Torment:ToN - Interview @ RPGCodex

[Deleted User]

people grossly overreacted to what was in Siege of Dragonspear. I mean, seriously, it was a single insignificant character with a couple of lines of dialogue. In that particular case, I feel like people were just looking for something to bitch about.

Any reasonable person would agree with this. But that's the nature of this particular "vocal minority." Some want to see games and developers crash and burn and they cheer that on. Sometimes it's not even game-related, but has something to do with some background drama.

I see posts on a certain website about people wanting to give others game keys in exchange for them posting a negative review for the game. Pathetic, low stuff. That is why I said I do not blame Brian at all for retiring. While I don't want to focus on this negative aspect of our hobby, it's there and it affects real people, in this case game developers who are trying to bring us the games in a genre we supposedly love. If people loved RPGs I don't understand why they would want to hurt the ones who are trying to give them to us.

 

[Stingray]

I don't like seeing any kind of SJW crap in the games I play, but people grossly overreacted to what was in Siege of Dragonspear. I mean, seriously, it was a single insignificant character with a couple of lines of dialogue. In that particular case, I feel like people were just looking for something to bitch about.

You do know about the Minsc "GamerGate" line they put into the game right? There's no other reason that would have been put in the game other than 100% intentionally by an SJW type, to provoke people on the other side of that issue. Granted, they deleted it in a patch, but it still shows clear intent to insert their agenda into their game.

 

[Deleted User]

One line in a 40+ hour campaign? What a grand agenda that is, truly.

 

[Stingray]

Regardless of your position on the reviews thing, I don't think you can say "I feel like people were just looking for something to bitch about" as JDR did, when the reality is that someone at Beamdog went out of their way to try to provoke them.

 

[Deleted User]

No, you most certainly can say what JDR13 said, and I agree with him. Let's not pretend like one line in a game with literally thousands of lines of dialogue and a poorly written minor character mentioning they are transgender is something to be outraged over. Even if that was somehow an outrage, it does not warrant seeking the destruction of the game, the company's employees and their reputation in retaliation.

 

[Stingray]

Let's not pretend like one line in a game with literally thousands of lines of dialogue and a poorly written minor character mentioning they are transgender is something to be outraged over. Even if that was somehow an outrage, it does not warrant seeking the destruction of the game, the company's employees and their reputation in retaliation.

Doesn't matter if it's one line or not. It's about intent. If, at release, one of the companions in the game had a one-liner that was disparaging about black people and perhaps used the N-word, would you still be singing the same tune? Didn't think so. They would take a lot of shit over allowing that into their game from many quarters, and they would fully deserve it. Same situation here, just a different group they're attacking, and the group they attacked has plenty of valid reason to be mad about it.

As far as the reviews, OK, you don't need to keep repeating the same thing, we already know that you aren't a big fan of free speech and/or free thought, given that you implied that bad/trolly game reviews could be a form of "cyberterrorism" in the last page of this thread. Give me a break.

 

[JDR13]

You do know about the Minsc "GamerGate" line they put into the game right? There's no other reason that would have been put in the game other than 100% intentionally by an SJW type, to provoke people on the other side of that issue. Granted, they deleted it in a patch, but it still shows clear intent to insert their agenda into their game.

I feel sorry for people who are provoked that easily. It says more about them than it does about Beamdog.

 

[Stingray]

I don't think you need to be provoked all that badly to spend a mere 60 seconds or so to go post a bad review, which is really the point at hand here. Also don't think it's really too relevant whether it says anything about those people, etc etc. It's about Beamdog intentionally provoking people, then feeling the completely predictable backlash. No one to blame but themselves.

 

[Deleted User]

I didn't imply anything. I simply said I will be interested to see if such things could be considered cyber terrorism at some point in the future.

I also fail to see how one line in the game is an "attack" on anybody. Unless you're looking for a reason to be upset, which is exactly what JDR13 said that I happen to agree with.

And you think using a real-life racial slur is equivalent to Minsc's line in the game? Yeah, I don't think you believe that.

 

[Stingray]

I didn't imply anything. I simply said I will be interested to see if such things could be considered cyber terrorism at some point in the future.

Yeah, sure, as if "being interested" :lol: whether that's considered terorrism isn't an implication that it might be. I mean really, get a grip here, you're saying you're interested in knowing whether leaving bad game reviews is a form of terrorism.

I also fail to see how one line in the game is an "attack" on anybody.

If you don't know why that line is an attack, then I guess you're clueless about GamerGate and that meme. Google can educate you.

Unless you're looking for a reason to be upset, which is exactly what JDR13 said that I happen to agree with.

No, I personally don't care about it.

And you think using a real-life racial slur is equivalent to Minsc's line in the game? Yeah, I don't think you believe that.

No, I never said it was equal, just that it was a similar thing in that you're attacking a group and should expect a response. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Deleted User]

No, the line that Minsc says is not similar to using a racial slur in any way, shape or form. Sorry. If you think it is then perhaps you can test it out in real life and then document the response you get.

Deciding if it's cyber terrorism or not is not up to me, but I am curious how that will play out in the future. Organizing to attempt to bring something or someone down by leaving excessively negative reviews, often for no other reason than to destroy the reputation or perception of the game and damage the company/person behind it, nasty posts on forums designed to do the same and so on certainly seems a bit more to me than just "leaving bad reviews."

In this era of the internet and what we've seen in the past few years, that is why I'm curious as to how that will be handled in the future. I am also interested in how sites like Steam and Metacritic will handle such things.

