Skip to content

I like how people are complaining about lack of roleplay options

24

Comments

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    edited April 2016
    Rawgrim said:

    BG2 Jaheira is as important as the BG1 Jaheira, since BG2 expands on the same character.

    Or are you saying that the character should be completely different in each game, even if each part of the game are pieces of a whole story?

    *facepalm*

    image

    Your argument is that Amber comes off "as someone who hadn't even played the original games", and that she's "tampering with existing character's". Except she didn't write BG2 Jaheira. BG2 Jaheira hasn't been altered in any way. BG2 Jaheira isn't part of this discussion.

    And what you have not done is present any evidence - not a screenshot, not a single line of dialogue - that proves SoD Jaheira is "completely different" from BG1 Jaheira. You don't have a single fact to back you up. So maybe now would be a good time for you to stop talking and do your homework before you come in here with nothing more than misinformed opinions and BS.
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621
    shawne said:

    Rawgrim said:

    BG2 Jaheira is as important as the BG1 Jaheira, since BG2 expands on the same character.

    Or are you saying that the character should be completely different in each game, even if each part of the game are pieces of a whole story?

    *facepalm*

    image

    Your argument is that Amber comes off "as someone who hadn't even played the original games", and that she's "tampering with existing character's". Except she didn't write BG2 Jaheira. BG2 Jaheira hasn't been altered in any way. BG2 Jaheira isn't part of this discussion.

    And what you have not done is present any evidence - not a screenshot, not a single line of dialogue - that proves SoD Jaheira is "completely different" from BG1 Jaheira. You don't have a single fact to back you up. So maybe now would be a good time for you to stop talking and do your homework before you come in here with nothing more than misinformed opinions and BS.
    First off. Resorting to insults makes you lose a discussion by default. You have moved away from the topic of the discussion, and tried to make the opposition the subject of the discussion. Using a meme to do it just makes you seem like a young teen.

    Secondly, I never mentioned anything in game in the point I made. I strictly went with what the writer had said in that interview. And how she came off when she said what she did. So with you putting words in my mouth and all that, it is actually you who need to look at your own misinformed opinions.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    I won't be schooled on etiquette by people who take pride in their own ignorance, and parrot misinformation as if there's some value in it beyond white noise.
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621
    shawne said:

    I won't be schooled on etiquette by people who take pride in their own ignorance, and parrot misinformation as if there's some value in it beyond white noise.

    I guess a lot of people must seem ignorant to you. Given that you just keep putting words in their mouths and ignore what they are actually saying. That is actually creating misinformation for yourself.
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    Rawgrim said:

    I guess a lot of people must seem ignorant to you. Given that you just keep putting words in their mouths and ignore what they are actually saying. That is actually creating misinformation for yourself.

    No, just people who go on and on and on about things they think they heard that may or may not be in games they haven't played or don't remember, and have nothing to say when little details like the game script contradict what they think they know. Sit down and stop embarrassing yourself.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621
    shawne said:

    Rawgrim said:

    I guess a lot of people must seem ignorant to you. Given that you just keep putting words in their mouths and ignore what they are actually saying. That is actually creating misinformation for yourself.

    No, just people who go on and on and on about things they think they heard that may or may not be in games they haven't played or don't remember, and have nothing to say when little details like the game script contradict what they think they know. Sit down and stop embarrassing yourself.
    I never said anything about that. I only went by the interview with the writer. Where she said this and that character needed a bit of a change. Since they are only this and that. And that made her come off a certain way.

    Never once mentioned any in-game quotes from the characters. That is all on you. Adding words and meanings to the whole thing.

    Try reading what Actually said a page back. Drink less Kool-Aid this time. Might be you have had enough of it for today.
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    There's a lot of ad hominem going on in this thread. Everyone could stand to calm down a bit and focus on the discussion, rather than the people participating in it.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621

    @Rawgrim I like you a lot, but I think the no hurtful memes also means no Kool-Aid jokes. That's only fair, I'm sure you can understand that.

    I understand perfectly. I was just trying to be helpful.
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975
    Rawgrim said:


    BG2 is a factor too. If you are going to expand on a character you can't just go by how the character is in the first few chapters of the whole story. A character is the sum of its parts, and that means BG2 is vital to this too.

    Putting aside everything else, BG2 is absolutely not a factor to the fact that Jaheira was played as a nagging wife for humour in BG1. First, because they're different games. Second, because Jaheira and Khalid ceased to be married in BG2 due to certain reasons.

    If Jaheira hadn't reappeared in the second game, "nagging wife" would be the only thing most people remembered about her.

    So, in SoD, Khalid and Jaheira are still together. The option existed to basically have all her dialogue be nagging Khalid, which would be completely consistent with BG1. Amber Scott presumably didn't want to go that way because, amongst other things, playing a nagging wife for humour is a sexist trope.

