Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear RELEASED

[Blarghagh]

You know... it's pretty obvious who is to blame for this. There was a certain group very clearly saying that SJWs should stop forcing their agenda on other game developers and if they wanted more SJW games they should go make them themselves. Now they're pissy because some of them listened?

[Zoraptor]

An expansion to a well known series is not a great place to start with that though. There are certain expectations there that don't include political agenda. People complaining about the political agenda of Gone Home don't have much cause for complaint as it's a new series with no existing baggage, nor do people complaining about Bioshock having (a critique of) Objectivism in it especially if they'd played Thief and SS2 with their criticisms of anarchism and communism beforehand. Ain't nothing wrong with politicised content in games, when appropriate.

 

Problem here is that there's an attempt- minor maybe- to piggyback issues into a popular game series that weren't there beforehand. That's easily seen as shoehorning and trying to have cake and eat it too, and will put people's backs up. If Ken Levine decided SoD was a great place to complete the set with a critique of fascism there'd be complaints as well, probably of him being pretentious but certainly of it not being an appropriate game for the politics.

[Blarghagh]

Yeah you're right, but I'm just messing around.

[BruceVC]

An expansion to a well known series is not a great place to start with that though. There are certain expectations there that don't include political agenda. People complaining about the political agenda of Gone Home don't have much cause for complaint as it's a new series with no existing baggage, nor do people complaining about Bioshock having (a critique of) Objectivism in it especially if they'd played Thief and SS2 with their criticisms of anarchism and communism beforehand. Ain't nothing wrong with politicised content in games, when appropriate.

 

Problem here is that there's an attempt- minor maybe- to piggyback issues into a popular game series that weren't there beforehand. That's easily seen as shoehorning and trying to have cake and eat it too, and will put people's backs up. If Ken Levine decided SoD was a great place to complete the set with a critique of fascism there'd be complaints as well, probably of him being pretentious but certainly of it not being an appropriate game for the politics.

Why dont you guys just create your own game that has no SJW influence?

[213374U]

not surprised. disappointed.  

 

again, throughout history, a considerable proportion o' entertainers has promoted some kinda agenda.  *chuckle* a significant proportion o' entertainment has only been possible 'cause patrons has paid the bills for entertainers, and quite often those patrons got motivations other than a pure advocacy o' the artform.  individual artists, free o' patron influence, is no less likely to have an agenda.  again, we would be here prohibitive long if we tried listing artists and art that were promoting an agenda. is utmost naivety to be surprised that a beamdog writer is promoting an agenda o' her own through stories.  

 

complain that the beamdog writer's advocacy were crude and detracted from the narrative is a valid and reasonable complaint.  is one reason we complete supported peter jackson dropping the Scouring of the Shire portion o' lotr from his movie trilogy.  when writers is clumsy and inartful in promoting their agenda, we criticize.

 

however, we do not simple reject a piece o' entertainment 'cause we dislike the entertainer's obvious agenda.  we already mentioned the dallas buyer's club as an example, yes?  dallas included more than a couple great performances, but we disliked the agenda. so?

 

but perhaps we gotta embrace nerd culture a bit more to make a point in this place, eh?  frank miller's politics is divisive, to say the least.  

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/11/13/batman-artist-frank-miller-calls-occupy-wall-street-protesters-pond-scum/

 

frank miller has been unabashed 'bout injecting his politics into the narrative o' his stories... though is kinda amusing that before the internet were anything other than a mote in the corner o' al gore's eye, miller's personal political agenda were a relative non factor when discussing his  stories.  at the time of its publication, tdkr were judged on its own merits.  ah, the good old days. is much harder to discuss tdkr or 300  in 2016 w/o having miller's politics become a pivotal concern. 

