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

[cthulhuspawn82]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Silvanus]

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,."

Do we only trust authorial statements when they confirm what we already think?

 

[Something Amyss]

The modeled the pose and put it in the game.

No matter how many times this is repeated, it doesn't mean they had an affirmative stance. More relevant, however, is that the claim of sexism was not one made by them or Phipps.

"Placeholder animation" is more internally consistent.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

I feel censorship is a word that gets thrown around a lot, but often gets misapplied. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those idiots who thinks "It's only censorship when the Government does it" or "Government censorship is the only kind that matters."

A lot of people (not everyone) would classify mass book burning as censorship, however we live in an age that has moved beyond even the printing press, burning a book can't do much to hinder its spread. We can always print more, Christ's sake we figured out how to farm trees for paper. And in the modern world all you can do by burning a book is start a fire, you can't burn every copy and you'll never be able to touch the ideas within it.

However, I can certainly see where people are coming from if they would jump to classify a book burning as censorship. What are you doing by burning a book if not saying you believe the ideas within it are unacceptable?

Now, censorship in games is a much murkier topic. There is not black and white here, there isn't even that much grey. You're waist deep in fucking rainbows when you wanna talk about censorship in games.


What is censorship? Well, the most common definition is "the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions."

Now, authorities. That's the one we need to look at here. Let's say some silver tongued bastard got the attention of a big executive at [YOUR FAVORITE DEVELOPMENT STUDIO] this executive has final decision on all creative elements in the game because as much as you trust these developers not to capitulate, they know who signs their payslip. Now, let's say the game discussed [POLITICAL TOPIC YOU HAVE INTEREST IN] and this silver tongued charmer that has the attention the executive doesn't have a view on that political topic you would then find agreeable.

We've established that this executive is an authority over the studio, is it then censorship when this executive is convinced or manipulated into exerting his creative control to make this political topic you have interest in seem villainous when that is not the original vision of these developers?

Now I don't think that is too many steps from the thought process of people who doesn't like companies removing content at the behest of an outraged vocal minority, and are willing to call that removal censorship. To say that they have no point and no legitimate grievance is... ignorant and naive at best, spiteful and childish at worst.

I think these people see this as censorship on a matter of principle, anything less than complete creative freedom to them is unacceptable.I have never *ever* seen anything to suggest that these people only want to creative freedom THEY agree with. The only thing I can think of that would even remotely lead to that conclusion is when Steven Universe had a lesbian kiss censored for a euro release many people who mock people who don't like content being removed from games were understandably disappointed. The anti-censorship advocates then threw the same arguments that were thrown at them toward the people who mocked them ie "You're just a pervert who wants tits on screen, It's not censorship it's localization, the government had nothing to do with this decision so it isn't censorship." Watching the tone with which these arguments were thrown at the people who once sued them, this seemed more an act of Schadenfreude or feeding your polar opposite their own medicine, more than an actual statement from them.

Maybe I'm just fucking stupid, but that lead me to the opposite conclusion, I think. That lead me to the conclusion that a lot of people who DON'T defend things like Tracer's ass, but will defend the thing they agree with only care about artistic freedom they agree with. Not the people who defend everything, no matter how trivial.

I just think it's ridiculous that Tracer pose got removed. It's not even sexual. It was the most confusing move I'd ever seen a dev make, it was crazy.

 

[SeanSeanston]

TBH, I know very little of any of this but after looking at the character in question with the pose... my feelings were that I hate SJWs and bullshit as much as the next man, but that character is fucking dumb looking and frankly makes me think they're trying to condescend to their idea of stereotypical nerds.
It's like that controversial scantily-clad women dancing thing recently. Or the famous booth babes of E3, that might make sense in certain contexts (getting someone to dress up as Lara Croft why not if you feel that makes sense) but is/was taken to ludicrous and random extents that make it clear they're just trying to shove boobs in people's faces and hope that somehow... makes them interested in the game they're selling...? Wut?

Just looks like terrible in general IMO, and even if it wasn't a terrible style in the first place, it's been overdone by now.

Soooo... notsheriff what to feel. However, am I right in thinking the problem appears to have been the character + pose? Like... as though somehow it was a perfectly good character design with like... gold bodypaint or whatever the fuck from memory, until that pose ruined everything? Also that pose is apparently fine with other characters, even the other female with skintight "clothing".

