Blizzard Removing Overwatch Butt Pose After Fan Complaint

Blizzard Removing Overwatch Butt Pose After Fan Complaint

Today's big Internet controversy involves butts, as these things so often do. An Overwatch player complained about one character's butt-centric victory pose, prompting the game's director to say they're removing it.

When Overwatch's closed beta returned earlier this year, Blizzard added skins, emotes, and poses for characters. Among other things, fast-talking, faster-walking time travel demoness Tracer got a victory pose called "over the shoulder." It looks like this:

Blizzard Removing Overwatch Butt Pose After Fan Complaint

Hey look an arse.

In the past few days, that pose has become a lightning rod for controversy. It all began with an impassioned argument from a player called Fipps. Here's a bit of what they wrote on the Overwatch forums:

"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. It just reduces tracer to another bland female sex symbol."

"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, but at any moment we are willing to reduce them to sex symbols to help boost our investment game."

"I have a young daughter that everyday when I wake up wants to watch the recall trailer again. She knows who tracer is, and as she grows up, she can grow up alongside these characters. What I'm asking is that as you continue to add to the overwatch cast and investment elements, you double down on your commitment to create strong female characters. You've been doing a good job so far, but shipping with a tracer pose like this undermines so much of the good you've already done."

The thread exploded into lengthy arguments for and against Tracer's butt pose, with everything from Blizzard's art direction to Tracer's character traits called into question.

"Blizz, please don't listen to people like this," wrote a user named Wulphy. "Next she'll be asking you to take away McCree's cigar because she doesn't want her daughter to see people smoking."

"It doesn't seem sexual to me," added a user called Threads. "I do see where the person is coming from though. The way I interpret her stance is a cutesy little arrogant 'Yup, gotta!' as she looks over her shoulder at the people she just dominated. The buttcheeks that are evident are simply because of her outfit. And she IS a woman so like... what do we do, remove the buttcheeks? XD I think it's in character."

Ultimately, though, Overwatch game director Jeff Kaplan found himself most agreeing with the topic starter. He said that Blizzard plans to get rid of the pose. "We'll replace the pose," he wrote earlier today. "We want *everyone* to feel strong and heroic in our community. The last thing we want to do is make someone feel uncomfortable, under-appreciated or misrepresented. Apologies and we'll continue to try to do better."

In response to Blizzard's decision, some players expressed confusion and outrage. The basic line of reasoning is that instead of following their vision of the game's development, Blizzard kowtowed over a relatively minor concern. More broadly, some people have wondered why Blizzard is a-OK with heaps of cartoon violence in their game, but not cartoon sexiness. Lastly, they have (rightly) pointed out that sexiness can be empowering, depending on the whens, hows, and whys of it. There's a petition to keep the pose in the game.

To an extent, I can understand some of those concerns. The victory pose, frankly, isn't all that over-the-top. Heck, it can even be downright badass:

Blizzard Removing Overwatch Butt Pose After Fan Complaint

But it's also important to take the game's broader context into account. First and foremost, Tracer is not Overwatch's only lady character, nor is she the only one who's dressed or acted in a fashion some might deem sexy. As Fipps pointed out, Widowmaker — who also has a variant of the "over the shoulder" pose that Blizzard won't be removing — has outfits and poses that much more clearly flaunt her sexuality. She's got the whole femme fatale thing going on, and she rocks it. That's rad.

Tracer, by contrast, has mostly been presented as scrappy and silly, the butt pose aside. Instead of jiving with the image Blizzard had built for her, it clashed. Clearly, people noticed. It seems like Blizzard ultimately agreed that it just didn't fit.

I might raise an eyebrow if Blizzard suddenly scrubbed Overwatch clean of sexiness and, I don't know, made all asses concave or something, but this seems pretty in line with Blizzard's goal of letting everyone who plays Overwatch feel empowered. It's about options for male and female characters, in terms of both body type and personality. So many other games make sexy, easily objectified ladies the default, rather than one or two or a handful among many.