    What's the problem with the statement, then? She was only talking about BG1, and as has been noted, it is beyond question that she was indeed being played as a nagging wife for humour in BG1. What she was in BG2 does not enter into the statement that was made, because she isn't a wife anymore in BG2 and thus there's no basis for comparison to that aspect of her character in SoD.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975

    @Ayiekie How is occasionnaly using a trope in a work of fiction a bad thing?

    It depends on the trope, how it is used, and in what context it is used.

    "Magical negro" is a trope. It still gets used sometimes, too. That doesn't (magically!) make it a non-problematic thing to use.


    Surely, people who can't help but fixate and take offence at the trope are witch-hunters.

    First, it was not said that she or anyone else "took offence" at the trope. It was said they didn't feel the need to still continue using the sexist tropes on SoD.

    Second, precisely when did "noticing" and "avoiding in future" become "fixate and take offence"? Is anybody ever allowed to say "That's kinda sexist" about something?

    Were all the people that finally made blackface unacceptable for use in popular culture "witch-hunters", too?


    A few *sexist* tropes here and there is no more damaging than a few transgender characters.

    So, let's break down your statement here. There are two ways it can work:

    1) There is absolutely nothing wrong with sexist tropes, just like there is absolutely nothing wrong with transgender characters.

    2) Sexist tropes are bad, just like transgendered characters, but a few of them don't hurt anything too much.

    Which is what you were getting at?


  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited April 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,164
    DJ Khalid says


  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975

    @Ayiekie
    A. I might come off as ignorant, so be it, but I actually don't know what blackface means... sorry for the inconvenience.

    That's fine; I'm not, after all, sure what part of the world you're from and it was more prominently exported in some places than others. Wikipedia has a reasonable primer and its manifestations in different places (including in modern times):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface


    B. As far as trope are concerned, I feel the word "sexist" to be negatively charged, hence me saying that she, one way or another, must have taken offense (mildy or greatly, I couldn't say which). Why else use such a word? You could say Jaheira's character was too "one-dimensional", "under-developped" or "limited". To me, voluntarily labeling it as sexist implies some sort of underlying offence.

    It was definitely all of those things, but what it was also was a specific, very gendered type of stereotype, and you wouldn't get that across with any of those words.

    I do find it curious that you do get that implication from it, when I and others (and I would guess Amber Scott herself) took it more as a "product of the time"; there was no offence meant because it wasn't something that was often considered at the time the game was created.

    I think that may tie into why some people have trouble with recognising that, e.g., Anita Sarkeesian is not calling for censorship of game that have problematic sexist elements, or saying that anybody who enjoys them are bad people.

    Food for thought, anyway. In a more direct response, I'd just say that I don't think what she said there or elsewhere, or what she claimed she was doing in the game (such as, for instance, making some sweet romantic scenes with Khalid and Jaheira), supports the notion that she really found it offensive so much as she found those tropes to be things she no longer wanted to continue in SoD (so Jaheira isn't JUST a nagging wife, and Safana isn't JUST a sexy thief with absurdly silly dialogue). That's the impression I get from her statements, though. And remember, of course, that she loves BG too.


    C. I meant (1).

    Okay, that's definitely better than the second. :smiley:

    Still, I'd disagree. Sexist tropes are definitely a bad thing (I will decline to get into a big debate over the effect of media on people and social responsibility versus artistic freedom in media creators, at least in this post). Which isn't to say they can't be used, but they shouldn't be used thoughtlessly, and context can be considered. Isabela from Dragon Age 2 is ALSO a sexy thief, but I wouldn't consider her a sexist character at all.
  • PK2748PK2748 Member Posts: 381
    Look, a nagging wife played for comedy may not be appreciated by all, it is sexist. Thing is, I think some people need to acknowledge that some cliches exist for a reason. Like it or not, there is lived experience behind cliches and tropes. Including the nagging wife and the oafish lout of a husband.

    However that doesn't make it bad to actually develop a character beyond those cliches and tropes when the character is finally given some screen time. BG1 didn't give a whole lot of text and dialogue so when SOD offers a more BG2 experience it seems fine to explore and develop characters. When those characters are in large part blank slates with touches of flavor around the edges like Safana and Jaheira it's easy for different gamers to have hang different layers and ideas on those slates. The only problem is if we try and write out those traits entirely in an attempt to erase things we disagree with and do so without explanation or good story arcs. I don't like Jaheira, I don't have her on my team so I'm not sure that's what happened or if we are just attacking a writer for having a critical opinion of writers who did the original work 20 years ago and who frankly didn't initially develop the characters much leaving us to do that in our heads
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621
    Ayiekie said:

    Rawgrim said:


    BG2 is a factor too. If you are going to expand on a character you can't just go by how the character is in the first few chapters of the whole story. A character is the sum of its parts, and that means BG2 is vital to this too.

