Blizzad reveals new characters for Overwatch

[visiblenoise]

I, for one, absolutely do not mind having only supermodels as battle companions. But Zarya looks fine.

 

[Vigormortis]

Prehaps "went out of your way" was the wrong phrase, but I think my point of "2 changes away from originality vs 2 changes away from a copy-paste" still stands.

Mmm, I'm not sure that it does, though. Not in the strictest sense. Even so, I wasn't necessarily arguing against that.

The only one of those three I would use to describe both would be the "Stotic" part. The "Faceless" part is more metaphorical in the Predator's case (whereas for the Protoss it's more literal.), and the "Noble" part is debateable. Sure they give their prey a "chance" to escape, but then Cats give the mouse they just threw to the ground a chance to crawl away too.

Now we're splitting hairs. I could easily do the same with the characters seen in Dota 2.

I'm not going to because I don't see a point. I'm not here to defend either company.

In the sense that a pickpocket and a bank robber are both guilty of stealing, perhaps.

Egh, this isn't a fair comparison. We can argue endlessly over the difference in sources for the 'copied' materials, but it doesn't change the act of copying perpetrated by either company.

But again, I'm not here to defend either one.

Blizzard may not have a copyright for "Centaurs", but they could probably make a case for having one for "The concept of Dryads as a Half-Deer Half-Elf", which is what Enchantress is.

I'm not sure they could, really. Many depictions of centaurs in mythology feature the creature's human components appearing almost elven like.

But even so, if we're to look for pop-culture-specific versions of these kinds of creatures, I would think something akin to Dungeons and Dragons predated Blizzard's efforts by decades.

 

[Gengisgame]

Correct which is why you only try to please those that play the game or those that play the game, like I said there are too many people who approve of Zarya because she is not attractive not because they actually like the design. Choice is fine but this was one that was made for the wrong reason, a skeletal female terminator or monster would have been better in my opinion.

Oh, come on, that's just a bunch of bull.

Who says the people who go 'yay, diversity!' dislike her design? I'm sure there are a few, but seriously, why get worked up over those weirdoes who care more about their agenda than anything else? Why not simply respect that there are people who like her design for whatever reason? You don't have to like her, but don't be a dick to the people who do.

Also, Zarya not attractive? Her muscles are a matter of taste, sure, but she's got an attractive face. And even if she were actually ugly, why would it matter? You could still like different aspects. That hair is pretty cool. Weapon look fun. I dunno, why should anyone care about whether she looks fuckable or not?

Would I like to see more design that deviate from the usual pretty girl look? Of course! But Zarya is a start. That's good. It's not as if there's any rule that dictates we're only allowed to have one 'other' female for every x regular ones or something like that. I hope Blizzard finds encouragement and inspiration in the positive reactions and tries to design other less typical female characters.

Lol it would be a pile of BS to think otherwise, all this is not over some character people really, really like

I do respect people who like the character for the design, they are just few and far between because people do not get this many people don't get this worked up over a character design, there are actual articles about how this is good, what others like is bad.

Because it had nothing to with muscles it just shows what it was really about, it was making an unattractive female as some sort of protest, I gave examples of things people may actually want (robots, monster girls, elementals) you have made my point for me, this was simply about making it not be attractive

As you point you just wanted unattractive females despite there being plenty of diversity within that area, not interesting just unattractive. You can have unattractive if that's what you want but that should be personnel taste, not some statement against what others like.

 

[inmunitas]

Lol it would be a pile of BS to think otherwise, all this is not over some character people really, really like

I do respect people who like the character for the design, they are just few and far between because people do not get this many people don't get this worked up over a character design, there are actual articles about how this is good, what others like is bad.

Because it had nothing to with muscles it just shows what it was really about, it was making an unattractive female as some sort of protest, I gave examples of things people may actually want (robots, monster girls, elementals) you have made my point for me, this was simply about making it not be attractive

As you point you just wanted unattractive females despite there being plenty of diversity within that area, not interesting just unattractive. You can have unattractive if that's what you want but that should be personnel taste, not some statement against what others like.

Of course, it's easy to win a game no one else is playing.

 

[lionsprey]

Okey fine you made the heavy weapons user "bulky" that's fine it makes sense. but did you have to make her Russian as well?

 

[Mutant1988]

Lol it would be a pile of BS to think otherwise, all this is not over some character people really, really like

I do respect people who like the character for the design, they are just few and far between because people do not get this many people don't get this worked up over a character design, there are actual articles about how this is good, what others like is bad.

