Skip to content

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

1141517192039

Comments

  • Baeloth_JnrBaeloth_Jnr Member Posts: 86
    edited April 2016
    Ayiekie said:


    I disagree again. She cast multiple damaging spells, she was an accessory to Gorion's murder AND the only surviving attacker other than Sarevok, that's significant. Her act of attempted murder resulted in a successful murder which makes her a murderer.

    Well, charname decided when they were going to leave Candlekeep, whereupon they got ambushed, so obviously CHARNAME KILLED GORION.

    I mean, if you want to call the person who did no damage to Gorion "his killer", when there was a person with a big sword who shoved it in Gorion's guts, you can go ahead, but your usage of language is in this case pretty idiosyncratic.

    Googling for "tamoko killed gorion" gets 0 hits, fwiw. Maybe this can be the new JFK?
    Ayiekie said:


    I disagree again. She cast multiple damaging spells, she was an accessory to Gorion's murder AND the only surviving attacker other than Sarevok, that's significant. Her act of attempted murder resulted in a successful murder which makes her a murderer.

    Well, charname decided when they were going to leave Candlekeep, whereupon they got ambushed, so obviously CHARNAME KILLED GORION.

    I mean, if you want to call the person who did no damage to Gorion "his killer", when there was a person with a big sword who shoved it in Gorion's guts, you can go ahead, but your usage of language is in this case pretty idiosyncratic.

    Googling for "tamoko killed gorion" gets 0 hits, fwiw. Maybe this can be the new JFK?
    Actually BHAAL spawned CHARNAME, so BHAAL killed Gorion.
    (How far back do you want to wind the chain of causality? Should we got back to the raw confused mass of inert chaos?)

    Ordinarily the people responsible for the murder are those who took a material part in it.
    Tamoko was part of the group that ambushed and killed Gorion.
    She did not strike the killing blow but was instrumental in the assault and obviously intended his demise.
    Ergo she is culpable for his murder.
    Abdel_AdrianRathenau
  • KhalophisKhalophis Member Posts: 7
    edited April 2016
    Sids1188 said:

    Khalophis said:

    I would say most people annoyed with the writing of the character. As I previously stated its a world of magic and there are several spells, powers, potions and deities who could swap your gender. You find the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity, you also meet Melicamp who has been turned into a chicken and a number of dragons that can turn into humans to name a few examples. To be honest most people would be unimpressed by such a simple change for a person. They could have even added a dialogue to represent this. If you were playing a evil/rude person they could end the conversation by saying they'd seen more impressive magic elsewhere etc.

    In regards to the dialogue the other issue people are having is that; in a game with multiple options to respond to NPCs you can only say nice things to Mizhena which is rather stilted. And let us remember that this is a game where you can (if you chose to) threaten people (including women and children), kill beggars and generally be a horrible person.

    My point is, could there be more roleplay options? Absolutely, and that would always be the case. But why is it that no one complained about a lack of evil options until a transgendered character was introduced?
    Although you couldn't have known this I emailed a 5 or 6 page document to Beamdog a few years ago (before BG1 EE was even released) addressing the lack of evil options as well as bugs and a lack of a pure class thief throughout the franchise. These were just a few of the issues I raised. Unfortunately little of what I suggested was ever addressed, even the most basic of bug fixes was ignored.

    The point I was making is that in many in game situations you can be rude etc which is lacking for the new NPC. Therefore a number of people have interpreted this as shielding a character based on their gender identity/orientation. It therefore gives more fuel to the controversy which could be easily corrected for everyone's enjoyment by fleshing out a character.

    Furthermore knowing a number of people with various gender identities/orientations they tend not to discuss it in general and certainly not to strangers. It comes across as poor writing. Most of the time people learn about each others personal life through subtle and passing comments etc.
    Abdel_AdrianRathenau
  • Baeloth_JnrBaeloth_Jnr Member Posts: 86
    Ayiekie said:

    (snipping all your cute concern trolling to say racist and perjorative terms so you can feel offended and righteous when you get banned again)

    Ironman said:


    About the said employee, she did come out and literally said she tries to push SJW stuff into everything she writes, because she finds writing about straight, cis, white people boring.

