Mass Effect Andromeda

[213374U]

Bioware apologizing is irrelevant to me.  That people are posting on a thread that posting an apology is somehow pandering isn't irrelevant to me because I'm reading this thread.  That I post isn't a sign that the apology is somehow relevant to me, its that this thread and talking with my fellow posters is.

Talking with your fellow posters about things that are "literally irrelevant" to you is relevant? So the takeaway is that you like talking about talking. Cue Inception/Xzibit memes.

 

Sorry, I don't buy that the reason for you quoting me is simply that "you're reading the thread". Do you post nothings in all the threads you read? And, since you are a mod, you probably read a lot...

 

What was the point you were trying to make, again? That you don't understand or care about some things other people talk about? And therefore... no one else should care either? Okay chief. But that's not quite how this whole internet thing works.

[Fenixp]

...

 

 

I'm so very sorry.

[Belle Sorciere]

 

 

 

 

The apology doesn't impact you or your game. The change in dialogue will have at best a minor impact on your game, so what you're really debating here is whether it's appropriate for people who are part of a marginalized class have the right to complain about representation that furthers or at least exploits that marginalization. To put it bluntly, you're wrong. This element of the game has no impact on you, and the people for whom it does impact have made their opinions known and have received a response...which also has no impact on you.

 

You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Did I say it affect me? Did I imply this somehow impedes or hinders their effort to fix the game otherwise? Tell you what. You stop twisting my words, cut out the straw men, and quit telling me what I really am debating, and I won't assume that you have an ax to grind, seeing how apparently the only thing you care about in this game is the social commentary. Cool? Cool. I posted it here because it made me guffaw. It's silly, it's pandering, and it shows that their priorities are all over the place. So thoroughly BioWarian.

 

And exactly how does an info dump from a paper-thin character constitute a "representation that furthers or at least exploits marginalization"? Please. Who's making a mountain out of a molehill?

 

 

You offered the impression, by complaining at length across multiple posts that this does affect you. People don't usually expend that much energy on things that don't have an effect on them. So, protesting too much? Shifting goalposts? You shouldn't do those things.

 

It's not pandering, except by an extremely permissive definition of the word that isn't actually the real definition.

 

It exploits the character (and transgender people) by putting the character's status as a transgender woman front and center. If she wants to make a new life away from being known by her "deadname" and being seen as the wrong gender, it doesn't make much sense if she immediately confides that information when you ask her for her reasons for being there. It's also pretty much completely unlike every trans person I've ever known - some will early on disclose that they're trans, but I've never known one who also disclosed their deadname if they didn't have to.

 

Including a transgender character isn't social commentary, no more than including a guy whose brother died on Eos. It's a data point about that character. Also, I don't only care about social commentary, I bought the game so I could blow things up in Andromeda and hopefully have a decent story to back it up.

 

I do care about people having representation that doesn't misrepresent them, because for all too many people representation often turns out to be a negative thing. I'd rather Bioware be responsive to such criticisms than not.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Belle Sorciere

[Fenixp]

You offered the impression, by complaining at length across multiple posts that this does affect you. People don't usually expend that much energy on things that don't have an effect on them. So, protesting too much?

You guys should really stop arguing about who cares less, it does nothing to further the discussion and is, quite frankly, even more ridiculous than me.

 

It's not pandering, except by an extremely permissive definition of the word that isn't actually the real definition.

...

I do care about people having representation that doesn't misrepresent them, because for all too many people representation often turns out to be a negative thing. I'd rather Bioware be responsive to such criticisms than not.

That's the thing tho - it is pandering as long as Bioware isn't responsive to all criticisms. It's not only people that complain about their sensibilities who have problems with that game - there are other issues with it that genuinely impede enjoyment of a product that costs quite a hefty sum and if you're going to apologize to a group for doing things wrong for them, you might as well apologize to everybody else (Everybody who cares, obviously. We don't. We're cool. We wear sunglasses and sneer at problems.) To me, it just stinks of "Oh boy, who cares about the rest of our customers, we have to apologize to this minority because that's the politically correct thing to do now." Edited April 6, 2017 by Fenixp

[HoonDing]

So no more free lunches for past "greats".

 

Todd must be losing sleep.

[Belle Sorciere]

 

You offered the impression, by complaining at length across multiple posts that this does affect you. People don't usually expend that much energy on things that don't have an effect on them. So, protesting too much?

You guys should really stop arguing about who cares less, it does nothing to further the discussion and is, quite frankly, even more ridiculous than me.