Blizzard's been striving to include more options in Overwatch pretty much since day one. I remember sitting in the same room as company lore master Chris Metzen when he explained Blizzard's shift toward providing more options than just the sexy femme fatale type: "We've heard our female employees," he said back in 2014. "And my daughter tools me out about it. She saw a World of Warcraft cinematic of the Dragon Aspects, and my daughter was like, 'Why are they all in swimsuits?' And I was like, 'I don't know. I don't know anymore.' ...We want everybody to come and play. Increasingly people want to feel represented from all walks of life, everywhere in the world. Boys and girls — everybody. We feel indebted to do our best to honour that."

The end result has been a game that, tone-wise, lands somewhere between Team Fortress 2 and a Pixar production. Between this and that whole masturbation gag incident, it seems like Blizzard's really been narrowing down what exactly that means in recent times.

These days, the line between an in-development game and a playable product is so blurry that I think it's easy for people to lose sight of how this all works. These decisions used to happen behind a curtain, a patch of conference room drywall. Now some of them happen in the public eye. In many cases, the motivations underpinning them are not all that different. The conversation between players and developers is just more direct. Also louder. A lot louder.


Comments

    As frustrating as it seems that one voice who doesn't like something can change elements of a creator's game, the argument makes sense, and aside from the "think of the children" line, I can pretty much agree that it's out of character for this one.

    I think the important thing to note here is if you take something that offends you, emotionally, and then use a rational, logic based argument to support that view, one that understands the position of others, not just yourself, then you can get results. The greater internet should take note; vitriol and hysteria gets you nowhere, you need to be rational and understanding when you're trying to get someone to see your point of view, even when you're hurt.

      As frustrating as it seems that one voice who doesn't like something can change elements of a creator's game, the argument makes sense

      Then shouldn't that be a good thing? If someone can point out something and go "Uh, hey, this doesn't seem right" and is not right (by "right" I mean "correct") then isn't that a good thing, that a company can go "Hey, that's a good point" and make appropriate changes?

        Yeah definitely, if that's what the developer actually believes and wants. This situation really seems like Blizzard were like, "you know what, you're right, this isn't what we had in mind and we got off track there for a second". But we all know that's not always the way these things go.

        No, because these changes are usaully made by the most vocal of groups more so then the most legitimate.

        Just look the whole "GTAV removed from Target" situation, there were people accusing the game of scenes and minigames that weren't even in the game. And yet Target rather then doing their research just bent the knee to please the accusers.

          No, because these changes are usaully made by the most vocal of groups more so then the most legitimate.

          ...except this change was made by a relatively small number, who pointed out an inconstancy with blizzards own goals for the game, one they've announced as saying they were conflicted about it existing in the game anyway.

          And if the vocal means the better, well I guess the US should bring back segregation, because the vocal majority was for keeping it. Also, the Earth is back to being flat again because the Majority said it was way back when.

          Just because the majority think one thing, doesn't mean it's right. There's nothing wrong with agreeing with a minority and making changes because of it.

          And are you really comparing the creators of the game with a general store? I'd like to think they know more about their own game than Target does about GTA.

          Last edited 29/03/16 4:42 pm

            I didn't compare the minority to the majority, that was you.

            I said many companies will bend the knee at the most vocal of groups rather then the most legitimate or logical. The internet is especially bad for it.

            As for the case of GTAV the same group that had it removed from stores petitioned Rockstar to remove prostitution from their game to which the company basically replied with "this isn't a game for kids, that's not going to happen".

            Everyone seems to forget that Overwatch is rated T for teen. There should be no substance to the claims of these "but my kids" people.

            Last edited 29/03/16 5:18 pm

          Target used that petition as a scapegoat to not sell the game, they were actually caught selling it to minors and was facing potential legal action from Rockstar over it. The petition just happened to pop up at the most convenient time for them so they used it to avoid a shitstorm.

        I'm not sure character depiction can even be defined conclusively as "correct" or "incorrect". Certain elements pertaining to creative media mean certain things - we all know red lighting means horror/fear/danger, that the weather is linked to character emotion etc. but if I wanted to argue that the weather actually WASN'T pertaining to emotion but something else entirely - as long as i logically argue my point, I don't feel I can be called "incorrect". There are many perspectives surrounding visuals and many believe sexuality can exist in concert with other meanings - they can compliment or inform the character. I can see how cocking the hips can be perceived as "sexy" (that dirty word) obviously but I can also see the perspective that it denotes "arrogance" as it's quite logically argued. I don't think one overpowers the other and quite enjoy the fact that art can be interpreted differently at all. I don't discount the "sexuality" argument, it's perfectly valid, I just see no reason for that argument to override all other perspectives inherently without consideration or assessment.