 

wanna discuss heinlein novels w/o addressing the authors' personal politics?  go ahead, we dare you.  am suspecting that it is gonna be difficult to find many folks who share heinlein's unique libertarian (borderline anarchist) politics, coupled with his advocacy o' a strong military and his clear patriotism. a free love advocate who made the terrorists his heroes in the moon is a harsh mistress, but who also were the first scifi author to have a novel on the recommended reading list at all three US military academies, were bound to offend many people.  heck, God were the ultimate antagonist in heinlein's job: a comedy of justice. heinlein challenged his readers.  heinlein were not afraid that his transparent political agenda had a tendency to offend.  

 

"if some writer working on Star Wars VIII happened to be, say, a hardcore communist and defended his right to appropriate the IP to use as a soapbox for his political bull,"  we wouldn't care one whit just so long as the narrative were good.  heck, you actual observe that regardless o' the writer's claims, she did not actual "shove anything down anyone's throat."

 

 

so, are we doing phrasing?

 

anywho, 'ccording to #'s, there were no deepthroating o' the agenda and what sjw elements made it into the game were, "pretty tame." 

 

...

 

am not certain where is the justification in creating a negative review campaign 'cause o' a single beamdog writer's (of which there are a few) comments.  we sure as heck do not reject entertainments just 'cause a contributor to the entertainment claimed that she had a right to inject sjw elements into the narrative. stoopid and delusional... and the real tragedy is that there appear to be more than a few stoopid and delusional fans, but as we observed from the start, we is not surprised. disappointed.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Swing and a miss.

 

I'm not even sure why you're replying to me, as I've said before that the whole thing had been blown out of proportion. Let me reiterate: giving the game a score of 1 star over this is absurd, not to mention "campaigning" against it.

 

Unlike you, I did buy the game and played it through, and as the GOG release was delayed, I did it after the ****storm began. So, no, I didn't "reject" anything. More like the opposite. I even said I'm willing to buy more games from BD provided they can dial back the attitude. Not even the political agenda, mind, but the high-and-mighty attitude, which is what has rubbed me the wrong way since the start. Doesn't bother you? That's cool. I'm not on your payroll, so I'm not terribly concerned that you are "disappointed". Build a bridge and get over it.

 

And yeah, remember that time Robert Heinlein bought the rights to Lord of the Rings and rewrote the Company into a bunch of die-hard anarcho-liberals fighting against the oppressive tyranny of the kingdom of (The) Man? Funny, me neither.

 

And by the way, there aren't "several" writers involved with this project. The game was written by Amber Scott and Andrew Foley.

 

Swing and a miss.

Edited April 21, 2016 by 213374U

[Blarghagh]

I would read the hell out of that version of The Lord of the Rings.

[Gromnir]

 

 

Problem here

no real problem here that we can see.  as you note, the sjw aspect is minor, which marginalizes whatever problem could possible exist.  furthermore, observing that the inclusion o' new elements in an expansion to a game released in 1998 as problematic is a suspect proposition at best.  is few franchises that do not evolve and change over a similar amount o' time.  compare evolution o' james bond, battlestar galactica, star wars, etc. a developer locking self into decades removed values and influences would be foolish.  "piggyback issues into a popular game series that weren't there beforehand," is clear not a problem for any number o' franchises.  in fact, one suspects that failure to do so would constitute a much greater potential problem. 

 

and if one o' the many beamdog contributors threw in a "critique of fascism" on the scale o' the sjw elements described in sod, we doubt many would be concerned.

 

if the addition o' new elements to the series amounts to "shoehorning," that is a problem, but the issue is one o' skill.  but again, the problem, if it exists, would appear limited given the scope o' the sjw element actual added to sod.

 

as for why we responded to #s, we made that clear.  even underlined stuff as we know #s has a hard time keeping up with us at times.  swing. we responded 'cause your star wars example were non analogous and 'cause, as we has said multiple times, we ain't surprised 'by the idiotic and overblown reaction, but we is disappointed.  

 

am also gonna suggest you take your own advice and "get over it."  am not just talking 'bout sjw fixations neither.  swing.

