On the contrary to the options in the poll I have had many people who normally aren't interested in old games like Baldurs Gate mentioning that they're going to check it out because of the controversy and to support beamdog.
So they buy games for political reasons and not for fun?
Politics and fun aren't exclusive of each other. Wanting to see what the fuzz is about is just curiosity. They likely had SoD figured to be just another infinity game (yay a sequel to a 20 year old game), but seeing the amount of controversy surrounding it realized there might be something else to it Like it or not, in the long run this stuff has likely helped a product that would have gone largely unnoticed pop up all over the internet.
No way this would have gone unnoticed. Zero chance. Every rpg fan and d&d player has been aching for this one for almost 20 years.
Sure, to old school CRPG fans. I'm talking about people outside that group.
Incidentally I have been following this drama closely, not just on here but on KIA. And I haven't seen a single person calling anyone abnormal, claim that LGBT content has no place in mainstream game, harrass (or incite others to harass) anyone, say anything abusive or use a pejorative term. The only thing you've mentioned that would be accurate would be that someone's views have been labled as "hateful, discusting and despicable" - but that applies to the views, not the person.
Joey, the inference you make is that my observations were not accurate.
They absolutely were/are accurate. Just to repeat, I have read all those things on this very forum (and much more too!)
Could you cite such observations? It's weird that there's been such widespread harassment and abuse and I've somehow missed it.
Take this one line from a post I've just searched for: 'Perhaps Dragonspear is a decent game, but I'll never know because Amber is acting like a despicable human being'.
From my perspective that one post sums up alot about the last week. It hasn't been about Siege of Dragonspear and whether its a good or bad game. It has been about this so called 'Cultural War' that some people seem determined to wage. It has been about discrediting and undermining Siege of Dragonspear in order to develop and promote a certain point of view.
(The post that this quote comes from can be seen on page 4 of 'The creator of Forgotten Realms Chimes in'. Apologies but I'm not sure how to make a link - is it as easy as just copying the url and posting it here?)
Or what about, on the very same page, someone (in reference to transgender people) saying:
They are the very definiton of abnormal a crocodile that thinks its a chicken is not a normal croc
You can infer that I'm making it all up, that because you havn't been reading it it hasn't been happening, but I've been reading it, and its been a real eye opener to me.
To hell with them. It's a game, not a religious tract. It was sexist. It's still sexist, because they didn't change a thing about the original BG characters.
How exactly is BG sexist? Dynaheir's mage school choice, as opposed to Edwin's? The problem with the term "sexist" is that it's a very strong accusation to make. One has to remember that Baldur's Gate was made a loooong time ago, and game companies were still in the (slow) process of realizing that hey, women play and buy games, too! What may look sexist by today's standards is probably the result of customer base focus - that customer base being or having been mostly straight males.
As a side question, is the character of Shar-Teel sexist towards men, since she keeps repeating "Men are pathetic", thus implying that men are pathetic, or sexist towards women because of the implication that the only way to write a strong female character is to have them stomp on men?
Hello friends. I'd like to remind you all that just because something is has sexist elements it does not mean it is inherently sexist overall or somehow automatically bad. We all love D&D or Baldur's Gate but lets try to throw off the shackles of an oppressive and shortsighted morality system. Some stuff in Baldur's Gate was for sure sexist, but that's ok! We just need to recognise this and take it into account. It doesn't mean we were wrong or bad people to enjoy playing such a great game.
Let's look at the character of Shar-Teel that my good friend @chuukogu raised the subject of. She is no doubt a sexist character. In game she's hates all men and thinks they are worthless, so she is personally sexist. However the character itself can also be considered sexist. She's the kind of lazy parody of feminism (or even what some misguided people genuinely believe it to be) that you see sometimes. She just hates men for no reason and thinks women are better! She's super aggressive and unreasonable! Etc etc. Not to say that the writers had any anti-woman agenda in mind, they were likely just using the archetype.
While Shar-Teel is totes magotes sexist as heck, I would be hard pressed to call Baldur's Gate in its totality a sexist work and I don't think anyone really believes that it is.
@Diogenes42 There are some women that are actually like that, so I fail to see how her character is sexist at all.
Should we just make all women shiny examples of good and righteousness? Should they change the rules in D&D so that all women can only align with good? It makes no sense.
To use an absurd equivalency: Imagine if in the next GTA title there was an Asian character who constantly crashed the car they were driving in a wacky comic relief manner. You can say "hey its just a joke calm down" or "hey some Asian people actually can't drive" but its obviously a lazy stereotype and a bit uncool.
Nobody is saying that you can't have flawed or evil female characters. There's one in SoD even! It's just sometimes you gotta think about things a bit.
Well I'm still going to purchase it once the bugs are ironed out and more mods are compatible but I am rather disappointed at the unprofessional manner in which the release was handled.
I don't really care about Ambers statement on sexism in the original games (which I was aware of long before release), I don't agree with it and consider it hyperbolic but she's entitled to her opinion. I have yet to play SOD so I wont judge the supposed "rewriting" of characters. In my view the BG1 npcs were caricatures at best and any expansion of their personalities is welcome.
I have no comment regarding Mizhena, I see no issue here.
