@minsc4prez, @smeagolheart: I don't think either response comes close to explaining why the rhetorical equivalent of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ from someone most of us have never met prompted an entire week of fairly intense negative emotion.
And I wasn't speaking to the entirety of the turmoil, I was only speaking to my thoughts on the subject brought up in this thread: the Kotaku Interview.
About the questions I've been asked in this thread:
We indeed have a thread with official reviews, and the interview in the OP is not a review, so that thread is not for an interview like this.
But in the same time, the interview itself, including the lines mentioned in the OP about BG1 NPCs in SoD, have already been discussed on the forum "to death" during the last week.
I can say that the interview in the OP brought up the controversy about SoD, combined with the Minsc's line and the transgender NPC in SoD. This storm has been happening for about a week already.
Nonetheless, as long as the discussion here stays polite and participants follow the site rules, this thread is fine.
I wonder what Gamergate would have thought of Jaheira and Khalid's strong/cowardly dynamic if the characters had been introduced for the first time in SoD instead of way back in 1998? I'm sure they would have been ok with, say, Shar Teel as well.
If the original BG had been released for the first time this year, these people would be saying it had a SJW agenda. That's the state of the industry right now.
If you don't like the game, don't buy it. There's no need to keep trying to resurrect the same hollow argument over and over.
As a big fan of beamdog and bgee that interview even rubbed me up the wrong way. Silly thing is bg1 had shallow one note chars all around and that was justification enough to expand them. Thing is from what ive seen characters have been fleshed out and not lobotomised (apart from that minsc quote). I think it was a poor choice of words, big companies have all kind of pr people for this very reason.
I wonder what Gamergate would have thought of Jaheira and Khalid's strong/cowardly dynamic if the characters had been introduced for the first time in SoD instead of way back in 1998? I'm sure they would have been ok with, say, Shar Teel as well.
If the original BG had been released for the first time this year, these people would be saying it had a SJW agenda. That's the state of the industry right now.
You dream up a situation, then imagine how people you don't like might have responded to your dreamed up situation and then condemn the imaginary response of imaginary people to the imaginary situation. This way, you can argue all by yourself! I approve; there are few too few good single player games out there. I wonder what it would have been like to have a gigantic Starw man as a joinable NPC?
Admittedly I have never really followed the whole GG Vs SJW disaster that closely, but I'd be surprised to hear they'd have anything against strong women in fiction or otherwise.
Like mentioned in OP, I personally always thought it was very cool how diverse and different the joinable NPCs of BG I were. Women NPCs were Strong, slutty, weak, clever,naive, chaste, seductive, streetsmart..it is all good.
Notion that women in fiction who display traits like being slutty etc are somehow flawed or obsolete writing is all kinds of strange and absurd to me.
You know, I don't really care about Amber Scott's reasons for why she approaches the characters she does (any more than any writer which each have their own political/social/theological/philosophical worldview which informs and undergirds their understanding of and approach to situations and leads directly or indirectly to how they deal with stories and what and how they want to write about them). I care about the product and how it reads, plays etc and how the companions are etc. Safana is Safana, just deeper, I don't care about why she wanted to give that one-note character in BG1 attention but I'm glad she and Andrew did, the same with the others. I'm enjoying the game I don't feel some forced agenda being shoved down my throat nor the BG feel or world or game altered to meet some objective, nor that any companions have been altered, just expanded, developed and deepened in what seems to me an organic manner.
Writers and artists are all free to their views and aims and to achieve their visions as they intend and in this case it's Beamdog, WotC and ultimately us that can decide if we enjoy the story produced and if it fits,and if the end product stirs us or is good irrespective of the creators' views (just take Lovecraft or Scott Card for those who have at least at one time held views many or now all would consider highly objectionable).
So what the writers' view are I don't care, they are (there are two remember) entitled to them and their views and to write what they wish to write and what they believe fits their projects. And the end product seemed fine to both Beamdog and WotC to be signed off and seems fine to me.
No revision of character to whole different personas nor any agenda being forced anywhere I saw, nothing in the product screams any of these things, I don't see what people have been so rabid about. From what I see they are reading things into situations that aren't there and just interpreting everything they see as some feminist propaganda or revision of characters because of the interview (and other reasons) much like rad fems see sexist and oppression everywhere and everything, both groups seem to have some obsessive paranoid confirmation bias goggles on allot of the time. Not necessarily anyone in this thread but certainly those going on and on about some social justice agenda and pretty much saying it's just feminist propaganda and revisions everywhere as part of some culture war advance. But again, as far as I can see it's not there, people just seem to be blowing up over nothing and acting crazy, with some trying to affect and censor the work and manipulate reviews which still seems to be going on despite Beamdog's statement, they won why can't they get on with their lives and more important things? Such as doing their dishes, taking out the rubbish/trash, going for a walk, smelling a rose, talking to an old friend or perhaps just watching paint dry if none of that appeals.
Basically what a writers views are is largely irreverent to me to looking at their work, or their stated views to it or even their motives in approaching certain things or characters, to focus on them as here. I'll see how I enjoy, engage and so on with their work and how I react to and interpret to it and it's characters (and how I RP through it here in Siege and interact with the companions, npcs word and narrative etc), and what I get from and understand it to be (which might be quite different from what the writer intends, part of what makes it interesting, it gets a life of it's own, particularly RPGs where the player is always a co-writer of each PC playthrough). The writers' views are irrelevant only the finished work itself matters in terms of the work itself.