    You are, on top of your many other fine qualities, a liar.

    What Amber Scott said was, quote:

    "I don't like writing about straight/white/cis people all the time. It's not reflective of the real world, it sets up s/w/c as the "normal" baseline from which "other" characters must be added, and it's boring."

    In no way, shape or form does that say or imply that she finds writing straight/white/cis people boring.
    "I don't like writing about straight/white/cis people all the time. It's not reflective of the real world, it sets up s/w/c as the "normal" baseline from which "other" characters must be added, and it's boring."

    This says
    "I don't like writing about straight/white/cis people all the time."
    because
    (1) It's not reflective of the real world;
    (2) it's boring.
    Metal_HurlantCorelliaCamus34Rathenau
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975


    Why the heck would anyone write an article on Tamoko killing Gorion? She attacks him with the intent to kill. He gets killed as a result. That is textbook murder. Not manslaughter, probably not even accessory to murder. Sarevok AND Tamoko, albeit to a slightly lesser extent, killed Gorion together. Not CHARNAME, that's a strawman argument and you know it.

    For the love of pete, man, you said she was not a minor NPC because she was the "killer of Gorion".

    If you had said "She was standing in the vicinity and casting Dispel Magic when Gorion died", we would not be having this discussion. If you had said "She was an accessory to Gorion's murder", nobody would have objected. But you said she was "Killer of Gorion and...", and that is a completely misleading statement.

    Random Thug #1 is the KILLER OF GORION. After all, he attacked Gorion, and Gorion died in the same scene! Sure, Gorion dying had literally nothing to do with the thug attacking him, since the thug did no damage and got blown into bloody chunks well before Gorion died, but putting KILLER OF GORION on his tombstone would be totally accurate and not misleading at all!

    Tamoko was there when Gorion got killed by Sarevok. That's it. If you wanna call her an accessory to the murder, sure, that's fair enough, but so was Random Thug #1. Nothing she did has any impact on the outcome (for instance, in the game I just started, her Dispel Magic failed, and whoops, Gorion died anyway), and again, without having all combat messages on (which they are not, by default) the player has no idea who she is and is very unlikely to remember her when she shows up again in chapter 7 (in fact, you're pretty unlikely to remember even if you do have combat messages on).
    Nomphosumus
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975



    "I don't like writing about straight/white/cis people all the time. It's not reflective of the real world, it sets up s/w/c as the "normal" baseline from which "other" characters must be added, and it's boring."

    This says
    "I don't like writing about straight/white/cis people all the time."
    because
    (1) It's not reflective of the real world;
    (2) it's boring.

    Yes, that is correct. Which is not at all the sockpuppet troll said it was.

    (Also, writing settings that are entirely straight/white/cis people is, in fact, objectively not reflective of the real world, and subjectively boring.)
  • Abdel_AdrianAbdel_Adrian Member Posts: 430
    @Ayiekie What you're ignoring is that she does actually play a significant role in the murder, unlike the bandits. And I obviously do remember all of this from BG1, without combat messages. I was always more curious about her than Sarevok. Sure, he death the final blow, but she was the only other one to get away with the crime. In my playthroughs, CHARNAME sought her out as much as Sarevok because they killed Gorion together. Her spells don't always fail, nor do they have zero effect when they're successful.
    I stand by what I said and I even think Gorion would mop the floor with Sarevok 1 vs. 1, it was her contributions that tipped the scale.
  • Baeloth_JnrBaeloth_Jnr Member Posts: 86

    Flaming Fist Officer: Tamoko you're looking at accessory to murder one, that's gonna cost you 15 years in the big house. Now I can make things easier for you but you gotta give up the big guy.
    Tamoko: I want to see my lawyer, you can't interrogate me like this it's against the law.
    Flaming Fist Officer: I AM THE LAW!

