What relieves me the most here is that Beamdog is standing behind Amber. It is really quite alarming to see others wanting another person to get fired from employment, from her livelihood, from her bread and butter, no matter how much hatred one bears, not to mention if such hatred is so unnecessary (at least from my perspective). I know I'm being naive; it happens everywhere, it happens everytime. But actually seeing it, reading it... It's... Sad. Especially so when against someone who has been nothing but kind around here. Anyway, I'm glad everything's settled.
While I wish the writing wasn't SJW-influenced, I'm more of a power gamer who will eventually be memorizing which numbers to press to skip the dialog. It's unfortunate that the maligned political viewpoint(s) of one or more writers has degraded the legacy of the series, but I look forward to the bug fixes and will continue to enjoy this game.
What relieves me the most here is that Beamdog is standing behind Amber. It is really quite alarming to see others wanting another person to get fired from employment, from her livelihood, from her bread and butter, no matter how much hatred one bears, not to mention if such hatred is so unnecessary (at least from my perspective). I know I'm being naive; it happens everywhere, it happens everytime. But actually seeing it, reading it... It's... Sad. Especially so when against someone who has been nothing but kind around here. Anyway, I'm glad everything's settled.
Standing behind her is taking it a bit far. Firing her would be heinous, so they are simply not being terrible. They removed some of her writing based on an intimidation campaign.
This decision is, at best, short sighted and, at worst, stupid. You have given into a bullying campaign and done so in a way that emboldens your opponents and alienates your allies. And you did so while you were winning. Every argument the GG crowd was making was falling.
1. The misogynists and transphobes -- who you prefer to refer to as 'fans' -- argued that trans people didn't belong in setting. The community gathered evidence to the contrary and then the creator of the setting himself weighed in say the transphobes were incorrect. This was the nail in the coffin and the smarter trolls abandoned it -- but they didn't give up.
2. With this argument dead and buried the misogynists turned to their next argument: this character breaks the 4th wall. Before you turned to appeasement you made an excellent argument: this is a game that refers to the Bob Newheart Show. (and Ren and Stimpy and Loony Tunes and on and on . . .) We both know that the 4th wall is no longer standing in Baldur's Gate. Some 'fans' are still making this argument but they are looking increasingly silly.
3. And so the most strategic of the GG crowd turned to their final argument. We don't dislike trans people -- we are just concerned that this one wasn't done very well. This was the most important of the arguments because, as you have surmised, the trolls are really after Amber Scott's job. The 'fans' were prepared to be 'offended' by something she wrote.
And you gave into this one. Way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Way to undermine your allies. Way to undermine your employees. And let's deal with last one that shall we?
This is a lovely sentiment: "we stand behind all our developers 100%" It is also demonstrably false. Sure you don't have any plans to fire her but you are deleting one your employee's lines and rewriting her character. If deleting and rewriting is your idea of 100% support I hope you never support me. What would 50% support look like?
I know what you are telling yourself -- you don't get it killerrabbit we're expanding the role of the trans NPC so we are only giving the (*achem*) 'fans' a quarter of our lunch money while and sticking a finger in their eye. What part of expanding the role of the trans character don't you get?
This is why that 'strategy' won't work:
You are a) giving them a victory with the deleted comment and b) signing on to the 'poorly written' / shoehorned notion -- this prepares the ground for their next attack.
I *promise* you that when you release the rewritten character the GG crowd will pan it. Bookmark this page -- if the trolls keep quiet I'll eat crow.
How do I know this? Because I've been involved with activist campaigns and we activists have a saying: "How do you eat an elephant? ; One bite at a time" You just gave your critics a bite of your elephant and they *will* come back for the rest.
When the going got tough you gave in. Shame.
This is essentially what I've been thinking and didn't want to come out and say, simply because I've been around here too long. But the GG crowd has already moved the goalposts 3 or 4 times since this started over the weekend. The moment the concessions were announced, people who were on the side of having the Minsc line removed were already petitioning for MORE changes that they might want to make in the future, as if this was a crowd-funded, community effort and not a finished product that has already been released. I mean hell, if this was the mid-90s the game would be what it is. There wouldn't be patches, and the only way the mob could express their supposed victimization would be through a letter-writing campaign, which they would be too lazy to do.
I especially agree with your comments about the 4th wall. Not just Baldur's Gate does this, not just most RPGs do this, almost all GAMES IN GENERAL do this at one time or another.