As for this interview I don't know about anyone else but I getting sick of hearing about it as I lurk around the boards, or how some have used it to prove some social justice agenda. Writers' are free to write what they want, if you feel their own views become so evident in their finished work and don't like the work, as for any other reason you don't like a work don't buy it, return it, give it an honest review but don't manipulate and bomb reviews (again not necessarily anyone here but I hear this very justification numerous times connected with needing to fight the cancer of social justice again and again over this ridiculous and farcical situation).
Just judge the work as a whole thanks, and could people stop what is becoming almost a witch hunt against Amber, I don't agree with all her views but she doesn't deserve this nor did she write it on her own, Andrew Foley did as well and all of Beamdog were part of the creative process, particularly with some demanding her apologise or resign. For what, having her own views in general and two character stereotypes in BG1 in particular, and having her own reasons for focusing on certain areas for writing in the game? That's her right, and any GG who (which movements principles I agreed with and had been sympathetic to until this event shows many were just the same as the SJWs they hate so much and their hypocrisy in acting against their proclaimed aims) apparently fight for free expression and no censorship practice what you preach please (again not directed to anyone in the thread, just in case any who took part in this ever reads this). Just look at the work itself, alone.
It seems everyone needs pr spin doctors to do their talking for then in everything these days so only vague meaningless nothings are given and no genuine views are given and exchanged by anyone because someone could be personally affronted at the it at the drop of a hat. What a small and petty world we seem to increasingly be moving into where no one can say anything, or discuss what they think in case someone, somewhere takes offence and goes into some meltdown over the previous person saying it.
Anyway I'm sick of seeing this, it's got to the point of beating a dead horse.
Oh well hopefully the game gets discussed more, looks like it's moving more that way.
Edit: because mobile phone writing and dyslexia are bad combinations for long posts
Oddly enough, feeling like she had the need to change a character's personality because Safana was acting slutty, IS a kind of slut-shaming. But it is sadly consistent with traditional SJW double-think.
Oddly enough, feeling like she had the need to change a character's personality because Safana was acting slutty, IS a kind of slut-shaming. But it is sadly consistent with traditional SJW double-think.
And that's absolutely right. Developers shouldn't give a f*ck about what fans want or not. It is ok to listen to Feedback about what you did, about the quality of what you do, but directions? Never.
>and with that attitude you wont have fans for very long ( read:supporters)
If a writer wants to be a social justice warrior in games, by all means, they should. Any feedback about that content should be listened with humbleness, but not against the content itself.
>Sure, but go be a SJW in your own game, not a series that people will buy just because they enjoyed the previous entries from a different company, go make your own series.
"Mizhena sux" is ok, "Mizhena should be better written" is ok, "Mizhena is too blunt" is ok but "KEEP THIS STUFF AWAY FROM MY GAMES" demands a "If you don't like it too bad". And she is being as polite as a shy japanese schoolgirl compared to how I would answer.
>Mishena didnt really bother me, i thought it was a weird interaction, but really only a small part of the game. What i really didnt like was Safana's writing, i was more or less forced to deal with her stupidity the whole game due to lack of another rogue in the game, Bg1 had atleast 4 rogue characters to choose from, but here we are stuck with her. Unless you opt out and just decided to walk over every trap you wont find without her and all the loot you will miss due to locked crates. Also why such a dumb line to Minsc if you knew it was going to cause controversy, that they were not ready at all to deal with
You can't (and shouldn't) control what an artist produces, I'm happy Beamdog backed her up, the moment the industry bends to "fans" we are all doomed.
>i agree censorship is wrong, but so is attempting change history to fit your needs or political agenda. Edit: and Beamdog backed her up how? By saying "please dont harass our employee's" or by removing Minsc's line and agreeing to change Mizhena's dialogue?
They bought the rights, they do whatever they want as long as that is legal. All you can do is not support them, but to think whatever kind of artist (designers, musicians, actors, dancer...) should please their public is the death or art itself. I'm against it.
If an artist believe art is politics they should use art as a way to present their views. And if you don't like it... too bad.
I've been in your shoes so I don't judge you, in fact I'm pretty childish when they change franchises I love in a way that I don't like, but I don't really expect an artist to please me, of even the majority of fans. No matter how much of an abomination of a blasphemy the final product is, it should be what their creators envisioned.
HOWEVER I'm not against any reaction of the public (except of course those of prejudice and oppression), as much as I argue in favor of artistic freedom I do also argue in favor of loving or hating the product. Artists are free to create and you are free to love or hate. You can't expect the artist to do what you want (even if it is respecting a franchises' soul) and the artist can't expect you to agree, respect or even like their product.
The core point of my posts is: You can't expect people to bend to your will. Period. Even if it is the will of the whole planet or the universe. But neither can people expect you to accept anything.
So you don't like this or that in the games? Don't buy it. Or if you are very passionate about it, create a group, a blog, a site, whatever, to hate the game. And if you are even more passionate, create a development team, create a project, present to Wizard of the Coast and make your own game. But trying to argue that an artist should or shouldn't do something that I can't accept.
Oh, and again, nothing against criticizing the content, that is ok, but defining what can or cannot be in the game, nope (unless of course it is illegal).
All that said, you have the money thus you (unfortunately) can raise or sink a company through supporting or not their products, we live in a capitalist world use that in your favor.
And that's absolutely right. Developers shouldn't give a f*ck about what fans want or not. It is ok to listen to Feedback about what you did, about the quality of what you do, but directions? Never.
>and with that attitude you wont have fans for very long ( read:supporters)
If a writer wants to be a social justice warrior in games, by all means, they should. Any feedback about that content should be listened with humbleness, but not against the content itself.