 

It's not pandering, except by an extremely permissive definition of the word that isn't actually the real definition.

...

I do care about people having representation that doesn't misrepresent them, because for all too many people representation often turns out to be a negative thing. I'd rather Bioware be responsive to such criticisms than not.

That's the thing tho - it is pandering as long as Bioware isn't responsive to all criticisms. It's not only people (who probably aren't even transgender) that complain about their sensibilities who have problems with that game - there are other issues with it that genuinely impede enjoyment of a product that costs quite a hefty sum and if you're going to apologize to a group for doing things wrong for them, you might as well apologize to everybody else (Who cares, obviously. We don't. We're cool. We wear sunglasses and sneer at problems.) To me, it just stinks of "Oh boy, who cares about the rest of our customers, we have to apologize to this minority because that's the politically correct thing to do now."

 

 

I didn't say I didn't care or that I cared less. Obviously I do care if I respond. So...don't try this "both sides are equally responsible" nonsense.

 

It's not pandering, or your definition of pandering is so loose as to be completely useless. They're not indulging immoral or distasteful desires, needs, or habits. They're apologizing to a number of their fans for a misstep.

 

They're not apologizing to trans people because that's the politically correct thing to do now. They're apologizing because they genuinely made a mistake with their character. I realize people who are not personally affected might not understand why such an apology can be necessary, but that doesn't mean it's unnecessary. It simply means you do not understand what is going on.

 

Or to put it another way, just how could Bioware approach this situation without what you (wrongly) consider to be pandering? If your answer is anywhere in the general vicinity of "they shouldn't apologize" you're not coming at this from an informed position, but rather a position most likely informed by your own prejudices. To be fair, I already think that's the case with you and the other guy I responded to. So, why not just get over it?

[Amentep]

 

Bioware apologizing is irrelevant to me.  That people are posting on a thread that posting an apology is somehow pandering isn't irrelevant to me because I'm reading this thread.  That I post isn't a sign that the apology is somehow relevant to me, its that this thread and talking with my fellow posters is.

Talking with your fellow posters about things that are "literally irrelevant" to you is relevant? So the takeaway is that you like talking about talking. Cue Inception/Xzibit memes.

 

Sorry, I don't buy that the reason for you quoting me is simply that "you're reading the thread". Do you post nothings in all the threads you read? And, since you are a mod, you probably read a lot...

 

What was the point you were trying to make, again? That you don't understand or care about some things other people talk about? And therefore... no one else should care either? Okay chief. But that's not quite how this whole internet thing works.

 

 

To be honest, most of my posts are in WoT, so probably the vast majority of my posts could be considered nothings. And to be fair, I also have went years reading without posting anything.  It was a slow 5-6 years.

 

Anyhow, to summarize as I see it, you posted your opinion that Bio's apology was pandering, I posted mine that Bio's apology was irrelevant to me and that I didn't understand why it would be to anyone else and somehow or another you think my posting that opinion is some sort of claim that you shouldn't be able to hold your opinion.  Which it isn't.

 

If I'd thought you shouldn't hold that opinion I'd have written something like "I don't care about Bioware's apology and no one should".  Which I didn't.  So therefore I've made no value judgement on your opinion, nor have I suggested you should not have any opinion you wish to take.  I just stated I don't understand it.  Which is vastly different conceptually. 

 

I don't understand your opinion.  I don't understand the use of 'pandering" unless you see the LGBTQ as having immoral or distasteful desires, needs or habits.  Maybe you do.  I do not.  Perhaps that's the piece I'm missing.  Does it matter?  No again I make no value judgement on your opinion.  I am trying to understand it.  Trying to understand why a company apologizing to a group that you and I (presumably) are not members should matter to us.  Its not going to change the game substantially; if you don't like that they included a LGBTQ character the apology and the change isn't going to remove that.

 

So what does it matter?

 

 

...

 

 

I'm so very sorry.

 

“For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.” ― Stephen Hawking

[Gfted1]

I dont own the game but Im curious about the tech behind this fix. During this converstion with Hainly, is she talking to you face-to-face (meaning Bioware has to change the facial animation to make the mouth match the words) or is her face not visible so they only have to change a few lines of text (meaning they can bust that out fast)?

 

EDIT: I dig that quote Tep.

[Raithe]

I dont own the game but Im curious about the tech behind this fix. During this converstion with Hainly, is she talking to you face-to-face (meaning Bioware has to change the facial animation to make the mouth match the words) or is her face not visible so they only have to change a few lines of text (meaning they can bust that out fast)?

