As was pointed out, Jaheira reacts violently to situations. If being a strong woman requires that you must be masculine (Beatrix in Kill Bill, for instance) then your strength isn't coming from being a woman--it's coming from masculine behaviour. Jaheira is also a nagging wife, primarily in the first game however as Khalid is not present for BG2, where she has more character development. She is not just "assertive." Assertiveness is absolutely fine (Leliana from Dragon Age, for instance, is definitely assertive in Inquisition), but she also isn't primarily identified through violence or stereotypical masculine behaviour. She's fine with being feminine, yet doesn't let her femininity alone define her. The same is true of Cassandra, one of my favourite characters in an RPG of all time. She embraces romantic notions and powerful emotions, yet again does not let those traits alone define her.
Saying there is strength only in that which is stereotypically masculine hurts men as much as women. There is a cultural pressure on men to be "strong." How many male action heroes have you ever seen cry? I can think of one, but it was that silent bottled up crying. "Man tears" if you will. This communicates to us that "real men don't cry." That's not healthy.
Hey, while we're discussing female PCs, lets take a look at the only romance option available in vanilla BG2: Anomen. He's either your stereotypical "White Knight" or "Bad Boy" depending on which way you take. He's the only romance available to female PCs, so if you wanted any sort of variety of choice, well... tough. Also tough if you play a woman who is neither an elf, human, or half-elf. Not only do you have very little choice of character portraits unless you can make your own (all the vanilla portraits for women are elves/half-elves, humans, or halflings), but he doesn't like any woman who doesn't match a stereotypical definition of western "Beauty." Thank God for the EE here, because at least now you can choose Dorn, Rasaad, or Hexxat.
This isn't "in your face" sexism. Sexism very rarely is in your face. Same with racism. It's the very fact that it's not in your face that it's so harmful. If the game was screaming inequality at you, we'd instantly dismiss it because no one wants to think they're sexist. But that doesn't change the simple fact that something is sexist, if for no other reason than society as a whole has institutionalized sexism that still needs to be worked out.
Yes, Edwin was played as a joke - but it was played as a joke on "how men think". It would be extremely forceful to have this be a whole gender identity issue when that was something not brought as a choice, but rather an accident in an universe that this types of events may be changed quite easily.
And David Gaider commented on how he saw somethings as sexist. And I agree on that. There is sexism in the game. Period.
But that is not everything in BG 1 and 2. Rather the games, and specially so BG 2, bring a lot of diversity (see Aerie, see Anomen, the outcomes of so many quests). And on the point of "strength" in the masculine way, don't forget that not only character show strength through "feminine" traits as well (Aerie, Nalia, Imoen) but you had certain quests that could be solved either with muscle or diplomacy.
So why do you focus on having this diversity - i.e., people of various walk of life, beliefs and personalities - as something to be frowned upon? Why having a bit of everything in a role playing game bad?
Is that not how our society is? Is that not how every society is?
What we are asking you (and hoping that Beamdog sees this as well) is to see the big picture.
See that BG 1 and BG 2 shine because they tried to include lot of things so that we could role play with a lot of freedom and experience various points of views and various outcomes.
This was quite an achievement for the game - it succeeded in it and, through it, brought a lot of diversity. Whether or not it is progressive enough for your personal belief, do not diminish the game for what it has achieved in a very different society than of today. It is completely unfair to judge the progressiveness of the game based on your view of today's society.
So why exactly I bring all of this up? The infamous interview by Beamdog.
First, let me say that we should not point fingers at a writer, she spoke as a representative of Beamdog.
With that said, in the interview Beamdog said they will put X in the game and they don't care if people think it is "fake", forced or poor writing. It is just too bad for the fans because they will put it because they think that is the right way for people to think and act.
That is shoving stuff down peoples throat regardless of quality, purposely making the game one dimensional.
What we want from Baldur's Gate (and I myself want from every game) is a game that has variety, that has a bit of every spice.
That is all there is to it.
Having sexism, conservationism, progressiveness, and all other "ism" and "ness" adds a bit of everything and makes the game richer and able to tackle many topics from various points of view - and best of all by showing the gray side of all "ism" and "ness" out there.
It gives the chance to approach that diversity in a multitude of ways. It makes the game multi-dimensional, open minded and a much richer experience.
This is a game, and a role playing game at that. Role playing various identities and personalities is what RPGs are all about.
I seriously don't understand why there is people against this (including Beamdog).
For what it's worth, I didn't see any changes or differences in Safana at all. Most of her interactions with me were about complementing her, or getting her a shiny present of some kind.
Isn't that an even more idiotic depiction of women though? That the correct way to treat them is to complement them and give them gifts?
to be a strong woman, a woman needs to act in stereotypically masculine ways (cf. Jaheira, Brahnwen).
Imoen doesn't act in a stereotypical male way, and I think she is one of the strongest character in the game.
Korgan: Hhmp. Imoen, yer an o’er-lame excuse fer a member o’ this party and I be tired of exertin’ meself to protect ye! Next time I let ye perish, screamin’ like a ninny as ye does!
Imoen: The last time I saw you exert yourself over anything was the last slab of pork in an inn. If you could keep up with me with that beer gut of yours I’d be amazed.
Korgan: Beer gut?! Why, ye stinkin’ wench, how dare ye! Keep up with me axe as if flies toward yer head, more like! Though it’d be like splittin’ a hair, skinny as ye are!
Imoen: I’d be started if a drunk dwarven oaf like yourself could hit the broad side of barn with your axe. And while we’re talking about stench, let’s talk about the last time you passed out in your own vomit.
Korgan: An outrage! Yer be a canker on me backside and the world best be rid of ye! Loathsome mongrel she-dog!
