Blizzad reveals new characters for Overwatch

[Somekindofgold]

They look pretty cool..but the reasons behind Zarya's creation just annoy me too much to like her.

Theres been academic research that shows that Gamers dont care all that much about what characters they play as long as they're good, and that 'playing as a character like you does not engender identification' (actual quote from the paper), so churning out a character just to address people concerned that theres not enough diversity or whatever in the Overwatch cast just rubs me the wrong way.

The fact that they turned around and just made a female Heavy makes it funny as well as annoying.

There has been ONE paper that bases its thesis on a couple of interviews and a survey. It also fails to present its data in a meaningful manner by throwing up personal anecdotes from the interviews rather than presenting the numerical data from the survey. The paper itself is full of speculation and supposition with little hard data to support it, the more controversial, "video games cause violence" studies had a more thorough methodology than that thing. It does just enough to justify its thesis as a topic to look further in to, it is not yet enough data to draw any concrete conclusion on though, and saying "research shows" is obfuscating the fact that research has "shown" plenty of things that turn out to be false down the line, a handful of interviews and a single survey aren't a conclusion their an introduction to conduct further research.

I'll happily read the paper that shows evidence that playing as a character you share an identity with engenders more identification than if it was someone you do not share an identity with.

 

[theNater]

You claim that you want diversity in games, but you don't want that much more diversity then there already has been.

You claim they need a British Northerner, but you don't seem interested in helping make that happen. Give us descriptions, share your ideas, give us pictures if you've got 'em. Complain, in detail, about what you want in the game. We're all listening.

 

[Mutant1988]

I'll happily read the paper that shows evidence that playing as a character you share an identity with engenders more identification than if it was someone you do not share an identity with.

The existence of character creators essentially proves that personalization of an experience matters. It's not about putting you in a game, but something you can identify with. Or at least find appealing in any other way.

Is it absolutely necessary? Probably not. Is it appreciated? You can bet your ass it is.

And there most definitely is a merit to be exposed and connect to stories and characters different from yourself. But if everything is alien to you, or even hostile towards who you are, then you don't feel welcome.

Acts like this, to purposefully and explicitly strive for inclusion, is an attempt to immediately address a greater issue, in what little way it's possible. It's not a fix of all issues, it's not even remotely a fix of gender inequality, but it's a welcoming gesture to those that want representation in something as easily fixed as the entertainment medium they enjoy,.

There is not hostility to acts like these and there will not be a permanent exclusion of any other audience just because more different people are included. That entire idea is inane.

Extremist opinions might bellow at the top of their lungs that the "male dominance" needs to be obliterated but that will not happen. There is enough people and games to go around to satisfy all tastes and 50% of humanity will not be marginalized just because we take steps to stop marginalizing the other 50%.

If that happens, well... Who said we should ever stop to affect change? We keep going until everyone is happy. Or happier, at least.

Those motivated by malice and pushing their views with violence are ignored. Or at worst, suppressed and destroyed. Destructive anti-social behaviour benefits no one.

 

[Somekindofgold]

I'll happily read the paper that shows evidence that playing as a character you share an identity with engenders more identification than if it was someone you do not share an identity with.

The existence of character creators essentially proves that personalization of an experience matters. It's not about putting you in a game, but something you can identify with. Or at least find appealing in any other way.

Is it absolutely necessary? Probably not. Is it appreciated? You can bet your ass it is.

Yes but that wasnt the point I was making. The point I was making is that a characters ethnicity, gender etc endears the same amount of identification if they're the same ethnicity, gender etc of the player or not. You can create any personalized character you want, but a kid with red hair and no nose doesnt automatically seek to create a red headed character with no nose.

The fact men play female characters and gamers have no trouble playing lizard and cat people is an example of this.

 

[Mutant1988]

I'll happily read the paper that shows evidence that playing as a character you share an identity with engenders more identification than if it was someone you do not share an identity with.

The existence of character creators essentially proves that personalization of an experience matters. It's not about putting you in a game, but something you can identify with. Or at least find appealing in any other way.

Is it absolutely necessary? Probably not. Is it appreciated? You can bet your ass it is.

Yes but that wasnt the point I was making. The point I was making is that a characters ethnicity, gender etc endears the same amount of identification if they're the same ethnicity, gender etc of the player or not. You can create any personalized character you want, but a kid with red hair and no nose doesnt automatically seek to create a red headed character with no nose.

