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

[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.[/QUOTE] I agree. We should also stop throwing around "racist", "sexist", "misogynistic", "homophobic", and all other sorts of words people have been throwing around recently and watering down their actual impact.

[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.[/QUOTE] There are good arguments that have been presented that this instance isn't censorship, but this isn't an argument that it isn't censorship. It's an argument that what was censored isn't relevant. Which is irrelevant to the point of whether or not censorship is desirable. I'm interested to know from what authority you derive the power to dictate to people in what context certain words shouldn't be used. There are a lot of words I'd like to be able to dictate how other people use too, so if you could just give me the details that'd be great.

[QUOTE=IAmIchigo;50028224]I find it equally hilarious that people like to crying about video games damaging society and creating rapist monsters.[/QUOTE] It goes a bit deeper than that; it's not so much as "this specific video game" created a monster, it's a broad array of portrayal of women as an object to be desired and belittled as objects of pure satisfaction, which doesn't turn a person into a rapist by itself but it helps reinforce rapists beliefs and views on women. I don't think every instance of sexy women that people complain about is true to this i.e. Bayonette or Tracer etc, some people find things where it doesn't exist. I'm just saying like it helps reinforce on a cultural level the ideas of places like /r/TheRedPill for example. Cultural influence isn't a one way street; culture influences people as much as it's influenced by them, and some ideas that may seem innocent can be bad influences. Not saying this is right in every single case of sexy women being in video games or film or media or anything, most feminists you'd find wouldn't be that sex-negative (it was pretty sex negative in second wave feminism but third wave feminism has changed) and some feminists do find inappropriate targets, I'm just trying to explain the whole thought process behind why a specific portrayal of women in media would be a problem. Again, not all sexual content is like this, sometimes the targets are inappropriate, I'm just trying to explain the general reasoning behind it.

[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50028330]I'm just saying like it helps reinforce on a cultural level the ideas of places like /r/TheRedPill for example. Cultural influence isn't a one way street; culture influences people as much as it's influenced by them, and some ideas that may seem innocent can be bad influences. [/QUOTE] I think people generally understand the idea. They just think it's an entirely baseless supposition. Every moral reactionary movement is founded on the idea that certain "degenerate" media is having a subtle and immeasurable impact on "society". None of them ever have proof to support these claims.

[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50028330]It goes a bit deeper than that; it's not so much as "this specific video game" created a monster, it's a broad array of portrayal of women as an object to be desired and belittled as objects of pure satisfaction, which doesn't turn a person into a rapist by itself but it helps reinforce rapists beliefs and views on women. I don't think every instance of sexy women that people complain about is true to this i.e. Bayonette or Tracer etc, some people find things where it doesn't exist. I'm just saying like it helps reinforce on a cultural level the ideas of places like /r/TheRedPill for example. Cultural influence isn't a one way street; culture influences people as much as it's influenced by them, and some ideas that may seem innocent can be bad influences. Not saying this is right in every single case of sexy women being in video games or film or media or anything, most feminists you'd find wouldn't be that sex-negative (it was pretty sex negative in second wave feminism but third wave feminism has changed) and some feminists do find inappropriate targets, I'm just trying to explain the whole thought process behind why a specific portrayal of women in media would be a problem. Again, not all sexual content is like this, sometimes the targets are inappropriate, I'm just trying to explain the general reasoning behind it.[/QUOTE] But here is where the issue lies, when gamers get annoyed at SJW complaints about video games people come out of the fucking woodwork to call them sad and entirely disregard the argument simply because they do not care about what is happening. The R.Mika butt slap is a good example, when people asked why the slap was removed they faced a torrent of games media calling them creepy weirdos, and then when people attempted to have a civil discussion it just devolved further into how gamers are creepy man children who just want to rape women. The reason why so many gamers get angry at these changes is because they happen when somebody gets offended over NOTHING, tracers pose is a none issue, it isnt her default pose and it isnt unique to her yet somebody had to get offended because his 8 year old daughter might see it while playing (even though this is a T rating game). We saw attempts to censor games with Jack Thompson, we fought back against them, why aren't we allowed to fight back against this new wave of censorship attempts. I also want to add that the arguments given are almost 100% the same as those that are given by Jack Thompson

[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.)[/QUOTE] You're misrepresenting the arguments of those who are opposed to the removal of the pose. It's not the fact that they changed, it's the fact that they changed to appease a minority over the majority of people saying that's it doesn't offend them and that it fits her character because it doesn't have any sexual connotation. That was the impression they gave to the community. If they later appended their post with more info, it was too late. The opinion about the issue was already formed and it just made them look like they're in damage control mode. "It was our idea all along!".

