Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Beamdog's Official Statement (4-6-2016)

1568101139

Comments

  • CorelliaCorellia Member Posts: 22
    Damn you @dee please stop closing threads, I just made some poor choice of words and now i can't explain myself.

  • Sids1188Sids1188 Member Posts: 165
    edited April 2016

    It is indeed a controversial idea - saying a game is "sexist" because one out of numerous female NPCs is an overt flirt would be like calling the game "socialist" because one of the NPCs (Kagain) was a greedy jerk. The BGs featured a multitude of NPCs with a variety of personalities among both genders.

    Except she didn't say that. Here's the quote that people have been blowing gaskets over:
    “If there was something for the original Baldur’s Gate that just doesn’t mesh for modern day gamers like the sexism, [we tried to address that],” said writer Amber Scott. “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.”
    She didn't say the game is sexist because of "one out of numerous female NPCs". She said there are sexist things in the game, including a couple of jokes at women's expense. Which is exactly what you are getting at. Following your example, calling BG socialist because of Kagain would indeed be silly. Saying the game includes socialism would be entirely accurate (I'll assume for the sake of argument that being a "greedy jerk" is a socialist thing though that doesn't really make any sense to me).

    Likewise, changing/rebooting things doesn't automatically make them "better," either.

    Absolutely! And if people feel there are things that are worse I absolutely encouraged them to voice it in an appropriate way. Right here for example, with reasoned, cordial discussion. Or through honest reviews, by people who have actually played the game (ie, not what actually happened).

    The original BGs remain one of the most well-remembered and highly regarded RPGs of all time, and Safana was one of the most memorable and well-liked NPCs. The whole reason SoD was even able to get off the ground was because of the loyalty and devotion of fans from two decades earlier who bought the EEs. If Beamdog felt compelled to alter any characters to satisfy some sort of modern fad, then it just illustrates how much they took their eyes off the ball.

    Sure, she was popular with players 15 years ago. I would assume that in the intervening 15 years, those players have been outside in the community and have themselves grown-up and changed. Hopefully their view of the world hasn't been stagnant for all that time.

    Lets be honest about why Safana is memorable. 1. she was available early on. 2. She was capable of dualclassing. 3. She was the next best thief to Imoen (who some found annoying). 4. She was titillating for the guys. No one loved her for the personality, because she didn't have one. Basically everything she said was out of place and a 'come-on' for whoever was playing. That you consider a woman having more to her than just latching onto the nearest guy to be a "modern fad" is frankly troubling.

    Not only that, but it completely contradicts what was explicitly marketed as the purpose of the game, which was to transition (not alter or reboot) the original games.

    Did a quick google search of "transition". This is what I got:
    1. the process or a period of changing from one state or condition to another.

    Isn't that exactly what the critics of the game are being criticized for doing?

    Not from what I've seen. I've seen a lot of people complaining that they want it all back to what it was. Don't want new UIs, don't wan't depth added to their characters, don't want previously ignored minorities to be represented...

    opd70GenderNihilismGirdleGrummf2112
  • RikuoAmeroRikuoAmero Member Posts: 3
    Time for me to throw in my 2 cents.
    I have bought BGEE and SoD on Steam. I plan to play it once modders figure out how to get mods to work again.
    I heard about this controversy and checked into it. And I must say I do NOT agree with the removal or post hoc editing of dialog because of an online firestorm.
    I am part of the same crowd that cried foul over removal of content or post hoc editing of content due to online firestorms. I cried foul over the removal of lines of dialog from Pillars of Eternity due to it not being PC, for example.

    I do not think Amber Scott is a talented writer. In my honest opinion, from what I've read of what she did in SoD (going by what overs have said here, again I have not yet played EE), it seems that she crapped all over beloved characters and deliberately interjected her personal politics (of which I am an opponent) into her writing every chance she got.
    HOWEVER, she was chosen to write for BGEE and SoD and she released it. I will critique her writing, and voice my opinion of the writing...but I do NOT agree with the post hoc editing of the content. By all means, in my opinion, leave the content as it is.
    At least have the decency to stand by your content, by your writing.

  • VitorVitor Member Posts: 286
    @Dee and @TrentOster, what about the feedbacks about the 2.0 UI's design? Are you going to give an option for those who would like to restore 1.3 design?

    What about the various sounds in inventory that went away in Siege of Dragonspear? Is this a bug, or was this really a design choice?

    CorelliaRathenau
  • EtaminEtamin Member Posts: 789
    What was this Minsc line? I don't plan to play SoD before EET release, so i will miss it.

  • Sids1188Sids1188 Member Posts: 165
    edited April 2016
    Etamin said:

    What was this Minsc line? I don't plan to play SoD before EET release, so i will miss it.

    One of the easter egg lines when you select him 15 (or whatever) times is "Really, it's all about ethics in heroic adventuring."

  • EtaminEtamin Member Posts: 789
    So you click on him 15 times and then he says "Really, it's all about ethics in heroic adventuring" ? That's all? Maybe my english is too poor, but i don't get it.

    rorikon
  • CorelliaCorellia Member Posts: 22
    Sids1188 said:

    Etamin said:

    What was this Minsc line? I don't plan to play SoD before EET release, so i will miss it.

    One of the easter egg lines when you select him 15 (or whatever) times is "Really, it's all about ethics in heroic adventuring."
    Well for once I'm happy I never understood the whole gamergate thing, seemed to be one big mess so I just avoided it :tongue:

  • carugacaruga Member Posts: 365
    What I didn't care for in this whole debacle was the smearing and marginalising of the people with legitimate complaints about the game.

    For example, I've followed this closely I've literally not heard one individual protest because of the mere presence of a trans character. Yet if you followed 'mainstream' media you'd think that was all this was about.

    MalbethRathenau
  • Diogenes42Diogenes42 Member Posts: 597
    caruga said:

    What I didn't care for in this whole debacle was the smearing and marginalising of the people with legitimate complaints about the game.

    For example, I've followed this closely I've literally not heard one individual protest because of the mere presence of a trans character. Yet if you followed 'mainstream' media you'd think that was all this was about.

    Quite a few people have complained about that from what I have seen my friend. Some people also seemed to try and obfuscate this by saying they just thought the character was written poorly but that seemed to be the only case of "bad writing" they they found issue with to such a degree. Not everyone of course but quite a few that I saw.

    You are quite right that it overshadowed legitimate complaints though. Hopefully now we can focus on those and help Beamdog iron out any bugs or balance issues with this great game.

    GenderNihilismGirdlemf2112
  • Sids1188Sids1188 Member Posts: 165
    Etamin said:

    So you click on him 15 times and then he says "Really, it's all about ethics in heroic adventuring" ? That's all? Maybe my english is too poor, but i don't get it.

    Nope, that's all. The reason it sounds absurdly overblown is because it is.

    It's a reference to a quote that one of the groups says (I'm not even certain which one) said by a positive character, in a positive way. I don't see how it would be insulting, but that's what they're freaking out about.

    GenderNihilismGirdleGozeta
  • amyaeamyae Member Posts: 65
    Sids1188 said:

    Etamin said:

    So you click on him 15 times and then he says "Really, it's all about ethics in heroic adventuring" ? That's all? Maybe my english is too poor, but i don't get it.

    Nope, that's all. The reason it sounds absurdly overblown is because it is.

    It's a reference to a quote that one of the groups says (I'm not even certain which one) said by a positive character, in a positive way. I don't see how it would be insulting, but that's what they're freaking out about.
    Okay, I am not pro-gamergate, but you're being incredibly disingenuous. "It's all about ethics in X" is a sarcastic phrase used to mock the idea that GG is genuinely about ethics in gaming journalism. Was the butthurt overblown? Sure. But Minsc's comment is obviously meant to be insulting. It's not like anyone was taking a compliment out of context and getting offended by it.

    DaggerXIVDantos4Krotosprem0nition
  • carugacaruga Member Posts: 365

    Obviously if you don't see the reference Minsc is making, it would look harmless. As harmless as... I forget the comment verbatim now, but someone made a comparison that illuminates why it might upset some people, if Minsc instead blurted out "Make Faerûn great again!" I.e. It sullies an innocent and timeless character with something contemporary and controversial.

    This girl made a good video on the subject.

    caruga said:

    What I didn't care for in this whole debacle was the smearing and marginalising of the people with legitimate complaints about the game.

    For example, I've followed this closely I've literally not heard one individual protest because of the mere presence of a trans character. Yet if you followed 'mainstream' media you'd think that was all this was about.

    Quite a few people have complained about that from what I have seen my friend. Some people also seemed to try and obfuscate this by saying they just thought the character was written poorly but that seemed to be the only case of "bad writing" they they found issue with to such a degree. Not everyone of course but quite a few that I saw.

    You are quite right that it overshadowed legitimate complaints though. Hopefully now we can focus on those and help Beamdog iron out any bugs or balance issues with this great game.
    I think one should resist the temptation to characterise a whole group by their fringe 1% of 1% who are extremist or even insane. It only takes a few nuts to make a group look bad. A little empathy and researching what people are actually saying goes a long way.

    I do think though that there are people on both sides who would normally have no interest in BG, but find the controversy pertinent to their interests. People who have sworn to purchase the game where they normally would not have (or buy it and then refund it--whatever that accomplishes).

    I personally think the bugs are the worst thing--or perhaps, the people making them. I seriously wonder if there is a brain-drain of good programmers in the industry. Whether true coding is a lost art due to an influx of affordable programmers of dubious skill for whom it is more of a job than a calling, plus an over-reliance on devkits and api's that take them away from the problem-solving process. Whatever, all I know is that they've had half a decade to get their act together and still implement an inexcusable amount of bugs on launch day. They seem to have learned nothing since 2012.

    Rathenau
  • Diogenes42Diogenes42 Member Posts: 597
    I didn't mean to give them impression I was painting everyone with the same brush, just that I had seen a select few acting in such a way.

    Games are getting more and more complicated as time goes on. Predicting and preventing bugs gets more difficult all the time my friend. Beamdog seem to be committed to finding and fixing bugs though, if you discover any you can report them at http://redmine.beamdog.com/projects/bg-sod-bugs

    GenderNihilismGirdle
  • Sids1188Sids1188 Member Posts: 165
    amyae said:

    Sids1188 said:

    Etamin said:

    So you click on him 15 times and then he says "Really, it's all about ethics in heroic adventuring" ? That's all? Maybe my english is too poor, but i don't get it.

    Nope, that's all. The reason it sounds absurdly overblown is because it is.

    It's a reference to a quote that one of the groups says (I'm not even certain which one) said by a positive character, in a positive way. I don't see how it would be insulting, but that's what they're freaking out about.
    Okay, I am not pro-gamergate, but you're being incredibly disingenuous. "It's all about ethics in X" is a sarcastic phrase used to mock the idea that GG is genuinely about ethics in gaming journalism. Was the butthurt overblown? Sure. But Minsc's comment is obviously meant to be insulting. It's not like anyone was taking a compliment out of context and getting offended by it.
    Sure, not saying it was meant as a compliment. I know it's meant antagonistically, though it seems like some of the most benign antagonism I've seen.. As I said, I don't know the history of the line, and don't really care to. I don't support either side, though from what I've seen here the last few days, the people identifying as Gamergaters (I've seen plenty of people also claiming that "those aren't real GGs" or that they're trolls, so who knows?) seem slightly (very slightly) more absurd. Just giving how it appears from an outsider looking in. If that makes the fighting seem more ridiculous, that's because the fighting looks ridiculous (on both sides).

    GenderNihilismGirdle
  • amyaeamyae Member Posts: 65
    The buying and refunding thing is specific to Steam, where you can't review a game unless you own it, but you can refund a game if you have <2 hours of play time. So people threaten to "review bomb" by buying a game, playing for 5 minutes or so, leaving a negative review, and then refunding it. I don't know if there's a deliberate campaign to do that in the case of SoD (particularly because of how Steam handles refunds for DLC, which could leave you unable to get a refund if you've played the main game for too long), but I've seen it happen before with other games on a smaller scale.

  • simplessimples Member Posts: 539
    i read some reactions to the statement on the internet and while some of them are well-written and accepting, some are just plain ridiculous.

    all this screams white middle-class americans and their selfish entitled attitude.
    game companies used to make a game, hoped you'd like it and that was it. you'd buy it, hoping you'd like it. if there were certain points you didn't like, you'd weigh the pros and cons yourself and decide if the negatives ruined the game for you.

    now people seemingly come in with an attitude like "IF YOU WANT MY MONEY, YOU WILL MAKE THIS GAME EXACTLY THE WAY I WANT IT TO BE AND IF A SINGLE THING ABOUT IT TICKS ME OFF I WILL THROW A FIT"

    i mean this says enough about society in general, but i still do feel that this is a very american problem.

    NomphosumusGenderNihilismGirdlemashedtaters
  • KcoQuidamKcoQuidam Member Posts: 181
    edited April 2016
    This is the best way to settle this controversial. Thank you for being able to get the best through all the shistorm noise.

    Just as a note i want to say that you can develop Mizhena without changing her first speech. I found the way she talk about her transidentity very very refreashing. In fact she not talking about transidentity but she talk about her name's story and it's a really good thing. She not a "trans character with a trans horrible story of pain and sadness and rejection" to share (kind of story that are ... mostly the only one writer allow to trans character). Here she have a story, and she is a trans character.

    I hope her backstory and maybe side quest don't focus on that. It will be very better if her side quest focus on her name and her large-knowledge of a lot of language (she have travel a lot ? Or does she have learn them at a study ? I want to know more). There's no good reason in the Realms to give a trans character a "shamefull and painfull story about rejection because of their transidentity" or a "magical journey to fix their broken body". In fact it make more sense to think the Realms are a more welcoming place about this because, hell, a lot of well regarded figures have change their gender and/or their body (Maybe the drow society can be very transphobic, because it's already a very sexism-based society, maybe the best thing to do: every society having it's own regard on this).

    I don't say it will be bad to talk about transidentity in her story. But it will be good not write, again, another "trans hating" world, or another world that accept us only if we can "fix" ours body. Ours body aren't broken, some of us want to change and it's good, some other do not want and it's also ok, and some other want some change but not all, or are thinking about change but are decided yet if they want or not and that also ok. We, trans people, are already fight against trans hate every day in our life in the real world and in most of the fictionnals worlds we can play/read. One canonical good welcoming place can be a very good thing. Very very good.

    Beside canon Realm are really open to that. Most of the past thing have transphobic part because of the "political" environment they have been made, not because of the canonical lore or the "consistence" of this fictional universe.

    (In all case. You really made, positively, my day. And i love you).

    (Sorry, english isn't my mother tongue and, instead of Mizhena, i'm really really bad with language).

    amyaeGrond0GenderNihilismGirdlelolien
  • ChaoticParticleChaoticParticle Member Posts: 1
    I'm looking forward to playing SoD as soon as bugs are worked out. I'd also like multiplayer and mod compatibility but there's always problems to be worked out with new games. Overall I'm really excited! I think it's fantastic that we have a new BG adventure to play after so long.

    But I'm confused regarding this whole fiasco. Perhaps my opinions will change after I've had a chance to actually play the game. Still, no one should be offended by a trans character in 2016. No one should be offended by breaking the fourth wall. No one should be offended by oblique references to gaming controversies. All of that is just silly, in my humble opinion.

    I'm disappointed that Minsc's 'controversial' line has been removed. It kind of reminds me of the instances where PC has the option of giving all his or her gold to bandits, meekly submitting to extortion. Since Minsc (qua character) doesn't know what he's saying, it doesn't really impact his character in any way. And even if it did, Minsc has always been a badass willing to stand up for his female companions when they were threatened, including Dynaheir, Aerie, and even possibly Nalia. He literally couldn't live without a witch to defend and cherish. Effectually or not, he's an ally to women and men and hamsters everywhere.

    All in all, I think it is wrong to give an inch to this kind of criticism. If the game has bugs, fix them. If the dialogue or plot have problems, they can be improved or altered if this would better realize the creative vision of the developers. If people don't like the game then they shouldn't play it. Time will judge the quality of the work.

    But it seems like a bad precedent to remove a line because it needled an overly-sensitive subset of gamers. Minsc doesn't walk back his statements, after all. He invites evil to jump on his sword while it can. He leaves no crevice untouched, even in a den of stinking evil. And butts are liberally kicked in good order.

    Maybe some people really want their fantasy and gaming insulated from even the most indirect references to society and politics, regardless of their attitudes or positions. Ok. I mean, that's a really safe space, I suppose. Like Candlekeep. And by those lights, maybe Charname should have just stuck with Dreppin after all...

    GenderNihilismGirdleAyiekie
  • OsigoldOsigold Member Posts: 117
    OK, someone needs to provides some context here to address some common sentiments, so I guess I'll do it.

    GamerGate went before the Society of Professional Journalists, a neutral and serious third party body, in order to discuss the situation regarding journalist ethics, and the SPJ ultimately upheld that GamerGate had valid concerns. That meeting had to be interrupted and evacuated due to credible bomb threats.

    So when someone makes a joke mocking the idea that GamerGate was about ethics in journalism, taking it seriously is not an inability to laugh at one's self. It's a scornful remark designed to belittle people who have in some cases risked their lives to talk about the importance of maintaining the integrity of this hobby that we all love.

    What is overblown, is to call people proving feedback that you disagree with to places that ask for that feedback "bombing". What is overblown, is to describe people discussing aspects of the game that you don't think they should dislike on a discussion form "invading".

    The notion that the game is being somehow sabotaged by people speaking their minds in public is what is disgraceful. Critics have just as much right to tell people why they don't like the game and to talk about what they feel were its failing as anyone else does to fans have to tell people why they did like the game and to talk about what they felt were its successes. No one is injuring you. No one is transgressing against you. You can speak your mind, they can speak their mind, and no one is blowing anything up just because you dislike the aggregate result.

    As to Trent's post, it is thoroughly commendable in every way, and since I was going to return in order to say that, I thought I'd try to inject some reason at the same time.

    Rathenau
  • BGLoverBGLover Member Posts: 541
    @Osigold, you say tomato, I say tomato.

    You say it is disgraceful to suggest there has been a concerted campaign to discredit and undermine Siege of Dragonspear.

    Well, I suggest there has been a concerted campaign over the last several days to discredit, undermine and weaken Siege of Dragonspear. Is that really a disgraceful accusation to make? Are you seriously suggesting that all those 0 out of 10 reviews are the honest appraisal and analysis of dissapointed game players?

    As i said on another thread, to give a game 0 out of 10, to declare that it is the worst imaginable game that you have ever (and will ever) play is arguably an excellent example of numerical hyperbole. And the fact that there have been so many reviews on game review sites giving Siege of Dragonspear 0 out of 10 is irrefutable evidence of a campaign to discredit, undermine and weaken SoD. Either that or the alternative for lots and lots and lots of people is that it really is the worst game ever made.

    Incidentaly, I also agree that giving a game 10 out of 10 and to declare that this is the best game you have ever played, is similarly foolhardy - because where do can you go after 10? You have nowhere to go after awarding perfection (unless your Nigel Tufnel of course!)

    And as I have said previously, none of this is to ignore or repudiate people's right to complain about the game - whether its the bugs, lack of functionality, the plot, etc etc etc.

    But what I believe is disgraceful is the concerted campaign there has been to discredit and undermine Siege of Dragonspear. Tomato or Tomato. Take your pick!

    rorikonGenderNihilismGirdleAyiekie
  • IllustairIllustair Member Posts: 822
    edited April 2016
    @Dantos4 @Johan332
    With a clearer head, I think I can somehow understand some of your sentiments. But I believe that's just because of some misunderstanding. Here's my two cents...and I'll just quote myself, since I would just end up rephrasing myself anyway:
    x x x where she downgrades Jaheira (arguably the best written companion in the series) to a nagging wife
    "I know I said I won't participate anymore, but I just can't help it sorry. Amber could be referring to the BG1 characters, not the well-written companions in BG2. Why do I think so? She's nobody's wife in BG2, much less a "nagging wife", as there's no marriage to speak of anymore. Moreover, in BG1, all or substantially all of what they have are soundsets, and a very very few banters. The point being, in BG1, all we have is just a "sketch" of her personality, awaiting to be painted. There's no downgrading from a well-written character here; the widow Jaheira as fleshed out in BG2 remains there, separate and distinct from that of the "not so explored" BG1 Jaheira. If anything, just her role as wife (pre-BG2), among others, was explored. That is apart from the fact that SoD is an expansion of BG1, not BG2. Again, there's no downgrading of a well-written [BG2] character here.

    So, could the problem be on the adjective "nagging" then? That you don't find her to be a nagging wife? Remember that that's Amber's personal take on Jaheira, perhaps also that of Beamdog. You, me, them, we all have our personal takes on each and every character in the game. To her, she seemed like a nagging wife. Can she not be entitled to that? Don't you have your personal opinion on in-game characters? Why persecute her for her observations, for her opinion?

    In fact, Amber's take did not come out from thin air. Khalid at one point, IIRC (and correct me if I'm wrong) said something like Jaheira would just keep on reminding him or won't let him forget of a wrong or a mistake he would commit, or something to that effect. That seems like nagging to me. Also Jaheira mockingly said something about untying Khalid's tongue. That's not nagging really but you get what I mean. Belittling your husband over his speech problems? Yeah that's helpful. You see, she was not portrayed as the ideal wife in BG1 (or as some might put it, she's the nagging type). But that's mainly because of limited interaction in BG1. Beamdog must have thought "surely there's more to her than just that; and maybe that's just because we've only seen a small portion of her."

    Perhaps then the problem is that, as others have said, Beamdog is "shitting" on the original game? No, that's not true at all. Why would they shit on a game that some, if not many, of them were a part of? Why would they shit on something that they passionately love? We're all here, players, modders, devs alike becuase we love the game, yes? It just makes no sense. You see, she was not "shitting" on the game; that's just as aforementioned, her personal take, if not Beamdog's take, to which she and all of us are entitled to have. I can see others' argument revolving on this; but please, no more of this! No one's "shitting" on anything here, not Beamdog, not Amber.

    Just to give perspective or to illustrate - I personally find certain characters to be abrasive, some dull, some boring. You may not agree, they may even be your favorites, but that's my take on them and you can't take that away from me. Or is there a dichotomy now between devs and players when it comes to opinions? They can't have their own? That's absurd! Or maybe it's because they said it in an interview? Don't go public with your opinions! Is that what people are saying? - that's just as absurd! That's overstretching the problem. And after all, the devs, Beamdog, have to start from somewhere. You know where? From their personal takes on the original series. Where else, right? To reiterate, many of what I see here can be practically translated to "Nagging wife? Are you attacking my Jaheira? Are you attacking my Baldur's Gate, my beloved game?" I repeat, NO, NO, and NO! To make to clear, again, NO ONE'S DOING THAT!

    Perhaps what they're saying now is this, if you find her as a nagging wife in BG1, why change her? Don't detract from her character! [Argh, is there an end to this?] Remember like I said, that's most likely because the NPCs have hardly been explored in BG1, they're still that "canvass containing only sketches." We may have already formulated our own imaginations of them in our head, but they remain just that - imaginations; and the fact is, Beamdog can still paint it a whole. In fact, that's precisely what they're here for to begin with, right? That's precisely what SoD is for, right? Again, nothing's "changed" really, only explored, only an added depth to the world, to the characters, to which Beamdog is entitled to explore, they should be given creative freedom. If you have a problem on their choices, that's another topic for discussion. But with respect to the aforesaid issues, there should be none!"

    --end of quotation--

    The same logic applies to "sexist" Safana.

    But as to the controversial line of Minsc, I don't think we can ever get into an agreement there. So let's just leave it at that. At any rate, the issue has been rectified by Beamdog already, what's the point on dwelling an already non-existent issue? Personally, I would find having to play Baldur's Gate all over again with a new/expanded storyline bigger than an already non-existent issue. But hey, that's just me.

    Dantos4Lore
  • OsigoldOsigold Member Posts: 117
    There's no evidence of a concerted campaign, but even if there were... what would they be doing? Encouraging people to leave reviews on the sites that allow them people to do that based on true information that they'd gotten from a third party? That's just speech. People are entitled to their speech. They're also free to use whatever criteria they wish when determining what makes a game a "0". They are not paid professionals.

    You also should not conflate this with GamerGate. There's certainly a good deal of overlap between people who dislike SJW type behaviour and GamerGaters, but it's not 1:1, and not everyone who fits into either of those groups hasn't tried the game before reviewing it negatively, or even reviewed it at all. Some GamerGaters will have left positive reviews. There are plenty of other people who dislike other things about the game or some of the same things for less coherent reasons that having nothing to do with GamerGate.

    So, why are people suggesting that removing the insult is wrong because a bunch of people decided, either collectively or (more likely) individually, to express their opinions? Even if you think that's metaphorical terrorism for some bizarre anti free-speech reason, then why do customers who had no involvement in that deserve to be insulted?

    Rathenau
  • IllustairIllustair Member Posts: 822
    From where I come from, admission can stand as an evidence. Many have already admitted it to be so, expressly or impliedly. That coupled with the "unusual activities" in MetaCritic, a reasonable man would agree that there was a concerted activity.

    Anyway, does it still matter if some people find it wrong to remove the line? It will be removed! Any incidental, collateral or ancillary matters are already moot and academic.

    GenderNihilismGirdle
  • 4verse4verse Member Posts: 26
    SoD and Mizhena rock! Haters suck! 'Nuff said

    GenderNihilismGirdleGrumLore
Sign In or Register to comment.