Imoen: Brutish pig! You’re nothing but a boil needing lancing!
Korgan: I’ve seen harlots wi’ less open sores than ye, ye pimple-faced, whining gutter-snipe!
Imoen: You cantankerous, foul-mouthed excused for a gully dwarf!
Korgan: Gully dwarf? Har har! Ye know how to hit low, ye does! Har har! Yer a fine, fine lass, ye are, Imoen. That Gorion of yers would be proud!
As was pointed out, Jaheira reacts violently to situations. If being a strong woman requires that you must be masculine (Beatrix in Kill Bill, for instance) then your strength isn't coming from being a woman--it's coming from masculine behaviour. Jaheira is also a nagging wife, primarily in the first game however as Khalid is not present for BG2, where she has more character development. She is not just "assertive." Assertiveness is absolutely fine (Leliana from Dragon Age, for instance, is definitely assertive in Inquisition), but she also isn't primarily identified through violence or stereotypical masculine behaviour. She's fine with being feminine, yet doesn't let her femininity alone define her. The same is true of Cassandra, one of my favourite characters in an RPG of all time. She embraces romantic notions and powerful emotions, yet again does not let those traits alone define her.
Saying there is strength only in that which is stereotypically masculine hurts men as much as women. There is a cultural pressure on men to be "strong." How many male action heroes have you ever seen cry? I can think of one, but it was that silent bottled up crying. "Man tears" if you will. This communicates to us that "real men don't cry." That's not healthy.
Hey, while we're discussing female PCs, lets take a look at the only romance option available in vanilla BG2: Anomen. He's either your stereotypical "White Knight" or "Bad Boy" depending on which way you take. He's the only romance available to female PCs, so if you wanted any sort of variety of choice, well... tough. Also tough if you play a woman who is neither an elf, human, or half-elf. Not only do you have very little choice of character portraits unless you can make your own (all the vanilla portraits for women are elves/half-elves, humans, or halflings), but he doesn't like any woman who doesn't match a stereotypical definition of western "Beauty." Thank God for the EE here, because at least now you can choose Dorn, Rasaad, or Hexxat.
This isn't "in your face" sexism. Sexism very rarely is in your face. Same with racism. It's the very fact that it's not in your face that it's so harmful. If the game was screaming inequality at you, we'd instantly dismiss it because no one wants to think they're sexist. But that doesn't change the simple fact that something is sexist, if for no other reason than society as a whole has institutionalized sexism that still needs to be worked out.
Hey as far as romances for female characters go, I'm in full agreement. More options are better. And while we're at it, more portraits are always nice too. For men or women (I had a hard time finding a portrait for my elven berserker character, and he's male)
But as far as Jaheira and violence goes...it's a cRPG. standard operating procedure is "kill things and take their stuff" whether you're male or female. Doesn't hurt that she's a fighter/druid as well. "Strength" is not an exclusively male trait. particularly not in a lifestyle that is inherently violent.
She's tough, she's of noble blood, she's an adventurer, and a Harper. Heck nowadays the Jaheira/Khalid relationship reminds me a bit of Zoe and Wash from Firefly. You mentioned Cassandra? I find more than a passing resemblance between her and Jaheira.
To reiterate and expand: A role-playing game, unless it wants to only allow a singular role to play, needs to be neutral and include examples of as many walks of (fictional) life as possible, including ones that might be considered negative in whatever culture you live in. This was done pretty damn well in BG2 as Rody said. I find comments like "it's a game of its time" etc with regards to sexism and such to be completely meaningless.
No, it wasn't a game of its time. That's why we're still playing it now. It most definitely was not a game of its time. It went above and beyond to incorporate as many different aspects and view-points as it could, because it was trying to reflect 'reality' in the hopes of immersion. Not many video game developers were thinking about story telling on this level in the 90s.
When I say 'aspects' 'viewpoints' and 'reality' I don't mean that in real life some people think A and some people think B, so we should include both A and B. Good writers take a step beyond that. They stand outside that in neutral ground and say okay society is a place where both A and B exist, so if we want our society to feel immersive we need to include multiple different ideas co-existing. They take this conclusion and apply it to their world, not ours! This is very important! BG2 did this very well.
Of course the counter to this (one that we are hearing more and more) is that certain portrayals or ideas or pieces of content are 'harmful' due to stereotypes, history etc. That a game or show or piece of literature can be innately "insert ist/ism". As if it were adding to some universal tally of good and bad societal traits. We are told that X needs to be in video games more, or Y needs to be in television more. As if we can engineer our society in the image of an individual's desires.
This type of thinking belongs in the public air only. There it can equally influence and be ignored by the world around it. Trying to apply this type of thinking to the process of creating an immersive world is flawed and will leave you with a shallow product. Any good writer knows this.
For what it's worth, I didn't see any changes or differences in Safana at all. Most of her interactions with me were about complementing her, or getting her a shiny present of some kind.
Isn't that an even more idiotic depiction of women though? That the correct way to treat them is to complement them and give them gifts?
It's not a depiction of women. It's a depiction of one woman, particularly one with more than a few ethical issues. In BG1 Safana uses you to raid a dangerous cave. In SoD she uses you to make herself feel better and get her gifts. Again I don't see any changes. The complaint is that they "changed" her character. I disagree with that complaint. Safana is still the selfish manipulative seductress she's always has been.
@nomeyofdoom "Trying to apply this type of thinking to the process of creating an immersive world is flawed and will leave you with a shallow product."
Does it? I think the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series have done a wonderful job of this, and have created exceptionally deep and diverse worlds.