>Sure, but go be a SJW in your own game, not a series that people will buy just because they enjoyed the previous entries from a different company, go make your own series.
"Mizhena sux" is ok, "Mizhena should be better written" is ok, "Mizhena is too blunt" is ok but "KEEP THIS STUFF AWAY FROM MY GAMES" demands a "If you don't like it too bad". And she is being as polite as a shy japanese schoolgirl compared to how I would answer.
>Mishena didnt really bother me, i thought it was a weird interaction, but really only a small part of the game. What i really didnt like was Safana's writing, i was more or less forced to deal with her stupidity the whole game due to lack of another rogue in the game, Bg1 had atleast 4 rogue characters to choose from, but here we are stuck with her. Unless you opt out and just decided to walk over every trap you wont find without her and all the loot you will miss due to locked crates. Also why such a dumb line to Minsc if you knew it was going to cause controversy, that they were not ready at all to deal with
You can't (and shouldn't) control what an artist produces, I'm happy Beamdog backed her up, the moment the industry bends to "fans" we are all doomed.
>i agree censorship is wrong, but so is attempting change history to fit your needs or political agenda. Edit: and Beamdog backed her up how? By saying "please dont harass our employee's" or by removing Minsc's line and agreeing to change Mizhena's dialogue?
They bought the rights, they do whatever they want as long as that is legal. All you can do is not support them, but to think whatever kind of artist (designers, musicians, actors, dancer...) should please their public is the death or art itself. I'm against it.
If an artist believe art is politics they should use art as a way to present their views. And if you don't like it... too bad.
I've been in your shoes so I don't judge you, in fact I'm pretty childish when they change franchises I love in a way that I don't like, but I don't really expect an artist to please me, of even the majority of fans. No matter how much of an abomination of a blasphemy the final product is, it should be what their creators envisioned.
HOWEVER I'm not against any reaction of the public (except of course those of prejudice and oppression), as much as I argue in favor of artistic freedom I do also argue in favor of loving or hating the product. Artists are free to create and you are free to love or hate. You can't expect the artist to do what you want (even if it is respecting a franchises' soul) and the artist can't expect you to agree, respect or even like their product.
The core point of my posts is: You can't expect people to bend to your will. Period. Even if it is the will of the whole planet or the universe. But neither can people expect you to accept anything.
So you don't like this or that in the games? Don't buy it. Or if you are very passionate about it, create a group, a blog, a site, whatever, to hate the game. And if you are even more passionate, create a development team, create a project, present to Wizard of the Coast and make your own game. But trying to argue that an artist should or shouldn't do something that I can't accept.
Oh, and again, nothing against criticizing the content, that is ok, but defining what can or cannot be in the game, nope (unless of course it is illegal).
All that said, you have the money thus you (unfortunately) can raise or sink a company through supporting or not their products, we live in a capitalist world use that in your favor.
I dont understand why your posts are so long and just dance around the arguments, oh well to each there own, you can say what you want about the elicit sjw content in the game, the result of the controversy is still the same. They agreed to change the product based on user reviews.
And that's absolutely right. Developers shouldn't give a f*ck about what fans want or not. It is ok to listen to Feedback about what you did, about the quality of what you do, but directions? Never.
>and with that attitude you wont have fans for very long ( read:supporters)
If a writer wants to be a social justice warrior in games, by all means, they should. Any feedback about that content should be listened with humbleness, but not against the content itself.
>Sure, but go be a SJW in your own game, not a series that people will buy just because they enjoyed the previous entries from a different company, go make your own series.
"Mizhena sux" is ok, "Mizhena should be better written" is ok, "Mizhena is too blunt" is ok but "KEEP THIS STUFF AWAY FROM MY GAMES" demands a "If you don't like it too bad". And she is being as polite as a shy japanese schoolgirl compared to how I would answer.
>Mishena didnt really bother me, i thought it was a weird interaction, but really only a small part of the game. What i really didnt like was Safana's writing, i was more or less forced to deal with her stupidity the whole game due to lack of another rogue in the game, Bg1 had atleast 4 rogue characters to choose from, but here we are stuck with her. Unless you opt out and just decided to walk over every trap you wont find without her and all the loot you will miss due to locked crates. Also why such a dumb line to Minsc if you knew it was going to cause controversy, that they were not ready at all to deal with
You can't (and shouldn't) control what an artist produces, I'm happy Beamdog backed her up, the moment the industry bends to "fans" we are all doomed.
>i agree censorship is wrong, but so is attempting change history to fit your needs or political agenda. Edit: and Beamdog backed her up how? By saying "please dont harass our employee's" or by removing Minsc's line and agreeing to change Mizhena's dialogue?
They bought the rights, they do whatever they want as long as that is legal. All you can do is not support them, but to think whatever kind of artist (designers, musicians, actors, dancer...) should please their public is the death or art itself. I'm against it.
If an artist believe art is politics they should use art as a way to present their views. And if you don't like it... too bad.
I've been in your shoes so I don't judge you, in fact I'm pretty childish when they change franchises I love in a way that I don't like, but I don't really expect an artist to please me, of even the majority of fans. No matter how much of an abomination of a blasphemy the final product is, it should be what their creators envisioned.
HOWEVER I'm not against any reaction of the public (except of course those of prejudice and oppression), as much as I argue in favor of artistic freedom I do also argue in favor of loving or hating the product. Artists are free to create and you are free to love or hate. You can't expect the artist to do what you want (even if it is respecting a franchises' soul) and the artist can't expect you to agree, respect or even like their product.
The core point of my posts is: You can't expect people to bend to your will. Period. Even if it is the will of the whole planet or the universe. But neither can people expect you to accept anything.
