
Actually, people flipped out at the game first (about Mizhena and Minsc's joke dialogue), then found the interview. Also, said interview has been utterly discussed to death already. I'd rather not see this thread closed because of the usual go-round, so I will only note that I disagree with basically everything you've said, and that it is asinine to say Beamdog manufactured the outrage.
When I disagree with some post by somebody somewhere so completely, I myself usually either completely ignore it or explain why I feel they are wrong. Waltzing by just to provide an Internet equivalent of LALALALLALA always seems kinda counter productive. But hay, that's just me.
Technically, people flipped out at a screenshot of a line from Minsc posted on Twitter, then found the interview, then found a video of Mizhena's dialogue.
Note the lack of "played the game" in that order of events.
There were certainly people who played the game and didn't like aspects of it, people who thought it had too many bugs or that too many characters were too different or that the game was too short or too linear. But the "outrage" that people are referring to? That all flared up over the course of a single weekend.
If there is popular demand, I can probably rewrite those troubled Mizhena lines into something different and make a small Weidu mod out of it. I.e. "I was a squirell once, but I always felt different. So now I'm a priest. Got any walnuts, punk? Well, do ya?" Feel free to suggest different lines.
Would that make all happy so that poor Mizhena can rest in peace after all these threads about her?
As you I have boasted before I am a fighter/ranger/archer/stalker I have a very specfic set of skills I can train and employ and I decided to take just one more contract job purely for the cash. One can only hope the Persian Gulf men I happen to have met wel working are somehow better for it.
So I do now have internet again (check my url local address lol) but before I wad playing Siege again on my laptop in off times. I really have no pony or dog in the gamergate haters vs hatets. As I said before the only readon I even know about it is this brought on the forums. It did make me reconsider some of the philosophy put forth into the game.
I have come to the conclision Siege is Marxist! The original Baldurs Gate 2 is Neo Con conservative Statist!
Nalia the rabid Lennin Marxist who helps the poor of the slums and hates her rich upbringing is treated with mocking by tge writers as a rather foolish powerless deceived girl. The male character can save her and her estate by becoming a govenor a assuming tge Good Working of the State who as any necon staetest loves makes war and kills another state to prove how great central fovernment is in victory. An even greater icon of the state and a Neo Con who could serve with G.B. or B. O. drone striking and intervening everywhere is the ultimately diefied Keldorn Firecam who kills in the name of the state government crushing relgious heresy that moves the masses away from his state relgipn of Law order and submission.
on the othet hand we have a State that has failed in Siege. The government can not hold nack the crowds of the Maxists workers it trys to crush. The character applauds the Maxists ideas of a brpken bridge that will trouble the profits of the rich. There are too many Marxist themes of opressipn by the government to cover but the game is clearly trying to convince the player that the inflexible state should be aboloshed and it is its evil goverment of self righteous capitalists that hopefully can be overcome. the Corwin archer player character overcomes her foul goverment police duty status and helps the charter in esacpe the overarching state like a good Marxist who killed the royal family in 1919.
So Baldurs Gate 2 is the product of the minds of Statest Neo Con War makers
and
Siege of Dragonspear is the product of Marxist social justice mind makers.
I bought them all but not thier mindsets!
Cheers... I am going to buck the state and the relgion and wrear questionable shorts again here.
Comments
2: Stating something is "wrong" doesn't make it wrong. I'm open for discussion, but you gotta add some more explanations to back this up since otherwise you just sound rather childish.
"3": I don't even know what "SJW tropes" are, but if you want to say I put things in those terms, then so be it. But instead of debating the way I express myself, perhaps you could adress what I say?
As for "3" I was debating what you say, and the observation of how you say it (or your ideological preferences) was only in passing.
As for "2" it is wrong as a matter of fact. No one is saying Safana "stops being a sexual being".
The argument is that her established sexual agency has been neutered and replaced with neediness (and consequently she is annoying; and what a well worn trope the 'needy' woman is).
As for "wrong", you will note that I made a statement then followed it up with a fact ("As has been well covered" - it has, read the thread, I will not repeat arguments ad infinitum).
As for "childish". I will let petty ad hominems like that speak for themselves.
As for "1", I suggest your look to your own foppish crudites ("'not spoil the imagination and the action going on under your blanket at night?") before accusing me of "childishness".
Moreover, as I have previously stated Safana is painted with broad stokes in BG1, but the nature of her character is quite plain and that character has not been consistently developed in SoD.
That is demonstrable by evidence adduced numerous times on these boards and hardly bears repeating again.
