Overwatch already has the worst community without even being released yet.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50042625]What? Do any of the men's poses say "Look at my ass?"[/QUOTE]
Why not just have solidarity? Make all the men do over-the-top hands on their hips and glancing backwards poses. It'd be a win-win for everyone!
I enjoy the ass poses and think its a really stupid and meaningless chamge, sue me
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50042561]You would only see a problem with this logic if you simplify the pose itself. Actually look at the pose.
here's an album some guy linked me in a steam chat
[media]https://imgur.com/a/LVZIV[/media]
All the men have their asses covered so it's not a big deal. They're not wearing spandex or anything of the sort to show off their body.
The two women are in spandex, and they're showing off their ass. It's acceptable for the Widowmaker to do it because that's part of her character. It isn't acceptable for Tracer to do it because it isn't her character. This isn't an issue about sexualization of characters, it's an issue about the consistency of characters.
If I made Edgelord Reaper have the animations of a catwalker, that would go against his character and people would probably complain.[/QUOTE]
Stating that the pose is shared by everyone does not mean that I am simplifying it (nor is there a need to, because it IS just a pose). If the reason to exclude Tracer from the rest of the heroes is because seeing her butt doesn't fit her character, then you should include Genji in the exclusion as well:
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CerXm82XEAAUSeQ.jpg[/t]
If the argument of exclusion is that there is a dissonance in character then why isn't there an uproar over Genji's ass? One would say that it doesn't fit his character either, but why isn't anyone complaining about him?
[QUOTE=Caulo32;50044116]Overwatch already has the worst community without even being released yet.[/QUOTE]
The clash between the TF2 and Blizzard fanbases was going to be inevitably awful and it's only going to get worse
THe way I see it she's showing off her ass in a quirky way, it's pretty cute anyways? Like she's doin it all sassy is how I see it. Is the character not sassy?
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;50041233][URL="http://wccftech.com/petition-launched-remove-guns-overwatch/"]Source.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.thepetitionsite.com/708/952/914/activision-blizzard-please-remove-guns-from-your-game-"overwatch."/"]The petition.[/URL]
At first I thought this was satire but then with the increasing depths of insanity that SJWs/moral guardians are reaching I may be proved wrong as there seem to be one or two people taking this seriously.
:suicide:[/QUOTE]
Currently at 8,472 signatures. WTF?
[QUOTE=Boaraes;50044338]Stating that the pose is shared by everyone does not mean that I am simplifying it (nor is there a need to, because it IS just a pose). If the reason to exclude Tracer from the rest of the heroes is because seeing her butt doesn't fit her character, then you should include Genji in the exclusion as well:
[t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CerXm82XEAAUSeQ.jpg[/t]
If the argument of exclusion is that there is a dissonance in character then why isn't there an uproar over Genji's ass? One would say that it doesn't fit his character either, but why isn't anyone complaining about him?[/QUOTE]
You're really grasping at straws.
#1 Genji is a dude
#2 That isn't spandex
#3 That ass is pretty flat
Do I really have to elaborate that it's not just the pose that's 100% of the problem???? Does that even need to be said?????
If I bend over with baggy jeans, the pose is fine.
If I bend over with spandex then there is something wrong with the pose.
And even if Genji was unfittingly sexualised, If you feel like there should be an uproar about a character, go start one. It might have the same effect, it might not.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50045039]You're really grasping at straws.
#1 Genji is a dude
#2 That isn't spandex
#3 That ass is pretty flat
Do I really have to elaborate that it's not just the pose that's 100% of the problem???? Does that even need to be said?????
If I bend over with baggy jeans, the pose is fine.
If I bend over with spandex then there is something wrong with the pose.
And even if Genji was unfittingly sexualised, If you feel like there should be an uproar about a character, go start one. It might have the same effect, it might not.[/QUOTE]
He's grasping at straws?
