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

Isn't this the game that created larger female characters specifically to pander to the HAES movement?

[QUOTE=DeEz;50028935]Or they're just actually a team of normal individuals who don't put such importance on a single trivial character pose in a massive video game project.[/QUOTE] The issue isn't that it's just a pose, it's the principle behind removing it, as has been said before. The fact is the developers originally made (and developed) a creative choice and changed it because of a forum thread. Maybe they never gave a shit about that small little pose, which is likely, but what bothers me is what it's done for their image. If this behaviour continues and is encouraged, it can potentially damage the image of developers as a whole in the long run - showing how easy it is for consumers to wrangle the artistic direction of a game. It could soon become the norm and devs who wouldn't base their designs around such things suddenly feel it's the norm because big ol' Blizzard went and did it, and everyone is cheering them on. I know I'm using a lot of 'what-ifs' here but creative control is absolutely paramount for me, and personally I would feel threatened entering an industry where it's expected of me to make these changes or I'll get Polygon articles telling everyone how bad I am for wanting to retain some degree of confidence in the project.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50029056]Did you even read their post? How was the poster lunatic? The poster complains about Tracer specifically, how they believe Tracers pose conflicts with Tracers character. It's not about sexuality being bad, heck the poster even says they've no problem with Widowmaker for instance, because the sexuality is part of Widowmakers character.[/QUOTE] This person thinks that that pose makes Tracer "another bland female sex symbol". The poster's entire point hinges on this misconception. Fucking hell, really? The sexuality of the pose is percived. She's not "flaunting" her sexuality. It's "Over the shoulder", what the fuck else do people expect?

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50029166]This person thinks that that pose makes Tracer "another bland female sex symbol". The poster's entire point hinges on this misconception. Fucking hell, really? The sexuality of the pose is percived. She's not "flaunting" her sexuality. It's "Over the shoulder", what the fuck else do people expect?[/QUOTE] Sure it's perceived, but if many people perceive it that way the perception holds water. Blizzard agreed with the perception.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50029056]Did you even read their post? How was the poster lunatic? The poster complains about Tracer specifically, how they believe Tracers pose conflicts with Tracers character. It's not about sexuality being bad, heck the poster even says they've no problem with Widowmaker for instance, because the sexuality is part of Widowmakers character. [img]http://puu.sh/nYDyB.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] From the post itself [quote]WHAT? What about this pose has anything to do with the character you're building in tracer? It's not fun, its not silly, it has nothing to do with being a fast elite killer. [B]It just reduces tracer to another bland female sex symbol.[/B] We aren't looking at a widowmaker pose here, this isn't a character who is in part defined by flaunting her sexuality. This pose says to the player base, oh we've got all these cool diverse characters, [B]but at any moment we are willing to reduce them to sex symbols to help boost our investment game[/B]. [/quote] That's the crux of the argument and frankly it's not specific at all. The poster even uses their own daughter to appeal which is literally "think of the children".

[QUOTE=paul simon;50029178]Blizzard agreed with the perception.[/QUOTE] We will never know that for sure.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50029178]Sure it's perceived, but if many people perceive it that way the perception holds water. Blizzard agreed with the perception.[/QUOTE] Many people also perceive the world as being created by one god, however that doesn't mean it holds water, nor would Blizzard be correct in agreeing with that perception either.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;50029182]From the post itself That's the crux of the argument and frankly it's not specific at all. The poster even uses their own daughter to appeal which is literally "think of the children".[/QUOTE] When you go very deep into one textual argument you can deduct a lot from it. It seems to me that the argument is very specifically about Tracer, even if some of the sentences seem general. Idk why they brought up their daughter. It doesn't really make sense in the context anyways, considering how the poster only complains about one of the female characters, while the more sexualized ones are ok. We can go very deep into the post and discuss it on a semantics level, but I don't think the poster meant anything more than "I don't think this is how Tracer should be". [editline]29th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50029212]Many people also perceive the world as being created by one god, however that doesn't mean it holds water, nor would Blizzard be correct in agreeing with that perception either.[/QUOTE] This is about a concept within human psychology and understanding that certainly exists but everyone perceives a little differently. I wouldn't compare it to the existence of a god, although both are equally unfalsifiable.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50029178]Sure it's perceived, but if [B]many[/B] people perceive it that way the perception holds water. Blizzard agreed with the perception.[/QUOTE] That's great. So uhh....where's the many? OH THATS RIGHT! They're the people telling blizzard that this was a stupid fucking idea. So does the perception that this is a stupid fucking decision hold water? I would say it does. Considering we only have ONE person complaining about it. So you have a situation where 1% of the community (and even then that's stretching it, more like a fraction of a percent) wanted to change something because in their own words, they don't like it. The other 99% of the community is basically saying its a terrible and absurd idea. That the person is getting upset over a non issue. Then when Blizzard suddenly chimes in, they don't even attempt to defend their own work, or ask the person in question to pick an animation more pleasing to them. No, they immediately bend over backwards, vehemently apologize as if they committed a crime, and remove the pose which the 99% are still saying is a non issue. Now the 1% is pleased and the rest of the community is upset. How on god's green earth do you not see SOMETHING wrong with that picture? And don't give me that "they wanted to change it anyways" excuse. The patch notes in which the pose was removed DO NOT reflect this as they specifically say "removed due to player feedback." The feedback of a SINGLE PERSON! If there are more people who are oh so offended by this pose being in the game then I'd love for them to speak up. I could give a rats ass about the pose itself but at the same time it's why I'm livid. That something so innocuous and easily ignored could offend a single person so much that Blizz bends over backwards to accommodate them while effectively alienating the rest of the community. Yes it is blizzard's right to do this if they please, good for them. Just like I'm in my right to say they're fucking fools for caving to the absurd whims of, again, a SINGLE person.

