So you got any proof of harassment? Most of what you say is your opinion and not really verifiable arguments. Like what exactly was ''people being more open to talk about ethics'' even though stuff like doritosgate came and went with games media ignoring it? Or the fact that Stephen Totilo looked at the work of Nathan Grayson and said there wasn't any ethical violation or conflict of interest? Or what about these cases that all happened but weren't discussed : http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=ben_kuchera although a lot of it happened in this promise land before the ''nerd rage'' as you describe it?

Sloppy journalism is unethical journalism Its is all the ethics codes that being as accurate as possible is of paramount importance as is fact checking and verification. And where is this discussion of journalism of ethics being held by brave journalists against the evil gamergates? Link to stuff that you think proves your points.

Would you not agree that when you post a review here, you're asking people to assume in good faith that you possess a copy of that game unless you indicate otherwise? And that you're specifically reviewing GOG's edition unless you indicate otherwise? It would be foolish to believe any random review came from buying and playing GOG's release, but isn't that what the reviewer is asking us to believe? Otherwise what good is the review?

I review a lot of games I didn't get through GOG, but I try to make a note of that in every review.

I wouldn't argue against letting old reviews sit untouched, new reviews are where the action is.

Actually, I would not agree.

This thread and plenty of other threads over the years, here on GOG, debate on that very issue. Thus, no, I don't believe that assumption (they "own it on GOG") can be made.


That's a good practice. Just keep in mind - not everyone does things the way you do - it's good to be cautious about recommended practices based on your way of doing things as if everyone does things the same way.

I'd probably still argue against "automatic" things - I tend to not like them due to "unforeseen circumstances" arising.

But, if it was noted with a confirmation; then at least one could go forward with foreknowledge about that implication of their submission. I'd grudgingly accept that.

This conversation has been going on for a while, and I honestly don't want to jump in and see where I fit into it, I just want to make my point as a GOG user, for any of the company representatives who may be following this thread.

This whole thing is a travesty and really should be addressed, not only out of respect for the consumers but out of respect for the people who host their games here. For people who aren't very familiar with the gaming community, who can't see through the controversy, there's a real chance that they are interested in the Baldur's Gate series, are considering buying it, but are turned off by the 1 star reviews for Dragonspear and don't buy it. It's not just a few people with an opinion, it's a group of people intent on damaging a company's reputation and revenue. There's nothing wrong with boycotting, there's nothing wrong with proclaiming your opinion, there's nothing wrong with going on the forums and trying to convince people you're right, but there is something wrong with spamming a game's sale page, claiming false knowledge about its quality based on your political views. The people who made Dragonspear invested time, money and personal risk to say what they wanted to say and make the game they wanted to release, and they did it fair and square. For any company with a game that they invested in and want to sell on GOG, this situation tells them that GOG will allow dishonest people to try and ruin that game's reputation and the reputation of the people that made it, regardless of their actual experience with the game.

The people writing one star reviews claim the problem is the SJW Feminist agenda. The reality is that a company has every right to have any kind of agenda they please. The company bought the rights to the Baldur's Gate franchise and are free to do anything they want with it. By allowing people to attempt to block potential revenue, GOG is undermining that company's efforts. The response might be "what about freedom of speech?" It's true that consumers are allowed to act like complete idiots if they want, as are the companies that create games. Maybe it's time GOG makes a decision about who the real idiots are here, and who they should support. GOG has that freedom as well.

I'm still not sure I understand your issue here. As wvpr noted, if someone posts a review of a game here on gog, that means that yes, they own it somehow (whether on gog or not), or have played it in the past. Your argument of "it will give SJWs fuel to attack the reviewer!" makes no sense, because the very act of posting the review is already all the fuel needed if someone felt like attacking.

Scenario 1:
-Person A posts a review of a game on gog. As is currently the case, there is no indication of whether Person A owns the game or not
-Person B attacks person A because the game is a controversial game on gog.

Scenario 2:
-Person A posts a review of a game on gog. Either a rule has been implemented that only people who own the game can post reviews, or there is an indication that A owns the game in their review.
-Person B attacks person A because the game is a controversial game on gog.