Media shapes our society. Changes need to happen in media for our society to begin to reflect those changes. Take, for instance, the TV movie starring Jane Fonda "Burning Beds." It was the first time media addressed the issue of spousal abuse, and it's no coincidence that this film came out at a time when laws were finally being altered to make sexually assaulting your spouse illegal. Before that, there was no legal recourse for a woman or man who was being raped by their spouse (even now, it's very difficult to actually get charges pressed, but that's an entirely different issue).
Also, I still don't see where in any of my posts I said these games lacked diversity, or that they didn't change the face of the cRPG, because I agree they most certainly did. However that doesn't absolve them of their sexist content. We should never be content to sit back and simply say "well, yanno, they pushed some boundaries, so that's pretty good. Good enough, really." If we still see issues, we should push for those issues to be addressed. If we still see sexist typing, we should push for that to be changed. For instance, Dragon Age and Mass Effect only ever used the male protagonist in their marketing, and that's not okay. Video games aren't just for men, and I don't think they should just be marketed towards men. I also think that both games lack a diversity in women's body types. Forget just having more realistic muscle mass on these warrior women, even the peasant women you meet are thin, fit, western ideals. That needs to change. I don't necessarily need "realism." Not everyone I meet needs to be starving, flea-infested and riddled with disease. But seeing more body types (among men and women, really) would be nice. I'm not exactly a skinny guy myself, but I've never seen anyone with my body type portrayed in video games outside of joke characters. It would be nice if I could make my human berserker built like a... well, human berserker, and not some svelte, highly-defined muscley greek god and embodiment of male power fantasy, with ridiculously over sized shoulders.
We are not in 1997 anymore. Maybe in 1997, Baldur's Gate pushed boundaries. But that's not good enough anymore. We can, and should, do better. We should not let ourselves backslide because "well, back in 1997 this was pretty progressive." That's not a reason, that's an excuse. That's like saying "well, back in 1950 it was totally okay to make jokes about spousal abuse on television, so I should do it now." It moves you backwards, not forwards--and we should always, ALWAYS strive to move forwards.
I have to admit that after following the events of the release of this game it has highlighted several points that game companies really need to take note of.
1. Dont employ SJW people to write your story and characters, regardless of their assurances that they want to right the world, SJW people have an agenda and they will try and squeeze that in to everything they do as we have seen in this expansion pack. The presence of the trans gender wouldnt have bothered many people except it was badly written, badly implemented and didn't make any sense because for anyone that has played the games knows, there are potions you can take to change your gender so having one there didn't make any sense.
2. Don't have a pop at your customer base by attacking people like GamersGate or men (I have heard people mentioning sexist phrases like "mansplaining" has been included in the game) or they will respond like they have done and it will have in no doubt cost you not only a huge loss in reputation and credibility but a loss in sales revenue as well.
3. One thing that seems to have completely passed the developers by and this is something (as a gamer and a software engineer myself) I am aware of, when people play games they do so to escape the rubbish that is happening in the real world, they do it to escape the rules and to have fun and to play a game how they want to play it. There has been a huge uprising against SJW rubbish that has tried to make inroads in the gaming world and the push back has been consistent and effective. In an industry such as PC gaming and even console gaming where they are no where near as flourishing as they were 10 - 20 years ago you should be listening to what the majority of the customers want. And to put it bluntly thats not what the SJWS want.
4. It is deeply hypocritical for the devs to come out and claim that the people that complained about this game and its content are the "loud minority" when Beamdog themselves hire a feminist SJW to add content to the game who is herself a loud minority. On the latest polls and studies carried out this year, the people that actually support modern day feminism in the US as it is today is as low as 18% down from 22% last year. In the UK its down to 7% of people that would actually say they support it. With figures like that and the fact that its dropping do you really want to be shoving content that is associated it upon people ?
Nah, more social justice writing in videogames, and more writers focused on social justice. Seeing people represented in a respectful manner is a win for everyone.
When y'all talk about "SJWs" you're not talking about real people. Rather, you're talking about bogeymen you've invented.
So you think SJWs are innocent flowers do you ? You think that they are not sexist and racist as well ? You think their influence is entirely positive do you ? If you do you are incredibly naive.
So you think SJWs are innocent flowers do you ? You think that they are not sexist and racist as well ? You think their influence is entirely positive do you ? If you do you are incredibly naive.
Huh, that's a lot of stuff I never said!
SJWs don't exist. They're a straw man. They're not real. They're imaginary. There are people devoted to social justice who work in a variety of ways, including activism. Someone like Amber Scott trying to improve representation and present a more diverse cast of characters than primarily cis straight white people is a good thing, and bears literally no resemblance to your SJW effigy. I am not saying she is perfect, but I am saying that she's not what you say she is.
Here's what I am saying: Aiming to do better in terms of inclusive representation and minimizing racism, sexism, etc. is a good thing. By saying that social justice has no place in gaming, you're saying that you do not want inclusive representation and that you're okay with racism and sexism. If that is indeed what you intend to say, then we really have nothing more to discuss. If that's not what you intend to say, you need to take some time to seriously reconsider exactly what it is that you are saying and do something about it.
SJWs don't exist. They're a straw man. They're not real. They're imaginary. There are people devoted to social justice who work in a variety of ways, including activism. Someone like Amber Scott trying to improve representation and present a more diverse cast of characters than primarily cis straight white people is a good thing, and bears literally no resemblance to your SJW effigy. I am not saying she is perfect, but I am saying that she's not what you say she is.
Obviously, "SJW" is a subjective term which can mean different things to different people. It's not like I can lift someone's tail and proclaim, "Aha! This one's a SJW!" The term is generally used as shorthand for a person who is obsessed with social issues to the point that they interject their pet issues into everything (hence why it is an obsession). Of course, a person who is obsessed with social issues probably wouldn't realize there is an obsession to begin with, and might also not realize why people don't invite them out on the weekends anymore (clue: they're buzz kills).