 

EDIT: I dig that quote Tep.

 

No, it's pretty much one of the purely in game engine , still in the usual walk around way. You just happen to have the dialogue wheel opens up when you click on the npc standing there. There's a bunch of those "minor" npc conversations like that that never actually take you into a zoom in on the faces conversation mode.

[Fenixp]

It's not pandering, or your definition of pandering is so loose as to be completely useless. They're not indulging immoral or distasteful desires, needs, or habits. They're apologizing to a number of their fans for a misstep.

Merriam-Webster defines Pander (verb) as:

to provide gratification for others' desires

That... Seems to be about right use to me? But different culture and all that, one word can have different connotations in different parts of the world.

 

They're apologizing because they genuinely made a mistake with their character. I realize people who are not personally affected might not understand why such an apology can be necessary, but that doesn't mean it's unnecessary. It simply means you do not understand what is going on.

And I think you're downplaying issues people had (and are still having) with the game. Look, it's perfectly fine that Bioware has stated an apology. What just comes off as rather weird is that Bioware has made many genuine mistakes and this is just the one they cherry-picked to apologize for. And I don't really care which group they pick for this - LGBT community who got offended for the dialogue, people who dropped a bunch of money on the game which refuses to work properly or PC gaming master race that got offended because PC gaming master race always gets offended. State an apology that'll apologize to people who took issue with the game because of terrible writing and I'll say "So the rest of the game's perfectly fine, eh?"

 

If you want to apologize for making mistakes, make the apology genuine - don't choose group that you thing may bring the biggest trouble to you or one that feels to be the most sympathetic to you if you apologize, just owe up to your failure and do it properly or don't do it at all.

[Zoraptor]

 

It doesn't take much work to find evidence of the review bombing on Metacritic and GOG (both of which allow you to review games without owning them - there's no way Metacritic could even check for that), especially when the reviews on Steam (where you are required to own the game to review it) are summarized as "mostly positive."

 

 

Review bombing definitely happened, it happens for all sorts of reasons. Nevertheless, the SoD character was not generally defended by actual trans people- indeed, many seemed to think Beamdog's approach trivialised the issue as much as Hainly in MEA- but by the Polygons and Kotakus of the world. The response from actual trans people seems to be fairly similar to the two characters, the press response and review bombing accusations publicised the issue in SoD's case and made it look like it was only an issue for 4chan types. For MEA, Bioware has not doubled down on the issue and blamed 4chan (even though they have done that before).

 

Personally I'm of the opinion that such issues are almost always insultingly trivialised in gaming media, and like most things should be avoided unless you're actually going to do them well instead of as a once over lightly for 'political' reasons. Using a long hibernation sleep to transition is actually a pretty good concept, but if you aren't going to do it justice then just don't do it at all.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Zoraptor

[the_dog_days]

 

I dont own the game but Im curious about the tech behind this fix. During this converstion with Hainly, is she talking to you face-to-face (meaning Bioware has to change the facial animation to make the mouth match the words) or is her face not visible so they only have to change a few lines of text (meaning they can bust that out fast)?

 

EDIT: I dig that quote Tep.

No, it's pretty much one of the purely in game engine , still in the usual walk around way. You just happen to have the dialogue wheel opens up when you click on the npc standing there. There's a bunch of those "minor" npc conversations like that that never actually take you into a zoom in on the faces conversation mode.

The most alarming part of the conversation is how she describes her old job as filling test tubes.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

It doesn't take much work to find evidence of the review bombing on Metacritic and GOG (both of which allow you to review games without owning them - there's no way Metacritic could even check for that), especially when the reviews on Steam (where you are required to own the game to review it) are summarized as "mostly positive."

 

 

Review bombing definitely happened, it happens for all sorts of reasons. Nevertheless, the SoD character was not generally defended by actual trans people- indeed, many seemed to think Beamdog's approach trivialised the issue as much as Hainly in MEA- but by the Polygons and Kotakus of the world. The response from actual trans people seems to be fairly similar to the two characters, the press response and review bombing accusations publicised the issue in SoD's case and made it look like it was only an issue for 4chan types. For MEA, Bioware has not doubled down on the issue and blamed 4chan (even though they have done that before).

 

Personally I'm of the opinion that such issues are almost always insultingly trivialised in gaming media, and like most things should be avoided unless you're actually going to do them well instead of as a once over lightly for 'political' reasons. Using a long hibernation sleep to transition is actually a pretty good concept, but if you aren't going to do it justice then just don't do it at all.

