Baldur's Gate 3

[AliciaDurge]

These things are integral though to the stories believability though. For instance, seeing a black man sitting in an Irish pub in early Irish settings is stupid on its face. You may not care about the color, but it would be as silly as walking into a medieval setting that tries to be accurate to its era and finding a laser sight and night vision goggles sitting on the counter. You may not care about the out of place nature of the issue, but for anyone interested in the history and setting would be insulted by the display as it is stupid on its face.

That is the level of insult to which much of this is being done. While Faerun humans are a range of colors and more of a mix of races, there are still distinct occurrences by various tribes. So seeing a very dark Unther within the area of Lantanese as if they were Lantanese and always a part of that culture would be not that common (though the mixing of humans themselves is not my direct objection in this realm). That said, among the other races such halflings, elves and dwarfs, this does not exist with human influence. In BG3, you consistently see this racialized diversity among elves, halflings, and dwarfs as if they took on human features in such (ie notable black, asian, etc... were modeled into their features which was obvious DEI pandering) and it makes those specific races look, modern and narrative pandering. It breaks immersion and tells the player that "diversity" and "inclusion" should not only rewrite history in reality driven games, but force conformity in the fantasy as well.

This also is covered in gays occurring within the world. While they existed, they were confined to various sub cultures due to it not being generally accepted (as Ed Greenwood noted he was emulating the world in this respect at the time showing that even in this fantasy world, such occurrence was limited to areas where it may be accepted and its occurrence was guarded among those groups due to the publics general attitude to it).

You may not think it important, but for many who enjoy these types of games (and to which these games were originally made for), this is as important as any ruleset concerning combat, race and class restrictions.

I hope you understand that to see this level of pandering (ie generalizing of race mixing and open homosexuality as if it were modern day society) and manipulation is very insulting to many? It would be like scoffing at people complaining about you moving a Knight like it were a Queen on a chess board and claiming that you never really paid attention to those rules, you enjoy the game for other reasons. This is the level of dismissal the industry is doing when they disregard such in their "need" to diversify and be inclusive. It is political and it is obvious.

Great point. I'll answer more in depth later, but in one of my story ideas the MC is a queer and it takes place in medieval Europe, but a fantasy world which it is related to the story is made up, so as the creator I can make up the rules and social norms of that world. But in the real world of the story, queerness is not accepted and she has to keep it to herself. Only her adoptive father knows and is cool with it, but he's the only person she trusts in the start of the story. I like to balance realism and made up stuff in my stories, and it may not be 100% realistic all the time but it has to make sense. Like even if I make stuff up, there still has to be some kind of logic, balance and believable reasons behind it. Not every peace of media needs to be to the status quo, and I think that's important for creative people. (To clarify, I meant the fantasy world is outside of Earth in that story). I want creative people to be able to do what they want with their creations, and it's okay that some of them don't want to do the status quo kind of thing. It would be boring if every story had the same status quo stuff. People's ideas are unique in their own ways, which should be allowed.

Then they can create their own world, setting, lore and structure. Ripping off an existing world and then ignoring its structure is just lazy no talents marketing on the existing IPs success to push their garbage because they know nobody wants to read/play/watch their political garbage so they have to hide it behind something people have an interest in.

If this were just an issue of creators making their own original content, but with whatever world view they had, nobody would care because it would stand on its own, and people could choose it or not. Instead we get a bunch of existing IPs being raped by political deviants trying to message the world a story only a very small sub group is interested in.

It is like the comic book industry. There were a few comics that came out which were new characters, but gay, or black, etc... and they pushed all the usual political tripe. They flopped, nobody wanted to read them, so... naturally, they started ripping off the existing successful comics and turning them gay and injecting them with their politics.

That should tell you the motive behind all of this.

Yeah, I'd prefer people making their own original stuff instead of turning existing stuff woke.

[AliciaDurge]

Hmm yeah, at least in BG3 you can play as fully straight character and head canon your companions as straights as well, I think.

No, they are all gay characters.

If you can romance them to gay, they are gay. They are not "player sexual", they are gay characters who will have relationships with the opposite sex. This is why you can stumble into gay dialogues because they are designed to allow for gay focus. The game with a straight character is to not fall into a dialogue trap where the character assumes you are gay as well.

