Well surely they will face pressure and worse sales if they don't change these 'bugs'.Houseman said:
Well terrible is subjective so that doesn't seem true.
Am I Wrong to feel Vindicated by this 'Censorship'?
- Thread starter Angelblaze
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Caving to pressure includes changing the bugHouseman said:
Not of any particular significance, no.
Generally its a numbers game, there may be a couple people out there that genuinely think a bug would make the game worse if removed, more commonly things like exploits in MMO games that people utilize for an advantage, but this does not make the ME3 ending some vastly different context where we can just sweep aside the fact that they changed their assets due to people not liking the ending, not some objective measure of improvement.Houseman said:
Appearing to make an objective statement is meaningless, saying "i didn't like it" can still be backed up with the same reasoning and points as "you did a terrible job" and the later is just as prone to being driven by the arguers personal likes and dislikes.
For something as content thick as the ME3 ending, you can form very complex opinions either supporting or attacking the ending, for something like the Tracer change, the arguements are much simpler because theres a lot less content and context to talk about. You can do the same objective style analysis in the later as the former, using comparisons and media to try and prove whether or not her pose fit thematically with her character, but you end up hitting a brick wall of subjectivity much faster as it becomes harder to pick apart a single pose than an ending to a trilogy of AAA RPGs.
So no, I still see the ME3 change and Tracer change as comparable on some level, not exactly the same, but I am not going to stick the ME3 ending change as just not counting because of some subjective interpretation you have about the change being an objective improvement. Still hate that shit-heap of an ending.
I don't understand why freedom of speech gets dragged into this mess. It has nothing to do with it. Freedom of speech allows you to distribute and receive information without having to worry about a state sponsored organisation or private organisation threatening you. It doesn't protect you against criticism, and it doesn't protect you against yourself. Regardless of whether Blizzard removed it due to criticism or not, the decision wasn't forced upon them by any party.
To be fair, though. I recall there was a bit of an "outcry" when Blizzard added the Blood Elves as a playable race in World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade. People claimed they weren't "masculine" enough, and it was apparently enough to dissuade some people from playing them. I guess that's the other end of the spectrum entirely, though; people were pissed that the male characters weren't oversexualised.
I genuinely don't get the fuss. I found it to be an incredibly hideous pose, and I can only assume their art director felt the same way upon seeing it. I don't think it really had anything to do with anyone crying sexism or any of the sort. Because there are A LOT of characters they could've done that over.
To be fair, though. I recall there was a bit of an "outcry" when Blizzard added the Blood Elves as a playable race in World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade. People claimed they weren't "masculine" enough, and it was apparently enough to dissuade some people from playing them. I guess that's the other end of the spectrum entirely, though; people were pissed that the male characters weren't oversexualised.
I genuinely don't get the fuss. I found it to be an incredibly hideous pose, and I can only assume their art director felt the same way upon seeing it. I don't think it really had anything to do with anyone crying sexism or any of the sort. Because there are A LOT of characters they could've done that over.
Easy - otherwise the the argument wouldn't really have any "legitimacy". If you just say "I don't like what you didn't like" that sounds dumb, but "I don't like that YOU DON'T LIKE FREE SPEECH" makes you fight for something real makes your complaint not just a complaint.Serio said:
Rather ironically, it's fighting for others to NOT have freedom of speech. But, oh well.
I could be remembering wrong, but weren't the cries of them not being masculine enough coming from people who didn't want them sexualized? As in, they wanted them to be typical male-friendly he-men rather than female-pandering sexy men? Many of the female WoW players I have known over the years think male belfs are sexy.Serio said:
That is, rather frighteningly, how it often goes. "You have the right to say what I agree with!"DoPo said:
I'm not actually sure. It's possible, of course. I never viewed them as particularly sexualised myself, but I guess I fell into the trap. I do recall there was quite a number of female WoW players who called the Blood Elves sexy, so you may actually be correct.Fappy said:
But I'd ask AngelBlaze a few questions for...I guess clarification and non-locked thread discussion.
A. Lion el'Jonson vs Sanguinius?
B. Is there a level of consumer based critique of Work in Progress that is acceptable? because from what I can tell, its the developer's way or Go fuck yourself you entitled shit, you don't even deserve the dirt on our feet, give us all your money just for standing in the same room as you!