While that is true, that some people have petitioned for more changes, I highly disagree that @TrentOster has anything to be ashamed about, nor do I agree with killerrabbit's generalization that every single person's complaint about the writing was a last desperate attempt by misogynists and transphobics to secure some cultural victory, some of the complaints were from transpeople for god's sakes. Alot of people had good points for their grievances, and it seems through his writing that since he "knows" activists, he was too lazy to sift through the crappy comments to find the legitimate comments. As I said, he's just as bad as the GGers, he see's attacks everywhere, and sees this as a war.
That's the best choice to remove the line part I think, it was kinda weird anyway.
I'm very happy to know the bugs/multiplayer problems isn't overlooked. When they work I can turn my Steam critics to positive back as the broken multi was what ruined it for me. (and my review is just about that.)
I still think it would be fine for Beamdog to say they they don't call the old games as "sexist". This was was a wrong move.
The problem with so called "culture warriors" on all sides is that no one ever wins until the other "team" is gone.
Afraid not, it doesn't matter who loses "GG" or "Anti-GG" the surviving side will just pick another targer, that's the internet for you.
I just simply think PC gaming is in a rather good place right now. Gaming fans will do fine. Despite.
Though maybe quite a bit more are now appalled with GG than before. "I don't like it, so neither should you!"
Quite the petty and selfish attitude for a good quality release - from a non-mainstream publisher, no less. I like SoD from the very release, but this petty fussing (IMO) makes me even more glad I do...
The problem with so called "culture warriors" on all sides is that no one ever wins until the other "team" is gone.
Afraid not, it doesn't matter who loses "GG" or "Anti-GG" the surviving side will just pick another targer, that's the internet for you.
I just simply think PC gaming is in a rather good place right now. Gaming fans will do fine. Despite.
Though maybe quite a bit more are now appalled with GG than before. "I don't like it, so neither should you!"
Quite the petty and selfish attitude for a good quality release - from a non-mainstream publisher, no less. I like SoD from the very release, but this petty fussing (IMO) makes me even more glad I do...
Well, at least you haven't deluded yourself into thinking this is some sort of end all war and have realized that it's just two groups of jerks on the internet with nothing better to do. The changes will happen, the world will move on, Siege of Dragonspear will continue to be magnificent, and no one will hear of it off the web.
Sounds ok to me. A little disappointed that the Minsc line was removed as a result of bullying, but I don't think it ever really belonged there and shouldn't have been included in the first place.
I didn't think there was a problem with the trans character necessarily - every character in the game is very forward about their issues or whatever aspect of their character or past that's being presented. And she only said it when the PC asks. That said, a stronger, more detailed character is certainly a good thing. I hope it will be handled well.
I guess we'll soon find out if the issues were actually the quote and poor writing, or if there was some other agenda.
This decision is, at best, short sighted and, at worst, stupid. You have given into a bullying campaign and done so in a way that emboldens your opponents and alienates your allies. And you did so while you were winning. Every argument the GG crowd was making was falling.
1. The misogynists and transphobes -- who you prefer to refer to as 'fans' -- argued that trans people didn't belong in setting. The community gathered evidence to the contrary and then the creator of the setting himself weighed in say the transphobes were incorrect. This was the nail in the coffin and the smarter trolls abandoned it -- but they didn't give up.
2. With this argument dead and buried the misogynists turned to their next argument: this character breaks the 4th wall. Before you turned to appeasement you made an excellent argument: this is a game that refers to the Bob Newheart Show. (and Ren and Stimpy and Loony Tunes and on and on . . .) We both know that the 4th wall is no longer standing in Baldur's Gate. Some 'fans' are still making this argument but they are looking increasingly silly.
3. And so the most strategic of the GG crowd turned to their final argument. We don't dislike trans people -- we are just concerned that this one wasn't done very well. This was the most important of the arguments because, as you have surmised, the trolls are really after Amber Scott's job. The 'fans' were prepared to be 'offended' by something she wrote.
And you gave into this one. Way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Way to undermine your allies. Way to undermine your employees. And let's deal with last one that shall we?
This is a lovely sentiment: "we stand behind all our developers 100%" It is also demonstrably false. Sure you don't have any plans to fire her but you are deleting one your employee's lines and rewriting her character. If deleting and rewriting is your idea of 100% support I hope you never support me. What would 50% support look like?
