We will be closing this General thread in 24 hours. It will remain searchable.
After that we will require new threads to discuss topics.
Questions should go in the stickied Q&A thread, screenshots and PotG will go in the PotG sticky, QQ/Rage/Complaints should go in the QQ/Rage thread. If you want to talk about maps or strategies open a new thread.
Any comments or concerns will be logged please forward them to ZeromuS. This new forum is still fluid so we will try this out. General TL rules will still apply to new threads.
On March 31 2016 00:47 salle wrote: I think people have the wrong idea about people being offended, no one is being offended, it's about how one of the cosmetic options of one of the characters where out of character..... if we had a skin where junkrat is mooning, that would be in character, but if say mcree did it it'd be wrong... this pose just didn't fit this character, they can solve it in multiple ways, changing the model, tweaking the current pose, removing the pose and doing something different. .... like ... it's not a huge deal...... molehills.....
Its only a huge deal if you want to view it as this larger trend of Blizzard listening to people who have different opinions on what they are looking for in a game. Then it’s the sudden realization that maybe you are not the center of Blizzard’s attention any more.
Feels like people are just getting angry over the idea of the other infringing on them in some way (which they aren't but oh well)
On March 31 2016 00:58 ZodaSoda wrote: The problem Salle is, is Kaplans response was trending more to the offence side with buzzwords like "inclusive" meaning the way he took it was "sexualized butt = bad" not spunky character has nice butt and if he's going to reply that way does this mean if some poeple started complaining about other characters are they going to change them? we've seen Sylvanas navel covered up cause some people thought she showed too much skin, we've seen a ship renamed from Tyrandes silence because someone decided they thought it was misogynistic, and i think this is worst of all as blizzard has begun deleting rude and moderate threads alike discussing why they think tracer should have a showy butt, you cant listen to your community and be inclusive, while deleting discussion and ignoring one sides opinion...
MODs are often just social weather vanes providing judgement by proxy on order from the higher ups. As a result, mistakes in judgement get made at the ground levels in forums all the time. I would not take it too seriously or read too much into it. its happened 1000 timse in the past and it'll happened a million times in the future on forums every where.
i agree with all the decisions you've highlighted because their target audience includes Super Mario 64 type players.
this means no brutally, graphic, ultra-realistic death animations. also means, no pointless displays of human sexuality.
i am male. i love RTS games and Red Alert 3. i think Gina Carano is the most beautiful woman in the world. i love the game play and i'm 100% capable of enjoying combat and strategy without having a woman's sexuality shoved in my face every minute. get her the fuck out of Red Alert 3. i do not want Red Alert 3 and Gina Carano together in the same product.
Furthermore, in both RA3 and Overwatch when i'm really in "fun mode" i'm basically in the mindset of a 12 year old. I do not want human sexuality constantly shoved in my face. i also do not want ultra realistic Max Payne 3 style death animations. i want light hearted fun that keeps me in "12 year old boy mode".
Themes of human sexuality are for adults only. 15 year olds often believe they can handle it.. They can not. Themes of human sexuality are not for adults who for all intents and purposes are processing reality through the mindset of a child. And that is the mindset i am in while playing Overwatch and having fun.
On March 31 2016 00:47 salle wrote: I think people have the wrong idea about people being offended, no one is being offended, it's about how one of the cosmetic options of one of the characters where out of character..... if we had a skin where junkrat is mooning, that would be in character, but if say mcree did it it'd be wrong... this pose just didn't fit this character, they can solve it in multiple ways, changing the model, tweaking the current pose, removing the pose and doing something different. .... like ... it's not a huge deal...... molehills.....
Its only a huge deal if you want to view it as this larger trend of Blizzard listening to people who have different opinions on what they are looking for in a game. Then it’s the sudden realization that maybe you are not the center of Blizzard’s attention any more.
Feels like people are just getting angry over the idea of the other infringing on them in some way (which they aren't but oh well) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
One podcast put it best “The backlash has less to do with the change and more to do with the feeling that one person was listened too, but others are not. That that person was able to enact change, but others can’t.” Though the reality is that Blizzard was already sort of unhappy with the pose and on the path to changing it, and the post in question just gave them the reason to put it into place.