    Only 15 years?
    Wouldn't getting torn to pieces by Gibberlings be a more appropriate punishment on the sword coast?
  • mzacharymzachary Member Posts: 106
    edited April 2016
    Ironman said:


    About the said employee, she did come out and literally said she tries to push SJW stuff into everything she writes, because she finds writing about straight, cis, white people boring.

    And thus we have arrived at the main issue, which is that there is a group of gamers who does not tolerate that other people express other viewpoints such as that a character can just be trans and express that she is trans. And ironically it is those intolerant people who accuse these so called 'SJWs' of being intolerant.

    even going as far as flatout misrepresenting her views as other people already mentioned Amber stated that she finds constantly writing the same kind of straight/white/cis character boring. Which should come as no surprise as doing the same thing without variation is a rather well known cause of bore. The point of the fundamental misrepresenation is that it is not the straight/white/cis character that causes it to be boring, it is the "all the time" part

    But I digress, the fundamental difference between normal reasonable people and the kind of intolerant people angry at beamdog for different views existing can be summed up by the recent tracer butt controversy. Where a guy was politely asking for a different pose and quite the same intolerant people who were angry at beamdog going apeshit over someone politely asking.

    You see it is not the criticism itself that makes something intolerant, it is the overblown response and seeking of revenge and desire to punish other views that is intolerant.
    Ironman said:

    She also said that Safana was sexist, and we know she was changed. The argument is that changed just means more content was added, but that is a lie. Her personality has been changed too.

    Oh please, I would ask you to put down all of Safana her lines from BG1 and show how much 'character' there really was to her in the first place. The simple reality is that there is more to characters amd basically what you are complaining about is how she now has more character depth than 'just being sultry all the time'.
    Grum
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975

    @Ayiekie What you're ignoring is that she does actually play a significant role in the murder, unlike the bandits. And I obviously do remember all of this from BG1, without combat messages. I was always more curious about her than Sarevok. Sure, he death the final blow, but she was the only other one to get away with the crime. In my playthroughs, CHARNAME sought her out as much as Sarevok because they killed Gorion together. Her spells don't always fail, nor do they have zero effect when they're successful.
    I stand by what I said and I even think Gorion would mop the floor with Sarevok 1 vs. 1, it was her contributions that tipped the scale.

    Actually, if you wanted to justify charname caring about her, you could focus on the fact she fires a spell off at you before Gorion tells you to run.

    Charname doesn't actually see the fight at all; YOU do, but charname has run off (which is good, since otherwise you'd be next). So for all you know, she DID kill Gorion! Or the orcs, whatevs.

    We disagree on "significant", in any case. As I said, Gorion dies to Sarevok's attack regardless of whether she succeeds or fails; in fact you could probably fiddle with things to Ctrl-Y her the moment she attacks charname and it won't actually stop the scene from progressing (I did see a post with someone saying Gorion legitimately fluked out and killed her, but I doubt the veracity of this). I can't see that as much more significant than the bandits or the orcs. If you disagree, so be it - it's honestly an absurd thing to argue about and entirely unrelated to why I brought her up in the first place (my fault at least as much as yours).
  • Abdel_AdrianAbdel_Adrian Member Posts: 430
    @Ayiekie Shh, we can't let people realize arguing on the internet is absurd. That'll ruin all the fun.
    AyiekieBlastback
  • BGLoverBGLover Member Posts: 550
    Amah said:

    *sigh* it was all fun and games until politics showed up...

    Load up BG or BGEE, hit that character creation scheme, and start a no-reload run along the Sword Coast. It's what I'm doing, and it's still fun*

    *actually, since I'm now in the city itself, and desperate not to die, it's becoming less like fun and more like torture. Especially since I have a terrible memory, and I'm saying to myself 'I wonder what's in this house' every time I enter a house!
  • AmahAmah Member Posts: 18
    edited April 2016
    @ bglover

    Thanks for the tip... but I'll probl wander off, board my Cobbie3 and rather blast some Sidewinders, Kraits and Morays out of the orbit and raid some Anacondas. ;-)

    You know, original BG always had a "sandboxy" feeling to me (though I did know, it was just clever writing), but learning current devs now pushing some changes according to their political agenda with it, subtle it may be, ruins it for me.

    again, no offence meant, it's their game now and I still have the original BG when I feel the urge to return to Faerun.

