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

[Alterego-X]

No idea if this was already adressed, but I just wanted to point you can't say that you want to include everyone, and then remove something.

Even if you really wato get technical, he specifically DIDN'T say this, but that "We want everyone to feel strong and heroic in our community".

No one feels weak, or unheroic, by not getting to look at a particular pinup girl pose. The reverse is not necessarily true.

This should be an obvious spirit of the reply even if he DID say that they want to "include everyone", but it's super obvious given the actual wording.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

No idea if this was already adressed, but I just wanted to point you can't say that you want to include everyone, and then remove something. This will automatically exclude the people who liked it. The only way to include everyone is making everything optional.

If the designer thought the pose is not fitting for his character, that is his right and he can change it all he wants, but he cannot say that he wants to include everyone. It is just this type of toothless corporate speek that annoys me.

I just want to throw it in that they are going to replace the pose with something that's more in line with their character. It's not like the game has less content.

If you want to call it just PR speak though, fair enough, I can't really argue that.

Even it the game had less content, if the designer thought the content clashed with his vision, it is his right to remove it. My problem is indeed the PR speak, just say: "we don't want this particula character to be sexy, that is not how we envisioned her" and not: "we want everyone to feel heroic", because you are automatically excluding everyone who liked your more sexy take on the char and feels more powerful with sexy chars in general. When you make a statement, make a friggin statement, don't spout bullshit phrases, especially not when they are factually wrong. I respect your opinion, I don't respect you insulting my intelligence.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Fair enough, I can't really argue with that.

 

[Lightknight]

No idea if this was already adressed, but I just wanted to point you can't say that you want to include everyone, and then remove something.

Even if you really wato get technical, he specifically DIDN'T say this, but that "We want everyone to feel strong and heroic in our community".

No one feels weak, or unheroic, by not getting to look at a particular pinup girl pose. The reverse is not necessarily true.

This should be an obvious spirit of the reply even if he DID say that they want to "include everyone", but it's super obvious given the actual wording.

Do people feel weak or unheroic when they see some badass girl jogging down the street in little more than a sports bra and boy shorts? Do people feel weak when Ronda Rousey makes a sexy pose for a picture before kicking someone's ass?

Also, how do you know that no one feels "weak" or "unheroic" when their characters don't portray their sexuality in attractive ways? One could argue that women in real life feel powerful when they look sexy so one could argue that there is a non-zero number of people who would feel weaker than they could at the poses presented. The moral of the story being that you can't usually please all people with a single decision. Let's not forget that this is an entirely optional pose. People aren't going to get it unless they purchase it. So...?

The message they're sending is that being sexy is weakness. That you can't be a woman who posts sexy selfies and also be competent and powerful. That should also be insanely offensive but for some reason the group that should be offended about this happening to real people are holding a double standard when it comes to digital characters.

As I've stated in previous posts, the correct way to teach people about sexuality is to depict it as one of many qualities and not as a detraction from competence. Failing to depict it at all doesn't teach people anything. Our sexuality is part of our being and should not be stamped down just because us having sexuality makes some people feel funny in their pants region. That's their problem, not ours.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

No idea if this was already adressed, but I just wanted to point you can't say that you want to include everyone, and then remove something.

Even if you really wato get technical, he specifically DIDN'T say this, but that "We want everyone to feel strong and heroic in our community".

No one feels weak, or unheroic, by not getting to look at a particular pinup girl pose. The reverse is not necessarily true.

This should be an obvious spirit of the reply even if he DID say that they want to "include everyone", but it's super obvious given the actual wording.

Sigh. I feel like I wrote something like that before, but you don't have to explicitly SAY something to MEAN it. Feeling strong and heroic is obviously a core concept in the game. So if the developer wants everyone to be able to feel that with their game, they want everyone to be able to enjoy it, so they want to include everyone. Implication and Subtext are very much a thing, you don't have to spell out everything. This is not Sesame Street.

And regarding the "No one feels weak by not getting to look at sexy things", that is just one opinion. Yours. Maybe there are females who are shy in real life and like their characters to convey sexual confidence, and they would feel stronger then? IDK, there could be many reasons why someone feels stronger and more heroic when presented with a hero in a sexy pose, I don't speak for all of humanity.

 

[Lightknight]

And regarding the "No one feels weak by not getting to look at sexy things", that is just one opinion. Yours. Maybe there are females who are shy in real life and like their characters to convey sexual confidence, and they would feel stronger then? IDK, there could be many reasons why someone feels stronger and more heroic when presented with a hero in a sexy pose, I don't speak for all of humanity.