C. Bayonetta? Ya' or Nay?
D. Diet Cherry Coke or Chipotle burrito with chicken, veggies, no cheese, beans, guac for extra and light sour cream?
A. Lion el'Jonson vs Sanguinius?
B. Is there a level of consumer based critique of Work in Progress that is acceptable? because from what I can tell, its the developer's way or Go fuck yourself you entitled shit, you don't even deserve the dirt on our feet, give us all your money just for standing in the same room as you!
C. Bayonetta? Ya' or Nay?
D. Diet Cherry Coke or Chipotle burrito with chicken, veggies, no cheese, beans, guac for extra and light sour cream?
I think sex is good. I don't mind how FFXV males are designed. What's wrong with femle fanservice. It should be fine no matter who is being aimed at. It certainly is hypocritical to hear crickets from people condemning sexy females in games, but as those people often say dumb things, I am not saddened by thejr silence.
I play games for the story and gameplay, fanservice is like a side dish which is always welcome but never the point of the experience. Hence, I do not mind its lack or the inclusion of service not aimed at specifically me. Nor do I feel lessened as a man because some girl somewhere gets moist fantasizing about Dante and Vergil spooning. She's free to do that.
I play games for the story and gameplay, fanservice is like a side dish which is always welcome but never the point of the experience. Hence, I do not mind its lack or the inclusion of service not aimed at specifically me. Nor do I feel lessened as a man because some girl somewhere gets moist fantasizing about Dante and Vergil spooning. She's free to do that.
Well, what I am supposed to say? I agree with creative freedom in all cases, as you long as you don't harm anybody. But I am just one person. I find it difficult to start any meaningful discussion or debate when your starting point is a broad generalization like that.Angelblaze said:
Regarding the Tracer Controversy, I agree with the change. Basically, what happened was that a fan said, "Hey, I thought Tracer was not supposed to be a sexy character, but I found this pose to be sexy" and the developer responded with "You know what, you are right on both accounts. Thanks for noticing, we will remove that." Again, on the basic level, this is like pointing out a grammar mistake in a text someone else wrote so he can correct it before handing it in.
What I have a problem with is the language used in this case, both from the fan and the developer. The fan used language to give her observation a moral angle and made it seem much more like a complaint, and the developer made it worse by vindicating it with carefully crafted BS company speach, to not offend anyone. Had the original post not been written as grandiose and demanding, and the developer responded in kind, I doubt this decision would have made such big waves.
And you can feel as vindictive as you like, it is just not terrible helpful.
How on Earth is this something that has anything to do with Freedom of Speech? I don't know a whole lot about this game's characters, but just glancing over the picture with them all together, none of them seem to be all that sexualized. This change comes across as keeping consistent. They don't want to turn into lol where every other character could have a playboy skin. That's an artistic choice on their part, not some weird violation of freedom of speech.... Seriously, whose freedom of speech are they trampling on in this situation? Their own? Gamers who want to be "sexy" in game? If it's the latter, get over it. It's not your game, it's not your vision. Make your own or play something else. There are plenty of games out there that sexualize their characters. I'm not saying that's a bad thing either, I'm just saying that Blizzard obviously don't want it in their game.
I don't see what the fuss is about really.
Blizzard set up a feedback forum. A user posted feedback. Blizzard responded to feedback.
Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? Despite the outrage at its' removal, no-one really claimed to like that pose. So there wasn't a good reason to keep it. And the user is right, it is out of character. There are still slutty looking characters like Widowmaker, but Tracer is not one of them.
Blizzard set up a feedback forum. A user posted feedback. Blizzard responded to feedback.
Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? Despite the outrage at its' removal, no-one really claimed to like that pose. So there wasn't a good reason to keep it. And the user is right, it is out of character. There are still slutty looking characters like Widowmaker, but Tracer is not one of them.
@Angelblaze
from the previous thread:
OP:
from the previous thread:
I don't get what you're trying to say here. people weren't upset about paid mods? that they where upset? that it doesn't count because we all disagreed on it? that other people or saying it doesn't count because we all disagreed on it?Angelblaze said:
OP:
I don't remember people from GG being joyful towards the censorship. At least no the one's that where Steven Univers fans. But to you're point they essential did what you are doing nowAngelblaze said:
at this point it seems like a vicious cycle of never ending apathy.
This is basically how I feel towards any other group on the internet.Angelblaze said:
The Steven Universe thing struck me as a great time to show just what one was made of. Instead, I saw a stream of "take that, SJWs/feminists!"
Which only furthers my impression that free speech is only an issue when it applies to things we like.
Which only furthers my impression that free speech is only an issue when it applies to things we like.
Nonsense. You are absolutely free to agree with me. That's free speech, right?DoPo said: