[TotalBiscuit] Overwatch's Strong Animal Heroes and that one Winston pose
182 replies, posted
Seeing cartoon blood and guts and seeing cartoon ass isn't going to fuck up your kid, so this guy needs to shut the fuck up about his daughter.
Has anyone named this controversy yet? I'm surprised I haven't seen #ButtGate trending or something.
I don't play overwatch, so i guess my opinion isin't as important. However, i do feel the outfit + the pose makes it into something sexual. Personally i'm glad they changed it, and honestly, i don't really see how its a problem that they changed it. I see people talking about a Slippery Slope, but at the same time, there's apparently a character called Widow Maker, which is supposed to be sexualized and represents that.
Kinda unrelated, but when i play games where i can choose genders (Especially MMO's), i tend to stray away from the female characters, because i can't relate to big butts and boobs while posing with a bikini armor (This is talking about MMO's ofcourse, but the case is slightly similar, just not as exaggerated).
I think Tracer is a cool character from what i've seen from the trailer, And i would say im just a slightly bit more likely to play her, if i played the game today.
I give my thumps up to this change. Feel free to discuss this with me.
[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;50035744]Annoying Tomboy > Purple Sniper Cammy > Egyptian Samus > Minisentry Fetishist > Literal Angel Mary Sue > LOL Pro Player > Velma > Heavy Weapons Girl[/QUOTE]
They're all a shit, junkrat for life.
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;50038282]Self censorship isn't censorship? Then pray tell, why the fuck is it called Self [B]Censorship[/B]? It's in the very fucking term.
This shit has been happening more and more over the past few years and in the case of fire emblem fates it's like we got a completely different fucking game as opposed to what Japan got. Look at bravely default and bravely second, both of them were censored when localized, and bravely second cut out even more content than its predecessor. It's no longer applicable to just call them version differences, we are literally getting watered down/inferior versions of these games. It's no longer cosmetic things, we are getting actual content/plot/gameplay removed for fear of offending a minority that doesn't even have a good track record of supporting the things that do cater directly to them.
Yes, blizzard removed a single pose, that was entirely optional to use and that only ONE person complained about. This is how this shit starts. Mark my words somebody will find something else to bitch about in Overwatch and then more content will be removed in an effort to appease the minority. Where do you draw the fucking line with people like this? At what point do you say "try something else" or God forbid "perhaps our game is not for you then?"
It is by definition a non-isolated incident because IT KEEPS HAPPENING![/QUOTE]
Because some idiot made up the term who didn't understand that you changing your own original work is not censorship.
This is very much an isolated instance since A. Blizzard is not a Japanese game developer, shit is different and B. This is only the first time it has happened. If Blizzard was to suddenly remove another thing then yeah, now we have a precedent, but jumping the gun and saying that Blizzard caves to Social Justice is absolutely retarded.
In any case, like I said before: STOP BLAMING THE COMPANY. If they remove something from a game due to it's supposedly sexual content, then that's not on them, it's on the values our society holds. If you want to protest something, protest the culture that fears sexuality as a negative thing.
[QUOTE=Skyward;50023190]I kinda agree that the Tracer pose doesn't really match her character, and it's on-the-nose and kinda lazy.
But I really don't think it's offensive or anything and I don't really care that they're gonna change it. It's a total non-issue either way as far as I'm concerned. At the end of the day its either a video game character in a sexy pose (who cares?) and it's Blizzards' choice if they want to change it (who cares?).[/QUOTE]
How is it on-the-nose? It was literally a generic victory pose.
[QUOTE=Crimor;50039474]They're all a shit, junkrat for life.[/QUOTE]
Das gay doe
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50039520]Because some idiot made up the term who didn't understand that you changing your own original work is not censorship.[/QUOTE]
If it's done in fear of being lynched by shitty game journos for example, then yes. Yes it is.
[QUOTE]This is very much an isolated instance since A. Blizzard is not a Japanese game developer, shit is different[/QUOTE]
How so?
[QUOTE]and B. This is only the first time it has happened.[/QUOTE]
Nope, [url=https://archive.is/Eu9jc]this has happened with other western developers already.[/url]
[QUOTE]If Blizzard was to suddenly remove another thing then yeah, now we have a precedent, but jumping the gun and saying that Blizzard caves to Social Justice is absolutely retarded.[/QUOTE]
But they already caved in by removing the pose? How does the fact it's only one pose change anything? Would it be any different if they removed ten, a hundred?
[QUOTE]In any case, like I said before: STOP BLAMING THE COMPANY. If they remove something from a game due to it's supposedly sexual content, then that's not on them, it's on the values our society holds. If you want to protest something, protest the culture that fears sexuality as a negative thing.[/QUOTE]
But caving in to those idiots spreads the message that sexuality is indeed a negative thing, so protesting the change [I]is[/I] pretty much protesting the culture as you say we should.
I honestly feel if you support this removal of content, then you're all for "sex negative" feminism, one of the most vocal and common types of feminsim in the modern world.
It's fine to hold those opinions, but sex negative feminism is really quite harmful to women, or really anyone, who doesn't consider sexuality a negative.
