phaolo: You should see Metacritic.. O_o

Painted_Doll: Metacritics sucks since it let 12 years olds to write "reviews" on its pages .

lunaticox: I think it would be useful to look at this as a "perfect storm" situation.

One has to take into consideration that this is a beloved franchise with a lot of characters that people still care about to this day, now, not only did the developers make their feelings clear about how they didnt like certain aspects of the original game, but also added changes that suited their particular vision of what is acceptable and whats not.

That alone is going to get you in the bad side of a lot of people, regardless of how you go about it.

Now add on top of this the fact that they had the bright idea to make a "joke" about a controversy that is as flammable as you can get, a controversy so flammable in fact that its guaranteed to start a lot of heated arguments on internet forums two years after its inception.

That was a dumb idea, unless the intent was to cause controversy, wich they certainly got in spades.

Add to that the inclusion of characters and themes that are sure to cause even more controversy when not handled properly,even among those who advocate in favor of them. You can see it for yourself in the steam discussion page, there are currently two threads about transgender people not being very supportive of SoD.

It reminds me of the controversy surrounding Pillars of Eternity.

Add the complaints concerning the overall quality of the expansion, the multiplayer, the bugs, the writing as a whole, the UI...in a good day, devoid of any of the stuff mentioned above, would have certainly affected the perception of the expansion.

And finally add to that the attitude of the developers towards it all, wich didnt help to defuse the situation, asking people to balance review scores is another dumb move, even if you are "in the right", you dont fight fire with fire.

lunaticox: [long post]

Starmaker: It wasn't going to be consistent even if you got the original writers. I think kickstarter has conclusively shown that only Molyneux is consistent, and not in a good way. Hell, I helped ship a game I was (and still am) a yooooge fan of and got a look at the writer's new project. As you've probably guessed (because I wouldn't bring it up as an example otherwise), it was the most boring and tepidly offensive shit imaginable, like a Nick Sparks book. And there was no timeskip; they were working on it right after, or probably at the same time as, the incredibly awesome game.

(The first time I started BG1, I insta-ragequit it over the lack of consistency in tone. That one gigglesqueeing chick, right after the guy got murdered. "zomg we're going on an adventure, so adorbs!" Argh.)

tinyE: And all these years later the question still remains, 'How could the British make such a tragic and inane blunder at such a crucial time?'

Oh wait, that's the 'Light Brigade'.

lunaticox: And finally add to that the attitude of the developers towards it all, wich didnt help to defuse the situation, asking people to balance review scores is another dumb move, even if you are "in the right", you dont fight fire with fire.

feda6: Question: why does GoG let you review games you don't own?

rampancy: Pretty much this. I for one support Beamdog's decision to put LGTBQ themes/depictions in Siege of Dragonspear, and I think they were completely in the wrong to get people to essentially do a positive review bomb for them. It makes them come off as, at worst, whiny and shady developers with the review ethics of a shady Greenlight studio. At best, they look like people too thin-skinned to take criticism that they naively didn't see coming, or with no true confidence or sincerity in their product and their decision to address social issues.

Either way, Beamdog doesn't really get my support on this.

TARFU: My guess is that most of the games here are so old that if you are reviewing it, chances are you owned it or played it at one time or another.

wvpr: Did they really ask for anything shady? This was the relevant quote:

"If you are playing the game and having a good time, please consider posting a positive review to balance out the loud minority which is currently painting a dark picture for new players."

As with many similar situations, you can debate what they're literally asking for versus what the expected result will be. But if they had asked for this instead:

"If you are playing the game and having a good time, please consider posting a positive review."

It doesn't look at all sinister, right? They're basically saying if you enjoy the game and think it deserves a good score, go ahead and post that good score. The rest of the post was to justify why they were making the request.

rampancy: This is just my own opinion mind you, but if a developer is confident in its product, or at the very least, is confident in its quality, they don't have to directly solicit people posting positive feedback as direct response to negative criticism (regardless of whether or not it's meritless). If the expansion is good, people are going to post good feedback on it and defend it, especially if it's going to be attacked for what many would see are socially dubious reasons. Okay, so maybe I've gone a little too far in comparing them to a shady Greenlight developer, but at the very least, it comes across as tacky and a little classless.

I would have had a lot more respect for them if they'd said something to the effect of, "We're aware that people are having issues with decisions we made in the design of Siege of Dragonspear, and while we respect the opinions and feedback of our fans, we feel that Siege of Dragonspear's story respresents our vision for a well-crafted story-driven campaign in the Baldur's Gate universe," -- or some kind of PRspeak like that.

P1na: Personally, I think the core of the issue was a dev (the writer?) saying on an interview that the previous games were "sexist", that they had "fixed" it and told anyone who didn't agree to suck it up if they didn't like it. Even I find that attitude pretty arrogant, specially coming from a company making an "embugged" eddition of older games. That unleashed the dogs, and then they went for any little piece of blood they could find to prove them right.

In short, I think it's more the angry mob found those game lines rather than those game lines creating an angry mob.