Blizzard is censoring a pose from Overwatch, citing player feedback - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ehmmett;50025248]They could have quietly removed/replaced this animation and probably nobody would have noticed and probably nobody would have fucking cared[/QUOTE] You're not even wrong. A patch note stating "Changed one of Tracer's poses to better reflect her personality" would have been completely overlooked and absolutely no drama would have come from it.

[QUOTE=NiandraLades;50024667]Wasn't it just one person? calm down[/QUOTE] Nothing strike you as off when one player can complain about one facet of a published product from a company that employs thousands and makes hundreds of millions and this makes them change how their art line is allowed to produce content. Nothing at all...

[QUOTE=Passing;50024881]Probably. Still. I'd love to hear what you think it means.[/QUOTE] Literally the entire post was saying "these characters should be allowed to show their bodies off because I am escaping into the reality where I am that hot powerful person" She's supporting the idea that these ideals are just that- ideals, something to project onto that's a fun escape from reality.

[QUOTE=Ern;50025360]You're not even wrong. A patch note stating "Changed one of Tracer's poses to better reflect her personality" would have been completely overlooked and absolutely no drama would have come from it.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if the two of you are meaning this as a jab against the people who were initially arguing against the change or what, but if you are I think you're missing the point. The fact that they could have changed it silently with no issue really only highlights the reason people were mad about the whole thing in the first place. Instead of doing that, they chose to publicly change it, citing specific player feedback about it being offensive and even apologized for it and promised to do better, which is pretty crazy. I don't think anybody cares about it being changed, people care about the reasons and the method which both echo the unpopular rising trend in the gaming industry of changing incredibly unimportant things for incredibly stupid reasons pertaining to misguided political correctness. I think the general point is that, when something like this happens and something small is changed for questionable reasons people generally pop up saying "who cares" in apathetic defense of the decision, but you really can't use "who cares" as an argument without the counter argument that if nobody should care then why is it being changed in the first place?

IHMO this is mostly the Internet overreacting in the same way it did when The Stanley Parable replaced its one of its black humor jokes (about setting orphans on fire or something) because it was stepping over some lines for people. The author said that the game wasn't relying on the joke or anything, so changing it wasn't a big deal. Basically he took it as criticism pointing out a small piece of the game wasn't doing its job, he agreed and rewrote it as a result. But for a week or so the Internet was outraged about vocal minorities pressuring innocent artists into censorship of their self-expression and freedom of speech or something along those lines. Now I'm seeing a similar pattern here. Blizzard's got plenty of conventionally attractive cheese cake characters in their previous games (skin-tight suits in Starcraft, battle bikinis in Warcraft) and Overwatch's character design was definitely looking like it was created with the goal of being more inclusive. Which doesn't mean there's no conventionally attractive characters in the game or Blizzard abandoned skin-tight suits and "absolute cleavage" for some of their characters, it's all still there, but I could definitely see some artists trying to do something different. I could easy see one them looking at this criticism, realizing that the pose they animated fell into some old habits, briefly wondering whether this pose was still worth keeping around or whether it would nag them if they couldn't find a better one, and then replacing that pose with one they're happier with for the reasons cited. TL;DR I think this is whole situation may just be a repeat of [url="http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/23/5022434/the-stanley-parable-update-in-the-works-to-remove-offensive-images"]this.[/url]

[QUOTE=PelPix123;50025581]tbh i agree with this decision not because i have any problems with sexy women in games but because she's not a very sexy character. I personally was annoyed because it was [I]out of character.[/I] [editline]29th March 2016[/editline] i'm pretty [B]anal[/B] about consistency in writing and character development. Usually in novels, but sometimes in games.[/QUOTE] :V I sorta agree, but for me it´s more the fact like 5 characters have that "over the shoulder" pose - and that´s something the developers probably wanted to iron out for a time now. It was just a bad approach to make it unintentionally seem like caving.

Even if it is sexy, what's wrong with a female fictional character being sexy? Don't really see how it’s out of character either, I mean, I would get bitching about it if she was in a twerking pose or something.