However I do take issue with the inclusion of a line that if we're all being honest here was clearly intended to mock the views of a large group of people. Despite the official line of "Don't remove the Minsc line" I'm sure many people were offended by this line, especially considering the fact that it comes from a beloved character in a beloved franchise.
The response was, of course, an extreme overreaction but really shouldn't have surprised anyone, to make matters worse the infamous tweet only served to exacerbate the situation. Clearly it wasn't an official Beamdog statement but it did come from a prominent member of staff.
Ultimately people are fallible, I can imagine it must have been hard to have the release marred by such pointless controversy. I can understand how even the most calm and reasonable moderators can resort to tit-for-tat behavior when confronted with a deluge of hate. Apologies have been made and the ill-judged line has been removed, time to move on and focus on the important things.
Let's look at the character of Shar-Teel that my good friend chuukogu raised the subject of. She is no doubt a sexist character. In game she's hates all men and thinks they are worthless, so she is personally sexist. However the character itself can also be considered sexist. She's the kind of lazy parody of feminism (or even what some misguided people genuinely believe it to be) that you see sometimes. She just hates men for no reason and thinks women are better! She's super aggressive and unreasonable!
As wraith5641 pointed out, some feminists are actually like that. More than quite a few. So it's not always a "lazy stereotype", she really does have real life equivalents.
The interesting thing however, is that sexism needed to be addressed in the case of Safana and Jaheira, but apparently not in the case of Shar-teel... There's other characters that are "problematic" as well if Safana and Jaheira are (Edwin, Viconia, Eldoth), so why cherry pick just those two?
And if they needed fleshing out then surely every single companion NPC in Baldur's Gate did. They're almost all equally flat in the first game.
"Some people are like that" is not a great argument because its almost always used to excuse people being horrible. Not that I am accusing you of such things friend, I am quite sure you are just entering into the spirit of the debate.
Every single NPC did indeed need fleshing out but ultimately Beamdog had to choose a limited selection of them to bring forward into Dragonspear. Those two characters were addressed in the interview because they were being brought forward. If Shar-Teel was included in Dragonspear I am sure there would be some serious words on that front.
My option isn't here: I'm probably going to buy it because it came to my attention that it has content that makes people who want to pretend trans people are a modern invention scream about "SJWs," and when looking for more details on that I noticed things that I generally liked, including that Amber Scott wrote my favorite Pathfinder module.
@Ayiekie All of what you have said is subjective and can EASILY be countered. Stop acting like you are the arbiter of all that is righteous, because you are not.
What's more, the wording of what you have written is deliberately inflammatory.
"To hell with people that think different to me." is basically what you just said.
No, "To hell with a bunch of terrible people who are making gaming and the internet worse" is what I said.
The world is not a place where there are always two equally valid (or invalid) sides to every argument, even though many people like to pretend there is. Sometimes there is a right side, and a wrong side, and there is no virtue in standing in the middle.
On this controversy, a controversy which was about a single joke line, the existence of a transgendered character (even though people are now pretending that isn't it, as if there is any other possible reason we all know who Mizhena is despite her being a minor NPC, as if there isn't tons of people in the last week coming on the forums to talk about how transgendered character are being forced down their throats, etc.), and the "SJW" tendencies of Amber Scott, the people attacking SoD are overwhelmingly on the wrong side. Moreover, they are a side seen over and over and over again for the last several years, almost always scapegoating and attacking women - just as they are here.
That kind of attitude is what we are all tired of.
See, you accuse me of being the arbiter of all that is righteous, but see what you did here?
In my post, all I said was "I". I am tired of this, I am tired of that. You, meanwhile, say "we". Who is "we"? Speak for yourself and stop pretending there's a huge group of like-minded people behind you to lend your views credence.
To hell with people who don't give a damn about free expression. To hell with people who don't understand that the world is a melting pot of ideas and we should all share them. To hell with people who have no interest in sitting down and talking about the best way of rationally solving an issue. If anyone on this forum REALLY gives a damn about the creative writing involved in this game or any game, it's that exact stance you should be fighting against.
I give more than a damn about free expression, but "I hate transgendered characters being forced down my throat" (and that's far from the most offensive thing said here) is not valuable expression. I respect the right to say it, just like I respect the right to be anti-semitic, but people who believe that don't need a platform to spew those views, and the less influence they have on anything, the better.
No, it isn't. Not only is it not just used by "channers" and "GGers", it is a neologism that even has its own page on Wikipedia. If you're a zealous liberal militant who tries to push their way of seeing the world onto somebody else, you are an SJW, whether you like to admit it or not.
Hmm, what does your Wikipedia page say about it? Let's check!
During the Gamergate controversy the negative connotation gained increased use, and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, political correctness or feminism.[1][3] Vice reported that the accusation of being an SJW implied a person was engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise their personal reputation.[4] Vice assessed the problematic use of the term: "The problem is, that's not a real category of people. It's simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice—and often those people are feminists."
It's funny that you use the Wikipedia article to assert your point, but you would obviously disagree vociferously with what it says.
I find it funny when SJWs say "I'm not going to take anything you say seriously now you've used such and such term" because they never have any interest in listening or taking on board opposing ideas anyway. That's the whole point.
