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

[QUOTE=Swilly;50027474]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][/QUOTE] No? idk where you're going with this lol

[QUOTE=Swilly;50027474]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][/QUOTE] This is not even remotely comparable to the FE:Fates scenario. It's not even close. And what exactly was so objectionable with the FE's treatment? They figured that the elements that they removed were simply not suitable and compatible for the western audience and culture. Localization isn't anything new and nothing that NoA did could be considered being "raped at the writers cutting board".

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50027490]No? idk where you're going with this lol[/QUOTE] You never do because you never stop actually read. I'm going with this is that in the best past 3 years we've seen stilted lesbians whose only defininig trait is fucking being a lesbian or a gay. Characters who are so boring they serve nothing more than romance material in games like *Bioware character number something something* Meanwhile we have people whose opinions of gamers and gaming are so low [B]yet they work for the industry and use those opinions to impact games.[/B] Motherfucker of course gamers are worried about censorship and too much influence from a minority, we're seeing the damage now.

"Doesn't fit the character" my ass. It's a harmless optional pose that harmed absolutely no one. Plus the complainant explicitly mentions how it "reduces Tracer to a glorified sex symbol." This was not about an animation not fitting a character. It was about some wuss who got offended by seeing a clothed female ass, which was still entirely optional and easily ignorable. Blizzard could have left it in and it just would have been another optional animation among many. Is it Blizzard's right to make this call? Yes it is. Is it a stupid decision? Absolutely. Does this decision affect how I feel about Blizzard as a company? You bet your ass it does. They listened to a single person as opposed to the entire community. Not for one second do I buy the idea that they "disagreed with the pose to begin with." One: they wouldn't need to vehemently apologize for "offending" someone. Two: the pose would not have been removed due to "player feedback" as it says explicitly in the patch notes. Three: if you REALLY disagreed with the pose, why put it in to begin with?

[QUOTE=Swilly;50027510]You never do because you never stop actually read. I'm going with this is that in the best past 3 years we've seen stilted lesbians whose only defininig trait is fucking being a lesbian or a gay. Characters who are so boring they serve nothing more than romance material in games like *Bioware character number something something* Meanwhile we have people whose opinions of gamers and gaming are so low [B]yet they work for the industry and use those opinions to impact games.[/B] Motherfucker of course gamers are worried about censorship and too much influence from a minority, we're seeing the damage now.[/QUOTE] My post isn't about being shocked at this reaction and that's all you reduced it to. But please, go ahead and lecture me about not reading

[QUOTE=Swilly;50027510]You never do because you never stop actually read. I'm going with this is that in the best past 3 years we've seen stilted lesbians whose only defininig trait is fucking being a lesbian or a gay. Characters who are so boring they serve nothing more than romance material in games like *Bioware character number something something* Meanwhile we have people whose opinions of gamers and gaming are so low [B]yet they work for the industry and use those opinions to impact games.[/B] Motherfucker of course gamers are worried about censorship and too much influence from a minority, we're seeing the damage now.[/QUOTE] Characters being bad and boring have absolutely nothing to do with them being LGBT. They're bad and boring because they're one-dimensional and poorly written. Also, guess what? Poorly written characters are not anything new in gaming. So try again. Find me another avenue through which the SJW menace is systematically destroying video games as we know it.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50027533]Characters being bad and boring have absolutely nothing to do with them being LGBT. They're bad and boring because they're one-dimensional and poorly written. Also, guess what? Poorly written characters are not anything new in gaming. So try again. Find me another avenue through which the SJW menace is systematically destroying video games as we know it.[/QUOTE] The LGBT characters in Bioware games are bad because they are token characters.

Game characters have always been bad for the most part, just now they're bad and gay or darker. At least they're trying.