[QUOTE=Mattk50;50028270]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.[/QUOTE] It's got very little to do with my "politics", and more to do with the fact that the very first thing a certain subset of the users here do when [B]any[/B] game changes in a way they don't like is screech "censorship!!!!" at the top of their lungs. It gets tiring to hear it again and again. Even before the developer or PR reps have had a chance to put a piece out explaining the change. And please, don't start with this "who's the pettiest" shit, seeing people launch into huge fucking rants about how "this is the end" and "those fucken ess jay dubyas" every time a game is changed is getting really, really tiring. It'd be nice if it would stop for just a few threads at least. I would say constantly hammering on about how "PC police" are ruining everything is probably more petty as half the time they are chosen as a target before any actual information is released, leading to pointless bickering and even more resentment on both sides of the argument. [editline]29th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50028282]I agree. We should also stop throwing around "racist", "sexist", "misogynistic", "homophobic", and all other sorts of words people have been throwing around recently and watering down their actual impact.[/QUOTE] And people do throw them around. So? This isn't some "gotcha" if you think that's what you've done. I know people overuse those words too. This isn't some mindblowing revelation to me and it doesn't detract from my statement.

[QUOTE=IAmIchigo;50028423]The reason why so many gamers get angry at these changes is because they happen when somebody gets offended over NOTHING, tracers pose is a none issue, it isnt her default pose and it isnt unique to her yet somebody had to get offended because his 8 year old daughter might see it while playing (even though this is a T rating game). [/QUOTE] I think people are just tired of this bullshit and that makes them blow things way out of proportion.

[QUOTE=KingOfScience;50027657]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] Obviously a hero is a hero. But there isn't 10 different Hal Jordan's or 3 different Peter Parkers. Thor is the name of the hero not the icon itself.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50028458]It's got very little to do with my "politics", and more to do with the fact that the very first thing a certain subset of the users here do when [B]any[/B] game changes in a way they don't like is screech "censorship!!!!" at the top of their lungs. It gets tiring to hear it again and again. Even before the developer or PR reps have had a chance to put a piece out explaining the change. And please, don't start with this "who's the pettiest" shit, seeing people launch into huge fucking rants about how "this is the end" and "those fucken ess jay dubyas" every time a game is changed is getting really, really tiring. It'd be nice if it would stop for just a few threads at least. I would say constantly hammering on about how "PC police" are ruining everything is probably more petty as half the time they are chosen as a target before any actual information is released, leading to pointless bickering and even more resentment on both sides of the argument. [editline]29th March 2016[/editline] And people do throw them around. So? This isn't some "gotcha" if you think that's what you've done. I know people overuse those words too. This isn't some mindblowing revelation to me and it doesn't detract from my statement.[/QUOTE] I don't think that's true. I'm pretty sure that games change all the time, and people mostly don't call it censorship. They call it censorship in specific instances when it looks like content was changed for moral reasons or to appease a specific group that takes offense with the content in question. I think you're mischaracterizing people's opinions here. Yes, there will always be an extremely tiny minority that calls every single action they dislike a conspiracy/suppression/oppression/censorship, but they don't reflect on everyone else who uses those words.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50028316]but this isn't an argument that it isn't censorship. [/QUOTE] I don't know, it sure sounded like one to me: Calling this an act of censorship, and then using the label 'self-censorship' to try to extend censorship to include a fairly mundane example of creative revision in response to feedback, is cashing in on emotionally-charged terms that have little relevance. This is just like those people who overapply sexism, racism, and other '-isms'. Sure, by some tumblr feminist's watered-down definition of 'sexist' in which they mean 'anything that produces disparate gender outcomes', Army training is sexist because men and women don't graduate at the same rate. By the common definition of 'sexually discriminating', no, it's not- and they're being dishonest by invoking that term, with all the emotional connotations it implies, and then redefining it when challenged to a more acceptable meaning. Calling this censorship is a [url=http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/]motte and bailey argument[/url]. It's not censorship by any colloquial meaning of the word, where we generally understand censorship to mean suppression of an idea by a government, institution, or weight of the public, not a mere change in response to a single piece of feedback. This is an act of creative revision in response to a single complaint, which is a very common part of the development process, but the term 'censorship' is being invoked to emotionally and viscerally connote that what's happening is wrong.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50028491]I think people are just tired of this bullshit and that makes them blow things way out of proportion.[/QUOTE] That too, personally i'm tired of being told that seeing breasts in video games somehow demeans women and makes me act negatively to women.

