Baldur's Gate #BaldurGate: Siege of Dragonspear

[DeepOcean]

Played some more, while I was somewhat hopeful after the starting dungeon, afterall, it still fun to mess around with DnD spells and that stuff, the combat can be fun as it is old DnD combat that is alot cleaner than that mess that passes for combat on PoE but Baldur's Gate City really depressed me. The only thing that Beamdog should have done was to copy paste Baldur's Gate city from BG 1 and add decent content to it, instead...

Once you are "free" to explore Baldur's Gate city, Corwin follow you around explaining to you that you must gather allies on the city, she works as a tour guide for you. What is funny is that why would you need a tour guide telling you what to do all time if the maps you go on Baldur's Gate city are ridiculously small anyway? Jeez, Beamdog wasn't even arsed to do some empty streets around the places you visit so when you zoom out, you can zoom out beyond the edge of the map what is something ugly as sin:

If there is only one building I can enter on this map, why Beamdog felt needed to add a tour guide to explain over and over that you must gather allies?

I liked that Beamdog took the care of actually placing refugees everywhere on a city supposedly filled with refugees, this is more care than Obsidian did with Defiance bay where the city is supposedly filled with refugees and the streets are strangely clean as fuck. The problem with Baldur's Gate city isn't the librulism (it is there, it is somewhat annoying but I don't care much.), the problem is that when Beamdog says to you must gather allies, I tought that as the main quest but that is literally the only thing of importance you can do on Baldur's Gate city, you can't even explore maps that are small as fuck. The feeling of being railroaded hard is truly annoying.

After you gather allies, you leave Baldur's Gate city, saying things felt rushed was an understatement. The game sometimes like to masturbate itself with alot of pointless scripted "cutscenes", scripted cutscenes are something that I hate and I remember well that BG 1 didn't railroad you with a ton of scripted senquences at the start.

The story and the characters and the writing so far are just boring, BeamDog relies alot on nostalgia. The problem is that I feel zero nostalgia for BG 1 or 2 characters, they were cardboard cutouts that were fun to go kill shit on dungeons and grab loot on said dungeons, they were DnD archetypes that were okay but I don't miss nights thinking on them. Sometimes the game goes, wink wink, do you know who this hooded guy that is totally Not-Irenicus is? Did you miss Minsc? That shit falls flat for me because I don't miss it, I played the BG games to kill shit and grab loot, Bioware writing was never that interesting to begin with.

What about the shit BeamDog added then? Here is Captain Mary Sue super exemplar Single Mom Corwin and her daughter...ZZZZZZZ... oh, yes, a hooded man comes to talk with me and he is totally ominous and totally Not-Irenicus...ZZZZZ... The Shinning lady so far is dangerously close to reach status of super Mary Sue:

No shit game, the woman is so awesome that even the people she tries to murder think highly of her? How many times are you going to tell me this lady is awesome game? So far I'm not impressed. The problem is the game tells me this woman is awesome all the time while I didn't see any proof of that so far, actually I'm bored I'm being dragged on this. Compare this clumsy start with even BG 1 start, you see some figure on some silly evil looking armor killing a dude and talking of enigmatic shit that makes you curious, then this guy kills your foster father and supposedly he is after you. So far, BeamDog doesn't know what mystery and making the gamer curious is, they prefer to hammer you with repetitious exposition until the plot move so predictably that you barely get engaged.

I left Baldur's Gate now, we will see if things improve but I have to say I'm not exactly that excited to continue, hope something interesting happens.

 

[Gay-Lussac]

blatant attack on freedom of speech

If only you had some other forum where you could express your opinion.

I see what you are trying to say, but my question is this. If a particular political ideology infiltrates every big media outlet, schools, companies, etc. - and they start censoring people from within on most places where it matters - do you still have freedom of speech? Or is such freedom of speech nothing more than a technicality?

If you dont see this as an attack on freedom of speech - where a big review site such as Metacritic censors people for no other reason than not agreeing with their political ideology - I don't know what to tell you.

I'm legit wondering what you wrote to make your review be taken down when all of the others in the screenshot were left up. Could you post the review here and your forum posts that led to the ban?

Ufortunately, I do not have my original review saved anywhere, but I was not being rude or anything. I said: "The game is actually not as bad as 3.8 score seems to suggest. If you like the original BG, chances are you will like this one too. Its writing is not up to par with original games, there is a clear SJW agenda being pushed into the writing, the game is a bit too railroady for its own good and there are some bugs. As long as you can ignore the social commentary, I can recommend the game and I think 5/10 is more than fair."