 

 

Well, than you will be attacked that you didn't brought it up, seems like everyone needs to make problem from something these days

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Merriam-Webster defines Pander (verb) as:

to provide gratification for others' desires

 

 

 

My confusion in this situation stems more from the fact that if we go with this definition, the entire gaming industry is built on pandering.

 

So why exactly is it a bad thing now?

[Amentep]

 

Merriam-Webster defines Pander (verb) as:

 

to provide gratification for others' desires

My confusion in this situation stems more from the fact that if we go with this definition, the entire gaming industry is built on pandering.

 

So why exactly is it a bad thing now?

Traditionally, pander has a negative context of providing gratification to base and/or undesirable desires. Porn panders to base sexual instinct, gossip columns pander to the need to spread malicious rumors, "if it bleed, it leads" journalism panders to a desire to see blood and guts, etc.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So the games broken and they've not managed to fix it yet? Sounds like a real **** sandwich.

[Fluffle]

Oh boy. A transgender character who wasn't "properly" included into a game "the right way".

 

Yeah, anyone heard of Beamdog's Siege of Dragonspear? Really, been there, done that. It's all Mizhena again.

 

[sarcasm] lbgtq characters need to be implemented the "right way".

 

In fantasy games and science fiction games they need to behave like in reality. And fantasy and science fiction societies have to react to them the same way they do in reality.

 

There cannot be just a transgender character. Just like that. NO. A transgender character can only exist when they have a special, thoughtful implementation and purpose.

 

Transgenders do not exist just like that. Like you know, real people. No no no, they need to be treated in a "special way"... [/sarcasm]

 

yeah... I guess the hate will thrive and explode for a month or two and then eventually everything will settle down.

 

Same what happened on the Beamdog forums. It's all over Mizhena again.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Fluffle

[RangerSWG]

Oh boy. A transgender character who wasn't "properly" included into a game "the right way".

 

Yeah, anyone heard of Beamdog's Siege of Dragonspear? Really, been there, done that. It's all Mizhena again.

 

[sarcasm] lbgtq characters need to be implemented the "right way".

 

In fantasy games and science fiction games they need to behave like in reality. And fantasy and science fiction societies have to react to them the same way they do in reality.

 

There cannot be just a transgender character. Just like that. NO. A transgender character can only exist when they have a special, thoughtful implementation and purpose.

 

Transgenders do not exist just like that. Like you know, real people. No no no, they need to be treated in a "special way"... [/sarcasm]

 

yeah... I guess the hate will thrive and explode for a month or two and then eventually everything will settle down.

 

Same what happened on the Beamdog forums. It's all over Mizhena again.

 

There is no winning with the Twitterian Justice Mob. One either is guilty for wrongthink, in which case the Truth and Safety Council will remove their verification immediately. Or they will be guilty of the wrong kind of virtue signalling, which will require the public apology to the mob, to last until the next victim can be found. Or one is hounded for NOT paying attention to the mob, in which case they are 'insensitive' to the suffering of the mob. Like Global Thermonuclear War, the only way to win is not to play. 

[HoonDing]

Did they fix the static hair at least?

 

I can no longer unsee that after playin the new Tomb raider.

[213374U]

You offered the impression, by complaining at length across multiple posts that this does affect you. People don't usually expend that much energy on things that don't have an effect on them. So, protesting too much? Shifting goalposts? You shouldn't do those things.

 

It's not pandering, except by an extremely permissive definition of the word that isn't actually the real definition.

 

It exploits the character (and transgender people) by putting the character's status as a transgender woman front and center. If she wants to make a new life away from being known by her "deadname" and being seen as the wrong gender, it doesn't make much sense if she immediately confides that information when you ask her for her reasons for being there. It's also pretty much completely unlike every trans person I've ever known - some will early on disclose that they're trans, but I've never known one who also disclosed their deadname if they didn't have to.

 

Including a transgender character isn't social commentary, no more than including a guy whose brother died on Eos. It's a data point about that character. Also, I don't only care about social commentary, I bought the game so I could blow things up in Andromeda and hopefully have a decent story to back it up.

 

I do care about people having representation that doesn't misrepresent them, because for all too many people representation often turns out to be a negative thing. I'd rather Bioware be responsive to such criticisms than not.

 

 

Complaining? You mistake complaints with criticism and derision. The former I've long learned to be rather pointless. The latter is simply a guilty pleasure of mine. And the whole "you care because you posted" argument is about as poignant now as it was when first enunciated by Diogenes circa 350 BC. I "care" because this is the latest antic from the developer of the problem-laden game this thread is about.

 

And sorry, but you don't get to decide what words mean. See below. This does fit a dictionary's definition of pandering. If it doesn't agree with yours, take it up with the English language.

 

I can accept that the character in question does not fit your particular experiences with transgendered people and that it's not a good representation of transgenderism, and the issue being her whole raison d'être is a "problem". Though I wonder what else can be construed as "misrepresentation"? Both Reyes here and Cortez from 3 are homosexuals, should I be hurt as a straight Hispanic male that my representation quota in Mass Effect is 0% straight? Demand an apology, perchance?

 

The issue you're describing is a side effect from poor writing. However, bad writing per se does not in any way shape or form constitute "exploitation", unless you are suggesting that their motivation to include these issues is to sell copies to certain collectives, because BioWare is otherwise gaining nothing from half-assing these extremely two-dimensional characters, and obtaining an advantage is integral to the whole exploitation business. Again a word that doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

I'd rather BioWare be responsive to all criticisms, or none at all. Not just the ones that earn them high-fives from internet political cliques.

 

 

 

Anyhow, to summarize as I see it, you posted your opinion that Bio's apology was pandering, I posted mine that Bio's apology was irrelevant to me and that I didn't understand why it would be to anyone else and somehow or another you think my posting that opinion is some sort of claim that you shouldn't be able to hold your opinion. Which it isn't.

 

If I'd thought you shouldn't hold that opinion I'd have written something like "I don't care about Bioware's apology and no one should". Which I didn't. So therefore I've made no value judgement on your opinion, nor have I suggested you should not have any opinion you wish to take. I just stated I don't understand it. Which is vastly different conceptually.

 

I don't understand your opinion. I don't understand the use of 'pandering" unless you see the LGBTQ as having immoral or distasteful desires, needs or habits. Maybe you do. I do not. Perhaps that's the piece I'm missing. Does it matter? No again I make no value judgement on your opinion. I am trying to understand it. Trying to understand why a company apologizing to a group that you and I (presumably) are not members should matter to us. Its not going to change the game substantially; if you don't like that they included a LGBTQ character the apology and the change isn't going to remove that.

 

So what does it matter?

 

So let's recap: I made a post opining that this is pandering and BioWare's way of handling it is silly, yet very much in character. You retorted that it's irrelevant to you -- which is cool.

 

But then you also said several times that you found it mystifying that some people are worked up by this, suggesting that I'm somehow bothered. But I've already stated multiple times that I'm not really bothered, by either the inclusion of a trans cardboard cutout character (nice try) or their follow-up. I do find it mildly amusing however that they chose to apologize and rectify for this reason in particular, especially in light of:

 

- the utter trainwreck that this release is in general, with this particular issue being simply a drop in the sea

- BioWare's past defense of their "artistic integrity" (read: **** narrative craftmanship)

 

Does it "matter" to me? Not enough to launch an internet crusade, no. To make a post on a message board? I don't need to be deeply invested to do that. And since the patch has been such a massive letdown, I don't really have any incentive to play the game, so I have more free time than would be advisable.

 

To further clear up the issue, so that semantics doesn't get in the way:

 

pan·der (păn′dər)

intr.v. pan·dered, pan·der·ing, pan·ders

2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses

 

to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others' desires

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pander

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pander

 

Neither definition makes a reference to distasteful desires or immorality, but again, nice try. The desire in this case is, simply, representation in media by a collective who feel they are underrepresented. Which is fine and perfectly legitimate, but BioWare's (and previously Beamdog's) execution even more so than intent makes it pandering.

 

 

 

So why exactly is it a bad thing now?

It is not a bad thing "now". It is a bad thing period. Instead of trying to write believable characters in plausible situations, they simply go by the numbers to try and make a statement. The complaint here, and previously in SoD's case -by transgendered people no less- is that these characters are trite and cheapened because their whole theme is transgenderism. So back to my original question about making it one trait of a fully developed member of the crew.

 

Funny thing, I didn't get so much heat when I laughed at biower pandering back in ME2, with the whole concept of Miranda. But now it's different, because SHUT UP WHITE CISHET ****LORD

Edited April 7, 2017 by 213374U

[GhostofAnakin]

Minor issue since the latest patch: I set subtitles to "off", but since the patch the last spoken line of an NPC's dialogue shows up as a subtitle and stays on-screen as I select my dialogue response.

