Skip to content

Seems SoD is surprisingly controversial. Would you still recommend purchasing it?

12346

Comments

  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    Fardragon said:

    Then they will complain that they didn't get their favourite characters back.

    People will complain whatever you do, so you should do whatever the hell you want.

    If you make new characters, then you can sit there and say, "Well, we felt new characters were a better option. It's been 250 years; the original characters are doing other things." -- which is essentially a "too bad, so sad" response. Then, those idiots would stfu generally.
  • RobertMcDuckRobertMcDuck Member Posts: 133
    What was the removed line Minsc spoke? Can someone qoute him?
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited April 2016

    Fardragon said:

    Then they will complain that they didn't get their favourite characters back.

    People will complain whatever you do, so you should do whatever the hell you want.

    If you make new characters, then you can sit there and say, "Well, we felt new characters were a better option. It's been 250 years; the original characters are doing other things." -- which is essentially a "too bad, so sad" response. Then, those idiots would stfu generally.
    If you think anything would get idiots to "stfu" you don't know much about idiots.


    There would obviously be mostly new characters, but having one or two returnees would be good for continuity.
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,108

    What was the removed line Minsc spoke? Can someone qoute him?

    "Actually, it is about ethics in heroic adventuring."
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511

    What was the removed line Minsc spoke? Can someone qoute him?

    "Actually, it is about ethics in heroic adventuring."
    Which you would have to be complety deranged to find offensive.
  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    Fardragon said:

    If you think anything would get idiots to "stfu" you don't know much about idiots.

    I think you know what I mean. Such a stance tends to defang detractors.
    Fardragon said:

    There would obviously be mostly new characters, but having one or two returnees would be good for continuity.

    Eh. Either way, really.
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621

    looking at the whole safana thing just reeks of hypocrisy. if a modder had made a mod to have her in bg2 and expanded her character [ like xan and kivan} no one would have complained but because beamdog did it it's the end of the world.

    Mods aren't canon.
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621
    Fardragon said:

    What was the removed line Minsc spoke? Can someone qoute him?

    "Actually, it is about ethics in heroic adventuring."
    Which you would have to be completely deranged to find offensive.
    I don't think anyone found it offensive. It is just the fact that Minsc says it. The one character in the game that doesn't have a hint of a bad bone in him.

    + it brings real world "politics\drama" into the game.
  • Sids1188Sids1188 Member Posts: 165

    looking at the whole safana thing just reeks of hypocrisy. if a modder had made a mod to have her in bg2 and expanded her character [ like xan and kivan} no one would have complained but because beamdog did it it's the end of the world.

    Agreed. But you're always going to have that. When Bioware expanded characters in Mass Effect 2 (because several of the characters carried over from 1), people complained. When they did the same thing in 3 (again, characters carried over from 2), people complained. People will always complain, so you might as well make new characters and give them less reason to complain.
    fun fact i prefer garrus's characterization in 2 and 3 much more then 1.

    I liked Garrus in all, and Tali just got better and better. Wasn't a fan of what they did with Liara though. Going from the sweet, shy, nerdy girl with no social skills in 1, to a manipulative super spy with an absurd boob job in 3. Seemed like a huge stretch.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    Rawgrim said:

    Fardragon said:

    What was the removed line Minsc spoke? Can someone qoute him?

    "Actually, it is about ethics in heroic adventuring."
    Which you would have to be completely deranged to find offensive.
    I don't think anyone found it offensive. It is just the fact that Minsc says it. The one character in the game that doesn't have a hint of a bad bone in him.
    So it's impossible for good people to talk about ethics?!
    + it brings real world "politics\drama" into the game.
    Because it's impossible for fictional characters to discuss ethics?
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,727
    edited April 2016
    I think the thing with that line was not the words used in it, including the word "ethics", but rather the context of the modern world, where this exact combination of words looked similar to an infamous phrase.

    But this thing was discussed many times already on this forum, so really it's better not to go that route again, for the Xth time.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    bengoshi said:

    I think the thing with that line was not the words used in it, including the word "ethics", but rather the context of the modern world, where this exact combination of words looked similar to an infamous phrase.

    For something to be "infamous" it must first be famous. I'd never heard of it, and you can tell from the forums that a great many others have never heard of it either. Infamous to a small group of self-righteous whiners who live in a very narrow world perhaps, but for 99.99999999999999999% of the human race, there is no reason to take the phrase at anything other than face value.

    "By your command" is an example of a phrase that was actually famous.
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,727
    Fardragon said:

    a small group of self-righteous whiners

    See, it's hard for you not to write something that looks not nice right away. There's absolutely no need to do that, this is why I wrote: "this thing was discussed many times already on this forum, so really it's better not to go that route again".

    It can quickly lead to breaking the forum rules.
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621
    Fardragon said:

    Rawgrim said:

    Fardragon said:

    What was the removed line Minsc spoke? Can someone qoute him?