On March 31 2016 00:56 The_Red_Viper wrote: This whole situation is ridiculous. "Being out of character" is such a poor argument because all it comes down to is having steoretypes of characters (which in itself is bad) So if one out of who knows how many skins/poses/whatever is a little bit different / shows a different side of a character (which is arguable in this one case in the first place) then it shouldn't be in the game? So characters aren't allowed to have many facettes, that alone is quite the poor pov and shows how far behind videogames still are.
The characters are allowed to have as many facets as Blizzard wants them to have. Apparently they didn't like this particular facet, or it didn't occur to them that the pose could be considered sexual. And if you are seriously making the argument that Overwatch characters don't cover a lot of facets, you're insane. Not all characters need to be sexy, and Overwatch already has several sexy female characters (Widowmaker/Mercy). Tracer is the face of Overwatch and is already pegged as the spunky one, why dilute her with sex appeal when you don't have to? People have Rule 34 for that shit if they are really interested.
The funny thing about the internet age is that people are tempted to have an opinion on everything, because we're able to share our thoughts within minutes or even seconds with millions of people. However having an opinion does not mean you're automatically right! Nobody has to agree with you, just because it's your opinion. Our generation cannot accept that others might have a point or that there's more to the truth than they're able to see. I don't get why we have the need to have it our way everytime...this is not how things work in the real world. So Blizzard decided to change the pose, I might agree/disagree with that... but at the end of the day does it matter? No.
On March 31 2016 00:56 The_Red_Viper wrote: This whole situation is ridiculous. "Being out of character" is such a poor argument because all it comes down to is having steoretypes of characters (which in itself is bad) So if one out of who knows how many skins/poses/whatever is a little bit different / shows a different side of a character (which is arguable in this one case in the first place) then it shouldn't be in the game? So characters aren't allowed to have many facettes, that alone is quite the poor pov and shows how far behind videogames still are.
The characters are allowed to have as many facets as Blizzard wants them to have. Apparently they didn't like this particular facet, or it didn't occur to them that the pose could be considered sexual. And if you are seriously making the argument that Overwatch characters don't cover a lot of facets, you're insane. Not all characters need to be sexy, and Overwatch already has several sexy female characters (Widowmaker/Mercy). Tracer is the face of Overwatch and is already pegged as the spunky one, why dilute her with sex appeal when you don't have to? People have Rule 34 for that shit if they are really interested.
My point isn't that overwatch characters overall don't cover a lot of different facets, my point is that apparently characters still need to be stereotypes and aren't allowed to have multiple facets each. So Tracer has one "sexual" pose (which itself is quite arguable, but let's just assume it is), so what? That doesn't make her a "sexual" character, that just makes her more than one dimensional. Video games are still so underdeveloped in that regard it's hilarious. "oh that one character is the spunky one, that means we cannot do anything else with it". wow what a good character design, so complex, so original. Overwatch's character design is just as bad as any other one out there, this whole incident shows that pretty well.
I don't care if tracer has that one particular pose or not, but the whole reasoning is more than absurd and shows why nobody takes videogames seriously as an art form
And yeah, pc community isn't helping either. Anything is offensive these days
I don't see why people are making so much fucking hay about this. I'm satisfied with the response, "We didn't like it anyway" is a fine enough reason for devs to remove something from their game. I find nothing wrong with the pose, but nor am I so attached to it that having it removed is some kind of affront to my dignity. If this becomes a pattern and the PC police somehow change a bunch of different things, I'd see it as an issue. As is, this is just much ado about nothing.
On March 31 2016 00:56 The_Red_Viper wrote: This whole situation is ridiculous. "Being out of character" is such a poor argument because all it comes down to is having steoretypes of characters (which in itself is bad) So if one out of who knows how many skins/poses/whatever is a little bit different / shows a different side of a character (which is arguable in this one case in the first place) then it shouldn't be in the game? So characters aren't allowed to have many facettes, that alone is quite the poor pov and shows how far behind videogames still are.