Perfect elaboration on what I was trying to say in one paragraph. There is a significant portion of women who do feel more powerful when they are perceived as sexy. So much so that one of the most massive industries in the world has been entirely built around it.

To pretend that some women to feel power in being sexy would be as silly as saying that men don't feel power in being handsome.

We absolutely do.

 

[Alterego-X]

The message they're sending is that being sexy is weakness. That you can't be a woman who posts sexy selfies and also be competent and powerful.

Anyone who would receive that message from the fact that a single female character with her painted-on pants is NOT striking pinup girl pose, would already receive the same message from every anime that fails to have a panty shots, every novel that has an asexual character in it, and every film that fails to gaze at one of the female characters' breast at one certain opportunity.

In other words, already too thin skinned to consume any media.

Either that, or actually arguing in hypotheticals on a gaming forum.

 

[Lightknight]

The message they're sending is that being sexy is weakness. That you can't be a woman who posts sexy selfies and also be competent and powerful.

Anyone who would receive that message from the fact that a single female character with her painted-on pants is NOT striking pinup girl pose, would already receive the same message from every anime that fails to have a panty shots, every novel that has an asexual character in it, and every film that fails to gaze at one of the female characters' breast at one certain opportunity.

Not really, they removed a sexy pose with the explanation that it was because they wanted players to feel strong and heroic.

The logical implication of that statement is that people who are sexy are weak and non-heroic or should be seen as such regardless of the reality.

My personal problem here isn't so much that they're removing it but that the reason behind moving it is bad. It trivializes a significant portion of the female population and perhaps even insults them.

Had they not given a reason (the didn't owe us one), given a non-offensive reason or just not included it to begin with then there would be no discussion on the matter from me, so your slippery slope argument that this would somehow mean an anime must show panties just doesn't follow. But it is wrong to think that every girl posing in the mirror for a selfie is somehow less powerful than every girl that doesn't. That's the wrong message to send.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

The message they're sending is that being sexy is weakness. That you can't be a woman who posts sexy selfies and also be competent and powerful.

Anyone who would receive that message from the fact that a single female character with her painted-on pants is NOT striking pinup girl pose, would already receive the same message from every anime that fails to have a panty shots, every novel that has an asexual character in it, and every film that fails to gaze at one of the female characters' breast at one certain opportunity.

In other words, already too thin skinned to consume any media.

Either that, or actually arguing in hypotheticals on a gaming forum.

His argument was that the pose in question was optional, so by removing it, he got this message not because the char is not striking a pinup pose, but because the char isn't allowed to strike that pose at all. No need to shoot out the Hyperbole when you are not properly representing his point in the first place.

 

[Alterego-X]

Sigh. I feel like I wrote something like that before, but you don't have to explicitly SAY something to MEAN it. Feeling strong and heroic is obviously a core concept in the game. So if the developer wants everyone to be able to feel that with their game, they want everyone to be able to enjoy it, so they want to include everyone. Implication and Subtext are very much a thing, you don't have to spell out everything. This is not Sesame Street.

You don't get to plead subtext, when your entire point is resting on pretending not to get the context of inclusivity towards demographic groups.

Maybe if the he said "we want to make everyone equally happy", you could play an overtly literal nitpicking and point out, that technically removing something that made people unhappy, will make those less happy who wanted the first one to be unhappy.

It's silly, and semantic, but technically true.

But when they actually DID use terminology that makes it clear that the are talking about being welcoming to women (as in, not alienating), you don't get to reword that statement's intended meaning, and then nitpick while ignoring the intended meaning.

Technically removing a particular pose might alienate someone who was fixated on seeing that particular pose, but no, removing a message that makes some people feel unwelcome, isn't necessarily making anyone feel unwelcome in the same manner.

And regarding the "No one feels weak by not getting to look at sexy things", that is just one opinion. Yours. Maybe there are females who are shy in real life and like their characters to convey sexual confidence, and they would feel stronger then?

Then I'm sure those girls will love Widowmaker. They will also love Tracer's costume design.

I haven't even said "No one feels weak by not getting to look at sexy things", I have said "No one feels weak, or unheroic, by not getting to look at a particular pinup girl pose."

Even if you would be right that a single game not particularly objectifying any of it's it's female characters at all would potentially alienate players, that's not what we are talking about here, but about fine-tuning the appropriate degrees of sexualization for a partiular character.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

The message they're sending is that being sexy is weakness. That you can't be a woman who posts sexy selfies and also be competent and powerful.

