No, we are not on even ground. No one on these forums wanted this conversation.
If we didn't want it, it wouldn't exist. It is, after all, of our own creation.
No. Not when the backlash is disproportionate to the "offense." If you accept the "we asked for it" logic, then you are condoning an environment where developers must walk on eggshells to avoid offending a certain group or risk having their game's ratings destroyed. Which is exactly the kind of environment Gamergate people claim to be against.
Claiming that both sides are equally bad in this defies an objective observation of what Gamergate is trying to do to this community and to the future of Beamdog through its review bombing. Neutrality =/= wisdom or fairness.
If someone walks into my house and starts breaking furniture, and I ask them to stop, am I equally responsible for the argument that is going to ensue?? Because that's what's taking place on these forums.
Actually, that's what's taking place in the gaming subculture and that's what the culture wars are all about. SJWs walk into our house, look around, tell everyone that they find the furniture to be offensive/sexist/exclusionary and then proceed to rearrange or replace it. It's time to kick them out for good.
This thread is about a concerted campaign to discredit, weaken, undermine and ruin Siege of Dragonspear.
That campaign has been variously dressed as a fight against political correctness, part of a cultural war, a struggle against 'SJW' (however that is interpreted), and so on and so on.
And the target of this campaign? A company that has allowed me to revisit Baldurs Gate. A company that has rekindled my love for the series. A company that has been bringing out new content for these wonderful games. A company that has provided the forum that I've been an occasional visitor to (and mostly lurking in) for several years.
If that is the polarized choice on offer here... a fight against political correctness and a battle in the cultural war and a struggle against SJW on the one hand, and Beamdog on the other, I know where to stand!
Well, people are fighting PC culture in any way they know, since it is infiltrating everything they hold holy. PC culture was invading people's lives for a very long time, so people are now fighting back. I wish BG was not caught in the middle of it, but there is the rationale you were asking for.
I agree - the way the GamerGate kids are aggressively promoting PC culture here - pushing to silence the developers, saying they are offended by Minsc's Easter egg line and that it should be removed - that needs to be resisted. Sorry, but their right not to be offended doesn't trump Beamdog's right to free speech.
Welcome to the fight brother. We can't let these GG people impose their PC values on our freedom.
Since when is expressing an opinion against an opinion of developers pushing silence on the developers? They have every right to pander to SJWs - nobody is trying to take that away from them, but people also have the right to express their opinion on their decision to pander to SJWs. And this is what you get. I agree that those GGers who downvote a game to hurt the developers are being dicks, but I completely understand them.
Most fans of BG are over 30 years old. We are talking about people who are well informed and politically active. There is no doubt that a significant number of people among BG fans are part of GG - and what does Beamdog dd? They take a jab at a part of their audience, they make interviews where they call original game sexist and needed of moral updates, they say how they dont care if people dont like the updates, they lie on twitter that Gamergate is giving them low scores because of 1 line about a transgender character - to jezbel and femfrequency of all places - and then is it any wonder some people return the fire the only way thay can. Beamdog has fired the first shot and then pushed people away with lies and typical SJW labeling. When you dont give people any way out, they will lash out and it wont be pretty. Beamdog has nobody but themselves to blame.
And if this is the direction they feel they need to go. Great! More power to them, but pushing SJW propaganda into BG of all places will only backfire, because many people hold BG sacred and lashing out on your audience is just stupid. Nothing good can come of it.
This is the time when Beamdog should say they are inclusive to everyone, but no. They are making it very obviuos they dont want a huge part of their audience to be their customers, so... there will be consequences. That is the beauty of free speech.
Pillars of Eternity didn't deliberately go out of their way to offend their own players. I think that increases the likelihood that people are going to want to say something significantly.
On the other hand, if people are leaving reviews without having tried the game, then they absolutely should not be doing that.
My friend, neither did Beamdog when they created the great game Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear.
Yes, they did. They gave Minsc a line that serves no purpose but to insult some of their players and make them feel unwelcome. It's deliberate hostility. That's what really put things over the edge for me.
