Follow TV Tropes

Discussion History YMMV / BaldursGateSiegeOfDragonspear

Go To

[011] supergod Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
It was discussed [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=41545&type=att here]], but I'll reiterate a few points anyway:
to:
It was discussed [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=41545&type=att here]], but I\'ll reiterate a few points anyway:
Changed line(s) 3 from:
Not sure if you're aware, but any mention of ''that'' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
to:
Not sure if you\'re aware, but any mention of \'\'that\'\' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn't for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn't be a huge outcry if bugs,
to:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn\'t for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn\'t be a huge outcry if bugs, \"questionable writing\" and UI changes were the only issues. Almost any time anyone complains about the writing it\'s related to the controversy, so mentioning that here as a general issue is almost shoehorning (and again it wouldn\'t count as an InternetBackdraft reason anyway, or else any game where people didn\'t like the writing would count). The bugs are already mentioned on the main page. Multiplayer issues would have in no way generated a huge outcry by itself because I\'d wager most people don\'t play BG for multiplayer.

It\'s not really a trope anyway and talking about it isn\'t \'\'absolutely\'\' necessary. Fan outcry has nothing to do with the game itself. Soon the people who only care about the issue in hand will lose interest. In the meantime it\'s not really possible to gauge actual fan response. For example, I\'m not sure we can really trust the votes on Steam even if the reviews don\'t mention the controversy, since it\'s possible people who \'\'do\'\' only care about it will vote for any negative review. Mentioning the developers\' response is almost impossible without getting into the issue as well, since it\'s directly related.

There\'s absolutely no question that the only reason there\'s any significant outcry is because of a reason we can\'t mention here.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
It was discussed [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=41545&type=att here]], but I'll reiterate a few points anyway:
to:
It was discussed [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=41545&type=att here]], but I\'ll reiterate a few points anyway:
Changed line(s) 3 from:
Not sure if you're aware, but any mention of ''that'' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
to:
Not sure if you\'re aware, but any mention of \'\'that\'\' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn't for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn't be a huge outcry if bugs,
to:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn\'t for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn\'t be a huge outcry if bugs, \"questionable writing\" and UI changes were the only issues. Almost any time anyone complains about the writing it\'s related to the controversy, so mentioning that here as a general issue is almost shoehorning (and again it wouldn\'t count as an InternetBackdraft reason anyway, or else any game where people didn\'t like the writing would count). The bugs are already mentioned on the main page. Multiplayer issues would have in no way generated a huge outcry by iteself because I\'d wager most people don\'t play BG for multiplayer.

It\'s not really a trope anyway and talking about it isn\'t \'\'absolutely\'\' necessary. Fan outcry has nothing to do with the game itself. Soon the people who only care about the issue in hand will lose interest. In the meantime it\'s not really possible to gauge actual fan response. For example, I\'m not sure we can really trust the votes on Steam even if the reviews don\'t mention the controversy, since it\'s possible people who \'\'do\'\' only care about it will vote for any negative review.

There\'s absolutely no question that the only reason there\'s any significant outcry is because of a reason we can\'t mention here.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
It was discussed [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=41545&type=att here]], but I'll reiterate a few points anyway:
to:
It was discussed [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=41545&type=att here]], but I\'ll reiterate a few points anyway:
Changed line(s) 3 from:
Not sure if you're aware, but any mention of ''that'' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
to:
Not sure if you\'re aware, but any mention of \'\'that\'\' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn't for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn't be a huge outcry if bugs,
to:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn\'t for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn\'t be a huge outcry if bugs, \"questionable writing\" and UI changes were the only issues. Almost any time anyone complains about the writing it\'s related to the controversy, so mentioning that here as a general issue is almost shoehorning (and again it wouldn\'t count as an InternetBackdraft reason anyway, or else any game where people didn\'t like the writing would count). The bugs are already mentioned on the main page.

