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

[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] "It reduces Tracer to another bland female sex symbol." Then stop seeing her as "another sex symbol" because of a fucking pose lol. Literaly nobody had a problem with it until someome who can't see women's butts glanced at it. [editline]29th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Wowza!;50024717]The criticism wasn't that characters in Overwatch shouldn't be sexualized, it was that it didn't fit Tracer's personality.[/QUOTE] Thats the most stupid excuse ever, just to make it sound plausible.

What's so special about her personality that makes her showing some butt completely unfitting? Fuck it, here's her WHOLE backstory according to the wiki. " So, you want to hear my story. It all started a few years ago. Overwatch was looking for a hotshot pilot to test their next-generation teleporting fighter: The Slipstream. Enter: Lena Oxton (call sign: “Tracer”). [giggles] That’s me! It was the opportunity I had trained for my whole life. But on my first flight, the teleportion matrix malfunctioned; and I disappeared." Lena Oxton (call sign: "Tracer") was the youngest person ever inducted into Overwatch's experimental flight program. Known for her fearless piloting skills, she was handpicked to test the prototype of a teleporting fighter, the Slipstream. But during its first flight, the aircraft's teleportation matrix malfunctioned, and it disappeared. Lena was presumed dead. She reappeared months later, but her ordeal had greatly changed her: her molecules had been desynchronized from the flow of time. Suffering from "chronal disassociation," she was a living ghost, disappearing for hours and days at a time. Even for the brief moments she was present, she was unable to maintain physical form. Overwatch's doctors and scientists were stumped, and Tracer's case seemed hopeless until a scientist named Winston designed the chronal accelerator, a device capable of keeping Tracer anchored in the present. In addition, it gave Tracer the ability to control her own time, allowing her to speed it up and slow it down at will. With her newfound skills, she became one of Overwatch's most effective agents. Since Overwatch's dissolution, Tracer continued to right wrongs and fight the good fight wherever the opportunity presented itself. Such an opportunity came when Widowmaker and Reaper attacked a museum, trying to steal Doomfist's gauntlet. Tracer fought them alongside Winston. The villains were forced to retreat. Tracer complimented two young boys that had helped her in the aftermath, commenting that the world could always use more heroes. Where in here does showing butt ruin her character? From this, she sounds like a happy-go lucky person with a pretty joyous personality. How does showing her ass not fit? She's got personality, she's got flair. Fuck you Blizzard, you guys can't even come up with a good excuse on why you want to agree to a shit opinion.

[QUOTE=GentlemanLexi;50026617]What's so special about her personality that makes her showing some butt completely unfitting? Fuck it, here's her WHOLE backstory according to the wiki. " So, you want to hear my story. It all started a few years ago. Overwatch was looking for a hotshot pilot to test their next-generation teleporting fighter: The Slipstream. Enter: Lena Oxton (call sign: “Tracer”). [giggles] That’s me! It was the opportunity I had trained for my whole life. But on my first flight, the teleportion matrix malfunctioned; and I disappeared." Lena Oxton (call sign: "Tracer") was the youngest person ever inducted into Overwatch's experimental flight program. Known for her fearless piloting skills, she was handpicked to test the prototype of a teleporting fighter, the Slipstream. But during its first flight, the aircraft's teleportation matrix malfunctioned, and it disappeared. Lena was presumed dead. She reappeared months later, but her ordeal had greatly changed her: her molecules had been desynchronized from the flow of time. Suffering from "chronal disassociation," she was a living ghost, disappearing for hours and days at a time. Even for the brief moments she was present, she was unable to maintain physical form. Overwatch's doctors and scientists were stumped, and Tracer's case seemed hopeless until a scientist named Winston designed the chronal accelerator, a device capable of keeping Tracer anchored in the present. In addition, it gave Tracer the ability to control her own time, allowing her to speed it up and slow it down at will. With her newfound skills, she became one of Overwatch's most effective agents. Since Overwatch's dissolution, Tracer continued to right wrongs and fight the good fight wherever the opportunity presented itself. Such an opportunity came when Widowmaker and Reaper attacked a museum, trying to steal Doomfist's gauntlet. Tracer fought them alongside Winston. The villains were forced to retreat. Tracer complimented two young boys that had helped her in the aftermath, commenting that the world could always use more heroes. Where in here does showing butt ruin her character? From this, she sounds like a happy-go lucky person with a pretty joyous personality. How does showing her ass not fit? She's got personality, she's got flair. Fuck you Blizzard, you guys can't even come up with a good excuse on why you want to agree to a shit opinion.[/QUOTE] It's the same problem with R.Mika butt slap change. In both cases, it wasn't a sexual thing. It had to do with the playful personalities of the characters.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50026667]It's the same problem with R.Mika change butt slap change. In both cases, it wasn't a sexual thing. It had to do with the playful personalities of the characters.[/QUOTE] Hell, the stance makes her more playful. People are so anal about anything remotely sexual these days.

