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.
The "controversy" is ****ing stupid. The only people who give even the slightest of a **** are GamerGate and their ilk. Literally the only outrage was the backlash at the change. Ironic, considering their constant bitching about "SJW outrage culture."
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.
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.
As Tale put it, there was already a big discussion about this, but I want to add that it's not censorship if they (apparently) were already considering removing it before they got the complaint. I'm not for removing stuff like this (because this instance the pose felt completely harmless) and I'm not a fan of how they went about making the change (one person complains so we use that thread to announce removing it instead of showing that they were already strongly considering it.) In the end, nobody forced their hand, so I can't call it censorship, and they didn't seem to do it unwillingly, so I can't say they lack creative backbone. It just could have been made optional (but I don't know how the Overwatch victory poses work so I don't know if there are already options.)
the complaint was only about tracer though. as far as I can tell and have seen, nobody has said dick about widowmaker
Where is this outrage and who is making it? There was only one complaint and Blizzard themselves said they were likely going to change it anyway. You're under the impression that anyone outside of the usual anti-"SJW" circle gave a ****. The only reason the vast majority of people are even aware the pose existed, let alone was removed, was because of people like GamerGate getting pissed off at the "censorship." And while we're at it, let's talk about your flawed definition of censorship. While, yes, you are technically correct in the dictionary definition of the word, using it implies that Blizzard was pressured to remove the pose. This is absurd. There is a difference between censorship and editing. Blizzard edited their game to fit more with their own artistic vision and it just so happened that the person placing the complaint (about the Beta test for the game, where the entire point is to collect feedback for the sake of improving the game) gave them the motivation to say "eh, let's just cut it now and call it a day." The concept of "self-censorship" is a complete absurdity. A creator has the freedom to modify their work however they see fit and Blizzard did just that and it was during the phase of development where the entire point is to get player feedback and respond to it.
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.
painting a chick blue or purple or whatever doesn't exclude her from feminist critique, if anything it adds another dimension to it -- because blue chicks are often sexually objectified (star wars, mass effect, I don't know enough about star trek to cite anything specific but I have read about it in there too) and often erase the actress's race (zoe saldana in gotg)
There is absolutely no evidence for either of these points and it seems like you're just projecting your own thoughts onto them to make the company fit your narrative. Yes, "one could argue" literally whatever, but no evidence points to one not being mentioned due to her inhumanity or the company trying to have its cake and eat it. You are subjectively coming up with justification over faux outrage. There was no pressure on Blizzard from what I've seen just more reason to do what they were already considering doing. Pressure implies it was something they were adverse to doing.
This is a non-sequitur. My mentioning of GamerGate is purely an example and had nothing to do with you. The reason I brought it up was to point out that they, and those with similar mentalities to them (which includes you based on what I've seen) are the only ones who cared about the "censorship." The word censorship implies pressure. ONE person asking for ONE ass-shot's removal is not pressure, especially when Blizzard's response included them saying that they were likely going to remove the pose anyway. The suggestion that they only said as such to save face is completely baseless and pushes us into conspiracy theory and straw grasping territory.
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.
What kind of argument is that? It isn't an impossibility that Obama secretly sent them a letter requesting that they do or otherwise he isn't getting laid tonight but that doesn't mean that that is also a legitimate possibility. The only evidence is going by what's actually been said, shown, and done and from what I can tell (feel free to correct me as I don't know Blizzard's track record on this type of issue) goes against any ulterior feminist or PR motive. Your argument and those who are coming up with similar ones is silly because you're coming up with it for the sake of coming up with it. You said it yourself, there is no evidence that what you said is the case, but you still think it's a possibility because you want to find some ulterior motive and, for some reason, you're implicating blame on feminist pressure. It can't just be that they're doing it for the reason they said, there has to be some pressure (there isn't) that they caved into (they didn't) and you're automatically putting the blame on some "anti-sex" crowd. The GamerGate crowd is the type of people who would project their own insecurities onto a company's decision. Is it the exact same people involved? Irrelevant; it's the same mentality. No, it didn't open up dialogue because they were considering changing it anyway. They didn't do it to avoid bad press, they did it because they were already thinking about it. Maybe they did it now instead of later because of the person's comment; that's not avoid bad press, that's just another reason to change it.
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.
There's analyzing things critically, and then there's digging for things that aren't there, ignoring anything contrary to one's preconceived beliefs.
i wish people talked about my ass this much Gamergate absolutely has something to do with this. Their blogs and communities have been pretty unanimous in their criticism of Blizzard over this and are framing it as a "censorship" issue. Which, whether you agree it is or not is up to you, but if you are labelling it censorship, know you're sharing an opinion with Gamergate "activists" and evaluate your life from there
