Just out of curiousity, I did a google search for the definition:
"A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of."
Yeah, that's pretty confusing.
@bluntfeather , I agree about the definition of "SJW" being confusing, and in constant motion. One time, after I objected in some posts to some anti-Asian slurs in a YouTube video someone had linked to, I got called an "SJW" by a fellow forum member. I had never heard the term before. So, I looked it up, and got the same definition you did.
So, I took it that the other forum member was calling me a hypocrite for objecting to racial slurs on the internet, from my comfortable recliner, instead of getting out in real life and trying to do something about it. I'm not sure what that would be - joining some kind of non-profit organization that fights racism, maybe.
I was pretty mad at this other forum member at the time for calling me a hypocrite because I expressed my strongly held views against the use of racial slurs in this YouTube video.
Now, it seems the definition of "SJW" has shifted. It seems to have become a case where a slighted group of people has taken the term in language that people are using to denigrate them, and embraced it. So, now, people say things like "I'm an SJW, and I'm proud of that fact about myself." I think what they pretty clearly mean is that, "I am against unfairness and oppression of minorities in any way, and I am proud to speak out against that unfairness in any medium or in any context possible".
Meanwhile, another group of people who don't want real life issues brought into their entertainment media, are still using the term "SJW" pejoratively, to mean, "A person who ruins my entertainment by forcing me into unwanted, heavily serious expressions of opinion, and discussions about complex social issues, during my leisure time, when I just want to be left alone to enjoy my escapism in peace."
The side that thinks of the term "SJW" as a pejorative term are usually especially upset if the unwanted consideration of social issues is placed into an already established franchise of entertainment that has a history of being desired escapism for them, and then is changed in some way to take that pleasure from them. Or at least, they see it as something being taken away from them, and something that was in fact quite precious and valuable to them in their lives. That's why they get so emotional when they perceive that an "SJW" writer or company has "taken over" a beloved intellectual property.
I think both sides have very good points, and deserve to have their feelings respected, but that many people on both sides have gotten so emotional about their values, that they have abandoned all rational, civil behavior in favor of conflict, and some very inexcusable verbal attacks and threats, among other bad behaviors.
I hope maybe this discussion clarifies the definition of "SJW" a bit for anyone who is still confused. It took me a long time and a lot of reading in various contexts before I began to get it, or at least I think I get it now. The term has become yet another hot button verbal slur, where one side embraces it and tries to claim it as their own, and identifies with it proudly, while the other side still uses the term as a slur.
I like the cracked definition of SJW: "Trawl through the #gamergate tag -- and I really must urge you never to do so under any circumstances -- and you'll find huge a current of complaints about "Social justice warriors." Gaters often rail against the evil influence of these people complaining about discrimination. No, there isn't a comma missing after "people." A large vein of gater traffic is effectively railing for discrimination. Because veins are what carry organic waste to be filtered out.
It's always hilarious to hear SJW used as an insult. "Social justice warrior" is the basic plot of most '80s action shows and cartoons. Arriving in places and fighting against discrimination? The A-Team were social justice warriors. It's practically a synonym for Knight Rider. Insulting someone for respecting other people is like insulting them for masturbating -- the fact you don't do it has way more to do with why you're so upset all the time.
When you use "wants equality" as an insult, you're the bad guy. Look around: are you conforming to a movement with a large group of other people? Do you wait for a target and then pile on hoping that sheer numbers will wear them down? Are you wearing some kind of helmet which interferes with your ability to aim lasers at rebels?"
The definition of "Social Justice Warrior" has become as highly debated as the true mission of "GamerGate".
You can pretty well guarantee, though, that anyone calling themselves a "Social Justice Warrior" is probably focused more on inclusion and social justice than "shoehorning a political agenda down people's throats", just as anyone calling themselves a "GamerGater" is probably focused more on the "doing inclusion right" bit than making bomb threats or doxing feminists who post their views using Twitter.
Not everyone who calls themselves an SJW is participating in a coordinated campaign to tear down the establishment or censor free expression. Not everyone who calls themselves a GamerGater is participating in a coordinated campaign to tear down the establishment or censor free expression oh my god I just realized that both these groups have been called the same thing by different people.
Can I make a proposal?