Contrast this with Morrigan and Alistair in Dragon Age who were "straight" and could not be romanced to be gay.

If Larian wanted to have all this gay shit in their game I really don't understand why they couldn't have just let us choose our sexuality at character creation. Then I could be pals with Gale without him trying to get me into bed. Its like they left it this way so that you were forced to interact with it that way.

Agreed, I hate the bug of Gale trying to get me to bed in one of my playthrouhgs (I first played the game on my friend's PC to try it out). But after that, Gale has been a great bro. But I think that there should be the choice about your sexuality.

[Anon]

Great point. I'll answer more in depth later, but in one of my story ideas the MC is a queer and it takes place in medieval Europe, but a fantasy world which it is related to the story is made up, so as the creator I can make up the rules and social norms of that world. But in the real world of the story, queerness is not accepted and she has to keep it to herself. Only her adoptive father knows and is cool with it, but he's the only person she trusts in the start of the story. I like to balance realism and made up stuff in my stories, and it may not be 100% realistic all the time but it has to make sense. Like even if I make stuff up, there still has to be some kind of logic, balance and believable reasons behind it. Not every peace of media needs to be to the status quo, and I think that's important for creative people. (To clarify, I meant the fantasy world is outside of Earth in that story). I want creative people to be able to do what they want with their creations, and it's okay that some of them don't want to do the status quo kind of thing. It would be boring if every story had the same status quo stuff. People's ideas are unique in their own ways, which should be allowed.

Then they can create their own world, setting, lore and structure. Ripping off an existing world and then ignoring its structure is just lazy no talents marketing on the existing IPs success to push their garbage because they know nobody wants to read/play/watch their political garbage so they have to hide it behind something people have an interest in.

If this were just an issue of creators making their own original content, but with whatever world view they had, nobody would care because it would stand on its own, and people could choose it or not. Instead we get a bunch of existing IPs being raped by political deviants trying to message the world a story only a very small sub group is interested in.

It is like the comic book industry. There were a few comics that came out which were new characters, but gay, or black, etc... and they pushed all the usual political tripe. They flopped, nobody wanted to read them, so... naturally, they started ripping off the existing successful comics and turning them gay and injecting them with their politics.

That should tell you the motive behind all of this.

Yeah, I'd prefer people making their own original stuff instead of turning existing stuff woke.

They know people wouldn't buy it though, that's why they need to leech off and corrupt stablished franchises.

[Anon]

Swen has amended his version and apparently it's indeed all on Larian



Can be just business talk to not burn his former business partner and risk burning bridges, but well, can't overread it and have to take his word for it. Larian is to blame for all the wokeism in the game then.

I guess he was chasing the ESG after all.

I guess it's more like they gave too much attention to feedback from the twitter/reddit crowds.

[TKVNC]

Swen has amended his version and apparently it's indeed all on Larian



Can be just business talk to not burn his former business partner and risk burning bridges, but well, can't overread it and have to take his word for it. Larian is to blame for all the wokeism in the game then.

I guess he was chasing the ESG after all.

I guess it's more like they gave too much attention to feedback from the twitter/reddit crowds.

Shame, really. I just think about how much better the game -could- have been. It's still passable enough with the right mods, but still a shadow of what could have been.

[Xenich]

Swen has amended his version and apparently it's indeed all on Larian



Can be just business talk to not burn his former business partner and risk burning bridges, but well, can't overread it and have to take his word for it. Larian is to blame for all the wokeism in the game then.

Yeah, if he wanted to be neutral, he could have simply just kept quiet about it, letting the blame be placed where it was going. That would have been the safest course, but since he took effort to clarify they are the cause, well.. yep...

Good job Larian, you officially changed your status to pozzed, heavy. At least we know not to purchase your political tripe now. Good luck on that path to eventual bankruptcy!

I guess he was chasing the ESG after all.

I guess it's more like they gave too much attention to feedback from the twitter/reddit crowds.

Shame, really. I just think about how much better the game -could- have been. It's still passable enough with the right mods, but still a shadow of what could have been.

Expect it to get much worse on their future titles. They are full in and committed now, no reason to hide it anymore unless they are not only pozzed, but devious as well.