The fact men play female characters and gamers have no trouble playing lizard and cat people is an example of this.

Well yeah, but it's about increasing the diversity of options. We don't need to put ourselves into the games we play, but seeing ourselves and more different people in our games is beneficial for all of us. The range of protagonists are far too specific and this is a means to address that, to extent the options and ranges of stories told through video games.

Will it work or be particularly well done? Time will tell. I won't really be harmed by this in any way regardless.

But yes, we can relate to characters wholly different than us. But we do relate to them, in some way, or otherwise we wouldn't be interested in their stories. And I don't see why physical likeness should be excluded as a means of identification. There's a whole lot kinds of humans, so why should we settle for video game characters all being the same?

Also, character creators? More of that please. I love that shit.

 

[Somekindofgold]

I'll happily read the paper that shows evidence that playing as a character you share an identity with engenders more identification than if it was someone you do not share an identity with.

The existence of character creators essentially proves that personalization of an experience matters. It's not about putting you in a game, but something you can identify with. Or at least find appealing in any other way.

Is it absolutely necessary? Probably not. Is it appreciated? You can bet your ass it is.

Yes but that wasnt the point I was making. The point I was making is that a characters ethnicity, gender etc endears the same amount of identification if they're the same ethnicity, gender etc of the player or not. You can create any personalized character you want, but a kid with red hair and no nose doesnt automatically seek to create a red headed character with no nose.

The fact men play female characters and gamers have no trouble playing lizard and cat people is an example of this.

Well yeah, but it's about increasing the diversity of options. We don't need to put ourselves into the games we play, but seeing ourselves and more different people in our games is beneficial for all of us. The range of protagonists are far too specific and this is a means to address that, to extent the options and ranges of stories told through video games.

Will it work or be particularly well done? Time will tell. I won't really be harmed by this in any way regardless.

But yes, we can relate to characters wholly different than us. But we do relate to them, in some way, or otherwise we wouldn't be interested in their stories. And I don't see why physical likeness should be excluded as a means of identification. There's a whole lot kinds of humans, so why should we settle for video game characters all being the same?

Also, character creators? More of that please. I love that shit.

I dont disagree with you, but throwing a character into a game because people complained there wasnt enough body diversity, and she just turns out to be tf2 Heavy with different genitals? No, thats annoying, and so is people saying that we must have diversity because not being able to play as people that look like you is alienating.

If Overwatch has good gameplay Zarya wont stop me from playing, but what she represents just annoys me. It also kind of annoys me that her being celebrated as an example of diversity is overshadowing the other character she was announced with. He's like Jan and Zarya is Marsha.

 

[Mutant1988]

I dont disagree with you, but throwing a character into a game because people complained there wasnt enough body diversity, and she just turns out to be tf2 Heavy with different genitals? No, thats annoying, and so is people saying that we must have diversity because not being able to play as people that look like you is alienating.

If Overwatch has good gameplay Zarya wont stop me from playing, but what she represents just annoys me. It also kind of annoys me that her being celebrated as an example of diversity is overshadowing the other character she was announced with. He's like Jan and Zarya is Marsha.

The option is the status quo and a continued lack of representation.

I fail to see how representation, even if as superficial as appearance, hurts anyone.

And no. She was added because the developers explicitly said they wanted diversity and sought to improve that diversity when people asked for more. No one is being strong armed into anything.

And yes, having 90% of all protagonists fall into a handful of appearance and character archetypes is alienating. It does not make games unplayable, but it is alienating to not find anyone like yourself in your entertainment media. And that is something that's easily corrected without causing any kind of lasting harm to anyone. Same reason why people are against change - "It's just a video game - It doesn't matter".

Good, then let's have diversity then, however superficial. Because why not?

 

[GamemasterAnthony]

I asked this in another thread, but...

Is McCree supposed to be a shout out to the arcade light gun game, Mad Dog McCree?

 

[Somekindofgold]

I fail to see how representation, even if as superficial as appearance, hurts anyone.

And no. She was added because the developers explicitly said they wanted diversity and sought to improve that diversity when people asked for more. No one is being strong armed into anything.