It\'s not really a trope anyway and talking about it isn\'t \'\'absolutely\'\' necessary. Fan outcry has nothing to do with the game itself. Soon the people who only care about the issue in hand will lose interest. In the meantime it\'s not really possible to gauge actual fan response. For example, you mention the Steam reviews, when it\'s highly possible that even though a lot of the top reviews don\'t mention the controversy, it will have been upvoted by people who do just because it\'s negative (and many of the top reviewers recorded times are pretty low for a 30 hour game, which is fine for reviews about bugs and stuff, but no so much if they\'re going to talk about story and gameplay, which to be fair none of the top reviews do anyway (and yes, I know they could have played elsewhere but it would be fishy that they\'d get it on STeam as well just to write a negative review)). There are others, including those by professional sources, who have suspicions, including some who believe that mentions of bugs and such, while valid in some cases, are just excuses for other people to leave negative reviews, as many have played it to completion without any major problems. And Beamdog\'s response is directly related to the issue. If we were going to mention the controversy, we\'d have to mention all these reactions as well to give an unbiased account of it, and it opens a deep well of internet drama that\'s better left sealed shut.

You\'d expect Beamdog adding stuff to the original games to have gotten a stronger reaction, but despite some people not liking it and it being just as buggy on release, the response wasn\'t anywhere near as vocal since it didn\'t involve anything controversial (socio-politically), and its likely to have gone similarly here. There\'s absolutely no question that the only reason there\'s any significant outcry is because of a reason we can\'t mention here.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
It was discussed [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=41545&type=att here]], but I'll reiterate a few points anyway:
to:
It was discussed [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=41545&type=att here]], but I\'ll reiterate a few points anyway:
Changed line(s) 3 from:
Not sure if you're aware, but any mention of ''that'' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
to:
Not sure if you\'re aware, but any mention of \'\'that\'\' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn't for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn't be a huge outcry if bugs,
to:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn\'t for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn\'t be a huge outcry if bugs, \"questionable writing\" and UI changes were the only issues. Almost any time anyone complains about the writing it\'s related to the controversy, so mentioning that here as a general issue is almost shoehorning (and again it wouldn\'t count as an InternetBackdraft reason anyway, or else any game where people didn\'t like the writing would count). The bugs are already mentioned on the main page.

It\'s not really a trope anyway and talking about it isn\'t \'\'absolutely\'\' necessary. Fan outcry has nothing to do with the game itself. Soon the people who only care about the issue in hand will lose interest. In the meantime it\'s not really possible to gauge actual fan response. For example, you mention the Steam reviews, when it\'s highly possible that even though a lot of the top reviews don\'t mention the controversy, it will have been upvoted by people who do just because it\'s negative. And many of those reviewers have little to no recorded game time (with 5 hours being typical and that\'s counting the game as a whole instead of the expansion specifically), and while it\'s possible they played it outside Steam, it\'s still suspicious that so many people would get it on Steam just to leave a negative review). There are others, including those by professional sources, who have the same suspicions, including some who believe that mentions of bugs and such are just excuses to leave negative reviews. And Beamdog\'s response is directly related to the issue. If we were going to mention the controversy, we\'d have to mention all these reactions as well to give an unbiased account of it, and it opens a deep well of internet drama that\'s better left sealed shut.

You\'d expect Beamdog adding stuff to the original games to have gotten a stronger reaction, but despite some people not liking it and it being just as buggy on release, the response wasn\'t anywhere near as vocal since it didn\'t involve anything controversial (socio-politically), and its likely to have gone similarly here. There\'s absolutely no question that the only reason there\'s any significant outcry is because of a reason we can\'t mention here.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
It was discussed [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=41545&type=att here]], but I'll reiterate a few points anyway:
to:
It was discussed [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=41545&type=att here]], but I\'ll reiterate a few points anyway:
Changed line(s) 3 from:
Not sure if you're aware, but any mention of ''that'' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
to:
Not sure if you\'re aware, but any mention of \'\'that\'\' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn't for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn't be a huge outcry if bugs,
to:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn\'t for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn\'t be a huge outcry if bugs, \"questionable writing\" and UI changes were the only issues. Almost any time anyone complains about the writing it\'s related to the controversy, so mentioning that here as a general issue is almost shoehorning (and again it wouldn\'t count as an InternetBackdraft reason anyway, or else any game where people didn\'t like the writing would count). The bugs are already mentioned on the main page.