No. Not when the backlash is disproportionate to the "offense." If you accept the "we asked for it" logic, then you are condoning an environment where developers must walk on eggshells to avoid offending a certain group or risk having their game's ratings destroyed. Which is exactly the kind of environment Gamergate people claim to be against.
Claiming that both sides are equally bad in this defies an objective observation of what Gamergate is trying to do to this community and to the future of Beamdog through its review bombing. Neutrality =/= wisdom or fairness.
Actually, claiming that you're NOT on even ground defies objectivity... It's easy to forget this when you vehemently choose a side, but when fighting war (figuratively OR literally) both sides are responsible for their actions regardless of cause. People on both sides are guilty of less-than-honorable methods of argument, often devolving to ad hominem.
I am not implying ANYONE 'asked for it.' But if you want insults to be out of it, insulting someone is not the way to go about it. That sentiment is lost on some folk. I'm also not generalizing here, but I want to make it clear that the ratio of respectful to disrespectful is most likely closer on both sides than you believe.
All i have to say, people are different, yet, so similar. A while ago, "GamersGate" was all about the freedom of speech of the game developers. Now, "they" want to censor a totally hidden single line of a non essential, non-joinable character. They want this so badly, they organize attacks vs Metacritic/Steam/GoG scores of the game. Wth, for a line not even found if you don't look too hard. To be honest, i didn't even notice these texts.
Pillars of Eternity didn't deliberately go out of their way to offend their own players. I think that increases the likelihood that people are going to want to say something significantly.
On the other hand, if people are leaving reviews without having tried the game, then they absolutely should not be doing that.
My friend, neither did Beamdog when they created the great game Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear.
Yes, they did. They gave Minsc a line that serves no purpose but to insult some of their players and make them feel unwelcome. It's deliberate hostility. That's what really put things over the edge for me.
To me personally, I thought it was just a silly joke about a modern day catchphrase like the other rare select pop culture jokes. I doubt it was included maliciously friend, surely if so then it would have been much more aggressive?
All i have to say, people are different, yet, so similar. A while ago, "GamersGate" was all about the freedom of speech of the game developers. Now, "they" want to censor a totally hidden single line of a non essential, non-joinable character. They want this so badly, they organize attacks vs Metacritic/Steam/GoG scores of the game. Wth, for a line not even found if you don't look too hard. To be honest, i didn't even notice these texts.
I expected better from a pro-free-speech group.
That is a lie. You know very well its not just 1 line of 1 non essential non joinable character. That goes even without all the interviews where you call original game sexist and needed of change. Oh and spinning the narrative to jezbel and femfreq of all places... wow... that will go well with your fanbase
You dont seem to understand that to some of your fanbase that is like associating with Hitler.
Most fans of BG are over 30 years old. We are talking about people who are well informed and politically active. [...] [...] and then is it any wonder some people return the fire the only way thay can.
If the only option for well informed, politically active and above 30 years old human beings is to express their dissent by reviewbombing and thereby financially damaging the developers, then this world has become a really sad place...
I have an honest question for all of those upset by Minsc's reference to the Gamer Gate community. If the line had instead poked fun at Anita Sarkeesian, would you have been in uproar? Or even against its inclusion in the first place? I know I have my thoughts on the matter, but would love to hear from the other side.
All i have to say, people are different, yet, so similar. A while ago, "GamersGate" was all about the freedom of speech of the game developers. Now, "they" want to censor a totally hidden single line of a non essential, non-joinable character. They want this so badly, they organize attacks vs Metacritic/Steam/GoG scores of the game. Wth, for a line not even found if you don't look too hard. To be honest, i didn't even notice these texts.
I expected better from a pro-free-speech group.
Sigh. How many times does it have to be said?
1) No organized attacks at all. At least none that I've found. If there are, please, go find some. If you do, I'll go comment negatively on them myself.
2) I support Beamdog's decision to keep the line if they want to, however, understand that other BG fans who feel upset about the line being added might make their displeasure known, through such mediums as, well, reviews or comments!
3) I don't just support freedom of speech except when it's against me. I just hope that Beamdog realizes that they're not treating a certain group of their fans well at all, and make those changes of their own accord, not ours. However, if they don't...they don't!
