You know, it is passing ridiculous that people are insisting that correctly pointing out that Baldur's Gate had sexist elements is somehow insulting or disrespectful. It had sexist elements - a lot of games do. This doesn't mean it is a terrible game beyond any redemption or just full of evil, it just means it has places where it could have done better.
It's pretty obvious that people objecting to "politics" as a general concept mean something very specific - they don't want a transgender character in the game. Talking about "politics" is just a smokescreen, and they won't complain about other political aspects of the games they play. Especially when those politics agree with their own. It's about "not ever being exposed to something they don't like/agree with." Which makes it sound like what they're asking for is for computer games to just be a giant hug box for their own views.
Sorry, but it isn't a smokescreen at all. As I just said to Kco, this wasn't brought to the spotlight and held there so long because of things found within the game but rather because the writers disclosed their personal politics in interviews and on the forum which led to being much more easily able to interpret (or misinterpret) politics in the game itself.
So in other words it's not about the game or anything in the game - but this whole ruckus including the bad user reviews actually exist because someone on the dev team has views that you don't agree with... That's rich!
Edit: @bluntfeather not meaning to offend you! But from my impression from reviews/comments it certainly seems true for a bunch of people.
No offense taken.
And no, it isn't because they have views people disagree with. It is that they disclosed their views.
My history teacher never told us whether or not he was a democrat or republican, no matter how much he was asked. Perhaps there was a reason for this.
I think a lot of people are arguing two very different things here. Games like this should contain political themes from all different sides and very diverse characters.
If you have a point you're trying to drive home, you make a compelling and interesting story that illustrates your point of view and makes the reader/player/viewer re-examine their own beliefs and perhaps come to some level of enlightenment.
Political beliefs and a transgender character, among other things, are great vehicles to tell stories and help people understand different points of view, while being entertained at the same time.
That's not what happened here though.
The developers told us the old games and characters were sexist and they were going to "fix" them and too bad if you don't like it. That's the wrong approach. Show, don't tell. Isn't that a pretty basic rule of writing?
The insertion of a line that served no purpose other than to take a jab at a group the developer didn't like has nothing to do with making a good game or helping anyone come to any kind of enlightenment on anything. It only served to bring in a whole bunch of drama and distract from the game and any discussion that could help improve it. The subsequent tweets brought in the OTHER side of that whole huge mess, leaving the game in the middle of the chaos and vitriol.
There is so much going on here on a lot of different levels, and most of it is bad. Many people are focusing on their own ideologies to the exclusion of common sense and the greater good of the game.
Beamdogs own actions at several different stages have brought us to this point. What they do next, with the game, with their public statements, and in this community, will salvage or destroy the franchise.
Yeah the thing is, folks don't want to "take it up" with anyone. Folks don't want to care about "the narrative". Folks want to play a game and read reviews free of controversial politics.
Then those folks should play Pong instead.
No, seriously, I don't even know what else to tell you. You're objecting to something that's been in the game since 1998. Viconia being harassed by a Flaming Fist officer because of her race? That's political. Mazzy not being able to be a paladin because she's a halfling, and proving herself a hero regardless? That's political. Nalia being a rich noblewoman who wants to help the less fortunate without having any clue what that really means? That's political. Haer'Dalis running off to knock boots with a male drow pleasure slave? That's political.
Baldur's Gate - and all of Dungeons & Dragons, according to Ed Greenwood and R.A. Salvatore and Nathan Stewart - has political elements. It has been political all along. So whoever these folks are that you're referring to, if they want to be free of "controversial politics" to the point of flipping out at the merest mention of such, they are playing the wrong effing game.
Yeah the thing is, folks don't want to "take it up" with anyone. Folks don't want to care about "the narrative". Folks want to play a game and read reviews free of controversial politics.
Then those folks should play Pong instead.
No, seriously, I don't even know what else to tell you. You're objecting to something that's been in the game since 1998. Viconia being harassed by a Flaming Fist officer because of her race? That's political. Mazzy not being able to be a paladin because she's a halfling, and proving herself a hero regardless? That's political. Nalia being a rich noblewoman who wants to help the less fortunate without having any clue what that really means? That's political. Haer'Dalis running off to knock boots with a male drow pleasure slave? That's political.