So, by your own definition, the people who say this are "SJWs", that is to say: "zealous liberal militants who try to push their way of seeing the world onto somebody else" before they even say it, which basically means you already aren't listening to them.
By your own Wikipedia article, it was a POSITIVE TERM before being hijacked by channers and GGers. So its only pejorative meaning is the one derived from channers and GGers. Which is why it is, in fact, an illegitimate term.
There are those of us that are in the most rational place on the liberal spectrum that recognize the radical left as a threat.
The actual "radical left" are not really that concerned with the depiction of women and LGBTQ characters in video games. One of the many tiresome things about GG and channers is their constant mischaracterisation of what is "radical", i.e., the constant referrals to Anita Sarkeesian as a "radical" feminist (as opposed to a bog-standard mainstream academic feminist, which is in fact what she is).
If you think the "radical left" is involved with any of this, then I imagine it would blow your mind to ever actually encounter elements of the radical left.
How exactly is BG sexist? Dynaheir's mage school choice, as opposed to Edwin's? The problem with the term "sexist" is that it's a very strong accusation to make.
Do we really wanna have a lengthy and in-depth discussion as to the sexism is Baldur's Gate? I'm gonna guess not, so I'll simply give the short answer that I agree with both of Amber Scott's examples (Jaheira in BG1 is played for comedy as a nagging wife, Safana is... Safana).
One has to remember that Baldur's Gate was made a loooong time ago, and game companies were still in the (slow) process of realizing that hey, women play and buy games, too! What may look sexist by today's standards is probably the result of customer base focus - that customer base being or having been mostly straight males.
Point of order: lots of women played BG back in the day, too. We don't really have any good numbers on the gender split (and, of course, gender is non-binary, which complicates it further). You're totally right in that games were largely marketed and aimed just at the cis/white/male audience.
But yeah, I agree, BG is a product of its time, and thus I don't hold its relatively mild sexism against it, and it did have some good things too (you can play females with no penalty, there's a wide variety of female NPCs).
As a side question, is the character of Shar-Teel sexist towards men, since she keeps repeating "Men are pathetic", thus implying that men are pathetic, or sexist towards women because of the implication that the only way to write a strong female character is to have them stomp on men?
Okay, I'll add that one too: Shar-teel is sexist as hell. She's an awful stereotype character about a "strong woman" being evil and hating men, a character trope that goes all the way back to ancient Greece (so I guess someone should page @Diogenes42 here? ). The fact she only follows a man who can beat her (which also has classical roots) and won't join an all-female party makes it even worse.
Plus, she probably talks about men more than any other character of any gender. I've always liked tough female characters in fiction so I always wanted to like Shar-teel, but even when I was young, it required a lot of selective reading of her character for her to seem not-awful.
As wraith5641 pointed out, some feminists are actually like that. More than quite a few. So it's not always a "lazy stereotype", she really does have real life equivalents.
No she doesn't. This is lazy right-wing stereotyping. Straw feminists do not actually exist. This kind of comment illustrates exactly why Shar-teel is just as anti-feminist as Safana, if not more so.
The interesting thing however, is that sexism needed to be addressed in the case of Safana and Jaheira, but apparently not in the case of Shar-teel... There's other characters that are "problematic" as well if Safana and Jaheira are (Edwin, Viconia, Eldoth), so why cherry pick just those two?
Possibly because those two were actually going to be in SoD in major roles? Or perhaps they were just two who came to mind at the time? Does it, in fact, matter why she picked those two?
@Ayiekie I disagree with Vice, not Wikipedia. My citation was the neologism as a legitimate term, and NOT Vice's opinion. I don't understand how the fact it started from GamerGate means anything at all, to be honest. Not sure its origins are more important than the implications. Just because you have a bias against GamerGate, everything you associate with it is immediately invalidated, in your eyes.
There is no "right side" and "wrong side." There is only what is PERCEIVED as wrong. YOU do NOT get to decide what is right and what is wrong. Simple as that. The world is not black and white like you seem to think it is. You don't get to decide what my moral beliefs should be. They are part of my own personal development and mindset. The reason why we have to have debates is because there are so many different ideas on how the world should be. The world we never be exactly how you want it to be. Get over it.
When I say "we" I mean anyone that isn't espousing political beliefs and passing them off as the "right way to go." I mean anyone that isn't using gaming as an excuse to make people feel bad for not believing what they believe. The people that have spent the most time arguing with clowns from both sides and trying to get a diplomatic conversation going to no avail. Even the devs have tried that, and it hasn't worked. I'm going to stop trying and I will take a more militant approach myself. You want to have a battle of ideas? Go for it.
Most of your argument is a straw man, because some of the people you are arguing against do FAR, FAR more for equal rights than your ilk have EVER done. You are arguing against OTHER LIBERALS, for God's sake!!!!! Go and have these conversations on conservative forums.
I'm not a "channer" or a "GGer", so you just made your argument fallacious by making assumptions.
The reason I would call someone an SJW is *because* I have listened to what they are saying and have come to that conclusion.