[Xenich]

Also heard something about them not continuing with D&D as well? Any confirmation on that?

If so, this will be quite interesting to watch them spiral. Without the BG/D&D crowd, they will have to stand on their own lore/settings which is much smaller than what they picked up with those IPs. So, add in mega woke, larian original lore/settings which doesn't have the massive following, and I see a slow caving into oblivion. The woke community can't carry them and they are so arrogant in their positions, they will alienate the games with their proclaimed ownership of the studio.

Now there is the possibility that they made so much money on BG3, that they don't care and can ride out losses for the next decade or two. Though that would be a placing idealism before practical sense, all too common for these groups, I mean... look at Disney?

[rusty_shackleford]

wotc was benefiting from larian's popularity, not the other way around. D&D has been a dead brand with regard to video games for years.

[edit]
To be more clear, the brand value of D&D is highly overestimated and D&D itself barely makes any money. Hasbro almost never even includes D&D on their annual financial statements, the main exception was… BG3. BG3 probably made more revenue in one month of early access than D&D makes for Hasbro in an entire year. Wotc's main product is magic the gathering.

D&D was more profitable under Gygax in the 80s than it is now.

[Anon]

wotc was benefiting from larian's popularity, not the other way around. D&D has been a dead brand with regard to video games for years.

[edit]
To be more clear, the brand value of D&D is highly overestimated and D&D itself barely makes any money. Hasbro almost never even includes D&D on their annual financial statements, the main exception was… BG3. BG3 probably made more revenue in one month of early access than D&D makes for Hasbro in an entire year. Wotc's main product is magic the gathering.

D&D was more profitable under Gygax in the 80s than it is now.

Also need to consider BG is an stablished and well known franchise. This fact helped boost the game even more than Larian's or DnD's reputation by themselves. If it was DOS III with DnD settings I doubt it'd have reached the same popularity and be such huge news during development.

[rusty_shackleford]

Also need to consider BG is an stablished and well known franchise. This fact helped boost the game even more than Larian's or DnD's reputation by themselves.

Do they sell a lot of video games at retirement homes?

[Xenich]

wotc was benefiting from larian's popularity, not the other way around. D&D has been a dead brand with regard to video games for years.

[edit]
To be more clear, the brand value of D&D is highly overestimated and D&D itself barely makes any money. Hasbro almost never even includes D&D on their annual financial statements, the main exception was… BG3. BG3 probably made more revenue in one month of early access than D&D makes for Hasbro in an entire year. Wotc's main product is magic the gathering.

D&D was more profitable under Gygax in the 80s than it is now.

I was thinking more for brand recognition in gaming. D&D has always been something people in gaming identified with. At least, for me... I see a D&D system and its nostalgia kicks in and I am greatly interested in the title. BG is even more so for non-gamers as when it was popular, there are a lot of casual gamers that picked up and loved that title. So in that respect, I think they got a lot of interest in BG3. When that is gone, it loses a lot of those extra crowds that would stop and find interest (I think BG more than D&D), but it is more layers of such.

Maybe I am wrong, I just think that it had a large part in the success. Though I am not saying Larians engine didn't have an effect as well due to D:OS, but anecdotally, just reading the mainstream forums, I saw a lot more talk about it being a continuation of BG or D&D rather than it was from the makers of D:OS.

[Xenich]

Also need to consider BG is an stablished and well known franchise. This fact helped boost the game even more than Larian's or DnD's reputation by themselves.

Do they sell a lot of video games at retirement homes?

bahh..

The brand has crossed multi generations as well though with its resurgence over the years GoG produced excitement when it first brought it there, Beamdog remastering them and rereleasing, etc... Infinity games got a boost to the public over those years and so even though the title is very old, it is well known.

[rusty_shackleford]

wotc was benefiting from larian's popularity, not the other way around. D&D has been a dead brand with regard to video games for years.

[edit]
To be more clear, the brand value of D&D is highly overestimated and D&D itself barely makes any money. Hasbro almost never even includes D&D on their annual financial statements, the main exception was… BG3. BG3 probably made more revenue in one month of early access than D&D makes for Hasbro in an entire year. Wotc's main product is magic the gathering.