No, it is not "wrong as a matter of fact". That's my point, you can't take yours (and others) personal opinions and call them facts, no matter how many times you repeat yourself. I can call Earth flat thousands of times in hundres of threads, but that doesn't make Earth flat.
So you're saying a person can only have one personality trait? So just because one of Safana's traits was more common in BG1, that is the only which can be fleshed out in a sequel?
My point about the blanket action was a bit childish indeed, but it boils down to the fact that it's always boys who get the most aggregated when stuff like this happen, and it's usually because a female no longer meets their expectations on what a woman should be according to their regressive ideas.
Just a reminder to keep things civil, folks. Discussing the topic in a spirited manner is fine, but leave the ad hominems (direct or otherwise) out of it.
Some of that seems a little... biased, perhaps, and experience will vary during life. I've heard the reverse to be true from others, and I disagree with that, but a blanket statement always seems silly to me... not to go off topic, but there's no disagree button :P
I also agree about Safana/Jaheira as I've mentioned before, my imagination made something more of what they gave me. Does that make it wrong? no. If I don't like what the writers of SoD did then I can play around it, an example I've used: Not liking their personality changes? kill them and write into your journal how they were dopplegangers, simple but keeps it clear(for me).
Anyway, thank you for sharing.
Edit: You know, I'm not really disagreeing with you Skatan actually, I'm more worried that so many RPG players(the detractors to "change") have trouble thinking outside the box and making it their own. /happythoughts
Like, I really feel like the detractors played a different series of Black Isle games and expansions than I did over and over back in the day, and especially playing them again now I just don't understand the complaints since they assert opinions that aren't supported by the game as facts. It's fine to assert opinions not supported by the games as your subjective wishes for things they never should have included in BG1 and BG2, but since those elements are there, it's not a "change" to expand on them.
1. It's explicitly stated in her bio that she does this.
2. She does the very same to you when you first meet her, in order to convince you to dispose of the cave's guardians on her behalf.
3. She continues to compliment NPCs even when they're insulting or dismissive toward her.
Yes, it would've been the same - people complain about Quayle's perceived change in personality between BG1 and BG2, despite the fact that you barely even see him in the latter, and he isn't playable (plus most players didn't like him to begin with).
I'm saying that an expanded character means showing more than just one trait (you know, like all the humans in the entire history of the world?) whilst it seems so many Safana fans seem to think that any expanded character should be only about that one thing they consider to be the 'true' Safana personality. This is true to some extent, but where are the hundreds of posts about this massive personality change? Where are the legion of boys writing angrily about what a travesty that is and how 'they' completely destroyed Quayles persona from BG1? I've seen people talk about this indeed, but not aggressively, which is curious since Quayle really did go through a massive personality change.
Because it seems you're desperately trying to do so. Making claims about 'the others' and their motives doesn't seem like a constructive thing to do. It might be time to take off your tinfoil hat there my friend.
Getting back to the issue here, it would make sense to go to the source. Wasn't it stated by one of the writers that the two characters in question were in fact changed? Saying that a character's personality has been upgraded means it has been altered, not just added to. It seems that any argument claiming that is not the case is rather dubious when the writer has stated it was.
Edited for typo's.
When I upgrade the software on my phone, my phone doesn't transform into something different. I'd say this upgrade is like a 3.09 to a 3.12, not a 3.09 to a 4.0, and I upgrade tons of programs to the next full version up without taking anything away from the interface or functionality.
It's getting old, people making this "didn't someone SAY they were going to do the thing I'm accusing this of? let me twist the definition so it only fits my complaint"
just stop, there are plenty of people out there (myself included, in this thread even) who have pointed out how the only additions are additions that elaborate on content from Safana's dialogue when she joins and tries to take over the party and lets the seductive mask slip to reveal the callous self-serving person willing to step on others to get to the top (something reinforced by her BG1 biography) as well as provide a link between how she was depicted in BG1 to the dismissiveness and contempt in BG2 that reaches such heights she actually full on betrays you, otherwise left relatively unexplained, via elaborating on that content that is canon in BG1 I just mentioned.
these are not "changes" to existing games (i.e. BG1, ToSC, BG2, ToB), these are not "rewrites" of any existing content
it is content which bridges two depictions of her character taking place in an expansion that bridges the two games those depictions happen inside of, and if you have a subjective opinion that those aspects of her personality shouldn't have been elaborated, fine, but don't try to argue it's a change or a rewrite to somehow canonize your opinion without considering what went before.
As for as me having a subjective option, well it might be news but opinions are always subjective.
With that pedantic remark of mine out of the way, the way I see it is that something must have happened to Safana to change her way of thinking in BG2. The odd thing is that her character is different at the very start of the expansion as oppose to any progression we might get to experience. If the goal was to link the two games together in such a fashion then it doesn't make sense to implement said changes right at the very start of the expansion.
