I don't really understand his reasoning. It's a sin because it's not for procreation? So he also hates me, my family, all my friends and possibly everyone I know. If so he is somewhat of a douche. Also, if you see hate as too strong a word, well sin translates as your going to hell. So I would say hate is actually a mild way of putting it. I hate people who are anti-X or Y but say, hey I don't hate them, some of my friends are them. Yes but you do believe they are going to burn for eternity.

As for not supporting him. The reasoning behind that comes from the fact that he was funding an anti proposition 8 organisation, therefore buying something that he gets paid for is arguably funding that.

This is the best response so far.

I recently had a chance to meet Doug TenNapel, the man most often credited with creating Earthworm Jim, and what followed was him personally defaming me in order to take back some negative comments he made about Interplay. Yet EWJ is still one of my favourite series--I played it to death as a kid, bought the action figures and watched the cartoon. My dislike of one guy for personal reasons doesn't change the great work he did.

Never mind that games are created by a team, even though only the project leads tend to receive any real credit despite putting in the least amount of work.

Aren't you discriminating this person for his personal beliefs on the same way as you do not want to be discriminated against. To call a person homophob in public is no better then to to call a person homosexual in any way. It has the same intention.

if it makes you feel any better, orson scott card didn't write this game, the story was written by the designers. the party line very generously stated orson scott card "worked on the dialog" and this is itself a claim of dubious merit. the game itself (what you should be judging) was very solid for it's time. i encourage you to look in to all of this.

the music is also stellar and, in a similar vein, it's cd boldly declares "COMPOSED BY TOMMY TALLARICO" which is total bosh, it was composed by michael richard plowman (look for his name in the insert). tallarico produced and did additional orchestration (he was plowman's support staff basically) but this project really seemed to want to tie as many big names to it as it could.

if you start judging everything you consume by the character of those who created it you're going to probably want to stop going anywhere and doing everything. most of these people are insufferable pricks.

personally, i like to know as little about actors and authors as possible. tracy hickman is a unendurable egotist and speaking with him is like going to jail, but his books are still some of the best i've ever read. judge the completed work, not the creator. your decision is depriving you of a worthwhile experience but this was about you feeling good about your kneejerk reaction and not actually thinking anyway. this is unfortunate.

Well, I'm probably breaking the statute of limitations in explaining myself for what was a throwaway comment but...

It's not kneejerk and it's not unthinking. It's quite discourteous and presumptive to say that. I'm gay and I don't support people who openly wish to abrogate my rights and who think my sexuality should be illegal. Where you spend your money helps shape the world; I can't support him, and he is a clear selling point of this title. So I shrug and move on.

There's too many games to play, so I'm not missing anything, I merely play something else.

It's not discrimination to dislike bigotry—not tolerating intolerance is perfectly acceptable.

I agree though, in that it's better generally not to know about the artists you like.

No offence to anyone who likes the game, please enjoy it. I know I'm sensitive to these things and I don't expect other people to share that sensibility, especially in this context. It's not about not playing it or anything, it's about not funding that man. It's a personal decision. I made the original comment when Gog was young and no-one seemed to be about. I was really talking to myself.

I can't be arsed to do your Googling for you, but...

OSC is one of the board members of National Organization for Marriage, an anti-GLBT rights group. The group is most known for its insanely well-funded opposition to Ptoposition 8, though it is almost as known for something OSC said publicly while on the board of NOM. I don't recall the exact wording, but it was something to the effect that if sub-human KZ fodder like me got the same rights and protections regarding family in California, he'd do his level best to overthrow the government of The United States.

Basically, as far as homophobes go, OSC is the very worst kind: rich, well-spoken, massive fan-base & co-leading an organisation of fanatics dedicated to fighting any & all attempts at gaining equality for all before the law.

The stuff you dug up on him are from many, many years ago (from an afterword to a novel, I believe) when he - at least publicly - was far less of a fanatic. Then again, equal rights for GLBTs weren't really on the US horizon back then, so he may simply have feigned indifference on the issue of equality for all before the law, in order to sell more copies of his books.

And I suggest you just the guy by his actions, not just a single, ancient afterword. Go-Go-Google him.

That said, don't boycott AR because of OSC. He doesn't earn any royalties on it, so it makes no difference to him whether you buy it. It may make one to you, though, as it is a pretty brilliant little game.