          By correct/incorrect I meant in regards to a valid argument that aligns with what Blizzard stated....if that makes sense? God dam English is a bitch to word and phrase right.

        Probably because 'too many cooks spoil the broth.'

        I can't be the only one that thinks that early access and beta programs and listening to every little bit of feedback from players before the game is out can be sometimes rather damaging to the end product? I mean, I'm not against them specifically as I've participated myself in many of them, but most times it's like 90% waffle and 10% actual useful feedback that improves the game.

      I don't know, I can think of a number of logic-based arguments in favour of the pose in addition to those extensively listed in the thread and above and I believe those logical arguments to be entirely and arbitrarily ignored and dismissed. To me, that's kind of narcissistic and not logical at all - logic dictates relevant information and perspectives backed up by decades worth of media/communication research and education should be considered, not dismissed. I don't find fault with the original argument - it IS logic based and valid - simply the objectively baseless excuses used to disqualify all other perspectives but that one.

        At the end of the day it's Blizzard's decision, and I truly believe based on all the marketing material thus far that they ultimately agreed with this argument that was put forward. It really doesn't strike me as a developer being strong armed, but a business getting the brand more in line with the multi-million dollar cross-media franchise they want it to be.

          Oh, I don't question that, in the same position I'd probably make the same decision - the pose exists for other characters, no big deal - I just think there's some discussion here in the community that's arbitrarily considered less valid despite being logically argued and sound in media theory.

      by your logic would that mean it's plausible to complain about this complaint, and thus the decision itself should be overturned and things can be restored to the way they were?
      Sorry to upset you, but this isn't your game, it's theirs and I think they should have the freedom to do whatever the f*ck they want.
      Who are you to choose whom, where or how many "sex symbols" blizzard can and cannot use?
      Just because YOU didn't like it doesn't mean everybody else has to.

      So let's have tracer the way she was intended... the way she was designed. And if you don't like it, re-check your freedoms, and play another game. Or do what a logical person would do. Realize that his/her emotions have only one place in this world... and that's in their heart... not in the face of others

        I'm confused. Did you read my comment or are you just imagining one?

    I'm of two minds

    A: Who care's, the game is no worse for it.
    B: This reads like someone who is going out of their way to find something to be offended about. Any reasonable person wouldn't have given it a second thought.

    This is very shaky territory. I'd be more worried about how easily creatives may lean to capitulation for the sake of appeasement at the risk of being assaulted by a hot storm of agenda/idealism driven internet bullying (from either extreme camp).

    At what point do the offended parties demands become to ridiculous even by their more level headed supporters?

    Really if anything the better way around this would be something akin to a low violence mode filter that simply disabled any of the potentially objectionable content (although judging what comes under that filter would certainly be a minefield). That way everybody wins.

      Any reasonable person wouldn't have given it a second thought.
      Because parents aren't reasonable people. Because they used an unreasonable argument. Because they used clear logic.

      I'm sure the hordes of people spitting at their monitors as they type page after page of filth and bile (Seriously, read some of the response to this on fan-sites, it's disgusting) is reasonable. Right?

        I'm confused by your tone... are you implying that I'm on board with the ludicrous hate fest?

          Well you're saying that he was unreasonable for noticing an otherwise non-sexualised character was being sexualised, when it was Blizzards stated goal to not have all female characters portrayed as such.

          So, if that was unreasonable, I would assume the opposite would be reasonable?

            Kind of dichotomous, there.

              *Shrug* Yeah, kind of.

              Still, if he'd like to clarify what exactly was 'unreasonable' about the person's request and what is reasonable, I'd be happy to correct myself.

            By reasonable (probably not the best use of the term) I'm implying that for the overwhelming majority of the user base it probably didn't even register as sexualisation to begin with.

            There is a certain amount of personal agency when it comes to scenarios like this where something isn't overtly and intentionally portrayed as sexy. I doubt it was the intent with the content in question to begin with.

        But mindless violence is ok? They have issue with a pose but its ok that the aim of the game is to slaughter your opponent. Yer that's entirely logical.

          As that's what this game is based on, yes.