[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. 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] No, that's not how this works. If they wanted to "stand by its vision" they would've, ONE person complaining wouldn't stop that. They made the entirely voluntary decision to remove it. And I didn't know that appealing to customer feedback and complaints means that they "don't know shit about videogames". What does it mean to know about video games, then? Because what I consider it to mean to know how to make videogames has nothing to do with the decision to include or exclude a pose. You're projecting. And no, someone won't always be offended. I'm sick of people saying this. It is NOT that hard to not offend people.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50026667]It's the same problem with R.Mika butt slap change. In both cases, it wasn't a sexual thing. It had to do with the playful personalities of the characters.[/QUOTE] I dunno about the same problem. R Mika was for the esrb, I don't really understand blizzards choice here as I don't think the esrb changes. They shouls have to have known this would cause controversy with all the current issues of censorship tbh

In my opinion the initial complaint (or at least the apology by the developer) was an overreaction. Here's why: It is/was an optional pose, unlockable for in-game currency and as such never the default. That means it is/was impossible for any actual person to be accidentally misrepresented by this, since they'd have to go out of their way to actually enable the animation for themselves when playing the game. [I]That said:[/I] According to [video=youtube;RB4J3uB2j58]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB4J3uB2j58[/video] it's indeed a generic pose that quite a few male and female characters have (with slight variations based on the character personality afaict). It really doesn't hurt anything if they replace it with something more fitting, but I think their reasoning for that here unwittingly goes against people who like to see it once in a while (or even people who have a conventionally attractive body type irl. A feminist/cosplayer I follow on Twitter has been pretty vocal about this issue here, which is in line with her complaints about being effectively body-shamed in almost any case a "too sexy" complaint comes up. The company could have completely avoided doing anything close to that even while replacing the pose, simply by not implying that the original was harmful in this way).

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50026773]No, that's not how this works. If they wanted to "stand by its vision" they would've, ONE person complaining wouldn't stop that. They made the entirely voluntary decision to remove it. And I didn't know that appealing to customer feedback and complaints means that they "don't know shit about videogames". What does it mean to know about video games, then? Because what I consider it to mean to know how to make videogames has nothing to do with the decision to include or exclude a pose. You're projecting. And no, someone won't always be offended. I'm sick of people saying this. It is NOT that hard to not offend people.[/QUOTE] Well evidently it is hard to not offend people, people are constantly getting offended over entirely innocuous things.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50026773]No, that's not how this works. If they wanted to "stand by its vision" they would've, ONE person complaining wouldn't stop that. They made the entirely voluntary decision to remove it.[/QUOTE] Every decision they make that is not a judicial order is voluntary. This is such a non-argument. The reasons for the decision is what matter. [QUOTE=Duck M.;50026773] And I didn't know that appealing to customer feedback and complaints means that they "don't know shit about videogames". What does it mean to know about video games, then? Because what I consider it to mean to know how to make videogames has nothing to do with the decision to include or exclude a pose. You're projecting.[/QUOTE] There was plenty of feedback on the other direction. Knowing your shit means you know when it's worth gutting something and when it's not and which feedback to listen. [QUOTE=Duck M.;50026773] And no, someone won't always be offended. I'm sick of people saying this. It is NOT that hard to not offend people.[/QUOTE] That is YET to be proven. Because the track record shows otherwise.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50026773]And no, someone won't always be offended. I'm sick of people saying this. It is NOT that hard to not offend people.[/QUOTE] Maybe people should stop taking offense to stupid things and we wouldn't be having this debate.