Oh, but maybe you should. It's hard to take you seriously lacking quotable material.
You really should have read that one up before referring to it. What he said was maybe a bit too prosaic (states being mortal enemies really sounds like hardcore terrorism), but I think you can forgive a science fiction author for over-dramatization.
However, nowhere in this quote did he even suggest that being gay was in some way sub-human. Or that gay people should be prosecuted and rounded up in KZ's. Frankly, the "KZ-fodder" metaphor is a disgusting and disrespecting misrepresentation of what he said. It is also very telling of your subconscious interpretation of Card's alleged homophobia.

Another problem is that in his quote he was just referring to his interpretation of prop 8: that the state would be defining marriage in a cultural sense. You can even read into the quote, that he does not care about equal benefits at all ("Regards of laws"). It is all in the eye of the beholder.

I think it is perfectly fine to think that the state has no business defining a cultural value with centuries of tradition. Of course, the state should also have no business outlawing cultural or religious values (be that the religious belief that gays can marry or that gays cannot marry). Separation of church and state really was a great idea.

How I would love to see that progression of his backed up.
Are you serious? Do you realize that your logic is contradictory? How can he sell more books by "feigning indifference" to LBGT rights when LBGT rights are a non-issue?

I find that Google notion of yours most amusing. Do you think that I just stumbled upon a 5000 word essay out of the blue? You should have taken your advice to heart yourself, you would have realized then that Orson Scott Card is not in the least the type of guy who feigns mainstream conformity to "sell more books"

Orson Scott Card is a hard person to like and an easy person to hate if you are easily aggravated, he seems full of contradiction and does not care about conformity. But this also makes him extremely likable. He speaks his mind truthfully, and there are not a lot of persons you can say that about. I personally prefer this behavior to the mainstream mentality of showing someone artificial respect, because sooner or later the artificiality shows and this subtle revelations often hurt more than an outspoken mind.

The problem with this argument is that marriage is no longer really a religious concept in America, it is a legal concept. By the separation of church and state, the laws regarding marriage cannot be based on religious beliefs. I feel that a whole slew of problems arose the moment it was decided that the laws governing the union of two people should use the term "marriage", which is of religious origin. Orson Scott Card and other Mormons are free to believe that same-sex couples are sinners and should not be married, but they do NOT have the right to impose that religious belief on others through state law.

Honestly, I think that we should return "marriage" to being an entirely religious concept that is not dealt with by the state at all, and give everyone "civil unions" recognized by the state. If you want a marriage in addition to your civil union, feel free to have one granted by the church of your choice. The state wouldn't concern itself with marriages at all. Essentially, separate marriage into its "church" and "state" components. You can have one or the other or both at once if you like. We could even call them "state marriage" and "religious marriage" so that neither side could complain about who gets to use the word "marriage".

Also, I should point out that while Orson Scott Card himself may have not made any statements you find offensive, other members of the National Organization for Marriage have made several insulting and unfounded claims on the subject, such as the assertion that Massachusetts schools are currently teaching children that gay marriage is good, a claim they were unable to substantiate. They went so far as to say that this unsubstantiated claim indicated that pro-gay activists were trying to take away their freedoms, an astounding claim considering that they themselves are trying to deny gays the freedom to marry. By associating himself with this organization, Orson Scott Card is lending his support to such arguments, even if he did not voice them himself.

People have probably seen the ridiculous TV ad I am referring to, but if not, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI

I've read a lot of OSC and always think wtf is wrong with him lol
How can someone capable of such big ideas for his novels fall to pieces whenever romance comes into the plot. The female characters are bland and the relationships are devoid of substance, like a decoration for his characters. Please do cite a passage to suggest otherwise.

Regarding his extreme beliefs, his stories become riddled with his own personal defense mechanisms. The scene in Advent Rising where your character meets his love interest is such a hot mess. Considering the standards of games to be of a low level for culture but a high level of awkward concerning love stories and female characters... they hired a REAL writer for it and its more forced/pretend and corny than any other game. It should get a award for Worse Than Resident Evil

You think the man knows what ANY ppl love for? My hunch is he can hardly tolerate the indecision of ppl because his self is so insecure so he may as well be preaching to four walls.Of course most of what my opinion is coming from are his own works of fiction which don't reveal the whole picture, just a bit.

I tried to post this basic information about Orson Scott Card in the reviews section of GOG. I thought people deserved to know it before investing their dollars in this game. But everytime I tried to post, the site would not let me. What is the explanation for this, GOG? Do you not believe in giving your customers access to this accurate information?