Some radical leftists may be less radical than others, but I consider anyone further left than me a radical, and I'm pretty far to the left. Anyone that is militant in their views is radical. That is practically the definition of the term:
"A person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such aims. synonyms: revolutionary, progressive, reformer, revisionist"
Yes, poor women. Poor women being scapegoated. Everything comes back to sexism, right? But only sexism against women. Not sexism against men who DARE to speak out against feminist hypocrisy. If you write on Tumblr that all white men should die just because you saw something a man said that you didn't like, you are not sexist. That is socially acceptable. If you criticize a feminist for pushing an agenda and trying to make you feel guilty for thinking a certain way, you are the worst cis scum that ever walked the Earth.
This is exactly why SJWs and feminists are a laughingstock outside of progressive outlets.
There is no "right side" and "wrong side." There is only what is PERCEIVED as wrong.
True, in the grand scheme of things all morality is subjective. I can't actually say that, objectively, Stalin ever did anything bad.
But precisely because morality is subjective, I don't need to be objective about it. Stalin did many, many bad things, and people who oppose a transgendered character being in a video game (or oppose them until they pass some arbitrary criteria test which is never applied to cis people) are wrong.
Most of your argument is a straw man, because some of the people you are arguing against do FAR, FAR more for equal rights than your ilk have EVER done. You are arguing against OTHER LIBERALS, for God's sake!!!!! Go and have these conversations on conservative forums.
I don't really subscribe to the arbitrary divisions between left and right, since they ignore important distinctions and differences of viewpoint and opinion.
Also, "me and my ilk", really. Remember, Wraith, there is no "right side" and "wrong side", right?
I'm not a "channer" or a "GGer", so you just made your argument fallacious by making assumptions.
Did I say you were? But you use their lingo and parrot their talking points, so it really doesn't matter whether you have the official badge of GG membership that doesn't actually exist.
The reason I would call someone an SJW is *because* I have listened to what they are saying and have come to that conclusion.
Even though it's a meaningless pejorative term hijacked by channers and GG to demonise anyone who disagrees with them. Remember, Wraith, there is no "right side" and "wrong side", right?
Some radical leftists may be less radical than others, but I consider anyone further left than me a radical, and I'm pretty far to the left. Anyone that is militant in their views is radical. That is practically the definition of the term:
"A person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such aims. synonyms: revolutionary, progressive, reformer, revisionist"
Right, you'll have to remind me when precisely I advocated "thorough or complete political or social reform", as opposed to, say, arguing against people who hate that a transgendered character has a bit part in a videogame, think that a single joke line is a deadly insult, and lie repeatedly and maliciously about what a Beamdog writer said in an interview.
Yes, poor women. Poor women being scapegoated. Everything comes back to sexism, right? But only sexism against women. Not sexism against men who DARE to speak out against feminist hypocrisy.
Oh dear lord yes, poor oppressed men. It's so hard to be a man in this woman's world!
If you write on Tumblr that all white men should die just because you saw something a man said that you didn't like, you are not sexist. That is socially acceptable.
Remember, Wraith, there is no "right side" and "wrong side", right? I think you're forgetting that.
Also, it is not in fact socially acceptable to publically state that all white men should die and you're being very silly.
If you criticize a feminist for pushing an agenda and trying to make you feel guilty for thinking a certain way, you are the worst cis scum that ever walked the Earth.
I doubt any feminist has ever said you're worse than Hitler (who was, insofar as we know, cis). Well, they probably never said it and meant it.
Also, how dare anybody try to make you feel guilty for thinking a certain way. I mean, sure, transgendered people are murdered and commit suicide at a horrifically high rate compared to the rest of the population, but won't somebody think of Wraith's feelings?
This is exactly why SJWs and feminists are a laughingstock outside of progressive outlets.
Remember, Wraith, according to you you're "pretty far to the left", so you are, in fact, supposedly progressive. So the only places where they are a "laughingstock" would be places you politically oppose. That must be rough for you. No wonder it hurts so bad whenever feminists try to make you feel guilty for thinking anti-feminist things.
There is no "right side" and "wrong side." There is only what is PERCEIVED as wrong. YOU do NOT get to decide what is right and what is wrong. Simple as that. The world is not black and white like you seem to think it is. You don't get to decide what my moral beliefs should be.
Ah, a moral relativist? While its true that everything isn't always black and white, I firmly believe that objective morality exists in some capacity and that religions/gods are completely irrelevant to it's existence. Before I begin to address that myself, I would recommend that you watch these two videos by Matt Dillahunty. We share the same opinion on this issue.
Most of your argument is a straw man, because some of the people you are arguing against do FAR, FAR more for equal rights than your ilk have EVER done.
You are arguing against OTHER LIBERALS, for God's sake!!!!! Go and have these conversations on conservative forums.
Sounds like you are trying to shut down debate. A lot of people who claim to be liberal really aren't very liberal from my point of view. Sargon of Akad claims to be a liberal and if you carefully examine his views, you'll see that he doesn't actually share many common views with the majority of liberals.
Yes, poor women. Poor women being scapegoated. Everything comes back to sexism, right?
Careful, your contempt is starting to show. Yes, in fact, there is quite a bit of sexism in the world. There is quite a bit of homophobia. There is quite a bit of racism. So yeah, you will hear about it often.
But only sexism against women. Not sexism against men who DARE to speak out against feminist hypocrisy.
The irony of a GG supporter talking about hypocrisy is truly delicious. Okay, I'll bite. Show me some examples of this perceived hypocrisy from feminists in general.