@Grimo88 It's better to refrain from going personal in your comments.
Everyone, let's not turn this discussion (or any other thread) into personal attacks.
I'm sorry, I'm just hugely upset by this mess. BG literally changed my life. It came to me a formative stage in my life, and in many ways put me on the path I'm on now. It was seminal.
Did you consider the possibility that some of the people you're arguing against feel the same way?
That they hated seeing Minsc being used to mock them, and hated being made to feel unwelcome by developer interviews/forum posts, precisely because BG means something to them personally?
To me, Minsc's line is only a minor annoyance (I'd prefer not to be reminded of the GG mess while I'm trying to play a game), but obviously those who consider themselves part of GG took it personally.
Can we please try a little more empathy all around?
When someone like @enneract describes why they are upset, let's take them at their word and not try to interpret the worst into their comment and assume the worst about their person in bad faith.
Let's recognize that they have the right to complain about something that upsets them as fans, and still remain fans of the franchise, who don't have to "go away".
Let's recognize that they even have the right to boycott the expansion - even though that looks like a huge overreaction to me, but I'm not them, and I don't get to decide how others may legitimately feel.
At the same time, I hope we can agree that review-bombing a game with fake reviews is absolutely not an acceptable response to feeling wronged by the developers.
And precisely because it is such a shitty thing to do, let's not wantonly accuse other commenters of doing it.
Don't simply put everyone who expresses dissatisfaction or dissent in the same box with the review-bombers, pretend that they are all acting as one boogieman entity, and proceed to attack and deride them as the 'other' ("they", "you"):
None of these "why I'm offended" posts are relevant. It doesn't matter why people don't like the game - the fact that they are trying to tank reviews and artificially hurt sales for a game that they haven't even played is despicable.
Pillars of Eternity didn't deliberately go out of their way to offend their own players. I think that increases the likelihood that people are going to want to say something significantly.
On the other hand, if people are leaving reviews without having tried the game, then they absolutely should not be doing that.
My friend, neither did Beamdog when they created the great game Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear.
Yes, they did. They gave Minsc a line that serves no purpose but to insult some of their players and make them feel unwelcome. It's deliberate hostility. That's what really put things over the edge for me.
To me personally, I thought it was just a silly joke about a modern day catchphrase like the other rare select pop culture jokes. I doubt it was included maliciously friend, surely if so then it would have been much more aggressive?
It's not a modern day catchphrase, though. It's a snotty little put down used to smear people who fought against their own hobbyist media uniting to say that the hobby was worthless and its followers were all basement dwelling pieces of human garbage.
No one's censoring anyone's free speech, either. I for one don't want Beamdog to change anything. That doesn't mean I don't have an interest in expressing my opinion, and I can certain appreciate people who want to warn other gamers about what they can expect from this product. I wish someone had warned me before I followed it for ages, got all excited, told lots of people about it, watched the live steams, etc.
If Phil Daigle could've just told us, "by the way, we think this hobby is a festering pile of manure and you're all losers for having enjoyed it, but don't worry - we're here to fix your sordid mindsets with the mighty power of SocJus..." then I could've saved myself a lot of time and salt.
Yeah, I'm salty about this, and I'm perfectly willing to admit that. I'll get over it and leave Beamdog to their own devices. They can produce all the SocJus material they want.
All i have to say, people are different, yet, so similar. A while ago, "GamersGate" was all about the freedom of speech of the game developers. Now, "they" want to censor a totally hidden single line of a non essential, non-joinable character. They want this so badly, they organize attacks vs Metacritic/Steam/GoG scores of the game. Wth, for a line not even found if you don't look too hard. To be honest, i didn't even notice these texts.
I expected better from a pro-free-speech group.
It is not a "freedom of speech" issue. Developers are free to insert all the SJW horseshit they like. They may completely bastardize a game and turn it into a thinly veiled vessel for SJW propaganda and identity politics. They are free to do that as they see fit. The thing is, though, that people are also free to give them shit for it.
