Blizzard to Remove "Sexy" Tracer Pose in Overwatch - Update

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,394
2,191
118
Country
United States
Paragon Fury said:
Cadi said:
http://gameranx.com/features/id/46516/article/overwatch-9-ways-blizzards-handling-of-tracers-sexy-pose-went-wrong/

Idk if it's already been posted, since it looks like folks are more interesting in infighting and shitslinging in this thread, but if not, IMC makes some good points here.
This guy pretty much nailed it.

Kaplan's response to the issue has, in no uncertain terms, ensured that the Overwatch community and game itself will be significantly less pleasant to be in and around because Blizzard gave an inch to a section of the community that you should do nothing but kill on sight or ignore.
Would that be the "group" which was one guy making one post about how one animation seemed off, but the other sexy characters were cool; or the group proclaiming the end of gaming because one optional pose for one character is getting changed?

Legit question. I'm having a hard time figuring out which group is supposed to be the thin-skinned ones who should stay off the Internet.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
Rastrelly said:
Funny. This event kinda finally solved my issue with "to buy or not to buy" Overwatch. Not to.

Here's my logic: the more the better. If I can do more, I can do more, and, therefore, I can do more. One absolutely inoffensive function was cut because some arse decided little girls should not see this woman's butt right the way it is. And company agreed. And cut the function. Can this happen again after I buy the game with function I like? Maybe some other poses, or skins, or whatever? Yes, definitely. Thus, no buy.
That sounds like a dubious reason to not buy this game, considering the amount of new stuff they are probably going to introduce to this after release (new characters, animations, outfits, game modes etc). It's like refusing to play TF2 because one item was removed from the ingame shop which gets hundreds of new items each year.

Also, "more is better" is often untrue in games the first place. It results in a lot of feature creep or filler.
 

Objectable

New member
Oct 31, 2013
867
0
0
So, from what I gather:
A person says, "Hey, can you remove this"
Blizzard goes, "Ok, sure"
And then this apparently causes more outrage over pretty much non-existent outrage.
http://40.media.tumblr.com/00cab6147168220b54428a1c2e2be31d/tumblr_inline_o4swspoqg51r14s65_500.png
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Rathkor said:
Actually, the problem with ME3 was it failed to deliver what the developer promised.
It met every promise. Well, it met the promises that most people cared out. It was just extremely disappointingly executed, especially by Bioware's own standard. A game being disappointing is not the same as developers deliberately and maliciously lying.

Your every choice shapes the experience.
And it did. That was the War Score system. Your decisions added up to that and if you didn't reach a certain threshold you were shit out of luck.

When in actuality the only choice that mattered was which door button do you press at the end.
And depending on your War Score the choices would play out differently. For example, if you have a minimal War Score and you choose destroy, the only option at your disposal, then the Earth is destroyed.

But promises were made and not delivered on.
The promises were fulfilled. The War Score system made it so that every choice contributed to your ending. Just because you didn't get an awesome cutscene for whatever choice you made doesn't mean it didn't matter. Furthermore, the series' main conflict is resolved. Your goal is to stop the Reapers from eliminating space-faring organic life and in all endings pre-Extended Cut you stop the Reapers from eliminating all space-faring organic life. Was it disappointing? To put it as a merely "disappointing" is an understatement. However, just because it wasn't resolved to your personal satisfaction doesn't mean it wasn't resolved. Few people hated the Mass Effect 3 ending more than me but there were no fraudulent claims. If you want to gripe about fraudulent claims you should avert your eyes towards Gearbox.
No. I am sick of this revision of history. They said there weren't going to be endings that had the only difference being superficial cosmetics, there were. They said your choices through the whole series were going to matter, they didn't. And the ones that COULD'VE changed how shit went down were replaced with the same thing no matter what. You kill the Rachnai queen, doesn't matter, you didn't really wipe out an entire species. You lose half your party in the suicide mission in 2? Doesn't matter, we have backups. You put Anderson as the Fourth Council member, doesn't matter, he changed his mind about Udina and thinks he would be a perfect candidate.