[QUOTE=_Axel;50039762]
But they already caved in by removing the pose? How does the fact it's only one pose change anything? Would it be any different if they removed ten, a hundred?
But caving in to those idiots spreads the message that sexuality is indeed a negative thing, so protesting the change [I]is[/I] pretty much protesting the culture as you say we should.[/QUOTE]
Is there a scenario where you are willing to entertain the idea that Kaplans followup post about it being an internal discussion, that was only aired after the original post, is true?
If so I'd hardly call it caving. And if not, you are just assuming he is lying with no real evidence to back it up.
I came out against this in my first post in this thread because I thought conceding with such a contrite post was dumb but I have no reason to believe the followup is false or misleading. If Blizzards genuine creative direction internally decided it didn't fit, so be it.
[editline]31st March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50042304]I honestly feel if you support this removal of content, then you're all for "sex negative" feminism, one of the most vocal and common types of feminsim in the modern world.
It's fine to hold those opinions, but sex negative feminism is really quite harmful to women, or really anyone, who doesn't consider sexuality a negative.[/QUOTE]
I support Blizzards right to implement art how they want because it's their creative vision. If removing a pose for a character they felt wasn't a great fit, so be it. Hardly see how that makes me a sex-negative feminist but okay.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50042793]Is there a scenario where you are willing to entertain the idea that Kaplans followup post about it being an internal discussion, that was only aired after the original post, is true?
If so I'd hardly call it caving. And if not, you are just assuming he is lying with no real evidence to back it up.
I came out against this in my first post in this thread because I thought conceding with such a contrite post was dumb but I have no reason to believe the followup is false or misleading. If Blizzards genuine creative direction internally decided it didn't fit, so be it.
[editline]31st March 2016[/editline]
I support Blizzards right to implement art how they want because it's their creative vision. If removing a pose for a character they felt wasn't a great fit, so be it. Hardly see how that makes me a sex-negative feminist but okay.[/QUOTE]
It's how many people have argued it that makes them seem sex negative to me. It's how people in general, argue this whole concept of video game characters being sexualized. It's literally the basis of that argument.
[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;50028484]Honestly I don't see why they would make all this waifu material and then cater to people who don't like sexuality. Like, did people notice [I]now[/I] that Tracer is kinda hot?[/QUOTE]
Kind of hard to see her when Widowmaker's ass keeps blocking the view even when I try to look elsewhere.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50042866]It's how many people have argued it that makes them seem sex negative to me. It's how people in general, argue this whole concept of video game characters being sexualized. It's literally the basis of that argument.[/QUOTE]
Are we talking about Blizzard? Because I'm talking about Blizzard. Their argument doesn't seem to come from a sex negative one at all, especially when Widowmaker is in the game.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50042793]Is there a scenario where you are willing to entertain the idea that Kaplans followup post about it being an internal discussion, that was only aired after the original post, is true?
If so I'd hardly call it caving. And if not, you are just assuming he is lying with no real evidence to back it up.[/QUOTE]
The first response doesn't mention character or personality in any way, but rather the fact they want the game to feel inclusive and not make anybody uncomfortable. If the pose were at odds with their artistic vision and its removal was already being discussed internally they would have said it there.
That argument only came later, after things blew up and people were accusing Blizzard of caving in. Why not say it earlier if it were the actual reason behind the removal? Character is even something the original poster discusses, so why didn't they jump on the occasion to respond to that part of their feedback and instead said some generic inclusiveness-pandering stuff?
Artistic vision could have been the reason behind it the whole time, but given the way they responded that doesn't seem very likely to me. What I see is pandering followed by an attempt at damage control.
It's certainly damage control. I've already said the first post Kaplan made was really bad. Did you see my first post in this thread?
Why was it such a short post, and why did it focus on wanting to make people feel comfortable instead of art? I dunno. If I had to assume, it's because it was an off the cuff post by the creative director where he typed things and hit enter before really thinking through the ramifications of what he was thinking about. Like I said though, I'm not sure what was going through his head at the time. All I have to deal with here is the information in front of me, and personally I don't feel comfortable calling someone a liar without incontrovertible proof.
[editline]31st March 2016[/editline]
Really it just comes down to perception.
Truthfully, and I don't mean this as a personal jab, I don't think anything Blizzard says at this point would satisfy you _Axel, or the people who agree with you. Anything short of adding the pose back to the game and possibly going against what they already decided internally (something you categorically reject) won't be enough to convince you Blizzard isn't pandering to SJW's and Overwatch is yet another game ruined by feminism.
Personally I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Their behavior in the past regarding Widowmaker shows that they really aren't afraid of having sexy characters and defending them as their artistic license, and if the creative director says the post was already debated about for not fitting with the character then I believe him. Maybe I'm too trusting, but I'm okay with that.
[QUOTE=metalhand;50038946]I don't play overwatch, so i guess my opinion isin't as important. However, i do feel the outfit + the pose makes it into something sexual. Personally i'm glad they changed it, and honestly, i don't really see how its a problem that they changed it. I see people talking about a Slippery Slope, but at the same time, there's apparently a character called Widow Maker, which is supposed to be sexualized and represents that.