If you care about quality of writing--stop using the banner of "GamerGate" to talk about it. Just talk about it. Talk about the areas of the writing that you find weak, talk about ways you think it could be improved.
If you care about inclusion--stop using the banner of "SJW" to talk about it. Just talk about it. Talk about the representation that you find lacking, talk about ways you think it could be improved.
If you care about both of those things--stop using the banner of "GamerGate" or "SJW" to talk about them. Talk about the areas of the writing that you find weak, or that lack sufficient representation, and talk about ways you think they could be improved.
There's room on this forum for discussions about "how to do good writing" and also discussions about "how to do representation". And there's room for discussions about "how to do good writing while also doing representation", and "how to promote representation while also doing good writing".
I'll admit to having said some divisive things in the past week (mostly in response to some divisive things that I saw other people posting, but that's hardly an excuse). I perhaps wrongly attributed some of the abusive and hateful things that were being directed toward me and others as being part of a specific movement, without considering that not everyone who is a part of that movement is necessarily a supporter of those abusive and hateful things.
Meanwhile, I'm seeing people who used to be friendly toward each other, tearing each other's throats out over disputes that have nothing (or very little) to do with games.
So let's all calm down. These are games, and stories, that we're all sharing and participating in. No matter who you are, or what your beliefs are, if you're here you're probably a fan of Baldur's Gate. So how about we class up the joint a bit, accept that we all enjoy these games differently, and move on.
That we are talking about GG, SJWS, LGBT, etc stems from the writers divulging politics from outside of the game. Think I've reasoned that enough in this thread.
Cracked's definition seems pretty odd in that it isn't so much a definition as it is what cracked's position is on GG. Doubt that would pass whatever Merriam Websters guidelines are.
But yeah, as Dee said above can we stop talking about GG/SJWS?
That we are talking about GG, SJWS, LGBT, etc stems from the writers divulging politics from outside of the game. Think I've reasoned that enough in this thread.
Cracked's definition seems pretty odd in that it isn't so much a definition as it is what cracked's position is on GG. Doubt that would pass whatever Merriam Websters guidelines are.
But yeah, as Dee said above can we stop talking about GG/SJWS?
Problem is, this is a culture war that is way bigger than BG - or even gaming. If the devs keep their heads down and make sure the next content they release is uncontroversial, they'll weather the storm. That will take time and patience, no amount of internet essays will speed it up.
If the devs keep their heads down and make sure the next content they release is uncontroversial, they'll weather the storm. That will take time and patience, no amount of internet essays will speed it up.
Problem is, this is a culture war that is way bigger than BG
Really? A culture war?
Call me old fashioned, call me quaint, but I buy games I want to play, and when I've played them I think to myself 'did I enjoy that game?'.
And as someone who loves the BG series, and wants to see continued support for the series and more new content, I'm not interested in joining a concerted campaign to discredit and undermine Siege of Dragonspear, just because that fits into my narrative of this war.
Not at all. Its a role playing game so I expect to meet a diverse group of people.
I'm more concerned with mod compatibility so I will wait till some patches have come out and some mods are ported over and then I will buy it for sure!
Problem is, this is a culture war that is way bigger than BG
Really? A culture war?
Call me old fashioned, call me quaint, but I buy games I want to play, and when I've played them I think to myself 'did I enjoy that game?'.
And as someone who loves the BG series, and wants to see continued support for the series and more new content, I'm not interested in joining a concerted campaign to discredit and undermine Siege of Dragonspear, just because that fits into my narrative of this war.
You're not interested in a culture war...so if this expansion actively promoted sexism and anti-trans, you'd be cool with that right? If there were dialogue options that let you "put women in their place" or insult and dehumanise trans characters, that'd be cool because it's a new BG and that's what's important?
Freedom of speech and artistic creation belong to everyone. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Also, whether you buy it or not, you can critizise or praise it.
Buying the add-on, let's see... I grabbed BG1+2+ToB from a bargain bin (in the figurative sense). So, I don't have the EE. Unless I stumble upon some kind of sale, I doubt I will be buying SoD.
Terms like "controversy", just like "outrage" or "-gate" have been thrown around so much that they look like cheap tabloid/clickbait website article headlines, intended to make people get emotionally invested and thus generate web traffic and ad revenue. Therefore, I don't think I'll let some "controversy" affect my choices in the future.