 

aside: "Not even the political agenda, mind, but the high-and-mighty attitude, which is what has rubbed me the wrong way."

 

phrasing. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps and since #'s wants to quibble, there is an additional person who got writer credits on sod: liam esler. swing. miss. strike 3.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Problem here

no real problem here that we can see.  as you note, the sjw aspect is minor, which marginalizes whatever problem could possible exist.  furthermore, observing that the inclusion o' new elements in an expansion to a game released in 1998 as problematic is a suspect proposition at best.  is few franchises that do not evolve and change over a similar amount o' time.  compare evolution o' james bond, battlestar galactica, star wars, etc. a developer locking self into decades removed values and influences would be foolish.  "piggyback issues into a popular game series that weren't there beforehand," is clear not a problem for any number o' franchises.  in fact, one suspects that failure to do so would constitute a much greater potential problem. 

 

and if one o' the many beamdog contributors threw in a "critique of fascism" on the scale o' the sjw elements described in sod, we doubt many would be concerned.

 

if the addition o' new elements to the series amounts to "shoehorning," that is a problem, but the issue is one o' skill.  but again, the problem, if it exists, would appear limited given the scope o' the sjw element actual added to sod.

 

as for why we responded to #s, we made that clear.  even underlined stuff as we know #s has a hard time keeping up with us at times.  swing. we responded 'cause your star wars example were non analogous and 'cause, as we has said multiple times, we ain't surprised 'by the idiotic and overblown reaction, but we is disappointed.  

 

am also gonna suggest you take your own advice and "get over it."  am not just talking 'bout sjw fixations neither.  swing.

 

aside: "Not even the political agenda, mind, but the high-and-mighty attitude, which is what has rubbed me the wrong way."

 

phrasing. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps and since #'s wants to quibble, there is an additional person who got writer credits on sod: liam esler. swing. miss. strike 3.

 

Guys I dont mean to jump in to other peoples debate and seem to be interfering but Gromnir makes a lot of sense in this debate

 

If you read what he is saying objectively its hard to fault his perspective ?

[213374U]

I would read the hell out of that version of The Lord of the Rings.

 

You know, in all fairness, I would too. Thing is, Heinlein was a decent writer and could perhaps make it work. Scott seems to struggle with the basics, and as a result, the narrative is kinda flaccid. Try too hard to shoehorn your politics into it, and the whole thing just isn't going to work. If you don't care that it feels fake and forced and tell your critics to go suck it, it's just hubris.

 

@Gromnir, haha, yeah. Three writers, one of which did only "additional" work, technically is "several". Then again, you're a master of being "technically" right. Stop going out of your way to disagree with me, old timer. I'm not interested.

[Gromnir]

I would read the hell out of that version of The Lord of the Rings.

too bad kickstarters were after heinlein's time, 'cause if heinlein had ever suggested such a project and needed funding to get lotr rights, we would chipped in more than the $20 we spent on sod.  heinlein "shoehorned" (HA!) his politics into all his novels... and he had terrible novels as well as great works.  such a lotr project reminds us how much we enjoyed glory road.

 

#s wanna quibble over a relative insignificant aspect o' a very long post... then can't accept when his correction is actual wrong?

 

*chuckle*

 

that "get over it" advice appears increasing useful.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

#s wanna quibble over a relative insignificant aspect o' a very long post... then can't accept when his correction is actual wrong?

 

*chuckle*

 

that "get over it" advice appears increasing useful.

 

Nah. You made a statement in  your ignorance, that turned out to be technically right, just barely:

 

a : more than one <several pleas>

b : more than two but fewer than many <moved several inches>

c chiefly dialect : being a great many

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/several

 

"Several" writers. Not really, no. Just three, one of which did only additional (read: minor) work.