Your choices in ME3 mattered, yes(barely, you got more out of the multiplayer, don't even try to spin this any other way), but none of your other ones did in ME1 or 2 beyond the most basic cosmetic differences. And that's what people had a problem with. You spent something like seventy hours getting to ME3, and then all you've done doesn't mean much of shit because it's easier to have a palette swap than actually make an ending worthwhile. I heard it got better, but I'd already finished it once and it's since become the one series I just can't bring myself to go back through because two thirds barely register.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
ok, so now he decided to keep this pose in there? i just got up so maybe i cant think properly yet but for the moment im confused.
the game does look interesting enough but a company should be bale to keep things for them self without getting influenced by others unless its really something bad that needs to be pointed out.
but well, its a blizzard game. so i will not get it just to pay every month 15$.
 

bjj hero

New member
Feb 4, 2009
3,180
0
0
Surely if her leggings were not painted on then this wouldn't be an issue?

Give her realistic trousers and everyone is happy.
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
bjj hero said:
Surely if her leggings were not painted on then this wouldn't be an issue?

Give her realistic trousers and everyone is happy.
Hell, even that would've been a better answer, her ass is still there with what we've got now, every other character that has that EXACT SAME POSE that doesn't match their character still has theirs, after all. It's an empty gesture honestly if they aren't going to remove the poses that don't match the characters on everyone else.
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
Objectable said:
So, from what I gather:
A person says, "Hey, can you remove this"
Blizzard goes, "Ok, sure"
And then this apparently causes more outrage over pretty much non-existent outrage.
Were circumstances different, I'd agree wholeheartedly. Except...

1. The "parent" in question was talking about their young child being exposed to the content of a T-rated game.

Consider that a second. If this were someone griping about how their kid learned potty-words from playing Call of Duty online or somesuch, we'd all be united in telling this individual to piss up a rope because they're a shit parent for exposing their kids to content beyond their age range.

Games get content ratings on the basis of the maturity of its content. People young enough to not meet the age range of those ratings shouldn't be exposed to that content. End of story.

2. The "concerned parent"s arguments were insensible and, quite frankly, insulting to women.

Young women can't be flirtatious? The only women allowed to display any sexuality are the ones for whom that trait dominates their personality or appearance? There's now a firewall between acting youthful and exuberant, and being sexual?

3. The very obvious, omnipresent across all forms of media, double standard which exists in sexual content versus violent content.

Tracer going on a killstreak that would make a Soviet commissar circa 1942 go "holy fuck, tone it down friend!"? YOU GO GURL ROCK ON WITH YO BAD SELF. Tracer showing her ass? THE SEVENTH SEAL HAS BEEN BROKEN. Am I the only person who sees a little bit of a problem, here?

4. The "we want an heroic, inclusive game in which no one feels uncomfortable!" argument holds up to scrutiny about as well as a fishnet condom.

The obese character has a giant tattoo of a pig on his stomach. Do I really have to go into detail about how insulting that can be, when body shaming and body positivity are in the limelight?

Soldier 76, as a whacked-out vigilante (some -- with some degree of certainty I'd openly wager the very same ones praising Blizzard for removing the ass pose -- would say, "gun-toting lunatic"), stigmatizes combat veterans. Hot off the heels of two foreign wars that saw a shitload of US combat vets come home with TBI and PTSD, that's a little bit of a problem.

Lucio is a walking stereotype of Brazilian culture.

Pharah? Clearly, all Egyptians are just that into ancient Egyptian mythology. Give me a fuckin' break.

I could go on. Again, were circumstances different, I'd wholeheartedly agree, but sadly they aren't. Blizzard's actions on this matter fail the smell test from Mars.
 

Disco Biscuit

New member
Mar 19, 2016
105
0
0
Redryhno said:
Disco Biscuit said:
So, if you put the two together, then maybe there was a reason beyond "Someone may take issue with it"? Such as "Many people actually took issue with it" or "We're worried about some crazy christian group in Australia boycotting our game".
Considering how alot of Australians are portrayed in the game, I wouldn't be surprised(which is sorta strange considering I sympathize a helluva lot more with them than pretty much any other faction I've seen) if there were boycotts called of the game to begin with. I'm honestly surprised nobody's mentioned the crap that led up to Australia becoming actual Mad Max but a fucking pose gets mentioned and suddenly everyone knows everything there is to know about the characters.
Australia, which really does ban games too. Aussie is a bit like the US in the 1950's, in a lot of ways, socially and politically.
 