The characters are allowed to have as many facets as Blizzard wants them to have. Apparently they didn't like this particular facet, or it didn't occur to them that the pose could be considered sexual. And if you are seriously making the argument that Overwatch characters don't cover a lot of facets, you're insane. Not all characters need to be sexy, and Overwatch already has several sexy female characters (Widowmaker/Mercy). Tracer is the face of Overwatch and is already pegged as the spunky one, why dilute her with sex appeal when you don't have to? People have Rule 34 for that shit if they are really interested.
My point isn't that overwatch characters overall don't cover a lot of different facets, my point is that apparently characters still need to be stereotypes and aren't allowed to have multiple facets each. So Tracer has one "sexual" pose (which itself is quite arguable, but let's just assume it is), so what? That doesn't make her a "sexual" character, that just makes her more than one dimensional. Video games are still so underdeveloped in that regard it's hilarious. "oh that one character is the spunky one, that means we cannot do anything else with it". wow what a good character design, so complex, so original. Overwatch's character design is just as bad as any other one out there, this whole incident shows that pretty well.
I don't care if tracer has that one particular pose or not, but the whole reasoning is more than absurd and shows why nobody takes videogames seriously as an art form
And yeah, pc community isn't helping either. Anything is offensive these days
If your solution to making a female character multi-dimensional is to make sure she has sex appeal, I don't know what to tell you. Try to understand to people who actually care about this, Tracer NOT being overtly sexual is what is complex and original. There are a million games that feature sexy women in skimpy clothing, so if you want to attack underdeveloped character tropes, why not start there?
Who knows what Blizzard has in store for Tracer with all of the lore they are putting out. Maybe there will be other facets than "spunky," but does flirty or sexual have to be one of them? Absolutely have to?
On March 31 2016 00:56 The_Red_Viper wrote: This whole situation is ridiculous. "Being out of character" is such a poor argument because all it comes down to is having steoretypes of characters (which in itself is bad) So if one out of who knows how many skins/poses/whatever is a little bit different / shows a different side of a character (which is arguable in this one case in the first place) then it shouldn't be in the game? So characters aren't allowed to have many facettes, that alone is quite the poor pov and shows how far behind videogames still are.
The characters are allowed to have as many facets as Blizzard wants them to have. Apparently they didn't like this particular facet, or it didn't occur to them that the pose could be considered sexual. And if you are seriously making the argument that Overwatch characters don't cover a lot of facets, you're insane. Not all characters need to be sexy, and Overwatch already has several sexy female characters (Widowmaker/Mercy). Tracer is the face of Overwatch and is already pegged as the spunky one, why dilute her with sex appeal when you don't have to? People have Rule 34 for that shit if they are really interested.
My point isn't that overwatch characters overall don't cover a lot of different facets, my point is that apparently characters still need to be stereotypes and aren't allowed to have multiple facets each. So Tracer has one "sexual" pose (which itself is quite arguable, but let's just assume it is), so what? That doesn't make her a "sexual" character, that just makes her more than one dimensional. Video games are still so underdeveloped in that regard it's hilarious. "oh that one character is the spunky one, that means we cannot do anything else with it". wow what a good character design, so complex, so original. Overwatch's character design is just as bad as any other one out there, this whole incident shows that pretty well.
I don't care if tracer has that one particular pose or not, but the whole reasoning is more than absurd and shows why nobody takes videogames seriously as an art form
And yeah, pc community isn't helping either. Anything is offensive these days
If your solution to making a female character multi-dimensional is to make sure she has sex appeal, I don't know what to tell you. Try to understand to people who actually care about this, Tracer NOT being overtly sexual is what is complex and original. There are a million games that feature sexy women in skimpy clothing, so if you want to attack underdeveloped character tropes, why not start there?
Who knows what Blizzard has in store for Tracer with all of the lore they are putting out. Maybe there will be other facets than "spunky," but does flirty or sexual have to be one of them? Absolutely have to?