Baldur's Gate - and all of Dungeons & Dragons, according to Ed Greenwood and R.A. Salvatore and Nathan Stewart - has political elements. It has been political all along. So whoever these folks are that you're referring to, if they want to be free of "controversial politics" they are playing the wrong effing game.
Again, I'm not and haven't been objecting to anything within the game. Please read through my previous posts. I'm just trying to clear up the root of the issue, and that is publicly disclosing your politics is incredibly unwise when your goal as a storyteller is to remain unseen and leave people to interpret their own politics in the game itself.
And no, it isn't because they have views people disagree with. It is that they disclosed their views.
My history teacher never told us whether or not he was a democrat or republican, no matter how much he was asked. Perhaps there was a reason for this.
First off - a teacher is an official person employed by the state and teaching/influencing minors - so that's a very special situation.
I don't think employees of a company can be held by that standards and also the word of employees should never be seen as an official statement by the company. That goes double for tweets.
Oh and thanks for not taking offense - my post was very poorly written - sorry!
Again, I'm not and haven't been objecting to anything within the game. Please read through my previous posts. I'm just trying to clear up the root of the issue, and that is publicly disclosing your politics is incredibly unwise when your goal as a storyteller is to remain unseen and leave people interpret their own politics in the game itself.
Except that's not what happened. That's the narrative being pushed by a certain faction of trolls who will not be named, because it supports certain beliefs they'll recite at the drop of a hat. But the actual facts you can look up on this very forum say otherwise.
Amber Scott's much-derided forum post was months before SoD, in response to yet another homophobe complaining that Hexxat being a lesbian was a shoe-horned forced agenda that shouldn't exist in D&D etc. etc. etc. (Coincidentally, the same boring BS that's been spouted about Mizhena for over a week now.)
Scott's response was simply that, as a writer, she isn't obligated to take "the other side" into account when telling her story, or to answer charges that the mere presence of a gay character is "forced". Like any writer, she has the right to tell her story the way she wants to, and in this particular case she has the full support and backing of the license-holder to boot so there's even less ground for people to complain.
Creators have talked about the political aspects of their games forever. Richard Garriott was doing it with Ultima before the Internet even existed. This is not a new thing. Stop acting like Amber Scott invented the idea.
And no, it isn't because they have views people disagree with. It is that they disclosed their views.
My history teacher never told us whether or not he was a democrat or republican, no matter how much he was asked. Perhaps there was a reason for this.
First off - a teacher is an official person employed by the state and teaching/influencing minors - so that's a very special situation.
I don't think employees of a company can be held by that standards and also the word of employees should never be seen as an official statement by the company. That goes double for tweets.
Oh and thanks for not taking offense - my post was very poorly written - sorry!
I was worried someone would read too much into that anecdote and there it is. All I meant to convey there is that disclosing your personal view will influence how people interpret your stories and that a good writer will try to keep that locked behind as many doors as they can. When it's out on full display, it leaves much less to the imagination and people can feel cheated among other things.
Again, I'm not and haven't been objecting to anything within the game. Please read through my previous posts. I'm just trying to clear up the root of the issue, and that is publicly disclosing your politics is incredibly unwise when your goal as a storyteller is to remain unseen and leave people interpret their own politics in the game itself.
Except that's not what happened. That's the narrative being pushed by a certain faction of trolls who will not be named, because it supports certain beliefs they'll recite at the drop of a hat. But the actual facts you can look up on this very forum say otherwise.
Amber Scott's much-derided forum post was months before SoD, in response to yet another homophobe complaining that Hexxat being a lesbian was a shoe-horned forced agenda that shouldn't exist in D&D etc. etc. etc. (Coincidentally, the same boring BS that's been spouted about Mizhena for over a week now.)