I tend to agree with that. Most people were already shitty without the games boob.

[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50028330]It goes a bit deeper than that; it's not so much as "this specific video game" created a monster, it's a broad array of portrayal of women as an object to be desired and belittled as objects of pure satisfaction, which doesn't turn a person into a rapist by itself but it helps reinforce rapists beliefs and views on women. I don't think every instance of sexy women that people complain about is true to this i.e. Bayonette or Tracer etc, some people find things where it doesn't exist. I'm just saying like it helps reinforce on a cultural level the ideas of places like /r/TheRedPill for example. Cultural influence isn't a one way street; culture influences people as much as it's influenced by them, and some ideas that may seem innocent can be bad influences. Not saying this is right in every single case of sexy women being in video games or film or media or anything, most feminists you'd find wouldn't be that sex-negative (it was pretty sex negative in second wave feminism but third wave feminism has changed) and some feminists do find inappropriate targets, I'm just trying to explain the whole thought process behind why a specific portrayal of women in media would be a problem. Again, not all sexual content is like this, sometimes the targets are inappropriate, I'm just trying to explain the general reasoning behind it.[/QUOTE] This is the idea behind "objectification" and aside from there being no evidence for it being true, i think there's some good arguments out there for it being false. Basically, is that its normal for you to see a random butt as a butt, rather than associating personality with the butt. After all, you've never spoken to the owner of this butt and you have no reason to associate the butt with anything other than a butt. This doesnt mean if you met the owner of this butt you would see her as only a butt, though if you were a bit of a butt to begin with you may be a butt about it. In the end, how you view other people and their butts is entirely your own responsibility, and if we start blaming artists for how butts perceive their butts, then we risk destroying depictions of butts entirely simply because we're guessing that they have a wide reaching impact on society that probably doesn't exist. And forcing women and depictions of women to "cover up" to "preserve the minds of men who look at you and prevent them from objectifying" is not something any modern society should be considering. Kudos for going ahead and explaining your positioning and reasoning regardless. havent had nearly as much of that in this thread as there should be. Sorry for all the butts. [QUOTE=catbarf;50028508]Calling this censorship is a [url=http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/]motte and bailey argument[/url]. It's not censorship by any colloquial meaning of the word, where we generally understand censorship to mean suppression of an idea by a government, institution, or weight of the public, not a mere change in response to a single piece of feedback. This is an act of creative revision in response to a single complaint, which is a very common part of the development process, but the term 'censorship' is being invoked to emotionally and viscerally connote that what's happening is wrong.[/QUOTE] This situation fit(before the revised response) the definition of "weight of the public", it was just one person on blizzard's forums, but we all know the political movement that backs up that one complaint exists, and it would be silly to think blizzard doesn't know they exist. But, very few of those people actually play video games, or overwatch, as evidenced by the thread being just one guy and tons of disagreement.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50028508]I don't know, it sure sounded like one to me: Calling this an act of censorship, and then using the label 'self-censorship' to try to extend censorship to include a fairly mundane example of creative revision in response to feedback, is cashing in on emotionally-charged terms that have little relevance. This is just like those people who overapply sexism, racism, and other '-isms'. Sure, by some tumblr feminist's watered-down definition of 'sexist' in which they mean 'anything that produces disparate gender outcomes', Army training is sexist because men and women don't graduate at the same rate. By the common definition of 'sexually discriminating', no, it's not- and they're being dishonest by invoking that term, with all the emotional connotations it implies, and then redefining it when challenged to a more acceptable meaning. Calling this censorship is a [url=http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/]motte and bailey argument[/url]. It's not censorship by any colloquial meaning of the word, where we generally understand censorship to mean suppression of an idea by a government, institution, or weight of the public, not a mere change in response to a single piece of feedback. This is an act of creative revision in response to a single complaint, which is a very common part of the development process, but the term 'censorship' is being invoked to emotionally and viscerally connote that what's happening is wrong.