Siege of Dragonspear - Review @ RPS

[Archangel]

Not sure what triggered this reply with a truism. My "Let's see whether that's an outlier" makes clear that I'm aware of this.

It was a reply to everyone.

 

[Farflame]

Oh oh… there is rain and dark sky behind my window and this heated debate is still going on RPGWatch. Welcome, spring 2016…

I wont participate in this LGBT issue, who or what is good or wrong… I just want to present one perspective.

I mean, LGBT are REAL people in the world that deserve just as much representation as ANYONE else.

HiddenX recently wrote that he doesnt want/need to be represented AT ALL in games. There was a lot of +1 under his comment so I think a lot of ppl shares his opinion. These ppl want to "be" someone they normally coudnt… to play in a fantasy world with fantasy lore. I assume they can accept real world issues in game world but they dont find it as mandatory element… Especially with possible immersion problem if those real world issues feel forced and doesnt go well with the lore of game world. Now lets say that ppl from this group dont share your opinion. They have different perspective. Are you able to understand that?

 

[rjshae]

Isn't dealing with "real world" issues an element of what gives a game "adult content"? That's part of what I love about sci-fi: addressing real world topics in a unique environment, which renders it more neutral and less likely to inflame people's passions. It seems like fantasy should be able to do the same thing.

 

[Ripper]

HiddenX recently wrote that he doesnt want/need to be represented AT ALL in games. There was a lot of +1 under his comment so I think a lot of ppl shares his opinion. These ppl want to "be" someone they normally coudnt… to play in a fantasy world with fantasy lore. I assume they can accept real world issues in game world but they dont find it as mandatory element… Especially with possible immersion problem if those real world issues feel forced and doesnt go well with the lore of game world. Now lets say that ppl from this group dont share your opinion. They have different perspective. Are you able to understand that?

Fluent didn't say that his point applied to everyone criticising Beamdog. I don't think anyone's saying that they must all hold the exact same position and motivations, but it is fair to say that it's a significant element of the backlash, and it's been expressed explicitly right here:

I tend to be a conservative person, and with the inclusion of gay and transsexual characters I felt like the game was trying to force me into accepting this, not just in the game, but outside of it as well. That can taint an experience, and it tainted mine.

...For me, I’m just disappointed that Beamdog had to go there and make this a political type of game instead of concentrating on interesting story and FUN.

This was from a review that was quoted here, and the emphasis is from the original post, not mine. If the complaint is that the inclusion of LGBT characters “taints” the experience, because it feels like it forces one to accept them, there can be little doubt what the position is. It is far from an isolated case.

The concern expressed here is the inclusion of what is referred to as “LGBT crap”. It is perceived to be “tainting” the game with politics. This idea of mere inclusion being perceived as a political act is what reveals the nature of the objection. Some people, like Fluent and Thrasher, are responding to that.

 

[Farflame]

Isn't dealing with "real world" issues an element of what gives a game "adult content"? That's part of what I love about sci-fi: addressing real world topics in a unique environment.

Yes, but sci-fi world (if its not too far away) somehow evolved from modern world so its issues are also closer to real world. While typical fantasy world is closer to medieval era.
And I wrote:

I assume they can accept real world issues in game world but they dont find it as mandatory element… Especially with possible immersion problem if those real world issues feel forced and doesnt go well with the lore of game world.

 

[purpleblob]

This was from a review that was quoted here, and the emphasis is from the original post, not mine. If the complaint is that the inclusion of LGBT characters “taints” the experience, because it feels like it forces one to accept them, there can be little doubt what the position is. It is far from an isolated case.

The concern expressed here is the inclusion of what is referred to as “LGBT crap”. It is perceived to be “tainting” the game with politics. This idea of mere inclusion being perceived as a political act is what reveals the nature of the objection. Some people, like Fluent and Thrasher, are responding to that.

Did you even read my whole post? Thanks for quoting just a snippet of it.

I haven't played the game so this is just my impression upon reading reviews (I can make own decision of which ones are worth reading). It does seem like certain political view is forced on to players and that is where people (sensible, not the crazy burn the SJW imberciles crowd) are getting upset about. I thought the girdle of Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity was hilarious. I could so imagine companions laughing at the poor person who ended up trying it on without identifying the belt first. I loved Edwin's unfortunate gender change and how everyone made fun of him. None of it was offensive. None of it was trying to push agenda or be politically correct. I deal with enough of SJW or other political rubbish in real life, and I don't need to reminded of these bullsh*ts even in games, which is my hobby/leisure activity. In a way, I think Beamdog really did it to themselves. Some reviews quoted below.

Also, I think Beamdog was/is overly ambitious. We are talking about BG series here. People would have high expectation (I do, and I know I'm not the only one). If you come back with mediocre contents, seriously, what were you expecting? After all, aren't they trying to prove that they are worthy of making BG3? Again, Beamdog was kind of asking for all these criticism. Again, good review quoted below.