in my head there are three possibilities here 1. the post was legit and genuine and someone really did get upset that their daughter saw a booty. someone saw the post of that single person amongst the sea of others disagreeing with them, talked to the rest of the team, and in an extremely fast amount of time came to the conclusion that the pose must be removed and removed it. 2. the post was not genuine and was just a troll putting out the bait. someone still took them seriously, still quickly came to a conclusion with the rest of the overwatch team and removed the pose. 3. full on ancient aliens conspiracy shit. the post was not genuine, and was actually a plant by someone working at blizzard. team member comes in to reply to that one OP, and ignore most of the thread that disagreed with them, unrealistically, and immediately removed the pose upon the "request", probably hoping for more people to agree with OP. in the same way they used the zarya character redesign, they're either trying to appease a specific group of people in order to hush the mob up, drumming up controversy and drama in order to make people talk about overwatch some more (because people are not excited enough) or they're trying to push some sort of weird "look at these angry gamers again" narrative which makes less sense. either way, slippery slope, etc. blizzard should maybe be spending more time actually making good games instead of trolling around their forums for offend-holes. if only they were so fast with every decision.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50027562]Game characters have always been bad for the most part, just now they're bad and gay or darker. At least they're trying.[/QUOTE] Making a character gay or "darker" is not trying, this is just ticking a box in order to appease people who don't care about the content itself, if anything this does more damage because you end up having a character who isn't a person they simply are a Black or a Gay and that is all they have to offer. In order for real acceptance and progression in gaming people need to stop bitching about stupid shit and allow for developers to develop any characters they want without this threat of offence at every little choice.

I find it sexist that women are being shot at by guys in the game. Does this mean that since now Blizzard is listening to only 1 person out of many that they will listen to me?

[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] 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. No. If you set out to make something, and you decide to not do something you would have done if not for the fear that it would offend, that's self censorship. It's like pandering, or selling out. It is at best not a good thing to do, and the fewer people that do it the better. Now, this is more of a critical concern, but I have a serious issue with the concept of "proper representation". It's incredibly difficult to make interesting characters when they're made to be representatives of their race or gender. It's an unfair expectation to place on a character that they be role models for their social group. Of course there's nothing wrong with wanting to make characters that happen to fit someone's criteria of "proper representation", but I think any design philosophy that believes "proper representation" ought to be a primary concern is fundamentally flawed. It's my opinion that making art should ideally be a matter of making what you want to make, not making what you think you're supposed to make. I think any design choice that's made under the belief that it's "what you're supposed to do" is a bad choice, even if it's only because of the precedent it sets going forward.

[QUOTE=IAmIchigo;50027609]Making a character gay or "darker" is not trying, this is just ticking a box in order to appease people who don't care about the content itself, if anything this does more damage because you end up having a character who isn't a person they simply are a Black or a Gay and that is all they have to offer. In order for real acceptance and progression in gaming people need to stop bitching about stupid shit and allow for developers to develop any characters they want without this threat of offence at every little choice.[/QUOTE] How does it make that any worse? Having a flat character that's white is not better or worse than having a flat black character. It's not like white characters are defined by their whiteness, so if flat black ones aren't then there's no harm at all.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50027628]How does it make that any worse? Having a flat character that's white is not better or worse than having a flat black character. It's not like white characters are defined by their whiteness, so if flat black ones aren't then there's no harm at all.[/QUOTE] But that is my point exactly, the characters are flat entirely because that is how they are defined by WHAT they are and not WHO they are.

[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] comics do that shit all the time, there's like ten green lanterns and three spider-mans. thor being a woman doesn't need to fit the character because it's a different character

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50027628]How does it make that any worse? Having a flat character that's white is not better or worse than having a flat black character. It's not like white characters are defined by their whiteness, so if flat black ones aren't then there's no harm at all.[/QUOTE] I'd argue it's more offensive to LGBT folks by having a character whose entire schtick is that they're gay or bi or whatever. It's the ultimate "me too" sort of response and fails to address that LGBT folks are more often than not just regular people who are, well, lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Being gay does not make you gay [I]first,[/I] it makes you a person who's [I]gay.[/I] Or, more succinctly, you are not defined by your traits. Most LGBT video game characters are.