I know what you are telling yourself -- you don't get it killerrabbit we're expanding the role of the trans NPC so we are only giving the (*achem*) 'fans' a quarter of our lunch money while and sticking a finger in their eye. What part of expanding the role of the trans character don't you get?
This is why that 'strategy' won't work:
You are a) giving them a victory with the deleted comment and b) signing on to the 'poorly written' / shoehorned notion -- this prepares the ground for their next attack.
I *promise* you that when you release the rewritten character the GG crowd will pan it. Bookmark this page -- if the trolls keep quiet I'll eat crow.
How do I know this? Because I've been involved with activist campaigns and we activists have a saying: "How do you eat an elephant? ; One bite at a time" You just gave your critics a bite of your elephant and they *will* come back for the rest.
When the going got tough you gave in. Shame.
This is essentially what I've been thinking and didn't want to come out and say, simply because I've been around here too long. But the GG crowd has already moved the goalposts 3 or 4 times since this started over the weekend. The moment the concessions were announced, people who were on the side of having the Minsc line removed were already petitioning for MORE changes that they might want to make in the future, as if this was a crowd-funded, community effort and not a finished product that has already been released. I mean hell, if this was the mid-90s the game would be what it is. There wouldn't be patches, and the only way the mob could express their supposed victimization would be through a letter-writing campaign, which they would be too lazy to do.
I especially agree with your comments about the 4th wall. Not just Baldur's Gate does this, not just most RPGs do this, almost all GAMES IN GENERAL do this at one time or another.
While that is true, that some people have petitioned for more changes, I highly disagree that @TrentOster has anything to be ashamed about, nor do I agree with killerrabbit's generalization that every single person's complaint about the writing was a last desperate attempt by misogynists and transphobics to secure some cultural victory, some of the complaints were from transpeople for god's sakes. Alot of people had good points for their grievances, and it seems through his writing that since he "knows" activists, he was too lazy to sift through the crappy comments to find the legitimate comments. As I said, he's just as bad as the GGers, he see's attacks everywhere, and sees this as a war.
The games review scores were not tanked because of "bad writing". For one thing, the writing isn't that bad, and the original Baldur's Gate games writing isn't any better or worse. It's fine. No one drops massive amounts of negative review bombs on Metacritic and GOG because of bad writing. And for what must be the dozenth time I've mentioned this, Siege has generated over 5 TIMES the amount of reviews as the latest Fallout 4 DLC, which is completely insane from any objective understanding of this games place in the current market.
This decision is, at best, short sighted and, at worst, stupid. You have given into a bullying campaign and done so in a way that emboldens your opponents and alienates your allies. And you did so while you were winning. Every argument the GG crowd was making was falling.
1. The misogynists and transphobes -- who you prefer to refer to as 'fans' -- argued that trans people didn't belong in setting. The community gathered evidence to the contrary and then the creator of the setting himself weighed in say the transphobes were incorrect. This was the nail in the coffin and the smarter trolls abandoned it -- but they didn't give up.
2. With this argument dead and buried the misogynists turned to their next argument: this character breaks the 4th wall. Before you turned to appeasement you made an excellent argument: this is a game that refers to the Bob Newheart Show. (and Ren and Stimpy and Loony Tunes and on and on . . .) We both know that the 4th wall is no longer standing in Baldur's Gate. Some 'fans' are still making this argument but they are looking increasingly silly.
3. And so the most strategic of the GG crowd turned to their final argument. We don't dislike trans people -- we are just concerned that this one wasn't done very well. This was the most important of the arguments because, as you have surmised, the trolls are really after Amber Scott's job. The 'fans' were prepared to be 'offended' by something she wrote.
And you gave into this one. Way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Way to undermine your allies. Way to undermine your employees. And let's deal with last one that shall we?
This is a lovely sentiment: "we stand behind all our developers 100%" It is also demonstrably false. Sure you don't have any plans to fire her but you are deleting one your employee's lines and rewriting her character. If deleting and rewriting is your idea of 100% support I hope you never support me. What would 50% support look like?
I know what you are telling yourself -- you don't get it killerrabbit we're expanding the role of the trans NPC so we are only giving the (*achem*) 'fans' a quarter of our lunch money while and sticking a finger in their eye. What part of expanding the role of the trans character don't you get?
This is why that 'strategy' won't work:
You are a) giving them a victory with the deleted comment and b) signing on to the 'poorly written' / shoehorned notion -- this prepares the ground for their next attack.