ThatOtherGirl

New member
Jul 20, 2015
364
0
0
Ok, there is a lot to say here.

1. Tracer has some really, really long legs. I think she might have a higher leg to torso ratio than even Bayonetta. Legs for days.

2. those pants are painted on! I mean literally, I don't think I have ever seen "clothing" that hugs individual butt cheeks so completely like that outside of liquid latex body paint.

3. I'll buy that the pose is sexual, but not only in an extremely mild sense. I find it strange that someone would feel the need to complain about it, especially since it is optional. I like sexy butts, so I personally would like it in, but whatever.

4. the original complaint comes from an attitude I really don't like. The problem, right here:

"This isn't a character who is in part defined by flaunting her sexuality. This pose says to the player base, oh we've got all these cool diverse characters, but at any moment we are willing to reduce them to sex symbols to help boost our investment game."

I have a real problem with the idea that a girl showing off her butt in an minor way (ie, being mildly sexy) like this "reduces" her. I also have a problem with the idea that Tracer, or any female character for that manner, who doesn't have "flaunts her sexuality" on a list of defining character traits can't be mildly sexy sometimes. I think it is good to see mildly sexy women in games, especially when that minor sexiness is a very small aspect of the overall character. Women can be sexy without it ruining them.

And as long as people are playing the parenthood, "I have a daughter" card, I have a daughter. I don't think the Tracer pose is in any way a problem, but saying that a single, mildly sexy pose "reduces her" is a problem. I don't know. Maybe I am just being a bit oversensitive here, but I grew up in an environment where wearing a skirt above your knees made you a slut, wearing knee high boots made you a hooker, and the prevailing opinion was that this made you significantly less than more modest women. I don't like it.

5. I don't think it is a problem Blizzard removed the pose. (that may seem to conflict with 4, but the problem there is the attitude behind the request, an attitude I don't think Blizzard shares.) The dev team could probably care less about the pose and so dropped it because who cares. I don't think they are compromising their art, and Tracer is still plenty sexy without the pose. I mean, she has two other victory poses that show off her butt quite nicely if that is your thing, and I would even argue that one of them is sexier than the one that was cut.

6. While this particular cut wasn't a big issue, Blizzard does have a tendency to make sanitizing changes based on community feedback that I don't really agree with. Female worgen changed to be sexier and less animalistic, the Theralion voice change, removing the part where Garrosh slaps Sylvanas are all examples of Blizzard changing something due to feedback in which I think something good was lost. It happens more than I would like, I think Blizzard would be better off trusting their initial instincts a bit more.

7. The most ridiculous thing about this who debacle is the blow back against it. Are people really choosing "removed 1 out of 3 sexy butt poses" as their hill to die on? Calm down. There is a discussion to be had here, but freaking out like this just makes you look bad. It is really hard for me to come in here and come down on the side of "I would rather have the sexy butt pose" when so many people are making this into a controversy it really isn't.
 

Travis Fischer

New member
Feb 1, 2012
126
0
0
bjj hero said:
Surely if her leggings were not painted on then this wouldn't be an issue?
Give her realistic trousers and everyone is happy.
Oh... you sweet summer child...

If this entire outbreak of idiocy has proven anything it's that there is NOTHING under the sun that these people won't find a way to take offense over.
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
bjj hero said:
Surely if her leggings were not painted on then this wouldn't be an issue?

Give her realistic trousers and everyone is happy.
Nah, clearly the best solution to this is to make sure she's well and truly desexualized. Mod her teleport and rewind sounds to fart noises, and mod her pose back in complete with sound effect that, when she does it, she floats an air biscuit an elephant fed only on a diet of boiled eggs, red ale, and White Castles would shed a tear to behold.
 

loa

New member
Jan 28, 2012
1,716
0
0
"While I stand by my previous statement that the last thing we want to do is to make someone FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE and thats why we did the change, I want to clarify that we will not in fact remove something solely because someone took issue with it".
Just... shut up.