[video=youtube;QH17zqjBQ_w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH17zqjBQ_w[/video]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50027621]1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. No. If you set out to make something, and you decide to not do something you would have done if not for the fear that it would offend, that's self censorship. It's like pandering, or selling out. It is at best not a good thing to do, and the fewer people that do it the better. Now, this is more of a critical concern, but I have a serious issue with the concept of "proper representation". It's incredibly difficult to make interesting characters when they're made to be representatives of their race or gender. It's an unfair expectation to place on a character that they be role models for their social group. Of course there's nothing wrong with wanting to make characters that happen to fit someone's criteria of "proper representation", but I think any design philosophy that believes "proper representation" ought to be a primary concern is fundamentally flawed. It's my opinion that making art should ideally be a matter of making what you want to make, not making what you think you're supposed to make. I think any design choice that's made under the belief that it's "what you're supposed to do" is a bad choice, even if it's only because of the precedent it sets going forward.[/QUOTE] See, ideally, I'd agree with you on 2. But realistically speaking, you have to work with the market to [I]some[/I] degree. Part of this is not only due to the industry's meddling, but to the nature of the genre (or the medium) itself. Meaning, you want to make people laugh. The original version of the joke makes some people laugh [I]more[/I], but the toned down bit makes [I]more[/I] people laugh. And if as an artist, this is already conflicting, then if you bring the market aspect into play, you suddenly have to wonder about whether or not it's worth it to water down a project if it means giving it more power, and it's a project you've been wanting to create for your whole life. Ideally, you shouldn't have to bring the market aspect into play. But not everyone can fight for those ideals all the time, and it's very likely Reynolds pushed for a lot of jokes the execs thought were a bit "too far" as well, but only backed down on that one specific segment. Again: he shouldn't have to back down at all, but I'm not trying to show you how clean cut this whole thing is, but rather how much of a morally gray area we're dealing with and now i took the deadpool metaphor too far. oh well

meanwhile at gamespot [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9uLAetr.jpg[/IMG] [url]https://archive.is/QWXqI[/url] facepunch's level of discussion continues to be multiple levels higher than whatever this is, unless someone wants to defend it.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50027838]See, ideally, I'd agree with you on 2. But realistically speaking, you have to work with the market to [I]some[/I] degree. Part of this is not only due to the industry's meddling, but to the nature of the genre (or the medium) itself. Meaning, you want to make people laugh. The original version of the joke makes some people laugh [I]more[/I], but the toned down bit makes [I]more[/I] people laugh. And if as an artist, this is already conflicting, then if you bring the market aspect into play, you suddenly have to wonder about whether or not it's worth it to water down a project if it means giving it more power, and it's a project you've been wanting to create for your whole life. Ideally, you shouldn't have to bring the market aspect into play. But not everyone can fight for those ideals all the time, and it's very likely Reynolds pushed for a lot of jokes the execs thought were a bit "too far" as well, but only backed down on that one specific segment. Again: he shouldn't have to back down at all, but I'm not trying to show you how clean cut this whole thing is, but rather how much of a morally gray area we're dealing with and now i took the deadpool metaphor too far. oh well[/QUOTE] Working with the market is fine. Bending over to a minority isn't.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50027914]Working with the market is fine. Bending over to a minority isn't.[/QUOTE] Bending over to a majority is bad too.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50027838]See, ideally, I'd agree with you on 2. But realistically speaking, you have to work with the market to [I]some[/I] degree. Part of this is not only due to the industry's meddling, but to the nature of the genre (or the medium) itself. Meaning, you want to make people laugh. The original version of the joke makes some people laugh [I]more[/I], but the toned down bit makes [I]more[/I] people laugh. And if as an artist, this is already conflicting, then if you bring the market aspect into play, you suddenly have to wonder about whether or not it's worth it to water down a project if it means giving it more power, and it's a project you've been wanting to create for your whole life. Ideally, you shouldn't have to bring the market aspect into play. But not everyone can fight for those ideals all the time, and it's very likely Reynolds pushed for a lot of jokes the execs thought were a bit "too far" as well, but only backed down on that one specific segment. Again: he shouldn't have to back down at all, but I'm not trying to show you how clean cut this whole thing is, but rather how much of a morally gray area we're dealing with and now i took the deadpool metaphor too far. oh well[/QUOTE] I agree that in the real world, ideal solutions are often impossible or impractical, and concessions will have to be made. However, I think there is a stark difference between compromising out of necessity, and compromising out of guilt. You should strive for the ideal of completely free expression and compromise where you have to, you shouldn't compromise right out of the gate because you don't want to offend people and then compromise more out of necessity on top of that. The whole point of making art is self expression. If you're putting moral rules and political correctness ahead of self expression, what's the point? To to use my own tortured metaphor, if you're going to shoot for something, aim high. If you're going to aim at the ground, why even bother shooting in the first place? Anyone can hit the ground. The ground is boring.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50027920]Bending over to a majority is bad too.[/QUOTE] Depends on how big the majority is. If you're trying to please the vast majority of your target audience, then there's no problem.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50027940]Depends on how big the majority is. If you're trying to please the vast majority of your target audience, then there's no problem.[/QUOTE] Pleasing is not the same as bending over. There's nothing wrong with pleasing a minority either.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50027953]Pleasing is not the same as bending over. There's nothing wrong with pleasing a minority either.[/QUOTE] I see your point.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;50027839]meanwhile at gamespot [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9uLAetr.jpg[/IMG] [url]https://archive.is/QWXqI[/url] facepunch's level of discussion continues to be multiple levels higher than whatever this is, unless someone wants to defend it.[/QUOTE] This is one of the reasons why Gaming Journalism has become such a joke.

