Blizzard is censoring a pose from Overwatch, citing player feedback
356 replies, posted
I thought they shouldn't change the pose because people complained despite the fact that I thought the pose looked like crap. This new pose is fucking great.
"We agree that it didn't fit her personality and we were going to change it anyway... It just needed to be [b]more fun[/b]!"
:v: :v: :v:
They saved the butt. Thank God. They saved the butt.
does anyone have a webm of the new one for context?
edit: here [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/mGOlpmv.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Magikoopa24;50076904][t]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfUOL_wWsAAXJrS.jpg:large[/t]
[/QUOTE]
I wasn't offended by the original pose, I didn't really like it, and I didn't care that they removed it, but I think it's safe to say this is infinitely better.
This is a massive improvement, great job Blizz.
This is worth pointing out.
[t]http://oi66.tinypic.com/1zcg1h3.jpg[/t]
Take it as you will.
[QUOTE=mooman1080;50078347]This is worth pointing out.
[t]http://oi66.tinypic.com/1zcg1h3.jpg[/t]
Take it as you will.[/QUOTE]
oh no I hope they didn't change it as a way to say "fuck you" to people
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;50078566]i hope its a fuck you to that one dude who caused all the shit storm[/QUOTE]
if it was then that would say something about overwatch's team if they said "oh we're sorry, we're going to change it" and then made it stupidly worse.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50078564]oh no I hope they didn't change it as a way to say "fuck you" to people[/QUOTE]
Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by blizzard.txt
..Wait I think I got that quote slightly wrong, still works.
Lmao, legends, they removed the pose just to add in a new one that shows off the butt even more and is literally a pin up poster
Blizzard completely redeemed
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50078628]if it was then that would say something about overwatch's team if they said "oh we're sorry, we're going to change it" and then made it stupidly worse.[/QUOTE]
yeah, it would say that they have a spine.
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;50078566]i hope its a fuck you to that one dude who caused all the shit storm[/QUOTE]
The shitstorm was very much caused by the people overreacting to Blizzards decision. (to change a minor game detail)
But sure, blame the person who dared to voice their opinion. (about a minor game detail)
[editline]6th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=27X;50044206][B]I didn't misquote anything, and you know it[/B], the poster [b]directly[/b] implied exactly this. eye candy pose= eye candy character = 100% negative association, even outside the framework of the game.[/QUOTE]
But you literally made up that quote. It doesn't exist in the original post.
That's why I said you misquoted.
[QUOTE=milktree;50078702]yeah, it would say that they have a spine.[/QUOTE]
If they had a spine, and if they weren't already debating the quality of the pose, then they would've just said "no we're not doing this.".
If they did this on purpose with the intent of of changing it to make it worse (which is somewhat better but I don't want to argue about this again) while keeping the illusion that they care about feelings then that's spineless.
hahahaha it's a pin-up poster that shows more ass
that's fucking hilarious
Wow, I actually love the new pose. Its so much cuter than the original. I'm a big pinup fan as well so that helps :v:
[QUOTE=paul simon;50078863]
That's why I said you misquoted.[/QUOTE]
no, it isn't.
misquote typically has the connotations of misrepresentation, misreporting, distortion (which are considered synonyms of misquote)
what he was doing was boiling down the post into what he considered to be the salient argument of the original post
when you originally used the word misquote, you were using it with the intention of challenging his argument based on the fact that he had distorted the original post into a more disagreeable position (which he didn't do, he definitely made it more blunt, but he didn't distort it into arguing something that it wasn't) - now you've backpedalled into claiming that you were using the word misquote because he didn't directly quote the piece. In his latest post, he outright stated that the guy implied what he had quoted, reinforcing my point.
you've essentially changed your intention behind using misquote between posts
which is [I]pretty [/I]dishonest
i mean, you'll probably say that wasn't your intention with your first post, and there's no way we can go any further than that, but from an external perspective your original post gave off every indication that you were implying he had straw manned the original post (which he might have done for emphasis, but not to a state where it no longer represented the original argument in key facets)
[QUOTE=mooman1080;50078347]This is worth pointing out.
[t]http://oi66.tinypic.com/1zcg1h3.jpg[/t]
Take it as you will.[/QUOTE]
Well played, Blizzard. Well played.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50079490]no, it isn't.
misquote typically has the connotations of misrepresentation, misreporting, distortion (which are considered synonyms of misquote)
what he was doing was boiling down the post into what he considered to be the salient argument of the original post
when you originally used the word misquote, you were using it with the intention of challenging his argument based on the fact that he had distorted the original post into a more disagreeable position (which he didn't do, he definitely made it more blunt, but he didn't distort it into arguing something that it wasn't) - now you've backpedalled into claiming that you were using the word misquote because he didn't directly quote the piece. In his latest post, he outright stated that the guy implied what he had quoted, reinforcing my point.
you've essentially changed your intention behind using misquote between posts
which is [I]pretty [/I]dishonest
i mean, you'll probably say that wasn't your intention with your first post, and there's no way we can go any further than that, but from an external perspective your original post gave off every indication that you were implying he had straw manned the original post (which he might have done for emphasis, but not to a state where it no longer represented the original argument in key facets)[/QUOTE]
Who are you to decide my intention?
Maybe "misquote" doesn't mean what I think it means, and in that case it's just a misunderstanding of an English word on my part.
But I believe with his quote that he exaggerated the original post beyond the intended meaning, and that's what I meant.
Those are definitely strong legs
[QUOTE=paul simon;50080148][B]Who are you to decide my intention?[/B]
Maybe "misquote" doesn't mean what I think it means, and in that case it's just a misunderstanding of an English word on my part.