Don't try to spin this into a "freedom of speech" issue, as if pointing out SJW bullshit is somehow an infringement on the developers freedom. That right there is just another SJW double standard tactic. SJWs love to admonish everyone else for their views, yet throw tantrums when they are on the receiving end.
Pillars of Eternity didn't deliberately go out of their way to offend their own players. I think that increases the likelihood that people are going to want to say something significantly.
On the other hand, if people are leaving reviews without having tried the game, then they absolutely should not be doing that.
My friend, neither did Beamdog when they created the great game Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear.
Yes, they did. They gave Minsc a line that serves no purpose but to insult some of their players and make them feel unwelcome. It's deliberate hostility. That's what really put things over the edge for me.
To me personally, I thought it was just a silly joke about a modern day catchphrase like the other rare select pop culture jokes. I doubt it was included maliciously friend, surely if so then it would have been much more aggressive?
It's not a modern day catchphrase, though. It's a snotty little put down used to smear people who fought against their own hobbyist media uniting to say that the hobby was worthless and its followers were all basement dwelling pieces of human garbage.
No one's censoring anyone's free speech, either. I for one don't want Beamdog to change anything. That doesn't mean I don't have an interest in expressing my opinion, and I can certain appreciate people who want to warn other gamers about what they can expect from this product. I wish someone had warned me before I followed it for ages, got all excited, told lots of people about it, watched the live steams, etc.
If Phil Daigle could've just told us, "by the way, we think this hobby is a festering pile of manure and you're all losers for having enjoyed it, but don't worry - we're here to fix your sordid mindsets with the mighty power of SocJus..." then I could've saved myself a lot of time and salt.
Yeah, I'm salty about this, and I'm perfectly willing to admit that. I'll get over it and leave Beamdog to their own devices. They can produce all the SocJus material they want.
I'm not sure what you are saying exactly friend but "its about ethics in game journalism" is the motto of your side yes? Even if we accept the idea that it was teasing Gamergate. I don't see how that translates to Beamdog attacking you or gaming in general.
@subtledoctor You keep using the word 'campaign', or 'concerted campaign', without any sources or threads in GamerGate forums being like "HEY, GO SPAM NEGATIVE REVIEWS!". Has it occurred to you that it's possible that Beamdog just pissed off some people so much that they're doing it of their own accord, or even just that they're seeing other people do it, so it seems like a way they can vent their anger as well?
It doesn't make it right, but I just ask that you stop saying it's a campaign, implying organization. GamerGate has done organized campaigns before, against Gawker/Vox Media (Gawker lost 7 figures, on that, actually), but nothing I've seen has indicated any level of organization with this.
Pillars of Eternity didn't deliberately go out of their way to offend their own players. I think that increases the likelihood that people are going to want to say something significantly.
On the other hand, if people are leaving reviews without having tried the game, then they absolutely should not be doing that.
My friend, neither did Beamdog when they created the great game Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear.
Yes, they did. They gave Minsc a line that serves no purpose but to insult some of their players and make them feel unwelcome. It's deliberate hostility. That's what really put things over the edge for me.
To me personally, I thought it was just a silly joke about a modern day catchphrase like the other rare select pop culture jokes. I doubt it was included maliciously friend, surely if so then it would have been much more aggressive?
It's not a modern day catchphrase, though. It's a snotty little put down used to smear people who fought against their own hobbyist media uniting to say that the hobby was worthless and its followers were all basement dwelling pieces of human garbage.
No one's censoring anyone's free speech, either. I for one don't want Beamdog to change anything. That doesn't mean I don't have an interest in expressing my opinion, and I can certain appreciate people who want to warn other gamers about what they can expect from this product. I wish someone had warned me before I followed it for ages, got all excited, told lots of people about it, watched the live steams, etc.
If Phil Daigle could've just told us, "by the way, we think this hobby is a festering pile of manure and you're all losers for having enjoyed it, but don't worry - we're here to fix your sordid mindsets with the mighty power of SocJus..." then I could've saved myself a lot of time and salt.
Yeah, I'm salty about this, and I'm perfectly willing to admit that. I'll get over it and leave Beamdog to their own devices. They can produce all the SocJus material they want.
