That's not froth, it's drool. Check your fluid privilege, pal.

Well there is a recent example of SJW stabbing their own in the back.

Remember Emma Watson? The supposed feminist Ambassador.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3513549/Emma-Watson-s-fans-accuse-promoting-skin-lightening-Lancome-campaign-brightening-product-resurfaces-web.html

I hope the metaphor is not lost here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Devouring_His_Son

And when you also realize that the holiday of Saturnalia often centered around breaking social norms and role reversals, suddenly the iconic symbol for social justice becomes clear. They're pagan Saturn worshipers and they don't even know it. I think Lady Columbia may be a bit jealous.

You said it better than I could have.

The joke from Minsc is the funniest part here - it's a JOKE, guys. A JOKE. Grow some damned skin already.

Anyone who is so offended by the fact that someone made a passing joke at their movement's expense that they'd attempt to sink the game with bad reviews has no right to ever accuse anyone of being "too sensitive."

And anyone who is so offended by the inclusion of a transgendered character in a world with magic and dragons and orcs (and polymorph spells) that they would try to sink the game with bad reviews has no right to ever accuse anyone of silencing their views.

Do you really think that is the only reason for this? Did you read the other complaints in those reviews? I'm tired of posting this again and again.

I read more of the reviews than I'd care to admit. There are some valid complaints in there, mainly about linear plot progression and bugs.

But, dude? The top-rated review opens with "political agenda" and "Minsc jokes about gamergate."

And, bugs and linear plot progression are not reasons to brigade a game down to a 2-star rating.

I'm completely ignorant of GamerGate, so let me see if I've got this straight.

GamerGate started out as a loosely organized group of people crusading for ethics in game journalism.

Now, dissatisfied with the content in a video game, they've decided to ignore ethics in user reviews by negatively reviewing a game they neither own nor have played.

Did I miss anything?

What is ''brigading'' exactly when it comes to reviewing? How is it different from legitimate reviews that must somehow exist?
Interesting point though, why exactly is there a transgender character in a universe where sex can be changed with spells? Won't everyone be switching around all the time and have no prejudice? Do you also know that this trans character speaks to you about their only defining trait, their gender, in casual conversation? Seems very private info to share to random strangers.

Some people are somehow offended at that lame reference. I don't get how or why. As to the trans character, if they feel he / she's put in in a hamfisted manner with poor writing, that's their opinion that they can express in their review.
User reviews aren't equal to journo reviews. Obviously. Journos are paid to be accountable for what they write. Users reviews aren't bound by any duty of such care. Even then, what exactly makes this more legit than people's other subjective complaints?

You can't review games on GOG or Steam without buying them, AFAIK. Are you referring to metacritic?

Well, when another one of the top reviews refers to the game as "Trannys Gate" (a very offensive word, btw), I'd say that's a pretty strong indication that these reviews are politically motivated.

If I'm not mistaken, the exact line was "I was raised as a boy." Nothing in there to indicate that she didn't use a polymorph spell to change her physical form. Also, she doesn't tell you this unless you ask her about her "odd" name.

So, minor character, minor reference. Does it make this a 1-star game? Only if you're offended by transgender people.

I never claimed that user reviews were on the same level as journalism reviews, however, giving a negative review without actually playing the game isn't very ethical. There were plenty of negative reviews on steam that had less than 10 minutes of playing time. Do you think you can make a fair judgement of any game in 10 minutes? This is Baldur's Gate - unless you're importing a character, it will take you longer than 10 minutes to roll a character and actually get playing.

GOG does allow you to review games without owning them.

I still don't get what the difference is between ''brigading'' and legit customer dissatisfaction over a short period of time. I'm guessing it had something to do with the motivation / mindset of the reviewer rather than what is actually written?

And what if people see that as bad writing considering many minority sexual orientation characters in games have not been in your face with it? Ie Sir Hammerlock from Borderlands?
I wouldn't rate that low though. But I wouldn't go on to say they are motivated only by that. Ultimately, its extremely personal and some people would've done it in anger, others out of genuine hatred and others out og their other gripes.

Not multiquoting because it fucks shit up.
No, ten mins are not any sufficient time to get any reasonable impression of the game. All I'm saying is that there isn't any organized op from GG to flood the reviews. I too feel many of the complaints are quite minor, but there is no way we can say who was having what mindset when writing their review.

Steam should do a time period requirement for reviews like they do for refunds. I think GOG should either better monitor the reviews or scrap this anyman review system.

That's what I get for trusting the Internet - there's lots of people claiming this is a GG thing :).

Agreed. One of the best suggestions I've seen for GOG would be to include a flag on the review that indicates whether the reviewer owns the game on GOG or not.

Yes, this incident should be a good example to post about the negative points that outweigh having an ''anyone can review'' system. It is a dis-service to both the consumers and the developers.

Yeah, the blame game is very strong with this controversy and it seems to have started as it always has. Take blaming from both sides with a grain of salt (IMO more false blame from antis, but still, don't trust either side without seeing proof for basis of accusations with your own eyes).

You don't say. Almost as if GG is a convenient boogeyman...

You got bronies all wrong dude. You see, most bronies can't stand SJWs and in fact most bronies would rather not turn My Little Pony into an indoctrination tool.

The problem is that SJWs have been trying to use us in many ways. First, when the show came out, they tried to "destroy" us, slander us and the show, that failed because Hasbro execs only care about money and not about social justice so they did not care about the claims of adult males tainting the show or the show reinforcing gender stereotypes. Then SJWs began to coopt us, they used the concept of acceptance many bronies naively believe in and began to infect the fandom (As they always do) and since they attract outcasts they succeeded in turning some to their side with stupid claims such as "Fluttershy is transgender" and wishing for tokenism in the show (Which has not happened yet and most of us are fearful of it). But SJWs still want us dead because most of us are "cisgender" straight white males. In fact Tumblrites declared a "war" on us last year trying to "Take back the show bronies stole".

In the end bronies are not different to all other fans of a brand. We are not different from whovians, trekers, arrowheads (Fans of Avatar: The Last Air Bender), or any other "fandom". Which means we are bound to have imbeciles and even SJWs among us. The problem is that they have grown rather vocal, but trust me, a large part of the fanbase hates them, specially because of censorship.

Edit: I find it funny that my latest posts have resulted in a very negative response from readers. I don't know who or why is voting me down, but I would suggest, if you think I am wrong, reply back up your view with evidence, don't just downvote me. I mean, yes, downvote me, but also point why you disagree with me, specially if you are against SJWs, because otherwise you are not very different to them. Of course, if someone already pointed your reason to disagree you don't have to reply, but seriously, just downvoting serves no use since it will not point what is that makes me being mistaken.