I *promise* you that when you release the rewritten character the GG crowd will pan it. Bookmark this page -- if the trolls keep quiet I'll eat crow.
How do I know this? Because I've been involved with activist campaigns and we activists have a saying: "How do you eat an elephant? ; One bite at a time" You just gave your critics a bite of your elephant and they *will* come back for the rest.
When the going got tough you gave in. Shame.
This is essentially what I've been thinking and didn't want to come out and say, simply because I've been around here too long. But the GG crowd has already moved the goalposts 3 or 4 times since this started over the weekend. The moment the concessions were announced, people who were on the side of having the Minsc line removed were already petitioning for MORE changes that they might want to make in the future, as if this was a crowd-funded, community effort and not a finished product that has already been released. I mean hell, if this was the mid-90s the game would be what it is. There wouldn't be patches, and the only way the mob could express their supposed victimization would be through a letter-writing campaign, which they would be too lazy to do.
I especially agree with your comments about the 4th wall. Not just Baldur's Gate does this, not just most RPGs do this, almost all GAMES IN GENERAL do this at one time or another.
While that is true, that some people have petitioned for more changes, I highly disagree that @TrentOster has anything to be ashamed about, nor do I agree with killerrabbit's generalization that every single person's complaint about the writing was a last desperate attempt by misogynists and transphobics to secure some cultural victory, some of the complaints were from transpeople for god's sakes. Alot of people had good points for their grievances, and it seems through his writing that since he "knows" activists, he was too lazy to sift through the crappy comments to find the legitimate comments. As I said, he's just as bad as the GGers, he see's attacks everywhere, and sees this as a war.
The games review scores were not tanked because of "bad writing". For one thing, the writing isn't that bad, and the original Baldur's Gate games writing isn't any better or worse. It's fine. No one drops massive amounts of negative review bombs on Metacritic and GOG because of bad writing. And for what must be the dozenth time I've mentioned this, Siege has generated over 5 TIMES the amount of reviews as the latest Fallout 4 DLC, which is completely insane from any objective understanding of this games place in the current market.
Ah, I see. Yes, the review bombs were quite horrendous and clearly a bad thing, I was solely talking about the situation on the forums here. Honestly, it's why I don't read "peer" reviews on Steam, GOG, Metacritic, etc. I generally just go with my gut, hasn't failed me yet.
What relieves me the most here is that Beamdog is standing behind Amber. It is really quite alarming to see others wanting another person to get fired from employment, from her livelihood, from her bread and butter, no matter how much hatred one bears, not to mention if such hatred is so unnecessary (at least from my perspective). I know I'm being naive; it happens everywhere, it happens everytime. But actually seeing it, reading it... It's... Sad. Especially so when against someone who has been nothing but kind around here. Anyway, I'm glad everything's settled.
Standing behind her is taking it a bit far. Firing her would be heinous, so they are simply not being terrible. They removed some of her writing based on an intimidation campaign.
I might have just misread your post.
But are you implying that Beamdog wants to fire her? Only that they can't because it would look heinous? So they opted not to look terrible? The removal of some of her writing is to appease some group, nothing more. I wonder how you got to that conclusion, when Beamdog has strongly said that they would stand behind their employee 100%, that the game is a product of their collective work (that is, it sounded like - one's fault is most likely everyone's fault). I would take the words of Beamdog for what it is, by it's plain and simple meaning, there's no ambiguity here to call for other interpretations - they said Beamdog would stand behind it's developers 100%.
@BillyH666 I agree that there were some people who were contributing to GG strategy #3 who were not on board with the campaign against Amber Scott. But embracing a notion that is not normally associated with your side and using that position as the thin edge of a wedge is indeed a strategy -- it even has a name. One that I'll not repeat here because it is includes a pejorative and I don't want you to think I'm trying to insult you.
And look right below your post -- a request for another bite of elephant. Can't we also get an apology from the bad lady?
I often check reviews on Steam and find them to be a decent guide as to a game's quality - except in cases where the game has been review-bombed (SoD isn't unique in that regard) and I'll have to look a bit further afield to find less biased assessments.
Like I haven't ever been disappointed by games with a lot of positive reviews. But I should add I don't buy that many games on Steam anymore because I have to play the ones I've got.
I appreciate your decision to expand Mizhena and i personally think it is one of the major requirements of SoD.