It\'s not really a trope anyway and talking about it isn\'t \'\'absolutely\'\' necessary. Fan outcry has nothing to do with the game itself. Soon the people who only care about the issue in hand will lose interest. In the meantime it\'s not really possible to gauge actual fan response. For example, you mention the Steam reviews, when it\'s highly possible that even though a lot of the top reviews don\'t mention the controversy, it will have been upvoted by people who do just because it\'s negative. And many of those reviewers have little no no recorded game time, and while it\'s possible they played it outside Steam, it\'s still suspicious that so many people would get it on Steam just to leave a negative review). There are others, including those by professional sources, who have the same suspicions, including some who believe that mentions of bugs and such are just excuses to leave negative reviews. And Beamdog\'s response is directly related to the issue. If we were going to mention the controversy, we\'d have to mention all these reactions as well to give an unbiased account of it, and it opens a deep well of internet drama that\'s better left sealed shut.

You\'d expect Beamdog adding stuff to the original games to have gotten a stronger reaction, but despite some people not liking it and it being just as buggy on release, the response wasn\'t anywhere near as vocal since it didn\'t involve anything controversial (socio-politically), and its likely to have gone similarly here. There\'s absolutely no question that the only reason there\'s any significant outcry is because of a reason we can\'t mention here.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
It was discussed [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=41545&type=att here]].
to:
It was discussed [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=41545&type=att here]], but I\'ll reiterate a few points anyway:
Changed line(s) 3 from:
Not sure if you're aware, but any mention of ''that'' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
to:
Not sure if you\'re aware, but any mention of \'\'that\'\' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn't for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn't be a huge outcry if bugs,
to:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn\'t for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn\'t be a huge outcry if bugs, \"questionable writing\" and UI changes were the only issues. Almost any time anyone complains about the writing it\'s related to the controversy, so mentioning that here as a general issue is almost shoehorning (and again it wouldn\'t count as an InternetBackdraft reason anyway, or else any game where people didn\'t like the writing would count). The bugs are already mentioned on the main page. (You\'d expect Beamdog adding stuff to the original games to have gotten a stronger reaction, but despite some people not liking it and it being just as buggy on release, the response wasn\'t anywhere near as vocal since it didn\'t involve anything controversial (socio-politically), and its likely to have gone similarly here.)

It\'s not really a trope anyway and talking about it isn\'t \'\'absolutely\'\' necessary. Fan outcry has nothing to do with the game itself. Soon the people who only care about the issue in hand will lose interest. In the meantime it\'s not really possible to gauge actual fan response. For example, you mention the Steam reviews, when it\'s highly possible that even though a lot of the top reviews don\'t mention the controversy, it will have been upvoted by people who do just because it\'s negative. And many of those reviewers have little no no recorded game time, and while it\'s possible they played it outside Steam, it\'s still suspicious that so many people would get it on Steam just to leave a negative review). There are others, including those by professional sources, who have the same suspicions, including some who believe that mentions of bugs and such are just excuses to leave negative reviews. If we were going to mention the drama, we\'d have to mention these reactions as well, and it opens a deep well of internet drama that\'s better left sealed shut.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
Not sure if you're aware, but any mention of ''that'' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
to:
Not sure if you\'re aware, but any mention of \'\'that\'\' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn't for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn't be a huge outcry if bugs,
to:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn\'t for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn\'t be a huge outcry if bugs, \"questionable writing\" and UI changes were the only issues. Almost any time anyone complains about the writing it\'s related to the controversy, so mentioning that here as a general issue is almost shoehorning (and again it wouldn\'t count as InternetBackdraft anyway, or else any game where people didn\'t like the writing would count). The bugs are already mentioned on the main page.

You\'d expect Beamdog adding stuff to the original games to have been more worthy of InternetBackdraft status, but since it didn\'t involve anything controversial (sociopolitically) the response wasn\'t anywhere near.