Anyone who would receive that message from the fact that a single female character with her painted-on pants is NOT striking pinup girl pose, would already receive the same message from every anime that fails to have a panty shots, every novel that has an asexual character in it, and every film that fails to gaze at one of the female characters' breast at one certain opportunity.

Not really, they removed a sexy pose with the explanation that it was because they wanted players to feel strong and heroic.

The logical implication of that statement is that people who are sexy are weak and non-heroic or should be seen as such regardless of the reality.

My personal problem here isn't so much that they're removing it but that the reason behind moving it is bad. It trivializes a significant portion of the female population and perhaps even insults them.

Had they not given a reason (the didn't owe us one), given a non-offensive reason or just not included it to begin with then there would be no discussion on the matter from me, so your slippery slope argument that this would somehow mean an anime must show panties just doesn't follow. But it is wrong to think that every girl posing in the mirror for a selfie is somehow less powerful than every girl that doesn't. That's the wrong message to send.

Sorry, your post only appeared after I already posted mine. I let you speak for yourself next time.

 

[Lightknight]

The message they're sending is that being sexy is weakness. That you can't be a woman who posts sexy selfies and also be competent and powerful.

Anyone who would receive that message from the fact that a single female character with her painted-on pants is NOT striking pinup girl pose, would already receive the same message from every anime that fails to have a panty shots, every novel that has an asexual character in it, and every film that fails to gaze at one of the female characters' breast at one certain opportunity.

In other words, already too thin skinned to consume any media.

Either that, or actually arguing in hypotheticals on a gaming forum.

His argument was that the pose in question was optional, so by removing it, he got this message not because the char is not striking a pinup pose, but because the char isn't allowed to strike that pose at all. No need to shoot out the Hyperbole when you are not properly representing his point in the first place.

I appreciate you pointing out the poster's response was unnecessary hyperbole, but my point wasn't really an issue with the Char not being allowed to strike the pose. I mean, I agree that one could say that giving us all these options empowers us to have a character that poses in the way we want and as such we do feel more powerful. Since it is option and we have all the choice in the matter then just having it as an option is only a positive. So I do agree with this sentiment on that level.

Rather, my contention here is removing the pose under the guise that her being sexy evokes weakness and unheroic feelings. The implication is that women who are themselves sexy and value their looks are weak an less competent or should be correctly seen as such. That is highly problematic and devalues a significant portion of the population.

Sorry, your post only appeared after I already posted mine. I let you speak for yourself next time.

You still brought up a valuable point regarding how the reduction of options diminishes player choice and ergo power over how they portray their avatar. It was a good point.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Snip

Am I talking to the God-Emperor of the human race? For someone who tries to reprimand me for being too semantic, I hope you realize you are interpreting the statement of the developer in a very certain and rigid way yourself. He said he wants everyone to feel heroic and strong. How does this message refer to being welcoming to women (by the way, "not alienating" and "being welcoming" are two very different things) specifically? He didn't say anything about any specific group, he said everyone, which even in context here means everyone. We have two different interpretations of the meaning of this qoute and the intention of the developer. This does not prevent me from using subtext at all. And the context of including demographic groups doesn't change my original argument, because he was not specifically talking about making such groups feel included, but everyone. At least in my opinion. Apart from that, the point of my original comment was to point out this kind of uncommited language from the developer which allowed so many different interpretations of what he said, so in a way you are only strengthening my point.

And regarding your assumption that the removal of this particular pose is not unwelcoming to anyone, there is someone chatting with you in this very thread who stated he feels that way.

 

[Alterego-X]

You still brought up a valuable point regarding how the reduction of options diminishes player choice and ergo power over how they portray their avatar. It was a good point.

Not really, it just brings us back to the previous point about how really it's the changing of previously known content that makes this into a big issue.

No one would receive the message from Beyond Good and Evil that it's disempowering to women because it's denying the option for Jade to wear a swimsuit through the game. This reminds me of what Yahtzee once said about murdering kids in Skyrim [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/extra-punctuation/9246-What-Is-the-Matter-with-You-People.2]. Ultimately every game controls it's tone, and decides which options it wants to give to gamers.

If the gaming industry in general would noticeably tend to disproportionally deny female characters control over their mannerisms, or try to obsessively cover up their sexuality, that could send a neative message.

But in this case, you are not really talking about how THE GAME sending a negative message, but about how the fact that we had the opportunity to follow the creative process, sends a negative message.

If Overwatch would have been released in a finished version first, with the pose already remove, no one could reasonably claim that it's a sex-negative or puritanical game.