3 different reviews, all from Metacritics, different score, different impressions. But all points that it is just an average game with possibly critical flaws, more so for a certain type of people.

In conclusion, I think SoD has it's faults and is an average game. I think I will pass this one because I have a very high expection of BG series and also don't like being reminded of some political agenda while I'm playing a game. Maybe will pick it up during sale or something if some of the problem with bugs etc are fixed.

I've quote someone else's review who said LGBT tainted his/her experience. Where in my post did I say LGBT have tainted my experience? I said I don't like *certain political view* that seem to be forced on to player. Political view doesn't always or just mean *LGBT*. Again, why are we back to this again? I personally feel pushing political view doesn't work well unless the writing and implementation is great. It is called political agenda because it can rub lots of people wrong way and I don't want that type of crap being forced on me while I'm doing my leisure activity.

Key word: writing and implementation.

I don't have a problem of SoD having LGBT or other political rubbish as long as it doesn't break the immersion or feel like it's being forced on to me. Again, you guys are putting words in my mouth. What is this obsession of going back to LGBT bullshit? I have a problem with SoD as a whole package not just LGBT.

 

[Ripper]

@Purpleblob

I made it clear that you were quoting from a review, and that was a section you chose to highlight in bold.

My point is that you highlighted a review that is explicit in its objection to the inclusion of LGBT characters, and you also, in your own words, talk about "LGBT crap". That being the case, I don't think it is unreasonable for others to respond to the point. It is clearly a part of the argument.

 

[purpleblob]

@Ripper:

Fine, let me clear this up for you. I quoted those reviews to show people have different problems with SoD. And I called it LGBT crap because I'm getting tired of keep going back to this issue and hearing things like you are a monster if you dislike this game. I don't like all political agendas in games unless implemented well, not just LGBT. We all have different taste and opinion. You don't need to call out on people who have problem with this game like a monster.

 

[Ripper]

I'm not calling you a monster. My point is not to go after you personally, but to show that it is reasonable when people respond to anti-LGBT positions, because they clearly are a part of this. You just provided an example.

I am still a bit confused by what your position is, though. You say I am putting words in your mouth, but then you immediately go on to say this:

I don't have a problem of SoD having LGBT or other political rubbish as long as it doesn't break the immersion or feel like it's being forced on to me.

You again put LGBT in the category of “political rubbish”.

Again, you guys are putting words in my mouth. What is this obsession of going back to LGBT bullshit? I have a problem with SoD as a whole package not just LGBT.

By saying that you have a problem not just with LGBT but the whole package, that clearly states that you DO have a problem LGBT, in addition to other things. You say I'm putting words in your mouth – but then you go on to reinforce the point.

 

[wolfgrimdark]

HiddenX recently wrote that he doesnt want/need to be represented AT ALL in games. There was a lot of +1 under his comment so I think a lot of ppl shares his opinion. These ppl want to "be" someone they normally coudnt… to play in a fantasy world with fantasy lore. I assume they can accept real world issues in game world but they dont find it as mandatory element… Especially with possible immersion problem if those real world issues feel forced and doesn't go well with the lore of game world. Now lets say that ppl from this group dont share your opinion. They have different perspective. Are you able to understand that?

Growing up there were pretty much no role models, no inclusion, no protagonist in a game (or even most books), that reflected a gay character. Like any majority it is easy for a straight person to forget they are always included by default. They don't understand what it is like when you play a game or read a book and finally see someone you can relate to, someone from your own minority, being represented.

As for immersion - I see two very common misconceptions people always use in these debates. First these worlds are not our world, they are not Earth. They share things in common so people can relate to them but that doesn't mean they have to mirror it exactly and in fact can't and shouldn't. Last I checked we didn't have dragons, wizards, gods, magic, and what not. Second even in our own history LGBT goes back through ancient history. It isn't "improper or immersion" breaking to have it in a fantasy game or a science fiction game.

That is speaking in generic terms and not any specific game. The thing I do agree on is that it should be done so it blends in with the flow of the game and should be discovered naturally just like any other character or situation. In other words I can see a problem with changing the core personalities of main characters in Baldur's Gate or changing the overall feel to the game since this is meant to be a continuation of it.

But adding a new character that happens to be LGBT should be a complete non-issue as it doesn't break any of that as long as the character acts and fits into the theme/lore of course - they shouldn't be wearing a space suit and waving a rainbow flag - but from what I read this isn't the case. It was just some side dialogue.

I suspect many folks don't really care. I also am sure there are some folks who are being honest when they say they are unhappy with the changes NOT because of any LGBT or strong females … but because they feel some core changes, unrelated to those issues, were made that they feel goes against the feel of the game.