When Metacritic removed that review, I wrote a second one saying something among these lines: "No matter how many times you remove my review, I will come back and write a new one. People have the right to know what is in the game and that includes things such as unwanted political commentary. I gave the game 5/10 in my original review and I think this was more than fair considering its railroady nature, bugs, writing quality and all the controversy surrounding it. However, today I was banned from Beamdog's forums under false accusation of trans-misogyny and now it seems the developer's influence is even stretching here on Metacritic. Due to abhorent treamtment from the developer, which should be taken into consideration when buying the game, I am now reducing the score to 0/10."

That is all I wrote, and I don't see any reason to ban me. Btw, I made a new account and posted another review and gave the game a 0/10, so that might be where the other zeroes are coming from.

Well, that's weird, your review seems very much in line with the others on your screenshot. Maybe it's some sort of word filter at work. Either way, should probably boycott Metacritic. As a review aggregator, when they start banning legit reviews, they're providing a shitty service.

Freedom of speech in private enviroments works in a funny way: if you legislate that all private enviroments should be free of censorship, then you're effectively protecting freedom of speech, but at the same time you're also restricting the freedom of private institutions to organize and regulate themselves as they see fit. That's why freedom of speech is traditionally thought of only as a right against State censorship. Maybe with our growing dependency on certain services there should be a paradigm shift, but until then all we can do is vote with our wallets (or, rather, with our internet traffic).

Finally an intelligent comment on the problem at hand that presents us with a legitimite moral dilemma. Still, I would argue that self-regulation of any company - especially a review site - should work on principles of freedom of speech. If these priniples are broken, that company is effectively attacking people's right to express their opinions and is guilty of censorship.

This is a bit of a simplistic view. Consider that the company is giving you the very avenue in which you wish to express yourself in the first place. If they really wanted to deny you the opportunity, they could just cease operations, and there would be nothing you could do about it. All they owe you is what they agreed to provide in their Terms of Service, which you entered willingly. This holds true specially when alternative services are readily available (and they typically abound in the internet). It's a bit far fetched to state that they're "attacking people's right to express their opinions" when all they're doing is providing a platform which you're willingly electing to use.

The problem comes when certain abusive practices become market standards, and then consumers find themselves with nowhere to turn to. Market freedom becomes a fiction as companies band and people get the shaft. Example: Here in Brazil, you can, in general, stipulate on a contract where cases deriving from said contract will be tried. Of course, companies would universally make use of this on their contracts to make it near impossible for them to be sued (average Joe doesn't have the time or money to pursue a case out of his home State). That's why such clauses are considered null in consumerist contracts; this is the principle by which all consumerist law works here.

You could argue that, when censorship becomes the norm, or when it's practiced by companies that are universally used (Facebook), similar laws could and should be enacted to keep companies in check and protect freedom of speech. But the issue isn't as clear cut as you had presented it. Also of note, the argument could be stronger against companies who don't just censor, but rather attempt to outright deceive in some way. If you want a deeper look on conflicts of principles in general, this is probably readable even with no background in Law: http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Constitutional-Rights-Robert-Alexy/dp/0199584230/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460208372&sr=1-1&keywords=robert+alexy

PS: You guys are falling for some really low-effort trolling

 

[Talby]

These all read like things Amber Scott wishes she would have the nerve to say to men if they ever hit on her... which, judging by her photo, has never happened.

 

[varangos]

I'm Communist.

a true communist gentleman would not like a counterevolutionary,opportunistic game like PoE.

 

[Theldaran]

Fun fact about SJWs like Amber Scott is that they aren't even transexual themselves. So why would they write about it? And with such a passion?

They don't give a toss when actual trans put objections to their work, because it's not for the trans, it's for themselves. Probably Amber Scott is laughing her ass off with this situation and she only closed her Twitter to attract even more attention. If she didn't see all of this coming then she is fucking blind. The deepest mystery is how Beamdog could think of getting away with this content. Morons.

Also noteworthy is their cowardice to spread their ideas packing them in a videogame, instead of discussing them in the open, where there could be dissenting, critical or even hateful voices. Cyberwarriors.

 

[Prime Junta]

I'm Communist.

a true communist gentleman would not like a counterevolutionary,opportunistic game like PoE.

True Communist gentleman only play as priest of Skaen

 

[Goral]

Well, the SJW disease seems to be spreading.