Usually, people who fall within the "SJW" spectrum can be identified by the lingo flavor of the month such as mansplaining, rape culture, cis, patriarchy, etc. This is usually accompanied by an obsession with "cis het white males" or a variant thereof, along with a negative or condescending subtext. Seriously, I've seen "cis white male" thrown around here with more frequency than racial epithets at a KKK convention (or would that be a konvention?). If we were to replace it with "trans hom black female" I would think that I ended up at some radical hate group forum.
Here's what I am saying: Aiming to do better in terms of inclusive representation and minimizing racism, sexism, etc. is a good thing.
That's not really the issue from my perspective. There are people who may agree with that sentiment, but are tired of social issues being interjected into everything. It's like being out with a group of friends while one of them is going on and on about some social issue. Sometimes that mouthy friend just needs to shut up and drink some more beer or finally take the pool shot that the rest of us were waiting for. We're tired and just wanted to have a good time for a couple of hours, not attend a social justice sermon.
Saying that hitting people and being aggressive is behaving in a "stereotypical masculine way" is more sexist than anything in BG.
Forget the genders, if people are strong and badly behaved enough or provoked enough, they will hit people to get their own way.
And in BG, I have a strength of 18+, and I'm a woman, and some people in game deserve being hit. Don't you dare suggest that I am behaving in a stereotypical masculine way. I'm behaving in a way that's happening because I have a bloody great sword, points in profecincy and possibly an item that gives me Godly strength.
SJWs don't exist. They're a straw man. They're not real. They're imaginary.
Social Justice Warriors are very real, they normally go under the guise of feminist. Everyone knows what they are and they are quite honestly sick and tired of hearing their nonsense thrown in to everything.
Normal gamers don't care about their obsessive social issues, especially when they are trying to play a game.
Even in your own post you mention "cis white males" as if sexism wasn't enough for you, you are now finding issue with peoples skin colour and sexuality.... Ironic as SJWs claim they are supposed to be fixing things like that....
I would suggest that if you are so keen on having a game so rife with politically correct propaganda that you perhaps go and make your own game and see how many people actually want to play it.
Perhaps you can call it "Victimhood" or "The Oppressed" ? Or perhaps based on the lastest spew of hatred I have seen from SJWs perhaps you could have a game where you go around killing white cis males as that seems to be what SJWs seem to spend their time fantasising over.
SJWs don't exist. They're a straw man. They're not real.
Oh yes they are. In this new age of extremism, extremism becomes normal, and thus even harder to point out as an extreme. People used to talk of left wing people, liberal people, and SJW as extremes of these groups of people. Give it another generation and you can expect more than half the North American population to be SJW's ; it is becoming the norm.
You not even seeing their presence is a hit to your credibility.
There is one good thing about singles when it comes to changes - you can always keep the original. Well, almost always (if you want to play original game under Steam or Origin you have to play offline). Right now SoD works fine for me and I am going to keep the version I have. Or at least keep a copy of that version.
It looks like for BG in all it's variations I need a special hard-drive dedicated to to all possible configurations.
@Philhelm "but are tired of social issues being interjected into everything."
I wasn't aware this was a thing that was happening. Last I checked, the vast majority of AAA titles are still catering only towards men. I mean, hell, take a look at Bethesda's add for the next DOOM game. Big bulky space marine acting all male-power-fantasy, proving how super tough he is. Or litteraly any COD game ever made. Or Gears of War, or Batman game, or Assassin's Creed game, or God of War game, or... well, I mean, the list goes on and on my friend. Only in small, independent games do you generally see a push towards any kind of diverse representation. Except for Bioware, and God bless them for that.
I agree that they did a good job. Was it off the back of a social agenda, or in spite of it? I am more inclined to go with the latter. Doing good work might mean your product is progressive, but that doesn't mean if you are progressive you get to skip the 'being good' part.
With regards to your other points: Media may have a hand in shaping society, but society has an equal or greater hand in shaping media. It's a bi-directional relationship at the very least. The example you quoted is perfect for what I'm talking about. Public interest in a certain progressive matter results in its appearance in film, not because it's progressive and these are good things to do and it will engineer a positive change in society, but because there's public interest in the matter!
I like to think the intentions of the creator are not involved in the equation. They may have made the movie because they want a better world, but that's not why the world changed. It happened, not because someone concocted the necessary entertainment brainwashing for lack of a better term, but because there was real world growing desire for the change. The film was just evidence of that and helped it along.
That said, with the sheer volume of media that we consume daily, maybe you're right. Maybe we're all just living out the reflections of our entertainment. You are what you eat?
Scary thought, no? Hope you're wrong. On the bright side, even if you're right there's many more billions out there who couldn't care less about our progressive issues or our media brainwashing. In the words of a wonderful poet: "Poor people got shit to do."
Here's my viewpoint on including or not including: I believe that quality work will always reflect its audience in some way, so if there is a real desire within the audience for alternative portrayals, then it will happen regardless of what anyone does or does not try to engineer, so long as they are attempting greatness.
I agree that they did a good job. Was it off the back of a social agenda, or in spite of it? I am more inclined to go with the latter. Doing good work might mean your product is progressive, but that doesn't mean if you are progressive you get to skip the 'being good' part.
With regards to your other points: Media may have a hand in shaping society, but society has an equal or greater hand in shaping media. It's a bi-directional relationship at the very least. The example you quoted is perfect for what I'm talking about. Public interest in a certain progressive matter results in its appearance in film, not because it's progressive and these are good things to do and it will engineer a positive change in society, but because there's public interest in the matter!