Calling this censorship is a bit much.

[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 even know what self censorship is. apparently it only exists within the video game industry because not once have i heard "hey, this movie has a [I]deleted scene![/I] quit censoring yourself, hollywood!"

It was just criticism if it was in line with her character, you guys make up some SJW feminist menace to get all worked up about. The criticism even mentioned how the pose fits other characters but not Tracer. It's one pose being removed from a character and apparently the dev agreed with the criticism even though there was a bit of internal debate over it. The devs took the post with some consideration, it wasn't some MASSIVE campaign with hashtags or whatever saying "#FREESTRYKER" or whatever you guys are getting mad over and the devs going "Oh my god we have to appease these people!"

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50026987]i don't even know what self censorship is. apparently it only exists within the video game industry because not once have i heard "hey, this movie has a [I]deleted scene![/I] quit censoring yourself, hollywood!"[/QUOTE] Depends on the reason for deleting the scene. It doesn't often happen (or if it happens you don't know) with other media because video games are often seen in the making, while movies and books are only seen on it's finished form. [QUOTE]Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own blog, book, film, or other forms of media. This is done out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities or preferences (actual or perceived) of others and without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority. Self-censorship is often practiced by film producers, film directors, publishers, news anchors, journalists, musicians, and other kinds of authors including individuals who use social media.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=GarbageCan;50026995]It was just criticism if it was in line with her character, you guys make up some SJW feminist menace to get all worked up about. The criticism even mentioned how the pose fits other characters but not Stryker. It's one pose being removed from a character and apparently the dev agreed with the criticism even though there was a bit of internal debate over it. The devs took the post with some consideration, it wasn't some MASSIVE campaign with hashtags or whatever saying "#FREESTRYKER" or whatever you guys are getting mad over and the devs going "Oh my god we have to appease these people!"[/QUOTE] Maybe if it didn't happen every day for stupid reasons people wouldn't be having knee jerk reactions or opposing the change so strongly. This kind of reaction to change is a recent thing.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50026908] That is YET to be proven. Because the track record shows otherwise.[/QUOTE] You guys are getting way more offended over this than the criticism ever did. The criticism just thought if it was in line with her character. Blizzard probably knew they'd get a bigger backlash from removing it then not, but they agreed with the criticism and vision and the person placed out. It wasn't like "REMOVE THIS POSE COMPLETELY", it was just "I think this pose you use for other characters isn't as appropriate for this one." Someone who was actually "sex negative" would've been against every pose.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50026987]i don't even know what self censorship is. apparently it only exists within the video game industry because not once have i heard "hey, this movie has a [I]deleted scene![/I] quit censoring yourself, hollywood!"[/QUOTE] There seems to be some confusion about the difference between changes that count as censorship and those that don't, so let me try to explain. If someone removes content from their work due to complaints that it is objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient, that is self censorship. If someone removes content from their work because they heard complaints that it was a poor decision and they decided they agreed, that's editing. Removing a romantic or violent scene from a movie because someone was offended is self censorship. Removing a scene because you think it's unnecessary or badly executed is editing. It's a matter of reason and intent. And yes, self censorship is also bad when filmmakers do it.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50027081]There seems to be some confusion about the difference between changes that count as censorship and those that don't, so let me try to explain. If someone removes content from their work due to complaints that it is objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient, that is self censorship. If someone removes content from their work because they heard complaints that it was a poor decision and they decided they agreed, that's editing. Removing a romantic or violent scene from a movie because someone was offended is self censorship. Removing a scene because you think it's unnecessary or badly executed is editing. It's a matter of reason and intent. And yes, self censorship is also bad when filmmakers do it.[/QUOTE] They did agree that it was a poor decision though... You seem very selective in what you can apply "self censorship" too. You make it sound like people aren't allowed to criticize things for certain reasons when there's a very large variety of reasons something can be criticized.