 

And I didn't address the rest of your post because it's your typical contrarian hogwash that is rather devoid of substance: you said that the SW example was non-analogous (remember: your saying it is so doesn't make it so), and yet went on to claim that you wouldn't care if the narrative were good. But that's an irrelevant cop-out, because in this case the narrative isn't good. The onus is on her to prove that she can produce good writing. The rest of your counterexamples are also irrelevant as they pertain to original works, not sequels to well-established franchises, when the author is already under scrutiny for having attempted what a part of the original works' fanbase consider nothing but cashgrabs, or simply don't apply because there are no discernible political agendas affecting the final product. Another swing and another miss. Keep it up and you're going to pull a muscle.

 

Again, whether you would be bothered or not is a cool story, but I couldn't care less. Your personal sensibilities and tolerance for arrogance are not a basis for anything, let alone the way other people should react to stuff. Talk about stupid and deluded.

 

And no, I have nothing to get over. I didn't like Scott's statements. I didn't like the way they reacted to the controversy, banning people left and right and insulting critics. I didn't like that Oster asked for BD denizens to brigade themselves. So if they keep it up, I will simply not give them money in the future. Unlike you, who apparently have seen the need to give them money to make a point of some sort, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Edited April 21, 2016 by 213374U

[Mamoulian War]

 

An expansion to a well known series is not a great place to start with that though. There are certain expectations there that don't include political agenda. People complaining about the political agenda of Gone Home don't have much cause for complaint as it's a new series with no existing baggage, nor do people complaining about Bioshock having (a critique of) Objectivism in it especially if they'd played Thief and SS2 with their criticisms of anarchism and communism beforehand. Ain't nothing wrong with politicised content in games, when appropriate.

 

Problem here is that there's an attempt- minor maybe- to piggyback issues into a popular game series that weren't there beforehand. That's easily seen as shoehorning and trying to have cake and eat it too, and will put people's backs up. If Ken Levine decided SoD was a great place to complete the set with a critique of fascism there'd be complaints as well, probably of him being pretentious but certainly of it not being an appropriate game for the politics.

 

Why dont you guys just create your own game that has no SJW influence?

We had many of these games few years ago, but then some of the SJWs decided, that we are not allowed to have such kind of entertainment ;-)

[BruceVC]

 

 

An expansion to a well known series is not a great place to start with that though. There are certain expectations there that don't include political agenda. People complaining about the political agenda of Gone Home don't have much cause for complaint as it's a new series with no existing baggage, nor do people complaining about Bioshock having (a critique of) Objectivism in it especially if they'd played Thief and SS2 with their criticisms of anarchism and communism beforehand. Ain't nothing wrong with politicised content in games, when appropriate.

 

Problem here is that there's an attempt- minor maybe- to piggyback issues into a popular game series that weren't there beforehand. That's easily seen as shoehorning and trying to have cake and eat it too, and will put people's backs up. If Ken Levine decided SoD was a great place to complete the set with a critique of fascism there'd be complaints as well, probably of him being pretentious but certainly of it not being an appropriate game for the politics.

Why dont you guys just create your own game that has no SJW influence?

We had many of these games few years ago, but then some of the SJWs decided, that we are not allowed to have such kind of entertainment ;-)

 

Mam I have found that despite some of  our differences on certain issues you are always polite and reasonable and I respect that 

 

So hear me out for a second  

 

During the pointless and divisive era of GG I use to often hear people who supported GG say things like " if SJW want a more inclusive game they should create there own games " ...at the time this response use to annoy me but you  as you may be aware I admit my support of anti-GG was misplaced.

 

Now I agree with that sentiment so honestly is it fair to criticize Beamdog for creating an inclusive game ?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Problem here is that there's an attempt- minor maybe- to piggyback issues into a popular game series that weren't there beforehand. 

 

 

 

I dunno, "maybe have female characters who are not terrible stereotypes" and "maybe have characters who are not straight" doesn't sound like "an attempt to piggyback issues into a popular game series" to me. It sounds more like, well, common sense.

 

I mean, you can fault the execution, but I see nothing objectionable about the intent.