Scott's response was simply that, as a writer, she isn't obligated to take "the other side" into account when telling her story, or to answer charges that the mere presence of a gay character is "forced". Like any writer, she has the right to tell her story the way she wants to, and in this particular case she has the full support and backing of the license-holder to boot so there's even less ground for people to complain.
Creators have talked about the political aspects of their games forever. Richard Garriott was doing it with Ultima before the Internet even existed. This is not a new thing. Stop acting like Amber Scott invented the idea.
Ok, and I would argue here that Scott, as a storyteller, made a mistake by disclosing her politics. I don't know the Garriott instance you're talking about but if it's roughly the same thing as this, regardless of whether or not it caused a kerfuffle back then, it was arguably unwise.
I didn't know anything about this controversy. For me, the better question would be: -Will this make you more hesitant to buy future games from this developer?
I'll certainly not jump the gun again before first checking the reactions.
Ok, and I would argue here that Scott, as a storyteller, made a mistake by disclosing her politics.
"I'm going to write what I want to write" is not a disclosure of politics. Or if it is, you're SOL because every single writer on the planet is going to agree with that sentiment.
tbh, I am considering not to play to game at all now, even although I preordered it. not really looking forward to a game that has been turned into the playground for overzealous sjws...
You know, it is passing ridiculous that people are insisting that correctly pointing out that Baldur's Gate had sexist elements is somehow insulting or disrespectful. It had sexist elements - a lot of games do. This doesn't mean it is a terrible game beyond any redemption or just full of evil, it just means it has places where it could have done better.
It's pretty obvious that people objecting to "politics" as a general concept mean something very specific - they don't want a transgender character in the game. Talking about "politics" is just a smokescreen, and they won't complain about other political aspects of the games they play. Especially when those politics agree with their own. It's about "not ever being exposed to something they don't like/agree with." Which makes it sound like what they're asking for is for computer games to just be a giant hug box for their own views.
Sorry, but it isn't a smokescreen at all. As I just said to Kco, this wasn't brought to the spotlight and held there so long because of things found within the game but rather because the writers disclosed their personal politics in interviews and on the forum which led to being much more easily able to interpret (or misinterpret) politics in the game itself.
You're right. I forgot that there's a woman for y'all to harass so you're going to harass her for as long as it takes to get her fired or to voluntarily leave, simply because she said that there were elements of sexism in Baldur's Gate, which is still not an insult, merely a statement of fact.
The idea that a writer should not disclose their politics is bizarre, its going to come out in their work no matter what. Consciously or unconsciously. Not to attack anyone's point of view of course but I don't think thats realistic my good friends.
tbh, I am considering not to play to game at all now, even although I preordered it. not really looking forward to a game that has been turned into the playground for overzealous sjws...
You're in luck! It's not a playground for overzealous SJWs (SJWs are straw men and don't actually exist, for that matter). The only overzealousness is the people trying to review-bomb the game into oblivion or complaining that a couple of lines from a single NPC amidst thousands of lines is "a playground for overzealous SJWs."
Since it is not what you're concerned with, there's no reason to not buy it. Unless, of course, you can't stand the idea that one of the writers may have politics that disagree with yours and an NPC that isn't like you in some way is shamelessly present. If you have those problems, then yeah, you should probably look for games more likely to cater to your views. Hatred is available on Steam, for example.
The idea that a writer should not disclose their politics is bizarre, its going to come out in their work no matter what. Consciously or unconsciously. Not to attack anyone's point of view of course but I don't think thats realistic my good friends.
I agree. Best thing to do if a game delves too deep into politics you dislike is to ignore the game. Or do as I did: Swallow it, and be cautious next time.
Ok, and I would argue here that Scott, as a storyteller, made a mistake by disclosing her politics.
"I'm going to write what I want to write" is not a disclosure of politics. Or if it is, you're SOL because every single writer on the planet is going to agree with that sentiment.
I'm pretty sure she wrote more than "I'm going to write what I want to write". In your previous post your wrote: "Scott's response was simply that, as a writer, she isn't obligated to take "the other side" into account when telling her story, or to answer charges that the mere presence of a gay character is "forced""
This implies she was taking a side. I found the post again and re-read it.