So you don't like this or that in the games? Don't buy it. Or if you are very passionate about it, create a group, a blog, a site, whatever, to hate the game. And if you are even more passionate, create a development team, create a project, present to Wizard of the Coast and make your own game. But trying to argue that an artist should or shouldn't do something that I can't accept.
Oh, and again, nothing against criticizing the content, that is ok, but defining what can or cannot be in the game, nope (unless of course it is illegal).
All that said, you have the money thus you (unfortunately) can raise or sink a company through supporting or not their products, we live in a capitalist world use that in your favor.
I dont understand why your posts are so long and just dance around the arguments, oh well to each there own, you can say what you want about the elicit sjw content in the game, the result of the controversy is still the same. They agreed to change the product based on user reviews.
Or...they don't because a bunch of whiny babies shouldn't be able to blow something out of proporation and try to bully people into accepting their world view.
I'd like to talk about SoD article/interview Kotaku, recently published! One of the Beamdog devs said the following: “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.”
Trust me, Stradlin, a few of us would like you to actually like SoD. Because it's a pretty fine title.
You have an opinion. How comes yours is fine and that other person's is real evil? In case me being a long standing female fan of BG matters to you, let me state it. Lo and behold, I am one.
I put this in context so you can conveniently disregard me, be yer motive just a bit biased. Nice, eh? ;-)
I enjoyed SoD. And I really liked how they bridged BG to BG2. To me, writing team did a fine job, on balance of things. Only I'd have liked an Irenicus end battele, as such.
And that's absolutely right. Developers shouldn't give a f*ck about what fans want or not. It is ok to listen to Feedback about what you did, about the quality of what you do, but directions? Never.
>and with that attitude you wont have fans for very long ( read:supporters)
If a writer wants to be a social justice warrior in games, by all means, they should. Any feedback about that content should be listened with humbleness, but not against the content itself.
>Sure, but go be a SJW in your own game, not a series that people will buy just because they enjoyed the previous entries from a different company, go make your own series.
"Mizhena sux" is ok, "Mizhena should be better written" is ok, "Mizhena is too blunt" is ok but "KEEP THIS STUFF AWAY FROM MY GAMES" demands a "If you don't like it too bad". And she is being as polite as a shy japanese schoolgirl compared to how I would answer.
>Mishena didnt really bother me, i thought it was a weird interaction, but really only a small part of the game. What i really didnt like was Safana's writing, i was more or less forced to deal with her stupidity the whole game due to lack of another rogue in the game, Bg1 had atleast 4 rogue characters to choose from, but here we are stuck with her. Unless you opt out and just decided to walk over every trap you wont find without her and all the loot you will miss due to locked crates. Also why such a dumb line to Minsc if you knew it was going to cause controversy, that they were not ready at all to deal with
You can't (and shouldn't) control what an artist produces, I'm happy Beamdog backed her up, the moment the industry bends to "fans" we are all doomed.
>i agree censorship is wrong, but so is attempting change history to fit your needs or political agenda. Edit: and Beamdog backed her up how? By saying "please dont harass our employee's" or by removing Minsc's line and agreeing to change Mizhena's dialogue?
They bought the rights, they do whatever they want as long as that is legal. All you can do is not support them, but to think whatever kind of artist (designers, musicians, actors, dancer...) should please their public is the death or art itself. I'm against it.
If an artist believe art is politics they should use art as a way to present their views. And if you don't like it... too bad.
I've been in your shoes so I don't judge you, in fact I'm pretty childish when they change franchises I love in a way that I don't like, but I don't really expect an artist to please me, of even the majority of fans. No matter how much of an abomination of a blasphemy the final product is, it should be what their creators envisioned.
HOWEVER I'm not against any reaction of the public (except of course those of prejudice and oppression), as much as I argue in favor of artistic freedom I do also argue in favor of loving or hating the product. Artists are free to create and you are free to love or hate. You can't expect the artist to do what you want (even if it is respecting a franchises' soul) and the artist can't expect you to agree, respect or even like their product.
The core point of my posts is: You can't expect people to bend to your will. Period. Even if it is the will of the whole planet or the universe. But neither can people expect you to accept anything.
So you don't like this or that in the games? Don't buy it. Or if you are very passionate about it, create a group, a blog, a site, whatever, to hate the game. And if you are even more passionate, create a development team, create a project, present to Wizard of the Coast and make your own game. But trying to argue that an artist should or shouldn't do something that I can't accept.
Oh, and again, nothing against criticizing the content, that is ok, but defining what can or cannot be in the game, nope (unless of course it is illegal).
All that said, you have the money thus you (unfortunately) can raise or sink a company through supporting or not their products, we live in a capitalist world use that in your favor.
I dont understand why your posts are so long and just dance around the arguments, oh well to each there own, you can say what you want about the elicit sjw content in the game, the result of the controversy is still the same. They agreed to change the product based on user reviews.
Or...they don't because a bunch of whiny babies shouldn't be able to blow something out of proporation and try to bully people into accepting their world view.
What? Im not even sure what youre talking about. Maybe you missed the post about beamdogs official statement to make changes to the game...
Edit: here ill even give you a link in case your still confused
Oddly enough, feeling like she had the need to change a character's personality because Safana was acting slutty, IS a kind of slut-shaming. But it is sadly consistent with traditional SJW double-think.
There's a difference between criticizing a real human being's behavior and criticizing how a fictional human being was presented. Her criticisms of Safana are not slut shaming and are not even in the same ballpark as slut shaming. Her criticism is that Safana's presentation in Baldur's Gate is a sexist portrayal of a female character. Safana, not being a real person, can't exactly be shamed by this.