I'm not sure what you are saying exactly friend but "its about ethics in game journalism" is the motto of your side yes? Even if we accept the idea that it was teasing Gamergate. I don't see how that translates to Beamdog attacking you or gaming in general.
That's because it wasn't directed at you, but it hardly matters. They've been anything but subtle about it: they've given interviews to an SJW journalist for an SJW publication saying that they're proud SJWs who do not care if anyone has a problem with that, they've said that we're not real fans if we don't like what they're doing, etc. etc.
The cat is well and truly out of the bag, if you either genuinely don't see what's happening or prefer not to think that the company would behave in this fashion, then that's fine. If you understand what's happening and are just yanking my chain then that's fine too. I'm not unsure about what's going on.
That's because it wasn't directed at you, but it hardly matters. They've been anything but subtle about it: they've given interviews to an SJW journalist for an SJW publication saying that they're proud SJWs who do not care if anyone has a problem with that, they've said that we're not real fans if we don't like what they're doing, etc. etc.
The cat is well and truly out of the bag, if you either genuinely don't see what's happening or prefer not to think that the company would behave in this fashion, then that's fine. If you understand what's happening and are just yanking my chain then that's fine too. I'm not unsure about what's going on.
Huh. Imagine that. One person on the Beamdog team becomes an issue to GG and they take it out on the entire community; fans and the company itself.
It is not a "freedom of speech" issue. Developers are free to insert all the SJW horseshit they like. They may completely bastardize a game and turn it into a thinly veiled vessel for SJW propaganda and identity politics. They are free to do that as they see fit. The thing is, though, that people are also free to give them shit for it.
Don't try to spin this into a "freedom of speech" issue, as if somehow pointing out SJW bullshit is an infringement on the developers freedom.
Review-bombing is not "pointing out" something. It is an action that is designed to hurt and damage, and violates both the review site rules and common decency to do it.
And it definitely can be seen as an issue of free speech, in the wider sense. Game developers should be able to put thing they want into their game, without being hurt in response.
Oh I think I see what's wrong. You guys are saying there's a difference between someone who cares about social justice and a SJW right? Sorry for the confusion friends.
I have an honest question for all of those upset by Minsc's reference to the Gamer Gate community. If the line had instead poked fun at Anita Sarkeesian, would you have been in uproar? Or even against its inclusion in the first place? I know I have my thoughts on the matter, but would love to hear from the other side.
Of course they wouldn't be, it's not even a question. And here's a thought....why don't they make their own game that isn't handcuffed with "social justice" and "PC culture" (by the way, the MAJORITY of games ever released fall into this category). I guarantee when that game comes out, I will not create a forum account on the developers site and organize a campaign to tank reviews on major aggregate sites. I'll just pretend it doesn't exist if I don't like it. Which is what any normal person would do.
It is very telling what sets some people off. Something so minor as a trans NPC and a off-hand remark/joke is enough to send them into hysterics, even though 75% of the industry is exactly how they want it to be. But they won't be satisfied until they have every single slice of the pie.
Review-bombing is not "pointing out" something. It is an action that is designed to hurt and damage, and violates both the review site rules and common decency to do it.
Well, let's say it's pointing out combined with a certain bite to gain attention.
That's because it wasn't directed at you, but it hardly matters. They've been anything but subtle about it: they've given interviews to an SJW journalist for an SJW publication saying that they're proud SJWs who do not care if anyone has a problem with that, they've said that we're not real fans if we don't like what they're doing, etc. etc.
The cat is well and truly out of the bag, if you either genuinely don't see what's happening or prefer not to think that the company would behave in this fashion, then that's fine. If you understand what's happening and are just yanking my chain then that's fine too. I'm not unsure about what's going on.
Huh. Imagine that. One person on the Beamdog team becomes an issue to GG and they take it out on the entire community; fans and the company itself.
Where IS the justice in that, anyway?
I think you're assuming some form of retaliation that is not in evidence. I don't blame any one particular person at Beamdog any more than any of the others, this has been a collective venture from a small company.