Because it had nothing to with muscles it just shows what it was really about, it was making an unattractive female as some sort of protest, I gave examples of things people may actually want (robots, monster girls, elementals) you have made my point for me, this was simply about making it not be attractive

As you point you just wanted unattractive females despite there being plenty of diversity within that area, not interesting just unattractive. You can have unattractive if that's what you want but that should be personnel taste, not some statement against what others like.

Of course, it's easy to win a game no one else is playing.

I think she's fairly attractive to be honest. Maybe it's just the novelty of seeing a female character in a video game with actual muscles, rather than inexplicable waif strength.

So no, the point of it wasn't to make an "unattractive" character. It's to make a relatable character for someone else but the usual people. Everything is not made for you all the time and if you think she's ugly, well... That just tells me a lot about your values. Or rather, how little of a **** you give about what others like.

I'm looking forward to this game. Seems like a cool TF2 style game.

But the people complaining in this thread about Blizzard being "forced" to do something that they openly said they wanted to is great hahaha. It's like "A developer did something they said the wanted to?! NO THERE MUST BE AN AGENDA!"

They make money, people get what they want. I fail to see how this is not a win/win situation for everyone.

People just like to whine whenever someone else but themselves in catered to.

 

[inmunitas]

I think she's fairly attractive to be honest. Maybe it's just the novelty of seeing a female character in a video game with actual muscles, rather than inexplicable waif strength.

So no, the point of it wasn't to make an "unattractive" character. It's to make a relatable character for someone else but the usual people. Everything is not made for you all the time and if you think she's ugly, well... That just tells me a lot about your values. Or rather, how little of a **** you give about what others like.

And just who are these "usual people" you speak of? How many Russian weightlifters with pink hair and play American video games do you know?

 

[Mutant1988]

I think she's fairly attractive to be honest. Maybe it's just the novelty of seeing a female character in a video game with actual muscles, rather than inexplicable waif strength.

So no, the point of it wasn't to make an "unattractive" character. It's to make a relatable character for someone else but the usual people. Everything is not made for you all the time and if you think she's ugly, well... That just tells me a lot about your values. Or rather, how little of a **** you give about what others like.

And just who are these "usual people" you speak of? How many Russian weightlifters with pink hair and play American video games do you know?

I don't know many athletic 30-ish year old white men either. Well, I know one of those.

What's your point?

You do understand that relatable does not equal identical, right? I'm sure there's someone that can relate to a woman with muscles. I mean, hell, there exist women with muscles.

How do you know that none of them play video games?

 

[Zhukov]

that's just one long logical fallacy equating two things together which are not at all related

like relating suicide to a murderer, they're both deaths right so obviously they're the same (your logic)

map design and character design are completely different, map design doesn't have this overhanging tick box being placed on it by SJW who declare that nothing having a bin is misogyny and having too many lamppost is a sign of the patriarchy

overall your entire argument is that you feel that developers SHOULD cater to every whimsical idea that you and SJW alike think up, its self justice to make yourself feel good, hell that's why you focus on gender, how else can you become a white knight without protecting some "victim"

They're both subjective criticisms of the design of a game.

They're perfectly comparable.

The only difference is that you don't like one of those criticisms and are dead set on treating it differently, because doing so allows you to dismiss it.

And no, I never said developers "SHOULD cater to every whimsical idea". In fact, I said the opposite:

If the developers consider [a criticism] groundless or not in their best interests to respond then they are free to deny or disregard it.

After all, a developer is going to get a lot of dumb criticism and requests/demands for changes. For an example, just look at any discussion on balance in any MOBA ever.

PS. You still haven't answered my question.

 

[inmunitas]

I think she's fairly attractive to be honest. Maybe it's just the novelty of seeing a female character in a video game with actual muscles, rather than inexplicable waif strength.

So no, the point of it wasn't to make an "unattractive" character. It's to make a relatable character for someone else but the usual people. Everything is not made for you all the time and if you think she's ugly, well... That just tells me a lot about your values. Or rather, how little of a **** you give about what others like.

And just who are these "usual people" you speak of? How many Russian weightlifters with pink hair and play American video games do you know?

I don't know many athletic 30-ish year old white men either. Well, I know one of those.

What's your point?

You do understand that relatable does not equal identical, right? I'm sure there's someone that can relate to a woman with muscles. I mean, hell, there exist women with muscles.

How do you know that none of them play video games?