[/QUOTE] Except the argument wasn't that this situation doesn't fall under the definition of censorship, the argument was that the situation is mundane and therefor "not worthy" of the word. I haven't been arguing that censorship means that though. I think I've been very clear with what I understand the word to mean, and as far as I'm aware many other people share my understanding of the term. The fact that the phrase "self censorship" even exists is a testament to the fact that people share this understanding of the word. You insisting that the word can't be used in that fashion doesn't mean the word can't have that meaning. It would be a motte and bailey if I insisted that you agree that censorship means changing, altering, or removing content on the basis of it being objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient, but then proceeded to use it as though it meant "taking boobs out of videogames". But I don't think I have.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50028552]Except the argument wasn't that this situation doesn't fall under the definition of censorship, the argument was that the situation is mundane and therefor "not worthy" of the word.[/QUOTE] That wasn't really the only part of my whole reasoning however. The entire judgement of "censorship" was made on a kneejerk reaction, with nowhere near all of the information available. This is the kind of thing I mean when I emphasise on it being throw around meaninglessly. It's being used in situations where the change has only just broken into the news, before any actual decent information pertaining the reasoning behind the change is available. It is still a totally menial change however. What does this animation being changed actually remove from the game? It's a tiny thing that almost certainly brought nobody who was playing any real joy, and most definitely wasn't a major selling point of the title, let alone a minor one. More of an afterthought really. With the developer actually acknowledging that someone thinks the animation seemed out of place, there is a chance (a good one at that) that any replacement would actually work better in the end anyway. Menial as fuck. Who cares that someone actually brought it up in the first place, none of you would have fuckin noticed the thing was even there if this hadn't happened anyway I expect. It's not a focal point of the game after all.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50028621]That wasn't really the only part of my whole reasoning however. The entire judgement of "censorship" was made on a kneejerk reaction, with nowhere near all of the information available. This is the kind of thing I mean when I emphasise on it being throw around meaninglessly. It's being used in situations where the change has only just broken into the news, before any actual decent information pertaining the reasoning behind the change is available. It is still a totally menial change however. What does this animation being changed actually remove from the game? It's a tiny thing that almost certainly brought nobody who was playing any real joy, and most definitely wasn't a major selling point of the title, let alone a minor one. More of an afterthought really. With the developer actually acknowledging that someone thinks the animation seemed out of place, there is a chance (a good one at that) that any replacement would actually work better in the end anyway. Menial as fuck. Who cares that someone actually brought it up in the first place, none of you would have fuckin noticed the thing was even there if this hadn't happened anyway I expect. It's not a focal point of the game after all.[/QUOTE] You're right, we didn't know everything at the time. But we're never going to know everything. All we can do is act on what we know and be open to change when more information is presented. That doesn't mean that the situation as indicated by available information at the time didn't appear to be censorship, and that people were wrong for expressing their dislike of that indicated censorship. Again, you aren't arguing that altering or removing content because someone found it offensive, immoral, or harmful isn't bad, which is what people care about and are expressing their dissatisfaction over. You're arguing that what was changed or removed isn't significant. Which is kind of irrelevant. Yes, if Blizzard had communicated their intentions better, people might have not gotten upset. That doesn't mean people should have just assumed something other than what the game director's post communicated. It's entirely possible we never would have even received clarification if no one got upset.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50028621]That wasn't really the only part of my whole reasoning however. The entire judgement of "censorship" was made on a kneejerk reaction, with nowhere near all of the information available. This is the kind of thing I mean when I emphasise on it being throw around meaninglessly. It's being used in situations where the change has only just broken into the news, before any actual decent information pertaining the reasoning behind the change is available. It is still a totally menial change however. What does this animation being changed actually remove from the game? It's a tiny thing that almost certainly brought nobody who was playing any real joy, and most definitely wasn't a major selling point of the title, let alone a minor one. More of an afterthought really. With the developer actually acknowledging that someone thinks the animation seemed out of place, there is a chance (a good one at that) that any replacement would actually work better in the end anyway. Menial as fuck. Who cares that someone actually brought it up in the first place, none of you would have fuckin noticed the thing was even there if this hadn't happened anyway I expect. It's not a focal point of the game after all.[/QUOTE] If its such a menial change then why bother changing it at all? The devs should just let it be if its so menial