But I believe with his quote that he exaggerated the original post beyond the intended meaning, and that's what I meant.[/QUOTE]
read the last line jesus, i already said that you'll say your intentions were different
let's go through this
"this one pose completely changes everything about this character" - "It just reduces tracer to another bland female sex symbol."
"everything about this character is now ruined" - "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" (interestingly enough the parody version manages to be less knee-jerk, as the original quote says that blizzard are, evidenced by the pose, at the drop of a hat willing to ruin all of their characterization for money)
"carries a negative connotation that applies even outside the context of the game to all of everything" - "I have a young daughter that everyday when I wake up wants to watch the recall trailer again. She knows who tracer is, and as she grows up, she can grow up alongside these characters."
in one post on the overwatch forums, the poster manages to say that a SINGLE POSE, THE pose reduces tracer to a bland female sex symbol, that the pose suggests that blizzard did it [B]to get money for creating sexy poses[/B] and that [B]because his/her daughter watches the overwatch trailer, he/she implies that having the pose on tracer will affect how his/her daughter grows up[/B]
i wouldn't go as far to call him a lunatic, but it's the most overly dramatic complaint about anything i've ever seen in a video game
like, how anyone read the post and thought "this seems like a reasonable opinion to have", rather than "what the fuck this person is losing their shit over a single pose and actually believes the pose will affect his UNDER THE AGE OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GAME daughter's development", boggles my mind
nobody needs to strawman the original post, because it's so fucking batshit nuts that the insanity of the person that made it is clear as day
ahahaha oh man, this situation could not have had a batter ending i think. thank the blizzard overlords for one hell of a zing
I see two possibilities:
A: Blizzard saw the response from fans after they said they were removing it and realized their mistake and wanted a cheeky way fans could appreciate to undo their mistake.
B: Blizzard intended this from the beginning, and they picked that post to be intentionally spiteful and mocking before unveiling the new pose.
As much as I'd like to see it be the former and claim it as a victory for gamers, I personally prefer the latter. It would indicate Blizzard actually has a spine. And I'm a bitch, I like to see people take the piss out of the likes of the original poster.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50080499]I see two possibilities:
A: Blizzard saw the response from fans after they said they were removing it and realized their mistake and wanted a cheeky way fans could appreciate to undo their mistake.
B: Blizzard intended this from the beginning, and they picked that post to be intentionally spiteful and mocking before unveiling the new pose.
As much as I'd like to see it be the former and claim it as a victory for gamers, I personally prefer the latter. It would indicate Blizzard actually has a spine. And I'm a bitch, I like to see people take the piss out of the likes of the original poster.[/QUOTE]
Or, you know, Reddit (and in extension of that, everyone else) overreacted once more and grabbed their pitchforks too early. Kaplan mentioned that they already had internal plans of replacing that pose but it was probably further down the priorities list. When someone made a thread about it, all he really should have said was: "Yeah, we've had plans about replacing that particular asset. So I can confirm that it will be replaced."
This had nothing to do with caving in to the SJW crowd or having no spine, it was all just a major misunderstanding because the gaming community likes to get their panties in a twist.
You know how we all want more communication from the game developers? This whole ordeal is just more proof that the community can't handle it. Say one wrong sentence and suddenly you're a spineless feminist social justice warrior. :goodjob:
[QUOTE=Capsup;50080536]Or, you know, Reddit (and in extension of that, everyone else) overreacted once more and grabbed their pitchforks too early. Kaplan mentioned that they already had internal plans of replacing that pose but it was probably further down the priorities list. When someone made a thread about it, all he really should have said was: "Yeah, we've had plans about replacing that particular asset. So I can confirm that it will be replaced."
This had nothing to do with caving in to the SJW crowd or having no spine, it was all just a major misunderstand because the gaming community likes to get their panties in a twist.
You know how we all want more communication from the game developers? This whole ordeal is just more proof that the community can't handle it. Say one wrong sentence and suddenly you're a spineless feminist social justice warrior. :goodjob:[/QUOTE]
The first response from the devs basically outright said they didn't want to offend anyone.
[QUOTE=_Axel;50080549]The first response from the devs basically outright said they didn't want to offend anyone.[/QUOTE]
And yet here we are with a pose that's even more offending than the original one, albeit more in-line with Tracer's supposedly 'goofy' personality, which was exactly the plan that Kaplan laid out in his more detailed post.
How about we stop taking everything at face value and realise that game developers make mistakes? His initial response was poorly written but he made up for it with his more detailed post. The guy made a mistake and tried to correct it. But lets forget about all that and just try to fry the guy over the fire for 'not wanting to offend anyone' because that's a REALLY bad goal to have, right?
Jesus, sometimes I wonder if the gaming community ever grew up.
Well, that new pose does fit her fun personality.
[QUOTE=Capsup;50080536]Or, you know, Reddit (and in extension of that, everyone else) overreacted once more and grabbed their pitchforks too early. Kaplan mentioned that they already had internal plans of replacing that pose but it was probably further down the priorities list. When someone made a thread about it, all he really should have said was: "Yeah, we've had plans about replacing that particular asset. So I can confirm that it will be replaced."
This had nothing to do with caving in to the SJW crowd or having no spine, it was all just a major misunderstanding because the gaming community likes to get their panties in a twist.
You know how we all want more communication from the game developers? This whole ordeal is just more proof that the community can't handle it. Say one wrong sentence and suddenly you're a spineless feminist social justice warrior. :goodjob:[/QUOTE]
Right, this Ignores the original response provided in the thread which said nothing of the sort, instead where they apologize for it, and talk about how they don't want people feeling uncomfortable or under-appreciated, which has nothing to do with the pose of the character unless you're following the idea that sexualization is a negative.
:goodjob:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