The notion that anyone is going to find a character "relatable" solely based on that fictional characters physical appearance is absurd.

 

[Mutant1988]

I think she's fairly attractive to be honest. Maybe it's just the novelty of seeing a female character in a video game with actual muscles, rather than inexplicable waif strength.

So no, the point of it wasn't to make an "unattractive" character. It's to make a relatable character for someone else but the usual people. Everything is not made for you all the time and if you think she's ugly, well... That just tells me a lot about your values. Or rather, how little of a **** you give about what others like.

And just who are these "usual people" you speak of? How many Russian weightlifters with pink hair and play American video games do you know?

I don't know many athletic 30-ish year old white men either. Well, I know one of those.

What's your point?

You do understand that relatable does not equal identical, right? I'm sure there's someone that can relate to a woman with muscles. I mean, hell, there exist women with muscles.

How do you know that none of them play video games?

The notion that anyone is going to find a character "relatable" solely based on that characters physical appearance is absurd.

Must be something to it because we keep seeing the same characters over and over again.

Being able to relate to characters is practically a requirement to be engaged by a story. It doesn't have to be a relation in appearance, but why the hell not have that too?

It's nice for a change.

But thanks for just ignoring the question and me pointing out the error in argumentation.

Who are you to say that no one else would find this character relatable? Because they aren't russian bodybuilders with pink hair?

Hell, I'm nothing like any protagonist of any game I've ever played. Didn't stop me from relating to some of them. But the fact that I enjoy character creators do strongly support the concept that looks matter. I might not want to look like myself, but I want a representation I can relate to, especially when there's no story relation to be had.

 

[inmunitas]

I think she's fairly attractive to be honest. Maybe it's just the novelty of seeing a female character in a video game with actual muscles, rather than inexplicable waif strength.

So no, the point of it wasn't to make an "unattractive" character. It's to make a relatable character for someone else but the usual people. Everything is not made for you all the time and if you think she's ugly, well... That just tells me a lot about your values. Or rather, how little of a **** you give about what others like.

And just who are these "usual people" you speak of? How many Russian weightlifters with pink hair and play American video games do you know?

I don't know many athletic 30-ish year old white men either. Well, I know one of those.

What's your point?

You do understand that relatable does not equal identical, right? I'm sure there's someone that can relate to a woman with muscles. I mean, hell, there exist women with muscles.

How do you know that none of them play video games?

The notion that anyone is going to find a character "relatable" solely based on that characters physical appearance is absurd.

Must be something to it because we keep seeing the same characters over and over again.

Being able to relate to characters is practically a requirement to be engaged by a story. It doesn't have to be a relation in appearance, but why the hell not have that too?

It's nice for a change.

But thanks for just ignoring the question and me pointing out the error in argumentation.

Who are you to say that no one else would find this character relatable? Because they aren't russian bodybuilders with pink hair?

Hell, I'm nothing like any protagonist of any game I've ever played. Didn't stop me from relating to some of them. But the fact that I enjoy character creators do strongly support the concept that looks matter. I might not want to look like myself, but I want a representation I can relate to, especially when there's no story relation to be had.

Do we? So all "white people" look the same to you? Do they not have any individuality? Just "white" and that's it? I suppose it's the same for every other race you know of? Is it? Because I've heard that argument before and it only leads to trouble.

 

[Mutant1988]

Do we? So all "white people" look the same to you?

Do point out where I made any claim that all white people look the same.

I'll wait.

"We" don't all look the same (Good riddance - I would feel sorry for someone looking just like me... Damnit, that's me isn't it?).

But if someone else gets a character they can relate to, even if only visually, then why the hell should I get upset about it? Because it satisfies an unpleasant minority? Who cares?

I'm fine with people playing games and having fun and this - Is not an instance where people made a controversy out of anything. Blizzard said they would do a thing and they did it, because they wanted to do it.

Characters should be relatable and if there's no deep story component, why not have them be relatable visually?

Because it's shallow and pointless?`Shit, for something so insignificant you sure seem insistent on there not being any changes.

 

[inmunitas]

Do we? So all "white people" look the same to you?

Do point out where I made any claim that all white people look the same.

I'll wait.

"We" don't all look the same (Good riddance - I would feel sorry for someone looking just like me... Damnit, that's me isn't it?).

But if someone else gets a character they can relate to, even if only visually, then why the hell should I get upset about it? Because it satisfies an unpleasant minority? Who cares?