If you write on Tumblr that all white men should die just because you saw something a man said that you didn't like, you are not sexist. That is socially acceptable.
Acceptable? lol You don't actually read what many feminists actually say do you? Here, let me help you. Go on any feminist channel or forum and mention names like the Femitheist. She is a tumblr user and youtube who actually has said some pretty sexist things about men in the past. Pay attention to the reaction you get for mentioning her name. The reality is that feminists DO frequently speak up against those few who share views like the Femitheist, along with TERFS and other fringe views. This statement is as nonsensical as when conservatives say that Muslims don't speak up against Muslim extremists when they DO and have done so many times. You guys don't actually pay attention to what is being said by the groups you dislike which is why you don't know these things.
If you criticize a feminist for pushing an agenda and trying to make you feel guilty for thinking a certain way, you are the worst cis scum that ever walked the Earth.
TIP: If you want to criticize someone try doing it in a less hostile manner. You'll get a better reaction in the future. That's like if I went on a GG site and said, "Hey all of you basement-dwelling misogynerds, I think you are all a bunch of sexist trolls!!" and then proceeded critisize their views. lol And stop accusing people of pushing an "agenda" when they are just expressing their views the same as you. Its a funny thing about the word agenda. People always attach it to groups they dislike but never to themselves. No one ever says, "I want to talk about my agenda!" They just use to make the other group sound ominous, which is intellectually dishonest and poisons the well immediately.
This is exactly why SJWs and feminists are a laughingstock outside of progressive outlets.
I'm going to assume you have some evidence to back up that statement. Every single time I have seen GamerGaters and other reactionaries rear their ugly heads in communities, they are almost always driven out by the majority of the community. We're seeing an example right now with a lot of people here speaking out against the hate brought by the GamerGaters over this issue. Meanwhile I have openly admitted to being a feminist and haven't had any problems with anyone outside of the small number of GamerGate supporters here. You're like the ultra-conservative people who believed that the majority of the United States still supported their views regarding LGBT issues, abortion, etc... until they discovered... Oh, we don't actually share their views. The reality regarding Feminism and GamerGate is that the latter wasn't able to get much support outside of right-wing websites like Breitbart, troll sites like 4chan, MRA groups, and similar places. Meanwhile, feminists continue to get a lot of mainstream support, whether its for individual projects (Sarkeesian), hashtag campaigns (Emily Watson's #heforshe), rallies, etc... Emily Watson's #heforshe campaign received an incredible amount of positive support. Meanwhile, GamerGate rarely managed to get support outside of the gaming community, other than a few celebrities and FOX News.
If you're going to say we're a laughtingstock in the minds of conservatives, then that is probably true. However, don't pretend that you speak for everyone when you most certainly do not.
There is no "right side" and "wrong side." There is only what is PERCEIVED as wrong.
True, in the grand scheme of things all morality is subjective. I can't actually say that, objectively, Stalin ever did anything bad.
But precisely because morality is subjective, I don't need to be objective about it. Stalin did many, many bad things, and people who oppose a transgendered character being in a video game (or oppose them until they pass some arbitrary criteria test which is never applied to cis people) are wrong.
I have to disagree on that issue somewhat. Even though people would most likely put me in the moral relativist category, I don't like the term because I think it is flawed. I believe there is objective morality to an extent, based purely on reality and the effect of the action in question. For example, lets say Person A threatens to kill Person B's family. Person B reacts by pulling out a gun and shooting Person A in the head. Now there are some issues involving subjective morals here that we can discuss, such as:
* What Person B right to kill him because he thought Person A was going to harm his family?
* Did Person A really deserve to be shot just for making a verbal threat that he may or may not have actually acted upon?
* If we believe Person B was morally wrong to shoot him, should he be punished?
However, there is one undeniable fact that is entirely objective and based on an action in reality:
* The action had a negative effect on Person A. Specifically, it ended his life. Objectively, the action itself should be considered immoral from a logical point of view. However, much like within moral relativism and the type of "objective morality" you find in religions, I will concede that there are some flaws to this view as well.
"Overall, though, the writing's good. There are some duff moments, like the time new companion Corwin mistook my few curt responses to her questions as romantic interest. There is, however, some great stuff. In particular, Caelar Argent. There's a great depth to her emotional range. She's not a pantomime villain, despite the damage she's wrought.
As a Baldur's Gate adventure, Siege of Dragonspear works well. While it's not entirely tonally consistent with the original series, it does a good job of inserting itself into the middle of the story without feeling like sacrilege. As a result, though, it requires that you still be invested in that story. The fact is, a decade and a half later, there are much smoother, more enjoyable RPG experiences available.
Beamdog has proven they can continue the Baldur's Gate story. In doing so, they replicate the antiquated nature of the Baldur's Gate games."
The only complaints of this review are about an old Engine and UI.
Hello friends. Here is something cool about Siege of Dragonspear I can heartily recommend. So we all know that Caelar Argent is a great fantasy name. What some of you may not know is that it is very fun to say it out loud, especially in the dramatic movie trailer voice.
I haven't been here lately--there was a controversy? Really? Over a game? What for? (No, don't explain that--the question is rhetorical.) Don't people have better things to do than get upset over a game?