[media]https://twitter.com/trillLizard/status/714946350404624386[/media] lel

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;50029454]That's great. So uhh....where's the many? OH THATS RIGHT! They're the people telling blizzard that this was a stupid fucking idea. So does the perception that this is a stupid fucking decision hold water? I would say it does.[/QUOTE] Yes it goes both ways. [QUOTE=Solo Wing;50029454]Considering we only have ONE person complaining about it. So you have a situation where 1% of the community (and even then that's stretching it, more like a fraction of a percent) wanted to change something because in their own words, they don't like it. The other 99% of the community is basically saying its a terrible and absurd idea. That the person is getting upset over a non issue. Then when Blizzard suddenly chimes in, they don't even attempt to defend their own work, or ask the person in question to pick an animation more pleasing to them. No, they immediately bend over backwards, vehemently apologize as if they committed a crime, and remove the pose which the 99% are still saying is a non issue. Now the 1% is pleased and the rest of the community is upset.[/QUOTE] Yes, and that's very unfortunate. Now, I don't have any real statistics of how many are on one or the other side (or in the middle), so I'm not gonna argue about that. But I'll repeat: Blizzard obviously didn't intend to alienate or piss off people, but reverting this change means they're taking a stance in a very controversial subject, and they probably don't want to take a stance. [QUOTE=Solo Wing;50029454]How on god's green earth do you not see SOMETHING wrong with that picture? And don't give me that "they wanted to change it anyways" excuse. The patch notes in which the pose was removed DO NOT reflect this as they specifically say "removed due to player feedback." The feedback of a SINGLE PERSON![/QUOTE] I see nothing wrong with it because people are entitled to their own opinions, and that includes the devs at Blizzard. [QUOTE=Solo Wing;50029454]If there are more people who are oh so offended by this I'd love for them to speak up. I could give a rats ass about the pose itself but at the same time it's why I'm livid. That something so innocuous and easily ignored could offend a single person so much that Blizz bends over backwards to accommodate them while effectively alienating the rest of the community. Yes it is blizzard's right to do this if they please, good for them. Just like I'm in my right to say they're fucking fools for caving to the absurd whims of, again, a SINGLE person.[/QUOTE] It seems many people are very offended about this, and they're all speaking up. Isn't that what this thread is about? You seem quite offended, moreso than the person who made the original post even (judging by your language).

[QUOTE=Protocol7;50029007]Or, y'know, Widowmaker, who has a pose not dissimilar. [t]http://i.imgur.com/0Whjmda.png[/t][/QUOTE] The complaint said this pose itself was fine, they had no problems with the concept of it. They just said they didn't want it for Tracer. [editline]29th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50029212]Many people also perceive the world as being created by one god, however that doesn't mean it holds water, nor would Blizzard be correct in agreeing with that perception either.[/QUOTE] But isn't it Blizzard, not you, to decide if it agrees? Afterall, it's their own artistic vision.

[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50029888]The complaint said this pose itself was fine, they had no problems with the concept of it. They just said they didn't want it for Tracer. [/QUOTE] The reply to that should have been "Most of the characters have an 'Over the shoulder' pose. If you feel the pose does not represent Tracer you can choose to use one of the many other poses." "Oh it's not in Tracer's character to stand like that." Okay? Is it in Hanzo's character to stand like that? He seems like the kind of guy who'd want his eyes on an area where danger could be. Why should optional poses not include generic stances that say nothing about a character? They're a player choice, if you don't like one you should just choose another one. Personally I'm fucking sick of this bullshit we've had for the past few years. "I don't like X optional thing! Take it away from everybody because nothing can exist that I don't like!" If you don't like something you don't have to use it, if the person complained that Widowmaker should be removed because they don't like snipers they would have been told to fuck off, and rightfully so.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/rufhRhh.png[/IMG] Problem solved.