D&D was more profitable under Gygax in the 80s than it is now.

I was thinking more for brand recognition in gaming. D&D has always been something people in gaming identified with. At least, for me... I see a D&D system and its nostalgia kicks in and I am greatly interested in the title. BG is even more so for non-gamers as when it was popular, there are a lot of casual gamers that picked up and loved that title. So in that respect, I think they got a lot of interest in BG3. When that is gone, it loses a lot of those extra crowds that would stop and find interest (I think BG more than D&D), but it is more layers of such.

Maybe I am wrong, I just think that it had a large part in the success. Though I am not saying Larians engine didn't have an effect as well due to D:OS, but anecdotally, just reading the mainstream forums, I saw a lot more talk about it being a continuation of BG or D&D rather than it was from the makers of D:OS.

Counterargument: WotC already tried to cash in on this same formula without Larian. This was the result.



This has the D&D brand, BG brand, and Drizzt.
Yes, Dark Alliance games were very popular.

[Metalhead33]

No, they are all gay characters.

If you can romance them to gay, they are gay. They are not "player sexual", they are gay characters who will have relationships with the opposite sex. This is why you can stumble into gay dialogues because they are designed to allow for gay focus. The game with a straight character is to not fall into a dialogue trap where the character assumes you are gay as well.

Contrast this with Morrigan and Alistair in Dragon Age who were "straight" and could not be romanced to be gay.

If Larian wanted to have all this gay shit in their game I really don't understand why they couldn't have just let us choose our sexuality at character creation. Then I could be pals with Gale without him trying to get me into bed. Its like they left it this way so that you were forced to interact with it that way.

Because there are 900+ different sexualities nowadays so the alphabet crowd would seethe.

Somehow, Paradox got away with having only 4 (hetero, homo, bi, a) in Crusader Kings 3, despite being a Swedish company.

[Xenich]

wotc was benefiting from larian's popularity, not the other way around. D&D has been a dead brand with regard to video games for years.

[edit]
To be more clear, the brand value of D&D is highly overestimated and D&D itself barely makes any money. Hasbro almost never even includes D&D on their annual financial statements, the main exception was… BG3. BG3 probably made more revenue in one month of early access than D&D makes for Hasbro in an entire year. Wotc's main product is magic the gathering.

D&D was more profitable under Gygax in the 80s than it is now.

I was thinking more for brand recognition in gaming. D&D has always been something people in gaming identified with. At least, for me... I see a D&D system and its nostalgia kicks in and I am greatly interested in the title. BG is even more so for non-gamers as when it was popular, there are a lot of casual gamers that picked up and loved that title. So in that respect, I think they got a lot of interest in BG3. When that is gone, it loses a lot of those extra crowds that would stop and find interest (I think BG more than D&D), but it is more layers of such.

Maybe I am wrong, I just think that it had a large part in the success. Though I am not saying Larians engine didn't have an effect as well due to D:OS, but anecdotally, just reading the mainstream forums, I saw a lot more talk about it being a continuation of BG or D&D rather than it was from the makers of D:OS.

Counterargument: WotC already tried to cash in on this same formula without Larian. This was the result.



This has the D&D brand, BG brand, and Drizzt.
Yes, Dark Alliance games were very popular.

Brand helps IF the game has merit. That game is horrible game play and design from what I have seen (I haven't played it personally) and on top of that it is a Sweet Baby Inc game, so it was leaning on name alone, nothing more.

Larian has a competent engine and established design of play. The additional factors produced the massive success. If it were Larian mostly, D:OS would not have sold as well as BG3 or near, but it was nowhere near, not even in the same universe in sales.

I guess to say it was a perfect storm in that respect.

With Larian's next title it will be on their system alone. I still think the many will buy it who like the engine, and play it bitching about it be content (depending on how moddable it is), but I think it will be nowhere near what BG3 did, and with the heavy woke, it will likely do worse than D:OS I think.

[Vergil]

Swen has amended his version and apparently it's indeed all on Larian



Can be just business talk to not burn his former business partner and risk burning bridges, but well, can't overread it and have to take his word for it. Larian is to blame for all the wokeism in the game then.

I really don't understand this collaborative fan fiction project that goes on in this thread where Swen is secretly based and redpilled and was being chained up and forced to include all sorts of diversity and woke stuff against his will.

[rusty_shackleford]

I was thinking more for brand recognition in gaming. D&D has always been something people in gaming identified with. At least, for me... I see a D&D system and its nostalgia kicks in and I am greatly interested in the title. BG is even more so for non-gamers as when it was popular, there are a lot of casual gamers that picked up and loved that title. So in that respect, I think they got a lot of interest in BG3. When that is gone, it loses a lot of those extra crowds that would stop and find interest (I think BG more than D&D), but it is more layers of such.

Maybe I am wrong, I just think that it had a large part in the success. Though I am not saying Larians engine didn't have an effect as well due to D:OS, but anecdotally, just reading the mainstream forums, I saw a lot more talk about it being a continuation of BG or D&D rather than it was from the makers of D:OS.

Counterargument: WotC already tried to cash in on this same formula without Larian. This was the result.



This has the D&D brand, BG brand, and Drizzt.
Yes, Dark Alliance games were very popular.

Brand helps IF the game has merit. That game is horrible game play and design from what I have seen (I haven't played it personally) and on top of that it is a Sweet Baby Inc game, so it was leaning on name alone, nothing more.

Larian has a competent engine and established design of play. The additional factors produced the massive success. If it were Larian mostly, D:OS would have sold as well as BG3 or near, but it was nowhere near, not even in the same universe in sales.

I guess to say it was a perfect storm in that respect.

With Larian's next title it will be on their system alone. I still think the many will buy it who like the engine, and play it bitching about it be content (depending on how moddable it is), but I think it will be nowhere near what BG3 did, and with the heavy woke, it will likely do worse than D:OS I think.

DOS2 already sold a ton of copies, it was the main reason they were allowed to license BG3 after previously being denied. Their next game is pretty much guaranteed to sell a ton of copies, but it will probably get a CP2077-like response, as just like CDPR they overexpanded and destroyed their culture.
Sad!

[Anon]

wotc was benefiting from larian's popularity, not the other way around. D&D has been a dead brand with regard to video games for years.

[edit]
To be more clear, the brand value of D&D is highly overestimated and D&D itself barely makes any money. Hasbro almost never even includes D&D on their annual financial statements, the main exception was… BG3. BG3 probably made more revenue in one month of early access than D&D makes for Hasbro in an entire year. Wotc's main product is magic the gathering.

D&D was more profitable under Gygax in the 80s than it is now.

I was thinking more for brand recognition in gaming. D&D has always been something people in gaming identified with. At least, for me... I see a D&D system and its nostalgia kicks in and I am greatly interested in the title. BG is even more so for non-gamers as when it was popular, there are a lot of casual gamers that picked up and loved that title. So in that respect, I think they got a lot of interest in BG3. When that is gone, it loses a lot of those extra crowds that would stop and find interest (I think BG more than D&D), but it is more layers of such.

Maybe I am wrong, I just think that it had a large part in the success. Though I am not saying Larians engine didn't have an effect as well due to D:OS, but anecdotally, just reading the mainstream forums, I saw a lot more talk about it being a continuation of BG or D&D rather than it was from the makers of D:OS.

Counterargument: WotC already tried to cash in on this same formula without Larian. This was the result.



This has the D&D brand, BG brand, and Drizzt.
Yes, Dark Alliance games were very popular.

Doesn't have Baldur's Gate in its name therefore it isn't relevant. Almost nobody follow game news to be aware it's a spinoff of BG franchise.

[rusty_shackleford]

Doesn't have Baldur's Gate in its name therefore it isn't relevant. Almost nobody follow game news to be aware it's a spinoff of BG franchise.

IIRC, Dark Alliance games were more popular — in terms of total units sold — than the so-called "mainline" games.

[Xenich]

Counterargument: WotC already tried to cash in on this same formula without Larian. This was the result.



This has the D&D brand, BG brand, and Drizzt.
Yes, Dark Alliance games were very popular.

Brand helps IF the game has merit. That game is horrible game play and design from what I have seen (I haven't played it personally) and on top of that it is a Sweet Baby Inc game, so it was leaning on name alone, nothing more.