I don't think NEWS outlets are going to be too keen on honestly reporting on a counter culture movement in favor of fair journalism. Forgive me if I'm just a BIT skeptical of news outlets these days.
I never understood this idea of separatism, with us vs. them mentalities. As an egalitarian, I strongly hold that each and every person is an individual held to worth by their individual merits.
Strangely, I see myself incredibly left leaning, and yet I don't see Gamergate as a villain, and yes, I'm in a very confused world where I find myself agreeing with the points of some of my 'enemies.' Word policing is a dangerous slippery slope away from free speech, which includes hate speech and racist words, much to my chagrin. It includes racism against any and all colors, even white, as well as men AND women. #Killallmen isn't very funny to me, but free speech decrees it deserves to exist, and free speech lets me tell people how dumb it is or make fun of it. As an egalitarian, if #Killallwomen came out, I'd hate it too, but I'd say it has equal rights to exist as #killallmen, as such, if one is unallowed, both must be for the world to have fair balance.
As for sexism in the game, the two most gender hating characters (Shar-teel and Eldoth) are both EVIL! It's almost like blind hatred is not seen as a good thing.
Comments
Take this one line from a post I've just searched for: 'Perhaps Dragonspear is a decent game, but I'll never know because Amber is acting like a despicable human being'.
From my perspective that one post sums up alot about the last week. It hasn't been about Siege of Dragonspear and whether its a good or bad game. It has been about this so called 'Cultural War' that some people seem determined to wage. It has been about discrediting and undermining Siege of Dragonspear in order to develop and promote a certain point of view.
(The post that this quote comes from can be seen on page 4 of 'The creator of Forgotten Realms Chimes in'. Apologies but I'm not sure how to make a link - is it as easy as just copying the url and posting it here?)
They are the very definiton of abnormal a crocodile that thinks its a chicken is not a normal croc
You can infer that I'm making it all up, that because you havn't been reading it it hasn't been happening, but I've been reading it, and its been a real eye opener to me.
One has to remember that Baldur's Gate was made a loooong time ago, and game companies were still in the (slow) process of realizing that hey, women play and buy games, too! What may look sexist by today's standards is probably the result of customer base focus - that customer base being or having been mostly straight males.
As a side question, is the character of Shar-Teel sexist towards men, since she keeps repeating "Men are pathetic", thus implying that men are pathetic, or sexist towards women because of the implication that the only way to write a strong female character is to have them stomp on men?
Let's look at the character of Shar-Teel that my good friend @chuukogu raised the subject of. She is no doubt a sexist character. In game she's hates all men and thinks they are worthless, so she is personally sexist. However the character itself can also be considered sexist. She's the kind of lazy parody of feminism (or even what some misguided people genuinely believe it to be) that you see sometimes. She just hates men for no reason and thinks women are better! She's super aggressive and unreasonable! Etc etc. Not to say that the writers had any anti-woman agenda in mind, they were likely just using the archetype.
While Shar-Teel is totes magotes sexist as heck, I would be hard pressed to call Baldur's Gate in its totality a sexist work and I don't think anyone really believes that it is.
Should we just make all women shiny examples of good and righteousness? Should they change the rules in D&D so that all women can only align with good? It makes no sense.
To use an absurd equivalency: Imagine if in the next GTA title there was an Asian character who constantly crashed the car they were driving in a wacky comic relief manner. You can say "hey its just a joke calm down" or "hey some Asian people actually can't drive" but its obviously a lazy stereotype and a bit uncool.
Nobody is saying that you can't have flawed or evil female characters. There's one in SoD even! It's just sometimes you gotta think about things a bit.
I don't really care about Ambers statement on sexism in the original games (which I was aware of long before release), I don't agree with it and consider it hyperbolic but she's entitled to her opinion.
I have yet to play SOD so I wont judge the supposed "rewriting" of characters. In my view the BG1 npcs were caricatures at best and any expansion of their personalities is welcome.
I have no comment regarding Mizhena, I see no issue here.
However I do take issue with the inclusion of a line that if we're all being honest here was clearly intended to mock the views of a large group of people. Despite the official line of "Don't remove the Minsc line" I'm sure many people were offended by this line, especially considering the fact that it comes from a beloved character in a beloved franchise.
The response was, of course, an extreme overreaction but really shouldn't have surprised anyone, to make matters worse the infamous tweet only served to exacerbate the situation. Clearly it wasn't an official Beamdog statement but it did come from a prominent member of staff.
Ultimately people are fallible, I can imagine it must have been hard to have the release marred by such pointless controversy. I can understand how even the most calm and reasonable moderators can resort to tit-for-tat behavior when confronted with a deluge of hate. Apologies have been made and the ill-judged line has been removed, time to move on and focus on the important things.
The interesting thing however, is that sexism needed to be addressed in the case of Safana and Jaheira, but apparently not in the case of Shar-teel... There's other characters that are "problematic" as well if Safana and Jaheira are (Edwin, Viconia, Eldoth), so why cherry pick just those two?
And if they needed fleshing out then surely every single companion NPC in Baldur's Gate did. They're almost all equally flat in the first game.