So I don't even know really what the deal was in the first place... but either way I'm 99.9% sure not to play or give a shit about the game which I haven't even looked up anyway I care so little about it.

Still... maybe the SJWs... gah... guhh... have a sort of point this time? <____<... but for the wrong reasons I'm sure. So I can still essentially agree with them, while disagreeing with them, right? ^_^

 

[Karadalis]

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.

Okay lets be real here... blizzard didnt change the pose because of 1 forum post.. they pretty much planned to remove that placeholder pose from the getgo.

What REALLY pissed off people was the brown nosing and knee falling blizzard commited and made it SEEM that they where pandering to this one person while there where hundrets of people on said forum against said change.

So the image arose that blizzard would rather listen to 1 "think of the children" mother (who later turned out was a guy anyways) SJW instead of its own customer base.

And you know what? That kinda pisses people off. Had they simply KEPT THEIR MOUTH SHUT and simply replaced that pose... no one would have been the wiser and nothing would have happened.

But because blizzard saw an oportunity to score some brownie points with the SJW crowd (because being "diverse" "inclusive" and "progressive" are this generations absolute MUST HAVES... even thought no one has a friggin clue what is actually involved in these words) they shot themselves in the foot and pissed off their own customers who are sick and tired of this BS culture war.

Cause thats the real issue here: People are fucking tired of being told that their past time hobby that they enjoy to get AWAY from all the real life bullshit they have to deal with on a daily basis keeps being invaded by the same real live bullshit they try to escape and that companies that should cater to their actual customers are rather complient to cater to a small group of permanently outraged regressive authoritarian puritans.

Just change the bloody pose! But dont fall on your knees infront of the permanently outraged and make it seem like you agree with the narrative that computer games somehow have negative real life side effects, something that despite numerous studies over the years has yet to be prooven no matter what tumblrinas and twitter addicts want to tell everyone.

The games industry would have alot less problems if they would tell their developers and writers to simply SHUT THE FUCK UP and let REAL PR people deal with things. The amount of foot in mouth syndrome amongst members of the gaming industry is staggering... the new baldurs gate DLC is a poster child for this. Instead of keeping their mouth shut and their people out of the firing line they instead double down, blame the goobergate bogeyman for their crappy product and worse then twilight rate writing and having one of their writers shit on longterm fans of the baldurs gate series... you know.. the only people that would actually be interested in buying DLC for an almost 20 year old game?

But who needs to actually make a good product if you can insert your out of place political agenda and shit all over a beloved franchise right?

But no... being with the "progressive" crowd is so hot right now.. everyone wants to be the next sunset overdrive... its like these people have no sense of self preservation anymore and will rather go down with the titanic then to shut up.

 

[Something Amyss]

However, I can certainly see where people are coming from if they would jump to classify a book burning as censorship. What are you doing by burning a book if not saying you believe the ideas within it are unacceptable?

Depends. You started dropping the "mass" portion. You can destroy a book any way you want as an indicator that you simply do not want it in your presence anymore.

Now, censorship in games is a much murkier topic. There is not black and white here, there isn't even that much grey. You're waist deep in fucking rainbows when you wanna talk about censorship in games.

There is one thing that's pretty black and white: you can guess which side a good chunk of the arguers will be on based on the content.

 

[renegade7]

vaguely abusive and vague agreeable

Well that's basically just the internet for you.

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!

Are you signing their paychecks? Do they work for you? Are they in any way obligated to do what you want?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

There's no evidence they find it sexist now. There is no evidence the man who made the comment found it sexist, either.

"Reduced to just another sex symbol", direct comparisons to Widowmaker in specific context of sexualization, yadda yadda. It's pretty damned obvious what was going on, there.

 

[renegade7]

Are you signing their paychecks? Do they work for you? Are they in any way obligated to do what you want?

Revenue doesn't come from nowhere.

Except from the people who willingly buy the games as they are presented. If you don't like it, that's fine, you don't have to buy it. But consider that those games are being made that way because a majority of people prefer them that way. Even if we accept the "developers owe something to the people buying the games" argument as valid, then should they listen to the majority or to the minority, given that no single person's purchase or non-purchase is any more special than anyone else's?