Skip to content

Has the controversy made you more hesitant towards buying Siege of Dragonspear?

16781012

Comments

  • DizDiz Member Posts: 12
    See, this is more of what brought this whole thing to a head to begin with. Dee, I'm looking at you.

    You could have had whatever you wanted in the game, that isn't what was being criticized. Where the issue came to a head is when certain devs were making statements outside the game that came off as dickish and gave the appearance of an agenda. The trans character and GG joke are whatever. Every game has cringy writing in places, it doesn't "ruin" them. I personally think that if the issue of inclusion mattered to you, you would have made a playable character with an actual backstory rather than what seemed to be a throw away NPC in order to check another item off the lists, and quite a number of T fans of the game on Steam have said the same thing. Putting that into context with the statements made is what got people annoyed, because it sounds like you don't care about the issue so much as you want to *appear* to care about the issue.

    Getting all over GG's ass for this whole fiasco is another thing too. I'm not even going to get into allegations being made unless someone can back them up with a bit of proof. GG is mad at the gaming press for this rather than BD.
    ElGuapowraith5641Rathenau
  • Metal_HurlantMetal_Hurlant Member Posts: 324



    I haven't even started on Dragonspear yet, I'm in the process of playing the original game.

    How are you finding the original game? Assuming you're new to D&D?, is the game difficult to learn? Or are you finding the rules and the game overall easy to learn? Also, how do you like the game considering it came out in 1998?
  • abentwookieabentwookie Member Posts: 91
    edited April 2016
    Diz said:


    Getting all over GG's ass for this whole fiasco is another thing too. I'm not even going to get into allegations being made unless someone can back them up with a bit of proof. GG is mad at the gaming press for this rather than BD.

    Yes, I'm sure the people complaining about transgendered characters and a joke specifically about GamerGate, totally aren't GameGaters. They are just regular people who yell about "SJWs" (a word used mostly by GG) and use basically the same arguments as GamerGaters. Its just a big coincidence I am sure. :open_mouth: Much like the people who made death threats on Twitter against exactly the same people that were considered enemies of GamerGate are most certainly not GamerGaters either. They just hate the same people as GG and just happened to attack these individuals at the exact same time the GamerGate controversy was at its peak. Its a coincidence I tell you! lol

    Come on now.... I don't think for a second you really believe that.



    I haven't even started on Dragonspear yet, I'm in the process of playing the original game.

    How are you finding the original game? Assuming you're new to D&D?, is the game difficult to learn? Or are you finding the rules and the game overall easy to learn? Also, how do you like the game considering it came out in 1998?
    It was a bit over-complicated at first and requires a lot of micro-management of the group but I think I have a pretty good handle on the game now. Its fun so far but i'll have to get a little deeper into it before I can really say much about it.
    AyiekieGrumNonnahswriter
  • BGLoverBGLover Member Posts: 550
    Joey said:

    Incidentally I have been following this drama closely, not just on here but on KIA. And I haven't seen a single person calling anyone abnormal, claim that LGBT content has no place in mainstream game, harrass (or incite others to harass) anyone, say anything abusive or use a pejorative term. The only thing you've mentioned that would be accurate would be that someone's views have been labled as "hateful, discusting and despicable" - but that applies to the views, not the person.

    Joey, the inference you make is that my observations were not accurate.

    They absolutely were/are accurate. Just to repeat, I have read all those things on this very forum (and much more too!)

    I will repeat what I have said many times. I have no problem with criticism of Siege of Dragonspear because of bugs, functionality, changes to UI etc etc

    I absolutely have a problem with all the bile and vitriol I have read on this forum over the last week.

    I absolutely have a problem with the concerted campaign to discredit and undermine Siege of Dragonspear for reasons that seem to have very little (if anything) to do with the game.

    And I absolutely have a problem with people now trying to rewrite the history of the last week.
    AyiekieGenderNihilismGirdleKcoQuidam
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975

    @BelleSorciere SJW as a pejorative is not meaningless. It means someone that is militant and zealous in the promotion of their socially-liberal views and their agenda. Some people may use it erroneously, but it is definitely a legitimate term and is not at all a flattering one.

    Of course it's meaningless. It's a made-up term used by channers and particularly by GGers to describe anybody who disagrees with them on any issue related to racism/sexism/etc.. It has literally no meaning beyond "you're one of THEM" and "you don't sincerely hold your beliefs". Anybody who disagrees with them gets painted with the brush, regardless of how socially liberal they are or are not. It is not a particularly legitimate term as it has next to no mainstream usage and no real definition beyond "person who disagrees with chan culture".