[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50027074]Blizzard probably knew they'd get a bigger backlash from removing it then not, but they agreed with the criticism and vision and the person placed out.[/QUOTE] I don't think they did, which, if they're telling the truth about wanting to change it in the first place, is why they made the mistake of pretending they changed it entirely due to player feedback. And think about it, if they didn't know they would cause controversy, making it look like they listen to player feedback that much would be great PR in their view. If they knew it would cause backlash they wouldn't have responded the way they did, they would have said something like "we've been considering changing that anyways." So either way, Blizzard was dishonest. Either they dishonestly made it look like player feedback was a bigger factor than it really was, or they lied later on about wanting to make that change to begin with. I think what most people have problems with is the tone of the reply. The "we're so sorry and will try to do better in the future :(" makes them REALLY look like they're caving into demands in fear of backlash.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;50027117]I don't think they did, which, if they're telling the truth about wanting to change it in the first place, is why they made the mistake of pretending they changed it entirely due to player feedback. And think about it, if they didn't know they would cause controversy, making it look like they listen to player feedback that much would be great PR in their view. If they knew it would cause backlash they wouldn't have responded the way they did, they would have said something like "we've been considering changing that anyways." So either way, Blizzard was dishonest. Either they dishonestly made it look like player feedback was a bigger factor than it really was, or they lied later on about wanting to make that change to begin with.[/QUOTE] This makes no sense. Someone brought up a point. Blizzard considered it. They debated it a bit. They decided as a developer they agreed with it. There didn't have to be some pre-existing debate or have been considered changing it before. If you install hot streak flames on your car, then someone points out "hey, that's kind of tacky" and you have a bit of realization in that yeah, it's kind of tacky, I agree, I'll remove it, do you have to have been considering it's been tacky before to justifiably remove it or something? That makes 0 sense.

[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50027101]They did agree that it was a poor decision though... You seem very selective in what you can apply "self censorship" too. You make it sound like people aren't allowed to criticize things for certain reasons when there's a very large variety of reasons something can be criticized.[/QUOTE] They said it was a poor decision because it offended the person. "We don't want to offend anyone". Also, there's this retarded notion that there was any sexuality in that. [QUOTE=GarbageCan;50027134]This makes no sense. Someone brought up a point. Blizzard considered it. They debated it a bit. They decided as a developer they agreed with it. There didn't have to be some pre-existing debate or have been considered changing it before. If you install hot streak flames on your car, then someone points out "hey, that's kind of tacky" and you have a bit of realization in that yeah, it's kind of tacky, I agree, I'll remove it, do you have to have been considering it's been tacky before to justifiably remove it or something? That makes 0 sense.[/QUOTE] That's not what happened, tho. That's like someone saying "The hot streak flames on your car offends me".