I'm fine with people playing games and having fun and this - Is not an instance where people made a controversy out of anything. Blizzard said they would do a thing and they did it, because they wanted to do it.

Characters should be relatable and if there's no deep story component, why not have them be relatable visually?

Because it's shallow and pointless?`Shit, for something so insignificant you sure seem insistent on there not being any changes.

Expect no one is against any changes here, are they? I've not seen a petition for Blizzard to undo anything, have you? Video game characters do not have to be "relatable". Video games are pure fantasy, nothing in a video game has to remotely resemble anything in real life. Video games are games, not stories. Games provide the player a challenge to complete or an opponent to over come, and that's all they're required to do because that's what a game is. If you where talking about film/TV with real life actors, what you're saying would make more sense, but video games aren't a medium where the goal is to narrate a story to an observer.

 

[Mutant1988]

Do we? So all "white people" look the same to you?

Do point out where I made any claim that all white people look the same.

I'll wait.

"We" don't all look the same (Good riddance - I would feel sorry for someone looking just like me... Damnit, that's me isn't it?).

But if someone else gets a character they can relate to, even if only visually, then why the hell should I get upset about it? Because it satisfies an unpleasant minority? Who cares?

I'm fine with people playing games and having fun and this - Is not an instance where people made a controversy out of anything. Blizzard said they would do a thing and they did it, because they wanted to do it.

Characters should be relatable and if there's no deep story component, why not have them be relatable visually?

Because it's shallow and pointless?`Shit, for something so insignificant you sure seem insistent on there not being any changes.

Expect no one is against any changes here, are they? I've not seen a petition for Blizzard to undo anything, have you? Video game characters do not have to be "relatable". Video games are pure fantasy, nothing in a video game has to remotely resemble anything in real life. Video games are games, not stories. Games provide the player a challenge to complete or an opponent to over come, and that's all they're required to do because that's what a game is. If you where talking about film/TV with real life actors, what you're saying would make more sense, but video games aren't a medium where the goal is to narrate a story to an observer.

Except it is. Every single element put into the game tells a story. If it didn't, it wouldn't be interesting. It would not be engaging.

If you can't relate to the design of a game, you won't play it.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. Some people wanted more diversity and Blizzard saw fit to add it, because they wanted to. Your pseudo-philosophical ramblings about what is or isn't part of a video game is obfuscating the point.

This is not a big deal. It is for some people, because they don't get catered to very often, while me and you get catered to by default most of the time (Well, maybe not me, because I'm a critical bastard with peculiar tastes). How about just not giving a shit about others getting what they want, when you always have and still get what you want?

It's not like the male majority audience disappeared or anything. But here's the thing - There's enough games and developers to go around to give everyone something they like.

 

[PsiChaos]

I just don't agree with the Zarya design. Chew me out all you want, but I feel like they made a generic male model, gave it some pink hair, and said "look guys, we're so progressive." If you made her bald, she'd look like every generic Space Marine ever. The fact that the 'diversity' crowd is eating it up sorta saddens me because now these developers know they can get away with lazy designs and claim it's diverse so long as they slap some pink on it.

 

[Mutant1988]

Expect no one is against any changes here, are they? I've not seen a petition for Blizzard to undo anything, have you? Video game characters do not have to be "relatable". Video games are pure fantasy, nothing in a video game has to remotely resemble anything in real life. Video games are games, not stories. Games provide the player a challenge to complete or an opponent to over come, and that's all they're required to do because that's what a game is. If you where talking about film/TV with real life actors, what you're saying would make more sense, but video games aren't a medium where the goal is to narrate a story to an observer.

Except it is. Every single element put into the game tells a story. If it didn't, it wouldn't be interesting. It would not be engaging.

If you can't relate to the design of a game, you won't play it.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. Some people wanted more diversity and Blizzard saw fit to add it, because they wanted to. Your pseudo-philosophical ramblings about what is or isn't part of a video game is obfuscating the point.

This is not a big deal. It is for some people, because they don't get catered to very often, while me and you get catered to by default most of the time (Well, maybe not me, because I'm a critical bastard with peculiar tastes). How about just not giving a shit about others getting what they want, when you always have and still get what you want?

It's not like the male majority audience disappeared or anything. But here's the thing - There's enough games and developers to go around to give everyone something they like.

That's the biggest load of BS I've seen from you so far, congrats. Where do you even go to learn this rubbish?

Do cite which parts are rubbish and in what way. You know, for the sake of clarity.

