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

[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?

 

[Something Amyss]

"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.

Is it your opinion that sex symbols are bad? Because that's not the view he offered, but it's the one you're arguing. I'm trying to figure out where the added information is coming from.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Is it your opinion that sex symbols are bad? Because that's not the view he offered, but it's the one you're arguing. I'm trying to figure out where the added information is coming from.

My opinion is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and let's maintain focus where it should be: the original complaint. The crux of the original complaint had three basic presumptions, which are belied by the poster's framing technique,

A: A female character must be defined by sexuality before sexualized depictions are acceptable. This is evidenced by the comparison drawn between Tracer and Widowmaker in the post, and the context of that comparison (that Widowmaker's sexualization is acceptable, because her character is defined by sexuality). This is circular reasoning, as the only way to define a character as sexual is to sexualize them; that is the definition of sexualization. The author conflates "sexualization" with "objectification", an excessively common phenomenon in discussion of depiction of female characters in gaming, often invoked intentionally for rhetoric effect.

B: That sexualization is a reductive force to female characterization. The context of the post itself implies the original poster feels Tracer is something of a "higher order" of character than Widowmaker, given the lavish amount of praise for the character yet none for Widowmaker for the sake of context. This presumption is laid self-evident by the poster's repeated assertions the pose "reduces tracer to another bland female sex symbol". The poster's use of "reduces...just...sex symbol" is the smoking gun; it is clear that in this poster's mind, portraying her sexually negates every other (positive) aspect of her characterization.

C: That youthfulness and exuberance are character traits (that is to say aspects of personality) contradictory to sexuality. This is a false dichotomy, and highly evocative of harmful stereotypes and gender roles attributed to women that sexuality is a morally reductive force. This is, once again, highly substantiated by the poster's choice to compare Tracer to Widowmaker, who is a femme fatale archetype and depicted in the game as a (albeit tragic) villain.

 

[Something Amyss]

My opinion is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and let's maintain focus where it should be: the original complaint. n.

Which did not call it sexist, and only indicates sexism if one adds information. When that information is added, it is no longer about the original complaint. As such, if you will not answer the question, we are at an impasse and I am no longer interested in continuing.

 

[KingDragonlord]

Personally, I am not angry about the Overwatch thing. I don't give a fuck about Overwatch and I wasn't going to play it anyway because it simply isn't my cup of tea. What upsets me is that people take the mantle upon themselves to enforce their will upon a game developer for things they don't like.

"I don't like this little thing, therefore you should change it or remove it or I'll be offended! RAWR!" This is what bothers me.

See when I don't like something in a game, art style, gameplay, genre, whatever...I don't play it. If I am playing a game I otherwise like, but something bothers me about the game, I don't do that part of the game, or if it is something I am forced to see (like Tracer's pose) what I do in that case is simple. I ask myself how big of a deal is it. That Tracer pose is not only an optional unlock, but it also is only one of a dozen other poses that people can select and it isn't even one of the more interesting or fun ones. In reality the odds of that pose being used or even seen by players is a fairly low % of my game experience.

Dislike or not, it really isn't a big deal and it only became a big deal because it got removed.

Funny that.

Tracer's butt is a no-no, but Widowmaker can exist in all her sexy ass glory.

Let me ask you a question.

If they had changed Tracer's bio to also include that she was a transgender person, would the butt pose be viewed as sexual exploitation, or empowering to those in the trans community because it shows that anyone can be empowered and comfortable in their bodies?

The whole rest of this thread doesn't need to be here because you nailed it right out of the gate.

I haven't played this game, so I assumed this was like Street Fighter where the character chooses a random victory pose at the end of a fight in which case I thought the forum poster was being a little fussy but I otherwise respected their position (he didn't go after Widowmaker after all, his position was about character consistency).

But you're telling me you had to go out of your way to see the Tracer butt pose in the first place?

Yeah, now I'm actually annoyed. He could have lived and let live. If he didn't like the pose, all he had to do was not unlock it or use it. But he couldn't bear the thought that somebody else might choose of their own free will to unlock and use this very mildly sexy take on the "badass back to camera" pose.

Its not illegal, its not censorship but I'm calling for appeal to decency on cases like this one. We all have to share and there has to be a middle ground on these things we can all live with. I think that middle ground in this case was achieved BEFORE he complained.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Which did not call it sexist, and only indicates sexism if one adds information. When that information is added, it is no longer about the original complaint. As such, if you will not answer the question, we are at an impasse and I am no longer interested in continuing.