If you disagree or find the idea bizarre that a writer should not disclose their politics, that is fine. Just know that a lot of people, for valid reasons, will find error in it.
Again, I'm not and haven't been objecting to anything within the game. Please read through my previous posts. I'm just trying to clear up the root of the issue, and that is publicly disclosing your politics is incredibly unwise when your goal as a storyteller is to remain unseen and leave people interpret their own politics in the game itself.
Except that's not what happened. That's the narrative being pushed by a certain faction of trolls who will not be named, because it supports certain beliefs they'll recite at the drop of a hat. But the actual facts you can look up on this very forum say otherwise.
Amber Scott's much-derided forum post was months before SoD, in response to yet another homophobe complaining that Hexxat being a lesbian was a shoe-horned forced agenda that shouldn't exist in D&D etc. etc. etc. (Coincidentally, the same boring BS that's been spouted about Mizhena for over a week now.)
Scott's response was simply that, as a writer, she isn't obligated to take "the other side" into account when telling her story, or to answer charges that the mere presence of a gay character is "forced". Like any writer, she has the right to tell her story the way she wants to, and in this particular case she has the full support and backing of the license-holder to boot so there's even less ground for people to complain.
Creators have talked about the political aspects of their games forever. Richard Garriott was doing it with Ultima before the Internet even existed. This is not a new thing. Stop acting like Amber Scott invented the idea.
What Amber Scott wrote was stupid, there is no changing that.
It doesn't matter how much you're trying to wrap it up in "She has the right to tell her story the way she wants to". She went out and said that 1.) She didn't care about the community and their opinion, 2.) She WILL write her political beliefs into the game.
Just because you're allowed to do something, doesn't mean that you should do it. She should have been professional about it, and not mention her personal beliefs. She should definitely not have called the original game sexist, even if that was her opinion, because it was bound to cause some friction with the community when you call their 'holy grail' sexist.
Then on top of that she wanted to change the original characters, to be more in line with her political agenda. There is nothing wrong with this, she is the writer, but if you're going to tell people that their critically acclaimed game had some badly written characters, and then throw in your own political beliefs to correct this 'flaw', it's downright suicidal, especially since she isn't that good at writing.
If you're googling her name, the only thing you'll find is her quotes on this. I'm sad to say this, but she could not have caused more harm to her career. She alienated herself from a part of the Baldur's Gate/Gaming community, the community that she's writing for right now.
I'm tired of people defending Beamdog and Amber Scott. They were unprofessional and made several decisions that caused a lot of controversy. This can't be changed, but they can try to improve on this until the next release, hopefully they took some of this to heart and learnt from their mistakes.
People didn't know about Amber Scotts answers to questions in Kotaku and on this forum unless they were actively following the game development, which is the reason that all of this went under the radar at first. When this whole trans person controversy appeared, her quotes were dug up for everyone to see. This is why there is such a huge commotion about it right now, because people KNOW.
Beamdog have been running damage control since the 6th of April, so there is no doubt at all that they find some of their earlier choices to be problematic.
Minsc – Minsc has a line which generated controversy. Looking back on the line, we agree with the feedback from our community, it has nothing to do with his character and we will be removing the line. "
What they are saying here is that the 'rewriting' of certain characters (read Amber Scott's quote), had nothing to do with the character at all, and they agree with the community that it was a bad choice to make.
Beamdog has already admitted that they made a few mistakes with Siege of Dragonspear, and that they are trying to correct some of them. It makes no sense for you to try to defend this, when they so openly admitted that it's true. While Amber Scott and the way they handled the situation made them lose some respect in my eyes, the fact that they had the balls to come out and say that they fucked up, that earned them some respect again.
Ok, and I would argue here that Scott, as a storyteller, made a mistake by disclosing her politics.
"I'm going to write what I want to write" is not a disclosure of politics. Or if it is, you're SOL because every single writer on the planet is going to agree with that sentiment.
