Skip to content

So i have heard about something interesting...

Apparently there is a controversy about the diverse characters in SoD. Personally i dont mind they are written well enough and fit well enough in the world, besides no one gave a crap about Dorn being gay. and heres the thing, if you've played a single BG game you would know you aren't required to have these characters in your party. So can someone please explain to me what the big deal is?

Comments

  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    edited May 2016
    It's not a real controversy, and this "issue" has been discussed to death. Folks who can't stand a minor NPC that is transgender in their game -- meaning a character whose total impact on the game is less than 200 words total, out of over 500,000 words in the game -- those folks are making a mountain out of an anthill. It's not even a mountain out of a molehill. No, they're turning an anthill into a mountain. That's how silly this whole thing is.
  • DisgruntlerDisgruntler Member Posts: 100
    Basically this:
    Horribly public relations work by Beamdog. During development one writer gave an interview where she put forth some very questionable views, which have been interpreted as bad signs for the game.

    Then SoD was released. The game has its faults, the writing has been criticized regularly. So it's no surprise that NPCs were found which seemingly fit the perceived warning signs.
    That and the volatile nature of the NPCs (lgbt content) prompted serious valid and lots of immature critiques.

    Two days in or so a lead developer made a post on this forum asking for good reviews to cover up the bad.
    People will tell you that wasn't the intention, but it would be the effect in any case.

    That post fanned the flames and made the immature people stick around for a few days longer.
    Which drew the ire of the other side. So a nasty flame war was the result.

    A shame. It made many of those with valid critiques loose interest as well. Because their posts were often lumbed in with trolls and viciously attacked.

    Beamdog should have stuck to the golden rule when dealing with "twitter outrage". Those peole are too lazy to put on pants and protest outside.
    Ignore them.
  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636

    Two days in or so a lead developer made a post on this forum asking for good reviews to cover up the bad.

    Way to misrepresent this. The CEO (not lead developer at all) asked fans to give their review of SoD, because a bunch of asshats with zero hours played were giving the game bad reviews (Steam shows how many hours one has played a game). Because the Steam review system accepts review even from those kind of asshats, it drove the game's overall rating down.
  • RathenauRathenau Member Posts: 80
    Oh come on, it was implied the reviews he asked for were going to be good. Saying he didn't ask for them seems like you're trying to skirt the truth here.

    We also left out a certain tweet directed at feminists to come to the aid of the developers and interviews that reinforced the whole thing. All of it added fuel to the fire.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited May 2016
    Rathenau said:

    Oh come on, it was implied the reviews he asked for were going to be good.

    Any reasonable person who has actually played the game would NOT give it zero. Ergo, any genuine review would be better than the fake ones.

    When attacked by far right trolls, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for reasonable people to assist.
  • RathenauRathenau Member Posts: 80
    By the same logic, any reasonable person wouldn't give an expansion that is shipped with and still has bugs in it a 10 out of 10, yet that is still the case on metacritic. More importantly, Steam doesn't use a score and since Trent asked for reviews on Steam, he clearly wanted positive input.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    Rathenau said:

    By the same logic, any reasonable person wouldn't give an expansion that is shipped with and still has bugs in it a 10 out of 10, yet that is still the case on metacritic. More importantly, Steam doesn't use a score and since Trent asked for reviews on Steam, he clearly wanted positive input.

    I don't know about you, but I don't know of any computer game that has ever, ever shipped without bugs.

    Sure, some people angry about the fake zeros gave fake 10s to try balance things out. They want BG3 after all. Anything between 4 and 8 would be a genuine review.

    It doesn't matter about numbers, ANY review from someone who had actually played the game would be "positive" in comparison to the vitriolic fake reviews that where appearing.
  • xzar_montyxzar_monty Member Posts: 631
    @Fardragon: That was a pretty unfortunate use of the words "ever, ever". Perhaps you are just very young? I started reviewing computer games in the 1980s, and I can tell you that for a pretty long while, bugs used to be rare. Bugs that made any difference were even more rare.

    The Lord of the Rings text adventure from 1985 was a particularly nasty early example of a game that had bugs.
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,108
    I love how some people still want to blame Beamdog for the crap that was done to Beamdog over this.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited May 2016

    @Fardragon: That was a pretty unfortunate use of the words "ever, ever". Perhaps you are just very young? I started reviewing computer games in the 1980s, and I can tell you that for a pretty long while, bugs used to be rare. Bugs that made any difference were even more rare.

    The Lord of the Rings text adventure from 1985 was a particularly nasty early example of a game that had bugs.

    My repetition for emphasis is intentional, since I am 47 and have been playing computer games since 1981, and I seriously can't remember a bug-free game. Certainly, in the 80s code was much shorter and simpler, so debugging was a less sisyphean task, but people where more tolerant back then too. Most games where written by one person or a small team, often local, and if something didn't work you fixed it yourself.
    Post edited by Fardragon on
  • RathenauRathenau Member Posts: 80
    Ayiekie said:

    As per usual:

    1) He asked if you played the game and enjoyed it to consider leaving a review. He did not just ask for "positive reviews". Unlike the people leaving negative reviews, he wanted reviews from people that played the game...

    ...It is due to this deceitful campaign that Trent asked that if people played SoD and really liked it, it would be great if they could leave a review, both to counter the many obviously fradulent reviews (most of which just screech about SJWs) and to lift the spirits of the team.

    So one of your arguments here is that Trent just asked for reviews from those who played the game.

    Then you state that the purpose of said reviews should come from people who liked the game and is to counter others (not mitigate, but straight up speaking in opposition of) as well as lift the spirits. Meaning it needs to be positive else it doesn't have the desired effect.

    Seems to me you've just proven my point there.
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,758
    There have been several threads about this subject. For example, https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/50905/

    Before it goes out of control, @Xeroshi, have you gotten an answer you've been seeking?
  • XeroshiXeroshi Member Posts: 182
    bengoshi said:

    There have been several threads about this subject. For example, https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/50905/

    Before it goes out of control, @Xeroshi, have you gotten an answer you've been seeking?

    Yes sir yes i have
This discussion has been closed.