So because females store additional fat than males thus making them curvier and potentially more attractive, we're sexist horny pricks? Ok. And since when can't female characters be sexy? Do these critics even know what sexy means? It means confidence, an inner strength, and a good curiosity. There's more to it than "ohoho stroking my boner"

[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;50025460]I'm not sure if the two of you are meaning this as a jab against the people who were initially arguing against the change or what, but if you are I think you're missing the point.[/QUOTE] My post assumes it's true that they really had not liked the pose much to begin with and wanted to change it anyway, even though they're likely lying out their ass to save face.

How come this is ok but when people complain about the new Thor being a woman doesn't fit the character it isn't changed?

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;50025883]How come this is ok but when people complain about the new Thor being a woman doesn't fit the character it isn't changed?[/QUOTE] Not an expert on Thor, but I think that was a whole other character that took up the mantle of "Thor" with a secret identity.

[QUOTE=Hanso;50025911]Not an expert on Thor, but I think that was a whole other character that took up the mantle of "Thor" with a secret identity.[/QUOTE] They're mainly talking about the writing, which is fucking horrible.

[video=youtube_share;wBP76501Afo]http://youtu.be/wBP76501Afo[/video] Relevant af

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;50025883]How come this is ok but when people complain about the new Thor being a woman doesn't fit the character it isn't changed?[/QUOTE] Because if it's about men, it's not important. Thor was a man, now is a woman, that's good for women so it stays. Tracer not being a sex object is good for women so it gets implemented. Imagine thinking anyone cares about gender equality when it relates to men.

Of all the times for Blizzard to listen to a minority opinion...

I think it looks dumb.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;50025883]How come this is ok but when people complain about the new Thor being a woman doesn't fit the character it isn't changed?[/QUOTE] Because the people complaining don't realize that lazily slapping together a less than 1 dimensional character in the name of equality does just a bad a job as having no well written characters.

[QUOTE=bitches;50024632]I'm sure people will be upset anyway, but While being upset at any and all female sexuality in videogames is silly, I have to agree that a quirky engineering bookwork character is a lot more interesting than yet another sexy diva.[/QUOTE] Are you saying Tracer can't be proud of her body and show off?

[QUOTE=Athlias;50024935]Blizzard has been shown to be spineless already, so I'm not surprised. They've caved in before when people thought a ship being named [url=https://archive.is/djEOE]Tyrande's Silence was a reference to how women should be silent as opposed to one of Tyrande's skills.[/url] They also recently changed [url=https://archive.is/VLqXx]one of Ji Firepaw's lines because he called female characters pretty.[/url][/QUOTE] Doesn't stop them from keeping in other weird stuff. :v:

I think people are making way too big of a deal over this. If Blizzard changed it it's because they wanted to, not because they were forced to, especially if only one person made a complaint. Their character, their game, their decision.

[QUOTE=bitches;50024632] While being upset at any and all female sexuality in videogames is silly, I have to agree that a quirky engineering bookwork character is a lot more interesting than yet another sexy diva.[/QUOTE] So should all engineering characters just be permavirgin nerd stereotypes?

Personally I think the pose was ass (haha see what I did) because I didn't get any sort of emotion or meaning from it: it didn't look celebratory, it didn't look sexy, it didn't look heroic, couldn't get a read on how tracer was feeling, just looked like a weird mishmash of shit to me. To expand upon the 'not sexy' part, I thought that the focal point of the pose became her ass by virtue of her default costume being very form-fitting, the camera being behind tracer and the lack of any other identifiable form of expression coming from the pose. In other words there was nothing else going on, the pose looked weird and her facial expression was pretty bland. So from that I can sort of understand the complaint of 'it's not in character for tracer' as imo the pose was displaying no character at all. I would prefer a pose that displays some sort of character expression, whether that be sexual or not. Although I would also agree that tracer's personality shown thus far does not suggest she would frequently call attention to her appearance outside of her outfit choice. What [I]TRIGGERS[/I] me tho is people calling this shit censorship, I could barely stand reading about the r-mika stuff for the same reason. People trying to build a platform against these changes by sensationalizing (yes I know what subforum I'm in) them and calling it censorship, then trying to rally against it on the basis that it is censorship is crap. Just call it what it is, you're mad because a group you don't like are having effects you don't like on media that you do like, it doesn't have to be more than that. Don't try and legitimize your viewpoint by bastardizing a much more serious issue and claim it is occurring. External influence causing voluntary change and external influence causing/implementing mandatory change are not the same thing.