"That isn't spandex." Ohh yeah, of course, skin tight suits only sexualize if they're made of spandex. Ohh, and "Genji is a dude", they have to be on a female. Males can't be sexualized.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50042399]God damn it, we've been over this. Blizzard wasn't caving to anyone. Jeff Kaplan, the creative director of Blizzard, literally came out and went "Our team was already iffy about this, so when actual players came out against it we decided to remove it. We're replacing it with a pose that we think is better."[/QUOTE]
And they conveniently waited until someone complained about it before removing it. Surprise surprise, the creative director said something to make their decision look better. A PR team will say anything to bring people to their side. Trust no one.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50045054]He's grasping at straws?
"That isn't spandex." Ohh yeah, of course, skin tight suits only sexualize if they're made of spandex. Ohh, and "Genji is a dude", they have to be on a female. Males can't be sexualized.[/QUOTE]
Males can be sexualised, in the proper context like females can be sexualized. I don't know, if you see genji in that pose and if you're turned on by his heavily armored ass then idk what to say.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50045069]Males can be sexualised, in the proper context like females can be sexualized. I don't know, if you see genji in that pose and if you're turned on by his heavily armored ass then idk what to say.[/QUOTE]Maybe you don't see it as sexually attractive, but your views are far from universal standards so they don't really matter much.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50045039]You're really grasping at straws.
#1 Genji is a dude
#2 That isn't spandex
#3 That ass is pretty flat
Do I really have to elaborate that it's not just the pose that's 100% of the problem???? Does that even need to be said?????
If I bend over with baggy jeans, the pose is fine.
If I bend over with spandex then there is something wrong with the pose.
[/QUOTE]
Of course his ass is flat, he's male. You're basing your argument on a false dichotomy, there's a difference between male and female anatomy. It's the same exact ass-sticking-out-pose but with a male character instead of a female character. I thought the whole point of the pose being problematic was that it was out-of-character, not that it was sexualised? Why does the clothing even matter?
According to the original post, the pose is 100% of the problem because it's supposedly out of character.
[QUOTE]And even if Genji was unfittingly sexualised, If you feel like there should be an uproar about a character, go start one. It might have the same effect, it might not[/QUOTE]
Not really, the whole point of the post is to show how ridiculous the uproar is.
[editline]1st April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50045069]Males can be sexualised, in the proper context like females can be sexualized. I don't know, if you see genji in that pose and if you're turned on by his heavily armored ass then idk what to say.[/QUOTE]
Being sexualised was never the problem to begin with. The problem was with the pose being out of character.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50042587]To be honest the pose was shit.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.loverslab.com/uploads/post-8195-0-73778500-1459396948.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50045080]Maybe you don't see it as sexually attractive, but your views are far from universal standards so they don't really matter much.[/QUOTE]
what does that even MEAN
[QUOTE=Zyler;50045084]Of course his ass is flat, he's male. You're basing your argument on a false dichotomy, there's a difference between male and female anatomy.[/quote]
If there is a male with a clear and obvious bulge, a male with sparkling abs, [B]and/or[/B] a male with an [B]actually revealing ass[/B] in the middle of a war, then that's sexualization of men that that isn't acceptable. I'm gay and to be quite honest I think that tracer has a nicer ass than that other guy.
[quote]It's the same exact ass-sticking-out-pose with a male character instead of a female character. I thought the whole point of the pose being problematic was that it was out-of-character, not that it was sexualised? Why does the clothing even matter?[/QUOTE]
It's out of character [B]because[/B] it was sexualised. The devs, among others, viewed it as being out of character. Sexualization isn't black and white as you think, there are contributing factors to sexualization such as outfit and context.
For example, giving a character a bikini on the beach isn't an attempt at sexualization because of the context of being on the beach. Giving a character bikini armor in medieval europe is because it serves no purpose other than to show breasts.