All that's happened in response is that people have given their opinions of the game to some places that ask for people to do that. You're assuming that this is some form of organised campaign, but your assumption is all that you've got. It may be partially true (in so far as some people may've seen excerpts from the game that offended them and passed judgement on the basis of that alone, spontaneously and without being told to do so), and if it is then I don't agree with anyone who left a review without playing the game... but plenty of people who've bought and played the game on sites that require purchase confirmation have expressed the exact same sentiments. That's not some form of dastardly revenge.
I have an honest question for all of those upset by Minsc's reference to the Gamer Gate community. If the line had instead poked fun at Anita Sarkeesian, would you have been in uproar? Or even against its inclusion in the first place? I know I have my thoughts on the matter, but would love to hear from the other side.
Of course they wouldn't be, it's not even a question. And here's a thought....why don't they make their own game that isn't handcuffed with "social justice" and "PC culture" (by the way, the MAJORITY of games ever released fall into this category). I guarantee when that game comes out, I will not create a forum account on the developers site and organize a campaign to tank reviews on major aggregate sites. I'll just pretend it doesn't exist if I don't like it. Which is what any normal person would do.
Hard to say, man. If Minsc had a line that said "BUTTKICKING FOR GOODNESS IS NOT SEXIST, SILLY EARRING WOMAN!", I'd be the first to admit that I'd crack a smile, sure, but on further introspection, I think I'd find that Minsc is simply not the proper vehicle for making jokes that poke fun at others. He's too good, too pure of a soul, and overall, it cheapens him.
Comments
Claiming that both sides are equally bad in this defies an objective observation of what Gamergate is trying to do to this community and to the future of Beamdog through its review bombing. Neutrality =/= wisdom or fairness.
Black Panther predates the Black Panther Party.
The Superhuman Registration Act, according to the Civil War writer, was actually commentary on gun control.
That campaign has been variously dressed as a fight against political correctness, part of a cultural war, a struggle against 'SJW' (however that is interpreted), and so on and so on.
And the target of this campaign? A company that has allowed me to revisit Baldurs Gate. A company that has rekindled my love for the series. A company that has been bringing out new content for these wonderful games. A company that has provided the forum that I've been an occasional visitor to (and mostly lurking in) for several years.
If that is the polarized choice on offer here... a fight against political correctness and a battle in the cultural war and a struggle against SJW on the one hand, and Beamdog on the other, I know where to stand!
Most fans of BG are over 30 years old. We are talking about people who are well informed and politically active. There is no doubt that a significant number of people among BG fans are part of GG - and what does Beamdog dd? They take a jab at a part of their audience, they make interviews where they call original game sexist and needed of moral updates, they say how they dont care if people dont like the updates, they lie on twitter that Gamergate is giving them low scores because of 1 line about a transgender character - to jezbel and femfrequency of all places - and then is it any wonder some people return the fire the only way thay can. Beamdog has fired the first shot and then pushed people away with lies and typical SJW labeling. When you dont give people any way out, they will lash out and it wont be pretty. Beamdog has nobody but themselves to blame.
And if this is the direction they feel they need to go. Great! More power to them, but pushing SJW propaganda into BG of all places will only backfire, because many people hold BG sacred and lashing out on your audience is just stupid. Nothing good can come of it.
This is the time when Beamdog should say they are inclusive to everyone, but no. They are making it very obviuos they dont want a huge part of their audience to be their customers, so... there will be consequences. That is the beauty of free speech.
I am not implying ANYONE 'asked for it.' But if you want insults to be out of it, insulting someone is not the way to go about it. That sentiment is lost on some folk. I'm also not generalizing here, but I want to make it clear that the ratio of respectful to disrespectful is most likely closer on both sides than you believe.
A while ago, "GamersGate" was all about the freedom of speech of the game developers.
Now, "they" want to censor a totally hidden single line of a non essential, non-joinable character.
They want this so badly, they organize attacks vs Metacritic/Steam/GoG scores of the game.
Wth, for a line not even found if you don't look too hard.
To be honest, i didn't even notice these texts.
I expected better from a pro-free-speech group.
You dont seem to understand that to some of your fanbase that is like associating with Hitler.