If the hill you want to die on is a butt in a video game then be my guest lol It's pretty hilarious when people actually cancel their pre-orders in the game over a single taunt, or buy a specific "tainted" video game especially when import market providers advertise it as "Fight SJWs; Buy dead or alive Extreme!!", pandering like crazy

[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;50026964]Calling this censorship is a bit much.[/QUOTE] But don't you get it??? Someone dared talk about a butt in my game and the developer agreed with them! It has to be censorships! They forced Blizzard into doing it!! Will you nuts stop throwing "censorship" around yet? I thought we'd seen the last of it with Ranger banned, but I forgot about Ragekipz. Use of the word in this context severely undermines the actual impact of censorship. A developer opting to change something in a game based on fan feedback is a total non-issue. The fact it took only a single/ handful of fans to do this is a fucking great indicator that the powers that be in Blizzard weren't 100% on using that animation anyway. If there was some kind of Internet tirade against Blizzard over a single ass-animation that led to people actively petitioning their government or ratings bodies to get the change made, sure, if the change happens it would totally be censorship. But this was never that, this was always a case of "huh a few fans noticed that shitty animation, might as well clean that up before release!". I swear to god some of you have totally lost all sense of relativity if you're willing to throw "censorship" around at a change as benign as this. It brings [I]no[/I] negatives to the tables, quit your bitching for once. [editline]29th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragekipz;50027914]Working with the market is fine. Bending over to a minority isn't.[/QUOTE] They didn't bend over for anyone lmao. Their decision was made based on discussions within the team before and after the user even noticed the animation. Do you really, really think one person would have convinced them to change this otherwise? (answer yes and I'll know you're too far gone for actual discussion, just a heads up)

[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50028186]If the hill you want to die on is a butt in a video game then be my guest lol, this is not quite as hilarious as the outrage over Dead or Alive Extreme 3 but it's certainly getting there. It's pretty hilarious when people actually cancel their pre-orders in the game over a single taunt, or buy a specific "tainted" video game especially when import market providers advertise it as "Fight SJWs; Buy dead or alive Extreme!!", pandering like crazy[/QUOTE] I find it equally hilarious that people like to cry about video games damaging society and creating rapist monsters.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50028198]But don't you get it??? Someone dared talk about a butt in my game and the developer agreed with them! It has to be censorships! They forced Blizzard into doing it!! Will you nuts stop throwing "censorship" around yet? I thought we'd seen the last of it with Ranger banned, but I forgot about Ragekipz. Use of the word in this context severely undermines the actual impact of censorship. A developer opting to change something in a game based on fan feedback is a total non-issue. The fact it took only a single/ handful of fans to do this is a fucking great indicator that the powers that be in Blizzard weren't 100% on using that animation anyway. If there was some kind of Internet tirade against Blizzard over a single ass-animation that led to people actively petitioning their government or ratings bodies to get the change made, sure, if the change happens it would totally be censorship. But this was never that, this was always a case of "huh a few fans noticed that shitty animation, might as well clean that up before release!". I swear to god some of you have totally lost all sense of relativity if you're willing to throw "censorship" around at a change as benign as this. It brings [I]no[/I] negatives to the tables, quit your bitching for once. [editline]29th March 2016[/editline] They didn't bend over for anyone lmao. Their decision was made based on discussions within the team before and after the user even noticed the animation. Do you really, really think one person would have convinced them to change this otherwise? (answer yes and I'll know you're too far gone for actual discussion, just a heads up)[/QUOTE] What they said before the backlash constituted textbook censorship. After they re-clarified it wasn't censorship anymore, depending on whether you think they just fucked up their initial explanation or not. Your big problem seems to be that you don't like the word censorship to be used when you don't think something is significant enough, why? " a sense of relativity" doesn't change the definition of a word. If you think complaining about the subject of this thread is petty, imagine how petty someone must be to complain about the correct use of a word because it doesnt agree with their politics.