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50028621]That wasn't really the only part of my whole reasoning however. The entire judgement of "censorship" was made on a kneejerk reaction, with nowhere near all of the information available. This is the kind of thing I mean when I emphasise on it being throw around meaninglessly. It's being used in situations where the change has only just broken into the news, before any actual decent information pertaining the reasoning behind the change is available. It is still a totally menial change however. What does this animation being changed actually remove from the game? It's a tiny thing that almost certainly brought nobody who was playing any real joy, and most definitely wasn't a major selling point of the title, let alone a minor one. More of an afterthought really. With the developer actually acknowledging that someone thinks the animation seemed out of place, there is a chance (a good one at that) that any replacement would actually work better in the end anyway. Menial as fuck. Who cares that someone actually brought it up in the first place, none of you would have fuckin noticed the thing was even there if this hadn't happened anyway I expect. It's not a focal point of the game after all.[/QUOTE] The judgement of censorship was made with the information avaliable when the developer first responded to the post complaining about the pose. [QUOTE] "The last thing we want to do is make someone feel uncomfortable, under-appreciated or misrepresented."[/QUOTE] This is self-censorship. When you change your work because you don't want to offend anyone. And the complaint isn't about the pose, but rather the fact that the changed happened with that justification.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50028649]Yes, if Blizzard had communicated their intentions better, people might have not gotten upset. That doesn't mean people should have just assumed something other than what the game director's post communicated. It's entirely possible we never would have even received clarification if no one got upset.[/QUOTE] People get upset for nothing, they extrapolate meaning and intention out of a minuscule action and fight with teeth and claws to get their narrowly formed opinion across. The censorship argument some people use is fallible, you can argue that pretty much any change to a game is censorship as long as there exists someone who opposes the change. It fits the definition, as the definition is very broad. [editline]29th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Athlias;50028673]If its such a menial change then why bother changing it at all? The devs should just let it be if its so menial[/QUOTE] They bothered changing it because they agreed with the argument in the post suggesting to change it. They did it because they believed this would make [I]less[/I] people upset. They had no clue people would freak the fuck out over such a small thing.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50028683]People get upset for nothing, they extrapolate meaning and intention out of a minuscule action and fight with teeth and claws to get their narrowly formed opinion across. The censorship argument some people use is fallible, you can argue that pretty much any change to a game is censorship as long as there exists someone who opposes the change. It fits the definition, as the definition is very broad.[/QUOTE] Like I said, the definition is about intent. And while intent can never be known with 100% certainty, there's nothing wrong with expressing dissatisfaction with someone's actions in light of what their intent appears to be, so long as you're willing to accept further clarification. If someone started throwing bricks through Blizzard's windows the moment this whole drama started, I would agree that people are being unreasonably hostile given the information they had. But all I saw were complaints, which I think are entirely called for.

[QUOTE=Athlias;50028673]If its such a menial change then why bother changing it at all? The devs should just let it be if its so menial[/QUOTE] Because it's something that can please a few people who were like "yo this seems out of place" without actually detracting from the game? It's literally a win-win, especially so if the developers already had ideas for replacements and just needed more reason than "might as well" to change it. [editline]29th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragekipz;50028678]The judgement of censorship was made with the information avaliable when the developer first responded to the post complaining about the pose. This is self-censorship. When you change your work because you don't want to offend anyone. And the complaint isn't about the pose, but rather the fact that the changed happened with that justification.[/QUOTE] Don't assume the first thing put out over a change is actually the entire reasoning. It's usually just a quick note to make sure people are aware of a change. If it hadn't blown up because of reactionary bullshit it likely would have stayed that way until someone asked for a more in depth reason. Why does that first explanation elicit such a "OMG FUC U BLI$$ARD" response anyway? They are making a product after all, pleasing as many as possible with as little work as possible is a mainstay of profit making. Changing something inconsequential to the gameplay, but that one or two people point out as being a bit out of place is an easy win for both their income and the players who actually gave a toss about it.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50028729]Because it's something that can please a few people who were like "yo this seems out of place" without actually detracting from the game? It's literally a win-win, especially so if the developers already had ideas for replacements and just needed more reason than "might as well" to change it.[/QUOTE] But people feel it does detract from the game and some people feel it isn't out of place, this argument is going round in circles.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50028729]Because it's something that can please a few people who were like "yo this seems out of place" without actually detracting from the game? It's literally a win-win, especially so if the developers already had ideas for replacements and just needed more reason than "might as well" to change it.[/QUOTE] I would argue that removing optional content in a game that doesn't negatively influence the experience is never a win. And I don't see how a victory pose could ever possibly negatively influence the game unless it was wildly obscene, bizarre, and out of place