Every single NPC did indeed need fleshing out but ultimately Beamdog had to choose a limited selection of them to bring forward into Dragonspear. Those two characters were addressed in the interview because they were being brought forward. If Shar-Teel was included in Dragonspear I am sure there would be some serious words on that front.
The world is not a place where there are always two equally valid (or invalid) sides to every argument, even though many people like to pretend there is. Sometimes there is a right side, and a wrong side, and there is no virtue in standing in the middle.
On this controversy, a controversy which was about a single joke line, the existence of a transgendered character (even though people are now pretending that isn't it, as if there is any other possible reason we all know who Mizhena is despite her being a minor NPC, as if there isn't tons of people in the last week coming on the forums to talk about how transgendered character are being forced down their throats, etc.), and the "SJW" tendencies of Amber Scott, the people attacking SoD are overwhelmingly on the wrong side. Moreover, they are a side seen over and over and over again for the last several years, almost always scapegoating and attacking women - just as they are here.
To hell with them. See, you accuse me of being the arbiter of all that is righteous, but see what you did here?
In my post, all I said was "I". I am tired of this, I am tired of that. You, meanwhile, say "we". Who is "we"? Speak for yourself and stop pretending there's a huge group of like-minded people behind you to lend your views credence. I give more than a damn about free expression, but "I hate transgendered characters being forced down my throat" (and that's far from the most offensive thing said here) is not valuable expression. I respect the right to say it, just like I respect the right to be anti-semitic, but people who believe that don't need a platform to spew those views, and the less influence they have on anything, the better.
During the Gamergate controversy the negative connotation gained increased use, and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, political correctness or feminism.[1][3] Vice reported that the accusation of being an SJW implied a person was engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise their personal reputation.[4] Vice assessed the problematic use of the term: "The problem is, that's not a real category of people. It's simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice—and often those people are feminists."
It's funny that you use the Wikipedia article to assert your point, but you would obviously disagree vociferously with what it says. So, by your own definition, the people who say this are "SJWs", that is to say: "zealous liberal militants who try to push their way of seeing the world onto somebody else" before they even say it, which basically means you already aren't listening to them. Just because channers and Gamergaters hijacked the term. Citation: your Wikipedia article.
If you think the "radical left" is involved with any of this, then I imagine it would blow your mind to ever actually encounter elements of the radical left.
But yeah, I agree, BG is a product of its time, and thus I don't hold its relatively mild sexism against it, and it did have some good things too (you can play females with no penalty, there's a wide variety of female NPCs). Okay, I'll add that one too: Shar-teel is sexist as hell. She's an awful stereotype character about a "strong woman" being evil and hating men, a character trope that goes all the way back to ancient Greece (so I guess someone should page @Diogenes42 here?
Plus, she probably talks about men more than any other character of any gender. I've always liked tough female characters in fiction so I always wanted to like Shar-teel, but even when I was young, it required a lot of selective reading of her character for her to seem not-awful.
There is no "right side" and "wrong side." There is only what is PERCEIVED as wrong. YOU do NOT get to decide what is right and what is wrong. Simple as that. The world is not black and white like you seem to think it is. You don't get to decide what my moral beliefs should be. They are part of my own personal development and mindset. The reason why we have to have debates is because there are so many different ideas on how the world should be. The world we never be exactly how you want it to be. Get over it.
When I say "we" I mean anyone that isn't espousing political beliefs and passing them off as the "right way to go." I mean anyone that isn't using gaming as an excuse to make people feel bad for not believing what they believe. The people that have spent the most time arguing with clowns from both sides and trying to get a diplomatic conversation going to no avail. Even the devs have tried that, and it hasn't worked. I'm going to stop trying and I will take a more militant approach myself. You want to have a battle of ideas? Go for it.
Most of your argument is a straw man, because some of the people you are arguing against do FAR, FAR more for equal rights than your ilk have EVER done. You are arguing against OTHER LIBERALS, for God's sake!!!!! Go and have these conversations on conservative forums.
I'm not a "channer" or a "GGer", so you just made your argument fallacious by making assumptions.
The reason I would call someone an SJW is *because* I have listened to what they are saying and have come to that conclusion.
Some radical leftists may be less radical than others, but I consider anyone further left than me a radical, and I'm pretty far to the left. Anyone that is militant in their views is radical. That is practically the definition of the term:
"A person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such aims.
synonyms: revolutionary, progressive, reformer, revisionist"
Yes, poor women. Poor women being scapegoated. Everything comes back to sexism, right? But only sexism against women. Not sexism against men who DARE to speak out against feminist hypocrisy. If you write on Tumblr that all white men should die just because you saw something a man said that you didn't like, you are not sexist. That is socially acceptable. If you criticize a feminist for pushing an agenda and trying to make you feel guilty for thinking a certain way, you are the worst cis scum that ever walked the Earth.
This is exactly why SJWs and feminists are a laughingstock outside of progressive outlets.
But precisely because morality is subjective, I don't need to be objective about it. Stalin did many, many bad things, and people who oppose a transgendered character being in a video game (or oppose them until they pass some arbitrary criteria test which is never applied to cis people) are wrong. I don't really subscribe to the arbitrary divisions between left and right, since they ignore important distinctions and differences of viewpoint and opinion.