I like to think the intentions of the creator are not involved in the equation. They may have made the movie because they want a better world, but that's not why the world changed. It happened, not because someone concocted the necessary entertainment brainwashing for lack of a better term, but because there was real world growing desire for the change. The film was just evidence of that and helped it along.
That said, with the sheer volume of media that we consume daily, maybe you're right. Maybe we're all just living out the reflections of our entertainment. You are what you eat?
Scary thought, no? Hope you're wrong. On the bright side, even if you're right there's many more billions out there who couldn't care less about our progressive issues or our media brainwashing. In the words of a wonderful poet: "Poor people got shit to do."
Here's my viewpoint on including or not including: I believe that quality work will always reflect its audience in some way, so if there is a real desire within the audience for alternative portrayals, then it will happen regardless of what anyone does or does not try to engineer, so long as they are attempting greatness.
Some wise words here friend and I thank you for them. Personally I believe that we should try and create media that will help us shape a more desirable society. Consider the the wisdom of our friends the Beastie Boys. You gotta fight for your right to party. I think we can all take a lesson from this.
Personally I believe that we should try and create media that will help us shape a more desirable society. Consider the the wisdom of our friends the Beastie Boys. You gotta fight for your right to party. I think we can all take a lesson from this.
It's certainly a noble goal but it's rather frightening to give media that much power. I much prefer to think the beastie boys knew a lot of people who were angry about their parties being stopped and were creative enough to resonate with them. Likely we're both right and wrong.
For what it's worth, I didn't see any changes or differences in Safana at all. Most of her interactions with me were about complementing her, or getting her a shiny present of some kind.
Isn't that an even more idiotic depiction of women though? That the correct way to treat them is to complement them and give them gifts?
It's not a depiction of women. It's a depiction of one woman, particularly one with more than a few ethical issues.
Hear hear. Can we please bury the silly idea that every fictional character has to be a stand-in or "depiction" of their sex or race or other real-world demographic.
A fictional character is allowed to have a unique set of flaws, quirks, and traits that make them interesting and don't "represent" anyone else.
As was pointed out, Jaheira reacts violently to situations. If being a strong woman requires that you must be masculine (Beatrix in Kill Bill, for instance) then your strength isn't coming from being a woman--it's coming from masculine behaviour.
Or maybe one can realize that there is a wide spectrum of human behavior, none of which is categorically "male" or "female", and a fictional character of any sex may legitimately be anywhere on that spectrum.
Personally I believe that we should try and create media that will help us shape a more desirable society. Consider the the wisdom of our friends the Beastie Boys. You gotta fight for your right to party. I think we can all take a lesson from this.
It's certainly a noble goal but it's rather frightening to give media that much power. I much prefer to think the beastie boys knew a lot of people who were angry about their parties being stopped and were creative enough to resonate with them. Likely we're both right and wrong.
Ultimately friend, I think it is up to each of us to choose our own path. Whether this is truth or a comforting illusion is perhaps a question better left to aged sages. However I do think that media serves a useful purpose in helping to present new ideas to the masses.
2. Don't have a pop at your customer base by attacking people like GamersGate or men (I have heard people mentioning sexist phrases like "mansplaining" has been included in the game) or they will respond like they have done and it will have in no doubt cost you not only a huge loss in reputation and credibility but a loss in sales revenue as well.
Actually, the so-called "mansplaining" line is from Corwin's daughter: "Mama doesn't need you. She can take care of herself." This is said in response to a dialog choice by the player of "Have no fear, Rohma. I'll make sure nothing happens to your mother." It is said to a CHARNAME of either gender. There's nothing in Rohma's line about how her mother doesn't need a *man* to take care of her. She's just saying that her mom is tough as nails and she doesn't need "The Hero of Baldur's Gate" (male or female) to protect her. (Rohma's first line is "Mama, who is that? is that the hero?")
So, everyone calling this "mansplaining" is reading their own biases into the line. It says more about them that any "agenda" of the writers.
SJWs don't exist. They're a straw man. They're not real.
Oh yes they are. In this new age of extremism, extremism becomes normal, and thus even harder to point out as an extreme. People used to talk of left wing people, liberal people, and SJW as extremes of these groups of people. Give it another generation and you can expect more than half the North American population to be SJW's ; it is becoming the norm.
You not even seeing their presence is a hit to your credibility.
Nah, "SJWs" are simply an effigy of what you hate. You take anyone who espouses politics you don't like and cast them as the "SJW bogeymen" because it's easier to simply dismiss what they have to say in one fell sweep than it is to actually address any arguments, critique, etc.
I am also amused that you think I care about credibility among anti-social justice types. That y'all can't stop complaining that you're not the undisputed center of the universe is a pretty big hit to your own credibility, and somehow it's supposed to bother me that you don't like what I have to say? I never expected you to.
@Philhelm "but are tired of social issues being interjected into everything."
I wasn't aware this was a thing that was happening. Last I checked, the vast majority of AAA titles are still catering only towards men. I mean, hell, take a look at Bethesda's add for the next DOOM game. Big bulky space marine acting all male-power-fantasy, proving how super tough he is. Or litteraly any COD game ever made. Or Gears of War, or Batman game, or Assassin's Creed game, or God of War game, or... well, I mean, the list goes on and on my friend. Only in small, independent games do you generally see a push towards any kind of diverse representation. Except for Bioware, and God bless them for that.
So nice to see that you arent in the least biased in your examples also who told you that its not a Women in the Doom-Space-Marine-Suit? Same goes pretty much for COD. Also what is wrong with male-power-fantasy? IF those games arent your thing, there was PLENTY of other Games to choose from. For example the extrem diverse Fallout, or Life is Strange, or Tomb Raider or...well basicly whatever cup of Tea you want... you had a lot of AAA titles to choose from. In the last Batman Game you can play as Batgirl or Catwomen (Not in the Main Story though...but well thats why the games Named Batman)
Life is Strange isn't a AAA title, last I checked. The space marine, judging by the broad shoulders, the way he walked, and the way he moved is quite clearly a he.