Giving tracer spandex (or whatever it is) for the bottom part of her body isn't sexualisation because her character is focused around running fast, and spandex is one of the best materials for doing that. When you start giving her strange poses, then that's when the intent of the developers appears muddy. And this is why people are bitching about the pose instead of tracer as a character.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50045198]what does that even MEAN[/QUOTE]
What it means is that when you say something like "I don't see how that could be attractive" is that you're really generalizing what people may find sexual or enjoyable in that context based on your own subjective tastes.
[QUOTE]If there is a male with a clear and obvious bulge, a male with sparkling abs, [B]and/or[/B] a male with an [B]actually revealing ass[/B] in the middle of a war, then that's sexualization of men that that isn't acceptable. I'm gay and to be quite honest I think that tracer has a nicer ass than that other guy.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah those things would be weird but would they really be "wrong"? Why isn't it acceptable? What's acceptable sexualization to you?
[QUOTE]It's out of character [B]because[/B] it was sexualised. The devs, among others, viewed it as being out of character. Sexualization isn't black and white as you think, there are contributing factors to sexualization such as outfit and context.
[/QUOTE]
It's certainly true there's context to take into account, but I don't think the pose was inheritely sexualized, but you'd say i'm wrong so I wonder how strong your statement that it's black and white would be.
[QUOTE]Giving tracer spandex (or whatever it is) for the bottom part of her body isn't sexualisation because her character is focused around running fast, and spandex is one of the best materials for doing that. When you start giving her strange poses, then that's when the intent of the developers appears muddy. And this is why people are bitching about the pose instead of tracer as a character.[/QUOTE]
That pose was strange? I'm not sure how that's so, it was weirdly modeled but that's the fault of the devs and that could have been a fix.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50045198]
It's out of character [B]because[/B] it was sexualised. The devs, among others, viewed it as being out of character. Sexualization isn't black and white as you think, there are contributing factors to sexualization such as outfit and context.
For example, giving a character a bikini on the beach isn't an attempt at sexualization because of the context of being on the beach. Giving a character bikini armor in medieval europe is because it serves no purpose other than to show breasts.
Giving tracer spandex (or whatever it is) for the bottom part of her body isn't sexualisation because her character is focused around running fast, and spandex is one of the best materials for doing that. When you start giving her strange poses, then that's when the intent of the developers appears muddy. And this is why people are bitching about the pose instead of tracer as a character.[/QUOTE]
What do you actually believe the intent of the developer was when creating the pose? If the intent was specifically to be sexualized, then why did they use the same pose on a male character whom you believe was not supposed to be sexualized?
[QUOTE]If there is a male with a clear and obvious bulge, a male with sparkling abs, [B]and/or[/B] a male with an [B]actually revealing ass[/B] in the middle of a war, then that's sexualization of men that that isn't acceptable. I'm gay and to be quite honest I think that tracer has a nicer ass than that other guy.[/QUOTE]
Your point about the difference between male and female sexualization was actually the point I was making. It's a false equivalency because male and female bodies are different. It's the same pose but the guy's ass sticks out less because he's a dude.
[editline]1st April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=27X;50045129][IMG]http://www.loverslab.com/uploads/post-8195-0-73778500-1459396948.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Is this sexualized?
[QUOTE=Zyler;50045246]What do you actually believe the intent of the developer was when creating the pose? If the intent was specifically to be sexualized, then why did they use the same pose on a male character whom you believe was not supposed to be sexualized?
[/QUOTE]
Clearly the intent was to spark outrage over pixel buttes
sexual butts
but seriously though, I'm just not seeing the issue over this.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;50042792]So tired of seeing this chick's gross butt pose. I've never been more aware that an ass is just a continuation of legs than I have seeing this picture 500 times this week.[/QUOTE]
it doesn't even look like a butt to me anymore, just a pair of long as fuck legs adjacent to each other
[QUOTE=EvilMattress;50045259]Clearly the intent was to spark outrage over pixel buttes
sexual butts[/QUOTE]
Yea, but only female butts, not male butts. I just find it really unlikely that this is really a matter of people being upset over mis-characterization and not Westerners being upset about any kind of sexuality like always. Do you really think anyone would bother making a thread to complain about this to Blizzard if it was the male character?