Personally I wouldn't care if my party cleric is one of the T people, as long as he/she casts heal when needed. I tend to get "attached" to whoever is in my party, no matter what they are, especially Sarevok. I would boot someone who'd kill a kitten, though - I doubt I would be buying any game that wouldn't let me do that. But yeah, I am more or less indifferent to one specific trait that some NPC has.
One interesting argument for the inclusion of a trans NPC is that it's good for different kind of people to be represented in popular culture. Baldur's Gate and other crpgs already have thieves and murderers, even gnomes as NPCs! Some of these NPCs struggle with their destinies, some embrace them. Any enlightened player understands that they are not necessarily meant to be admired, and BG does not in any way enable or glorify solving problems with violence in real life. So, by the same logic, the inclusion of a transexual NPC shouldn't be labeled as forcing anything on the player. If it truly makes someone happier or less marginalized, let it be there. Why the outrage and controversy, then? The complaints people have been making have to come from somewhere. They are not born out of a vacuum. I believe it's connected to the fact that e.g. certain media outlets are very, very accepting of transexual people to the point of promoting people like Bruce Jenner as some kind of role models. The fact that LGBT rights have been lumped in with the radical side of SJW agenda, perhaps mistakenly, doesn't help either.
I fear that accepting transgenderism is normalizing a mental illness. I strongly dislike the idea of surgery on a perfectly healthy tissue. It's a radical, irreversible operation that in no way guarantees happiness to the patient. At least under no circumstances it should be done to a minor! There should be more research put into psychiatric help and/or medication. Of course, opinions like these seemingly conflict with tolerance, and are not exactly popular outside the conservative circles. It doesn't mean that they should be dismissed, though. The SoD controversy is not the result of the game itself, but from fears and maybe frustrations that have very real and often justified reasons. What is problematic that many complainers can't quite put their finger on them, or aren't simply skilled enough in expressing themselves. So, it's easy to label them as a hate mob, just as easy it is for them to accuse the developers for forcing gender politics down their throats. I'm not saying that there aren't any trolls or naturally unconstructive people writing bad reviews, though.
It's too late to say this, but video games shouldn't be a major battlefield for real life issues, especially if people only write hate messages or intentionally false arguments.
Summa summarum: SoD is out. Let bugs be fixed. Let the sales numbers show the truth. What I really do NOT want to see is more acts or demands of censorship in gaming. Censorship always causes more problems than it solves. It doesn't solve any.
Joey, its not that 'I'm not interested in a culture war', I simply don't accept your premise that there is a culture war.
And with regards to your question, I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago:
Call me old fashioned, call me quaint, but I buy games I want to play, and when I've played them I think to myself 'did I enjoy that game?'.
I tell you what I don't do.
What I don't do is join forums with the sole intent of abusing and insulting people, indulge in numerical hyperbole and declare a game is the worst game ever made and give it 0 out of 10, call people abnormal, declare that LGBT content has no place in mainstream games, name and harass a particular employee of Beamdog, call that employee and their views hateful, disgusting and despicable, abuse them using a word I wont even asterix, and use perjorative words and labels, for no reason to do with the game itself, but because all this behaviour is necessary in fighting and winning the 'culture war'.
Of course I'm not accusing you of any of this, just repeating the sorts of things I have personally read on this forum over the last week.
So if that's the sort of thing that comes out of fighting this 'culture war', I'm glad I don't believe in it.
Problem is, this is a culture war that is way bigger than BG
Really? A culture war?
Call me old fashioned, call me quaint, but I buy games I want to play, and when I've played them I think to myself 'did I enjoy that game?'.
And as someone who loves the BG series, and wants to see continued support for the series and more new content, I'm not interested in joining a concerted campaign to discredit and undermine Siege of Dragonspear, just because that fits into my narrative of this war.
You're not interested in a culture war...so if this expansion actively promoted sexism and anti-trans, you'd be cool with that right? If there were dialogue options that let you "put women in their place" or insult and dehumanise trans characters, that'd be cool because it's a new BG and that's what's important?
Absolutely!!!! Because games are games and real life is real life....