And yes, having 90% of all protagonists fall into a handful of appearance and character archetypes is alienating. It does not make games unplayable, but it is alienating to not find anyone like yourself in your entertainment media. And that is something that's easily corrected without causing any kind of lasting harm to anyone. Same reason why people are against change - "It's just a video game - It doesn't matter".

Good, then let's have diversity then, however superficial. Because why not?

Because it leads to laziness, and the last thing this industry is laziness. You wind up in the trap where a character's main, or sometimes only, characteristic is that they're 'x' or 'y'.


When you create a character to address 'We want different bodies' you've already failed, because when developing a character you shouldnt start with 'they're x'. Superficial diversity is almost as bad as no diversity. I'd rather have a few Alyx Vance's or Omids sprinkled around.

And yes, I know this is a game that plays with stereotypes and will probably have little in the way of in depth characterization, but TF2 didnt have a problem with providing depth to their characters, even if it was ridiculous half the time. Maybe over time Blizzard can do the same with their characters and my complaints will have been dealt with.

 

[Mutant1988]

Because it leads to laziness, and the last thing this industry is laziness. You wind up in the trap where a character's main, or sometimes only, characteristic is that they're 'x' or 'y'.


When you create a character to address 'We want different bodies' you've already failed, because when developing a character you shouldnt start with 'they're x'. Superficial diversity is almost as bad as no diversity. I'd rather have a few Alyx Vance's or Omids sprinkled around because at least they're quality characters.

Yeah, I don't interpret this as laziness. If it is, it will be decried by the people that asked for it in the first place and force the developers back to the drawing board.

Change does not happen overnight and mistakes are made on the way. The notion that people just accept things as is, as long as it's even remotely close to what they asked for simply isn't true.

And I disagree that superficial diversity is bad. It depends entirely on the purpose of the product. If the purpose is to create a visually distinct character, then that's plenty enough. If there's a deeper narrative, then you need more effort. This is why fighting games, the most shallow of all games in regards to design, has been able to boast more overall visual diversity than any other genre of video game.

There's room for games that have characters that are just X or Y, as well as characters with a more rounded design.

And no, I disagree that starting a design with "They are X" is faulty. The traits of a character, however superficial, do influence and inform the personality of the character. Few things are exactly as shallow as they first appear. It's perfectly reasonable to write a character form the outset with the sole trait of being a meek man, muscular woman, morbidly obese or gay. It doesn't even have to relate to the story, but it still informs the character and influence the design and ultimately their personality, depth and actions or even the very nature of the story being told.

There's a reason why a lot of established characters are said to write their own stories. Because the attributes ascribed to them over time makes them partly autonomous. Even seemingly shallow attributes matter.

But I can definitely understand the design being criticized for copying attributes straight from other works. That is lazy.

 

[theNater]

It also kind of annoys me that her being celebrated as an example of diversity is overshadowing the other character she was announced with.

Because it leads to laziness, and the last thing this industry is laziness. You wind up in the trap where a character's main, or sometimes only, characteristic is that they're 'x' or 'y'.


When you create a character to address 'We want different bodies' you've already failed, because when developing a character you shouldnt start with 'they're x'.

You seem a little self-contradictory here. McCree's more a stereotype than Zarya is(he's classic cowboy, she's at least genderflipped), but she's the sign of laziness?

How is 'We want a cowboy' better than 'We want different bodies'? Every character has to start somewhere.

 

[inmunitas]

Because it leads to laziness, and the last thing this industry is laziness. You wind up in the trap where a character's main, or sometimes only, characteristic is that they're 'x' or 'y'.


When you create a character to address 'We want different bodies' you've already failed, because when developing a character you shouldnt start with 'they're x'. Superficial diversity is almost as bad as no diversity. I'd rather have a few Alyx Vance's or Omids sprinkled around because at least they're quality characters.

Yeah, I don't interpret this as laziness. If it is, it will be decried by the people that asked for it in the first place and force the developers back to the drawing board.

Change does not happen overnight and mistakes are made on the way. The notion that people just accept things as is, as long as it's even remotely close to what they asked for simply isn't true.

And I disagree that superficial diversity is bad. It depends entirely on the purpose of the product. If the purpose is to create a visually distinct character, then that's plenty enough. If there's a deeper narrative, then you need more effort. This is why fighting games, the most shallow of all games in regards to design, has been able to boast more overall visual diversity than any other genre of video game.