Yeah that was exactly what i was saying! But sure, adding different attitudes to a character makes it more complex. If we remove anything which isn't in the original design (which is quite one dimensional) we make it, well, less complex. In this case it is about "being sexual" , as i said before i don't care for the removal at all, but the reasoning is absurd. No not every single character needs a sexy pose, but at the same time i also don't think having a sexy pose for every character would be a bad thing either, not at all. Just like it wouldn't be a bad thing to make other adjustments to characters, make them more complex, more human. People arguing that not every character needs a sexual component completely miss the point. It's not about that, that's just the example we deal with in the current context. But sure let's talk about this topic a little bit more: Having sexual facets isn't bad at all, UNLESS it's the only defining aspect of said character. This is quite obviously not the case here, anyone saying so is simply wrong.
Let's see it this way: What if Blizzard wants to add "poolparty skins" (yes you might know it from lol) for overwatch. I guess Tracer isn't allowed to be in a bikini because that would be too sexual for her character, but maybe not for widowmaker? This is the same kind of logic as people who instantly think "sexy" women cannot be smart because apparently these two things are mutually exclusive. This line of thought isn't complex at all, it's simply retarded and implies so many weird things.
Again i couldn't care less about the specific pose (which funnily enough only looks "sexual" with the normal tracer skin, so it's more about the skin i guess), but everything else surrounding it (reasonings, pc community, etc) are imo worth discussion because all these things develop in quite the scary direction tbh.
Incontrol hits the nail on the head that its not about being sexy, its that sexy is the stereotypical default and people want variety. And that you might not 100% agree with the change, but the discussion is good because it will promote more variation in character designs. And more creativity.
I remember at a panel someone asked Blizzard if they considered doing gender swapped versions of every character and they said something along the lines of: “it would be awesome and we would love the challenge, but the production would be to much.” And someone also asked if they considered doing a hero that was disabled or in a wheel chair. You could almost seek the creative gears turning when they answered. Blizzard makes great games and fans want to see themselves represented in those games.
On March 31 2016 00:47 salle wrote: I think people have the wrong idea about people being offended, no one is being offended, it's about how one of the cosmetic options of one of the characters where out of character..... if we had a skin where junkrat is mooning, that would be in character, but if say mcree did it it'd be wrong... this pose just didn't fit this character, they can solve it in multiple ways, changing the model, tweaking the current pose, removing the pose and doing something different. .... like ... it's not a huge deal...... molehills.....
Its only a huge deal if you want to view it as this larger trend of Blizzard listening to people who have different opinions on what they are looking for in a game. Then it’s the sudden realization that maybe you are not the center of Blizzard’s attention any more.
You really think people who care about Tracer's butt play games ?
On March 31 2016 00:47 salle wrote: I think people have the wrong idea about people being offended, no one is being offended, it's about how one of the cosmetic options of one of the characters where out of character..... if we had a skin where junkrat is mooning, that would be in character, but if say mcree did it it'd be wrong... this pose just didn't fit this character, they can solve it in multiple ways, changing the model, tweaking the current pose, removing the pose and doing something different. .... like ... it's not a huge deal...... molehills.....
Its only a huge deal if you want to view it as this larger trend of Blizzard listening to people who have different opinions on what they are looking for in a game. Then it’s the sudden realization that maybe you are not the center of Blizzard’s attention any more.
Feels like people are just getting angry over the idea of the other infringing on them in some way (which they aren't but oh well) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
You know this video is basically psychology of crowds, or how feelings and sentiments are supposed to spread in a group and crush rational thinking and individuality. This kind of psychology was developped after the french revolution to depict revolutionaries as mindless people taken by the feelings of the crowd, unable to think. It's a very bourgeois feeling, to decridibilize what the majority think by describing this thinking as the result of some kind of constraint that the collective put on ones mind, opposing the ignorant feeling of the mass to the rational judgement of the enlighted (and dominant) majority. Now going back to the subject, here is what the video argue : people on the internet are mindless tool who can't think because they see cat gif and are victim to a "disease" that disable their rational and critical thinking and force them to share the gif. It's a good way to decridibilize the argument, or the judgement, of someone without having to actually argue against it.
On March 31 2016 06:51 WhiteDog wrote: Blah, all this is ridiculous. Soon we'll all argue to death about secondary things like Tracer's outfit, and forget what games are about.