Also, "me and my ilk", really. Remember, Wraith, there is no "right side" and "wrong side", right? Did I say you were? But you use their lingo and parrot their talking points, so it really doesn't matter whether you have the official badge of GG membership that doesn't actually exist. Even though it's a meaningless pejorative term hijacked by channers and GG to demonise anyone who disagrees with them. Remember, Wraith, there is no "right side" and "wrong side", right?
Right, you'll have to remind me when precisely I advocated "thorough or complete political or social reform", as opposed to, say, arguing against people who hate that a transgendered character has a bit part in a videogame, think that a single joke line is a deadly insult, and lie repeatedly and maliciously about what a Beamdog writer said in an interview. Oh dear lord yes, poor oppressed men. It's so hard to be a man in this woman's world! Remember, Wraith, there is no "right side" and "wrong side", right? I think you're forgetting that.
Also, it is not in fact socially acceptable to publically state that all white men should die and you're being very silly. I doubt any feminist has ever said you're worse than Hitler (who was, insofar as we know, cis). Well, they probably never said it and meant it.
Also, how dare anybody try to make you feel guilty for thinking a certain way. I mean, sure, transgendered people are murdered and commit suicide at a horrifically high rate compared to the rest of the population, but won't somebody think of Wraith's feelings?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs-Q6MRSJ00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAQFYgyEACI Such as? And how do you know this? Sounds like you are trying to shut down debate. A lot of people who claim to be liberal really aren't very liberal from my point of view. Sargon of Akad claims to be a liberal and if you carefully examine his views, you'll see that he doesn't actually share many common views with the majority of liberals. The reason why I would call someone a GamerGater is because I have listened to what they are saying and have come to that conclusion. Careful, your contempt is starting to show.
I'm going to assume you have some evidence to back up that statement. Every single time I have seen GamerGaters and other reactionaries rear their ugly heads in communities, they are almost always driven out by the majority of the community. We're seeing an example right now with a lot of people here speaking out against the hate brought by the GamerGaters over this issue. Meanwhile I have openly admitted to being a feminist and haven't had any problems with anyone outside of the small number of GamerGate supporters here. You're like the ultra-conservative people who believed that the majority of the United States still supported their views regarding LGBT issues, abortion, etc... until they discovered... Oh, we don't actually share their views. The reality regarding Feminism and GamerGate is that the latter wasn't able to get much support outside of right-wing websites like Breitbart, troll sites like 4chan, MRA groups, and similar places. Meanwhile, feminists continue to get a lot of mainstream support, whether its for individual projects (Sarkeesian), hashtag campaigns (Emily Watson's #heforshe), rallies, etc... Emily Watson's #heforshe campaign received an incredible amount of positive support. Meanwhile, GamerGate rarely managed to get support outside of the gaming community, other than a few celebrities and FOX News.
If you're going to say we're a laughtingstock in the minds of conservatives, then that is probably true. However, don't pretend that you speak for everyone when you most certainly do not.
* What Person B right to kill him because he thought Person A was going to harm his family?
* Did Person A really deserve to be shot just for making a verbal threat that he may or may not have actually acted upon?
* If we believe Person B was morally wrong to shoot him, should he be punished?
However, there is one undeniable fact that is entirely objective and based on an action in reality:
* The action had a negative effect on Person A. Specifically, it ended his life. Objectively, the action itself should be considered immoral from a logical point of view. However, much like within moral relativism and the type of "objective morality" you find in religions, I will concede that there are some flaws to this view as well.
http://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-siege-of-dragonspear-review/
"Overall, though, the writing's good. There are some duff moments, like the time new companion Corwin mistook my few curt responses to her questions as romantic interest. There is, however, some great stuff. In particular, Caelar Argent. There's a great depth to her emotional range. She's not a pantomime villain, despite the damage she's wrought.
As a Baldur's Gate adventure, Siege of Dragonspear works well. While it's not entirely tonally consistent with the original series, it does a good job of inserting itself into the middle of the story without feeling like sacrilege. As a result, though, it requires that you still be invested in that story. The fact is, a decade and a half later, there are much smoother, more enjoyable RPG experiences available.
Beamdog has proven they can continue the Baldur's Gate story. In doing so, they replicate the antiquated nature of the Baldur's Gate games."
The only complaints of this review are about an old Engine and UI.
I never understood this idea of separatism, with us vs. them mentalities. As an egalitarian, I strongly hold that each and every person is an individual held to worth by their individual merits.
Strangely, I see myself incredibly left leaning, and yet I don't see Gamergate as a villain, and yes, I'm in a very confused world where I find myself agreeing with the points of some of my 'enemies.' Word policing is a dangerous slippery slope away from free speech, which includes hate speech and racist words, much to my chagrin. It includes racism against any and all colors, even white, as well as men AND women. #Killallmen isn't very funny to me, but free speech decrees it deserves to exist, and free speech lets me tell people how dumb it is or make fun of it. As an egalitarian, if #Killallwomen came out, I'd hate it too, but I'd say it has equal rights to exist as #killallmen, as such, if one is unallowed, both must be for the world to have fair balance.
As for sexism in the game, the two most gender hating characters (Shar-teel and Eldoth) are both EVIL! It's almost like blind hatred is not seen as a good thing.