    It isn't intended to be flattering, however, true.


    GenderNihilismGirdleKcoQuidam
  • ElGuapoElGuapo Member Posts: 37
    Ayiekie said:

    @BelleSorciere SJW as a pejorative is not meaningless. It means someone that is militant and zealous in the promotion of their socially-liberal views and their agenda. Some people may use it erroneously, but it is definitely a legitimate term and is not at all a flattering one.

    Of course it's meaningless. It's a made-up term used by channers and particularly by GGers to describe anybody who disagrees with them on any issue related to racism/sexism/etc.. It has literally no meaning beyond "you're one of THEM" and "you don't sincerely hold your beliefs". Anybody who disagrees with them gets painted with the brush, regardless of how socially liberal they are or are not. It is not a particularly legitimate term as it has next to no mainstream usage and no real definition beyond "person who disagrees with chan culture".

    It isn't intended to be flattering, however, true.


    You, and others, are doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction. Just swap GGer for SJW.

    It's all nonsense and detracts from any discussion about the game.
    bluntfeatherRathenau
  • Kivan_DKivan_D Member Posts: 12
    @Silverstar

    Kivan_D said:

    All these years i' ve tried to roleplay with every given alignment in this game but i enjoy most the chaotic evil alignment........

    I'm actually a bit jealous of your ability to do that. While I can pick "evil" choices here and there, I find it hard to play truly evil all the time, as evil choices in RPGs tend to be so stupidly over-the-top puppy-eating monstrous.
    I still remember my last multiplayer BG playthrough with an LE/NE party..eg i killed Angel the Cat but my buddies had me to reload the save cause we are all cat lovers but they couldn't allow this to happen, hehehe! So i can understand what you are saying. I don't have such problems and moral dilemmas (except when i role-play as a LE) because games are just games as i said before ;) and that's the fan! The most difficult part of playing evil characters is that you have to ignore a lot of side quests and lose XPs that way. My most joyful experience as an evil character was when i imported my beloved, re-incarnated Jon Irenicus to BG and lead him to the Throne and godhood! Not bothering with side quests, just role-play! ^_^ I believe that the most difficult alignment for me to role-play is True Neutral.

    @wraith5641
    No, i don't have it my friend but you just gave me a good idea ^_^
    wraith5641
  • KcoQuidamKcoQuidam Member Posts: 181



    I haven't even started on Dragonspear yet, I'm in the process of playing the original game.

    Welcome to an fantastic gaming journey mate o/. The game can really look hard to take in hand but if you like rich story you're going on something really memorable.

    Hoping you gonna have a good time.
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975
    ElGuapo said:


    You, and others, are doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction. Just swap GGer for SJW.

    I know false equivalency is awesome and all, but false it is. "Me, and others" did not make up the term (one of the Baldwins did) and it is actively and continuously used by those it refers to (unlike SJW, which is actively and continuously used by... GGers, KiA, Redpillers, and other such areas of the internet).

    It certainly has a pejorative meaning when used by most people that aren't in GG, but that is because it is used in contexts that are relevant - harassment of women, coordinated campaigns against developers and websites, vitriol against supposed "SJW" writing, hatred of feminism, hatred of anything considered "censorship", hatred of certain internet figures who are mostly women, et cetera.

    Now, what I will grant you is that sometimes people are quick to attack the GG name to the above sort of things when it may in fact be just other bits of the reactionary online manosphere.
    ElGuapo said:


    It's all nonsense and detracts from any discussion about the game.

    You have made a bunch of posts about this "nonsense", and you have no trouble stepping in to defend poor besmirched GG's good name. Look to your own glass house.
  • inethineth Member Posts: 707
    LAZERDOG said:

    First off - a teacher is an official person employed by the state and teaching/influencing minors - so that's a very special situation.

    Game developers/writers who are currently promoting their company's product in interviews and on twitter, are also in a special situation.