          Although - correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not in the beta - "slaughtering" seems a bit much. I don't recall seeing bloody gibs going flying like TF2 in the screenshots/vids.

            Careful. Who's to say the game isn't based on violence with sporadic and mild sexual titillation. Seems presumptuous to say it's about one thing and not the other.

              The core game is based on shooting people. The gameplay is all about that.

                That's too reductionist. The way the game looks, the way the levels are laid out, the choices of characters and what they wear, do and how they move is all the core game.

                  Fair enough.

                  In that case it's also worth mentioning one of their 'core' goals for the game was not to oversexualise all the female characters.

                  @mic Yeah. And I think they made the right call here because of that. I just don't want us throwing around assumptions and arguments that aren't solid.

                  There's more sexualised characters in this one and ones that aren't sexualised at all. It's a good mix and if Blizzard want Overwatch to be the kind of game that represents as many different interests as they can without compromising their vision, then more power to them.

            slaughter as in killing a lot of people. Not slaughter as in butcher a pig.

            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slaughter

            Last edited 29/03/16 5:01 pm

      A: Who care's, the game is no worse for it.

      Agreed, tbh doesn't make the slightest difference

      B: This reads like someone who is going out of their way to find something to be offended about. Any reasonable person wouldn't have given it a second thought.

      This is what gets me. It's a violent game no doubt someone complained about that too but its ok cause it's just some cray cray we can ignore that. Meanwhile if it's about flashing t&a - which i guess the majority wouldn't give two fucks about - well fuck that's taboo they're justified to be offended we'll change everything to suit...

      I often wonder at how these people survive the day to day. Heck you couldn't walk down a major street here at the gold coast without seeing some chick or bloke in their compression shorts out for a jog. Going to the beach would likely give them a stroke.

      Exactly! OPTIONS
      Keep the butt and lets people turn it off themselves if they really hate it.

    All I have to add is Cheers love! The cavalry's here!

    Thanks Mr Dad for ruining yet another game. It is rated M(Australia) and T(ESRB) for a reason. Why the hell is your little daughter who is not classified under T(ESRB) watching you play overwatch. Might as well just watch porn while your daughter is watching and ban all the porns because it is not friendly to your daughter.

    FFS people.

      1 pose is removed from a game that hasn't even been released yet and people get in a tizz? Everyone seems awfully eager to blame Fipps for the removal and condemn the devs for caving in but really the reasons proposed are pretty reasonable and the action taken was incredibly minor.

      It seems really stupid to me that everyone screams overreaction at Fipps and then proceed to freak out that it was removed "ruining" a game. It's the tiniest of changes and if it was, in some people's eyes, an overprotective parent that called it out then anyone who feels angry or upset about this must admit that they too are overreacting.

        EDIT:

        Sorry I did mention that it ruined the game but it was just to make more impact in my comment :P

        END EDIT

        The problem is not about people getting pissed at the change "ruining" the game, more towards Flipps' completely irrelevant reasoning to request the pose to be removed and Blizzard actually accepts it.

        Might as well I request all animals to be changed to human because I do not want my future child to see me shooting at animals to promote animal cruelty right?

        If he had a perfectly valid reason, totally fine by me but not when you tell me games should be change because the audience restricted from playing the game will feel uncomfortable about it. There is a reason why a game get the rating, you don't see Witcher 3 going G or GTA V going G. You don't let your kids watch you play games that it not meant for them to see.

        Last edited 29/03/16 3:47 pm

          The problem is not about people getting pissed at the change "ruining" the game, more towards Flipps' completely irrelevant reasoning to request the pose to be removed and Blizzard actually accepts it.

          Blizzard said specifically that they didn't want to oversexualise all the female characters, and they agreed that the sexual pose was out of character for the scruffy, silly, good natured girl.

          Logically, it made no sense other than "She's a girl" to have that pose.

            http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/portrait-male-looking-over-his-shoulder-18711130.jpg

            This guys must look pretty sexy to Flipps.

            It is a freaking common pose used for photography.

            Last edited 29/03/16 4:00 pm

              Give him some skintight pants, then lets compare.

                Too hard to find any guys willing to wear skinight pants to do that pose but Hanzo from overwatch is willing to demonstrate.

                http://overwatch.blizzplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/hanzo-victory-pose-3-over-the-shoulder.png

                Too sexy to be honest, that tattoo, that heels and that moustache. A killer I tell you!