    Putting aside everything else, BG2 is absolutely not a factor to the fact that Jaheira was played as a nagging wife for humour in BG1. First, because they're different games. Second, because Jaheira and Khalid ceased to be married in BG2 due to certain reasons.

    If Jaheira hadn't reappeared in the second game, "nagging wife" would be the only thing most people remembered about her.

    So, in SoD, Khalid and Jaheira are still together. The option existed to basically have all her dialogue be nagging Khalid, which would be completely consistent with BG1. Amber Scott presumably didn't want to go that way because, amongst other things, playing a nagging wife for humour is a sexist trope.

    What's the problem with the statement, then? She was only talking about BG1, and as has been noted, it is beyond question that she was indeed being played as a nagging wife for humour in BG1. What she was in BG2 does not enter into the statement that was made, because she isn't a wife anymore in BG2 and thus there's no basis for comparison to that aspect of her character in SoD.

    Jaheira talks about her past a lot in BG2. That is what makes BG2 Jaheira relevant in the grand scheme of things when it comes to SoD too.
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621
    PK2748 said:

    Look, a nagging wife played for comedy may not be appreciated by all, it is sexist. Thing is, I think some people need to acknowledge that some cliches exist for a reason. Like it or not, there is lived experience behind cliches and tropes. Including the nagging wife and the oafish lout of a husband.

    However that doesn't make it bad to actually develop a character beyond those cliches and tropes when the character is finally given some screen time. BG1 didn't give a whole lot of text and dialogue so when SOD offers a more BG2 experience it seems fine to explore and develop characters. When those characters are in large part blank slates with touches of flavor around the edges like Safana and Jaheira it's easy for different gamers to have hang different layers and ideas on those slates. The only problem is if we try and write out those traits entirely in an attempt to erase things we disagree with and do so without explanation or good story arcs. I don't like Jaheira, I don't have her on my team so I'm not sure that's what happened or if we are just attacking a writer for having a critical opinion of writers who did the original work 20 years ago and who frankly didn't initially develop the characters much leaving us to do that in our heads

    They did develop Jaheira in BG2. Which is the second part of the whole story.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited April 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • PhilhelmPhilhelm Member Posts: 473
    The nagging wife is much more than just a trope, trust me.
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 2,147
    @shawne

    Of course Jaheira is "a nagging wife" in BG1, what on earth is wrong with that?
    People since time began have taken for granted what they have until they lose it. Have used percieved weaknesses in others for their own advantage, have misunderstood strengths, have been forced/fallen into behaviors, ect.
    It's a relationship and the same is repeated in RL over and over again.

    That she changes in BG2 is because Khalid dies. For any change to happen before that catastrophic event in her life makes a nonsense of chracter development throughout the saga.

    How can Jaheira in BG2 have any affect on Jahera before BG2 when what happens in BG2 is what shapes her?

    The remarks from the writer are shallow.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239

    @shawne

    Of course Jaheira is "a nagging wife" in BG1, what on earth is wrong with that?

    Don't move the goalposts. The complaints here are centered around the perception that Amber Scott isn't a "true fan" of BG because that's how she defines Jaheira's characterization in BG1. That definition is factual, supported by the game script, and has nothing to do with BG2.
  • GozetaGozeta Member Posts: 105
    edited April 2016
    Stop altering goalposts! My wife DOES the nagging bit. How is this a joke if it's factual? XD @shawne
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • PurudayaPurudaya Member Posts: 816
    edited April 2016

    @Purudaya I hope I don't come across as one promoting sexism for that is not my intent. Outlawing tropes such as the nagging wife on the basis that they are hurtful to women is where I feel very uncomfortable. Again, as a concept, I'm sure sexism isn't targeted at men, but insofar as its popular use, it is almost always used to target them, whereas accusing a woman of sexism is rubbed off as nonsensical and unfounded (that too is sexism by the way and I don't like it very much). So yeah, maybe I am feeling the unconscious need to defend myself, but that might actually not be the worse of things.

    I also hope you didn't perceive everything I said as "Amber Scott is feminist I don't like". I did not say that and do not think it to be true as well. What I think is that she may have some issues over the source materials that are unfounded and will from time to time lead to conflicted and unconvincing writing.

    I was worried that you might take that as a direct attack, which it wasn't meant to be - "feminist you don't like" was an attempt to refer to people who are projecting their disagreements with Amber Scott onto the actual content of the game, the word "you" being used in the royal sense. I had a misunderstanding with another person on these forums once for similarly inartful wording and probably should have used "people don't like" instead. Although we often disagree, I did not mean to be aggressive toward you or single you out.

    I do believe, however, that sexism is not a two-sided coin and people are often quick to call women sexist whenever they criticize patriarchal institutions or observe sexism themselves. I'm not saying you're doing that, but I don't generally believe that "women are sexist against men" any more than I believe "blacks are racist against whites." Just my stance.
This discussion has been closed.