Future petitions: - Restore Safana to her teasing nature
Safana´s change of personality bothered me the most. The simple way to make a statement about feminis is to do it on a new character, not destroying an existing one.
I only had Safana cursorily in BG because I tend to play dual wielding rogue but "A girl needs her beauty sleep" is intact as far as I can tell.
And to my female CHAR when dropping her in SoD, Safana said: "Afraid of little competition."
Hardly a feminist sis there, is she? Not that I dislike Safana now or earlier. I just think you are jumping an imaginary bandwagon...
Thank you very much for confirming Beamdog's commitment to fixing the multiplayer issues and having a future patch that addresses some of the technical problems. This is the response I was hoping for from the company, and will be patiently awaiting the updates!
The games review scores were not tanked because of "bad writing". For one thing, the writing isn't that bad, and the original Baldur's Gate games writing isn't any better or worse. It's fine. No one drops massive amounts of negative review bombs on Metacritic and GOG because of bad writing. And for what must be the dozenth time I've mentioned this, Siege has generated over 5 TIMES the amount of reviews as the latest Fallout 4 DLC, which is completely insane from any objective understanding of this games place in the current market.
I'm pretty much in full agreement with you here, but with a more fleshed out Mizhena, the trans haters will have to either admit to their bigotry or shut up.
And in the meanwhile, anyone who isn't a trans hater, gets a better character. Seems like a win-win all around.
What relieves me the most here is that Beamdog is standing behind Amber. It is really quite alarming to see others wanting another person to get fired from employment, from her livelihood, from her bread and butter, no matter how much hatred one bears, not to mention if such hatred is so unnecessary (at least from my perspective). I know I'm being naive; it happens everywhere, it happens everytime. But actually seeing it, reading it... It's... Sad. Especially so when against someone who has been nothing but kind around here. Anyway, I'm glad everything's settled.
Standing behind her is taking it a bit far. Firing her would be heinous, so they are simply not being terrible. They removed some of her writing based on an intimidation campaign.
I might have just misread your post.
But are you implying that Beamdog wants to fire her? Only that they can't because it would look heinous? So they opted not to look terrible? The removal of some of her writing is to appease some group, nothing more. I wonder how you got to that conclusion, when Beamdog has strongly said that they would stand behind their employee 100%, that the game is a product of their collective work (that is, it sounded like - one's fault is most likely everyone's fault). I would take the words of Beamdog for what it is, by it's plain and simple meaning, there's no ambiguity here to call for other interpretations - they said Beamdog would stand behind it's developers 100%.
Agreed, and I just hate that "removed her writing" so they did it without asking? She was too weak to stand up for herself? It's impossible to think that she thought "maybe I offended some people with that line, and most of Minsc's jokes aren't political in nature." or maybe "Wow, people want more of Mizhenra? My favorite character? gosh, that's swell!" All of that stuff was co-wrote, they didn't just amgically remove it, they discussed it with their writers, if they had said no, the announcement would have looked way different, as it is they reached a concencus.
@BillyH666 I agree that there were some people who were contributing to GG strategy #3 who were not on board with the campaign against Amber Scott. But embracing a notion that is not normally associated with your side and using that position as the thin edge of a wedge is indeed a strategy -- it even has a name. One that I'll not repeat here because it is includes a pejorative and I don't want you to think I'm trying to insult you.
And look right below your post -- a request for another bite of elephant. Can't we also get an apology from the bad lady?
Alright, fair enough. I admit I've been a little on edge and apologize for the harshness in which I have referred to you. They may be biting at the elephant, but (call me an optimist) it's toothless now.
Safana´s change of personality bothered me the most. The simple way to make a statement about feminis is to do it on a new character, not destroying an existing one. That would not anger me at all.
This is exactly what I have been thinking.
Beamdog should never have hired a writer who didn't appreciate the writing/style/content of the original games, or at the very least, was unwilling to put aside that dislike in order to stay consistent with the original games. The professed intention of SoD was to bridge the gap between a pair of two-decade old games - trying to "break new ground" or "defy the limitations" of the original games completely contradicted the way that the expansion was marketed to the public.
Based on Trent's post, it seems to me that he either doesn't understand the root of the issue here, or is simply determined to pursue his own wishes for the franchise regardless. None of this would matter if SoD were a standalone game, but the BG games have a very loyal, two-decade old following, and making an expansion that doesn't stay true to the spirit and style of the originals is going to disappoint and upset a lot of those fans, no matter how well-made or well-written the expansion may otherwise be.