[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50027101]They did agree that it was a poor decision though... You seem very selective in what you can apply "self censorship" too.[/QUOTE] In what way is my definition overly selective? Given their explained rationale, this isn't self censorship. It's just a creative choice. One I think is kinda dumb, but they've made far more dumb decisions in the past, so I'm not really that bothered.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50027081]There seems to be some confusion about the difference between changes that count as censorship and those that don't, so let me try to explain. If someone removes content from their work due to complaints that it is objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient, that is self censorship. If someone removes content from their work because they heard complaints that it was a poor decision and they decided they agreed, that's editing. Removing a romantic or violent scene from a movie because someone was offended is self censorship. Removing a scene because you think it's unnecessary or badly executed is editing. It's a matter of reason and intent. And yes, self censorship is also bad when filmmakers do it.[/QUOTE] I dont really understand. Your definition of 'editing' sounds exactly like what Blizzard did. They figured that it was a poor decision and unnecessary and agreed that it shouldnt be in the game and removed it. Just about everything that you said in your definition for what constitutes as 'self-censorship' falls under it being a 'poor decision'. Objectionability is subjective. Edit: Yeah, just read your post right above mine. Ignore the first part of mine.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50026530]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.[/QUOTE] When they EXPLICITLY SAY that they had been considering changing the animation, and then someone bringing it up on the forums is the catalyst that convinces them, they're following their own vision while responding to community feedback. Did you read the thread at all or just knee-jerk at the headline? One person on a forum saying 'this doesn't fit the character' isn't calling down a fucking horde of SJW locusts on Blizzard. Your allegation that Blizzard caved in to the demands of one person, sacrificing their artistic vision to avoid nonexistent controversy (ignoring that they have done FAR more potentially offensive/sexist/objectifying/whatever things in this and other games) is utterly nonsense. [QUOTE=Ragekipz;50026530]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.[/QUOTE] Yes, those people were performing their technical jobs of making animations. Then someone with a title like [I]team lead[/I] or [I]creative director[/I] decided that while the animation is technically legitimate, it doesn't fit the characterization and art style they were going for. It is absolutely normal in the industry for work done at a low level to be thrown out because of a higher-level creative decision, it's not 'self-censorship' or 'not following their vision' when a mapper's carefully constructed tunnel gets scrapped because the creative director wants an arena instead. By your logic it's 'not following their vision' any time a team lead tells a modeler to change a character's outfit because the writers have changed the character's backstory. You are like the epitome of 'looking for something to be offended about'.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50027326]I dont really understand. Your definition of 'editing' sounds exactly like what Blizzard did. They figured that it was a poor decision and unnecessary and agreed that it shouldnt be in the game and removed it. Just about everything that you said in your definition for what constitutes as 'self-censorship' falls under it being a 'poor decision'. Objectionability is subjective. Edit: Yeah, just read your post right above mine. Ignore the first part of mine.[/QUOTE] It is entirely subjective. You can never truly know with absolute certainty what the intent behind any action is. All you can do is object when you perceive things you don't like, and be willing to listen when the situation is further clarified. It is annoying that Blizzard is so eager to listen to complaints over such an insignificant issue, yet they are so completely unresponsive to criticism of more serious ones. If they were this receptive to criticism that was actually reasonable and important, Hearthstone would have had more deck slots ages ago. But that's neither here nor there.

Honestly, my biggest gripe about this is the speed of Blizzard's response and willingness to change something so quickly. Among many of Blizzard's games, fans/customers have often complained in great numbers about certain things in games, to which Blizzard do their usual thing of completely ignoring the people complaining and going ahead with it anyway. The biggest one that springs to mind is the Real World Auction House from Diablo 3, which yes, they did do away with, but it was only after a [I]long[/I] period of complaints by the playerbase. But then [I]one[/I] person, [B][I]one[/I][/B] (or two or three) person/people complains about a goddamn butt, and Blizzard uncharacteristically spring into immediate action. People have complained about way, way less and been met with no response from Blizzard.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50027418]It is entirely subjective. You can never truly know with absolute certainty what the intent behind any action is. All you can do is object when you perceive things you don't like, and be willing to listen when the situation is further clarified. It is annoying that Blizzard is so eager to listen to complaints over such an insignificant issue, yet they are so completely unresponsive to criticism of more serious ones. If they were this receptive to criticism that was actually reasonable and important, Hearthstone would have had more deck slots ages ago. But that's neither here nor there.[/QUOTE] I figure why that might be is because the more serious issues are harder and take longer to fix. I also figure that the Overwatch team and the Hearthstone team are separate and cant really be compared (but seriously we really need more deck slots...).