I'm pretty sure she wrote more than "I'm going to write what I want to write". In your previous post your wrote: "Scott's response was simply that, as a writer, she isn't obligated to take "the other side" into account when telling her story, or to answer charges that the mere presence of a gay character is "forced""
This implies she was taking a side. I found the post again and re-read it.
If you disagree or find the idea bizarre that a writer should not disclose their politics, that is fine. Just know that a lot of people, for valid reasons, will find error in it.
It's fascinating how this sort of idea (writers should not disclose their politics) only seems to apply when one disagrees with said politics.
Or were you protesting the whole sad puppies thing as well? And should I believe you if you say yes?
It's pretty obvious that people objecting to "politics" as a general concept mean something very specific - they don't want a transgender character in the game. Talking about "politics" is just a smokescreen, and they won't complain about other political aspects of the games they play. Especially when those politics agree with their own. It's about "not ever being exposed to something they don't like/agree with." Which makes it sound like what they're asking for is for computer games to just be a giant hug box for their own views.
I agree, and I think this point can go both ways; people will complain about Barbie while ignoring Ken, and vice versa.
As a homosexual myself, I think notions of prejudice should be explored freely in roleplaying games, and without any hassle or accommodation for players whose traits (as actual people, or in relation to their characters) may deviate from the established norms of their settings. Shouldn't fantasy realms challenge your character, not just hold their hand and unconditionally accept them for who they are? After all, Candlekeep could only keep you safe for so long.
Personally, I love this man's dreadlocks video on the subject of exploring racism in roleplaying games, in particular.
Ok, and I would argue here that Scott, as a storyteller, made a mistake by disclosing her politics.
"I'm going to write what I want to write" is not a disclosure of politics. Or if it is, you're SOL because every single writer on the planet is going to agree with that sentiment.
I'm pretty sure she wrote more than "I'm going to write what I want to write". In your previous post your wrote: "Scott's response was simply that, as a writer, she isn't obligated to take "the other side" into account when telling her story, or to answer charges that the mere presence of a gay character is "forced""
This implies she was taking a side. I found the post again and re-read it.
If you disagree or find the idea bizarre that a writer should not disclose their politics, that is fine. Just know that a lot of people, for valid reasons, will find error in it.
It's fascinating how this sort of idea (writers should not disclose their politics) only seems to apply when one disagrees with said politics.
Or were you protesting the whole sad puppies thing as well? And should I believe you if you say yes?
That it only seems to apply may be because the politics mentioned, at least in this discussion, happen to be highly controversial politics. The higher the controversy, the more easier it is to see.
I don't know about sad puppies but it would make me sad to see a sad puppy.
Ok, and I would argue here that Scott, as a storyteller, made a mistake by disclosing her politics.
"I'm going to write what I want to write" is not a disclosure of politics. Or if it is, you're SOL because every single writer on the planet is going to agree with that sentiment.
I'm pretty sure she wrote more than "I'm going to write what I want to write". In your previous post your wrote: "Scott's response was simply that, as a writer, she isn't obligated to take "the other side" into account when telling her story, or to answer charges that the mere presence of a gay character is "forced""
This implies she was taking a side. I found the post again and re-read it.
If you disagree or find the idea bizarre that a writer should not disclose their politics, that is fine. Just know that a lot of people, for valid reasons, will find error in it.
It's fascinating how this sort of idea (writers should not disclose their politics) only seems to apply when one disagrees with said politics.
Or were you protesting the whole sad puppies thing as well? And should I believe you if you say yes?
There is nothing wrong with writers disclosing their politics, but they should be prepared to face a backlash of doing that. Now Siege of Dragonspear is known for that backlash, and not for all of the good things that they put into the game.
Ok, and I would argue here that Scott, as a storyteller, made a mistake by disclosing her politics.
"I'm going to write what I want to write" is not a disclosure of politics. Or if it is, you're SOL because every single writer on the planet is going to agree with that sentiment.
I'm pretty sure she wrote more than "I'm going to write what I want to write". In your previous post your wrote: "Scott's response was simply that, as a writer, she isn't obligated to take "the other side" into account when telling her story, or to answer charges that the mere presence of a gay character is "forced""
This implies she was taking a side. I found the post again and re-read it.
If you disagree or find the idea bizarre that a writer should not disclose their politics, that is fine. Just know that a lot of people, for valid reasons, will find error in it.
It's fascinating how this sort of idea (writers should not disclose their politics) only seems to apply when one disagrees with said politics.
Or were you protesting the whole sad puppies thing as well? And should I believe you if you say yes?
There is nothing wrong with writers disclosing their politics, but they should be prepared to face a backlash of doing that. Now Siege of Dragonspear is known for that backlash, and not for all of the good things that they put into the game.
This is a good point. And I want to say that in my previous posts I'm not saying it is "wrong" to disclose your politics, but if you do so you can't call foul when people are upset about it.
That it only seems to apply may be because the politics mentioned, at least in this discussion, happen to be highly controversial politics. The higher the controversy, the more easier it is to see.
I don't know about sad puppies but it would make me sad to see a sad puppy.
"trans people exist and have right to talk about it without fear" = "highly controversial politics".
That it only seems to apply may be because the politics mentioned, at least in this discussion, happen to be highly controversial politics. The higher the controversy, the more easier it is to see.
I don't know about sad puppies but it would make me sad to see a sad puppy.
"trans people exist and have right to talk about it without fear" = "highly controversial politics".
Again, I'm not keeping count but it's getting up there, this is about politics expressed outside of the game influencing what you see in the game.
Definitely not a highly controversial topic to reasonable people approaching the topic without bias. There are definitely people who try to manufacture controversy, but we really should be past the point, as a culture, where people have emotional breakdowns over characters not like them appearing in media.
Oh, and Sad Puppies was a campaign by a conservative author to get more cis straight white guys Hugo nominations. Not all of the authors nominated by this campaign were necessarily conservative (I don't know this for sure) but the motivation behind it was fully political.
Let's not get the facts twisted here: Siege of Dragonspear is known for the backlash because a bunch of transphobic schmucks took it upon themselves to make a lot of noise over three lines of dialogue. The "politics" you're protesting boils down to the fact that Amber Scott put a transgender character in the game just because she felt like it. (And we know this because the first reviews of SoD across the board mention Mizhena specifically. There are dates and times on every single comment on Steam, on GOG and here.)
That's it. A female writer empowered and authorized by Wizards of the Coast added a minor transgender character on a whim, and gave that character three lines of dialogue. Oh, and accusations that Jaheira and Safana were rewritten, which no one has been able to prove so far because they haven't played SoD long enough to find any evidence of that.
That's the terrible agenda she shoved down your throats. That's all you've got.
Tell me again why we're supposed to take any of this seriously.
This isn't about one character in a computer game being trans. It's about Beamdog branding their game SJW, which is a political agenda that not everyone agree with. This is causing more controversy than Bioware with their sexual scenes between same gender (which I though was refreshing), because of the branding, not because of the character.
I don't think this would have blown up as badly, if those quotes from Amber Scott wouldn't have been made.
This isn't about one character in a computer game being trans. It's about Beamdog branding their game SJW, which is a political agenda that not everyone agree with.
See, here's your problem if you're sticking to that logic: Nathan Stewart, director of Dungeons & Dragons, has publicly stated that WotC sides with Amber, and has pointed to core rulebook passages from 1E to 5E supporting her position. If Beamdog's game is "branded SJW" (a meaningless term that says nothing at all), then all of D&D is SJW. So if you don't want to be accused of hypocrisy, I hope you're on your way to the nearest game shop to turn in your D20s.
This isn't about one character in a computer game being trans. It's about Beamdog branding their game SJW, which is a political agenda that not everyone agree with. This is causing more controversy than Bioware with their sexual scenes between same gender (which I though was refreshing), because of the branding, not because of the character.
I don't think this would have blown up as badly, if those quotes from Amber Scott wouldn't have been made.
Exactly. And when you know that this game is branded as such, it's hard to overlook the vast amount of strong female characters on one side, and the reciprocal amount of cowardly, drunken and traitorous male characters on the other. Yes, I want more female characters in games. Yes, I find the addition of transgender characters a refreshing thing. But when you force it like this, you are essentially damaging the game. A game that is actually very good, if not for all the glaring and obvious thematics about modern social juctice issues.
Comments
And no, it isn't because they have views people disagree with. It is that they disclosed their views.
My history teacher never told us whether or not he was a democrat or republican, no matter how much he was asked. Perhaps there was a reason for this.
If you have a point you're trying to drive home, you make a compelling and interesting story that illustrates your point of view and makes the reader/player/viewer re-examine their own beliefs and perhaps come to some level of enlightenment.
Political beliefs and a transgender character, among other things, are great vehicles to tell stories and help people understand different points of view, while being entertained at the same time.
That's not what happened here though.
The developers told us the old games and characters were sexist and they were going to "fix" them and too bad if you don't like it. That's the wrong approach. Show, don't tell. Isn't that a pretty basic rule of writing?
The insertion of a line that served no purpose other than to take a jab at a group the developer didn't like has nothing to do with making a good game or helping anyone come to any kind of enlightenment on anything. It only served to bring in a whole bunch of drama and distract from the game and any discussion that could help improve it. The subsequent tweets brought in the OTHER side of that whole huge mess, leaving the game in the middle of the chaos and vitriol.
There is so much going on here on a lot of different levels, and most of it is bad. Many people are focusing on their own ideologies to the exclusion of common sense and the greater good of the game.
Beamdogs own actions at several different stages have brought us to this point. What they do next, with the game, with their public statements, and in this community, will salvage or destroy the franchise.
No, seriously, I don't even know what else to tell you. You're objecting to something that's been in the game since 1998. Viconia being harassed by a Flaming Fist officer because of her race? That's political. Mazzy not being able to be a paladin because she's a halfling, and proving herself a hero regardless? That's political. Nalia being a rich noblewoman who wants to help the less fortunate without having any clue what that really means? That's political. Haer'Dalis running off to knock boots with a male drow pleasure slave? That's political.
Baldur's Gate - and all of Dungeons & Dragons, according to Ed Greenwood and R.A. Salvatore and Nathan Stewart - has political elements. It has been political all along. So whoever these folks are that you're referring to, if they want to be free of "controversial politics" to the point of flipping out at the merest mention of such, they are playing the wrong effing game.
I don't think employees of a company can be held by that standards and also the word of employees should never be seen as an official statement by the company. That goes double for tweets.
Oh and thanks for not taking offense - my post was very poorly written - sorry!
Amber Scott's much-derided forum post was months before SoD, in response to yet another homophobe complaining that Hexxat being a lesbian was a shoe-horned forced agenda that shouldn't exist in D&D etc. etc. etc. (Coincidentally, the same boring BS that's been spouted about Mizhena for over a week now.)
Scott's response was simply that, as a writer, she isn't obligated to take "the other side" into account when telling her story, or to answer charges that the mere presence of a gay character is "forced". Like any writer, she has the right to tell her story the way she wants to, and in this particular case she has the full support and backing of the license-holder to boot so there's even less ground for people to complain.
Creators have talked about the political aspects of their games forever. Richard Garriott was doing it with Ultima before the Internet even existed. This is not a new thing. Stop acting like Amber Scott invented the idea.
For me, the better question would be:
-Will this make you more hesitant to buy future games from this developer?
I'll certainly not jump the gun again before first checking the reactions.
Since it is not what you're concerned with, there's no reason to not buy it. Unless, of course, you can't stand the idea that one of the writers may have politics that disagree with yours and an NPC that isn't like you in some way is shamelessly present. If you have those problems, then yeah, you should probably look for games more likely to cater to your views. Hatred is available on Steam, for example.
Best thing to do if a game delves too deep into politics you dislike is to ignore the game.
Or do as I did:
Swallow it, and be cautious next time.
This implies she was taking a side. I found the post again and re-read it.