Sadly consistent with anti-SJW thinking, throwing around terms without knowing what they mean and drawing false analogies.
Oddly enough, feeling like she had the need to change a character's personality because Safana was acting slutty, IS a kind of slut-shaming. But it is sadly consistent with traditional SJW double-think.
There's a difference between criticizing a real human being's behavior and criticizing how a fictional human being was presented. Her criticisms of Safana are not slut shaming and are not even in the same ballpark as slut shaming. Her criticism is that Safana's presentation in Baldur's Gate is a sexist portrayal of a female character. Safana, not being a real person, can't exactly be shamed by this.
Haha, how I wish it worked like this! Much of the modern day outrage culture would have to wither away if people somehow lost the ability to get insulted,worried or outraged about treatment&presentation of fictional characters in fiction. It'd save us all from a massive headache. As a gigantic boon, " spokeswoman of females in gaming" would maybe become an open position again, that'd then see a female elected who either makes or plays or likes video games.
All NPCs in original Baldur's Gate are total caricatures. Crazy guy. Strong woman.Cowardly dude. Seductive lady. Every so often you come across people who argue the latter is personality trait that is somehow something bad, dirty and obsolete. Something " modern day gamers don't need anymore"?? Something that needs to be purified. As if fictional women in fiction, and perhaps ergo, very real women in very real world, were something dirty and obsolete if they feel connected to their sexuality and desire it invokes. Something in it is supposedly somehow more shallow or empty or dysfunctional or obsolete or broken than being "crazy" or " cowardly" or " violent and evil" or "dumb,strong and brave". It is an absurd notion.
Fictional people aren't comparable to real people that way. It's disingenuous to suggest that critiquing a fictional character is the same as criticizing a real person with similar traits.
Also, I'm pretty sure the "spokeswoman of females in gaming" you're referring to plays and likes video games. Although she is not and has never represented herself as the "spokeswoman of females in gaming." She has the stuff she wants to talk about, and yay, thanks to free speech, she has the right to talk about it.
Your comments about "outrage culture" are far more applicable to people who position themselves as anti-SJW and throw literal tantrums online and off in response to critique, representation, and other benign practices.
You keep having this strange notion that myself or somebody here is busy defending the actual person of Safana or some other fictional character. Discussion is about writing and the futility of these newly discovered taboos in writing. Discussion is not about somebody being worried if feelings of a fictional character who does not exist are hurt.
Your remarks about the spokeswoman made me Google the matter in an effort to double check if what I'm saying is truthful. 1st result was a youtube video of herself saying; "It's not a fandom.. I'm not a fan of video games. I had to learn a lot about video games in process of making this."
Then again she pulled a con so magnificent that it landed her a few million bux for making Youtube vids about video games. I'm sure she is a fan now. ; D
You keep having this strange notion that myself or somebody here is busy defending the person of Safana or some other fictional character. Discussion is about writing and the futility of these newly discovered taboos in writing. Discussion is not about somebody being worried if feelings of a fictional character are hurt.
All NPCs in original Baldur's Gate are total caricatures. Crazy guy. Strong woman.Cowardly dude. Seductive lady. Every so often you come across people who argue the latter is personality trait that is somehow something bad, dirty and obsolete. Something " modern day gamers don't need anymore"?? Something that needs to be purified. As if fictional women in fiction, and perhaps ergo, very real women in very real world, were something dirty and obsolete if they feel connected to their sexuality and desire it invokes. Something in it is supposedly somehow more shallow or empty or dysfunctional or obsolete or broken than being "crazy" or " cowardly" or " violent and evil" or "dumb,strong and brave". It is an absurd notion.
You brought in the comparison to real women, not me. I responded to your comment. Now please leave the poor goalpost alone, it's been moved around way too much lately.
Your remarks about the spokeswoman made me Google the matter in an effort to double check. 1st result was a youtube video of herself saying; "It's not a fandom.. I'm not a fan of video games. I had to learn a lot about video games in process of making this."
Then again she has made few million bux by making Youtube vids about video games. I'm sure she is a fan now.
She has by this point purchased and played numerous games. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise. Or to claim that she might only like them because of how much money her kickstarter received (and that was a consequence of anti-SJWs trying to harass her out of making those videos in the first place, because free speech is so darned important, except when it's a woman with a message you don't like.
Thread title+OP should make it abundantly clear this discussion is all about the Kotaku article of SoD, interview within and certain undertones in writing fiction. Writing is done by real people. Nobody here is busy doing some line-by-line deconstruction of Safana. Implication that some character getting written as seductive, slutty or sex object (pick your poison, really!) is somehow "old fashioned" or "obsolete" writing that should somehow be dropped in history and left behind to make way to " more modern way of doing things" is obviously a remark against such traits being present in fiction as a whole.
Look, I'm sure that good effort and line-by-line deconstructions of my posts will totally earn you some +1s in Intrernet argument wars. However, last time I checked you are ultimately busy arguing that Fictional characters and real human beings should not be confused. Point you are making is that fictional characters aren't real and as such can't have their feelings hurt. Right? Are you absolutely certain this is a cause that needs to be underlined here, really? At the end of the day, do you sincerely believe somebody here has some great confusion about this?
I fully agree with some bits of what you said about Sarkeesian. I'm sure she has, by now,, bought many games!Haha. You suggested she plays or likes video games. I posted you a quote where she herself tells you otherwise. I don't care about American Football at all. However, if I was able to con myself into situation where people somehow end up paying me a million dollars for Youtube videos where I speak of violence in American Football..guess what? I promise you I'd LOVE American Football for rest of my life. I'd start living and breathing it right there.
