I've just finished Baldur's Gate I, II, & SoD in succession, and have only now been reading about the SoD 'controversy' that apparently had fans fuming upon its release (I'm behind the curve), and perhaps the SoD that I've just played, patched, is nothing like what it was upon release - but I'm left reading reviews and impressions thinking what the f--- is going on?!!!
Having played all three in a row, I feel that SoD deserves its place in the BG canon: I felt that the art design and environmental effects were a real step up, the encounters were challenging and rewarded creative solutions, the story was well told, and I felt as invested in my character as ever. All things considered, I moved as seamlessly from BG2 to SoD as I did BG I to BG II. Which strikes me as testament enough to its quality. Standing next to two of the finest games EVER made.
And people were happy to sweep any accomplishment therein all under the rug to take issue with some (admittedly heavy-handed) inclusivity? There are youtube videos explaining why people 'hate' this game? Because they felt Beamdog was pushing some kind of 21st century social agenda? I find it depressing and baffling to be honest. Is the average gamer so threatened by a woman challenging in a small way
some narrative conventions? That's what triggers a Baldur's Gate internet crusade? It sucks because the BG fanbase & community should consider themselves so lucky to even have a company breathing life back into this series, not to mention doing it justice with an entirely new campaign. People need to smoke a joint and calm the f down. Maybe I'm just pro Beamdog because without the EE I would never have even come close to this game with a 10 foot pole, and yet here I am, 150+ hrs countless magic missiles later.