Larian has a competent engine and established design of play. The additional factors produced the massive success. If it were Larian mostly, D:OS would have sold as well as BG3 or near, but it was nowhere near, not even in the same universe in sales.

I guess to say it was a perfect storm in that respect.

With Larian's next title it will be on their system alone. I still think the many will buy it who like the engine, and play it bitching about it be content (depending on how moddable it is), but I think it will be nowhere near what BG3 did, and with the heavy woke, it will likely do worse than D:OS I think.

DOS2 already sold a ton of copies, it was the main reason they were allowed to license BG3 after previously being denied. Their next game is pretty much guaranteed to sell a ton of copies, but it will probably get a CP2077-like response, as just like CDPR they overexpanded and destroyed their culture.
Sad!

Yes, I remember, it was a very successful franchise (but nowhere near BG3 sales), but it didn't have the woke factor tied heavily to it as well. BG3 put them in AAA massive success in sales territory, and I agree their next game will likely be successful as well, but how much so, not sure... I don't think it will compare to BG3, I could be wrong, but I think BG3 soured a lot of people with the woke issue and so the next title may suffer from that. If they continue on the woke route, it will cause a spiral in my opinion, leading to eventual luke warm sales. Like you said, expansion is an issue so if they continue to expand thinking their BG 3 sales will be consistent in future titles, they may likely find themselves in a difficult situation.

If woke response doesn't eventually kill the studio, it means they have won and most of gamers are now woke and they have succeeded in their brain washing. I am not so sure on that yet, I think there are many who really don't like this crap and it is starting to show in multiple industries.

I hope I am right, but chances are I am likely wrong, which is not a good thing.

[Anon]

Brand helps IF the game has merit. That game is horrible game play and design from what I have seen (I haven't played it personally) and on top of that it is a Sweet Baby Inc game, so it was leaning on name alone, nothing more.

Larian has a competent engine and established design of play. The additional factors produced the massive success. If it were Larian mostly, D:OS would have sold as well as BG3 or near, but it was nowhere near, not even in the same universe in sales.

I guess to say it was a perfect storm in that respect.

With Larian's next title it will be on their system alone. I still think the many will buy it who like the engine, and play it bitching about it be content (depending on how moddable it is), but I think it will be nowhere near what BG3 did, and with the heavy woke, it will likely do worse than D:OS I think.

DOS2 already sold a ton of copies, it was the main reason they were allowed to license BG3 after previously being denied. Their next game is pretty much guaranteed to sell a ton of copies, but it will probably get a CP2077-like response, as just like CDPR they overexpanded and destroyed their culture.
Sad!

Yes, I remember, it was a very successful franchise (but nowhere near BG3 sales), but it didn't have the woke factor tied heavily to it as well. BG3 put them in AAA massive success in sales territory, and I agree their next game will likely be successful as well, but how much so, not sure... I don't think it will compare to BG3, I could be wrong, but I think BG3 soured a lot of people with the woke issue and so the next title may suffer from that. If they continue on the woke route, it will cause a spiral in my opinion, leading to eventual luke warm sales. Like you said, expansion is an issue so if they continue to expand thinking their BG 3 sales will be consistent in future titles, they may likely find themselves in a difficult situation.

If woke response doesn't eventually kill the studio, it means they have won and most of gamers are now woke and they have succeeded in their brain washing. I am not so sure on that yet, I think there are many who really don't like this crap and it is starting to show in multiple industries.

I hope I am right, but chances are I am likely wrong, which is not a good thing.

I think it'll be like BG3, a good game with wokeism tied to it that you can choose to remove by modding. Though I think I won't be buying their game next time.

[orinEsque]

DOS2 already sold a ton of copies, it was the main reason they were allowed to license BG3 after previously being denied. Their next game is pretty much guaranteed to sell a ton of copies, but it will probably get a CP2077-like response, as just like CDPR they overexpanded and destroyed their culture.
Sad!