[QUOTE=Crimor;50025923]They're mainly talking about the writing, which is fucking horrible.[/QUOTE] Also the part where the character that took up the mantle wanted nothing to do with the [i]entire premise[/i] and it "ruined her life", yet now somehow not only is she Thor, but she's so Thor she simply disbelieved she was dead when the universe got destroyed and it worked. "Bad writing" doesn't start how utterly mischaracterized that shit is.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50026073]I think people are making way too big of a deal over this. If Blizzard changed it it's because they wanted to, not because they were forced to, especially if only one person made a complaint. Their character, their game, their decision.[/QUOTE] nobody said they literally don't have the right to dude

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50024967]Semantic arguments are utterly and completely pointless, but whatever. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship[/url] The word fits. It might not fit by your specific definition, but I'm not under any obligation to only use your specific definition. We could argue all day about how this word or that word doesn't describe this or isn't the best word for that, but it's a completely pointless exercise. I think what has happened here is wrong. You could describe it with whatever words you please, I would still think it's wrong.[/QUOTE] So are people not allowed to criticize things?

[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50026214]So are people not allowed to criticize things?[/QUOTE] They are allowed, and they can be criticized right back.

[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;50026252]They are allowed, and they can be criticized right back.[/QUOTE] Well all this talk of """"self censorship""""" destroying Blizzard or whatever makes me think that people are against it on some sort of moral grounds.

[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50026400]Well all this talk of """"self censorship""""" destroying Blizzard or whatever makes me think that people are against it on some sort of moral grounds.[/QUOTE] I don't get the excess of quotes. It is self censorship. And it's rotten. Means the art team can never stand by it's vision. There's ALWAYS going to be someone offended. Always. You can never win. Because these people are out to be offended. And if you budge, if you change, they get more offended. This game is going to be Blizz next big thing. If anyone thinks it won't be because one or two people got offended over a butt pose, they need to be fired, because they don't know SHIT about video games. And yes, it is on moral grounds that I'm against self censorship. The art team should take a page from the WoW's balance team and stick to their guns.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50026441]I don't get the excess of quotes. It is self censorship. And it's rotten. Means the art team can never stand by it's vision. [/QUOTE] The ironic thing here is that the people demanding Blizzard keep the animation in are the ones trying to impose on Blizzard's freedom to follow their vision and do whatever they want with the game, including revising existing content if they feel it doesn't match the character design. [QUOTE=Ragekipz;50026441]And yes, it is on moral grounds that I'm against self censorship.[/QUOTE] By Blizzard's own explanation the change has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the animation not fitting the character. So really you're making a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived moral offense without actually understanding the context. Which is exactly what everyone bitches about SJWs doing.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50026463]The ironic thing here is that the people demanding Blizzard keep the animation in are the ones trying to impose on Blizzard's freedom to follow their vision and do whatever they want with the game, including revising existing content if they feel it doesn't match the character design. By Blizzard's own explanation the change has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the animation not fitting the character. So really you're making a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived moral offense without actually understanding the context. Which is exactly what everyone bitches about SJWs doing.[/QUOTE] Is it within their freedom to change their product? Yes. Is it being done because as a form of self-censorship? Also, yes. They're not fucking following their vision if they have to fucking change it to appease what can literally be ONE person. Someone had to rig that pose. This person thought it was ok and thought it was compatible with the character. Someone had to ok that pose. And that person also thought it was ok it was compatible with the character. THOSE people were following their vision. Now some fuckhead decides to be offended by the pose and suddenly it's not ok? Suddenly it's off-character? Fuck off with that logic.