Baldur's Gate 3 by Larian Games

radditsu_sl said:

Torment: Tides of Numenera


It's being done already, they are good.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm a kickstarter backer for that one, but it's not literally the sequel to Planescape: Torment but continues its "thematic legacy". I inferred that she was referring to a literal sequel to PS:T.

Skanda_sl said:

He finally does what they should have done on day one rather than respond the way they did to the criticism.

Click to expand...

Congratulations GG on getting developers to censor a game because they did something that triggered you!

Itzena once again coming in from left field and completely missing the point.

Oh? Was that not what happened?

I'f try to explain the nuance involved in what people were really angry about but we both know the limits of your SJW mind can't handle complexities so it would just be a waste of time.

Itzena_sl said:

Congratulations GG on getting developers to censor a game because they did something that triggered you!

Click to expand...

What people wanted : Have characters that fit the setting and live up to the writing and tone of the original (failed). Have bug fixes (failed) keep things like....multiplayer working( failed again). Update the UI to be tolerable on touch/modern systems(failed) .

In regards to the "tranny". It was a completely wooden, preachy , ugly , and spiteful. It insults the intelligence of the player.

The same rote shit was in Dragon Age Inquisition. The "tranny" in Dragon Age Inquisition did not bother me in the slightest. You know what bothered me? Iron fucking Bull treating me like shit for asking a question about his best warrior. An option was put into the game for me to feel bad about myself for exausting a dialogue tree. Fuck you

I do not need to be talked down to. I am not an idiot. I understand nuance. You know how you do that? You put a tranny in the game and have them not mention it within the first 2 lines. You know how you make a character Black in a game? You make them black and never make a big fucking deal about it. Because I assure you gamers really do not care. Especially Forgotten Realms D&D gamers. The setting in its entirety makes gender almost a moot point.

Having them change it is a stupid kneejerk reaction to pressure. The thing beamdog should have done is think about the character they want to introduce, give them a little more depth, and then not chastise/preach to people about it.

s/hes not wrong. /shrug. your view of what the game should have been and the devs view did not match. Dev was pressured into making changes.

The dev being right or wrong doesn't really matter. Like, Hatred, etc. were the devs right there was a market for that game content? Beamdog may have been stupid, but it was their right to be, with their contracts.

then of course comes the spiraling antagonism, reviews, etc. we have the right to say, "hey this is stupid, fuck you." etc, etc. Then, they can concede to market forces. But those market forces can controlled by social bullying.

And the top thread on KiA on the subject isBEAMDOG we know you are reading - we want you to make it a better game, not to censor yourselves!

GG, as a whole, never wanted Beamdog to censor themselves. Now the Devs, after stirring the hornets nest over the past couple of days have finally totally misunderstood the entire point. If they had avoided shitting all over the majority of their fans in the first place maybe the point GG was trying to make might not have been drowned out by the controversy Beamdog caused by their initial response to the criticism.

Simply removing something because people don't like it isn't enough to constitute censorship.

Itzena_sl said:

Congratulations GG on getting developers to censor a game because they did something that triggered you!

Click to expand...

Except, as someone linked, GG didn't want them to censor themselves. Also; the whole focus on the dumb writing was a straw man, people were more pissed about the broken aspects of the game. The developers themselves played up the outrage around the social issues to try and brush aside the actual objective broken aspects of the game.

Lastly, this is a little different from a piece of content someone simply creates. They are adding to an established work, in an established universe--not even writing a new game in that universe but literally adding another chapter to it. To go in with the mindset that you're going to 'update it for modern gamers', while fans of the original are your market? Not the brightest choice.

Baldurs Gate: Siege of Dragonspear on GOG.com


Them Reviews. I love you GOG you Polish fucks. You do not let developers moderate reviews, like you should.

Azrayne_sl said:

Simply removing something because people don't like it isn't enough to constitute censorship.

Click to expand...

Someone had better tell the Gamergate thread that.

I've been reading about this a bit. It kind of reminds me of when J.K. Rowling somewhat needlessly stated that Dumbledore was gay, after the fact of her series being published. I don't give a shit about Dumbledore's sexual preferences, but I was annoyed with the announcement because it seemed political and divisive. Also, by it being stated after the series had been published in its entirety, it felt like she was trying to hoodwink those in her fanbase who might not have had moral parity with her on the issue.