It\'s not really a trope anyway and talking about it isn\'t \'\'absolutely\'\' necessary. Fan outcry has nothing to do with the game itself. Soon the people who only care about the issue in hand will lose interest. In the meantime it\'s not really possible to gauge actual fan response. For example, you mention the Steam reviews, when it\'s highly possible that even though a lot of the top reviews don\'t mention the controversy, it will have been upvoted by people who do just because it\'s negative. And many of those reviewers have little no no recorded game time, and while it\'s possible they played it outside Steam, it\'s still suspicious that so many people would get it on Steam just to leave a negative review). There are others, including those by professional sources, who have the same suspicions, including some who believe that mentions of bugs and such are just excuses to leave negative reviews. If we were going to mention the drama, we\'d have to mention these reactions as well, and it opens a deep well of internet drama that\'s better left sealed shut.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
Not sure if you're aware, but any mention of ''that'' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
to:
Not sure if you\'re aware, but any mention of \'\'that\'\' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn't for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn't be a huge outcry if bugs,
to:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn\'t for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn\'t be a huge outcry if bugs, \"questionable writing\" and UI changes were the only issues. Almost any time anyone complains about the writing it\'s related to the controversy, so mentioning that here as a general issue is almost shoehorning (and again it wouldn\'t count as InternetBackdraft anyway, or else any game where people didn\'t like the writing would count). The bugs are already mentioned on the main page.

It\'s not really a trope anyway and talking about it isn\'t \'\'absolutely\'\' necessary. Fan outcry has nothing to do with the game itself. Soon the people who only care about the issue in hand will lose interest. In the meantime it\'s not really possible to gauge actual fan response. For example, you mention the Steam reviews, when it\'s highly possible that even though a lot of the top reviews don\'t mention the controversy, it will have been upvoted by people who do just because it\'s negative. And many of those reviewers have little no no recorded game time, and while it\'s possible they played it outside Steam, it\'s still suspicious that so many people would get it on Steam just to leave a negative review). There are others, including those by professional sources, who have the same suspicions, including some who believe that mentions of bugs and such are just excuses to leave negative reviews. If we were going to mention the drama, we\'d have to mention these reactions as well, and it opens a deep well of internet drama that\'s better left sealed shut.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
Not sure if you're aware, but any mention of ''that'' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
to:
Not sure if you\'re aware, but any mention of \'\'that\'\' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn't for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn't be a huge outcry if bugs,
to:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn\'t for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn\'t be a huge outcry if bugs, \"questionable writing\" and UI changes were the only issues. Almost any time anyone complains about the writing it\'s related to the controversy, so mentioning that here as a general issue is almost shoehorning (and again it wouldn\'t count as InternetBackdraft anyway, or else any game where people didn\'t like the writing would count). The bugs are already mentioned on the main page.