Again I must reiterate my previous point that if a writer says: So depicted in bullet points:
- Safana and Jaheira are sexist.
- The writer didn't want to work with those tools
- Safana has gotten a better personality upgrade.
So saying that nothing has changed in those character when it is clear as day that they have is a position you cannot hope to maintain. You are free to try off course."As for as me having a subjective option, well it might be news but opinions are always subjective."
Then why is anyone debating, it's all opinion anyways... probably time to let it go.
As for your next point, the original Safana told us she likes oranges, now she likes oranges and apples. Did she like apples before and just not tell us? Or is this a new facet of her personality that just developed I.E. she had an apple for the first time and liked. Besides the fact that people experience rapid changes in personality all the time...
"there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple,"
This is the part of the quote that you could focus on if you'd like to go on and on about something. It is vague at best, saying that there is "sooo much of this" and then adding "well maybe not sooo much, but a little at least" just sounds silly, maybe just to me though.
Is that an open invitation, cause I'll try I guess.
Meh, the writer says they were expanding on the characters and giving them more to work with(see apples and oranges above) and now it's just your opinion that Safana and Jaheira cannot act like that. If I decide to like or do something new and change to reflect that... wtf happened to me? Do I explode for trying new things and stepping out of my programmed box?
But hey, it's all opinion anyways.
I get that that's the way you see it. That's fine. The way I see it is nothing had to happen to Safana to change her way of thinking in BG2. It was a way of thinking they pointed out in her BG1 bio, so no changes were needed. And none happened. You see there being a necessary change that would have had to happen, I see it as a continuation of existing content. I play BG1, I meet Safana, she coos at me for a bit until I agree to go to a cave, I go to the cave, she asks to join, I say yes, she immediately becomes more dismissive of me.
No more Safana dialogue outside of party banter occurs.
Now it's SoD, and the progression from when I met her to when she joined gets another extension, nothing seems to have changed since the last choice-based dialogue I had with her, and in fact the last time anything I chose in a conversation tree had any kind of impact, she showed evidence of exactly this personality that I'm seeing in SoD! Her dismissive attitude ratchets up as she relaxes into her role with the party. Also in line with her BG1 bio, no surprises here, it makes perfect sense. We get lots more in-depth characterization, she sleeps with a party member so her nature as a sexual being isn't actually edited out at all.
So you think it doesn't make sense to "implement all the changes" at the start of the expansion. I'm of the opinion that she's elaborating on something pre-existing in BG1 in such a way that it doesn't actually constitute a change in personality, and in fact it WOULD be a change to have her go back to the "pre-join" phase of her interactive dialogue with you where she's not dismissive of you and attempting to put her own goals and influence before yours. I would have been ok with that change in personality, if they had decided to do what you suggest and start her off with a backtrack in personality to before she joins the group, basing her more off of selection soundbites than the actual dialogue that happens for her to join up with you...but I would have considered it a bit of a "change" from the jumping off point we're left with.
Whereas what we actually got was picking up where we left off, so SoD's intent is accomplished for me!
Next it's BG2, we see the culmination of her manipulation as she dismisses you into the grave (so she thinks, things backfire for her), and now SoD, in light of this, makes even more sense! It feels even more in line with the Black Isle games (subjectively, to me)! Fantastic! Great stuff!
I don't think anything needed to change to justify BG1 to BG2, just an elaboration on existing points...and that's what we got!
In SoD, we see her BG1 bio and the BG2 appearance linked. Nothing got changed, new content was written though. So you're right, my comparison was poor. Because it's more like downloading a new app while the other apps that company made don't change a line. Since nothing in the originals was changed. At all. Safana remains the same. Nothing was undeniably different on the inside of Safana's character, since BG1 is still canon, and so is BG2.
And as an old school fan of Baldur's Gate and Black Isle, I gotta say, this fan's subjective opinion is that I am happy to read that Amber Scott quote every time I see it, but your bullet points don't match up with it. My bullet points would read:
- Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy.
- “No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.”
- Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade
and I would agree with all three, the jokes are really obvious if you play BG1, I agree a story 100% focused on those jokes would not be interesting to me compared to a more complex story, and I agree Safana did get her own storyline and that her personality exists outside of limited party banter and selection soundbites, which seems like an upgrade to me! and I enjoyed it, so it was a FUN upgrade too!so as part of the fanbase supposedly insulted by these words, I gotta say I felt deeply respected by someone who took my own personal growth and intelligence into consideration when crafting a successor, without removing their personalities to make the new stories (you DO know Safana is flirty in this one? and that she shacks up with a certain male party member if they're both left to their own devices?) in order to make the stories more than the 1-dimensional story we were left with by only really having Safana involved in her own joining quest in BG1 without actually redacting established elements of her personality. There's elaboration, not an attempt to retcon, and anyone who played the Black Isle games back in the day can see plain as day there's no retcon in sight.