1) No organized attacks at all. At least none that I've found. If there are, please, go find some. If you do, I'll go comment negatively on them myself.
2) I support Beamdog's decision to keep the line if they want to, however, understand that other BG fans who feel upset about the line being added might make their displeasure known, through such mediums as, well, reviews or comments!
3) I don't just support freedom of speech except when it's against me. I just hope that Beamdog realizes that they're not treating a certain group of their fans well at all, and make those changes of their own accord, not ours. However, if they don't...they don't!
By the way, why does being over 30 implies being politically active?
That they hated seeing Minsc being used to mock them, and hated being made to feel unwelcome by developer interviews/forum posts, precisely because BG means something to them personally?
To me, Minsc's line is only a minor annoyance (I'd prefer not to be reminded of the GG mess while I'm trying to play a game), but obviously those who consider themselves part of GG took it personally.
Can we please try a little more empathy all around?
When someone like @enneract describes why they are upset, let's take them at their word and not try to interpret the worst into their comment and assume the worst about their person in bad faith.
Let's recognize that they have the right to complain about something that upsets them as fans, and still remain fans of the franchise, who don't have to "go away".
Let's recognize that they even have the right to boycott the expansion - even though that looks like a huge overreaction to me, but I'm not them, and I don't get to decide how others may legitimately feel.
At the same time, I hope we can agree that review-bombing a game with fake reviews is absolutely not an acceptable response to feeling wronged by the developers.
And precisely because it is such a shitty thing to do, let's not wantonly accuse other commenters of doing it.
Don't simply put everyone who expresses dissatisfaction or dissent in the same box with the review-bombers, pretend that they are all acting as one boogieman entity, and proceed to attack and deride them as the 'other' ("they", "you"): Because while it may feel good to take this approach, it definitely doesn't do any good.
No one's censoring anyone's free speech, either. I for one don't want Beamdog to change anything. That doesn't mean I don't have an interest in expressing my opinion, and I can certain appreciate people who want to warn other gamers about what they can expect from this product. I wish someone had warned me before I followed it for ages, got all excited, told lots of people about it, watched the live steams, etc.
If Phil Daigle could've just told us, "by the way, we think this hobby is a festering pile of manure and you're all losers for having enjoyed it, but don't worry - we're here to fix your sordid mindsets with the mighty power of SocJus..." then I could've saved myself a lot of time and salt.
Yeah, I'm salty about this, and I'm perfectly willing to admit that. I'll get over it and leave Beamdog to their own devices. They can produce all the SocJus material they want.
Don't try to spin this into a "freedom of speech" issue, as if pointing out SJW bullshit is somehow an infringement on the developers freedom. That right there is just another SJW double standard tactic. SJWs love to admonish everyone else for their views, yet throw tantrums when they are on the receiving end.
It doesn't make it right, but I just ask that you stop saying it's a campaign, implying organization. GamerGate has done organized campaigns before, against Gawker/Vox Media (Gawker lost 7 figures, on that, actually), but nothing I've seen has indicated any level of organization with this.
The cat is well and truly out of the bag, if you either genuinely don't see what's happening or prefer not to think that the company would behave in this fashion, then that's fine. If you understand what's happening and are just yanking my chain then that's fine too. I'm not unsure about what's going on.
Where IS the justice in that, anyway?
And it definitely can be seen as an issue of free speech, in the wider sense. Game developers should be able to put thing they want into their game, without being hurt in response.
It is very telling what sets some people off. Something so minor as a trans NPC and a off-hand remark/joke is enough to send them into hysterics, even though 75% of the industry is exactly how they want it to be. But they won't be satisfied until they have every single slice of the pie.
All that's happened in response is that people have given their opinions of the game to some places that ask for people to do that. You're assuming that this is some form of organised campaign, but your assumption is all that you've got. It may be partially true (in so far as some people may've seen excerpts from the game that offended them and passed judgement on the basis of that alone, spontaneously and without being told to do so), and if it is then I don't agree with anyone who left a review without playing the game... but plenty of people who've bought and played the game on sites that require purchase confirmation have expressed the exact same sentiments. That's not some form of dastardly revenge.