Tomb Raider is just more in line with the rape-revenge story. Half the interactions you see of her in the prequels place her in the position of a victim overcoming adversity, her strength coming from victimhood. That's... yeah, problematic.
The last batman game gave you a full view of Batgirl bat butt, but made batman's cloak defy physics to keep his covered.
Regardless, the argument I was going against was that ALL games now cater to some sort of SJW conspiracy. They do not, clearly.
Will you, @TheWhitefire, please refrain from being openly sexist? To keep stating that violent behaviour is a (stereo)typical male behaviour not only hurts my feelings but is highly offensive and sexist.
You see, sexism is discrimination, prejudice, or stereotyping on the basis of gender. I would therefore kindly ask you to stop spreading sexist prejudices around. Thank you!
Will you, @TheWhitefire, please refrain from being openly sexist? To keep stating that violent behaviour is a (stereo)typical male behaviour not only hurts my feelings but is highly offensive and sexist.
You see, sexism is discrimination, prejudice, or stereotyping on the basis of gender. I would therefore kindly ask you to stop spreading sexist prejudices around. Thank you!
Nothing thewhitefire said is sexist. What I see is you projecting.
Comments
Saying there is strength only in that which is stereotypically masculine hurts men as much as women. There is a cultural pressure on men to be "strong." How many male action heroes have you ever seen cry? I can think of one, but it was that silent bottled up crying. "Man tears" if you will. This communicates to us that "real men don't cry." That's not healthy.
Hey, while we're discussing female PCs, lets take a look at the only romance option available in vanilla BG2: Anomen. He's either your stereotypical "White Knight" or "Bad Boy" depending on which way you take. He's the only romance available to female PCs, so if you wanted any sort of variety of choice, well... tough. Also tough if you play a woman who is neither an elf, human, or half-elf. Not only do you have very little choice of character portraits unless you can make your own (all the vanilla portraits for women are elves/half-elves, humans, or halflings), but he doesn't like any woman who doesn't match a stereotypical definition of western "Beauty." Thank God for the EE here, because at least now you can choose Dorn, Rasaad, or Hexxat.
This isn't "in your face" sexism. Sexism very rarely is in your face. Same with racism. It's the very fact that it's not in your face that it's so harmful. If the game was screaming inequality at you, we'd instantly dismiss it because no one wants to think they're sexist. But that doesn't change the simple fact that something is sexist, if for no other reason than society as a whole has institutionalized sexism that still needs to be worked out.
Yes, Edwin was played as a joke - but it was played as a joke on "how men think". It would be extremely forceful to have this be a whole gender identity issue when that was something not brought as a choice, but rather an accident in an universe that this types of events may be changed quite easily.
And David Gaider commented on how he saw somethings as sexist. And I agree on that. There is sexism in the game. Period.
But that is not everything in BG 1 and 2. Rather the games, and specially so BG 2, bring a lot of diversity (see Aerie, see Anomen, the outcomes of so many quests). And on the point of "strength" in the masculine way, don't forget that not only character show strength through "feminine" traits as well (Aerie, Nalia, Imoen) but you had certain quests that could be solved either with muscle or diplomacy.
So why do you focus on having this diversity - i.e., people of various walk of life, beliefs and personalities - as something to be frowned upon? Why having a bit of everything in a role playing game bad?
Is that not how our society is? Is that not how every society is?
What we are asking you (and hoping that Beamdog sees this as well) is to see the big picture.
See that BG 1 and BG 2 shine because they tried to include lot of things so that we could role play with a lot of freedom and experience various points of views and various outcomes.
This was quite an achievement for the game - it succeeded in it and, through it, brought a lot of diversity. Whether or not it is progressive enough for your personal belief, do not diminish the game for what it has achieved in a very different society than of today. It is completely unfair to judge the progressiveness of the game based on your view of today's society.
So why exactly I bring all of this up? The infamous interview by Beamdog.
First, let me say that we should not point fingers at a writer, she spoke as a representative of Beamdog.
With that said, in the interview Beamdog said they will put X in the game and they don't care if people think it is "fake", forced or poor writing. It is just too bad for the fans because they will put it because they think that is the right way for people to think and act.
That is shoving stuff down peoples throat regardless of quality, purposely making the game one dimensional.
What we want from Baldur's Gate (and I myself want from every game) is a game that has variety, that has a bit of every spice.
That is all there is to it.
Having sexism, conservationism, progressiveness, and all other "ism" and "ness" adds a bit of everything and makes the game richer and able to tackle many topics from various points of view - and best of all by showing the gray side of all "ism" and "ness" out there.
It gives the chance to approach that diversity in a multitude of ways. It makes the game multi-dimensional, open minded and a much richer experience.
This is a game, and a role playing game at that. Role playing various identities and personalities is what RPGs are all about.
I seriously don't understand why there is people against this (including Beamdog).
But as far as Jaheira and violence goes...it's a cRPG. standard operating procedure is "kill things and take their stuff" whether you're male or female. Doesn't hurt that she's a fighter/druid as well. "Strength" is not an exclusively male trait. particularly not in a lifestyle that is inherently violent.
She's tough, she's of noble blood, she's an adventurer, and a Harper. Heck nowadays the Jaheira/Khalid relationship reminds me a bit of Zoe and Wash from Firefly. You mentioned Cassandra? I find more than a passing resemblance between her and Jaheira.
