MHN Review of Siege of Dragonspear - Comment Please Trent?
Vordrak
Member Posts: 3
I am a long standing fan of Baldur's Gate. I have taken the time to play through and give a fair opinion rather than parrot others. This is my review -
http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=3357
http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=3357
0
Comments
Obviously (?).
This is my review of your review:
Despite reviewers claims to give a fair opinion rather parroting others, the review begins by "parroting" others, including a short section citing Thomas Sowell (and at most talking about his heritage rather than his work) which offers no additional narrative theme to the review as a whole. Additionally the reviewer created a new character with the intent to "test the game’s alleged commitment to ‘diversity’.". It is obvious that the reviewers biases are nonetheless clear. Seeing as the reviewer fails to acknowledge that Siege of Dragonspear is more to do with the collective efforts of the Staff at Beamdog and even then the lead designer: Phillip Daigle, than to do with Amber Scott, this omission of such crucial information it is apparent the reviewer knows little about the game. "Rather than accept second hand information your author decided to play through Amber Scott’s so called masterpiece himself.".
Considering the depth of detail the reviewer has gone into the prologue of the game it appears that the reviewer, unsurprisingly, has not actually played the game to completion. The distinct lack of continuous criticism "Siege of Dragonspear goes on. An on. And on. With every linearly presented area one expects an array of clumsy stereotypes and leaden writing." handedly describes the reviewers attempt to even consider the nuanced complexity presented by SoD's closing chapters.
Inconsistencies between first and third person make the review difficult to read and at times confusing. The reviewers view is addled with biases provided by secondary parties which largely leave the review in question, weak.
Reviewer was plagued by hardware issues and incompatibilities known by the developers previously - the game nonetheless functioned, albeit with considerable nuisances such as improper sounds which if anything will be addressed in the forthcoming.
In accordance with the MHN Guidelines I give this review:
Graphics: 15, Very few screen-shots past the opening chapters. Nonetheless, screen-shots are provided.
Sound: -- N/A
Gameplay: 7, Reviewer had made an effort to play the game, but is evident that they perhaps did not get through the second chapter.
Ease of Use / Glitches: 15, confusion between the tenses as described make it difficult to read at times and the contextualization of propaganda mostly pull down the review at it's core.
Adjustment: 0
Overall: 37/75.
Frankly, your review is a joke. My suggestion is to go back to your manuals and play D&D and BG/BG2/SoD a little more. Only then you can in all honesty write a review of the game.
But we derail the thread. Probably for the better.
Either the author (who affectionately refers to himself as "your" author) doesn't know very much about Baldur's Gate and it's a bad review, or he does and it's an intentionally misrepresentative one. 2/10.
As for Edwin and other evil party members he doesn't attack, there's always the plausible explanation of, Edwin (or other NPCs) is from a race that can be redeemed. unlike drow. Is this kind of behavior racist? I guess so, yeah. But then the argument is what @Zanso so well wrote, should we just stop playing games because there are racist characters in it? I don't think so.
In D&D, good and evil are more concrete than in real life, and both Edwin and Viconia are evil (obviously). However, Viconia isn't quite the victim she may seem, considering some of the background stories about all of the murders she has committed, and the fact that she is devoted to an evil deity to the extent that the evil deity grants her miraculous powers. Frankly, Edwin is just playing at evil when compared to Viconia; it's like a loan shark vs. a serial killer.
Regardless, travelling with Viconia be like travelling with a vampire, or any other evil, sentient creature. It's not like the Drow should precisely be viewed as darker skinned elves. Overwhelmingly, the entire race is devoted to evil, so it makes sense that Keldorn would have more hostility to Viconia, even if she is playing the victim card.
*parrots others*
Btw, did you seriously just recommend that they hire someone like Vox Day?
Also, consider the Ranger class, which has a racial enemy that can include sentient races. The modern use of the word "racist" doesn't seem appropriate to me in either case.
So is Keldorn racist? I'd say yes. He's perpetuating the fear and animosity that prevents drow from learning about less evil cultures than their own. He makes no effort to ask why Viconia is evil, or whether she can learn to be otherwise, in spite of the fact that he clearly demonstrates a willingness to explore and understand the reasons for immoral behavior in humans. She's a drow, and so while he consciously understands that not all drow are evil (see Drizzt), he just doesn't think about redemption as something drow do. This, in spite of the fact that there are enough good drow that the goddess of good drow is the second most powerful deity in their pantheon. That sounds like racism to me. It doesn't make Keldorn evil, and it doesn't mean he'll never accept a drow as being good, but it does mean he's less than the impartial inquisitor he's called to be.
The rest of the review is also not really worth it.