Every single visual element of a game tells a story, of the developers, of the world the characters inhabit or the characters themselves. We, the audience, relate to what we recognize and are immersed in the story with the aid of familiarity. This is why "audience surrogate" is a thing. This is why some protagonists are "Player avatars". We put ourselves in their shoes, to experience the story through them. But that's in regards to story.

If it's a multiplayer game, it's enough to just look cool. Or like yourself.

Is it really unthinkable that someone could relate to this character? I mean, really? Because it seems like any attempt to break the established molds are derided as unnecessary. Why? Why is it so unnecessary to let people have what they want or at least try to give it to them? Because it takes away from your entertainment? Way to be egocentric.

 

[Req]

Alright, let's see if I got this right.

Blizzard announced Overwatch, and from the very first look we got of it, announced that they wanted to include a more diverse cast of characters than they usually do.
People called them out on saying that, but every female character we had seen so far had mostly the same body type.
Blizzard includes a female character with an atypical body type to show that they noticed the criticism and wanted to address it.

What is the problem again?

Personally, I think Zarya looks great and have some fun abilities, though I am a little skeptical on what seems to a very short range on her standard attack. I will say that if Blizz truly wants a more diverse female cast, Zarya on her own won't be enough, but the game is in alpha and she's the first response to that particular criticism I've seen so far, so I'll wait and see what other characters they eventually announce.

 

[Gengisgame]

Lol it would be a pile of BS to think otherwise, all this is not over some character people really, really like

I do respect people who like the character for the design, they are just few and far between because people do not get this many people don't get this worked up over a character design, there are actual articles about how this is good, what others like is bad.

Because it had nothing to with muscles it just shows what it was really about, it was making an unattractive female as some sort of protest, I gave examples of things people may actually want (robots, monster girls, elementals) you have made my point for me, this was simply about making it not be attractive

As you point you just wanted unattractive females despite there being plenty of diversity within that area, not interesting just unattractive. You can have unattractive if that's what you want but that should be personnel taste, not some statement against what others like.

Of course, it's easy to win a game no one else is playing.

I think she's fairly attractive to be honest. Maybe it's just the novelty of seeing a female character in a video game with actual muscles, rather than inexplicable waif strength.

So no, the point of it wasn't to make an "unattractive" character. It's to make a relatable character for someone else but the usual people. Everything is not made for you all the time and if you think she's ugly, well... That just tells me a lot about your values. Or rather, how little of a **** you give about what others like.

It seems you didn't read my post.

Look at last part, I quote "You can have unattractive if that's what you want but that should be personnel taste"

An apology would be appropriate and to associate what people like in fictional media with there how they treat people in there day to day life is crazy.

[link]http://thespectacularspider-girl.tumblr.com/post/113010314274/female-portrayals-in-video-games[/link]

 

[Mutant1988]

Lol it would be a pile of BS to think otherwise, all this is not over some character people really, really like

I do respect people who like the character for the design, they are just few and far between because people do not get this many people don't get this worked up over a character design, there are actual articles about how this is good, what others like is bad.

Because it had nothing to with muscles it just shows what it was really about, it was making an unattractive female as some sort of protest, I gave examples of things people may actually want (robots, monster girls, elementals) you have made my point for me, this was simply about making it not be attractive

As you point you just wanted unattractive females despite there being plenty of diversity within that area, not interesting just unattractive. You can have unattractive if that's what you want but that should be personnel taste, not some statement against what others like.

Of course, it's easy to win a game no one else is playing.

I think she's fairly attractive to be honest. Maybe it's just the novelty of seeing a female character in a video game with actual muscles, rather than inexplicable waif strength.

So no, the point of it wasn't to make an "unattractive" character. It's to make a relatable character for someone else but the usual people. Everything is not made for you all the time and if you think she's ugly, well... That just tells me a lot about your values. Or rather, how little of a **** you give about what others like.

It seems you didn't read my post.

Look at last part, I quote "You can have unattractive if that's what you want but that should be personnel taste"

An apology would be appropriate and to associate what people like in fictional media with there how they treat people in there day to day life is crazy.

[link]http://thespectacularspider-girl.tumblr.com/post/113010314274/female-portrayals-in-video-games[/link]

Again, do you have anything to support the claim that people wanted "an unattractive character"? Because the dismissive attitude you have is frankly absolute garbage.

You don't like the character? Say so then. Don't say that others like it because it's "ugly" or dismissively claim that it exist only to be ugly.