                EDIT:

                I actually found @bodmaniac comment below with a sexy male in tights doing that pose.

                http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Deadpool-Poster-Dec1st.jpg

                DAT ASS

                Last edited 29/03/16 4:29 pm

                  Still not tight pants.

                  Funny though, that the males doing it have baggy pants...

                  Awesome find!

                  That said, how long was the search to find one male in skin-tight pants doing that pose?

                  @mic Art imitates life. Women, generally, wear tighter pants including jeans. They generally reveal more skin with their clothing too. I see girls in yoga pants everywhere, like, literally everywhere, and they are as form fitting as Tracer's pants here.

                  Something like this? (Final Fantasy XIV)

                  http://i.imgur.com/9bCPoX0.png

                  Note, I intentionally make my character dress like this :I

                  @geometrics : Yeah, but that's also because it's marketed at women. I'm sure if we saw a lot of that for men, with male celebrities wearing them, more men would be wearing them. But as it's women that are the majority of sex symbols...

                  @mic Well marketing doesn't make your decisions for you, it can influence them but at the end of the day, especially in the time we live in, there are many many options for men and women to wear. We can't argue that women are so susceptible to influence that their choices are not their own, because that's surely a whole new level of sexism at best, and questioning the very concept of free will at worst.

                  Men and women are both sex symbols, the difference is that the way men and women determine and celebrate sexual viability is very different. You can't look at a magazine where a woman is wearing a bikini and a man is wearing a suit and say "See! It's only women who are objectified". It depends on the creator, the audience, and the message, but a suit to women can often be equated to a bikini for men. Each gender as a general rule has very different values for what is and isn't attractive in the opposite sex, because if we didn't, men would surely fail at being what we look for in women and vice versa.

            But it's not a sexual pose. She's not bent over or poking her butt out or anything she's simply facing backwards. Hmm maybe I need to pretend my kids are scared of manly poses and have them removed too.

            Last edited 29/03/16 4:29 pm

          The validity of the reason is entirely up to the individual though, for example I find his/her argument against blanket sexualisation of many of the female characters to be a legitimate concern, especially if it contrasts with the character of the individual (even though I thought from day one Tracer was pretty sexualised and this pose actually fits just fine). The pose is also up to interpretation and I personally think that it's alright and wouldn't have any particular issue with it staying in the game.

          I just don't see how it can be a big deal for anyone other than the animators/artists who might have seen a lot of their work removed from the game, but even then, this is why betas exist, to take in feedback, polish and test different elements of the game prior to a full retail release. In the animal metaphor you describe changing all animals when Fipps is asking for just one character to be changed to better reflect the diversity of roles and character types within the game, rather than washing all of the female characters with the same coat of sexy paint (note the pose is shared by Widowmaker which Fipps is fine with as it gels with the character in his eyes, sexy paint is fine, universal sexy paint is not is thew sort of angle I believe they were getting at).

          Yes, the kids argument is problematic (although kids will always find a way to play/watch/read things that look appealing to them, one of my roughly 10 year old drum students somewhat shockingly started describing playing as Trevor in GTA V and performing something akin to a curbstomp and I very much doubt, knowing his parents, that he was allowed to play this sort of game by them), but that doesn't invalidate the other elements of the argument, nor should anyone feel justified in the sort of genuine anger and hate filled vitriol I'm seeing in reaction to a terribly minor change in a game while it is in it's beta stage.

          I mean, I get that people are invested in things they love and don't like to see any change (not talking about you here, just generally, I didn't actually think that this change ruined the game for you, and I do understand where you're coming from), but it's in beta. Most don't even have access to it and who are we to judge the devs for whatever feedback they chose or don't chose to act upon prior to its release?

        You're missing the point.

        Someone complains about there being magazines in a toilet in the game, they are removed. Someone complains about a pose in the game that is removed, and that's just in the last couple of weeks.

        If blizzard has such little confidence in their creative freedom then who's to say they won't change more and more of the game to please vocal minorities?

        And more to the point, they shouldn't have to change a thing. A single guy finds something he disagrees with in a game and it is altered for everyone.