Your remarks about the spokeswoman made me Google the matter in an effort to double check if what I'm saying is truthful. 1st result was a youtube video of herself saying; "It's not a fandom.. I'm not a fan of video games. I had to learn a lot about video games in process of making this."
Just so you know - it says everything about you and your preconceptions that you completely ignore the bolded part of your own quote. At least she recognized her own lack of knowledge, and deigned to do her homework before speaking, which is more than most of her detractors have done.
^ Context. Person A claims Sarkeesian " plays and likes video games". Person B comes back with a quote that makes it clear she became interested of them only once she figured what a great idea it is to criticize them.
Just for the sake of clarity and full disclosure, I absolutely admire her. If I felt I had slightest of a change at pulling off such magnificent and perfectly legal con, I would totally try. Something like one Million raised in Kickstarter, for no-strings-attached promise for releasing some Youtube videos in future. That is..awesome. Somehow, she picked a topic and played her role in fashion where this wins her prestige, admiration AND money. Seriously, that is absolutely glorious. Much in it has to do with being at right place in right time. She found her voice in this at perfect storm, in intersection of first world feminism, PC outrage culture and - everybody- feeling legitimately excited and idealistic about Kicstarter and crowd funding. Though I'd say even in this there is at least as much pure guile and ruthless opportunism as there is luck.
If I have any vague Internet-anger about her achievements, they are directed towards media and journalists who eat from her hand in such docile fashion. Sarkeesian doesn't get to decide if she is the Face of females in gaming, her peers and journalists do. Her peers have decided, elected her for such position. I'm quite sure no female in gaming speaks with voice as influental and loud as her. There are so many extremely competent, legit and relevant female developers, gamers,scholars,writers, journalists etc who are very present and invested in gaming culture for some, any, different reason besides making million bux by criticizing it. Yet it sometimes feels like you have to be either Sarkeesian or in her sphere in order to see any microphones before your face at all if you try to pitch and offer a voice and POV as female associated with gaming culture.
I'd love to believe we can agree there is a gigantic shame in this?
Look, I'm sure that good effort and line-by-line deconstructions of my posts will totally earn you some +1s in Intrernet argument wars. However, last time I checked you are ultimately busy arguing that Fictional characters and real human beings should not be confused. Point you are making is that fictional characters aren't real and as such can't have their feelings hurt. Right? Are you absolutely certain this is a cause that needs to be underlined here, really? At the end of the day, do you sincerely believe somebody here has some great confusion about this?
Go back and reread the quoted bit from one of your own posts. If you can't see the connection between what you said and how I responded, then maybe you should simply drop this argument, because it doesn't look like you're paying attention.
I fully agree with some bits of what you said about Sarkeesian. I'm sure she has, by now,, bought many games!Haha. You suggested she plays or likes video games. I posted you a quote where she herself tells you otherwise. I don't care about American Football at all. However, if I was able to con myself into situation where people somehow end up paying me a million dollars for Youtube videos where I speak of violence in American Football..guess what? I promise you I'd LOVE American Football for rest of my life. I'd start living and breathing it right there.
She didn't con anyone, and she wasn't even looking for all that much money when she started the kickstarter. She was asking for something really low like $6000 or so and might have made that had harassment and attacks not started pouring in, at which point people contributed to her kickstarter to support her. It must really burn a lot of people that such support materialized because they never shut up about it when Anita Sarkeesian is a topic of discussion.
^ Yes, I consider what she managed to do absolutely awesome as I explained in my previous post. Tis'clear she isn't a video-gamer but she played all this extremely well.
^ Yes, I consider what she managed to do absolutely awesome as I explained in my previous post. Tis'clear she isn't a video-gamer but she played all this extremely well.
You called it a con. Stop trying to act innocent. It is disgustingly disingenuous.
However, it is not like she climbed in your house at night and stole your retirement fund while you slept. People donated money for her out of their free will. Usually people donate only what they can afford. It is a con without any major victims. As such, I find it easy to admire and recognize the skill and guile required. There has always been appreciation(or at least fascination) towards " cult of professionalism" of thieves and con artists, Stories are written of their feats, movies are made out of them. We ("we" as in some vague idea of general population) have always enjoyed observing and reading up about a good theft.
You could always just address the actual points made in OP(or stuff said later by other people). It is not mandatory to get so excited about me as person or poster.
Comments
We indeed have a thread with official reviews, and the interview in the OP is not a review, so that thread is not for an interview like this.
But in the same time, the interview itself, including the lines mentioned in the OP about BG1 NPCs in SoD, have already been discussed on the forum "to death" during the last week.
I can say that the interview in the OP brought up the controversy about SoD, combined with the Minsc's line and the transgender NPC in SoD. This storm has been happening for about a week already.
Nonetheless, as long as the discussion here stays polite and participants follow the site rules, this thread is fine.
If the original BG had been released for the first time this year, these people would be saying it had a SJW agenda. That's the state of the industry right now.
If you don't like the game, don't buy it. There's no need to keep trying to resurrect the same hollow argument over and over.
You dream up a situation, then imagine how people you don't like might have responded to your dreamed up situation and then condemn the imaginary response of imaginary people to the imaginary situation. This way, you can argue all by yourself! I approve; there are few too few good single player games out there.
I wonder what it would have been like to have a gigantic Starw man as a joinable NPC?
Admittedly I have never really followed the whole GG Vs SJW disaster that closely, but I'd be surprised to hear they'd have anything against strong women in fiction or otherwise.