I am well aware at how a complaint about an inconsequential ass crack probably shouldn't be given any attention, but if the developers chose to listen, that's their choice. Just like it's a developer's choice to not include gays characters, or to include black characters, or make a character sexualized, etc. As long as they aren't being forced to change their game and as long as the changes won't effect my enjoyment of the game, I really don't mind.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50028713]Like I said, the definition is about intent. And while intent can never be known with 100% certainty, there's nothing wrong with expressing dissatisfaction with someone's actions in light of what their intent appears to be, so long as you're willing to accept further clarification. If someone started throwing bricks through Blizzard's windows the moment this whole drama started, I would agree that people are being unreasonably hostile given the information they had. But all I saw were complaints, which I think are entirely called for.[/QUOTE] The complaints are largely very unreasonable. People are obviously allowed to disagree with this decision, and to argue against it, but these arguments have been filled with personal attacks, ridicule, and general toxicity. It's very hard to have a proper argument about things like this when most people can't be assed to view things from other points of view. Blizzard never intended to actually upset anyone, and their action was very minor. Yet people demand that they should apologize to them, as if they've been personally hurt.

Blizzards artists are full of metal heads that don't really care what the vocal minority thinks. If they changed it, its probably because it didn't fit their vision of what Overwatch is.

[QUOTE=IAmIchigo;50028756]But people feel it does detract from the game and some people feel it isn't out of place, this argument is going round in circles.[/QUOTE] It's a minor change, nobody would've noticed if Blizzard changed it without any announcement or post suggesting it. Blizzard can't really change it back either, because then they have to visibly [I]take sides[/I] in this childish conflict that I'm sure they don't want to be any part of, as it would only make more people upset.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50028776]It's a minor change, nobody would've noticed if Blizzard changed it without any announcement or post suggesting it. Blizzard can't really change it back either, because then they have to visibly [I]take sides[/I] in this childish conflict that I'm sure they don't want to be any part of, as it would only make more people upset.[/QUOTE] Why do people keep saying this, we have NO way to know if people would have noticed this, they noticed the butt slap change and what impact does that have on the argument, people aren't just annoyed because that they are removing the pose it's the fact that all it took was 1 person to not be happy about an arse for them to then apologise and remove it.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50028729]Why does that first explanation elicit such a "OMG FUC U BLI$$ARD" response anyway? They are making a product after all, pleasing as many as possible with as little work as possible is a mainstay of profit making. Changing something inconsequential to the gameplay, but that one or two people point out as being a bit out of place is an easy win for both their income and the players who actually gave a toss about it.[/QUOTE] What upset me personally about the response was that you have someone saying "this content is demeaning and disempowering and it reduces this character to a sex object" and instead of defending his team's work and offering their perspective on why it wasn't those things, he instead immediately caved and asked for forgiveness as though some crime had been committed. This is a personal note, but I think when someone says that the thing your team made is demeaning and objectifying, it's your responsibility as a leader to defend them in [I]some[/I] way. I might be a minority in that regard. I do agree that people are needlessly vitriolic when it comes to controversy. [editline]29th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=paul simon;50028769]The complaints are largely very unreasonable. People are obviously allowed to disagree with this decision, and to argue against it, but these arguments have been filled with personal attacks, ridicule, and general toxicity. It's very hard to have a proper argument about things like this when most people can't be assed to view things from other points of view. Blizzard never intended to actually upset anyone, and their action was very minor. Yet people demand that they should apologize to them, as if they've been personally hurt.[/QUOTE] Has anyone demanded an apology? While I might be biased, it feels like most of the shitposting, mockery, and vitriol has been coming from the group that believes people shouldn't care.