Yes, I remember, it was a very successful franchise (but nowhere near BG3 sales), but it didn't have the woke factor tied heavily to it as well. BG3 put them in AAA massive success in sales territory, and I agree their next game will likely be successful as well, but how much so, not sure... I don't think it will compare to BG3, I could be wrong, but I think BG3 soured a lot of people with the woke issue and so the next title may suffer from that. If they continue on the woke route, it will cause a spiral in my opinion, leading to eventual luke warm sales. Like you said, expansion is an issue so if they continue to expand thinking their BG 3 sales will be consistent in future titles, they may likely find themselves in a difficult situation.

If woke response doesn't eventually kill the studio, it means they have won and most of gamers are now woke and they have succeeded in their brain washing. I am not so sure on that yet, I think there are many who really don't like this crap and it is starting to show in multiple industries.

I hope I am right, but chances are I am likely wrong, which is not a good thing.

I think it'll be like BG3, a good game with wokeism tied to it that you can choose to remove by modding. Though I think I won't be buying their game next time.

Buying was worth because Im enjoying the multiplayer.

edit: rusty is jelly.

[Xenich]

Get the fuck away from me.

Gladly

I'm glad we both agree.

If I speak to you, assume it is because I'm trying to assess something about your character and why you insist on being here.

I have to admit I am suspicious why a homosexual would want to come to a forum of people who do not accept their values openly and would prefer them to move on and think they are just part of the group. It is the common infiltration a lot of them do into areas where it is free in order to slowly inject their groupthink upon the group or it is an individual need of narcissism to constantly express their homosexuality to everyone to be the center of attention.

From my perspective, there is absolutely no way I would want to go to a forum filled with the opposite ideology and think I am just a normal part of the conversation. It makes no sense unless one is mentally ill I guess.

I guess they can't just leave people alone, they have to infect everyone around them with their illness.

[rusty_shackleford]

I have to admit I am suspicious why a homosexual would want to come to a forum of people who do not accept their values openly and would prefer them to move on and think they are just part of the group. It is the common infiltration a lot of them do into areas where it is free in order to slowly inject their groupthink upon the group or it is an individual need of narcissism to constantly express their homosexuality to everyone to be the center of attention.

We have at least 4 gay users here I'm aware of.

[Xenich]

I have to admit I am suspicious why a homosexual would want to come to a forum of people who do not accept their values openly and would prefer them to move on and think they are just part of the group. It is the common infiltration a lot of them do into areas where it is free in order to slowly inject their groupthink upon the group or it is an individual need of narcissism to constantly express their homosexuality to everyone to be the center of attention.

We have at least 4 gay users here I'm aware of.

I know of only two currently, and one who is constantly accused of it.

Still not sure why though.

[Anon]

Gladly

I'm glad we both agree.

If I speak to you, assume it is because I'm trying to assess something about your character and why you insist on being here.

I have to admit I am suspicious why a homosexual would want to come to a forum of people who do not accept their values openly and would prefer them to move on and think they are just part of the group. It is the common infiltration a lot of them do into areas where it is free in order to slowly inject their groupthink upon the group or it is an individual need of narcissism to constantly express their homosexuality to everyone to be the center of attention.

From my perspective, there is absolutely no way I would want to go to a forum filled with the opposite ideology and think I am just a normal part of the conversation. It makes no sense unless one is mentally ill I guess.

I guess they can't just leave people alone, they have to infect everyone around them with their illness.

Some gays also value a gaming community with freedom of expression.

[Xenich]

I'm glad we both agree.

If I speak to you, assume it is because I'm trying to assess something about your character and why you insist on being here.

I have to admit I am suspicious why a homosexual would want to come to a forum of people who do not accept their values openly and would prefer them to move on and think they are just part of the group. It is the common infiltration a lot of them do into areas where it is free in order to slowly inject their groupthink upon the group or it is an individual need of narcissism to constantly express their homosexuality to everyone to be the center of attention.

From my perspective, there is absolutely no way I would want to go to a forum filled with the opposite ideology and think I am just a normal part of the conversation. It makes no sense unless one is mentally ill I guess.

I guess they can't just leave people alone, they have to infect everyone around them with their illness.

Some gays also value a gaming community with freedom of expression.

I guess, but then it is still being around people who obviously don't like you, so I guess I don't see the need for socialization if that is the conditions (not that being liked is required, but a common ground of basic moral conditions is preferred).