While I wish the writing wasn't SJW-influenced, I'm more of a power gamer who will eventually be memorizing which numbers to press to skip the dialog. It's unfortunate that the maligned political viewpoint(s) of one or more writers has degraded the legacy of the series, but I look forward to the bug fixes and will continue to enjoy this game.
Aww, you remind you of one of those little boys afraid of catching cooties from girls. Transpeople exist in real life, and there is nothing "SJW" about having one exist in a video game. Deal with it.
Safana´s change of personality bothered me the most. The simple way to make a statement about feminis is to do it on a new character, not destroying an existing one. That would not anger me at all.
This is exactly what I have been thinking.
Beamdog should never have hired a writer who didn't appreciate the writing/style/content of the original games, or at the very least, was unwilling to put aside that dislike in order to stay consistent with the original games. The professed intention of SoD was to bridge the gap between a pair of two-decade old games - trying to "break new ground" or "defy the limitations" of the original games completely contradicted the way that the expansion was marketed to the public.
Based on Trent's post, it seems to me that he either doesn't understand the root of the issue here, or is simply determined to pursue his own wishes for the franchise regardless. None of this would matter if SoD were a standalone game, but the BG games have a very loyal, two-decade old following, and making an expansion that doesn't stay true to the spirit and style of the originals is going to disappoint and upset a lot of those fans, no matter how well-made or well-written the expansion may otherwise be.
Disagree, Safana had no real personality to begin with, any changes made to her are, quite frankly, irrelevant. Trent does understand the root of the problem, and theres the thing, the game is twenty years old. How much of the disappointment being filtered through nostalgic memories? Nostalgia will make any expansion pack made 20 years to the day disappointing, doesn't matter what writer they hired.
I now await Gamergate to refer to the removal of the Minsc line as censorship, the same way they complained about Blizzard removing Tracer's butt pose in Overwatch. Oh wait, the don't.
Anyways, I will be installing a mod in the near future to restore that Minsc line.
Did it even occur to both sides in this controversy that a large portion of gamers buying BG are not from North America, and that a large chunk of the US gamers themselves have no interest nor do they care about the cultural wars but are holding out on buying SoD because of the negative reviews and some bad PR decisions from Beamdog that felt like neither the devs nor their detractors really cared about the game itself?
The statement from Trent was necessary to reassure the crowds and revitalize the sales so they can go on as a relatively small developer and do what they like to do best. Beamdog needed to address the game short-comings and didn't cave to anyone in particular but to all their customers with legitimate concerns. An expansion for a 18 years old game is a sale hard enough without having to deal with review bombing, while the devs need to keep financially afloat and gain enough money to eventually develop BG3, and create their own IP where they can go crazy writing whatever they damn please without people lynching them in the name of BG nostalgia, political correctness, misuse of memes and allegedly hidden agenda, and whatever other perceived offense.
So another shout out to give honest reviews to those who feel like it, unless people wants to see less D&D games developed, and maybe, just maybe take a collective moment pause and place ourselves in the shoes of the devs who I'm sure wants nothing but this whole controversy to die out so they can have some peace of mind and work normally on ironing the bugs, improving the writing and making the game better rather than worrying about pleasing the sides fighting over cultural wars in and outside of these forums.
And look right below your post -- a request for another bite of elephant. Can't we also get an apology from the bad lady?
Alright, fair enough. I admit I've been a little on edge and apologize for the harshness in which I have referred to you. They may be biting at the elephant, but (call me an optimist) it's toothless now.
I now await Gamergate to refer to the removal of the Minsc line as censorship, the same way they complained about Blizzard removing Tracer's butt pose in Overwatch. Oh wait, the don't.
Anyways, I will be installing a mod in the near future to restore that Minsc line.
Make sure to extract the sound file with nearinfinity, that way you can make your own mod and get the fame for being "The Restorer" or somethin'. It's what I would do, I love me some fame...
So the gamergate crowd who is sooo against censorship has successfully censored a line out of a new game. Well done chaps. *sigh*
I would say it's split. I've been talking to quite a few Gamergate folks who think the outrage over the content is overblown and absurd. After this announcement, there are Gamergate supporters who are basically saying "congrats people, you're just as bad as the people you claim to be against." Some are tired and disheartened by the whole thing. While I am a former 'supporter'/now 'sympathizer', I'd put myself in the camp with the people I've spoken too who agree this was way, way too much and having no issue with trans character, Minsc's line, etc.