    They shouldn't be forbidden from mixing their promotional/commercial speech with political speech on the same communication medium, but they should be smart about it and understand that it is usually not a good idea, as it can fuel PR nightmares like it did here.
    bluntfeatherSilverstarRathenau
  • KcoQuidamKcoQuidam Member Posts: 181
    (Why is this conversation become again a discuss about the term "SJW" and "GG" ? This thread is a poll asking if people changed their mind regard on buying DoS no ? I don't think this is the spot for this ... not very interesting in my opinion ... ""debate"")
    GenderNihilismGirdle
  • CinuCinu Member Posts: 9
    edited April 2016
    I'm owner of the BG:EE, BG2:EE and IWD:EE, i was very hyped with this expansion, because BG is my favourite not only game, but story carring medium of all time, but I won't buy expansion until the writing is fixed. As I've heard it is strictly subpar compared to original. Not having a problem with trans character, just make dialogs appealing, and don't change the lore to fit your nasty agenda.
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975
    ineth said:


    They shouldn't be forbidden from mixing their promotional/commercial speech with political speech on the same communication medium, but they should be smart about it and understand that it is usually not a good idea, as it can fuel PR nightmares like it did here.

    First off, what PR nightmare?

    The people pissed off about this are by and large the exact same people who were going to be pissed off by SoD anyways. We didn't need any writer talking about their political views for a giant shitstorm to erupt about Hexxat. This was going to happen anyway, and in fact DID start happening before they dug up the interview to howl about.

    More to the point, though, absolutely no PR nightmare happened at the time the interview was put up. At all. So there wasn't a PR nightmare. There was just already angry people looking to twist someone's words to give justification for their anger.

    And that would have happened no matter what she said.

    Oh, and obviously, mainstream media isn't pissed at or criticising Beamdog about this at all. Even on this forum there is an extremely high correlation between people criticising this interview and the people who are upset about Mizhena and Minsc's now-cut line. The interview has nothing to do with anything, and wouldn't even if people weren't flagrantly taking what she said out of context.
    GenderNihilismGirdleGrum
  • wraith5641wraith5641 Member Posts: 500

    @BelleSorciere SJW as a pejorative is not meaningless. It means someone that is militant and zealous in the promotion of their socially-liberal views and their agenda. Some people may use it erroneously, but it is definitely a legitimate term and is not at all a flattering one.

    I know what I've seen and it's about as legit as a three dollar bill. Sorry, I just don't see it being used for anything but silencing people who may be trying to talk about the oppression they or others experience.

    If you use SJW as a pejorative, I am not going to believe you when you say this because you're invested in that usage.

    This right here is the problem. "You said something I don't like, therefore I'm going to delegitimize everything you've said."
    XartaXRathenau
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,108
    edited April 2016

    @BelleSorciere SJW as a pejorative is not meaningless. It means someone that is militant and zealous in the promotion of their socially-liberal views and their agenda. Some people may use it erroneously, but it is definitely a legitimate term and is not at all a flattering one.

    I know what I've seen and it's about as legit as a three dollar bill. Sorry, I just don't see it being used for anything but silencing people who may be trying to talk about the oppression they or others experience.

    If you use SJW as a pejorative, I am not going to believe you when you say this because you're invested in that usage.

    This right here is the problem. "You said something I don't like, therefore I'm going to delegitimize everything you've said."
    It's not a problem, just a matter of observation. I've never seen people insincerely doing social justice work just for the sake of "virtue signalling" or whatever other rationalizations get thrown in to delegitimize the idea that people in social justice are sincere.

    I have seen a lot of complaining about "SJWs" but I've never seen an SJW - I have seen people I know for a fact are sincere called "SJWs" for saying something as noncontroversial as "treat women with respect." When I see people called "SJW" it's always a way to attack them as a person.

    When I see people double down on the idea of "SJWs" I know they're coming at this from a perspective built upon a falsehood (whether they know it or not), and I see no reason to lend their (or your) views much credence.
    GenderNihilismGirdleAyiekie
  • wraith5641wraith5641 Member Posts: 500
    @Ayiekie All of what you have said is subjective and can EASILY be countered. Stop acting like you are the arbiter of all that is righteous, because you are not.

    What's more, the wording of what you have written is deliberately inflammatory.

    "To hell with people that think different to me." is basically what you just said.

    That kind of attitude is what we are all tired of. To hell with people who don't give a damn about free expression. To hell with people who don't understand that the world is a melting pot of ideas and we should all share them. To hell with people who have no interest in sitting down and talking about the best way of rationally solving an issue. If anyone on this forum REALLY gives a damn about the creative writing involved in this game or any game, it's that exact stance you should be fighting against.
    XartaXElGuapoRathenau
  • wraith5641wraith5641 Member Posts: 500
    Ayiekie said:

    @BelleSorciere SJW as a pejorative is not meaningless. It means someone that is militant and zealous in the promotion of their socially-liberal views and their agenda. Some people may use it erroneously, but it is definitely a legitimate term and is not at all a flattering one.

