Too late. You're very transparent.

Then tell me what you think. Who am I? Yeah, yeah. Beamdog shill, sycophant, apologist, etc. The user name please.

Okay then.

When you have legitimate concerns about a product (in the case of BG:SoD, lame writing and SJW politics) and then people call you names for example a "hater," then maybe the former has a point. That's not ad hominem.

Then again, you can hide under your alt. account like a mask and then sleep at night.

Just know that I know. Giving out your original name would serve no useful purpose. Know also that I'm not as vindictive as you.

It's not a terribly difficult identity to deduce since the specific brand of broken English is readily apparent to anyone with it as their first language. Also, you tend to log into that account first, then switch to NFN to reply. Just watching the forum while you're active is enough to piece it together.

Come on. You want to prove your assumption. At least enlighten the other users here. I am most likely not the user you have in mind. The observations in the post above are wrong. As an alternative to one concrete name you can post a list of users. I will give you an honest answer whether I am in or not.

Jaheira's personality in SoD appeared largely unchanged from what I saw. I think Khalid's personality changed a lot more (he's far more assertive and outspoken than he was in BG1. He's still something of an indecisive stutterer, but he actually takes initiative on several occasions). Of course, the fact that Jaheira's voice actress was unavailable when SoD was in development probably means Beamdog had to restrict her role a lot more.

I do agree that Safana's personality changed quite a bit, however. In BG1 she struck me as the kind of "liberated femme fatale" character. In fact, there's actually a line in SoD that I thought encapsulated her personality extremely well: "I do what I want, when I want, with whomever I want." She knows what she likes, what she's good at, and she doesn't care what other people think of her as a result of those actions. I was somewhat disappointed in her romance as a result when she seems to want the same kind of sweet talk and wooing as, say, Aerie.

Of course, you could argue that Safana never really cared for you at all; she was merely using the player as a means of enriching herself before abandoning them when things go sour. Admittedly this DOES sort of fit in with her actions in BG2. I actually found it very surprising when I re-encountered Safana again when I first played BG2 so many years ago that Safana would betray you for some reward, especially if you've been nothing but friendly to her in the first game. I would have pegged that as an action that befits a more Chaotic Evil character, not the Chaotic Neutral Safana's supposed to be. Still, Safana's unexpected about-face in BG2 was Bioware's change, not Beamdog's.

All in all, I suspect that Safana was just a character that nobody knew what they wanted to do with, since she has no real deep stakes in any of the events in the BG games apart from "PROFIT!" I would have preferred it if Beamdog had done SOMETHING to dig more into Safana's past, give us an understanding of how she came to be the person she was in BG1 and how she developed her attitude towards life. Instead I think they focused too much on trying to reconcile events between BG1 and BG2 and ended up not really developing her much as a character as a result.

No, I don't. What you believe matters not one iota.

In other words you don't know it. But I think I can guess your candidate. I am not one of the other users in this thread or in the BG forum. And I am not one of your special "friends" in The Witcher 3 forum.

As I said, what you believe matters not one iota. But it's interesting to note your stalker qualities also.

So you are afraid to state and defend your opinion on an anonymous internet forum because people will "attack" your accounts? I've seen many things but that kind of paranoia and assumed self-importance is new to me. Don't worry, nobody cares enough about you here to waste their precious time on "attacking" your multiple sockpuppet accounts.

What makes you think that is necessary to create multiple accounts to downvote everyone here? This is something you can constantly read here, especially in the General discussion forum by a certain group of users. This is a conspiracy theory. It is laughable. It is not necessary to create multiple accounts to downvote you. All you have to do is sit down and watch. Just look at Hickory. He has lots of special "friends". Example: Go to the Witcher 3 Forum and search for "Q: Petition to ban Hickory and his alt accs from the community forums." on the first page. And I wouldn't be surprised that there are some users now thinking you are one of his alt accs. LOL. Sorry.

The reason I am reading this thread/forum is for my personal amusement because hilarious people are posting here. You can play a drinking game here. One shot for every (Beamdog) conspiracy theory, "apologist", "sycophant", "shill", ... Or you can create a bullshit bingo game.

And look at you. Clicking on your profile leads to a 404 page. This means you want to have a certain privacy. Would you like it that people can circumvent it and see your profile? Probably not.

Cheers!

PS: The only person that is missing here is the "I hath blog. I hath millions of clicks"-forum troll Lilura. Then you can expand the drinking game with her drivel.

In contrast to you, I don't give a single damn what anonymous users think of me on an internet forum.

And you have admitted of using multiple account. So there is no conspiracy here. It is a fact.

I've said why I am using this one alternate account. Security reasons. Nothing more. Nothing less. I don't care what people think about me. Why should I care? You are putting words into my mouth and you are posting conspiracy theories. I couldn't care less what you think about me.

I give you and everyone here one tip: self reflection. That's all.

PS: I know that I am an asshole.

The writer said she changed both of them because she felt they "didn't represent women well".