      Also why can't he like, teach his daughter that she shouldn't base her own personality or identity, or even learn all her social skills from some fictional characters. Teach critical thinking. We learn a lot from art but it works best when it's because we know it is.

    butt

    you can have blood guts entrails and horrific scenes

      American mentality.

        Australian too. Can't really point and wave a disapproving finger when we have the same issues.

          western minds ;)

            I was tempted to say that,but there's a few European countries that are much more open minded about sexuality.

        actually I expect it is more the feminist gamers movement.

    Seriously?
    Because we don't have asses or genitals or bodies right? But somehow it's ok to show killings.

    Go and get fucked you hypocrites.

    Last edited 29/03/16 3:10 pm

    I'm in the boat of those that want Blizzard to change Tracer's pose...to that of Deadpool's poster pose. http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Deadpool-Poster-Dec1st.jpg

    But in all seriousness I find this entire situation laughable. That just one complaint can cause a change when the game contains other examples that could be deemed "worse" is scary. Not only that, but that one complaint by an unknown trumps the views of big name female gamers wanting it to stay and arguing "A woman or man can be strong, badass, *and* sexy.", which I wholeheartedly agree with.

    relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydii76-1l5w

    I actually don't really mind this too much either way. Complaint seems reasonable enough (although the nonsense about poor children is just that) but on the other hand, the pose seems innocent enough - and rather cool in that alt skin. Realistically though, I'm not overly worried about a single pose being removed in a beta game, might've happened even without the complaint.

    Am I the only person who doesn't find that pose sexual? She's just standing there. She's not bending over or twerking. Just standing. Is it really just the existence of the butt?

    If I'm playing the game and find a Tracer player running away from me, should I get offended because I can see her butt?

      Gamings war on Butts has truly begun.

        There's been a war on butts in FFXIV back when A Realm Reborn came out... but instead, it's people wanting butts. FFXIV kinda had butts 'removed' so that gear could fit characters better.

        Even guys don't have butts.

    I sure hope that the guy bought some horse blinders for her daughter when walking down the street, what with all the real women "flaunting their sexuality". Going out of the house in summer must be strictly forbidden. Oh and TV as well. Unless he manages to convince everybody to censor things his way.

    Butt pose?

    "Check out my sweet jetpack" pose!

    Not that Blizzard will care, but they just lost an Overwatch player/customer.

    The person's argument is kinda silly. Firstly their 'young daughter' shouldn't be watching these games. Secondly, why do they accept violence yet are offended by a character's pose? And lastly, how exactly does this go against her being a 'strong female character'?

    I don't get it. Why should a dev change their game to suit some people. Don't like it vote with your money.

    and why do some parents seem to think that everyone else should do their job for them. If you don't think something is suitable for your child don't let them see/hear/play it. BE A PARENT FOR CHRIST SAKE (Happy Easter btw) There are plenty of Pokemon games to play!

    I won't buy this game now because as a consumer I feel entitled to this pose as it forms a core element of the game. The very idea that blizzard would make changes to a game in beta is ridiculous and totally unacceptable, especially so given that it was in response to consumer feedback. Is it so hard for Blizzard to understand that my values and interpretations of what should end up in the game are the only ones that matter? Sometimes I think Blizzard just doesn't care about their consumers. Unbelievable.

    The opinion that it's out of character is valid, but the opinion that it undermines so much of what Blizzard has done is sensationalist bollocks. One pose undermines the effort of god knows how many hours that been poured making this game? Are you for real? And Blizzard caved? Fuck me.

    So are developers no longer allowed to add small out of character quirks/easter eggs/infinite other intangibles that have historically added to why video games are a great medium, because some idiot is going to be offended (oh noes, this thing you've added breaks my precious image and immersion I have of your game) and make some sensationalist plea?

    I actually do not care for the pose one way or the other, but highly disagree with Blizzard's response. This comes from the back of them having also removed the magazine covers in an outdoor toilet a couple of days back, because it was alluded to being masturbation material. It just all reeks of knee jerk reaction to an absurd vocal minority.

    Last edited 29/03/16 3:45 pm

      I think Blizzard were more than happy to make these changes to be honest. They seem to be shooting for Overwatch as a multi-media global franchise, and capturing the widest possible audience means keeping things pretty safe unfortunately. I don't think any of these changes make any difference personally. I can understand why people are concerned that this is basically bullying a developer to do what a tiny vocal minority want, but this seems far removed from the ridiculous Assassin's Creed Unity female characters thing. Blizzard's been quick to make these changes and it seems in line with what they've advertised this franchise is all about.