If you disagree or find the idea bizarre that a writer should not disclose their politics, that is fine. Just know that a lot of people, for valid reasons, will find error in it.
It doesn't matter how much you're trying to wrap it up in "She has the right to tell her story the way she wants to". She went out and said that 1.) She didn't care about the community and their opinion, 2.) She WILL write her political beliefs into the game.
Just because you're allowed to do something, doesn't mean that you should do it. She should have been professional about it, and not mention her personal beliefs. She should definitely not have called the original game sexist, even if that was her opinion, because it was bound to cause some friction with the community when you call their 'holy grail' sexist.
Then on top of that she wanted to change the original characters, to be more in line with her political agenda. There is nothing wrong with this, she is the writer, but if you're going to tell people that their critically acclaimed game had some badly written characters, and then throw in your own political beliefs to correct this 'flaw', it's downright suicidal, especially since she isn't that good at writing.
If you're googling her name, the only thing you'll find is her quotes on this. I'm sad to say this, but she could not have caused more harm to her career. She alienated herself from a part of the Baldur's Gate/Gaming community, the community that she's writing for right now.
I'm tired of people defending Beamdog and Amber Scott. They were unprofessional and made several decisions that caused a lot of controversy. This can't be changed, but they can try to improve on this until the next release, hopefully they took some of this to heart and learnt from their mistakes.
People didn't know about Amber Scotts answers to questions in Kotaku and on this forum unless they were actively following the game development, which is the reason that all of this went under the radar at first. When this whole trans person controversy appeared, her quotes were dug up for everyone to see. This is why there is such a huge commotion about it right now, because people KNOW.
Beamdog have been running damage control since the 6th of April, so there is no doubt at all that they find some of their earlier choices to be problematic.
Minsc – Minsc has a line which generated controversy. Looking back on the line, we agree with the feedback from our community, it has nothing to do with his character and we will be removing the line. "
What they are saying here is that the 'rewriting' of certain characters (read Amber Scott's quote), had nothing to do with the character at all, and they agree with the community that it was a bad choice to make.
Beamdog has already admitted that they made a few mistakes with Siege of Dragonspear, and that they are trying to correct some of them. It makes no sense for you to try to defend this, when they so openly admitted that it's true. While Amber Scott and the way they handled the situation made them lose some respect in my eyes, the fact that they had the balls to come out and say that they fucked up, that earned them some respect again.
Or were you protesting the whole sad puppies thing as well? And should I believe you if you say yes?
As a homosexual myself, I think notions of prejudice should be explored freely in roleplaying games, and without any hassle or accommodation for players whose traits (as actual people, or in relation to their characters) may deviate from the established norms of their settings. Shouldn't fantasy realms challenge your character, not just hold their hand and unconditionally accept them for who they are? After all, Candlekeep could only keep you safe for so long.
Personally, I love this man's
dreadlocksvideo on the subject of exploring racism in roleplaying games, in particular.I don't know about sad puppies but it would make me sad to see a sad puppy.
Oh, and Sad Puppies was a campaign by a conservative author to get more cis straight white guys Hugo nominations. Not all of the authors nominated by this campaign were necessarily conservative (I don't know this for sure) but the motivation behind it was fully political.
That's it. A female writer empowered and authorized by Wizards of the Coast added a minor transgender character on a whim, and gave that character three lines of dialogue. Oh, and accusations that Jaheira and Safana were rewritten, which no one has been able to prove so far because they haven't played SoD long enough to find any evidence of that.
That's the terrible agenda she shoved down your throats. That's all you've got.
Tell me again why we're supposed to take any of this seriously.
I don't think this would have blown up as badly, if those quotes from Amber Scott wouldn't have been made.
And when you know that this game is branded as such, it's hard to overlook the vast amount of strong female characters on one side, and the reciprocal amount of cowardly, drunken and traitorous male characters on the other.
Yes, I want more female characters in games. Yes, I find the addition of transgender characters a refreshing thing. But when you force it like this, you are essentially damaging the game.
A game that is actually very good, if not for all the glaring and obvious thematics about modern social juctice issues.