Like mentioned in OP, I personally always thought it was very cool how diverse and different the joinable NPCs of BG I were. Women NPCs were Strong, slutty, weak, clever,naive, chaste, seductive, streetsmart..it is all good.
Notion that women in fiction who display traits like being slutty etc are somehow flawed or obsolete writing is all kinds of strange and absurd to me.
Writers and artists are all free to their views and aims and to achieve their visions as they intend and in this case it's Beamdog, WotC and ultimately us that can decide if we enjoy the story produced and if it fits,and if the end product stirs us or is good irrespective of the creators' views (just take Lovecraft or Scott Card for those who have at least at one time held views many or now all would consider highly objectionable).
So what the writers' view are I don't care, they are (there are two remember) entitled to them and their views and to write what they wish to write and what they believe fits their projects. And the end product seemed fine to both Beamdog and WotC to be signed off and seems fine to me.
No revision of character to whole different personas nor any agenda being forced anywhere I saw, nothing in the product screams any of these things, I don't see what people have been so rabid about. From what I see they are reading things into situations that aren't there and just interpreting everything they see as some feminist propaganda or revision of characters because of the interview (and other reasons) much like rad fems see sexist and oppression everywhere and everything, both groups seem to have some obsessive paranoid confirmation bias goggles on allot of the time. Not necessarily anyone in this thread but certainly those going on and on about some social justice agenda and pretty much saying it's just feminist propaganda and revisions everywhere as part of some culture war advance. But again, as far as I can see it's not there, people just seem to be blowing up over nothing and acting crazy, with some trying to affect and censor the work and manipulate reviews which still seems to be going on despite Beamdog's statement, they won why can't they get on with their lives and more important things? Such as doing their dishes, taking out the rubbish/trash, going for a walk, smelling a rose, talking to an old friend or perhaps just watching paint dry if none of that appeals.
Basically what a writers views are is largely irreverent to me to looking at their work, or their stated views to it or even their motives in approaching certain things or characters, to focus on them as here. I'll see how I enjoy, engage and so on with their work and how I react to and interpret to it and it's characters (and how I RP through it here in Siege and interact with the companions, npcs word and narrative etc), and what I get from and understand it to be (which might be quite different from what the writer intends, part of what makes it interesting, it gets a life of it's own, particularly RPGs where the player is always a co-writer of each PC playthrough). The writers' views are irrelevant only the finished work itself matters in terms of the work itself.
As for this interview I don't know about anyone else but I getting sick of hearing about it as I lurk around the boards, or how some have used it to prove some social justice agenda. Writers' are free to write what they want, if you feel their own views become so evident in their finished work and don't like the work, as for any other reason you don't like a work don't buy it, return it, give it an honest review but don't manipulate and bomb reviews (again not necessarily anyone here but I hear this very justification numerous times connected with needing to fight the cancer of social justice again and again over this ridiculous and farcical situation).
Just judge the work as a whole thanks, and could people stop what is becoming almost a witch hunt against Amber, I don't agree with all her views but she doesn't deserve this nor did she write it on her own, Andrew Foley did as well and all of Beamdog were part of the creative process, particularly with some demanding her apologise or resign. For what, having her own views in general and two character stereotypes in BG1 in particular, and having her own reasons for focusing on certain areas for writing in the game? That's her right, and any GG who (which movements principles I agreed with and had been sympathetic to until this event shows many were just the same as the SJWs they hate so much and their hypocrisy in acting against their proclaimed aims) apparently fight for free expression and no censorship practice what you preach please (again not directed to anyone in the thread, just in case any who took part in this ever reads this). Just look at the work itself, alone.
It seems everyone needs pr spin doctors to do their talking for then in everything these days so only vague meaningless nothings are given and no genuine views are given and exchanged by anyone because someone could be personally affronted at the it at the drop of a hat. What a small and petty world we seem to increasingly be moving into where no one can say anything, or discuss what they think in case someone, somewhere takes offence and goes into some meltdown over the previous person saying it.
Anyway I'm sick of seeing this, it's got to the point of beating a dead horse.
Oh well hopefully the game gets discussed more, looks like it's moving more that way.
Edit: because mobile phone writing and dyslexia are bad combinations for long posts
If an artist believe art is politics they should use art as a way to present their views. And if you don't like it... too bad.
I've been in your shoes so I don't judge you, in fact I'm pretty childish when they change franchises I love in a way that I don't like, but I don't really expect an artist to please me, of even the majority of fans. No matter how much of an abomination of a blasphemy the final product is, it should be what their creators envisioned.
HOWEVER I'm not against any reaction of the public (except of course those of prejudice and oppression), as much as I argue in favor of artistic freedom I do also argue in favor of loving or hating the product. Artists are free to create and you are free to love or hate. You can't expect the artist to do what you want (even if it is respecting a franchises' soul) and the artist can't expect you to agree, respect or even like their product.
The core point of my posts is: You can't expect people to bend to your will. Period. Even if it is the will of the whole planet or the universe. But neither can people expect you to accept anything.
So you don't like this or that in the games? Don't buy it. Or if you are very passionate about it, create a group, a blog, a site, whatever, to hate the game. And if you are even more passionate, create a development team, create a project, present to Wizard of the Coast and make your own game.
But trying to argue that an artist should or shouldn't do something that I can't accept.
Oh, and again, nothing against criticizing the content, that is ok, but defining what can or cannot be in the game, nope (unless of course it is illegal).
All that said, you have the money thus you (unfortunately) can raise or sink a company through supporting or not their products, we live in a capitalist world use that in your favor.