        This part is true. I just really don't like how alluding to anything is going to have someone write a sensationalist argument about how it reinforces certain stereotypes. It's almost like people are no longer capable of moderated thought any more. There is nothing wrong with women being sex symbols. It would be insane if it were and unfortunately that seems to be the direction we're heading. The problem is when women are portrayed as nothing but sex symbols. People don't seem to understand this. I made a similar argument a couple of months back regarding diversity and representation. It just gets really tiring seeing the same trivial, self-righteous shit over and over again when there are real issues regarding these problems to be addressed.

        Last edited 29/03/16 4:30 pm

          Yeah exactly. I'd love to see a broader representation of game characters in both genders, but I can't stand the hypocrisy and utter stupidity some of these publications and commenters spout.

          What's that terrible website, The Mary Sue or something? They made entire articles about "Hot Ryu", yet this sort of thing ruins an entire game for some people. It shouldn't be about removing sexuality in games, it's literally one of the most important facets of human existence, and the most important aspect of biological life in general. Sometimes websites like that slip up (in the Hot Ryu case) and forget to hide the fact that they are human beings with the same, 100% necessary, impulses as the rest of us.

          Honestly, the real problem is people not having the intelligence to see a world outside of their own tiny worldview. Which means the problem won't be going away any time soon.

          The problem is when women are portrayed as nothing but sex symbols.

          To me at least, this argument is only made by those offended. I'm fully aware of my bias as a straight guy, but like... all the women, or most of the women are just sex-symbols? I can see it, cause sex sells et. al. but I'm not gonna make such a sweeping generalisation, that there's some kind of imaginary scale that's being overbalanced with sexy women and that needs some of them removed to then attain that balance.

        If that's their intention though, how are they so incompetent as to put this stuff in then? The masturbation joke especially; that's clearly how it was meant to be interpreted, so if that's considered offensive then how did they not know?
        How could they design this character wearing tight-as-hell yoga pants and not notice that her butt looks so nice?

    Someone's mad:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/4cbnit/the_next_patch_of_overwatch_burlap_sack_edition/

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/4cd6qg/does_blizzard_let_you_refund_preorders/

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/4cboqc/petition_to_keep_tracers_over_the_shoulder/d1h48nw

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/4cboqc/petition_to_keep_tracers_over_the_shoulder/d1h4clz

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/4cbauk/blizzard_to_remove_tracers_over_the_shoulder_pose/d1h1a7i

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/4cbauk/blizzard_to_remove_tracers_over_the_shoulder_pose/d1gpqeq

    And for my personal favourite:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/4cboqc/petition_to_keep_tracers_over_the_shoulder/d1grubl

    How many of you little darlings here are responsible for these pearlers?

    Last edited 29/03/16 4:08 pm

      lol i like this more

      https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/4cbauk/blizzard_to_remove_tracers_over_the_shoulder_pose/d1guvnd

    Hard to really side with a guy who shamelessly throws his kid into the mix over something so minor, just reeks of naivety and disingenuous concern.

    First the "toliet mag" now this. Is blizzard really that scared to potentially offend a small minority of people with a butt pose? Whatever happened to creative freedom or standing by one's product?

    If a parent honestly cannot explain to thier daughter why a fictional character may have a nice arse then they should probably be turning off the video game and maybe start learning how to parent again.

    Last edited 29/03/16 4:11 pm

    Anyone who can pull off a Tracer Cosplay is so going to end up posing like this just for the attention.

    Everyone seems to forget that we have ratings for a reason. Shouldn't the T for Teen or M for Mature rating that this game has be enough?

    Oh not that's right if something offends someone they have to have it removed for everyone.

    Not that I'm interested in Overwatch, but I've lost respect for Blizzard for not sticking with their original vision. Creative freedom is getting destroyed in western society.

    wow a female wearing what equates to yoga pants (designed to hug the body). turns around and her ass is prominent. go walk around in public or browse Instagram and this is tame at best. she is not promoting her sexuality whatsoever. nothing is taken away from her being a strong female character with the way she is depicted

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now