[Mamoulian War]

@BruceVC. Well, I see no reason to flame each other, that's why I frequent OBS forums most frequently, compared to other forums, which are around the globe. Despite enjoying sarcasm sometimes, and having my own view on how the "ideal" world should look like, I do respect other people oppinion, and even if I find it ridiculous (and I know many people think the same about my oppinions) I would never try to forcefeed anyone with my worldview, and the same I expect from the opposite side. That is the reason, why I am sometimes very vocal about it, when someone tries to shove something down my throat without even trying to listen to my oppinion.

 

And to your question: I see both extreme sides of the spectrum ridiculous, the GG guys are as crazy as SJW. I love politicaly incorectness in movies, games and in real life as well, and I am not ashamed of that. I love that, despite being from my father's side member of minor nation living in my country. Both parents have different religions and father's side and mother's side of family have also complete opposite view on pilitics and west/russia relations. And I am odl enough to remember how was the way of life under ideology of normalization in communistic regimes. That is one big reason why I respect everyones oppinion, and demand that from everyone else. If some GG guys feel, that SoD is not their cup of tea, they have are free to not support the product, but bitching about it and trying to get some people fired because of it is over the top (aka GG nazis). If some SJW guys feel, that e.g. Hatred or Deponia, is not their cup of tea, the have the same right to nor support it as well. But telling me, that I should not be able to have different oppinion than their own, well to put it mildly, they can write an assay about it on a paper, put it in a nice and bling-bling package and shove it up their ass.

 

I am sad that SoD that it is not exactly my cup of tea, but when you read all my posts in this thread, I have nowhere said, that people should not buy the game. I even stated that I might be willing to buy the game at some point in the future, when it hits right price. Even though I do not agree with the political agenda of the lead writer of the game. And yes, I will be ridiculing the inclusion of transgender character, when I see it fit, but not because the character is transgender (we have very close family friends which have 8 years old boy born as a girl, so I know very good, what these people and their closests family experience in everyday life), but because the writing of this character is atrocious.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Mamoulian War

[Mamoulian War]

 

Problem here is that there's an attempt- minor maybe- to piggyback issues into a popular game series that weren't there beforehand.

 

 

 

I dunno, "maybe have female characters who are not terrible stereotypes" and "maybe have characters who are not straight" doesn't sound like "an attempt to piggyback issues into a popular game series" to me. It sounds more like, well, common sense.

 

I mean, you can fault the execution, but I see nothing objectionable about the intent.

But the stereotypes belong in our culture and daily lfe as much as any individual non-stereotype. I am sorry, but it is utter retardness to try and force anybody to change their character design, when the woman has big boobs. I stated it few times before on this forums. I love girls with small boobs, but if every woman in the world had the same cupsize, the world would be much sadder place to live.

 

Everyday life has tons of different flavours, so why some people want to deprive the entertainment of the different kind of flavours?

 

Real women have different personalities, from successful busineswomen to shameless golddiggers. Different body proportions, from A-cups to F-cups, from slim to XXL. Different feelings about their sexuality, from nuns to nymphs. Now tell me one intelligent reason, why someone should be ashamed if he/she want to create fictional character in a movie or a game acting as golddigger with F-cups openly enjoying her sexuality and controling males through seduction and her sexual innuendo?

[Hurlshort]

 

We had many of these games few years ago, but then some of the SJWs decided, that we are not allowed to have such kind of entertainment ;-)

 

 

Maybe you were joking, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of games either have nothing to do with SJW issues or are pretty clearly not in line with the 'SJW agenda'

 

Simply put, there is no evidence that people like Sarkeesian are actually affecting the direction of the gaming industry.  It's all about the money, and games like The Witcher and The Division are setting the tone with huge profits.  