Rhetorically analyzing an argument isn't "adding new information" as you put it, I do hope you understand this.

 

[CritialGaming]

Personally, I am not angry about the Overwatch thing. I don't give a fuck about Overwatch and I wasn't going to play it anyway because it simply isn't my cup of tea. What upsets me is that people take the mantle upon themselves to enforce their will upon a game developer for things they don't like.

"I don't like this little thing, therefore you should change it or remove it or I'll be offended! RAWR!" This is what bothers me.

See when I don't like something in a game, art style, gameplay, genre, whatever...I don't play it. If I am playing a game I otherwise like, but something bothers me about the game, I don't do that part of the game, or if it is something I am forced to see (like Tracer's pose) what I do in that case is simple. I ask myself how big of a deal is it. That Tracer pose is not only an optional unlock, but it also is only one of a dozen other poses that people can select and it isn't even one of the more interesting or fun ones. In reality the odds of that pose being used or even seen by players is a fairly low % of my game experience.

Dislike or not, it really isn't a big deal and it only became a big deal because it got removed.

Funny that.

Tracer's butt is a no-no, but Widowmaker can exist in all her sexy ass glory.

Let me ask you a question.

If they had changed Tracer's bio to also include that she was a transgender person, would the butt pose be viewed as sexual exploitation, or empowering to those in the trans community because it shows that anyone can be empowered and comfortable in their bodies?

The whole rest of this thread doesn't need to be here because you nailed it right out of the gate.

I haven't played this game, so I assumed this was like Street Fighter where the character chooses a random victory pose at the end of a fight in which case I thought the forum poster was being a little fussy but I otherwise respected their position (he didn't go after Widowmaker after all, his position was about character consistency).

But you're telling me you had to go out of your way to see the Tracer butt pose in the first place?

Yeah, now I'm actually annoyed. He could have lived and let live. If he didn't like the pose, all he had to do was not unlock it or use it. But he couldn't bear the thought that somebody else might choose of their own free will to unlock and use this very mildly sexy take on the "badass back to camera" pose.

Its not illegal, its not censorship but I'm calling for appeal to decency on cases like this one. We all have to share and there has to be a middle ground on these things we can all live with. I think that middle ground in this case was achieved BEFORE he complained.

Actually this whole thread is pointless now, because Tracer's got a NEW pose, and honestly...I think it is even MORE bootylicous than before!

 

[Something Amyss]

Rhetorically analyzing an argument isn't "adding new information" as you put it, I do hope you understand this.

And artificially enforcing a statement isn't rhetorically analysing a statement. This is why I'm not interested in further discourse: contrived reasons with which to argue that we "know what this is really about" in order to enforce an unsubstantiated claim of sexism.

I think I've been polite in expressing my disinterest in further discourse. If you continue responding, I will ignore you entirely.

 

[Dragonbums]

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.

Well yeah. it's not like the Creative Director at Blizzard didn't say exactly that right from the get-go. This isn't exactly a mystery for anyone not really seeing red over this nontroversy.

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.

I fail to see how a simple comment that boiled down to 'We want to make games that appeal to everyone. This pose wasn't jelling right with us either. So we will take it out' is brown nosing and falling to the knees of anybody.

Had they simply KEPT THEIR MOUTH SHUT and simply replaced that pose... no one would have been the wiser and nothing would have happened.

Well that's bullshit because Capcom did the very same thing with R.Mika and people still went out of their way to claim they 'bended over' for SJW's and accused them for being weak willed. So sorry if I see this reasoning as a load of crock.
Blizzard doesn't need to keep their mouth shut for anything. They have every right to RESPOND to whatever fucking comment they want in a professional matter regardless of how the trigger happy gamer crowd will take anything and blow it up.

THIS right here is a much bigger display of trying to beat a developer over the head to act they way YOU want them to than some rando making a minor complaint in an overall positive post about Overwatch.

 

[Patathatapon]

The entire situation is just kinda dumb to me.

Group 1: "Hey, we who don't want to play the game and are just looking for something to argue about don't like this!"

Company: "Oh okay, we'll take it out."

Group 2: "Hey, we who also have no interest in playing the game hate that you took it out for no other reason than because we're looking for something to argue about!"

Group 3: "Hey, we who actually play the game, don't give a shit. Fuck off guys."

That seems to be the situation here. I got no interest in the game, but most people seem to want to argue about it because they're bored. If they were forced at gun point to change it I see the problem, but it seems they did it of their own will, because they didn't intend to get that reaction. So they took it out.