Blizzard said it would have a diverse cast and it did. It just wasn't the "right kind" of diversity for a small group of people, so they've thrown in a generic Ms. Male character in to please them. Just like Capcom added the old-style Dante skin into Devil May Cry.erttheking said:
Blizzad reveals new characters for Overwatch
- Thread starter Erttheking
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If it's just a vocal minority then clearly Blizzard didn't have very much faith in their work. Tell me something, when can a developer take criticism, change their work, and not be betraying their vision? In writing there's a reason we have rough drafts, have other people look at them, and then change it based on feedback. It's possible for a developer to release "Oh, this isn't as good as I thought it was, I guess I should change it"inmunitas said:
Also Ms. Male character? I have no idea what you're talking about. Unless you're saying that every large Russian that uses a heavy weapon rips off TF2. If that's the case, Predators ripped off TF2 as well. Also I don't think you know what a Ms. Male character is, because that's not what a Ms. Male character is.
It has nothing to do with "faith in their work" or "this is a good idea", it's just PR/lip-service. If you've been following the games industry for a number of years you should be use to the same old clichés being thrown around by the big studios, it's all business spiel and marketing BS.erttheking said:
If that's the case, there was never any artistic integrity in Overwatch and you complaining about pandering is a moot point because they were already pandering.inmunitas said:
Of course there is artistic integrity, and of course some of that is going to be based on what they think sells well. Hence why you don't see a lot of diversity when it comes to female characters in titles from major publishes, because the business/marketing people don't think it will sell. Until you can prove to them that players don't purchase games based on character appearance, nothing will change in that regard.erttheking said:
Ok then, so what point are you trying to make now? Because that post wasn't even slightly related to overwatch or your original point.inmunitas said:
I would take this complaint a little more seriously if the people making it didn't tend to sound so shrill about it (you don't, but some other people I've seen talking about it have been really obnoxious).erttheking said:
Quite honestly it feels like what's being debated half the time isn't the appearance of the characters but the tastes of the players (which is what I was trying to go for in my twitlonger). I can understand why people might want more diverse characters, and I can understand why people might want a generically sexy cast. There's a reason Dead or Alive has survived alongside other fighting games like Street Fighter (to use a generic example). But for some people, the existence of Dead or Alive is an affront - they keep acting as if it's some crime against nature, when in reality it's just that it's a game series made for a different audience.
I'm happy with the new character and it's nice to see that the shitstorm that got stewed actually improved the game's variety somewhat. I just wish that people wouldn't get so up-in-arms and essentially arguing that people enjoying things is bad.
I saw a GIF set of Zarya on Tumblr and people going crazy about how cute she is. And yes. She is so damn cute.
I don't think enough is being done to differentiate female designs - because let's face it, this is to discuss the female designs - though they are hit-and-miss in their own right. Zarya might be a step in the right direction, though that's whether you believe she's just a rehash of the other female designs with a different physique or whether she has a more varied and unique body type and appearance.
So lesson learned today: Zarya is cute (?).
I don't think enough is being done to differentiate female designs - because let's face it, this is to discuss the female designs - though they are hit-and-miss in their own right. Zarya might be a step in the right direction, though that's whether you believe she's just a rehash of the other female designs with a different physique or whether she has a more varied and unique body type and appearance.
So lesson learned today: Zarya is cute (?).
First of all it clearly does something considering that Blizzard listened to the criticism, so you're wrong on one account. Second of all, saying that complaining about a lack of diversity is anti-progress is a completly baseless statement because otherwise you're accepting of the stagnate status quo, so you're wrong on two accounts. And finally, no one "Dicatated" anything. Fans didn't hold a gun to the hands of Blizzard and force them to create these characters. They did it because THEY wanted a diverse cast, they flat out said so.inmunitas said:
So all your points are moot.
John Marston from DA FUTURE and Heavy Lazors Girl.
Eh, not bad, though i'm more interested how they'll play.
Eh, not bad, though i'm more interested how they'll play.
"Listened to the criticism" and "avoiding negative PR when you're just about to launch a new franchise" are the same? Complaining about a lack of diversity is anti-progress and only re-enforces the status quo, that being how are character looks matters in a game and will effect sales, when research shows players don't identify with video game characters [http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/11313.28005.pdf]. If you actually went with how a character looks doesn't matter to most players, then devs would be able to include any character they wanted, and counter the publishers who think including a female protagonists is a "risky business adventure".erttheking said:
Well not listening to criticism is a pretty bad form of PR so...in a way. Really? Really? See, here's the flaw with your argument. I didn't say jack about diversity affecting sales. When I complain about the lack of diversity in a game, I'm complaining about a shortcoming of the game, because people do that, even to games they love. So once again your point is moot. Therefore my argument isn't "anti-progress" or whatever. And I am praising devs for making the characters they want. I'm doing it right now. For some reason you seem to have a problem with it. I'm not going to keep my mouth shut on criticism because of the concept that saying Overwatch has a lack of diverse female characters will cause publishers to think female progatonists is a risky business venture. Somehow.inmunitas said:
Really I'm less concerned about publishers panicking over problems that don't exist and more concerned about how you seem to think the best route would be that people shouldn't voice their criticisms. I just can't get behind that mindset.
No, publishers already do think a female protagonists is a risky business venture, that's the real problem.erttheking said:
http://www.pcgamer.com/remember-me-publisher-female-hero/
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/01/developer-publishers-didnt-want-a-female-lead-in-our-video-game/
I know. I hate that.inmunitas said:
It really doesn't connect to this though. I've already explained why in my previous post.
As opposed to Blizzard, who, for almost the entirety of their existence, has ripped-off pop culture hits? (namely: Lord of the Rings, Alien, and Predator)Aeshi said:
If you're going to ***** about something, at least be fair about it. Cripes.
I'm sure that's Acti-Blizz's intention. Blizzard has a talent for utilizing nostalgia for great effect; even if it's from other franchises.Johnny Novgorod said:
That said, while not necessarily the most original character designs, I do like these two new ones. Though, this is far less the case with the 'badass cowboy from the future'. I dunno, it just doesn't do it for me.
However....
major_chaos said:
Grumman said:
Completely agree with you both.
It does in that all this "inclusivity" nonsense (in regards to video game content) being pouted around is just superficial and doesn't solve actual problems. I'd rather the industry be more inclusive, then merely a thin veil of inclusivity.erttheking said:
[small]edit:
I'm not meaning you specifically of course, but the media in general[/small]
It's funny, because Zarya looks almost exactly like Vi, a champion in League of Legends.lord canti said:
For comparison, a picture of Vi:
Except they actually made significant alterations to the things they ripped-off for the most part, rather than just changing the colours/slapping a random accessory on (if not just copy-pasting them whole-sale) and calling it original like Valve did.Vigormortis said:
Do a side-by-side comparison of a Zerg and a Xenomorph and they'll look distinctively different even if they do look similar. Then see if the same can be said for "WCIII Dryad & Enchantress" or "WCIII Water Elemental & Morphling"