[Mamoulian War]

 

We had many of these games few years ago, but then some of the SJWs decided, that we are not allowed to have such kind of entertainment ;-)

 

Maybe you were joking, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of games either have nothing to do with SJW issues or are pretty clearly not in line with the 'SJW agenda'

 

Simply put, there is no evidence that people like Sarkeesian are actually affecting the direction of the gaming industry. It's all about the money, and games like The Witcher and The Division are setting the tone with huge profits.

Yes I was joking and teasing Bruce a little bit :-P I still hope, that humanity has still enough intelligence to not change everything to Gattaca-style sterile world where any difference from the only "socially accepted" norm is punished ;-) Edited April 21, 2016 by Mamoulian War

[Gromnir]

 

#s wanna quibble over a relative insignificant aspect o' a very long post... then can't accept when his correction is actual wrong?

 

*chuckle*

 

that "get over it" advice appears increasing useful.

 

Nah. You made a statement in  your ignorance, that turned out to be technically right, just barely:

 

a : more than one <several pleas>

b : more than two but fewer than many <moved several inches>

c chiefly dialect : being a great many

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/several

 

"Several" writers. Not really, no. Just three, one of which did only additional (read: minor) work.

 

And I didn't address the rest of your post because it's your typical contrarian hogwash that is rather devoid of substance: you said that the SW example was non-analogous (remember: your saying it is so doesn't make it so), and yet went on to claim that you wouldn't care if the narrative were good. But that's an irrelevant cop-out, because in this case the narrative isn't good. The onus is on her to prove that she can produce good writing. The rest of your counterexamples are also irrelevant as they pertain to original works, not sequels to well-established franchises, when the author is already under scrutiny for having attempted what a part of the original works' fanbase consider nothing but cashgrabs, or simply don't apply because there are no discernible political agendas affecting the final product. Another swing and another miss. Keep it up and you're going to pull a muscle.

 

Again, whether you would be bothered or not is a cool story, but I couldn't care less. Your personal sensibilities and tolerance for arrogance are not a basis for anything, let alone the way other people should react to stuff. Talk about stupid and deluded.

 

And no, I have nothing to get over. I didn't like Scott's statements. I didn't like the way they reacted to the controversy, banning people left and right and insulting critics. I didn't like that Oster asked for BD denizens to brigade themselves. So if they keep it up, I will simply not give them money in the future. Unlike you, who apparently have seen the need to give them money to make a point of some sort, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

 

beat that horse to prove us right, eh?

 

"several"

 

in quotes and everything, eh?

 

do a search o' previous page of thread for "several."

 

six uses... all by #s. 

 

were not an essential point, but you were the one arguing it, incorrect, 'gainst yourself it seems.  there were a few folks who got sod writing credits, but lord only knows why you would seize on such a point and fail at such in multiple posts.

 

the rest?  well, is becoming spam. 

 

maybe you should just try and get over it, yes?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we clear ain't worried 'bout phrasing

Edited April 21, 2016 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

 

 

We had many of these games few years ago, but then some of the SJWs decided, that we are not allowed to have such kind of entertainment ;-)

Maybe you were joking, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of games either have nothing to do with SJW issues or are pretty clearly not in line with the 'SJW agenda'

 

Simply put, there is no evidence that people like Sarkeesian are actually affecting the direction of the gaming industry. It's all about the money, and games like The Witcher and The Division are setting the tone with huge profits.

Yes I was joking and teasing Bruce a little bit :-P I still hope, that humanity has still enough intelligence to not change everything to Gattaca-style sterile world where any difference from the only "socially accepted" norm is punished ;-)

 

Also I'm not sure why  anyone thinks I'm a " SJW " ?

 

I'll be honest those words have no positive or clear meaning..its meant as an insult and also it means different things to different people 

 

But for me after GG I stopped judging or criticizing any PC game....but I will defend the right of a company like Beamdog to make an inclusive game. Thats not the same as your typical Sarkeesian type irritating " lets attack PC games because its easier than addressing RL  sexism " 

 

So for me I'm involved in several RL SJ campaigns in South Africa ..these are real and matter

 

I refuse to get pulled into this adsurd "lets attack white, male gamers because they...........like to play games " 

Edited April 21, 2016 by BruceVC

[Junai]

 

 

Problem here is that there's an attempt- minor maybe- to piggyback issues into a popular game series that weren't there beforehand. 