    Of course it's meaningless. It's a made-up term used by channers and particularly by GGers to describe anybody who disagrees with them on any issue related to racism/sexism/etc.. It has literally no meaning beyond "you're one of THEM" and "you don't sincerely hold your beliefs". Anybody who disagrees with them gets painted with the brush, regardless of how socially liberal they are or are not. It is not a particularly legitimate term as it has next to no mainstream usage and no real definition beyond "person who disagrees with chan culture".

    It isn't intended to be flattering, however, true.


    No, it isn't. Not only is it not just used by "channers" and "GGers", it is a neologism that even has its own page on Wikipedia. If you're a zealous liberal militant who tries to push their way of seeing the world onto somebody else, you are an SJW, whether you like to admit it or not.

    I find it funny when SJWs say "I'm not going to take anything you say seriously now you've used such and such term" because they never have any interest in listening or taking on board opposing ideas anyway. That's the whole point.

    Just because conservatives have hijacked the term and are using it erroneously to describe every liberal, it doesn't make it an illegitimate term. There are those of us that are in the most rational place on the liberal spectrum that recognize the radical left as a threat. The radical left has even been a threat to this particular game, probably even more so than the radical right. I never for one minute thought that would happen to this series, but sadly I was wrong.
    XartaXElGuapoRathenau
  • wraith5641wraith5641 Member Posts: 500

    @BelleSorciere SJW as a pejorative is not meaningless. It means someone that is militant and zealous in the promotion of their socially-liberal views and their agenda. Some people may use it erroneously, but it is definitely a legitimate term and is not at all a flattering one.

    I know what I've seen and it's about as legit as a three dollar bill. Sorry, I just don't see it being used for anything but silencing people who may be trying to talk about the oppression they or others experience.

    If you use SJW as a pejorative, I am not going to believe you when you say this because you're invested in that usage.

    This right here is the problem. "You said something I don't like, therefore I'm going to delegitimize everything you've said."
    It's not a problem, just a matter of observation. I've never seen people insincerely doing social justice work just for the sake of "virtue signalling" or whatever other rationalizations get thrown in to delegitimize the idea that people in social justice are sincere.

    I have seen a lot of complaining about "SJWs" but I've never seen an SJW - I have seen people I know for a fact are sincere called "SJWs" for saying something as noncontroversial as "treat women with respect." When I see people called "SJW" it's always a way to attack them as a person.

    When I see people double down on the idea of "SJWs" I know they're coming at this from a perspective built upon a falsehood (whether they know it or not), and I see no reason to lend their (or your) views much credence.
    That is all your perception. Your perception is heavily biased, unfortunately. You are purposely searching for information that fits your narrative. That is logically fallacious. If you are using logicial fallacies to bolster your point, the irony here is that you are delegitimizing it yourself.
    ElGuapoRathenau
  • ElGuapoElGuapo Member Posts: 37
    Having looked at this for a few days now, my thoughts on it all have evolved some. I think Beamdog provoked all of this, not intentionally, but nonetheless. They've said things they shouldn't have said, not because I think their opinions are wrong necessarily, but because it's just foolish to think you're going to do anything but piss people off when you say you don't care if they like something or not, your going to change and "fix" beloved characters, etc.. The Minsc line could have done nothing but attract negative attention. The responses and tweets and all that, the back and forth and arguing here and elsewhere, none of it is productive. The developer set the stage for all this to happen, in my opinion, and for that reason I am upset with them. I don't have confidence in them right now, that they'll take proper care of something that means a lot to me.

    I like the idea of having a transgender character and I think it's wrong to attack that. I condemn threats, name calling, or stereotyping people on either side of this larger political/cultural argument.

    I've given my opinions on it all enough. I love Baldurs Gate and only want good things for it. I'm going to try to avoid getting involved in any more conversation about this "controversy" since it seems like it's pretty much all been said. More of it is probably just going to divide people further and that's bad.

    I'll probably stick around and talk some about the games, the Realms, D&D, AD&D, etc., and I'll see where things go with Beamdog. I'd like to see it all get better.

    Peace.

    wraith5641XartaXRathenau
  • wraith5641wraith5641 Member Posts: 500
    @ElGuapo Peace, brother.

    Don't worry; there are still plenty of us that are willing to sit down and trade ideas if you have anything you'd like to share.
    ElGuapo
  • znancekivellznancekivell Member Posts: 58
    Nope.