All these years i' ve tried to roleplay with every given alignment in this game but i enjoy most the chaotic evil alignment. You know, to trick and kill everybody you meet regardless of gender, race etc. without particular reason..Do i have to start worry about myself and my mental condition? Does that mean that i'm a horrible person in real life, that i hate everybody? Does that gives any clues about my social attitude, my concerns, my worldview? Or maybe it's this "PROMOTION" that exists in games, movies, books etc and threatens human rights and social peace that affects my mindset?!!!!
(Sorry about the sarcasm, no offend to you Joey or to anybody that has the same opinion but i got a little tired with all this exaggeration/overreaction [imo] )
Time to remove this thread from my bookmarks...Peace everybody
I don't know exactly what the deal is with the controversy stuff, but from what I read it's very likely that a major part of that expansion is based on concepts that are completely nonsensical in a fantasy world where changing your sex (temporally) is a level 1 spell. to top it off, everybody and their dog, even a complete noob, would know of the girdle of masculinity/feminity!
in other words: it's not a big deal - but it clearly sounds like a big deal is made out of it, and that is in contradiction to the game universe.
so it very much sounds like something that is completely immersion-breaking, has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the storyline and is likely the writer's wish fulfillment/political agenda. so yeah, it might very much influence my decision to buy the game for full price. cause I sure don't want anything that is completely out-of-context and setting-breaking in my Forgotten Realms!
modders to the rescue... I think it will be as simple as that.
I had every reason to pick up this game since I played BG1 back when it came out but then I read Amber Scott's view on the game. No reverence for the past. I do not understand how Beamdog is surprised by this. Jahiera kicked butt in the BG1. I loved how strong she was. My daughter and I played through BG1 recently and her favorite character was Jaheira. There was no need to fix anything. I will take a pass and that means no 3 copies from my son, daughter or I. I intend to share my thoughts with everyone I know and I hope it hurts Beamdog's pocketbook.
“If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism, [we tried to address that],” said writer Amber Scott. “In the original there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple, like Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy. We were able to say, ‘No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.’ In Siege of Dragonspear, Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad.”
All these years i' ve tried to roleplay with every given alignment in this game but i enjoy most the chaotic evil alignment. You know, to trick and kill everybody you meet regardless of gender, race etc. without particular reason..Do i have to start worry about myself and my mental condition? Does that mean that i'm a horrible person in real life, that i hate everybody? Does that gives any clues about my social attitude, my concerns, my worldview? Or maybe it's this "PROMOTION" that exists in games, movies, books etc and threatens human rights and social peace that affects my mindset?!!!!
I'm actually a bit jealous of your ability to do that. While I can pick "evil" choices here and there, I find it hard to play truly evil all the time, as evil choices in RPGs tend to be so stupidly over-the-top puppy-eating monstrous.
I don't know exactly what the deal is with the controversy stuff, but from what I read it's very likely that a major part of that expansion is based on concepts that are completely nonsensical...
Only if you consider one optional paragraph from a nonessential character a "major part of the expansion".
Hello friends. Please keep to the ideals of love and understanding between lovers of Baldur's Gate. While it can be frustrating that some people don't see things the way that we do and sometimes it can be almost impossible to understand how a people can't believe the same things as you, remember that the best way to convince someone of your opinion is in a calm and respectful manner.
Say to your forum friend: As I see it, Baldur's Gate has always been about politics and here is why I think this:
Say to your forum friend: I prefer my fantasy series to represent a kind of lost age of beauty and simplicity, much like that Tolkien yearned for when he created Lord of the Rings, let me tell you why:
If we all discuss out points in this way then I think we can get some great discussion going.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Carthage should be destroyed.
Joey, its not that 'I'm not interested in a culture war', I simply don't accept your premise that there is a culture war.
And with regards to your question, I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago:
Call me old fashioned, call me quaint, but I buy games I want to play, and when I've played them I think to myself 'did I enjoy that game?'.
I tell you what I don't do.
What I don't do is join forums with the sole intent of abusing and insulting people, indulge in numerical hyperbole and declare a game is the worst game ever made and give it 0 out of 10, call people abnormal, declare that LGBT content has no place in mainstream games, name and harass a particular employee of Beamdog, call that employee and their views hateful, disgusting and despicable, abuse them using a word I wont even asterix, and use perjorative words and labels, for no reason to do with the game itself, but because all this behaviour is necessary in fighting and winning the 'culture war'.
Of course I'm not accusing you of any of this, just repeating the sorts of things I have personally read on this forum over the last week.