FWIW, there's probably a few just angry child-type gamers not associated with GG or those against it just trolling, being loud a-holes and trolls.
Maybe the trans character was poorly written. I can't say for sure but even if that's the criticism, in no way did this game deserve the terrible reviews because of that or an "ethics in heroic adventuring" line. Base the game on its story, characters (not just one minor character with one line), gameplay and technical aspects.
Really, it's about ethics in being a decent human being.
Leave game as it is. Love the game. Only way to move forward is be inclusive of everyone even those who find negatives about a product. Safana broke my heart when she went off with that other bard... As much as this could be fixed in a patch it is similar to IRL so leave it
So the gamergate crowd who is sooo against censorship has successfully censored a line out of a new game. Well done chaps. *sigh*
I would say it's split. I've been talking to quite a few Gamergate folks who think the outrage over the content is overblown and absurd. After this announcement, there are Gamergate supporters who are basically saying "congrats people, you're just as bad as the people you claim to be against." Some are tired and disheartened by the whole thing. While I am a former 'supporter'/now 'sympathizer', I'd put myself in the camp with the people I've spoken too who agree this was way, way too much and having no issue with trans character, Minsc's line, etc.
FWIW, there's probably a few just angry child-type gamers not associated with GG or those against it just trolling, being loud a-holes and trolls.
Maybe the trans character was poorly written. I can't say for sure but even if that's the criticism, in no way did this game deserve the terrible reviews because of that or an "ethics in heroic adventuring" line. Base the game on its story, characters (not just one minor character with one line), gameplay and technical aspects.
Really, it's about ethics in being a decent human being.
Ah! I see what you did there you clever little monkey! I'm just miffed that people are calling out gamergate, and conveniently ignoring the people who had no affiliation with them who were legitimately complaining, the battleground mindset has left innocent critiques in the crossfire.
Leave game as it is. Love the game. Only way to move forward is be inclusive of everyone even those who find negatives about a product. Safana broke my heart when she went off with that other bard... As much as this could be fixed in a patch it is similar to IRL so leave it
Don't worry buddy, I don't think they're going to change Safana at all. Miz was a side character that drew you in, but not enough (at least that's why I want her fleshed out) given the interesting history. But Safana is a main character, she's too integral to the plot to change. And I know, I know, "they're removing Minsc's line!". Well, yes, but that was one joke (one I didn't care about, take a hit, you have to laugh at yourself once in awhile GG) and one that didn't fit Minsc (I say this because I've heard Minsc's jokes, alot of pop cultural refrences, but no political ones, and once again I was fine with it.) So fret not dear Master.
Beamdog should never have hired a writer who didn't appreciate the writing/style/content of the original games, or at the very least, was unwilling to put aside that dislike in order to stay consistent with the original games. The professed intention of SoD was to bridge the gap between a pair of two-decade old games - trying to "break new ground" or "defy the limitations" of the original games completely contradicted the way that the expansion was marketed to the public.
I don't get this at all. Unless there's something I missed, she didn't say the characters were bad or that she didn't like them. She said they were presented in a sexist manner. Which they were. I don't see how that's a controversial idea. They were made 20 years ago, in a more sexist time. I was more sexist then, she was more sexist back then (I expect), and you probably were too. It's fine, we were products of the time, and we (hopefully) got better. Similarly, I can say that characters from books from the 30s are racist. Doesn't mean the writers were terrible people (the ones still alive today may well admit to it), doesn't mean the writing was terrible. Doesn't mean I don't like the books/style/authors. In fact we are all still sexist/racist right now. Just less so.
It's possible to give criticsim to things you like. It doesn't mean you hate it. Just means it can be better. Baldur's Gate was a great game. It was neither a perfect nor flawless game. To think that, one would have to have had their eyes closed.
These days that sort of thing doesn't fly, so they made it more appropriate (actually, I didn't even notice much of a difference, so clearly it was subtle). If you don't want the game enhanced, don't get the enhanced edition.
Comments
I'm very happy to know the bugs/multiplayer problems isn't overlooked. When they work I can turn my Steam critics to positive back as the broken multi was what ruined it for me. (and my review is just about that.)