The entire outrage rests on the belief that fine tuning during beta exactly WHICH characters should be HOW sexualized, is inherently censorous even if the end result is nothing remarkable.

 

[Malpraxis]

So you're telling us you can't please SJWs? No freaking way.

 

[Cati]

No idea if this was already adressed, but I just wanted to point you can't say that you want to include everyone, and then remove something.

Even if you really wato get technical, he specifically DIDN'T say this, but that "We want everyone to feel strong and heroic in our community".

No one feels weak, or unheroic, by not getting to look at a particular pinup girl pose. The reverse is not necessarily true.

This should be an obvious spirit of the reply even if he DID say that they want to "include everyone", but it's super obvious given the actual wording.

It's not about looking at a "pinup" pose (also, whut?).

What about the female gamers who want to be a character that's bad-ass and marginally sexy, as opposed to being either bad-ass or overly sexy? Does what we want in a game only count when our wants are inline with all the male "feminists" and over-protective dads, and can be used further their own interest?

Why is it, in a discussion that supposedly started due to the objectification of women, are we being treated as objects by the very people condemning the objectification women?

"Sorry honey, the men are speaking now. You just sit quiet and look pretty. Only speak when I need you to back up my assertion all those other men are pigs. Ta, love!"

That's what this entire topic has boiled down to, across all the platforms it's being discussed.
From the original post on the Overwatch forums, to the response thread there by a woman who disagreed with the OP; to the use of women's experiences by the likes of Danny O'Dwyer to protect himself in a petty privilege pissing contest on twitter; to here, where any reasonable point is ignored if it doesn't involve misrepresenting people's objections to the change as being all about nerdy men wanting to ogle digital butts.

It's not about representation, lack thereof, or about female gamers feeling uncomfortable because of unnecessary objectification.

It's a pub brawl kicked off by Some Guy calling a bar full of men pigs because m'lady exclaimed someone grabbed her ass, and all the non-ass grabbing men that had been minding their own business are now having to defend themselves from the unfair accusation.
Meanwhile amidst the chaos, m'lady has fucked off with the hot young barman she'd been eyeing up all evening, and the rest of the women in the place are trying calm things down and are largely being ignored. The only time they're acknowledged is when someone goes to throw a punch at the asshole and has to stop because Some Guy has pulled a nearby woman into the way.

The part of M'lady is being played by the original man who complained. Some Guy played by the game director and every bloke who's being condescending and downplaying the backlash as being "just a bunch of horny losers getting pissed about anime arses". The men in the bar are all the guys trying to point out the ridiculousness of it all and are protesting the mischaracterisation of their objections.

And the women? Who cares who played them. They're the object in this discussion, not equal participants in it. They're just there for Some Guy to use to score brownie points and keep his head off the chopping block, whether they agree with him or not.


Time and time again these non-troversies come up, and instead of making any real difference to the things that should matter, we get treated to a round of soap-boxing and dick-waving from men who want to feel superior to the nerds, and some game dev makes an easy cosmetic change that does sod-all for anyone in the grand scheme of things.


Edited: Changed one of the characters to "Some Guy", since I was posting from an emotional place and the original character name wasn't fair to anyone here who may see themselves in that character. Sorry!

 

[Lightknight]

You still brought up a valuable point regarding how the reduction of options diminishes player choice and ergo power over how they portray their avatar. It was a good point.

Not really, it just brings us back to the previous point about how really it's the changing of previously known content that makes this into a big issue.

Of course, because otherwise we either wouldn't know that this wasn't included or it wouldn't have been an issue.

No one would receive the message from Beyond Good and Evil that it's disempowering to women because it's denying the option for Jade to wear a swimsuit through the game.

If they had said that they created a sexy costume for Jade but removed it because sexy people evoke weakness and not heroism then that would have been insulting to women who accept or even celebrate their sexuality. If they said that they wished to portray a woman whose sexuality was not a focus of the character then that would be perfectly acceptable motivation, but not saying that women who express sexuality are weak by implication or directly.

If the gaming industry in general would noticeably tend to disproportionally deny female characters control over their mannerisms, or try to obsessively cover up their sexuality, that could send a neative message.

But in this case, you are not really talking about how THE GAME sending a negative message, but about how the fact that we had the opportunity to follow the creative process, sends a negative message.

Yes, we are discussing information that we have learned. I'm unsure how this changes the reason they give. It's because in their mind sexy isn't strong and isn't heroic which is a problem for the reasons I've discussed.