 

 

 

I dunno, "maybe have female characters who are not terrible stereotypes" and "maybe have characters who are not straight" doesn't sound like "an attempt to piggyback issues into a popular game series" to me. It sounds more like, well, common sense.

 

I mean, you can fault the execution, but I see nothing objectionable about the intent.

 

 

I don't mean to cut in, but I found this remark very interesting. 

 

The way I see it, people rarely, if ever, fault the execution. Of anything. It's the doers intent they object to. It's like that in every walk of life. If you approach something with humility, you can get away with the biggest blunders. 

 

Baldur's Gate had some very simple writing too, but people loved it. I believe that even if Amber Scott was an amazing writer, people would take a piss, because of her attitude alone. Call it delusional, but that's the way it is. The writer's attitude is reflected in her writing, and I doubt her art will appeal to anyone as long as she doesn't drop that shtick. It's amazing that she managed to annoy so many. If she keeps it up, I'll be disappointed, but not surprised.

 

 

J.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Junai

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Now tell me one intelligent reason, why someone should be ashamed if he/she want to create fictional character in a movie or a game acting as golddigger with F-cups openly enjoying her sexuality and controling males through seduction and her sexual innuendo?

 

 

 

Because if that's all there is to the character, it's a lazy, two-dimensional stereotype, and beginning to write with the explicit goal of creating lazy, two-dimensional stereotypes is not the hallmark of an artist who takes pride in their work?

 

I mean, you could create a character who is motivated by greed and self-interest, has gigantic boobs, and openly enjoys both her sexuality and the influence over people it gives her while being an interesting and multifaceted person on her own right, but at that point, we're past the lazy stereotypes people have problems with.

 

 

 

 

 

Problem here is that there's an attempt- minor maybe- to piggyback issues into a popular game series that weren't there beforehand. 

 

 

 

I dunno, "maybe have female characters who are not terrible stereotypes" and "maybe have characters who are not straight" doesn't sound like "an attempt to piggyback issues into a popular game series" to me. It sounds more like, well, common sense.

 

I mean, you can fault the execution, but I see nothing objectionable about the intent.

 

 

I don't mean to cut in, but I found this remark very interesting. 

 

The way I see it, people rarely, if ever, fault the execution. Of anything. It's the doers intent they object to.

 

 

 

I have a hard time comprehending anybody having problems with the intent of "let's make a diverse cast of characters who aren't lazy stereotypes". Because that's basically her intent.

[213374U]

I dunno, "maybe have female characters who are not terrible stereotypes" and "maybe have characters who are not straight" doesn't sound like "an attempt to piggyback issues into a popular game series" to me. It sounds more like, well, common sense.

 

I mean, you can fault the execution, but I see nothing objectionable about the intent.

 

Yeah, when you put it like that, it sounds like common sense alright. But I'm not fully convinced that's the case. See, Bioware have been writing LGTB characters into their games for some time now. Bethesda too. And yet it's BD who have managed to stir a hornets nest, and having played all the games in question, only in the case of SoD I honestly feel that the accusations of tokenism and virtue signalling are warranted.

 

I'm all for having female characters who are not terrible stereotypes. In the cases of Safana and Corwin, that at least seems to be the intent. However, the whole thing with the tranny cleric goes in the opposite direction because the character is there obviously to be inclusive and stuff. Not only is her dialogue atrocious (execution), the character has zero depth. You can't discuss the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity with her, or anything else, just react with "cool story, tell it again". Not even a stereotype -- more like a cardboard cutout. This fits with the writer's statements that everyone should get a chance to see themselves reflected in pop culture. Whether that reflection is accurate, fitting, respectful or elegant doesn't matter, it seems. And if you think it does, well, "too bad".

 

If the intent is what you say it is, then great. If the intent however is to secure the moral high ground by ticking a series of checkboxes, then not so great.

 

In their defense, they have committed to expanding the character, we'll see how that goes.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Now tell me one intelligent reason, why someone should be ashamed if he/she want to create fictional character in a movie or a game acting as golddigger with F-cups openly enjoying her sexuality and controling males through seduction and her sexual innuendo?

 

 

 

Because if that's all there is to the character, it's a lazy, two-dimensional stereotype, and beginning to write with the explicit goal of creating lazy, two-dimensional stereotypes is not the hallmark of an artist who takes pride in their work?

 

I mean, you could create a character who is motivated by greed and self-interest, has gigantic boobs, and openly enjoys both her sexuality and the influence over people it gives her while being an interesting and multifaceted person on her own right, but at that point, we're past the lazy stereotypes people have problems with.

 

 

 

 

 

Problem here is that there's an attempt- minor maybe- to piggyback issues into a popular game series that weren't there beforehand. 

 

 

 

I dunno, "maybe have female characters who are not terrible stereotypes" and "maybe have characters who are not straight" doesn't sound like "an attempt to piggyback issues into a popular game series" to me. It sounds more like, well, common sense.

 

I mean, you can fault the execution, but I see nothing objectionable about the intent.

 

 

I don't mean to cut in, but I found this remark very interesting. 

 

The way I see it, people rarely, if ever, fault the execution. Of anything. It's the doers intent they object to.

 

 

 

I have a hard time comprehending anybody having problems with the intent of "let's make a diverse cast of characters who aren't lazy stereotypes". Because that's basically her intent.

 

I agree with alum on  this ....its really not a big deal to have characters from various excluded groups in games nowadays 

 

Personally I would like to see more people from the LGBT  community 

 

But also Mam I like your character suggestion, she could be hot and seductive but also interesting?

[BruceVC]

 

I dunno, "maybe have female characters who are not terrible stereotypes" and "maybe have characters who are not straight" doesn't sound like "an attempt to piggyback issues into a popular game series" to me. It sounds more like, well, common sense.

 

I mean, you can fault the execution, but I see nothing objectionable about the intent.

 

Yeah, when you put it like that, it sounds like common sense alright. But I'm not fully convinced that's the case. See, Bioware have been writing LGTB characters into their games for some time now. Bethesda too. And yet it's BD who have managed to stir a hornets nest, and having played all the games in question, only in the case of SoD I honestly feel that the accusations of tokenism and virtue signalling are warranted.

 

I'm all for having female characters who are not terrible stereotypes. In the cases of Safana and Corwin, that at least seems to be the intent. However, the whole thing with the tranny cleric goes in the opposite direction because the character is there obviously to be inclusive and stuff. Not only is her dialogue atrocious (execution), the character has zero depth. You can't discuss the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity with her, or anything else, just react with "cool story, tell it again". Not even a stereotype -- more like a cardboard cutout. This fits with the writer's statements that everyone should get a chance to see themselves reflected in pop culture. Whether that reflection is accurate, fitting, respectful or elegant doesn't matter, it seems. And if you think it does, well, "too bad".

 

If the intent is what you say it is, then great. If the intent however is to secure the moral high ground by ticking a series of checkboxes, then not so great.

 

In their defense, they have committed to expanding the character, we'll see how that goes.

 

No the outrage is understandable but misplaced

 

IMO its because games like BG are like this indelible great memory that should be " incorruptible"..its like BG is suppose to be a inviolable sanctuary 

 

For many people Bioware has changed for the worst, I still like Bioware and support them,  so I imagine most people had high expectations for Beamdog to resurrect the BG series 

 

So now when this type of unusual " out of BG theme"  writing occurs its like a betrayal of what we remember 

 

But I really think people are  being a bit overly negative ?