Am I Wrong to feel Vindicated by this 'Censorship'?

Estarc

New member
Sep 23, 2008
359
0
0
You seem to be asking a lot of questions that aren't all directly related.

First off, only you get to decide how you feel. That includes whether you feel vindicated over little things like the Tracer pose kerfuffle.

Second, you don't seem to care about the pose at all. Instead you seem to be bitter over previous instances where the "other side" so to speak got their way or whatever. And so now you are feeling happy that something went against them. I think that's kind of silly TBH.

My advice is to step back from these internet social issues for a while. They're clearly causing you some negative feelings. Not worth it mate. Just keep your internet viewing and stuff to things that make you feel good.
 

Luminous_Umbra

New member
Sep 25, 2011
218
0
0
You know, we can argue back and forth about censorship all day long, but it honestly ignores the bigger issues at play here.

The whole supposed point behind removing the pose is that the "sexiness" of it doesn't make sense with the character.

1. She's looking over her shoulder with a slightly extended leg. I'm sorry, but if looking over your shoulder qualifies as a sexy pose, then I just don't know what to say about that. Perhaps instead of complaining about the sexiness of the pose, you (referring to the complainers) could stop staring at her rear.

2. This is far from a unique pose and it's not just shared with Widowmaker. It's also shared with McCree, Hanzo, and Soldier: 76. So let me ask you this: Does a "sexy" pose make sense with any of those three? And if you try to claim that it's not a sexy pose for them, I'd be shocked if you could come up with a reason that isn't a sexist double standard or makes the issue a matter of Tracer's clothing, which I don't think I need to point out the issue with that.

The problem for me isn't just the removal of the pose, but the reason behind it, because it's more than a little messed up no matter how you slice it. Or they didn't fully think through the implications of their reasons, who knows.
 

BX3

New member
Mar 7, 2011
659
0
0
ManutheBloodedge 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 speech, 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.
This is essentially the long and short of it for me as well, and something I brought up in the original thread where the news broke.

I don't particularly mind that the pose got removed. I don't like that it got removed, because I think it's a cute pose, but whatever, that's one guy's opinion and it truly isn't all that important. What I take issue with is being BS'd, and man was that clarifying statement from them chocked full of it. I felt like my intelligence was being insulted, and it almost singlehandedly ruined my view of the game as the whole.

Exaggerated response, I admit, but all I could think when reading the statement and looking at the Tracer's overall design was "you can't honestly expect me to believe this?" They would've just been better off simply stating that they removed it because they didn't like it anymore, or better yet, just removing it and leaving it at that. I doubt many would've cared.

Callate said:
I think I will just say this.

I get an unnerved feeling when those whose issues of choice swing around the lynchpin of others finding new reserves of empathy and sympathy start displaying a lack of empathy and sympathy towards those they'd like to start finding it in themselves.

Anger and frustration are very natural feelings, and I'm sorry to say that, however it's couched, hatred is probably also a perfectly natural human emotion.

But if all one side can find in common with the other is their mutual animosity, progress becomes a pipe dream.

I'm far from incapable of indulging in schadenfreude myself, but I try (for whatever it's worth) to limit it to individuals. I can permit myself a twinge of guilty pleasure when a BP multi-millionaire whines publicly about how everyone's so mean to him after his company leaks oil all over the Gulf or Mexico, or a Senator condemns video game violence and then is implicated in real-world illegal arms trade.

But when you get to the level of condemning some vaguely-constructed, impersonal "they"... That's sharing ground with some bad company.
This is one of those things that easy to say, and hugely agreeable but ultimately really, really hard to practice simply because of human nature (as pretentious as that sounds, heh, heh.)

This mindset is one I carry with me everywhere, and is one of the major reasons there are certain friends of mine I've pretty much given up on discussing anything at length with; I just really can't stand generalizing, probably due to being on the receiving end one too many times. But unfortunately, try as I might, I still can't fight against falling into the trap myself sometimes. I'm currently having a couple problems regarding the new PPG series coming out. I won't divulge which side I'm on, but needless to say I've found myself bitterly making up a picture of the opposing side in my head and all but dismissing their arguments simply because I can't seem to see where they're coming from.

I'm hoping that we can eventually reach where news like this won't illicit such brash responses and broad generalizations from people, because I'll be honest, being a part of the video game community hasn't been all that fun for the past year or so.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Luminous_Umbra said:
2. This is far from a unique pose and it's not just shared with Widowmaker. It's also shared with McCree, Hanzo, and Soldier: 76. So let me ask you this: Does a "sexy" pose make sense with any of those three? And if you try to claim that it's not a sexy pose for them, I'd be shocked if you could come up with a reason that isn't a sexist double standard or makes the issue a matter of Tracer's clothing, which I don't think I need to point out the issue with that.
Well, judging from this video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB4J3uB2j58] which shows all the victory poses, they do seem pretty different, to be honest. With McCree and Hanzo, one wears a cape and the other a (semi-)long coat, both covering their asses. For all the blokes, the clothing doesn't conform to the contours of the ass, but with Tracer, it clings tightly, so you can see the whole cleftal horizon [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cleftal+Horizon].