    Ps. And whatever they say nowadays: "Han really shot first".
  • Abdel_AdrianAbdel_Adrian Member Posts: 430
    edited April 2016

    Once again friends, everything is political. When you get positive reputation for freeing slaves in Baldur's Gate 2 you are seeing the politics of the writers in saying that slavery is not an agreeable system and that disrupting that system by any means necessary is morally correct. You just don't think of it as politics because the idea that slavery is inherently wrong is a part of our current political system and hopefully a deeply held belief of your own self.

    True, but you can also watch and laugh as gladiator slaves fight to the death in the Copper Coronet. There's a spectrum of alignments and appropriate responses to the world around you. The developer builds a world with politics, to put the developers stance on the politics in-game is different.
    Camus34Baeloth_Jnr
  • Diogenes42Diogenes42 Member Posts: 597

    Once again friends, everything is political. When you get positive reputation for freeing slaves in Baldur's Gate 2 you are seeing the politics of the writers in saying that slavery is not an agreeable system and that disrupting that system by any means necessary is morally correct. You just don't think of it as politics because the idea that slavery is inherently wrong is a part of our current political system and hopefully a deeply held belief of your own self.

    True, but you can also watch and laugh as gladiator slaves fight to the death in the Copper Coronet. There's a spectrum of alignments and appropriate responses to the world around you. The developer builds a world with politics, to put the developers stance on the politics in-game is different.
    Well friend, to me I think the key is that the game rewards you with positive reputation points, that is an implicit endorsement of your actions on the part of the writers/designers. You have performed an action they they considered "good." Likewise you lose reputation points for killing innocent civilians, this might be within your characters ideals or alignment but in the meta sense the developers are punishing you because they built the game with the belief that is is wrong to commit such acts.
  • Abdel_AdrianAbdel_Adrian Member Posts: 430

    Once again friends, everything is political. When you get positive reputation for freeing slaves in Baldur's Gate 2 you are seeing the politics of the writers in saying that slavery is not an agreeable system and that disrupting that system by any means necessary is morally correct. You just don't think of it as politics because the idea that slavery is inherently wrong is a part of our current political system and hopefully a deeply held belief of your own self.

    True, but you can also watch and laugh as gladiator slaves fight to the death in the Copper Coronet. There's a spectrum of alignments and appropriate responses to the world around you. The developer builds a world with politics, to put the developers stance on the politics in-game is different.
    Well friend, to me I think the key is that the game rewards you with positive reputation points, that is an implicit endorsement of your actions on the part of the writers/designers. You have performed an action they they considered "good." Likewise you lose reputation points for killing innocent civilians, this might be within your characters ideals or alignment but in the meta sense the developers are punishing you because they built the game with the belief that is is wrong to commit such acts.
    I agree, in a sense. Being good rewards more xp and better items (usually) on top of the reputation bonuses, but I felt that that too was realistic. Your actions get a name for yourself, good or bad, and your reputation reflects that, but it doesn't prevent you from choosing that evil path. Ultimately I see it less as the developers saying something politically and more as they created a world in which people take note of good and bad actions and react accordingly - which is exactly what you should be able to do as the player. I've always hated dialogue trees that lack enough options. One completely lacking controversy is Oublek in Nashkel. You can be evil, or at least chaotic/unlawful and immoral by taking a reward that doesn't belong to you, but regardless of your first interaction with him, and even how you handled Prism, after that you really can't say anything nice to him and that's bad writing.
  • MacHurtoMacHurto Member Posts: 731
    edited April 2016
    I think the statement is as good as it can be. Anyone not happy with it is Probably not thinking about what is best for Baldur's Gate but other things.

    To me, the best part of the (iron) crisis has been to discover @Diogenes42. Epic posts, one after the other. Keep up the good work, mate.
    BGLovermzacharyJuliusBorisov
  • CorelliaCorellia Member Posts: 22

    Once again friends, everything is political. When you get positive reputation for freeing slaves in Baldur's Gate 2 you are seeing the politics of the writers in saying that slavery is not an agreeable system and that disrupting that system by any means necessary is morally correct. You just don't think of it as politics because the idea that slavery is inherently wrong is a part of our current political system and hopefully a deeply held belief of your own self.

    True, but you can also watch and laugh as gladiator slaves fight to the death in the Copper Coronet. There's a spectrum of alignments and appropriate responses to the world around you. The developer builds a world with politics, to put the developers stance on the politics in-game is different.
    Well friend, to me I think the key is that the game rewards you with positive reputation points, that is an implicit endorsement of your actions on the part of the writers/designers. You have performed an action they they considered "good." Likewise you lose reputation points for killing innocent civilians, this might be within your characters ideals or alignment but in the meta sense the developers are punishing you because they built the game with the belief that is is wrong to commit such acts.
    Try freeing slaves in Ust Natha and see where that gets you. In Amn freeing slaves is a good thing because slavery is apparently outlawed and punishing criminals earns you a positive reputation among the people(in Amn). That does not say anything about the developers stance on slavery even if we can guess they do not support it. Freeing slaves and showing mercy does sit well with the drow but buying slaves only to kill them does. Does that mean that whoever made that portion of the game think killing slaves for pleasure should be legal? No! Or hell since most of the best items in the game can only be acquired by doing evil deeds does that mean they promote "evil" and wearing the flesh of murdered peasants? That's ridiculous. It's only there for RP, and as someone else mentioned an RPG needs negative, positive and neutral reactions to what is going on around you. So allowing a negative/positive/neutral reaction to what may seem "good" is only good RP/writing. The option should always be there.
  • Diogenes42Diogenes42 Member Posts: 597
    Corellia said:

    Once again friends, everything is political. When you get positive reputation for freeing slaves in Baldur's Gate 2 you are seeing the politics of the writers in saying that slavery is not an agreeable system and that disrupting that system by any means necessary is morally correct. You just don't think of it as politics because the idea that slavery is inherently wrong is a part of our current political system and hopefully a deeply held belief of your own self.

    True, but you can also watch and laugh as gladiator slaves fight to the death in the Copper Coronet. There's a spectrum of alignments and appropriate responses to the world around you. The developer builds a world with politics, to put the developers stance on the politics in-game is different.
    Well friend, to me I think the key is that the game rewards you with positive reputation points, that is an implicit endorsement of your actions on the part of the writers/designers. You have performed an action they they considered "good." Likewise you lose reputation points for killing innocent civilians, this might be within your characters ideals or alignment but in the meta sense the developers are punishing you because they built the game with the belief that is is wrong to commit such acts.
    Try freeing slaves in Ust Natha and see where that gets you. In Amn freeing slaves is a good thing because slavery is apparently outlawed and punishing criminals earns you a positive reputation among the people(in Amn). That does not say anything about the developers stance on slavery even if we can guess they do not support it. Freeing slaves and showing mercy does sit well with the drow but buying slaves only to kill them does. Does that mean that whoever made that portion of the game think killing slaves for pleasure should be legal? No! Or hell since most of the best items in the game can only be acquired by doing evil deeds does that mean they promote "evil" and wearing the flesh of murdered peasants? That's ridiculous. It's only there for RP, and as someone else mentioned an RPG needs negative, positive and neutral reactions to what is going on around you. So allowing a negative/positive/neutral reaction to what may seem "good" is only good RP/writing. The option should always be there.
    Well friend this is getting into some complicated territory re: meta-textual analysis of games so I thank you for entering this discussion with me, I find this kind of thing very interesting. To me I (perhaps wrongly) view the Reputation system as a proto-alignment system (in the Kotor/Fallout sense) in that it always goes up for actions that the developers have considered "good" and goes down for ones they considered "bad." You never perform a morally objectionable action that earns you positive reputation (such as murdering a political enemy of the regime, earning the trust of the ruling classes) so it doesn't feel so much of a meter of how the people of the world feel about you but instead how the developers feel about how you've performed in the game so far. This is why I separate it in my mind with in world rewards such as the Human Flesh Armor you mentioned that you might acquire though less moral methods.

    Furthermore, I believe Carthage should be destroyed.
  • mzacharymzachary Member Posts: 106
    edited April 2016


    Shakespeare always tells both sides of the story, good or bad.
    He does not insert himself into the text with a massive pointer saying 'this is bad' or make overt political statements.
    He clearly thought his audience was intelligent enough to make their own inferences without a neon sign pointing them the path to goodness.

    That is interesting because the 'massive pointer', 'political statement' and 'neon sign' in this case was basically the following:

    Charname: What an unusual name
    Mizhena: That is because I am trans and I chose it myself


    In other words the thing that people complain about as 'preachy' is simply a character not having a problem stating why she is as she is and being there. And you see that is why there are people like me who find it rather disingenuous that people are complaining that they have 'nothing against transpeople' while they argue about 'tokenism' and things being shoved 'down their throat' or 'neon signs'.

    Because what they are arguing is that they have a problem with a transcharacter just being there and the setting having no problem about that... and that being wrong somehow...

    As now: "It has become legitimate to state political claims only as members of ethnic/racial minorities or majorities, not in terms of class locations. As long as this situation is not challenged, these labels will continue to shape our perceptions, strengthening the racial/ethnic divisions among people and, therefore, strengthening racism itself."
    http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/heresies.html

    That sounds more like an excuse along the lines of: "Well I can't help being racist, cause them blacks insist on being black!"

    Racism isn't caused by ones own claim of identity, racism is caused by not accepting that other people can be different and there not being anything wrong with that.
    KcoQuidamMirandel
  • SilverstarSilverstar Member Posts: 2,207
    edited April 2016

    Well friend this is getting into some complicated territory re: meta-textual analysis of games so I thank you for entering this discussion with me, I find this kind of thing very interesting. To me I (perhaps wrongly) view the Reputation system as a proto-alignment system (in the Kotor/Fallout sense) in that it always goes up for actions that the developers have considered "good" and goes down for ones they considered "bad." You never perform a morally objectionable action that earns you positive reputation (such as murdering a political enemy of the regime, earning the trust of the ruling classes) so it doesn't feel so much of a meter of how the people of the world feel about you but instead how the developers feel about how you've performed in the game so far.

    So you're saying the developers of the game think self-defense is wrong? I enter an inn in Baldur's Gate with my party half-dead and in desperate need of rest, only to be accosted by a paladin who wants to murder the lot of us because Viconia is in the party and that makes us all evildoers in need of purging. We're given no options to avoid physical confrontation and he attacks. With a Hold Person spell and the use of a couple wands we take down this mean zealot, only for our party's reputation to immediately plummet. You're saying the developers think the moral thing to do would be to let him kill us.

    No, I don't think that reasoning has been put into it. Killing the paladin in the above example can't possibly be seen as "immoral" by the developers. But killing a paladin might certainly seem immoral to the people of the Sword Coast.
    Camus34
  • Abdel_AdrianAbdel_Adrian Member Posts: 430

    Well friend this is getting into some complicated territory re: meta-textual analysis of games so I thank you for entering this discussion with me, I find this kind of thing very interesting. To me I (perhaps wrongly) view the Reputation system as a proto-alignment system (in the Kotor/Fallout sense) in that it always goes up for actions that the developers have considered "good" and goes down for ones they considered "bad." You never perform a morally objectionable action that earns you positive reputation (such as murdering a political enemy of the regime, earning the trust of the ruling classes) so it doesn't feel so much of a meter of how the people of the world feel about you but instead how the developers feel about how you've performed in the game so far.

    So you're saying the developers of the game think self-defense is wrong? I enter an inn in Baldur's Gate with my party half-dead and in desperate need of rest, only to be accosted by a paladin who wants to murder the lot of us because Viconia is in the party and that makes us all evildoers in need of purging. We're given no options to avoid physical confrontation and he attacks. With a Hold Person spell and the use of a couple wands we take down this mean zealot, only for our party's reputation to immediately plummet. You're saying the developers think the moral thing to do would be to let him kill us.

    No, I don't think that reasoning has been put into it. Killing the paladin in the above example can't possibly be seen as "immoral" by the developers. But killing a paladin might certainly seem immoral to the people of the Sword Coast.
    Not to mention simply the act of taking along Viconia. Even Minsc and Jaheira support it in BG2 because it's moral, yet because shes evil (and because of happy.2da), just having her join your party causes a loss of reputation. That to me is more internal to the game world and less the developers moral compass.
  • LoreLore Member Posts: 114
    I for one liked SOD quite a lot and want to thank Beamdog for making it. Many Many thanks :)

    Regarding this whole controversy then i dont really care one way or the other about trans characters or one simple line from Minsc, its blow waaaay out of proportion !! I would say that censorship is always bad.

    And Safana was a one line character who never really had any personality so yay for giving her some :) Jahira did not really have alot in the first game and in my opinion i think Amber Scott was quite successfully in both Safanas and Jahiras writing , its a massive improvement over BG1.

    Thanks again Beamdog
    BelleSorciere
  • DoubledimasDoubledimas Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 1,286
    Looking at the bugs that will be solved in the upcoming patch a lot of the issues that people have will be tackled, such as multiplayer, LoB resetting, save game compatibility and pathfinding etc.
    bluntfeather
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,714
    edited April 2016
    I moved all the recent off-topic comments from here to a different thread - https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/51635/bg-and-politics-split-from-the-sod-statement-thread#latest.

    Please, try to focus on the statement in this thread, not on other things like politics, Shakespeare etc.

    Also, be excellent to each other!

    Carry on.
    Silverstar
  • MaximvsMaximvs Member Posts: 94

    @Ayiekie I am SO glad you brought up Shar-teel, a woman quite possibly defined by her misandry! Isn't it great that they rewrote her too...oh wait. Jaheira can't nag and Safana can't exploit her own sexuality because that's bad for women and obviously promotes misogyny.....but a woman hating a man is just fine!

    That's because white males have no rights according to the social justice warriors. You know how it goes.

    Rathenau
  • MaximvsMaximvs Member Posts: 94
    I've played Dragon Age, and the huge amount of LGBT people there didn't annoy me. I took it like it was part of the world. What annoys me is that it is now apparently a trend among all RPG ; now all RPG promotes LGBT with 1 transgender NPC per game explaining their personal fight as a transgender person. I'm an open minded person, and thus, shoving LGBT acceptance in my mouth equates to stagnation. What if I got over LGBT people 15 years ago? Can we move on? Apparently not, because as they say, it all cater to the lowest common denominator.

    As long as there will be intolerant people in the world, we will be force fed the same thing over and over? Ugh. And given the social justice warrior morally righteous self ego pumping, even after the whole world finally accepts LGBT people, will we still see transgender NPC's as political statements just to amuse said ego pumping? Ugh!

    Whatever.
    Rathenau
  • Sids1188Sids1188 Member Posts: 165
    edited April 2016
    .
    Edit: is there a way to delete my own comment here?
  • Glam_VrockGlam_Vrock Member Posts: 277
    Maximvs said:

    And given the social justice warrior morally righteous self ego pumping, even after the whole world finally accepts LGBT people, will we still see transgender NPC's as political statements just to amuse said ego pumping? Ugh!

    For me, if the whole world ever fully came to accept LGBT people, it might just soften the blow of minor trans characters ruining my beloved video games.
Sign In or Register to comment.