Ultimately, this really isn't a discussion on transgender whatever the fuck. There is this dimension of "successful" contemporary art that is a partnership, and that partnership involves maintaining an unspoken accord between creators and audience with regards to what the work is about, and what it isn't about. This is a good example of Beamdog breaking that accord, and paying the price. I don't really think censorship plays into this. Trying to limit the expression of those who are dissatisfied customers by calling them censors seems more like censorship to me.

ismaris_sl said:

I've been reading about this a bit. It kind of reminds me of when J.K. Rowling somewhat needlessly stated that Dumbledore was gay, after the fact of her series being published.

Click to expand...

It's funny how your memory works to qualify it that way as needlessly....


Someone asked, she answered. The media decided to make a big deal about it. She's also said that Ron's dad was supposed to die, and Harry and Hermoine were her original couple, and a bunch of other shit that pisses those particular fans off when the media decides to reprint it. This is kind of the fucking problem at it's core... you remembered it very negatively despite it just being a random answer to a question that only has any meaning IF YOU FUCKING CARE TOO MUCH.

And btw, he was obviously fucking gay. All Brits are. Have you heard their accents?

Jait_sl said:

It's funny how your memory works to qualify it that way as needlessly....


Someone asked, she answered. The media decided to make a big deal about it. She's also said that Ron's dad was supposed to die, and Harry and Hermoine were her original couple, and a bunch of other shit that pisses those particular fans off when the media decides to reprint it. This is kind of the fucking problem at it's core... you remembered it very negatively despite it just being a random answer to a question that only has any meaning IF YOU FUCKING CARE TOO MUCH.

And btw, he was obviously fucking gay. All Brits are. Have you heard their accents?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I disagree. I really did not care, nor do I still, about his sexuality; I actually lean pretty far left. If anything, Dumbledore being gay adds a deeper dimension to his relationship with Grindelwald.

Every author has a right to say what they want to say, and every reader has a right to read what they want to read. My point is more that if you are going to shoehorn controversial political discussions into your art/work after the fact, you need to understand that your art/work and its reception might suffer. For me, it was disrespectful to her own work, and for what that work meant for her fans, because it was, at that point, reduced to a vehicle for her stance on gay politics.

My understanding is that he was initially gay and that she decided to not state it explicitly while writing, maybe because it was still technically a children's series, or her editor told her, or whatever.

I hadn't looked at it from that angle beforehand, but when the drama came out and the idea was put in my mind, the subtext became pretty obvious with the whole Grindelwald thing. It makes that whole arc of his backstory make a lot more sense (which it didn't when I thought of it as a purely platonic friendship), and adds some depth to his past - if she'd gone forward with it it explicitly would have been an interesting chance to look at her whole "love is the most powerful magic" thing from another, darker and more nuanced angle (ie. his love for Grindelwald allowed him to allow terrible things to happen, in the same way that Lily's love for Harry allowed wonderful things to happen). It would also explain why he'd avoided romantic involvement - not just because he had to keep it on the DL or anything because of prejudice, but because he'd seen that weakness in himself, that potential to get swept up by the power of love and allow it to become something terrible - in the same way that he said that he constantly refused the post of Minister for Magic because he feared what he would do with such overt political power.

So I think she definitely wrote him as gay, I doubt it's just something that popped into her head after the fact, her only real problem was saying "Dumbledore is gay" (paraphrasing) conclusively, when, however she wrote him, there's no definitive evidence in the novel. If she'd just said "well I initially conceived of him as gay" or "well I think of him as being gay," that would have left more room for people to have their own interpretations based solely on the written work.

Tanoomba_sl said:

Wow, you just can't please some people. It's not enough that they're re-writing the character who got complaints exclusively for being poorly written, that they're removing a silly joke that triggered some gamers, that they're addressing the technical issues regarding bugs and multiplayer... Nope, if they're not crucifying their own to satisfy your blood lust, then they're not doing enough. Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

No you tool, have you not been reading? What's so offensive here is not the fucking tranny (though it's stupid and has no place in D&D), but the cunt writer that not only double downed and arrogantly defended her SJW content, but actually goes on to say that she's going to actively push more of it whenever she can. Flipping off your customers while acting like a holier than though cunt tends to drive sales away. This is not much different than the EQ devs after introducing shitty content or balance changes patronizing the playerbase, some of whom understood the game better than they did. Except in this case it's worse, because it isn't stats or mechanics, it's fucking ideology and gender politics.