Relevant:


((NB: I don't myself have a problem with the pose, and think Overwatch have generally done a damn good job of character design.))
 

DerangedHobo

New member
Jan 11, 2012
231
0
0
Can we just admit the fact that Blizzard (or any corporation that churns out video games, large or small) is really just in it for the money? If public opinion is changing in such a way that Blizzard will shit a brick because people might get offended by something and it will hurt their bottom line, how is that censorship again?

"Art" died the moment it became about the price-tag, no sooner.
 

Maxtro

New member
Feb 13, 2011
940
0
0
I absolutely hate when companies change something that is a little risque because of "public outcry."

Nobodies views should remove my options.

If you don't like the Butt Forward victory pose, don't use it.
If you don't like the Boob Slider, don't use it.
If you don't like the Sorceress, don't play as her.

It's that simple.
 

FredTheUndead

New member
Aug 13, 2010
303
0
0
I have absolutely not idea what this is but it sounds stupid and if #GGers are mad about it, then it getting removed is probably for the absolute improvement of the game

Boyband Simulator 2016 looks like a hoot
 

cthulhuspawn82

New member
Oct 16, 2011
321
0
0
People say its not censorship because Blizzard removed the pose "on their own free will". But the fact in the pose was in the game in the first place proves two things.

1. The developers didn't find it sexist, at least before the outside "input".
2. The developers liked it and wanted it to be in the game.

If both of those weren't true, they never would have even modeled the pose in the first place. So we have the case of developers removing a pose they they liked, put effort into, and didn't find offensive. Even if they did it "of their own free will", it had to be with a sigh of regret. Deleting content that they loved, at least initially, and put work into. If that kind of imposition on a creator isn't censorship, it comes pretty close.
 

FredTheUndead

New member
Aug 13, 2010
303
0
0
cthulhuspawn82 said:
People say its not censorship because Blizzard removed the pose "on their own free will". But the fact in the pose was in the game in the first place proves two things.

1. The developers didn't find it sexist, at least before the outside "input".
2. The developers liked it and wanted it to be in the game.

If both of those weren't true, they never would have even modeled the pose in the first place. So we have the case of developers removing a pose they they liked, put effort into, and didn't find offensive. Even if they did it "of their own free will", it had to be with a sigh of regret. Deleting content that they loved, at least initially, and put work into. If that kind of imposition on a creator isn't censorship, it comes pretty close.
It does not come close to censorship for a company to change a product in order to make it more appealing to a wider base of consumers, no.
 

Naqel

New member
Nov 21, 2009
345
0
0
Dgezar said:
If you don't like the feminists, ignore them. Right?
This is a horrible example though. The problem with allowing feminists free reign over what's acceptable, would in fact deny me the things I deem acceptable myself.

Unlike an Easy mode, which simply adds a feature I won't use, feminists want to take away features I might enjoy. Their 'rights' infringe upon mine.
 

Naqel

New member
Nov 21, 2009
345
0
0
Dgezar said:
If you don't like the feminists, ignore them. Right?
This is a horrible example though. The problem with allowing feminists free reign over what's acceptable, would in fact deny me the things I deem acceptable myself.

Unlike an Easy mode, which simply adds a feature I won't use, feminists want to take away features I might enjoy. Their 'rights' infringe upon mine.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Is this still a thing?

Ok, quick explanation here. Developers make changes to games during development. It is what they do. You might be pissed about some changes and welcome some. That is the nature of changes.

Seriously, this is such a non issue it says a lot more about a community that dedicates several of the most commented threads to it than about the issue or the developers themselves.
 

FredTheUndead

New member
Aug 13, 2010
303
0
0
Naqel said:
Dgezar said:
If you don't like the feminists, ignore them. Right?
This is a horrible example though. The problem with allowing feminists free reign over what's acceptable, would in fact deny me the things I deem acceptable myself.

Unlike an Easy mode, which simply adds a feature I won't use, feminists want to take away features I might enjoy. Their 'rights' infringe upon mine.
I don't know that you know what a "right" is
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Naqel said:
This is a horrible example though. The problem with allowing feminists free reign over what's acceptable, would in fact deny me the things I deem acceptable myself.

Unlike an Easy mode, which simply adds a feature I won't use, feminists want to take away features I might enjoy. Their 'rights' infringe upon mine.
This is not a "rights" discussion. It's a "consumer feedback" discussion.