[QUOTE=Zyler;50045246]What do you actually believe the intent of the developer was when creating the pose? If the intent was specifically to be sexualized, then why did they use the same pose on a male character whom you believe was not supposed to be sexualized?
[/quote]
You're ignoring what I'm saying. The cyborg isn't sexualised because of the armor he is wearing. He's not showing any curves or anything really. The armor is the one showing the most curves.
[quote]Is this sexualized?[/QUOTE]
Not really.
[QUOTE=Zyler;50045306]Yea, but only female butts, not male butts. I just find it really unlikely that this is really a matter of people being upset over mis-characterization and not Westerners being upset about any kind of sexuality like always. Do you really think anyone would bother making a thread to complain about this to Blizzard if it was the male character?[/QUOTE]
I just don't honestly find anything wrong with having any sort of sexuality in characters
We're humans, we're sexual creatures. Who cares if some virtual character is shifting their hips, it's a non-issue. And I don't see how it's out of character either. Having a quirky pose is out of character now?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50045307]You're ignoring what I'm saying. The cyborg isn't sexualised because of the armor he is wearing. He's not showing any curves or anything really. The armor is the one showing the most curves.[/QUOTE]
I didn't ask whether you thought the pose is sexualised, I asked what you thought the intentions of the developer was when they made the pose.
[QUOTE]Not really.[/QUOTE]
Why not? Her back is bent in the same way as the pose you think is sexualized.
[editline]1st April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=EvilMattress;50045325]I just don't honestly find anything wrong with having any sort of sexuality in characters
We're humans, we're sexual creatures. Who cares if some virtual character is shifting their hips, it's a non-issue. And I don't see how it's out of character either. Having a quirky pose is out of character now?[/QUOTE]
Well I don't think the pose is out of character, nor do I think it's especially sexualized. I think the key thing here is that there's a difference between a character that is conventially attractive-looking and a character that is sexualised. I'm uncomfortable with calling any woman wearing spandex "sexualised sex-objects" (a la the person who posted the complaint) because there are actual women who look like that (or similar enough to that in any case) and dress that way in real life.
[QUOTE=Zyler;50045326]
Well I don't think the pose is out of character, nor do I think it's especially sexualized. I think the key thing here is that there's a difference between a character that is conventially attractive-looking and a character that is sexualised. I'm uncomfortable with calling any woman wearing spandex "sexualised sex-objects" (a la the person who posted the complaint) because there are actual women who look like that (or similar enough to that in any case) and dress that way in real life.[/QUOTE]
She's just conventionally attractive then, there's nothing unusual about her and her quirky pose
[QUOTE=Zyler;50045306]Yea, but only female butts, not male butts. I just find it really unlikely that this is really a matter of people being upset over mis-characterization and not Westerners being upset about any kind of sexuality like always. Do you really think anyone would bother making a thread to complain about this to Blizzard if it was the male character?[/QUOTE]
I'm going to stop you right there. Don't lump me in with people who are mad on the basis of "I'm a Westerner who's buttmad about sex in entertainment." Like any human, I enjoy porn and I enjoy being lewd from time to time.
I joined in on this debate because people were blaming SJWs for this, and SJWs had nothing to do with this decision. Now it seems that I have to defend the dev's decision even though the only thing we've heard from them is "it doesn't fit her character design" and I have to list the reasons how and why even though they might not be the right reasons.
I get even more mad at the needless sexualization / unrealistic body standards of men, but you don't hear me talking about it much because no one really reports it because most people think it's a non issue. There was one thing back in 2014/2015 about how dad bods were the new thing, and I thought that was progress but that feeling was ruined because people made it about how women deserved this progress more than men.