    "Actually, it is about ethics in heroic adventuring."
    Which you would have to be completely deranged to find offensive.
    I don't think anyone found it offensive. It is just the fact that Minsc says it. The one character in the game that doesn't have a hint of a bad bone in him.
    So it's impossible for good people to talk about ethics?!
    + it brings real world "politics\drama" into the game.
    Because it's impossible for fictional characters to discuss ethics?


    Nope. But it is impossible for Minsc to know about GamerGate. Even the devs said this was a bad idea, and they are removing it.

    Would you enjoy it if Jeheira starts to talk about Donald Trump and what a poor president he would be?
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited April 2016
    Rawgrim said:



    Nope. But it is impossible for Minsc to know about GamerGate. Even the devs said this was a bad idea, and they are removing it.

    Would you enjoy it if Jeheira starts to talk about Donald Trump and what a poor president he would be?

    Minsc talks about ethics, he makes no mention of "Gamergate".

    I would prefer it if Jalhera didn't impersonate a Cylon from Battlestar Galactica, but that train left the station 18 years ago.

    As for this "Trump" person, it's pretty irrelevant, no one of that name is running for president of my county.
    Post edited by Fardragon on
  • Sids1188Sids1188 Member Posts: 165
    edited April 2016
    Rawgrim said:



    Nope. But it is impossible for Minsc to know about GamerGate. Even the devs said this was a bad idea, and they are removing it.

    Would you enjoy it if Jeheira starts to talk about Donald Trump and what a poor president he would be?

    Actually that doesn't quite work. Minsc himself doesn't actually say anything about GamerGate, he talks about adventuring. The connection between the phrase and the group are left to the player. Similar to how Xzar couldn't possibly know about the Bhagavad Gita or the nuclear bomb, but it still makes sense for him to use his "I have become death, destroyer of worlds" line. The connection to Oppenheimer is left to the players imagination.

    As for your example of Jaheira, if she specifically talked about Trump, then that would of course be absurd. But a better analogue to this situation would be if she said "I just want to make the Sword Coast great again". It would be an obvious reference to Trump, but would not have her actually going beyond what the character could say. I don't necessarily think a quote like that would be a problem (though it wouldn't be a great line either).

    I'm not sad to see the Minsc line go, it didn't really belong in the game, and I don't think it filled a worthwhile goal. But it isn't really any more out of place than other lines.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    bengoshi said:




    It can quickly lead to breaking the forum rules.

    As I read it, if I where to call someone on the forum a "self-righteous whiner" I would be breaking the forum rules. However, if I talk generally about people who whine in a self-righteous manner, it would be within forum rules.

    self-righteous: adjective
    1.
    confident of one's own righteousness, especially when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.

    whinner: c.1700, frequentative of whine.

    whine: verb
    2.
    to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way:
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    If the bar we're setting is "Technically not against the rules", we're setting the bar too low.

    Aim higher.
  • SilverstarSilverstar Member Posts: 2,207
    Sids1188 said:

    an absurd boob job

    I'm not familiar with this concept of which you speak.
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,727
    Fardragon said:



    As I read it, if I where to call someone on the forum a "self-righteous whiner" I would be breaking the forum rules. However, if I talk generally about people who whine in a self-righteous manner, it would be within forum rules.

    You always should take into account the context. The people you're talking about as a whole can visit the same forum, the same thread and your message can be taken personal by them.

    Imagine it this way: you're in a Faerun tavern and talking loudly bad things about the Zhentarim. Who knows if a hooded figure next to your table is not an agent of Zhents, already drawing his short sword.
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621
    Sids1188 said:

    Rawgrim said:



    Nope. But it is impossible for Minsc to know about GamerGate. Even the devs said this was a bad idea, and they are removing it.

    Would you enjoy it if Jeheira starts to talk about Donald Trump and what a poor president he would be?

    Actually that doesn't quite work. Minsc himself doesn't actually say anything about GamerGate, he talks about adventuring. The connection between the phrase and the group are left to the player. Similar to how Xzar couldn't possibly know about the Bhagavad Gita or the nuclear bomb, but it still makes sense for him to use his "I have become death, destroyer of worlds" line. The connection to Oppenheimer is left to the players imagination.

    As for your example of Jaheira, if she specifically talked about Trump, then that would of course be absurd. But a better analogue to this situation would be if she said "I just want to make the Sword Coast great again". It would be an obvious reference to Trump, but would not have her actually going beyond what the character could say. I don't necessarily think a quote like that would be a problem (though it wouldn't be a great line either).

    I'm not sad to see the Minsc line go, it didn't really belong in the game, and I don't think it filled a worthwhile goal. But it isn't really any more out of place than other lines.
    Except it has been confirmed that it was aimed at GamerGate, so...

    I have no love for those rats over at GamerGate, though. Can send them to Mars, for all I care.
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975
    Rawgrim said:


    Except it has been confirmed that it was aimed at GamerGate, so...

    In reference to |= aimed at.