Kinda unrelated, but when i play games where i can choose genders (Especially MMO's), i tend to stray away from the female characters, because i can't relate to big butts and boobs while posing with a bikini armor (This is talking about MMO's ofcourse, but the case is slightly similar, just not as exaggerated).
I think Tracer is a cool character from what i've seen from the trailer, And i would say im just a slightly bit more likely to play her, if i played the game today.
I give my thumps up to this change. Feel free to discuss this with me.[/QUOTE]
People like you are part of the problem. "I don't play X game, but I think it should be changed/censored because sexuality is bad."
Soo... if the intent was for the pose to be sexualized a smidge, does it matter? I wouldn't say $60 is worth it for a game like OW though regardless.
So let me get this straight. Blizzard are saying this pose is too sexual on tracer
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/3qyr09Z.jpg[/img_thumb]
But on these characters it's not because ~reasons~
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/hiCuaZV.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/iXCUf2J.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/BoIDbQk.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/nR9yMF5.jpg[/img_thumb]
oooook
[url]https://www.twitch.tv/boogie2988/v/57721877[/url] from about 18:00 onward shows just how silly this whole thing is.
Literally any pose can be seen as 'sexual' to just about anybody. Better remove them all just to be safe.
The Hanzo pose looks awfully feminine to me, is he a trans character? If not, I don't see how it fits his character at all, I want it removed because it does not reflect who he is.
[QUOTE=villa;50043407]People like you are part of the problem. "I don't play X game, but I think it should be changed/censored because sexuality is bad."[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure i started out with saying that i didn't think my opinion was important compared to those that play the game. Also i never stated that i think sexuality is bad, i'm just saying that i am [B]personally[/B] more fond of characters, that doesn't pose in somewhat attractive stances. Just like i think Bayonetta is a cool character, and i wouldn't want her changed because its an obvious part of her design, but i [B]personally[/B] just don't get attached to her, slightly because of this.
Also i feel pretty bad about all those dumb-ratings my post get. While i may not agree with the majority here, i still try to keep an open mind and see it from all angles. My own personal opinion is just that this seems to be a positive change, and also the generic victory pose gets changed into something unique.
As always im up for discussing my point of view, as long as its not just Witch-Hunting me because i think something different
Well, I've officially found the best parody of this
[quote=Some dude on reddit]So I wanted to start off by saying, I think the development team has done a pretty great job with the cast of Flanders hero's in Overwatch. They are diverse, interesting, and compelling. From Flanders to Flanders to Flanders the Flanders cast reflects a large spectrum of personalities and player fantasies.
With that being said, lets talk about Flanders. From a marketing standpoint, he's the star of the show. He's a great hero. When we look at the way he's portrayed in promotional media, lore, and art in game we know a few things about him..
He's Fast.
He's Silly.
He's Kind.
He's a good Friend.
His body seems to be comprised of about 95% spunk.
Almost all of his art reflects this. He's got cool skins: [t]http://fierceandnerdy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Cal-Seething-Jan-30-Ned-copy.jpg[/t]
He's got fun poses:
[t]https://static.simpsonswiki.com/images/8/84/Ned_Flanders.png[/t]
He's got amazing victory animations:
[t]http://www.chongas.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/flanders.gif[/t]
All of this art reinforces the great character you've built around Flanders.
Then out of seemingly no where we have this pose:
[t]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LazzoJmocpg/UjOVLJu6X5I/AAAAAAAAA90/1GBkFEoyLBE/s1600/ripped-nerds_ned_flanders.jpg[/t]
WHAT? What about this pose has anything to do with the character you're building in Flanders? It's not fun, its not silly, it has nothing to do with being a fast elite diddler. It just reduces Flanders to another bland male Flanders symbol.
We aren't looking at a Simpson pose here, this isn't a character who is in part defined by flaunting his sexuality. This pose says to the player base, oh we've got all these cool diverse characters, but at any moment we are willing to reduce them to sex symbols to help boost our investment game.
Getting art into a triple A game isn't a small task, it has to go through an implementer, a team lead, an art director, and a creative director. This is a team effort. And I believe the team is responsible for upholding the great example overwatch can set to the rest of the industry for creating strong Flanders characters.
I have a young Flanders that everyday when I wake up wants to watch the movie trailer again. He knows who Flanders is, and as he grows up, he can grow up alongside these characters.
What I'm asking is that as you continue to add to the overwatch cast and investment elements, you double down on your commitment to create strong Flanders characters. You've been doing a good job so far, but shipping with a Flanders pose like this undermines so much of the good you've already done.
(edit: original here [url]http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20743015583[/url] )[/quote]
Flanders is a male so it can't be sexism, it's male power fantasy :v:
Man if titles were still a thing I'd make "Fast Elite Diddler" mine.
[QUOTE=Zeos;50047648]Well, I've officially found the best parody of this[/QUOTE]
Further context, was in response to this image post:
[t]https://i.imgur.com/WL92ItE.png[/t]
[url]https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/4cvcs7/new_overwatch_character_announced/[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.