It's lit.
Naw, I've only made it about half-way through FFXIII and he's mostly a good character who just wants back his son. I just used him as an example because he has a little chocobo buddy who looks a lot like a baby chicken, and I'm sure you can make the connection from there.
The deeper I dig, the worse it gets.
OH, WELL THEN. They also censored themselves in the past before with Overwatch. There was an outhouse in Overwatch that had magazines underneath it, some thought it represented porn mags (and a possibly implied masturbation joke), and now they're no longer there. So there IS a history of them censoring/editing themselves with this game. However, there wasn't any pressure attached to this decision, and was most likely just an internal decision. Had this decision to remove the position from the game been made before anyone complained, I'd agree with you 100%. But the fact that this particular decision was made only after someone complained just sort of left a bad taste in my mouth. First of all, I never said or implied anything about feminism. Second of all, denying that the pressure to avoid bad press is still pressure is just ridiculous. Companies want to look good, and being the target of potential controversy involving sexism doesn't look good. My reason to doubt them is that the change came so quickly (and didn't come before or months after), and that there wasn't a compromise (like most companies do when fanbases want opposing things) to make the pose optional. I genuinely don't care about Gamergate or Feminists. They have nothing to do with this conversation. Let's stop speaking about them. But...it did. http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20743015583?page=1 A reason to change something is still pressure. That person somewhat influenced their decision. Had the decision been made before this comment or many months after, I would have not thought much of it. But the fact that it came so quickly showed to me how easily they were willing to change their art to appease to an overly sensitive crowd, and I'm fundamentally against that. If they wanted to change the stance already and it was just good timing with the post, so be it. But let's not pretend like possible bad press didn't at least somewhat influence this decision overall. And as soon as they got a wiff of that, it seemed like they panicked and got rid of the pose. What you see as them servicing fans to me comes off as haphazard damage control and self-censorship. You can take things at face-value or you can try to analyze things critically. Companies aren't above taking out originally offensive things, and then when artistic integrity/censorship is brought in question, say that it was already an artistic decision.
I mean, sociopaths have a harder time identifying with those who look too differently from them. To say that someone didn't see something worth critiquing because they didn't identify with it isn't too far-fetched, feminist rhetoric or not.[DOUBLEPOST=1459888154][/DOUBLEPOST] Sociopaths have a harder time sympathizing with those who are different from them. You're right, there isn't any evidence to suggest that this is the case, but at the same time, it isn't an impossibility.
But the grape juice can next to it? I mean, come on. That's no coincidence. Plus the red coffee bean could've easily been brown instead. Let's not pretend racism doesn't exist here. And I'm not saying that it's definite, I'm posing it as a question.
I mean...what's a coffee can doing a kid's bedroom anyway?
Good point. However, one could argue that the person didn't complain about Widowmaker because she's not completely human, so they didn't identify with them. Just a thought. You're under the impression that I named either of those groups in my assessment of the situation. Don't project me into your own narrative. Naming groups like this gives it a real "US VS THEM" mentality, dehumanizes people, and makes it much harder to analyze the situation objectively. I still stand by my definition of censorship. And they were pressured to. Someone brought it up that maybe it should be changed. That's pressure. And you just renaming it "editing" to make it sound better doesn't take away from what really happened here. We're both right in this situation, yes, they edited the game, but yes, they also censored themselves. Neither of us are wrong, but you're talking as if I am here. Additionally, they could just be doing this to appease to the crowd complaining and then just say "We were thinking about doing it anyway!" to sort of do a 'have our cake and eat it to' moment so that they don't offend anyone, but also don't seem like pushovers to their hardcore gaming audience. Well, I mean, you can take it up with Wikipedia, Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/self-censorship http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/self-censorship I'm not making this up, it's a well-known concept.
Yes, after someone complained and for the main purpose of not offending others. That's the definition of censorship. Sure, they censored themselves, but still.
They're two connected cyclohexanes in chair conformation, one is the cis isomer and the other is trans. Here, maybe this will be easier to see which one is better.
It just feels like people who are outraged at a "sexualized" character in a game like this feels as though every character in the game have to be like them or worse, or else they feel inadequate. They're the same people who complain about a character's body being unrealistic when most video games have nothing to do with realism, and shouldn't be a model that one base their lives off of.
Which do you guys think is better? I dunno, they both look pretty good to me.
Long story short, Tracer, a female character, in the game has a pose in which she looks over her shoulder to the camera. Someone stated that this "sexualized" Tracer because it is a pose that shows off her butt, when really, every character in the game can do this pose, regardless of sex. This started a back and forth discussion. However, Blizzard, the developers of Overwatch, have decided to listen to the offended party and censor their game so that everyone can enjoy the game. What do you guys think? Do you think they made the right move to try being inclusive of everyone, or are they just caving in to the demands of an overly sensitive group of people? I personally think that they're just caving in to something that shouldn't be an issue in the first place. As stated before, every character in the game had that pose, so it isn't necessarily sexualizing her. And even then, what's wrong with having a butt? We all do, her showing it off in a video game isn't a crime. Additionally, what's wrong with sexualizing people (fictional, at that)? Most of us do it, both men and women. Human beings are sexual creatures. There are other female characters in the game who don't come off as sexy and others who do. So, this game isn't guilty of oversexualizing women, and actually has a huge diversity of characters in general to choose from. Bottom line, sex isn't bad and having some of it in video games isn't either. Caving in to groups that are easily offended and want everything in life to agree with their own ideals, however, is.
This thread title is such clickbait.
How about just be yourself? Don't lie to someone just to make them feel good, and don't give your opinion to someone unless they ask for it.
There needs to be a heartless for every day we had to wait for KH3. And Behemoths. That's the only way they can redeem themselves.
Cool. Also, who won that KH trivia thingie? Is that still going on? I know I got knocked out the first round. lol Whoever chose those questions really know their stuff.
...