Ah, I stand corrected. Always got the characters mixed up around that part of the game. Normally I get the two I mentioned confused ;p
It seems the writer(s).. Just shoved in as many SJW buzzword topics and trying to see what sticks without actually having played BG1 or BG2...
Characters need to be organic... The writing needs to unfold... not be forced with some political/social agenda.
Oh, and anyone who thinks calling someone a social justice warrior is anything other than a huge complement is in urgent need of a brain transplant.
Thing is, if she appears very loyal and unchanged to original in Siege, it means devs kinda failed with their intentions I guess. I wager most people got riled up by the pre-release Kotaku interview, rather than what is actually in-game.
One of the Beamdog devs had this to say about Safana's writing:
“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.”'
I think approach and vision implied in quote above is what got people riled up pre-release, rather than anything that is actually in-game. All joinable NPCs in Baldur's Gate are mostly caricatures. None of them gets that much dialogue, so it was necessary to come up with something that stands out fast. As result,most all of them are somehow flawed or have a quirk or bright spot that can be communicated to players quickly and easily. Safana got accused of being bit of a slut. How much of a flaw is that, when you compare it to parade of schizophrenics, sociopaths, manic-depressive cases and borderline handicapped people that fill your party? Ultimately, I think this what got people riled up. Thought that somebody is so driven and eclipsed by some SJW agenda that a slutty fictional person appears more "broken" than equally fictional people with broken minds is kinda..obscene. I wonder how insulting this stuff appears to women who actually do consider themselves as sluts, heh. " Oh nice, I like sleeping around. Looks like there are people who feel my fictional counterparts are broken or obsolete in ways that makes them n need of more urgent repair than murderous schizophrenics. cool." ; o
TLDR
I think the ourgage about Safana was due to pre-release buzz of an interview, rather than what is actually in game. I'm pretty sure Beamdogs knowingly used both sides of the utterly insufferable SJWvSGamegate thing in order to manufacture bit of an outrage. Good visibility. No clue if it paid off, or whether it translated to more people wanting to buy the expansion.
Note the lack of "played the game" in that order of events.
There were certainly people who played the game and didn't like aspects of it, people who thought it had too many bugs or that too many characters were too different or that the game was too short or too linear. But the "outrage" that people are referring to? That all flared up over the course of a single weekend.
I.e.
"I was a squirell once, but I always felt different. So now I'm a priest. Got any walnuts, punk? Well, do ya?"
Feel free to suggest different lines.
Would that make all happy so that poor Mizhena can rest in peace after all these threads about her?
So I do now have internet again (check my url local address lol) but before I wad playing Siege again on my laptop in off times. I really have no pony or dog in the gamergate haters vs hatets. As I said before the only readon I even know about it is this brought on the forums. It did make me reconsider some of the philosophy put forth into the game.
I have come to the conclision Siege is Marxist! The original Baldurs Gate 2 is Neo Con conservative Statist!
Nalia the rabid Lennin Marxist who helps the poor of the slums and hates her rich upbringing is treated with mocking by tge writers as a rather foolish powerless deceived girl. The male character can save her and her estate by becoming a govenor a assuming tge Good Working of the State who as any necon staetest loves makes war and kills another state to prove how great central fovernment is in victory.
An even greater icon of the state and a Neo Con who could serve with G.B. or B. O. drone striking and intervening everywhere is the ultimately diefied Keldorn Firecam who kills in the name of the state government crushing relgious heresy that moves the masses away from his state relgipn of Law order and submission.
on the othet hand we have a State that has failed in Siege. The government can not hold nack the crowds of the Maxists workers it trys to crush. The character applauds the Maxists ideas of a brpken bridge that will trouble the profits of the rich. There are too many Marxist themes of opressipn by the government to cover but the game is clearly trying to convince the player that the inflexible state should be aboloshed and it is its evil goverment of self righteous capitalists that hopefully can be overcome. the Corwin archer player character overcomes her foul goverment police duty status and helps the charter in esacpe the overarching state like a good Marxist who killed the royal family in 1919.
So Baldurs Gate 2 is the product of the minds of Statest Neo Con War makers
and
Siege of Dragonspear is the product of Marxist social justice mind makers.
I bought them all but not thier mindsets!
Cheers... I am going to buck the state and the relgion and wrear questionable shorts again here.