Neither scenario is any different in terms of attack fodder.
Now, as a completely side topic from this discussion, I too would consider it better if only those who own a game on gog (perhaps even only those who have downloaded the game from gog) can post a review of it. It is all very well to post reviews of games you played ages ago, but that experience may not necessarily be representative of the version existing on gog. The gog version may have technical issues not present in the original version, or it may have fixed some technical issues that had always existed in the original version, or it may be played through a wrapper/emulator/VM that changes the experience somehow.
If it isn't possible to restrict reviews to only people who have got the game on gog (perhaps because of the issue pointed out by wvpr that a game wouldn't get any reviews due to being old and obscure otherwise), then yes, an indicator that the person who wrote the review owns the game or not seems prudent.

Is Walking Simulator still a slur though?
It's used to describe a genre. Not sure if the genre has any other name.

https://www.facebook.com/ed.greenwood.142/posts/10156746522575453

https://archive.is/20160406100915/https://www.facebook.com/ed.greenwood.142/posts/10156746522575453%23

Ed Greenwood

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 6:56pm

"I am saddened by what I hear of the current kerfluffle raging about Siege of Dragonspear and the trans character Amber Scott designed and included in it.

Folks, the Realms have ALWAYS had characters (mortals and deities) who crossdressed, changed gender (and not just to sneak past guards in an adventure, by way of shapeshifting magic or illusions), were actively bisexual, and openly gay. How underscored this was by TSR and later Wizards varied over time, and was always softpedaled, because D&D wasn't a sex game, and we generally don't rub the reader's nose in sex unless there's a good in-story reason for it.

But even deities have changed gender, sometimes for good, and the servants of deities (Elminster, in ELMINSTER: THE MAKING OF A MAGE) have sometimes been forced by the deity to "spend time as the other" to learn what life is like.

So it has always been there, and is an integral part of the Realms. With that said, I've never met a gamer yet who doesn't tinker with every adventure to "make it their own" at their own gaming table, so if trans, LGBT, or sexual matters at all don't suit your tastes and needs in your gaming sessions, leave it out or change it.

But D&D has half-orcs, and half-dragons, and half-elves, and has magic items that specifically change gender, right there in the rules. Surely, if you can handle the basic notion of cross-SPECIES sex, having a full variety of gender roles should be something that doesn't blow your mind. If it's not for you, that's fine. I hate wearing certain shades of yellow. But I don't scream and yell at someone I see wearing those shades of yellow, and call them names, and threaten things. My right to dislike yellow applies to me; it doesn't extend to others. Because somehow, through an incredible oversight on the part of the universe that still hasn't been rectified, no one made me a god. (I'm still crushed.)"

Although there are people who seriously consider that ridiculous term a genre description, I hope it started as a slur which is all the term should be. How could it be a valid genre description? Is the purpose of such
games simulation of the process of walking, do you play those games because you like virtual simulation of walking (gotta laugh out loud at this one)? I cannot begin to describe how absurd the notion is of "Walking simulator" being a genre.

The Virtual Meditative Walk :P

So what other name could be used? I genuinely can't think of one.

I would be hard-pressed to find a fitting one myself, would have to think much more about it than I care to. :)

EDIT: I think I have seen the term "exploration game" used on occasion, which I could agree with for lack of a better one (not that that one is bad)

heh, could help, I think. :)

Why am I not surprised this is your primary source of information to get butthurt over.

I just found an article about this:
http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/972903-gamers-flood-baldurs-gate-expansion-negative-reviews-introduces-transsexual-character

I am very surprised.
Did you even read the link? It says the FTC responded that some suggestions from GG had a role in their updated requirements. What is there to get butthurt about?
If that wasn't a rhetorical question, I'd say its because you associate that forum with your own butthurt.

You know that semantics is the trench warfare of intellectuals ? Anyway, these forums aren't the good place to debate this. I just wanted to say that people would be equally mad if Bioware did this expansion today because they would introduce these topics, hopefully with a better writing that doesn't look like a 1st year gender studies first essay.