If Overwatch would have been released in a finished version first, with the pose already remove, no one could reasonably claim that it's a sex-negative or puritanical game.

True, but that didn't happen.

The entire outrage rests on the belief that fine tuning during beta exactly WHICH characters should be HOW sexualized, is inherently censorous.

I'm not sure anyone could adequately claim censorship. They said they were already waffling on whether or not to include that pose and this just tipped the scale.

I do think internet mob mentality is capable of censoring media. It just doesn't really seem that this is the case here. The overwatch design team has been incredibly considerate of the issues of sexism in gaming and have specifically designed characters accordingly.

I just find their reasons for removing this and the writer's reason for being mad at it to be offensive.

 

[EMWISE94]

Yeah, deadlines can make you put out content you otherwise wouldn't. I imagine that designing to someone else's specs can make this an issue, though. And since we're talking being part of a larger team, I can see it potentially slipping through the cracks. Especially if you have, say, one team working on the actual animations and another on the skins. Or perhaps the character gets changed mid-project anyway.
But like, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with ass-hugging tights. I'm a fan of comic books, after all. And it doesn't really seem like it was contentious until it was put into this specfic context.

You know?

I got no problem with ass-hugging tights either, though I do have a problem with how often I see them on female character designs, its on of those design elements that almost feels like the designer isn't certain that they've presented this character as female so they emphasise something, sometimes its a low-cut cleaving showing top, sometimes its boob armour, sometimes its pants, regardless of fabric (or intended fabric) hugging the females cheeks like their afraid of slipping off. Oddly enough whenever this get brought up people are quick to rush to bring up pics of Solid Snake and go 'MALE CHARACTERS GET THIS TREATMENT TOO!' but in most cases where they do its cause they get designed with skin tight clothing like a wetsuit or something. But yeah, its a design element that always bugs me if I see it, kinda like whenever I see male character designs for warriors/fighters or typical fantasy combat roles and its always some super buff dude, actually one example I could give is Street Fighter where the male characters get really absurd muscle design to the point where they sometimes just look too beefy, sure you have instances like Birdy in SFV or Rufus in USFIV, but those are like the only two differences. Also I'm aware that if I wanted to see sleeker male character designs for fighters then JRPGs are the place to look but... most of those designs are too anime for my taste at times.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It's a minor cosmetic change made in a Beta that doesn't influence Gameplay, Mechanics, Story, Character Design, or general Characterisation. It's getting a replacement, so it's not like Tracer is going to have less "stuff" than other characters.

I don't get it. Considering the complaint hovered mostly around it being "inconsistent in character" and that the Devs agreed, this would be like getting upset that Counterstrike removed a US Army digital camo option from the AK-47 in exchange for, I dunno, Chinese People's Army digital camo. Sure, the US digital camo is fine, but it doesn't really fit, you know?

Seriously, at this point, if anybody arguing that this change hurts the game has also argued that game reviews should only be relevant to technical stuff and "the gameplay", they should probably sit for a spell and try to reconcile those outlooks. Changing one of Tracer's victory poses changes nothing about the game, the story, the mechanics, or Tracer herself. It is entirely cosmetic and, through the admission of most of the detractors here, would've gone completly unremarked upon if Blizzard hadn't said anything.(I actually have my doubts about that, given how the "censorship" of R. Mika started out, but still)

If you're thinking that, if not for Blizzard mentioning it, that this change would've been unremarkable, then please. Let it be unremarkable.

 

[LazyAza]

"we gave our character a nice butt and put her in super tight pants so for the love of god don't show it off and especially don't show her posing with it slightly emphasized. What? we already showed it off in the promo video and artwork and her running animation alone already emphasizes her butt? no no ignore all that please."

Because as we all know any girl who is self confident and comfortable with her sexuality and seems like she'd be all too happy to show off her figure of her own free will would never ever pose like this right right??!?! People might look at her and have thoughts and stuff, holy shit can't have that. sigh

Either confidently include sexuality in to character design, behavior and presentation (you know, reflect actual real human behavior) or don't game devs. Don't do it and then suddenly decide because one moron complained you should feel super paranoid about it. What's extra ludicrous is this game above all others has incredible levels of character diversity in terms of design and presentation, especially with its females. Widowmaker is the only one I'd say is traditionally pandering to the straight male gaze but even she comes across as "tasteful" rather than tacky to me and Tracers pose is hardly character destroying at all. This whole thing annoys me not because of the context of the situation but the attitudes and ignorance behind it, its just so dumb.