I wouldn't have a problem with any of this if it wasn't for this dishonest bullshit.
Where was blizzards hyper-awareness of being "true to characters as to not offend anyone" when they wrote the unintentional comedy that is starcraft 2?
Where was your care when every story you wrote became world of warcraft?
Just fuck off with this political horseshit.
You never gave a fuck.

Well that's not true, the old blizzard actually did but it died when starcraft 2 and diablo 3 hit the shelves.
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
Eacaraxe said:
bjj hero said:
Surely if her leggings were not painted on then this wouldn't be an issue?

Give her realistic trousers and everyone is happy.
Nah, clearly the best solution to this is to make sure she's well and truly desexualized. Mod her teleport and rewind sounds to fart noises, and mod her pose back in complete with sound effect that, when she does it, she floats an air biscuit an elephant fed only on a diet of boiled eggs, red ale, and White Castles would shed a tear to behold.
Damn, now you're just appealing to the Roadhog R34 base, what kind of child-hating monster are you?
 

Objectable

New member
Oct 31, 2013
867
0
0
The more I think about it, the funnier this gets. People are honestly cancelling their pre-order of this game cause a fictional character no longer slaps her ass.

The more I am in the gaming community, the more I start to loath it.
 

Travis Fischer

New member
Feb 1, 2012
126
0
0
Objectable said:
The more I think about it, the funnier this gets. People are honestly cancelling their pre-order of this game cause a fictional character no longer slaps her ass.

The more I am in the gaming community, the more I start to loath it.
First of all, the Street Fighter V controversy was months ago.

Second, do you have any idea how many video games there are out there? How many people have mile-long Steam libraries full of games they'll probably never download, much less play? Most gamers can afford to be picky.

Third, people always say "Stop complaining, vote with your wallet." What exactly do you think that means?
 

UberGott

New member
Feb 20, 2014
69
0
0
On the one hand, it's clear Blizzard is still tweaking the game and likely used some copy-pasted poses. If the plan was always "Oh yeah, pose #75 is temporary anyway", I'd say no harm, no foul. They've already removed a far raunchier (but still "T" rated) gag from the game's outhouse, so they clearly have a direction they're leaning in for the game's humor. Not one I'm as fond of, but hey, their house, their rules.

What rubs me the wrong way is Blizzard saying they agree fully with the moral justification of mai waifu the character my grammar school aged daughter likes HAS A BUTT, and that's clearly just unacceptable. No polls on if it should stay, no hint of alternate poses - just a quick grab at some low-hanging brownie points that ended with the entire forum mocking not the decision itself, but the absurd reasoning behind it.

Is the removal of a not-intentional booty shot a big deal? Probably not. Is it part of a much larger, much more annoying chain of developer censorship targeted largely at people who don't even play the games being affected? You bet your sweet orange-spandex covered buns.

Ah, what's that? It's a single pose from a "T" rated game and the creators are all for it? Eh, sorry, must have missed that over the news that Star Ocean 5 was being censored by developers in advance solely to avoid controversy from the Western hobbyist media, the needless destruction of conceptual art in the Bravely Default Limited Edition, and the fact that the Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 - despite not even getting a localized release! - is still being reviewed by US-based gaming sites, seemingly for no reason other than to spite the fact that it even exists.

Last I checked, more people have signed a joke petition to remove GUNS from the game than have agreed with the censorship in strawpolls, and the Overwatch Beta forum has seemingly been overwhelmingly either against it or gave zero shites either way, so to argue this is "what the players want" is a fairly weak excuse. But whatever - I was only going to give this a shot if it was F2P, so I guess my opinion matters even less than the guy who got a back-glance removed so his waifu would remain pure daughter can play a game above her intended age bracket while avoiding being tempted to the ways of orange spandex... until she's hypnotized into spontaneous preteen twerking Widowmaker's glorious booty, of course.

Because clearly video games are capable of causing the general public harm. Through ass.

This is so ridiculous I'm no longer convinced this guy wasn't just a clever troll who struck gold. If so, hell, good for him. If not, he's a sensitive goober who needs to accept that everyone has a butt. Even the daughter he desperately wants to hide them from.