I tried reading the Codex years ago, but it was too infested with homosexual worship and the like (as well as rampant childish temper tantrums). Here so far, most people have been reasonable even in complete opposite opinions without resorting to retarded tactics). There I think it was completely free, but since I didn't find common ground in basic moral conditions, It just isn't something I would care to be (much like steam forums). Gaming alone isn't enough in my opinion as conversations never stay just about gaming.

[Anon]

I have to admit I am suspicious why a homosexual would want to come to a forum of people who do not accept their values openly and would prefer them to move on and think they are just part of the group. It is the common infiltration a lot of them do into areas where it is free in order to slowly inject their groupthink upon the group or it is an individual need of narcissism to constantly express their homosexuality to everyone to be the center of attention.

From my perspective, there is absolutely no way I would want to go to a forum filled with the opposite ideology and think I am just a normal part of the conversation. It makes no sense unless one is mentally ill I guess.

I guess they can't just leave people alone, they have to infect everyone around them with their illness.

Some gays also value a gaming community with freedom of expression.

I guess, but then it is still being around people who obviously don't like you, so I guess I don't see the need for socialization if that is the conditions (not that being liked is required, but a common ground of basic moral conditions is preferred).

I tried reading the Codex years ago, but it was too infested with homosexual worship and the like (as well as rampant childish temper tantrums). Here so far, most people have been reasonable even in complete opposite opinions without resorting to retarded tactics). There I think it was completely free, but since I didn't find common ground in basic moral conditions, It just isn't something I would care to be (much like steam forums). Gaming alone isn't enough in my opinion as conversations never stay just about gaming.

I can say for myself I don't have anything against any of the gays in this site, and I know many others also don't. Yeah there'll be people hating you or trying to pick fights with you for being gay here but then it's up to you how much of a problem you consider that is. I personally don't think it's an issue that makes the site unbrowseable if you have some backbone.

[rusty_shackleford]

but then it is still being around people who obviously don't like you

Why do you attack @Humbaba so?

[Xenich]

Some gays also value a gaming community with freedom of expression.

I guess, but then it is still being around people who obviously don't like you, so I guess I don't see the need for socialization if that is the conditions (not that being liked is required, but a common ground of basic moral conditions is preferred).

I tried reading the Codex years ago, but it was too infested with homosexual worship and the like (as well as rampant childish temper tantrums). Here so far, most people have been reasonable even in complete opposite opinions without resorting to retarded tactics). There I think it was completely free, but since I didn't find common ground in basic moral conditions, It just isn't something I would care to be (much like steam forums). Gaming alone isn't enough in my opinion as conversations never stay just about gaming.

I can say for myself I don't have anything against any of the gays in this site, and I know many others also don't. Yeah there'll be people hating you or trying to pick fights with you for being gay here but then it's up to you how much of a problem you consider that is. I personally don't think it's an issue that makes the site unbrowseable if you have some backbone.

My problem would only be the injection of their ideology into the conversations through means that refuse to accept reality (like those in the steam forums that think there isn't an agenda, that a gay hitting on you in a game isn't a big deal, etc... and that they need to be represented in games) or the refusal to accept it as a mental illness or defend the behavior to any healthy societal norm.

Personally, I prefer them to stay in the closet about it and do not want to hear about it regardless. I don't discuss it past the factual issues of its occurrence in games (ie the promotion of it, defense, etc...) and I am not interested in their position on the issue in support of it (I personally don't believe in compromise with them on the issue, just as I wouldn't believe compromise with any other mental illness as a legitimate argument for inclusion into societal representation).

Past that, I don't attack personally (or I try to avoid such contests), seek them out (outside of relevant discussion), or try to pick fights. I speak the facts on the subjects, condemn the behavior to what it is, and operate accordingly.

I'm not interested in friendship or developing any such level of bond. I wouldn't hang with them in the outside world or interact with them in a way other than required by basic public encounters.

If they are ok with that, so be it. In the end, it is a form of toleration (not in the presence, but in the acceptance of it and what I noticed on the Codex was a lot of people becoming open to them as a friend, which led to slow acceptance through toleration of their behavior whether those people wanted to admit it or not).