The market will adjust to service every body of demand regardless of outcry. You'll notice that antagonism from moral puritanism has not, for instance, stymied the pornography industry. Do you have difficulty accessing your pornography of choice? Probably not, right? Regardless of what you're after, if enough of you are after it, someone is going to be on hand to sell it to you.

On the subject of mass market entertainment, companies will occasionally want to engineer products they think have the widest avenue of sale. They might shy away from the controversial, or alienating, or needlessly provocative, in order to maximize audience and revenue. That's not the fault of "feminism" or "liberalism" or any "-ism" that isn't good old fashioned "capitalism". And if you like tits and ass, it was capitalism and the belief in an overwhelming young male demographic purchasing games that lead to all those tits and ass games you've been enjoying over the years, so be careful about biting the hand that feeds you.

You don't have the "right" to have companies cater to your tastes. You have the right to petition them to do that, just like you have the right to petition them for no day one DLC or micro-transactions or anything else you want to leverage out of them with the specter of your buying power. How much power you have will determine how loud your voice is, not the other way around. Noisome gamers who scream to the heavens every time a butt is removed might not have as powerful a lobby as they originally assumed if butts continue to be removed. If butts ever disappear completely, you can assume it's because the human race as a collective lost interest in butts. As long as it does not, there will always be butts for you. Fear not.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
cthulhuspawn82 said:
1. The developers didn't find it sexist, at least before the outside "input".
There's no evidence they find it sexist now. There is no evidence the man who made the comment found it sexist, either.

2. The developers liked it and wanted it to be in the game.
They said otherwise.
 

Naldan

You Are Interested. Certainly.
Feb 25, 2015
488
0
0
Well, I posted and to be honest agitated in another thread about this, so let me give you a tl;dr-version of why this in particular is so dumb to me. And please, it has nothing to do with "freedom of speech" for me. But I'll bet money that I get thrown into a pot with so many others, as are also so many others who don't see this as a "freedom of speech" issue, either.

So, tl;dr:

It's fine that they changed it.

It's fine that they stated that they wanted to change it anyway.

But:

The first statement, you know, they wanted
*everyone*
feel comfortable playing their game and this was the first and foremost reason as to why they changed it makes the second statement way less credible.

Only after people made a fuss about the first statement, the second statement was issued, where they say they wanted to remove it anyway.

So, maybe these conflicting statements in a climate like this are a non-issue for you. I won't make a big deal of this all here, again. But, seriously, I don't get why this gets defended so vigorously and unquestioned with the lack of any empathy for the opposition at all. Again.
---

P.S.:

I see that this isn't a big deal in general. I don't even like butts nor boobs.

But it's just another one. Another indicator, not a fact mind you, that the pandering to puritanism gets even bigger than in the 80's and 90's, when even crosses were censored. For me, this is worth some posts and then it's done, vented some steam stemming from another disappointment.

What really tickles me, though, and please don't take this so seriously, but why are people so mad about and deny those who "are concerned" (both reasonable and unreasonable) any reason at all. It's just, as always, so extreme. You're either with us, or against us. And holy fuck, this pisses me off.

I don't read and hear from people who are "on my side". I don't care about their arguments. Why should I? When I have an opinion, I want to read the opposition. And honestly, it baffles me this time again at how much non-discussion is going on.
 

cthulhuspawn82

New member
Oct 16, 2011
321
0
0
Something Amyss said:
cthulhuspawn82 said:
2. The developers liked it and wanted it to be in the game.
They said otherwise.
The modeled the pose and put it in the game. Of course they say they dont want it now, but that's not necessarily genuine.

Developers: "Look at this cool new pose we made."
Random Customer: "That's highly offensive"
Developers: "Oh, uh ya. That was just a joke, lol. It's a stupid pose. We never really thought it was cool,."
 

DoPo

"You're not cleared for that."
Jan 30, 2012
8,665
0
0
cthulhuspawn82 said:
Something Amyss said:
cthulhuspawn82 said:
2. The developers liked it and wanted it to be in the game.
They said otherwise.
The modeled the pose and put it in the game. Of course they say they dont want it now, but that's not necessarily genuine.

Developers: "Look at this cool new pose we made."
Random Customer: "That's highly offensive"
Developers: "Oh, uh ya. That was just a joke, lol. It's a stupid pose. We never really thought it was cool,."
You're not douing yourself favours by making shit up that supports your point. A.k.a. Strawmen Fallacy.

Developers: "Look at the stuff we've made and comment, if you want anything changed."
Random Customer: "I really like what you've done, only this pose here doesn't seem to quite fit."
Developers: "We see. Thanks for the input."

That's what happened.