So if that's the sort of thing that comes out of fighting this 'culture war', I'm glad I don't believe in it.
Indeed there is a culture war. Beamdog forums are probably not the place to demonstrate this to you however.
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.
Not saying that *no one* has done any of these things, but as an outside observer the pro-SJWs are much more vitriolic. Here is just one post - ""You think they're going to back down because a bunch of Internet sociopaths decided to dogpile yet another female creator?" Archive Source. Hateful/discriminatary language, and an accusation of sexism. Lovely.
To me, personally, a trans character in a game doesn't add anything to it in itself. Just like someone who isn't trans doesn't add anything to it in itself. The most interesting part of a character shouldn't be their sexuality or gender. That said I don't mind their inclusion in a game either, as long as it's not hamfisted and reek of agenda pushing. If you do, let people play as a racist/sexist/bigot if they want to, or merely just disagreeable without the character without being any one of those things. Don't put up a "safe space barrier" around the NPC in dialogues. It's a game where you can are supposed to be able to play an insane psychopath and get away with it, for heavens sake. While being a bigot against trans people is bad, it's not as bad as running around murdering people at the drop of a hat. What's next? Locking us into the good alignment? This reminds me of how sexuality in games is such a big taboo in America, while running around mowing down civilians is a-okay.
I bought and enjoyed SoD, but I have to admit the "outrage" did worry me for a time. Devs who feel the need to insert their personal politics into games - often in very one-sided and biased ways - leaves a sour taste in my mouth, and the reference to freaking GamerGate just struck me as pathetic.
But the backlash really was overblown. I have nothing but sympathy for the dev team, whose work is now besmirched by dozens and dozens of bad reviews focused mostly on a character you can go the game without speaking to and a single line from Minsc.
That said, Baldur's Gate is very dear to my heart, and I can't help but be disappointed to see it dragged into this internet war. As far as I'm concerned, the extremists on both sides are a blight on gaming and should stay as far away from BG as possible.
@BelleSorciere SJW as a pejorative is not meaningless. It means someone that is militant and zealous in the promotion of their socially-liberal views and their agenda. Some people may use it erroneously, but it is definitely a legitimate term and is not at all a flattering one.
Whether or not it is a good way of describing the writing in SoD, I have no idea, because I haven't played it. However, if they were to double down on the position they had taken when they wrote certain things in the game (which is highly unlikely now), they would drive away a lot of the community. I think most of us agree that forcing identity politics into a game is not the best way creating a story. Let the characters and the story come naturally. It makes it all feel more real.
@BelleSorciere SJW as a pejorative is not meaningless. It means someone that is militant and zealous in the promotion of their socially-liberal views and their agenda. Some people may use it erroneously, but it is definitely a legitimate term and is not at all a flattering one.
I know what I've seen and it's about as legit as a three dollar bill. Sorry, I just don't see it being used for anything but silencing people who may be trying to talk about the oppression they or others experience.
If you use SJW as a pejorative, I am not going to believe you when you say this because you're invested in that usage.
Nope, I had never heard of this game until someone told me GamerGate people were enraged about a transgendered character in it. That is actually why I decided to buy it and give it a try.
What I really disliked about this affair is the arrogance of the writer who shamelessy replied to criticism with "who cares if they don't like my writing"... Personally I don't mind having a trans character in the game, but what I can't forgive is poor writing from a company that took the responsibility of resurrecting one of the greatest game of all times. We like diversity, but such content must meet some quality standards. I will probably wait a littl longer to buy the game and let the devs fix some of the mosta nnoying bugs.
Nope, I had never heard of this game until someone told me GamerGate people were enraged about a transgendered character in it. That is actually why I decided to buy it and give it a try.
Nope, I had never heard of this game until someone told me GamerGate people were enraged about a transgendered character in it. That is actually why I decided to buy it and give it a try.
So how far have you got into the game?
I haven't even started on Dragonspear yet, I'm in the process of playing the original game.
Comments
So, I took it that the other forum member was calling me a hypocrite for objecting to racial slurs on the internet, from my comfortable recliner, instead of getting out in real life and trying to do something about it. I'm not sure what that would be - joining some kind of non-profit organization that fights racism, maybe.
I was pretty mad at this other forum member at the time for calling me a hypocrite because I expressed my strongly held views against the use of racial slurs in this YouTube video.
Now, it seems the definition of "SJW" has shifted. It seems to have become a case where a slighted group of people has taken the term in language that people are using to denigrate them, and embraced it. So, now, people say things like "I'm an SJW, and I'm proud of that fact about myself." I think what they pretty clearly mean is that, "I am against unfairness and oppression of minorities in any way, and I am proud to speak out against that unfairness in any medium or in any context possible".
Meanwhile, another group of people who don't want real life issues brought into their entertainment media, are still using the term "SJW" pejoratively, to mean, "A person who ruins my entertainment by forcing me into unwanted, heavily serious expressions of opinion, and discussions about complex social issues, during my leisure time, when I just want to be left alone to enjoy my escapism in peace."
The side that thinks of the term "SJW" as a pejorative term are usually especially upset if the unwanted consideration of social issues is placed into an already established franchise of entertainment that has a history of being desired escapism for them, and then is changed in some way to take that pleasure from them. Or at least, they see it as something being taken away from them, and something that was in fact quite precious and valuable to them in their lives. That's why they get so emotional when they perceive that an "SJW" writer or company has "taken over" a beloved intellectual property.
I think both sides have very good points, and deserve to have their feelings respected, but that many people on both sides have gotten so emotional about their values, that they have abandoned all rational, civil behavior in favor of conflict, and some very inexcusable verbal attacks and threats, among other bad behaviors.
I hope maybe this discussion clarifies the definition of "SJW" a bit for anyone who is still confused. It took me a long time and a lot of reading in various contexts before I began to get it, or at least I think I get it now. The term has become yet another hot button verbal slur, where one side embraces it and tries to claim it as their own, and identifies with it proudly, while the other side still uses the term as a slur.
"Trawl through the #gamergate tag -- and I really must urge you never to do so under any circumstances -- and you'll find huge a current of complaints about "Social justice warriors." Gaters often rail against the evil influence of these people complaining about discrimination. No, there isn't a comma missing after "people." A large vein of gater traffic is effectively railing for discrimination. Because veins are what carry organic waste to be filtered out.
It's always hilarious to hear SJW used as an insult. "Social justice warrior" is the basic plot of most '80s action shows and cartoons. Arriving in places and fighting against discrimination? The A-Team were social justice warriors. It's practically a synonym for Knight Rider. Insulting someone for respecting other people is like insulting them for masturbating -- the fact you don't do it has way more to do with why you're so upset all the time.
When you use "wants equality" as an insult, you're the bad guy. Look around: are you conforming to a movement with a large group of other people? Do you wait for a target and then pile on hoping that sheer numbers will wear them down? Are you wearing some kind of helmet which interferes with your ability to aim lasers at rebels?"
You can pretty well guarantee, though, that anyone calling themselves a "Social Justice Warrior" is probably focused more on inclusion and social justice than "shoehorning a political agenda down people's throats", just as anyone calling themselves a "GamerGater" is probably focused more on the "doing inclusion right" bit than making bomb threats or doxing feminists who post their views using Twitter.
Not everyone who calls themselves an SJW is participating in a coordinated campaign to tear down the establishment or censor free expression. Not everyone who calls themselves a GamerGater is participating in a coordinated campaign to tear down the establishment or censor free expression oh my god I just realized that both these groups have been called the same thing by different people.
Can I make a proposal?
- If you care about quality of writing--stop using the banner of "GamerGate" to talk about it. Just talk about it. Talk about the areas of the writing that you find weak, talk about ways you think it could be improved.
- If you care about inclusion--stop using the banner of "SJW" to talk about it. Just talk about it. Talk about the representation that you find lacking, talk about ways you think it could be improved.
- If you care about both of those things--stop using the banner of "GamerGate" or "SJW" to talk about them. Talk about the areas of the writing that you find weak, or that lack sufficient representation, and talk about ways you think they could be improved.
There's room on this forum for discussions about "how to do good writing" and also discussions about "how to do representation". And there's room for discussions about "how to do good writing while also doing representation", and "how to promote representation while also doing good writing".I'll admit to having said some divisive things in the past week (mostly in response to some divisive things that I saw other people posting, but that's hardly an excuse). I perhaps wrongly attributed some of the abusive and hateful things that were being directed toward me and others as being part of a specific movement, without considering that not everyone who is a part of that movement is necessarily a supporter of those abusive and hateful things.
Meanwhile, I'm seeing people who used to be friendly toward each other, tearing each other's throats out over disputes that have nothing (or very little) to do with games.
So let's all calm down. These are games, and stories, that we're all sharing and participating in. No matter who you are, or what your beliefs are, if you're here you're probably a fan of Baldur's Gate. So how about we class up the joint a bit, accept that we all enjoy these games differently, and move on.
Cracked's definition seems pretty odd in that it isn't so much a definition as it is what cracked's position is on GG. Doubt that would pass whatever Merriam Websters guidelines are.
But yeah, as Dee said above can we stop talking about GG/SJWS?
Call me old fashioned, call me quaint, but I buy games I want to play, and when I've played them I think to myself 'did I enjoy that game?'.
And as someone who loves the BG series, and wants to see continued support for the series and more new content, I'm not interested in joining a concerted campaign to discredit and undermine Siege of Dragonspear, just because that fits into my narrative of this war.
I'm more concerned with mod compatibility so I will wait till some patches have come out and some mods are ported over and then I will buy it for sure!
Buying the add-on, let's see... I grabbed BG1+2+ToB from a bargain bin (in the figurative sense). So, I don't have the EE. Unless I stumble upon some kind of sale, I doubt I will be buying SoD.
Terms like "controversy", just like "outrage" or "-gate" have been thrown around so much that they look like cheap tabloid/clickbait website article headlines, intended to make people get emotionally invested and thus generate web traffic and ad revenue. Therefore, I don't think I'll let some "controversy" affect my choices in the future.
Personally I wouldn't care if my party cleric is one of the T people, as long as he/she casts heal when needed. I tend to get "attached" to whoever is in my party, no matter what they are, especially Sarevok. I would boot someone who'd kill a kitten, though - I doubt I would be buying any game that wouldn't let me do that. But yeah, I am more or less indifferent to one specific trait that some NPC has.
One interesting argument for the inclusion of a trans NPC is that it's good for different kind of people to be represented in popular culture. Baldur's Gate and other crpgs already have thieves and murderers, even gnomes as NPCs! Some of these NPCs struggle with their destinies, some embrace them. Any enlightened player understands that they are not necessarily meant to be admired, and BG does not in any way enable or glorify solving problems with violence in real life.
So, by the same logic, the inclusion of a transexual NPC shouldn't be labeled as forcing anything on the player. If it truly makes someone happier or less marginalized, let it be there.
Why the outrage and controversy, then? The complaints people have been making have to come from somewhere. They are not born out of a vacuum. I believe it's connected to the fact that e.g. certain media outlets are very, very accepting of transexual people to the point of promoting people like Bruce Jenner as some kind of role models. The fact that LGBT rights have been lumped in with the radical side of SJW agenda, perhaps mistakenly, doesn't help either.
I fear that accepting transgenderism is normalizing a mental illness. I strongly dislike the idea of surgery on a perfectly healthy tissue. It's a radical, irreversible operation that in no way guarantees happiness to the patient. At least under no circumstances it should be done to a minor! There should be more research put into psychiatric help and/or medication. Of course, opinions like these seemingly conflict with tolerance, and are not exactly popular outside the conservative circles. It doesn't mean that they should be dismissed, though.
The SoD controversy is not the result of the game itself, but from fears and maybe frustrations that have very real and often justified reasons. What is problematic that many complainers can't quite put their finger on them, or aren't simply skilled enough in expressing themselves. So, it's easy to label them as a hate mob, just as easy it is for them to accuse the developers for forcing gender politics down their throats. I'm not saying that there aren't any trolls or naturally unconstructive people writing bad reviews, though.
It's too late to say this, but video games shouldn't be a major battlefield for real life issues, especially if people only write hate messages or intentionally false arguments.
Summa summarum: SoD is out. Let bugs be fixed. Let the sales numbers show the truth. What I really do NOT want to see is more acts or demands of censorship in gaming. Censorship always causes more problems than it solves. It doesn't solve any.
And with regards to your question, I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago:
Call me old fashioned, call me quaint, but I buy games I want to play, and when I've played them I think to myself 'did I enjoy that game?'.
I tell you what I don't do.