On March 31 2016 00:47 salle wrote: I think people have the wrong idea about people being offended, no one is being offended, it's about how one of the cosmetic options of one of the characters where out of character..... if we had a skin where junkrat is mooning, that would be in character, but if say mcree did it it'd be wrong... this pose just didn't fit this character, they can solve it in multiple ways, changing the model, tweaking the current pose, removing the pose and doing something different. .... like ... it's not a huge deal...... molehills.....
Its only a huge deal if you want to view it as this larger trend of Blizzard listening to people who have different opinions on what they are looking for in a game. Then it’s the sudden realization that maybe you are not the center of Blizzard’s attention any more.
You really think people who care about Tracer's butt play games ?
Yes. I 100% know that the people who said "eh, that pose could be better" play games. I know a few of them and they even play Overwatch(big jerks, getting beta invites). Some of them are women.
Incontrol hits the nail on the head that its not about being sexy, its that sexy is the stereotypical default and people want variety
Overwatch has pretty good & varied characters of both sexes. I think that going out of your way to say that "nothing this character does can be sexy, that's out of character" is reducing variety, especially on an optional cosmetic. It's especially annoying to see that criticism leveraged in a sexist way (very disproportionally against female characters)
On March 31 2016 04:04 deth2munkies wrote: I don't see why people are making so much fucking hay about this. I'm satisfied with the response, "We didn't like it anyway" is a fine enough reason for devs to remove something from their game. I find nothing wrong with the pose, but nor am I so attached to it that having it removed is some kind of affront to my dignity. If this becomes a pattern and the PC police somehow change a bunch of different things, I'd see it as an issue. As is, this is just much ado about nothing.
Most of the time, people get upset about "What" is changed/happens. The actions of a company. In this case, it's really more about the "Why" or the reasoning it happened. This is actually a much bigger issue, as Blizzard's responses here have opened up questions they really don't want to have to deal with. (For the record, since I don't have a Beta invite, the pose actually strikes me as needing an adjustment as her standing weight is off and her left leg is too straight, so there's some animation work that needed to be adjusted. So changes were probably a given.)
Maybe it's easy to get to the core of the problem this way: if Blizzard had changed some aspect of her character and one of the Devs posted "because she looks too much like a Lesbian", a bunch of people would have hit the roof. There would have been a public apology, someone probably would get fired and we wouldn't hear the end of it for months. Blizzcon might even get some token protesters this year, as a result.
See the issue? That's the issue that people are responding to, whether they realize it or not. Because, frankly,the people that would have hit the roof are the ones the Dev response were meant to appease. By an single Dev post, Blizzard stepped into a raging culture war. And, specifically, on the side that calls most of Blizzard's customers "losers that live in their mother's basement" quite a lot. There's always going to be a nasty reaction when a gaming company seems to be taking cues from people that hate those that play games.
Granted, it really probably was something they were going to change and Blizzard caused themselves some PR problems because of the Dev's own political leanings, so I expect this to blow over and don't actually think the direct issue means that much. But it signals a likely muzzle on the Dev's ability to post on topics. That's normally the cost.
I totaly can't wait for the Torbjorn "over the shoulder" pose. It totaly fits his character... Or at least the one that I created in my mind based on almost no information at all.
Not necessarily caring about overwatch, I read reddit's freakout about this and I have to just marvel at the stupidity of humanity. Speaking of the outrage : content ratio, this one has to be near the top of the list.
A pose for a video game character is replaced for a game in beta because the developers did not like it. World news.
I'm sure Fatale outfit (and ass) is fine because she's french. I'm outraged at the representation this game convey on my country, like we can't think about anything else but sex. And why are we in the bad guy team ? Is it because of Iraq again ? And look at the Russian woman, it's like Blizzard is saying all russian women have masculine attribute. It prevent us from knowing her character more, like what book she likes.
Wow I'm so outraged god damn it.
Putting that aside, did they add (or intend to add) other kind of objectives beside convoy and point control, because looking at people playing the beta I felt it was somewhat repetitive some month ago ? Or did the new heroes changed much ?
I don't know about you all, but I was really pumped for the game when the beta came out and now the feeling died down. This new fashion that beta come way before the launch with huge mediatisation through famous streamers and youtubers is not that good to me, as it create a short term and unanswered need.
EPT