I posted a Metacritic review giving the game originally a score 5/10 - which I think was more than fair considering all the controversy, bugs, writing quality, etc. I even recommended the game - as long as you don't mind "in your face" political agenda! Then my Metacritic review was deleted! Same day I was banned from Beamdog's forums under false accusation of spreading hatred and trans-misogyny. I also found a few articles misrepresenting valid critcism as hatred towards transexuals by Jim Sterling, Gawker and the usual suspects! So I wrote another Metacritic review - lowering the score from 5/10 to 0/10 due to crappy treatment from the developer and them trying to censor people ALL OVER THE FUCKING INTERNET! Developer's treatment of their customers is a valid point to consider when buying a game, for fuck's sake!

Now I find out that not only has Metacritic removed my review again, but what is worse, they have removed all my Metacritic reviews and banned me from commenting ever again! This here is a blatant attack on freedom of speech! SJWs have been trying to censor internet for years now and luckily the constitution does not allow for it! However, they are now getting into private companies and are censoring content on completely unfounded accusations! If a small company such as Beamdog can influence Metacritic to do such a thing, it won't be long before every gaming company starts using SJW as an excuse to censor dissenting opinion. If anyone knows any big Youtuber who is willing to talk about this, please let him know of what is happening!

NOW I AM REALLY PISSED!

They've deleted my "review" too. Gave it 1/10. Thankfully my 1/10 Fallout 4 review still stands.

 

[PhantasmaNL]

Metacritic is shit anyway. Btw i see they didnt add the official GameStar review which was unfavorable. I wonder how the removal works, as in on what grounds. Maybe Trent has a direct line to MetaCrit HQ to discuss what reviews to remove.

 

[Naveen]

Ufortunately, I do not have my original review saved anywhere, but I was not being rude or anything.

Perhaps that was the problem, you should have been more rude and aggressive, ranting about SJW and feminazis. I read somewhere that they did that with the new Ghostbuster trailer, remove some of the serious, critical, and spot on comments but leave a few loony ones.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Fun fact about SJWs like Amber Scott is that they aren't even transexual themselves. So why would they write about it? And with such a passion?

They don't give a toss when actual trans put objections to their work, because it's not for the trans, it's for themselves. Probably Amber Scott is laughing her ass off with this situation and she only closed her Twitter to attract even more attention. If she didn't see all of this coming then she is fucking blind. The deepest mystery is how Beamdog could think of getting away with this content. Morons.

Also noteworthy is their cowardice to spread their ideas packing them in a videogame, instead of discussing them in the open, where there could be dissenting, critical or even hateful voices. Cyberwarriors.

I don't know if anyone's laughing, from the info on their sales that we have. Being a SJW can be an expensive hobby. I wouldn't imagine anyone ever spent so much money on dear ms. Scott as whoever allowed her to write her gibberish in the game.

 

[vonAchdorf]

You just hate this game because of SJW AGENDA! or gameplay mechanics are shit too?!

It's Baldur's Gate, therefore RTwP, what do you expect? They didn't make it turn-based, so it's as bad as the original.

 

[varangos]

lilura confirmed for female

http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33136

I find her article well written and informative.

 

[Mareus]

This is a bit of a simplistic view. Consider that the company is giving you the very avenue in which you wish to express yourself in the first place. If they really wanted to deny you the opportunity, they could just cease operations, and there would be nothing you could do about it. All they owe you is what they agreed to provide in their Terms of Service, which you entered willingly. This holds true specially when alternative services are readily available (and they typically abound in the internet). It's a bit far fetched to state that they're "attacking people's right to express their opinions" when all they're doing is providing a platform which you're willingly electing to use.

I actually think your view is simplistic and very naive.

1. I haven't broken any terms of service and was banned. So when you say that "all they owe me is what they agreed to provide me in terms of service" - well they failed doing that.
2. The only reason Metacritc has any influence on people's choices is because people believe that they will get a fair quick overview of the product - not skewed by politics, payola, etc. That is the whole idea behind the site. If Metacritic can remove any dissenting opinion they disagree with or because X-company payed them to do it, then that undermines the whole concept of their site.
3. Journalists and review sites such as Metacritic have a moral obligation to be neutral - otherwise they are nothing more than propaganda machines.

Basically what you are arguing boils down to this: - Metacritic has terms of service, but they can break those terms of service at their own prorogative. They have no moral obligation to do anything. If you don't like it, go somewhere else - there are plenty of other sites you can use!

Yes son, there are plenty of other sites I can use, but you missed the point I was making. My argument never was that the free speech has been removed. My argument was that this is an attcak on free speech. If you are going to move from one site to another as soon as it gets corrupted, one day you will run out of sites where to go. As I said, I think you have to be a complete dunce in order not to see the damage SJWs have done to freedom of speech, and Metacritic banning people on behalf of Beamdog is just another example of these attacks.