It\'s not really a trope anyway and talking about it isn\'t \'\'absolutely\'\' necessary. Fan outcry has nothing to do with the game itself. Soon the people who only care about the issue in hand will lose interest. In the meantime it\'s not really possible to gauge actual fan response. For example, you mention the Steam reviews, when it\'s highly possible that even though a lot of the top reviews don\'t mention the controversy, it will have been upvoted by people who do just because it\'s negative. And many of those reviews have little no no recorded game time, and while it\'s possible they played it outside Steam, it\'s still suspicious that so many people would get it on Steam just to leave a negative review). There are others, including those by professional sources, who have the same suspicions, including some who believe that mentions of bugs and such are just excuses to leave negative reviews. If we were going to mention the drama, we\'d have to mention these reactions as well, and it opens a deep well of internet drama that\'s better left sealed shut.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
Not sure if you're aware, but any mention of ''that'' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
to:
Not sure if you\'re aware, but any mention of \'\'that\'\' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn't for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn't be a huge outcry if bugs, questionable writing and UI changes were the only issues. Almost any time anyone complains about the writing it's related to the controversy, so mentioning that here as a general issue is almost shoehorning (and again it wouldn't count as InternetBackdraft anyway, or else any game where people didn't like the writing would count). The bugs are already mentioned on the main page.
to:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn\'t for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn\'t be a huge outcry if bugs, \"questionable writing\" and UI changes were the only issues. Almost any time anyone complains about the writing it\'s related to the controversy, so mentioning that here as a general issue is almost shoehorning (and again it wouldn\'t count as InternetBackdraft anyway, or else any game where people didn\'t like the writing would count). The bugs are already mentioned on the main page.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
It's not really a trope anyway and talking about it isn't ''absolutely'' necessary. It has nothing to do with the game itself. Soon the people who only care about the issue in hand will lose interest. In the meantime it's not really possible to gauge actual fan response. For example, you mention the Steam reviews, when it's highly possible that even though a lot of the top reviews don't mention the controversy, it will have been upvoted by people who do just because it's negative (and many of those reviews have little no no recorded game time, and while it's possible they played it outside Steam, it's still suspicious that so many people would get it on Steam just to leave a negative review).
to:
It\'s not really a trope anyway and talking about it isn\'t \'\'absolutely\'\' necessary. Fan outcry has nothing to do with the game itself. Soon the people who only care about the issue in hand will lose interest. In the meantime it\'s not really possible to gauge actual fan response. For example, you mention the Steam reviews, when it\'s highly possible that even though a lot of the top reviews don\'t mention the controversy, it will have been upvoted by people who do just because it\'s negative. And many of those reviews have little no no recorded game time, and while it\'s possible they played it outside Steam, it\'s still suspicious that so many people would get it on Steam just to leave a negative review). There are others, including those by professional sources, who have the same suspicions, including some who believe that mentions of bugs and such are just excuses to leave negative reviews. If we were going to mention the drama, we\'d have to mention these reactions as well, and it opens a deep well of internet drama that\'s better left sealed shut.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
Not sure if you're aware, but any mention of ''that'' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
to:
Not sure if you\'re aware, but any mention of \'\'that\'\' internet controversy is generally forbidden here, whether directly or not, and not being able to mention it gives a skewed version of events.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn't for stuff like bugs and gameplay or anything else related to quality, but about controversial decisions. There wouldn't be a huge outcry if bugs, writing and UI changes were the only issues. And almost any time anyone complained about the writing it's related to the controversy, so mentioning that here as a general issue is almost shoehorning (and again it wouldn't count as InternetBackdraft anyway, or else any game where people complained about the writing would count). The bugs are already mentioned on the main page.
to:
Also InternetBackdraft generally isn\'t for stuff like generic bugs, gameplay issues or anything else related to general quality, but about specific controversial decisions that pissed the internet off. There wouldn\'t be a huge outcry if bugs, questionable writing and UI changes were the only issues. Almost any time anyone complains about the writing it\'s related to the controversy, so mentioning that here as a general issue is almost shoehorning (and again it wouldn\'t count as InternetBackdraft anyway, or else any game where people didn\'t like the writing would count). The bugs are already mentioned on the main page.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
It's not really a trope anyway and talking about it isn't ''absolutely'' necessary. It has nothing to do with the game. Soon the people who only care about the issue in hand will lose interest. In the meantime it's not really possible to gauge actual fan response. For example, you mention the Steam reviews, when it's highly possible that even though a lot of the top reviews don't mention the controversy, it will have been upvoted by people who do just because it's negative (and many of those reviews have little no no recorded game time, and while it's possible they played it outside Steam, it's still suspicious that so many people would get it on Steam just to leave a negative review).
to:
It\'s not really a trope anyway and talking about it isn\'t \'\'absolutely\'\' necessary. It has nothing to do with the game itself. Soon the people who only care about the issue in hand will lose interest. In the meantime it\'s not really possible to gauge actual fan response. For example, you mention the Steam reviews, when it\'s highly possible that even though a lot of the top reviews don\'t mention the controversy, it will have been upvoted by people who do just because it\'s negative (and many of those reviews have little no no recorded game time, and while it\'s possible they played it outside Steam, it\'s still suspicious that so many people would get it on Steam just to leave a negative review).
Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report