The person who have made the overwatch post may have terrible intentions, I don't know I don't speak for him or her and I can't read minds. But I know that the devs aren't doing this because of Social Justice Warriors because of the plenty of other acceptably sexualised characters in the game.
I personally believe that giving tracer a victory pose that shows off her ass isn't of her character and it felt like pandering even though most likely it was entirely accidental. Would I complain about it? No. I would just pick a side and defend the devs because I agree when they said it wasn't of her character.
[editline]31st March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zyler;50045326]I didn't ask whether you thought the pose is sexualised, I asked what you thought the intentions of the developer was when they made the pose.[/quote]
I don't know the intentions of the developers, I don't know if it was on purpose or if it was by accident, but the fact of the matter is that it was sexualised. The intent is irrelevant.
[quote]
Why not? Her back is bent in the same way as the pose you think is sexualized.
[/quote]
Context, my friend. The reason why I didn't fully agree that it was sexualised was because like I said before, it isn't black and white. You got tracer actually running and shooting, part of her character, and she happens to be showing off her ass if you look at it from like 1 angle plus I can't see the entire statue.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50042399]God damn it, we've been over this. Blizzard wasn't caving to anyone. Jeff Kaplan, the creative director of Blizzard, literally came out and went "Our team was already iffy about this, so when actual players came out against it we decided to remove it. We're replacing it with a pose that we think is better."[/QUOTE]
Wow, you actually bought that lamest excuse ever?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50045425]
I don't know the intentions of the developers, I don't know if it was on purpose or if it was by accident, but the fact of the matter is that it was sexualised. The intent is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
Just saying, it's not really "the fact of the matter" that the character is sexualized if lots of people disagree over whether the character is sexualized. It's your opinion.
[QUOTE]'m going to stop you right there. Don't lump me in with people who are mad on the basis of "I'm a Westerner who's buttmad about sex in entertainment." Like any human, I enjoy porn and I enjoy being lewd from time to time.
I joined in on this debate because people were blaming SJWs for this, and SJWs had nothing to do with this decision. Now it seems that I have to defend the dev's decision even though the only thing we've heard from them is "it doesn't fit her character design" and I have to list the reasons how and why even though they might not be the right reasons.
I get even more mad at the needless sexualization / unrealistic body standards of men, but you don't hear me talking about it much because no one really reports it because most people think it's a non issue. There was one thing back in 2014/2015 about how dad bods were the new thing, and I thought that was progress but that feeling was ruined because people made it about how women deserved this progress more than men.
[/QUOTE]
It wasn't my intention to include you in that category, I was speaking more generally to what EvilMattress was talking about. I should've made that more clear, sorry.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50045425]
Context, my friend. The reason why I didn't fully agree that it was sexualised was because like I said before, it isn't black and white. You got tracer actually running and shooting, part of her character, and she happens to be showing off her ass if you look at it from like 1 angle plus I can't see the entire statue.[/QUOTE]
What you're indicating is that whether or not the character is sexualised is up to the audience and is therefore totally subjective. The problem with that is there's exactly one person who complained and supposedly had the pose taken down while the majority of people did not think the pose was sexualized or didn't care.
In one pose she's running with her butt sticking out and shooting guns, in another pose she's standing with her butt sticking out while holding guns. How is one out-of-character while the other isn't? Either running around and standing still with your butt sticking out is sexualized and therefore the character is sexualized so it's not out-of-character, or it's not sexualized and it's still not out-of-character.
For me personally, I don't think there's any "SJW" nonsense involved, I think they just wanted to remove the pose regardless and one forum moderator decided to play it up for brownie points because Blizzard is known for not listening to people and they thought if they phrased the decision like they were doing it for morality concerns they'd get kudos for pretending to listen to people. It backfired on their faces so they had to backpedal.
I don't care about the pose, I'm probably not going to play the game. I only care because the (fake) reason they gave for removing the pose was inherently sex-negative.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