I still think it would be fine for Beamdog to say they they don't call the old games as "sexist". This was was a wrong move.
Though maybe quite a bit more are now appalled with GG than before. "I don't like it, so neither should you!"
Quite the petty and selfish attitude for a good quality release - from a non-mainstream publisher, no less. I like SoD from the very release, but this petty fussing (IMO) makes me even more glad I do...
I didn't think there was a problem with the trans character necessarily - every character in the game is very forward about their issues or whatever aspect of their character or past that's being presented. And she only said it when the PC asks. That said, a stronger, more detailed character is certainly a good thing. I hope it will be handled well.
I guess we'll soon find out if the issues were actually the quote and poor writing, or if there was some other agenda.
But are you implying that Beamdog wants to fire her? Only that they can't because it would look heinous? So they opted not to look terrible? The removal of some of her writing is to appease some group, nothing more. I wonder how you got to that conclusion, when Beamdog has strongly said that they would stand behind their employee 100%, that the game is a product of their collective work (that is, it sounded like - one's fault is most likely everyone's fault). I would take the words of Beamdog for what it is, by it's plain and simple meaning, there's no ambiguity here to call for other interpretations - they said Beamdog would stand behind it's developers 100%.
And look right below your post -- a request for another bite of elephant. Can't we also get an apology from the bad lady?
Like I haven't ever been disappointed by games with a lot of positive reviews. But I should add I don't buy that many games on Steam anymore because I have to play the ones I've got.
And to my female CHAR when dropping her in SoD, Safana said: "Afraid of little competition."
Hardly a feminist sis there, is she? Not that I dislike Safana now or earlier. I just think you are jumping an imaginary bandwagon...
And in the meanwhile, anyone who isn't a trans hater, gets a better character. Seems like a win-win all around.
Beamdog should never have hired a writer who didn't appreciate the writing/style/content of the original games, or at the very least, was unwilling to put aside that dislike in order to stay consistent with the original games. The professed intention of SoD was to bridge the gap between a pair of two-decade old games - trying to "break new ground" or "defy the limitations" of the original games completely contradicted the way that the expansion was marketed to the public.
Based on Trent's post, it seems to me that he either doesn't understand the root of the issue here, or is simply determined to pursue his own wishes for the franchise regardless. None of this would matter if SoD were a standalone game, but the BG games have a very loyal, two-decade old following, and making an expansion that doesn't stay true to the spirit and style of the originals is going to disappoint and upset a lot of those fans, no matter how well-made or well-written the expansion may otherwise be.
Anyways, I will be installing a mod in the near future to restore that Minsc line.
The statement from Trent was necessary to reassure the crowds and revitalize the sales so they can go on as a relatively small developer and do what they like to do best. Beamdog needed to address the game short-comings and didn't cave to anyone in particular but to all their customers with legitimate concerns. An expansion for a 18 years old game is a sale hard enough without having to deal with review bombing, while the devs need to keep financially afloat and gain enough money to eventually develop BG3, and create their own IP where they can go crazy writing whatever they damn please without people lynching them in the name of BG nostalgia, political correctness, misuse of memes and allegedly hidden agenda, and whatever other perceived offense.
So another shout out to give honest reviews to those who feel like it, unless people wants to see less D&D games developed, and maybe, just maybe take a collective moment pause and place ourselves in the shoes of the devs who I'm sure wants nothing but this whole controversy to die out so they can have some peace of mind and work normally on ironing the bugs, improving the writing and making the game better rather than worrying about pleasing the sides fighting over cultural wars in and outside of these forums.
Edited for blatant grammar mistakes.
All is good
FWIW, there's probably a few just angry child-type gamers not associated with GG or those against it just trolling, being loud a-holes and trolls.
Maybe the trans character was poorly written. I can't say for sure but even if that's the criticism, in no way did this game deserve the terrible reviews because of that or an "ethics in heroic adventuring" line. Base the game on its story, characters (not just one minor character with one line), gameplay and technical aspects.
Really, it's about ethics in being a decent human being.
It's possible to give criticsim to things you like. It doesn't mean you hate it. Just means it can be better. Baldur's Gate was a great game. It was neither a perfect nor flawless game. To think that, one would have to have had their eyes closed.
These days that sort of thing doesn't fly, so they made it more appropriate (actually, I didn't even notice much of a difference, so clearly it was subtle). If you don't want the game enhanced, don't get the enhanced edition.