 

[Stingray]

No, the line that Minsc says is not similar to using a racial slur in any way, shape or form. Sorry. If you think it is then perhaps you can test it out in real life and then document the response you get.

I didn't say it was, I just said you're attacking a group either way. Are you reading?

Deciding if it's cyber terrorism or not is not up to me, but I am curious how that will play out in the future. Organizing to attempt to bring something or someone down by leaving excessively negative reviews, often for no other reason than to destroy the reputation or perception of the game and damage the company/person behind it, nasty posts on forums designed to do the same and so on certainly seems a bit more to me than just "leaving bad reviews."

In this era of the internet and what we've seen in the past few years, that is why I'm curious as to how that will be handled in the future. I am also interested in how sites like Steam and Metacritic will handle such things.

This is just so nutty that I don't even know where I'd begin. Hard to believe I'm reading a post from a person who seriously thinks that leaving bad game reviews might be a form of "terrorism". I think I'll leave it at that.

 

[JDR13]

I don't think you need to be provoked all that badly to spend a mere 60 seconds or so to go post a bad review, which is really the point at hand here. Also don't think it's really too relevant whether it says anything about those people, etc etc. It's about Beamdog intentionally provoking people, then feeling the completely predictable backlash. No one to blame but themselves.

I doubt Beamdog could have anticipated that many no-life losers out there getting their panties in a bunch over it, but yeah, I agree that it was a poor decision.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

I doubt Beamdog could have anticipated that many no-life losers out there getting their panties in a bunch over it, but yeah, I agree that it was a poor decision.

Doubt it was "many"…even all the vocal posters on Codex represent only a tiny fraction of game's audience.
Example:reception of first PoE there and how quickly Obsidian crowdfunded second Pillars in comparison…you'd never believe it, if going by their comment section.
In this case, this was not as well received by more wider audience and hardly the result of some wide spread "cyber attack" by a few dozen idiots.
( Though likely nostalgia and less in today patience for heavy reading also had a hand in it).

 

[Stingray]

Doubt it was "many"…even all the vocal posters on Codex represent only a tiny fraction of game's audience.
Example:reception of first PoE there and how quickly Obsidian crowdfunded second Pillars in comparison…you'd never believe it, if going by their comment section.
In this case, this was not as well received by more wider audience and hardly the result of some wide spread "cyber attack" by a few dozen idiots.
( Though likely nostalgia and less in today patience for heavy reading also had a hand in it).

PoE had 73986 backers and PoE 2 had only 33614. That is a massive dropoff. When you figure that PoE 2 must have many new backers who didn't back PoE 1, you will realize that the vast majority of people who backed PoE didn't want to back PoE 2. The reasons for it are obviously debateable and no doubt they aren't 100% related to the reception of the game, but my point is that I don't think you can use those crowdfunding campaigns to prove your point in this case.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

PoE had 73986 backers and PoE 2 had only 33614. That is a massive dropoff. When you figure that PoE 2 must have many new backers who didn't back PoE 1, you will realize that the vast majority of people who backed PoE didn't want to back PoE 2. The reasons for it are obviously debateable and no doubt they aren't 100% related to the reception of the game, but my point is that I don't think you can use those crowdfunding campaigns to prove your point in this case.

I think it's pretty obvious that Kickstarter funding is far more toned down after the initial wave ( of enthusiasm ) and Obsidian's financial situation had a part in it's funding.
While the game did not reach the height as some expected, reaction on Codex gives a far different picture.

 

[Dez]

I just think the whole Siege of Dragonspear fuss was a storm in a teacup. Many people posted in almost frenzy state silly 0/10 reviews because of few minor issues. I agree that the addon is not as good quality as the orginals, but its still enjoyable to play for a baldur's gate fan. I'd likely rate it 7/10 myself. A purist may say that it is a bit generous, so yeah I can understand a score of 5 or 6 as well.

Anyhow when I encounter content I don't enjoy in video games, I often just shrug my shoulders and move on unless it is so major that it prevents me from enjoying the game. Few lines of social justice type of stuff didn't ruin my fun. It was tacky yes, but so minor. People just overreacted.

Justy look at the user metascore (3.6) vs press metascore (77). Kind of silly. Press has once again rated it a bit more favourably than it deserves, but internet trolls have also rated it less favourably than it deserves… all those 0/10 reviews prove my point.

 

[Silver]

I always thought that the 'just one character thing' was a scapegoat because people were using that as an example of the overall quality of the writing that just wasn't good. Other areas of the writing like the overall plot and how specific story segments played out were also SJW like; for example how the refugee problem played out and how established companions were rewritten to be more 'acceptable'.

Beamdog then capitalized on the controversy around that one character to paint all detractors with the same brush. What people really didn't like was the attitude from Beamdog employees towards any and all criticism and the labelling going on. I think they sent an SOS to Anita Sarkeesian at one stage to bully boy criticizers, which attests to their character, and for which they later apologized. I think ignoring the context of the complaints is disingenuous and an attempt to rewrite history personally.

 

[Stingray]

Yep, good way to put it. There was a lot more to it than just the one character, but I didn't have the energy to go down that rabbit hole in this thread.

As I tried to explain, the reason I focus on the Minsc line (which got removed in a patch) is because that bit removes any defense they might have had, as far as "well this is just how we see things and we're just innocent writers over here doing our job". No, that Minsc line made it clear that they were actually trying to trigger people with different viewpoints.

 

[Dasale]

Books, movies and series are neutral now? Woo stuff evolves a lot, I feel old.