But knowing human nature, and how these arguments go, I am also reasonably certain that some of the people complaining the loudest are just throwing up side arguments and distractions simply because they are bigots and would not make a big deal if it had been something else. They want their safe bigoted little world that doesn't have any people or minorities in it that make them uncomfortable. A nice friendly Stepford-Wife-Game where the white males rule and any minorities are meant only for comic relief.

 

[purpleblob]

I'm not calling you a monster. My point is not to go after you personally, but to show that it is reasonable when people respond to anti-LGBT positions, because they clearly are a part of this. You just provided an example.

I am still a bit confused by what your position is, though. You say I am putting words in your mouth, but then you immediately go on to say this:



You again put LGBT in the category of “political rubbish”.



By saying that you have a problem not just with LGBT but the whole package, that clearly states that you DO have a problem LGBT, in addition to other things. You say I'm putting words in your mouth – but then you go on to reinforce the point.

…. are you serious?

I have a problem with the way LGBT agenda was implemented in SoD, not with LGBT itself.

I don't support nor am against LGBT. I call all political agendas rubbish. You know what? People can feel uncomfortable about the whole LGBT issue. That is NOT a problem as long as you treat anyone, including LGBT, with respect.

Are you treating me with respect right now? It seems like you want to know my stance in LGBT and ready to preach me if I don't agree with your view on LGBT. wtf.

 

[Ripper]

…. are you serious?

I have a problem with the way LGBT agenda was implemented in SoD, not with LGBT itself.

I don't support nor am against LGBT. I call all political agendas rubbish. You know what? People can feel uncomfortable about the whole LGBT issue. That is NOT a problem as long as you treat anyone, including LGBT, with respect.

Are you treating me with respect right now? It seems like you want to know my stance in LGBT and ready to preach me if I don't agree with your view on LGBT. wtf.

I am not treating you with any disrespect. I'm addressing the things you actually said, in the context of a debate. I haven't said anything about preaching to you, or that I have a problem with you being "uncomfortable with the LGBT issue", if that's the case.

What I am getting at is the repeated complaint saying that it is unfair to respond to the backlash as if it were about an issue with LGBT. What I'm trying to pin down is that it is, to some degree, about some people's discomfort with LGBT matters. Surely you can see that when you say "it's not just a problem with LGBT," that must mean, to some extent, that it is. I just wish we could be honest about that.

I don't want to blast you personally for your beliefs, whatever they may be, but I do want the Beamdog critics to stop suggesting it's unreasonable to say that's a part of it.

 

[Drithius]

The next time Dungeon Lords gets re-re-released, they need to include hamfisted LGBT content. Reviews are bound to improve! And if they don't, every naysayer is a bigot!

 

[abharsair]

It looks to me as if both sides deliberately misunderstand or ignore some of the arguments being made by the other side.

Yes, it is certainly true that some people who criticize the LGBT content in the game as an example of bad writing have also an anti-LGBT agenda and would criticize it even if the writing would have been stellar. On the other hand, it's equally true that some people dismiss perfectly fine and valid criticism automatically as bigotry in an attempt to silence the negativity. Both is narrow-minded and wrong.

As for myself, having seen some screenshots and Youtube videos of some of the game's dialogues, I have to say that I find them quite cringeworthy. Whether those are outliers or represent the actual quality of writing, I cannot say, since I do not own the game. I guess it all comes down to personal preference and the standards one applies to writing (e.g. the Twilight novels sold like crazy and personally I wouldn't touch them with a 3-foot pole).

Lastly, I do not think the whole controversy is caused by a transsexual NPC per se, but it's the product of a combination of several issues (especially Amber Scott's interview). The original Baldur's Gate is beloved by a whole lot of people who almost religiously revere it. By calling it (or portions of it) "sexist" and in need of improvement, she managed to sound as if those fans of the original game are supporters of sexism. I doubt she actually intended for that to happen and many of those fans probably didn't take any offense either, but others did and will continue to do so, and I'm not sure how anyone could not have expected that kind of backlash to happen. So unless Beamdog deliberately did all that to attract free publicity (which it might well have), it was at best naive, and at worst stupid.

 

[purpleblob]

Ok, so you are making an assumption I'm clearly against or uncomfortable on LGBT, let me make some assumptions too.

I am not treating you with any disrespect. I'm addressing the things you actually said, in the context of a debate. I haven't said anything about preaching to you, or that I have a problem with you being "uncomfortable with the LGBT issue", if that's the case.

Yes, you are treating me with disrespect. Why is it so important for you to find out my *position* on LGBT when I've already mentioned several times LGBT included in SoD is not an issue but the implementation? It only seem logical to me that you are ready to preach me that my view is incorrect (going with the assumption you think I am against/uncomfortable with LGBT) based on your other posts all over SoD threads.