To reiterate and expand: A role-playing game, unless it wants to only allow a singular role to play, needs to be neutral and include examples of as many walks of (fictional) life as possible, including ones that might be considered negative in whatever culture you live in. This was done pretty damn well in BG2 as Rody said. I find comments like "it's a game of its time" etc with regards to sexism and such to be completely meaningless.
No, it wasn't a game of its time. That's why we're still playing it now. It most definitely was not a game of its time. It went above and beyond to incorporate as many different aspects and view-points as it could, because it was trying to reflect 'reality' in the hopes of immersion. Not many video game developers were thinking about story telling on this level in the 90s.
When I say 'aspects' 'viewpoints' and 'reality' I don't mean that in real life some people think A and some people think B, so we should include both A and B. Good writers take a step beyond that. They stand outside that in neutral ground and say okay society is a place where both A and B exist, so if we want our society to feel immersive we need to include multiple different ideas co-existing. They take this conclusion and apply it to their world, not ours! This is very important! BG2 did this very well.
Of course the counter to this (one that we are hearing more and more) is that certain portrayals or ideas or pieces of content are 'harmful' due to stereotypes, history etc. That a game or show or piece of literature can be innately "insert ist/ism". As if it were adding to some universal tally of good and bad societal traits. We are told that X needs to be in video games more, or Y needs to be in television more. As if we can engineer our society in the image of an individual's desires.
This type of thinking belongs in the public air only. There it can equally influence and be ignored by the world around it. Trying to apply this type of thinking to the process of creating an immersive world is flawed and will leave you with a shallow product. Any good writer knows this.
Does it? I think the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series have done a wonderful job of this, and have created exceptionally deep and diverse worlds.
Media shapes our society. Changes need to happen in media for our society to begin to reflect those changes. Take, for instance, the TV movie starring Jane Fonda "Burning Beds." It was the first time media addressed the issue of spousal abuse, and it's no coincidence that this film came out at a time when laws were finally being altered to make sexually assaulting your spouse illegal. Before that, there was no legal recourse for a woman or man who was being raped by their spouse (even now, it's very difficult to actually get charges pressed, but that's an entirely different issue).
Also, I still don't see where in any of my posts I said these games lacked diversity, or that they didn't change the face of the cRPG, because I agree they most certainly did. However that doesn't absolve them of their sexist content. We should never be content to sit back and simply say "well, yanno, they pushed some boundaries, so that's pretty good. Good enough, really." If we still see issues, we should push for those issues to be addressed. If we still see sexist typing, we should push for that to be changed. For instance, Dragon Age and Mass Effect only ever used the male protagonist in their marketing, and that's not okay. Video games aren't just for men, and I don't think they should just be marketed towards men. I also think that both games lack a diversity in women's body types. Forget just having more realistic muscle mass on these warrior women, even the peasant women you meet are thin, fit, western ideals. That needs to change. I don't necessarily need "realism." Not everyone I meet needs to be starving, flea-infested and riddled with disease. But seeing more body types (among men and women, really) would be nice. I'm not exactly a skinny guy myself, but I've never seen anyone with my body type portrayed in video games outside of joke characters. It would be nice if I could make my human berserker built like a... well, human berserker, and not some svelte, highly-defined muscley greek god and embodiment of male power fantasy, with ridiculously over sized shoulders.
We are not in 1997 anymore. Maybe in 1997, Baldur's Gate pushed boundaries. But that's not good enough anymore. We can, and should, do better. We should not let ourselves backslide because "well, back in 1997 this was pretty progressive." That's not a reason, that's an excuse. That's like saying "well, back in 1950 it was totally okay to make jokes about spousal abuse on television, so I should do it now." It moves you backwards, not forwards--and we should always, ALWAYS strive to move forwards.
1. Dont employ SJW people to write your story and characters, regardless of their assurances that they want to right the world, SJW people have an agenda and they will try and squeeze that in to everything they do as we have seen in this expansion pack. The presence of the trans gender wouldnt have bothered many people except it was badly written, badly implemented and didn't make any sense because for anyone that has played the games knows, there are potions you can take to change your gender so having one there didn't make any sense.
2. Don't have a pop at your customer base by attacking people like GamersGate or men (I have heard people mentioning sexist phrases like "mansplaining" has been included in the game) or they will respond like they have done and it will have in no doubt cost you not only a huge loss in reputation and credibility but a loss in sales revenue as well.
3. One thing that seems to have completely passed the developers by and this is something (as a gamer and a software engineer myself) I am aware of, when people play games they do so to escape the rubbish that is happening in the real world, they do it to escape the rules and to have fun and to play a game how they want to play it. There has been a huge uprising against SJW rubbish that has tried to make inroads in the gaming world and the push back has been consistent and effective. In an industry such as PC gaming and even console gaming where they are no where near as flourishing as they were 10 - 20 years ago you should be listening to what the majority of the customers want. And to put it bluntly thats not what the SJWS want.
4. It is deeply hypocritical for the devs to come out and claim that the people that complained about this game and its content are the "loud minority" when Beamdog themselves hire a feminist SJW to add content to the game who is herself a loud minority. On the latest polls and studies carried out this year, the people that actually support modern day feminism in the US as it is today is as low as 18% down from 22% last year. In the UK its down to 7% of people that would actually say they support it. With figures like that and the fact that its dropping do you really want to be shoving content that is associated it upon people ?
When y'all talk about "SJWs" you're not talking about real people. Rather, you're talking about bogeymen you've invented.
SJWs don't exist. They're a straw man. They're not real. They're imaginary. There are people devoted to social justice who work in a variety of ways, including activism. Someone like Amber Scott trying to improve representation and present a more diverse cast of characters than primarily cis straight white people is a good thing, and bears literally no resemblance to your SJW effigy. I am not saying she is perfect, but I am saying that she's not what you say she is.