There's room for games that have characters that are just X or Y, as well as characters with a more rounded design.

And no, I disagree that starting a design with "They are X" is faulty. The traits of a character, however superficial, do influence and inform the personality of the character. Few things are exactly as shallow as they first appear. It's perfectly reasonable to write a character form the outset with the sole trait of being a meek man, muscular woman, morbidly obese or gay. It doesn't even have to relate to the story, but it still informs the character and influence the design and ultimately their personality, depth and actions or even the very nature of the story being told.

There's a reason why a lot of established characters are said to write their own stories. Because the attributes ascribed to them over time makes them partly autonomous. Even seemingly shallow attributes matter.

But I can definitely understand the design being criticized for copying attributes straight from other works. That is lazy.

What makes you think this isn't all going to be forgotten about again in 5-10 years? Are there any actual changes being made?

 

[Mutant1988]

What makes you think this isn't all going to be forgotten about again in 5-10 years? Are there any actual changes being made?

Outside of video games there are. Video games isn't the only part in the debate. But it's rather distressing that such a simple matter as "trying" to add diversity to video games is this strongly opposed.

The existence of non-standard characters in video games will not fix gender, race, sexual preference or life style issues. But it doesn't hurt. At least I don't see how it does.

Does it make me feel good about myself to give people representation? Not really. But I bet a lot of people feel more appreciated by it, and I think that's reason enough to do it. And to do it well. But just doing it, at all, is a good start.

The fact that this discussion and others like it is being had at all is indicative of a desire towards change. And not only in regards to video games.

For some additional context to explain my more esoteric arguments in regards to character design - I am trying to improve my drawing skills, with one of my goals being to design a fighting game cast and turn it all into some sort of game. As such, I'm rather heavily invested in design, diversity and how to create unique attributes both visually (Especially visually) and narratively (Because fighting games are less bound to conventions of story telling).

I know what I'm talking about, even if I by no means know all there is to know about it.

 

[inmunitas]

What makes you think this isn't all going to be forgotten about again in 5-10 years? Are there any actual changes being made?

Outside of video games there are. Video games isn't the only part in the debate. But it's rather distressing that such a simple matter as "trying" to add diversity to video games is this strongly opposed.

The existence of non-standard characters in video games will not fix gender, race, sexual preference or life style issues. But it doesn't hurt. At least I don't see how it does.

Does it make me feel good about myself to give people representation? Not really. But I bet a lot of people feel more appreciated by it, and I think that's reason enough to do it. And to do it well. But just doing it, at all, is a good start.

The fact that this discussion and others like it is being had at all is indicative of a desire towards change. And not only in regards to video games.

For some additional context to explain my more esoteric arguments in regards to character design - I am trying to improve my drawing skills, with one of my goals being to design a fighting game cast and turn it all into some sort of game. As such, I'm rather heavily invested in design, diversity and how to create unique attributes both visually (Especially visually) and narratively (Because fighting games are less bound to conventions of story telling).

I know what I'm talking about, even if I by no means know all there is to know about it.

Well, where is the market research? Where's the plan of action? Where are the statistics that show this "status quo" you keep referring to?

 

[Mutant1988]

Well, where is the market research? Where's the plan of action? Where are the statistics that show this "status quo" you keep referring to?

The masses of hostile people like you objecting to any changes by decrying them as being politically motivated or completely unnecessary?

The status quo is to not make any changes of any kind, which is what people like you insist on. You insist on things just happening on their own, but that has never ever accomplished anything whatsoever in any context, except to nurture resentment to a breaking point.

The market plan is for developers to do what they want with the game for the audience they want money from. Recognizing more than one audiences is making progress.

The ultimate plan of action is to make the professional part of the industry (Or rather, all of them) more welcoming to diversity. Most notably, get more women making games and not being harassed out of the public light in doing so. That is a factual issue, whether you want to admit it or not. The violence against opposing views and affirmative actions of ANY kind needs to stop. The purpose is not to replace male dominance with the exact opposite. It's to address the actual discrepancies in professional fields and in how society treats women and minorities.

The industry has changed over the years and that's because people have been trying to change it. It didn't happen on it's own. To claim such a thing is to rob creators of their agency and accomplishments.