Texts in bold is what you seem to be doing to me now:

Speak for yourselves. Frankly I'm getting tired of so called SJWs preaching others. It's always the tone of "either you agree with us or you are LGBT hating, scarred, narrow minded human beings". It's like if I say something negative about game or someone who's labelling *themselves* as SJW, they focus on whole argument on that even though I may not be talking about that particular subject "omg you hate/criticise that product/person because they support LGBT". No, I just happened to think the product is mediocre, regardless of minor LGBT related content included. The focus is not that. But nope, some people just love to go back, both sides of extremes.

Some of us feel SoD is mediocre game, regardless of this whole LGBT non sense. End of the story. Suit yourselves if you think the game is worth $20 for your time. But don't try to preach us on what we like/don't like sorely is focused on LGBT crap and reduce us to retards.

What I am getting at is the repeated complaint saying that it is unfair to respond to the backlash as if it were about an issue with LGBT. What I'm trying to pin down is that it is, to some degree, about some people's discomfort with LGBT matters. Surely you can see that when you say "it's not just a problem with LGBT," that must mean, to some extent, that it is. I just wish we could be honest about that.

No, it is not unfair to respond to the backlash, but the way you and others are handling it is the issue for me. It's the other extreme of "burn the SJW/LGBT supporter imbeciles" that you guys are against. What you are doing is no different to them, the only difference is the target.

To make it clear, I did not like what I read about Minsc's *one line* that is against his character. Yes, I had problem with that. NOT because he is supporting LGBT specifically but because I don't like the tone of "you support this or you are wrong", regardless of what topic it is. There's clear one sided tone of this political agenda. And I don't like that. No, that was not the factor that made me decide not to purchase SoD. Yes, it was a problem, but not the deciding factor. Are we clear on this now?

See italics in my above quotes for NOT THE DECIDING FACTOR bit.

 

[Ripper]

@Purpleblob

All I can suggest is that you re-read what I actually said in my last post. If you think that justifies your rant about me being disrespectful, trying to "burn the imbeciles" that disagree with me, or that I'm saying "support this or you're wrong", I don't really know what to say to you.

You might want to re-read some of the things you've actually said while you're at it.

 

[Thrasher]

The thing is Beamfog's previous BG/2 upgrade efforts also had new dialogue. Was that writing just as "bad" as dragonspear? In any case, there wasn't furor like this. So what's different? Having LGBT characters?

 

[forgottenlor]

I've played through well over 7 hours now and am enjoying it, though it's not Baldur's Gate 2. I'm so sad that this whole game has been muddled up by the gender stuff, which is really so marginal to my playthrough so far, and less in your face than any Bioware game I've played since Jade Empire. Just a note on Gamestar, which I read every month: Gamestar automatically takes 10 points off any game without modern graphics. They gave Underrail 72, even though the actual review text is very positive. Anyways I feel a 58 is really unjustifiably low, and would agree with the RPS review more or less so far.

 

[abharsair]

The thing is Beamfog's previous BG/2 upgrade efforts also had new dialogue. Was that writing just as "bad" as dragonspear? In any case, there wasn't furor like this. So what's different? Having LGBT characters?

My unqualified guess? Because of that:

Lastly, I do not think the whole controversy is caused by a transsexual NPC per se, but it's the product of a combination of several issues (especially Amber Scott's interview). The original Baldur's Gate is beloved by a whole lot of people who almost religiously revere it. By calling it (or portions of it) "sexist" and in need of improvement, she managed to sound as if those fans of the original game are supporters of sexism. I doubt she actually intended for that to happen and many of those fans probably didn't take any offense either, but others did and will continue to do so, and I'm not sure how anyone could not have expected that kind of backlash to happen. So unless Beamdog deliberately did all that to attract free publicity (which it might well have), it was at best naive, and at worst stupid.

Or to sum it up: because of a perceived (irrationally or not) attack on a beloved franchise, the gloves came off.

 

[forgottenlor]

I wish reviewers would play with open cards, but they don't. I for example, am a 43 year old white male, heterosexual, religious, married with a wife and daughter, and consider myself politically centrist, though my voting record would suggest I vote more often for the democrats than the republicans. My best friend from my university days came out as gay, and that's not a problem for me. I also work as a elementary school teacher, 23 of my colleagues are women, 2 are men, and I think I get along with them all well. I tend to be live and let live, though I dislike extremism in any form, and am for freedom of speech as long as conversation doesn't turn abusive and disrespectful. I do have friends both more conservative and liberal than I am, and think I can understand people with different opinions than I have. Anyways the content in SODS that I've come across doesn't really bother me. I could see how it could bother a few of my conservative friends on principal.