Blizzard Dev Offers Apology for Response to Sexualization Question

[DugMachine]

What the fuck. Why did he need to apologize? He was basically just trying to change topics and they kept pestering him trying to make it into some huge issue when there is none. Fucking a man

 

[Something Amyss]

While I see nothing wrong with his response, really....

He's a game developer, he was there to talk about the game he was developing and not gender politics.

You don't like it, ergo it's 'politics'. Heaven forbid people actually have legit questions on stripper armour.

 

[Wanicochil]

Ignoring all other game companies, focusing entirely on Blizzard, name three high-profile characters of theirs who dress like pole dancers. I will grant Sylvannas as half-a-point, out of the goodness of my heart.

Um, most female WoW player characters once they pick up some gear? Gear that is all enclosing on males and yet somehow little more than a midriff exposing chainmail bikini on a female? And before you say they're not high profile, who do you see more often? A random NPC or the thousands of chars running about?

K.

I'm sorry what?
My high end female characters have literally 0 skin shown, my Tauren has more skin shown then them, one even has tentacles for a face currently (The mage)
Either you are confusing WoW high end gear for asain MMO, or you never played high end WoW

 

[scw55]

What exactly is wrong with what he said? If anything, I think RPS should be ashamed for driving the guy into a corner like that. He's a game developer, he was there to talk about the game he was developing and not gender politics.

I haven't seen many of the HotS character models yet but the ones I have seen seemed fairly reasonable, unless they're considering the naked Zerg Queen ***** of the Universe as hyper-sexualized?

There's two shirtless men (who share the same model and have different textures). In the scheme of gender politics in video games, that makes things quite equal.

 

[Kungfusam]

I am 100% with the dev. The entire gaming industry has taken this whole sexualisation issue to absurd lengths. Frankly, it's embarrassing.

Right, the issue should be mentioned like once a year, and then ignored after that. It should definitely not be brought up when talking with a developer of a potentially huge game that sexualizes most of its female characters in a very boring way.

The only reason this issue is "embarrassing" is that games journalists are able to bring it up so often because it constantly keeps happening. It's embarrassing that games continue to be so juvenile. It's great that Blizzard wants to make awesome looking characters. I don't think anyone would be complaining in a few female characters were sexualized, but it is a problem when it is basically being presented as the norm. Is hyper-sexualization the only way to make female characters "cool"?

I agree he could've given a better response, but it wasn't a bad one. They want to make cool looking characters. Done.

No, it was a terrible response. He acted like you have to be making a political statement in order to not have ridiculous female characters. He also basically said, "Well, this is a video game, so it doesn't matter", as if video games were just throwaway non-culture.

Video games are the most important new form of popular culture. It is a big problem if that culture continues to perpetuate a demeaning view of women.

It was a loaded question with the usual "you either agree with us or we label you sexist " had nothing to with the game or even character design, it was just another attempt at enforcing their ideology becuase to them their ideology is everything. Was there ever a question about representing Catholic or Muslim belief or minorities, no because their feminists therefore all must be feminists

Also videogames are a hobby, at best a form of art, but never a culture

 

[Pyrian]

What you will see is people complaining that every female character has to be sexy, and has to be put in skimpy, retarded armor or tight battle dresses instead of, you know, actual armor, like the men, who get to just be powerful instead of powerful and sexy fanservice.

See, here's the thing. The central point of your argument is in the words "EVERY" and "HAS TO". Without those, you don't really have an argument. There's really no big deal if "SOME" or "MOST" will "CHOOSE" to underdress. So, the existence of examples does not prove your point, but the existence of counter-examples DOES disprove your point.

But you can buy a shirt (tabard?) to put over it(!)... because that somehow changes the design choices someone made to sexualize every female character.

And here, we get at the truth of the matter. You're not upset that people HAVE to be sexualized. You're upset that they CAN choose to be.