What I don't do is join forums with the sole intent of abusing and insulting people, indulge in numerical hyperbole and declare a game is the worst game ever made and give it 0 out of 10, call people abnormal, declare that LGBT content has no place in mainstream games, name and harass a particular employee of Beamdog, call that employee and their views hateful, disgusting and despicable, abuse them using a word I wont even asterix, and use perjorative words and labels, for no reason to do with the game itself, but because all this behaviour is necessary in fighting and winning the 'culture war'.
Of course I'm not accusing you of any of this, just repeating the sorts of things I have personally read on this forum over the last week.
So if that's the sort of thing that comes out of fighting this 'culture war', I'm glad I don't believe in it.
All these years i' ve tried to roleplay with every given alignment in this game but i enjoy most the chaotic evil alignment. You know, to trick and kill everybody you meet regardless of gender, race etc. without particular reason..Do i have to start worry about myself and my mental condition? Does that mean that i'm a horrible person in real life, that i hate everybody? Does that gives any clues about my social attitude, my concerns, my worldview? Or maybe it's this "PROMOTION" that exists in games, movies, books etc and threatens human rights and social peace that affects my mindset?!!!!
(Sorry about the sarcasm, no offend to you Joey or to anybody that has the same opinion but i got a little tired with all this exaggeration/overreaction [imo] )
Time to remove this thread from my bookmarks...Peace everybody
in other words: it's not a big deal - but it clearly sounds like a big deal is made out of it, and that is in contradiction to the game universe.
so it very much sounds like something that is completely immersion-breaking, has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the storyline and is likely the writer's wish fulfillment/political agenda. so yeah, it might very much influence my decision to buy the game for full price. cause I sure don't want anything that is completely out-of-context and setting-breaking in my Forgotten Realms!
modders to the rescue... I think it will be as simple as that.
“If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism, [we tried to address that],” said writer Amber Scott. “In the original there’s a lot of jokes at women’s expense. Or if not a lot, there’s a couple, like Safana was just a sex object in BG 1, and Jaheira was the nagging wife and that was played for comedy. We were able to say, ‘No, that’s not really the kind of story we want to make.’ In Siege of Dragonspear, Safana gets her own little storyline, she got a way better personality upgrade. If people don’t like that, then too bad.”
http://kotaku.com/the-struggle-to-bring-back-baldur-s-gate-after-17-years-1768303595
Say to your forum friend: As I see it, Baldur's Gate has always been about politics and here is why I think this:
Say to your forum friend: I prefer my fantasy series to represent a kind of lost age of beauty and simplicity, much like that Tolkien yearned for when he created Lord of the Rings, let me tell you why:
If we all discuss out points in this way then I think we can get some great discussion going.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that Carthage should be destroyed.
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.
Not saying that *no one* has done any of these things, but as an outside observer the pro-SJWs are much more vitriolic. Here is just one post - ""You think they're going to back down because a bunch of Internet sociopaths decided to dogpile yet another female creator?" Archive Source. Hateful/discriminatary language, and an accusation of sexism. Lovely.
canare supposed to be able to play an insane psychopath and get away with it, for heavens sake. While being a bigot against trans people is bad, it's not as bad as running around murdering people at the drop of a hat. What's next? Locking us into the good alignment? This reminds me of how sexuality in games is such a big taboo in America, while running around mowing down civilians is a-okay.But the backlash really was overblown. I have nothing but sympathy for the dev team, whose work is now besmirched by dozens and dozens of bad reviews focused mostly on a character you can go the game without speaking to and a single line from Minsc.
That said, Baldur's Gate is very dear to my heart, and I can't help but be disappointed to see it dragged into this internet war. As far as I'm concerned, the extremists on both sides are a blight on gaming and should stay as far away from BG as possible.
Whether or not it is a good way of describing the writing in SoD, I have no idea, because I haven't played it. However, if they were to double down on the position they had taken when they wrote certain things in the game (which is highly unlikely now), they would drive away a lot of the community. I think most of us agree that forcing identity politics into a game is not the best way creating a story. Let the characters and the story come naturally. It makes it all feel more real.
If you use SJW as a pejorative, I am not going to believe you when you say this because you're invested in that usage.
I will probably wait a littl longer to buy the game and let the devs fix some of the mosta nnoying bugs.