They agreed to change the product based on user reviews.
You have an opinion. How comes yours is fine and that other person's is real evil? In case me being a long standing female fan of BG matters to you, let me state it. Lo and behold, I am one.
I put this in context so you can conveniently disregard me, be yer motive just a bit biased. Nice, eh? ;-)
I enjoyed SoD. And I really liked how they bridged BG to BG2. To me, writing team did a fine job, on balance of things. Only I'd have liked an Irenicus end battele, as such.
Edit: here ill even give you a link in case your still confused
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/51161/beamdog-statement-on-siege-of-dragonspear#latest
Sadly consistent with anti-SJW thinking, throwing around terms without knowing what they mean and drawing false analogies.
All NPCs in original Baldur's Gate are total caricatures. Crazy guy. Strong woman.Cowardly dude. Seductive lady. Every so often you come across people who argue the latter is personality trait that is somehow something bad, dirty and obsolete. Something " modern day gamers don't need anymore"?? Something that needs to be purified. As if fictional women in fiction, and perhaps ergo, very real women in very real world, were something dirty and obsolete if they feel connected to their sexuality and desire it invokes. Something in it is supposedly somehow more shallow or empty or dysfunctional or obsolete or broken than being "crazy" or " cowardly" or " violent and evil" or "dumb,strong and brave". It is an absurd notion.
Also, I'm pretty sure the "spokeswoman of females in gaming" you're referring to plays and likes video games. Although she is not and has never represented herself as the "spokeswoman of females in gaming." She has the stuff she wants to talk about, and yay, thanks to free speech, she has the right to talk about it.
Your comments about "outrage culture" are far more applicable to people who position themselves as anti-SJW and throw literal tantrums online and off in response to critique, representation, and other benign practices.
Your remarks about the spokeswoman made me Google the matter in an effort to double check if what I'm saying is truthful. 1st result was a youtube video of herself saying; "It's not a fandom.. I'm not a fan of video games. I had to learn a lot about video games in process of making this."
Then again she pulled a con so magnificent that it landed her a few million bux for making Youtube vids about video games. I'm sure she is a fan now. ; D
Thread title+OP should make it abundantly clear this discussion is all about the Kotaku article of SoD, interview within and certain undertones in writing fiction. Writing is done by real people. Nobody here is busy doing some line-by-line deconstruction of Safana. Implication that some character getting written as seductive, slutty or sex object (pick your poison, really!) is somehow "old fashioned" or "obsolete" writing that should somehow be dropped in history and left behind to make way to " more modern way of doing things" is obviously a remark against such traits being present in fiction as a whole.
Look, I'm sure that good effort and line-by-line deconstructions of my posts will totally earn you some +1s in Intrernet argument wars. However, last time I checked you are ultimately busy arguing that Fictional characters and real human beings should not be confused. Point you are making is that fictional characters aren't real and as such can't have their feelings hurt. Right? Are you absolutely certain this is a cause that needs to be underlined here, really? At the end of the day, do you sincerely believe somebody here has some great confusion about this?
I fully agree with some bits of what you said about Sarkeesian. I'm sure she has, by now,, bought many games!Haha. You suggested she plays or likes video games. I posted you a quote where she herself tells you otherwise. I don't care about American Football at all. However, if I was able to con myself into situation where people somehow end up paying me a million dollars for Youtube videos where I speak of violence in American Football..guess what? I promise you I'd LOVE American Football for rest of my life. I'd start living and breathing it right there.
I like to pretend they don't exist. I certainly don't value their "journalism", if you can even call it that.
Just for the sake of clarity and full disclosure, I absolutely admire her. If I felt I had slightest of a change at pulling off such magnificent and perfectly legal con, I would totally try. Something like one Million raised in Kickstarter, for no-strings-attached promise for releasing some Youtube videos in future. That is..awesome. Somehow, she picked a topic and played her role in fashion where this wins her prestige, admiration AND money. Seriously, that is absolutely glorious. Much in it has to do with being at right place in right time. She found her voice in this at perfect storm, in intersection of first world feminism, PC outrage culture and - everybody- feeling legitimately excited and idealistic about Kicstarter and crowd funding. Though I'd say even in this there is at least as much pure guile and ruthless opportunism as there is luck.
If I have any vague Internet-anger about her achievements, they are directed towards media and journalists who eat from her hand in such docile fashion. Sarkeesian doesn't get to decide if she is the Face of females in gaming, her peers and journalists do. Her peers have decided, elected her for such position. I'm quite sure no female in gaming speaks with voice as influental and loud as her. There are so many extremely competent, legit and relevant female developers, gamers,scholars,writers, journalists etc who are very present and invested in gaming culture for some, any, different reason besides making million bux by criticizing it. Yet it sometimes feels like you have to be either Sarkeesian or in her sphere in order to see any microphones before your face at all if you try to pitch and offer a voice and POV as female associated with gaming culture.
I'd love to believe we can agree there is a gigantic shame in this?
Yes, I consider what she managed to do absolutely awesome as I explained in my previous post. Tis'clear she isn't a video-gamer but she played all this extremely well.
However, it is not like she climbed in your house at night and stole your retirement fund while you slept. People donated money for her out of their free will. Usually people donate only what they can afford. It is a con without any major victims. As such, I find it easy to admire and recognize the skill and guile required. There has always been appreciation(or at least fascination) towards " cult of professionalism" of thieves and con artists, Stories are written of their feats, movies are made out of them.
We ("we" as in some vague idea of general population) have always enjoyed observing and reading up about a good theft.
See? I "admire" you. That's a positive word, right?