 

[Prime Junta]

If you are going to move from one site to another as soon as it gets corrupted, one day you will run out of sites where to go.

IPv6 allows 3.4×10^38 addresses. So not gonna happen soon.

That wasn't an attack on free speech. You simply ran afoul of restrictions that already were there, that you hadn't noticed before because up to this point your views were comfortably compatible with the corporate mainstream.

 

[prodigydancer]

Mareus Metacritic is a mainsteam site pandering to the lowest common denominator. If your opinion conflicts with the mainstream opinion, and you can express it intelligently enough that there's a risk people won't immediately dismiss you as an idiot, you get banned. This has nothing to do with Beamdog specifically. It's what MC has always been.

 

[Excidium II]

Expected more outrage from unsolicited gay gnome flirting tbh. Guess it was already posted~

Yes, and it's not unsolicited. You choose the flirty options, you get flirted with.

How is "I wish I shared your passion" a flirty option? If anything it's the least flirty option besides being rude. The gaynome that gets the wrong meaning from it and starts flirting himself.

 

[Roguey]

How is "I wish I shared your passion" a flirty option? If anything it's the least flirty option besides being rude. The gaynome that gets the wrong meaning from it and starts flirting himself.

It is a pretty Anders-y situation. Amber Scott was clearly a fan of the Anders approach, even though Bioware considered that a harsh lesson to learn from.

 

[Excidium II]

How is "I wish I shared your passion" a flirty option? If anything it's the least flirty option besides being rude. The gaynome that gets the wrong meaning from it and starts flirting himself.

It is a pretty Anders-y situation. Amber Scott was clearly a fan of the Anders approach, even though Bioware considered that a harsh lesson to learn from.

Well I don't remember what was the deal with Anders but in DAO Zevran hit on the PC and it didn't bother anyone because it made sense with him trying to trade his nubile elf body for his own life.

 

[Roguey]

Well I don't remember what was the deal with Anders but in DAO Zevran hit on the PC and it didn't bother anyone because it made sense with him trying to trade his nubile elf body for his own life.

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Talk_to_Anders

Unless you immediately end the conversation, you'll get locked into either flirting with him or gaining rivalry points.

 

[Excidium II]

Heh I guess that really is the inspiration. But at least Anders is not a fuckin gnome.

 

[pippin]

Anders was described as a womanizer in DA: Awakenings. Part of his rogue element persona was based on his attitude around women, he liked fucking them too much and wouldn't focus on his tasks as a mage. Suddenly, in DA2, he's gay.
Besides, him having his body occupied by he spirit of Justice isn't an excuse. Come to think of it, Amber is really Hepler 2. Like Palpatine and Vader.

 

[Lacrymas]

I thought that wasn't so bad, it showed a different side to Anders. Not that I'm defending Bioware, far from it, I'm just skeptical of the validity of the criticism. I also haven't played DA2 since forever (duh) so I might not know exactly what we are talking about.

 

[pippin]

I think the problem wasn't making Anders gay, actually. Arguably, he was very librul in terms of sex.He could be bi. The problem is that if you don't agree with him and his gayness, you antagonize him. It's bad from a mechanics point of view and also from a character bulding perspective, not only his, yours too.

 

[Roguey]

Anders was described as a womanizer in DA: Awakenings. Part of his rogue element persona was based on his attitude around women, he liked fucking them too much and wouldn't focus on his tasks as a mage. Suddenly, in DA2, he's gay.
Besides, him having his body occupied by he spirit of Justice isn't an excuse. Come to think of it, Amber is really Hepler 2. Like Palpatine and Vader.

When Gaider saw him in Awakening he thought he was gay as all hell because he wears his earring on the gay side.

If you talk to him as a femHawke he doesn't even mention a relationship with Karl.

The problem is that if you don't agree with him and his gayness, you antagonize him. It's bad from a mechanics point of view and also from a character bulding perspective, not only his, yours too.

There's nothing wrong with going full-rivalry with a character you don't like (or just taking a minor hit that you can more than make up for later).

 

[Delterius]

It's bad from a mechanics point of view and also from a character bulding perspective, not only his, yours too.

Not really. That tells you more about how shitty of a person Anders actually is, since he's so pissy from rejection.

If anything that's one of the bright sides to DA2: everyone in your party tends to be either a major anti-social arsehole or outright stupid and you can tell that to their face. This was by design, they wanted to make characters that you either enjoy or enjoy hating.

I thought that wasn't so bad, it showed a different side to Anders.

It would if everyone wasn't Bi in the game.