 

[inmunitas]

Well, where is the market research? Where's the plan of action? Where are the statistics that show this "status quo" you keep referring to?

The masses of hostile people like you objecting to any changes by decrying them as being politically motivated or completely unnecessary?

The status quo is to not make any changes of any kind, which is what people like you insist on. You insist on things just happening on their own, but that has never ever accomplished anything whatsoever in any context, except to nurture resentment to a breaking point.

The market plan is for developers to do what they want with the game for the audience they want money from. Recognizing more than one audiences is making progress.

The ultimate plan of action is to make the professional part of the industry (Or rather, all of them) more welcoming to diversity. Most notably, get more women making games and not being harassed out of the public light in doing so. That is a factual issue, whether you want to admit it or not. The violence against opposing views and affirmative actions of ANY kind needs to stop. The purpose is not to replace male dominance with the exact opposite. It's to address the actual discrepancies in professional fields and in how society treats women and minorities.

The industry has changed over the years and that's because people have been trying to change it. It didn't happen on it's own. To claim such a thing is to rob creators of their agency and accomplishments.

What's with the strawman and fallacious accusations? All I asked was to see the data that backs up your claims, why is that so hard?

 

[Mutant1988]

Well, where is the market research? Where's the plan of action? Where are the statistics that show this "status quo" you keep referring to?

The masses of hostile people like you objecting to any changes by decrying them as being politically motivated or completely unnecessary?

The status quo is to not make any changes of any kind, which is what people like you insist on. You insist on things just happening on their own, but that has never ever accomplished anything whatsoever in any context, except to nurture resentment to a breaking point.

The market plan is for developers to do what they want with the game for the audience they want money from. Recognizing more than one audiences is making progress.

The ultimate plan of action is to make the professional part of the industry (Or rather, all of them) more welcoming to diversity. Most notably, get more women making games and not being harassed out of the public light in doing so. That is a factual issue, whether you want to admit it or not. The violence against opposing views and affirmative actions of ANY kind needs to stop. The purpose is not to replace male dominance with the exact opposite. It's to address the actual discrepancies in professional fields and in how society treats women and minorities.

The industry has changed over the years and that's because people have been trying to change it. It didn't happen on it's own. To claim such a thing is to rob creators of their agency and accomplishments.

What's with the strawman and fallacious accusations? All I asked was to see the data that backs up your claims, why is that so hard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_in_video_games#Roles_of_women

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_in_video_games#Players.27_preferences

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/05/06/rhianna-pratchetts-1reasontobe/

There was also a wonderful selection of quotes from women active in the industry but for the life of me I can't find that article now.

Feel free to back up your claim that attempts to add diversity such as this one has zero positive effect and is forgotten within 5 to 10 years.

I mean, while we are comparing notes and all.

I don't subscribe to the logic of Anita Sarkeesian for the record. I don't support anyone that suffers from equally severe confirmation bias. You and her, I put in the same folder.

 

[inmunitas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_in_video_games#Roles_of_women

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_in_video_games#Players.27_preferences

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/05/06/rhianna-pratchetts-1reasontobe/

There was also a wonderful selection of quotes from women active in the industry but for the life of me I can't find that article now.

Feel free to back up your claim that attempts to add diversity such as this one has zero positive effect and is forgotten within 5 to 10 years.

I mean, while we are comparing notes and all.

I don't subscribe to the logic of Anita Sarkeesian for the record. I don't support anyone that suffers from equally severe confirmation bias. You and her, I put in the same folder.

No, Wikipedia has no academic value. Where is the proper scientific research?

 

[Mutant1988]

No, Wikipedia has no academic value. Where is the proper scientific research?

Try clicking those little numbers at the end of sentences. Those are references. You know, "Scientific research" as you put it. Or at least something concrete for you to examine and discredit based on the actual methodology presented.

I'll wait until you're done doing so.

 

[inmunitas]

No, Wikipedia has no academic value. Where is the proper scientific research?

Try clicking those little numbers at the end of sentences. Those are references. You know, "Scientific research" as you put it. Or at least something concrete for you to examine and discredit based on the actual methodology presented.

I'll wait until you're done doing so.

I already looked. They just link to gaming press sites, YouTube videos, tumblr blogs and gender studies papers, none of which have any scientific value.