    Nearly every game has some sort of controversy. Heck, even Tetris has come under fire in the past. I prefer to buy and play games based on my own view of the merit the game proposes. SoD did not disappoint.
    BGLoverMiloGrumGenderNihilismGirdle
  • knasknas Member Posts: 50
    On the contrary to the options in the poll I have had many people who normally aren't interested in old games like Baldurs Gate mentioning that they're going to check it out because of the controversy and to support beamdog. :)
    GrumGenderNihilismGirdle
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621
    knas said:

    On the contrary to the options in the poll I have had many people who normally aren't interested in old games like Baldurs Gate mentioning that they're going to check it out because of the controversy and to support beamdog. :)

    So they buy games for political reasons and not for fun?
    XartaX
  • FeilakasFeilakas Member Posts: 49
    Ok, 10 pages worth of posts later and it has become readily apparent that no-one cares about the game anymore and are more concerned with b!tching and bickering about GG, SJW, LGBT, FBI, FDA, AT&T or whichever other acronym.

    Yes the Devs F-ed up, they did by using a high-importance, torch-passing project for tackling a sensitive set of issues with obvious backlash from a VERY vocal group of people (not gonna make a guess on whether they were/are minority, majority or anywhere in between) and/or they did when they became very vocal about it after-the-fact and ended riling up said group later.

    Doesn't matter, what's done is done and I am pretty sure that by now they are painfully aware of that and from now on will know better.
    As this isn't a forum about politics, social studies or, tumbl, this discussion no longer has a purpose here.

    Like Dee said, talking about writing, (re)presentation and other ways to better the game should be front and center but beating a dead horse over and over AND OVER no longer serves any kind of a purpose except for giving an outlet to a discussion that no longer has a place here.

    I do believe there was a warning from a moderator about sth along those lines 1-2 pages back.

    Otherwise, if moderating this thread has become more trouble than it's worth, it might be better if a mod would close this thread permanently.
    ElGuapo
  • knasknas Member Posts: 50
    Rawgrim said:

    knas said:

    On the contrary to the options in the poll I have had many people who normally aren't interested in old games like Baldurs Gate mentioning that they're going to check it out because of the controversy and to support beamdog. :)

    So they buy games for political reasons and not for fun?
    Politics and fun aren't exclusive of each other. Wanting to see what the fuzz is about is just curiosity. They likely had SoD figured to be just another infinity game (yay a sequel to a 20 year old game), but seeing the amount of controversy surrounding it realized there might be something else to it :) Like it or not, in the long run this stuff has likely helped a product that would have gone largely unnoticed pop up all over the internet.
    GrumGenderNihilismGirdle
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621
    knas said:

    Rawgrim said:

    knas said:

    On the contrary to the options in the poll I have had many people who normally aren't interested in old games like Baldurs Gate mentioning that they're going to check it out because of the controversy and to support beamdog. :)

    So they buy games for political reasons and not for fun?
    Politics and fun aren't exclusive of each other. Wanting to see what the fuzz is about is just curiosity. They likely had SoD figured to be just another infinity game (yay a sequel to a 20 year old game), but seeing the amount of controversy surrounding it realized there might be something else to it :) Like it or not, in the long run this stuff has likely helped a product that would have gone largely unnoticed pop up all over the internet.
    No way this would have gone unnoticed. Zero chance. Every rpg fan and d&d player has been aching for this one for almost 20 years.
  • knasknas Member Posts: 50
    Rawgrim said:

    knas said:

    Rawgrim said:

    knas said:

    On the contrary to the options in the poll I have had many people who normally aren't interested in old games like Baldurs Gate mentioning that they're going to check it out because of the controversy and to support beamdog. :)

    So they buy games for political reasons and not for fun?
    Politics and fun aren't exclusive of each other. Wanting to see what the fuzz is about is just curiosity. They likely had SoD figured to be just another infinity game (yay a sequel to a 20 year old game), but seeing the amount of controversy surrounding it realized there might be something else to it :) Like it or not, in the long run this stuff has likely helped a product that would have gone largely unnoticed pop up all over the internet.
    No way this would have gone unnoticed. Zero chance. Every rpg fan and d&d player has been aching for this one for almost 20 years.
    Sure, to old school CRPG fans. I'm talking about people outside that group.
    GrumGenderNihilismGirdleAyiekie
Sign In or Register to comment.