[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50029888]The complaint said this pose itself was fine, they had no problems with the concept of it. They just said they didn't want it for Tracer.[/QUOTE] Right, I wasn't saying that. But there's something to be said when you're making claims about a character's, well, character, and using those claims as a basis to remove a single pose that other characters have from a selection of other poses. Basically, why is it not okay for one character to "flaunt" when it's perfectly acceptable for others to flaunt? If you complaint is that you don't like a specific character to appear remotely sexually attractive, then you're literally playing favorites when it comes to social standards about a woman's appearance and that's completely fucked. Let me be clear about some other things, since some posters seem to not get it. I speak for myself and probably others when I say I don't actually care that Blizzard removed the pose. It's the rhetoric and the intent behind the original message that's the problem.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;50033555]Basically, why is it not okay for one character to "flaunt" when it's perfectly acceptable for others to flaunt?[/QUOTE] Because they don't think it fits the character. Why is that so hard to understand? It's a perfectly ok opinion to have.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50038389]Because they don't think it fits the character. Why is that so hard to understand? It's a perfectly ok opinion to have.[/QUOTE] I thought the pose fit the character.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;50038446]I thought the pose fit the character.[/QUOTE] Well clearly Blizzard didnt lol

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50038632]Well clearly Blizzard didnt lol[/QUOTE] No need to be so hostile. It's an ok opinion to have about the whole situation.

the fact that blizzard will fix this one instance shows how insincere the change is female cards in hearthstone are a fucking cavalcade of mysoginistic poses (fucking SECRETKEEPER) but they won't fix those, even though the criticism is far more applicable against those than this fucking garbage [editline]31st March 2016[/editline] make the change, pay some lip service, make no further changes aka video game developers interactions with feminism 2016 [editline]31st March 2016[/editline] also: the fact that the pose was kind of crap actually made it more endearing she's trying to do something that she doesn't know how to do (pull the ass-pose), something that is out of character and the pose reflected that they could have improved on this theme and made it more of a parody (she's trying to pull a widowmaker but she isn't), but they'll almost certainly torch and burn it

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50039672]the fact that blizzard will fix this one instance shows how insincere the change is female cards in hearthstone are a fucking cavalcade of mysoginistic poses (fucking SECRETKEEPER) but they won't fix those, even though the criticism is far more applicable against those than this fucking garbage[/QUOTE] I like how you use mysoginistic and sexualized as if they were the same thing. And that you give sexualized a negative conotation.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50039752]I like how you use mysoginistic and sexualized as if they were the same thing. And that you give sexualized a negative conotation.[/QUOTE] i didn't use the word sexualized in my post what are you on about

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50039774]i didn't use the word sexualized in my post what are you on about[/QUOTE] I think the question he means to ask is how can a pose be misogynistic?

[QUOTE=_Axel;50039780]I think the question he means to ask is how can a pose be misogynistic?[/QUOTE] no one pose can be misogynistic (unless we're talking some extreme propaganda cartoon shit) the sum total of representations CAN be though i used the word because that's what the forum poster was getting at, not because i agree - blizzard has consistently used similar poses in previous works i'm saying they're insincere because they'll fix it here and then won't change until there's another post

I doubt they would change any hearthstone cards. A lot of the artwork is from the old physical card game they already paid artists to do. I'm not defending their knee-jerk reaction, but its eaiser for them to edit a 3D model in house vs changing art on a card they paid an outside artist to do.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50039795]no one pose can be misogynistic (unless we're talking some extreme propaganda cartoon shit) the sum total of representations CAN be though i used the word because that's what the forum poster was getting at, not because i agree - blizzard has consistently used similar poses in previous works i'm saying they're insincere because they'll fix it here and then won't change until there's another post[/QUOTE] I understand your point, however there's no misogyny. There's sexualization, which you gave the impression of believing it's the same thing. What about the representations is misogynistic? Both male and female characters are portrayed as strong, wise, smart, heroic and sexualized. There's nothing to fix. Also I didn't think the fix was insincere either, IF they truly believe that the pose didn't fit the character. I personally didn't think the pose was sexual.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50039887]I understand your point, however there's no misogyny. There's sexualization, which you gave the impression of believing it's the same thing. What about the representations is misogynistic? Both male and female characters are portrayed as strong, wise, smart, heroic and sexualized. There's nothing to fix. Also I didn't think the fix was insincere either, IF they truly believe that the pose didn't fit the character. I personally didn't think the pose was sexual.[/QUOTE] Read what he said. He's not saying it is misogynistic at all, he's using their language against them. If you get his point, then why are you arguing with him about one he isn't actually making?

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50039916]Read what he said. He's not saying it is misogynistic at all, he's using their language against them. If you get his point, then why are you arguing with him about one he isn't actually making?[/QUOTE] Then I don't get his point. If he was being sarcastic I have no way to know.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50039972]Then I don't get his point. If he was being sarcastic I have no way to know.[/QUOTE] He is saying that if they really cared about the pose being supposedly misogynistic, there are many other places and elements that would fall under the same label. He is using the original reasoning to highlight that it was overall insincere. He is not saying it is misogynistic however. The term is irrelevant, it's the reasoning in the original posts.

This pisses me off so much. If this happened 5-10 years ago, nobody would bat an eye-lid.