Here's what I am saying: Aiming to do better in terms of inclusive representation and minimizing racism, sexism, etc. is a good thing. By saying that social justice has no place in gaming, you're saying that you do not want inclusive representation and that you're okay with racism and sexism. If that is indeed what you intend to say, then we really have nothing more to discuss. If that's not what you intend to say, you need to take some time to seriously reconsider exactly what it is that you are saying and do something about it.
Usually, people who fall within the "SJW" spectrum can be identified by the lingo flavor of the month such as mansplaining, rape culture, cis, patriarchy, etc. This is usually accompanied by an obsession with "cis het white males" or a variant thereof, along with a negative or condescending subtext. Seriously, I've seen "cis white male" thrown around here with more frequency than racial epithets at a KKK convention (or would that be a konvention?). If we were to replace it with "trans hom black female" I would think that I ended up at some radical hate group forum. That's not really the issue from my perspective. There are people who may agree with that sentiment, but are tired of social issues being interjected into everything. It's like being out with a group of friends while one of them is going on and on about some social issue. Sometimes that mouthy friend just needs to shut up and drink some more beer or finally take the pool shot that the rest of us were waiting for. We're tired and just wanted to have a good time for a couple of hours, not attend a social justice sermon.
Saying that hitting people and being aggressive is behaving in a "stereotypical masculine way" is more sexist than anything in BG.
Forget the genders, if people are strong and badly behaved enough or provoked enough, they will hit people to get their own way.
And in BG, I have a strength of 18+, and I'm a woman, and some people in game deserve being hit.
Don't you dare suggest that I am behaving in a stereotypical masculine way.
I'm behaving in a way that's happening because I have a bloody great sword, points in profecincy and possibly an item that gives me Godly strength.
Normal gamers don't care about their obsessive social issues, especially when they are trying to play a game.
Even in your own post you mention "cis white males" as if sexism wasn't enough for you, you are now finding issue with peoples skin colour and sexuality.... Ironic as SJWs claim they are supposed to be fixing things like that....
I would suggest that if you are so keen on having a game so rife with politically correct propaganda that you perhaps go and make your own game and see how many people actually want to play it.
Perhaps you can call it "Victimhood" or "The Oppressed" ? Or perhaps based on the lastest spew of hatred I have seen from SJWs perhaps you could have a game where you go around killing white cis males as that seems to be what SJWs seem to spend their time fantasising over.
You not even seeing their presence is a hit to your credibility.
It looks like for BG in all it's variations I need a special hard-drive dedicated to to all possible configurations.
I wasn't aware this was a thing that was happening. Last I checked, the vast majority of AAA titles are still catering only towards men. I mean, hell, take a look at Bethesda's add for the next DOOM game. Big bulky space marine acting all male-power-fantasy, proving how super tough he is. Or litteraly any COD game ever made. Or Gears of War, or Batman game, or Assassin's Creed game, or God of War game, or... well, I mean, the list goes on and on my friend. Only in small, independent games do you generally see a push towards any kind of diverse representation. Except for Bioware, and God bless them for that.
I agree that they did a good job. Was it off the back of a social agenda, or in spite of it? I am more inclined to go with the latter. Doing good work might mean your product is progressive, but that doesn't mean if you are progressive you get to skip the 'being good' part.
With regards to your other points: Media may have a hand in shaping society, but society has an equal or greater hand in shaping media. It's a bi-directional relationship at the very least. The example you quoted is perfect for what I'm talking about. Public interest in a certain progressive matter results in its appearance in film, not because it's progressive and these are good things to do and it will engineer a positive change in society, but because there's public interest in the matter!
I like to think the intentions of the creator are not involved in the equation. They may have made the movie because they want a better world, but that's not why the world changed. It happened, not because someone concocted the necessary entertainment brainwashing for lack of a better term, but because there was real world growing desire for the change. The film was just evidence of that and helped it along.
That said, with the sheer volume of media that we consume daily, maybe you're right. Maybe we're all just living out the reflections of our entertainment. You are what you eat?
Scary thought, no? Hope you're wrong. On the bright side, even if you're right there's many more billions out there who couldn't care less about our progressive issues or our media brainwashing. In the words of a wonderful poet: "Poor people got shit to do."
Here's my viewpoint on including or not including: I believe that quality work will always reflect its audience in some way, so if there is a real desire within the audience for alternative portrayals, then it will happen regardless of what anyone does or does not try to engineer, so long as they are attempting greatness.
A fictional character is allowed to have a unique set of flaws, quirks, and traits that make them interesting and don't "represent" anyone else. Or maybe one can realize that there is a wide spectrum of human behavior, none of which is categorically "male" or "female", and a fictional character of any sex may legitimately be anywhere on that spectrum.
So, everyone calling this "mansplaining" is reading their own biases into the line. It says more about them that any "agenda" of the writers.
I am also amused that you think I care about credibility among anti-social justice types. That y'all can't stop complaining that you're not the undisputed center of the universe is a pretty big hit to your own credibility, and somehow it's supposed to bother me that you don't like what I have to say? I never expected you to.
Tomb Raider is just more in line with the rape-revenge story. Half the interactions you see of her in the prequels place her in the position of a victim overcoming adversity, her strength coming from victimhood. That's... yeah, problematic.
The last batman game gave you a full view of Batgirl bat butt, but made batman's cloak defy physics to keep his covered.
Regardless, the argument I was going against was that ALL games now cater to some sort of SJW conspiracy. They do not, clearly.
You see, sexism is discrimination, prejudice, or stereotyping on the basis of gender. I would therefore kindly ask you to stop spreading sexist prejudices around. Thank you!