[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. [/QUOTE] You can't just reverse the point because it makes it convenient, they're not trying to impose their will on the art team who original created the pose. This isn't, "We spoke internally and changed it up to something else". This is, "We're removing citing player feedback." Of which they used the official game forums which are just, you never touch those or take those seriously.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50027020]Depends on the reason for deleting the scene. It doesn't often happen (or if it happens you don't know) with other media because video games are often seen in the making, while movies and books are only seen on it's finished form.[/QUOTE] ok here's a scenario exec tells Ryan Reynolds some of his Deadpool jokes went too far 1. Ryan Reynolds disagrees, but changes them, even though this isn't his vision of the character, because the exec wants to sell more tickets. Is this censorship? 2. Ryan Reynolds disagrees, but changes them because [I]he[/I] wants to sell more tickets, even if this isn't his vision of the character. Is this censorship? 3. Ryan Reynolds agrees, realizes this fits the character better and that he simply hadn't realized it, and changes it. (this is the obviously-not-censorship scenario) I feel like the videogame community (and this is not a jab at gamers because many of us, myself included, are both game and movie enthusiasts) is much more prone to assuming everything has to do with 1. If it's 3, and there's quite a bit here pointing towards that being the case, it's always because they were pressured into agreeing. Because apparently, it's all about "the artist's vision" - but as soon as that vision includes proper representation, it's suddenly pandering

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50027458]ok here's a scenario exec tells Ryan Reynolds some of his Deadpool jokes went too far 1. Ryan Reynolds disagrees, but changes them, even though this isn't his vision of the character, because the exec wants to sell more tickets. Is this censorship? 2. Ryan Reynolds disagrees, but changes them because [I]he[/I] wants to sell more tickets, even if this isn't his vision of the character. Is this censorship? 3. Ryan Reynolds agrees, realizes this fits the character better and that he simply hadn't realized it, and changes it. (this is the obviously-not-censorship scenario) I feel like the videogame community (and this is not a jab at gamers because many of us, myself included, are both game and movie enthusiasts) is much more prone to assuming everything has to do with 1. If it's 3, and there's quite a bit here pointing towards that being the case, it's always because they were pressured into agreeing. Because apparently, it's all about "the artist's vision" - but as soon as that vision includes proper representation, it's suddenly pandering[/QUOTE] Really I think this is what it comes down to. It's incredibly ironic that people are all for the developers to pursue their own artistic direction, but when they do so against the interests of those same people they assume that the developers are being censored and want to force the company to bring the objectionable content back.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50027458]ok here's a scenario exec tells Ryan Reynolds some of his Deadpool jokes went too far 1. Ryan Reynolds disagrees, but changes them, even though this isn't his vision of the character, because the exec wants to sell more tickets. Is this censorship? 2. Ryan Reynolds disagrees, but changes them because [I]he[/I] wants to sell more tickets, even if this isn't his vision of the character. Is this censorship? 3. Ryan Reynolds agrees, realizes this fits the character better and that he simply hadn't realized it, and changes it. (this is the obviously-not-censorship scenario) I feel like the videogame community (and this is not a jab at gamers because many of us, myself included, are both game and movie enthusiasts) is much more prone to assuming everything has to do with 1. If it's 3, and there's quite a bit here pointing towards that being the case, it's always because they were pressured into agreeing. Because apparently, it's all about "the artist's vision" - but as soon as that vision includes proper representation, it's suddenly pandering[/QUOTE] You mean the kind of pandering that involves tokenism, poorly done characters representing one under represented group in the most stereotypical way but because they're 'represented' its a-okay? How is it hard to believe people would get mad about something like this when we just had Fire Emblem Fates basically get raped at the writer's cutting board? [I]Are you all that surprised at all?[/I]