 

I also seem to be noticing more slowdowns since the patch.  I didn't notice any big stuttering or pause/starts when moving about the map before, but now the game will stutter in busy areas.

 

So essentially, I can't see a single thing this patch improved, but I've noticed some minor things it made worse.

 

Good job, BioWare.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

So why exactly is it a bad thing now?

It is not a bad thing "now". It is a bad thing period. Instead of trying to write believable characters in plausible situations, they simply go by the numbers to try and make a statement. The complaint here, and previously in SoD's case -by transgendered people no less- is that these characters are trite and cheapened because their whole theme is transgenderism. So back to my original question about making it one trait of a fully developed member of the crew.

 

Funny thing, I didn't get so much heat when I laughed at biower pandering back in ME2, with the whole concept of Miranda. But now it's different, because SHUT UP WHITE CISHET ****LORD

 

 

 

But you called out specifically the apology as pandering, while it seems they apologize exactly because they realize the way they wrote the character is trite and cheap. (Or, if you want to be more cynical, because even the audience they were aiming to pander to thinks that it is trite and cheap.)

[Chilloutman]

 

 

So why exactly is it a bad thing now?

It is not a bad thing "now". It is a bad thing period. Instead of trying to write believable characters in plausible situations, they simply go by the numbers to try and make a statement. The complaint here, and previously in SoD's case -by transgendered people no less- is that these characters are trite and cheapened because their whole theme is transgenderism. So back to my original question about making it one trait of a fully developed member of the crew.

 

Funny thing, I didn't get so much heat when I laughed at biower pandering back in ME2, with the whole concept of Miranda. But now it's different, because SHUT UP WHITE CISHET ****LORD

 

 

 

But you called out specifically the apology as pandering, while it seems they apologize exactly because they realize the way they wrote the character is trite and cheap. (Or, if you want to be more cynical, because even the audience they were aiming to pander to thinks that it is trite and cheap.)

 

Again, most characters are trite and cheap, but for some reason LGTB characters needs to be implemented properly or mob will knock on your door. Who cares about rest of ****ty written characters right? That is the issue. They ponder for vocal minority where there are much bigger problems affecting wider audience.

[213374U]

But you called out specifically the apology as pandering, while it seems they apologize exactly because they realize the way they wrote the character is trite and cheap. (Or, if you want to be more cynical, because even the audience they were aiming to pander to thinks that it is trite and cheap.)

Yes. They aren't mutually exclusive things. They did it originally with the way the subject is introduced (tokenism) and they made it worse by apologizing *only* to a subset of their customers (?) over what is by all accounts a trifling matter when a deluge of criticism over their writing has never before fazed BioWare, and while the game suffers from other very serious problems.

 

Take the Extended Cut, for comparison. People hated the ending and claimed that it was nonsensical, that it removed all player agency etc. Not only did BioWare not acknowledge any fundamental problems with the series' climax -- they in fact doubled down on their "artistic vision" with the addition of the "Refuse" ending where the player fails, everyone in the galaxy dies, and the people from the next cycle USE THE CRUCIBLE AND GO FOR SYNTHESIS ANYWAY. A huge middle finger. Which is absolutely fine, it's their story after all, and it's pretty childish to expect an author to change things just because you don't like it. Or so I thought.

Edited April 7, 2017 by 213374U

[Amentep]

To further clear up the issue, so that semantics doesn't get in the way:

 

pan·der (păn′dər)

intr.v. pan·dered, pan·der·ing, pan·ders

2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses

 

to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others' desires

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pander

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pander

 

Neither definition makes a reference to distasteful desires or immorality, but again, nice try.

When I learned the word years ago, the definition was as presented in the Oxford English Dictionary: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pander

 

pander verb

(pander to)

Gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire or taste or a person with such a desire or taste)

‘newspapers are pandering to people's baser instincts’

 

noun

dated

• 1A pimp.

1. 1.1archaic A person who assists the immoral desires or evil designs of others.
   ‘the lowest panders of a venal press’

EDIT: I should probably also note that Pandering, as a legal charge in the US at least, is related to procuring prostitutes for someone or finding clients for prostitutes. 

 

Therefore when someone uses pandering, I - and a lot of others - are going to see it as a condemnation of those who they are declaring to be pandering.  And seeing that applied to an apology by a game company seems strongly negative and very odd to me.