    I don't really care about the line except for being uncomfortable at those who will be encouraged by its removal (for starters, I don't like Minsc and try never to use him), but it was never "insulting" and it was always absurd to pretend it was. The group itself uses the phrase and variants of it unironically. In no way in-universe was Minsc commenting on it, and out-of-universe, the phrase could easily have been taken as pro-GG were it not for the fact the people who cared generally felt Beamdog was already hostile to them for reasons which have already been talked upon ad nauseum.
  • Sids1188Sids1188 Member Posts: 165
    edited April 2016
    Rawgrim said:


    Except it has been confirmed that it was aimed at GamerGate, so...

    I have no love for those rats over at GamerGate, though. Can send them to Mars, for all I care.

    Of course, I never said it wasn't. I was responding your implication that Minsc acted like he knew about GG when he couldn't (which I agree, would be a problem if it was the case), I said that Minsc himself didn't mention GamerGate. He talked about things that are in his world (adventuring and ethics) the rest is left to the player. *We* know he's talking about GG, *he* does not. That's how real world references work in fantasy settings.

    Similarly, we know that Xzar is talking about the Manhatten Project, but he does so in a way that fits his world. *We* know he's referring to it, *he* does not.

    When Garrick talks of how he's bravely running away, *we* know he's talking about The Holy Grail (something that he obviously never watched), *he* does not.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited April 2016
    bengoshi said:

    Fardragon said:



    As I read it, if I where to call someone on the forum a "self-righteous whiner" I would be breaking the forum rules. However, if I talk generally about people who whine in a self-righteous manner, it would be within forum rules.

    You always should take into account the context. The people you're talking about as a whole can visit the same forum, the same thread and your message can be taken personal by them.

    Imagine it this way: you're in a Faerun tavern and talking loudly bad things about the Zhentarim. Who knows if a hooded figure next to your table is not an agent of Zhents, already drawing his short sword.
    That's true if you said "Zhents are self-righteous whiners". However, if you just said "some people are self-righteous whiners" you could just as easily be talking about the Harpers. It's only if the Zhent believes himself to be a self-righteous whiner that he might be insulted, but even then, why should he be when you are just saying something he knows to be true?
  • RathenauRathenau Member Posts: 80
    Sids1188 said:

    Similarly, we know that Xzar is talking about the Manhatten Project, but he does so in a way that fits his world. *We* know he's referring to it, *he* does not.

    You have mentioned this before but the quote from the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita, obviously has nothing to do with nuclear fusion, the atomic bomb or anything related to it. Professor Oppenheimer mentioned the somewhat mangled quote and its origin in relation to the outcome and implementation of his research as he thought it was fitting.

    A more recent translation of chapter 11, verse 32:
    Lord Krsna said: I am Death, the destroyer of all worlds, engaged to destroy all beings; everyone will be slain here except you.
    As with all holy texts the interpretation and exact translation is up for debate. The word kalo is most commonly translated to time instead of death but it refers to the law of nature that time equals destruction and merely describes the lifespan of something or someone. In this case; everyone on the battlefield except Arjuna and his four brothers.

    Coming back to Xzar; I highly doubt the reference here is the atomic bomb as he does not wipe out a city on the other side of the world. Instead; I imagine he sees himself as a divine being come to end the lives of everyone in sight, with the exception of the Bhaalspawn and his four friends.
  • AyiekieAyiekie Member Posts: 975
    Rathenau said:

    You have mentioned this before but the quote from the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita, obviously has nothing to do with nuclear fusion, the atomic bomb or anything related to it. Professor Oppenheimer mentioned the somewhat mangled quote and its origin in relation to the outcome and implementation of his research as he thought it was fitting.

    While that's true, it's far more famous in America as Oppenheimer's quote, often without attribution. I wouldn't be sure that's what Bioware was referring to in 1998, but it's the safe way to bet.

  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621
    Sids1188 said:

    Rawgrim said:


    Except it has been confirmed that it was aimed at GamerGate, so...

    I have no love for those rats over at GamerGate, though. Can send them to Mars, for all I care.

    Of course, I never said it wasn't. I was responding your implication that Minsc acted like he knew about GG when he couldn't (which I agree, would be a problem if it was the case), I said that Minsc himself didn't mention GamerGate. He talked about things that are in his world (adventuring and ethics) the rest is left to the player. *We* know he's talking about GG, *he* does not. That's how real world references work in fantasy settings.

    Similarly, we know that Xzar is talking about the Manhatten Project, but he does so in a way that fits his world. *We* know he's referring to it, *he* does not.

    When Garrick talks of how he's bravely running away, *we* know he's talking about The Holy Grail (something that he obviously never watched), *he* does not.
    Sure, those quotes are from movies etc. But they aren't associated with a recent online shitstorm. Putting that in the game would cause another shitstorm, and it did. The writer who put it in there knew it very well too.
  • GenderNihilismGirdleGenderNihilismGirdle Member Posts: 1,353
    didn't get a chance to see what people were @ ing me about but given this explanation just posted I guess I should be glad not to have seen them
  • KcoQuidamKcoQuidam Member Posts: 181
    (I dunno if I was part of that but my message may haven't help. Sorry for the trouble. Better stop talking or reading on this subject like ... ever)
Sign In or Register to comment.