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

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
So we participate in a gaming community now where a company cannot remove anything due to fan or internal feedback anymore without compiling a 3 paragraph explanation for why they did it.
Even worse when the removal has anything remotely to do sexuality. Regardless of how much it actually impacts the game.

I just want people outraged about this to know that you aren't championing 'Artistic Freedom' anything. Your simply giving companies more reasons to just not ask the community for feedback because even DOING THAT can result in a 4 day fall out the PR has to mop up as opposed to focusing on more important aspects of the game.
Your doing the exact fucking opposite. It's especially worse when you accuse said company of being 'weak' because they took feedback that YOU didn't agree with.

Some of the more paranoid people who genuniely believe SJW's are puppet stringing the games industry literally think all we have to do is make one post to 'force' a multi billion dollar company to comply with us.

I guess the only good thing to come out of it is that Japanese devs are seeing the gullible and troll value of this newest bullshit outrage and are using that to their advantage to make some good 'anti-sjw' bucks.
Take notes from the Star Ocean devs.

All under the twisted guise of 'censorship'.

I mean the reaction to all of this....wouldn't be surprised if some people got the impression that gamers are thin skinned individuals.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
erttheking said:
SecondPrize said:
erttheking said:
SecondPrize said:
How could anyone ever think it acceptable to remove for everyone a completely optional aspect of a character which you do not like? It's mind-boggling to me how you can be so self-centered.
Not to be rude, but just about everyone in this thread is talking purely about what they want.

It's the internet. People only care about what others want when it conveniently falls into line with what they themselves wanted.

Also the devs are putting something in to replace it, something that they feel fits the character's personality more.
There's a difference between wanting something and wanting what everyone gets to be tuned to what you yourself want. I don't want a lot of things, that doesn't mean I feel others shouldn't have them.
You know, the problem with this is that everyone is looking at it as a zero sum game. That everything ever taken out of a game is a loss. Even if it just didn't fit or didn't work. This is a pose that, frankly, didn't really mean much and is going to be replaced. People who are buying the game are not going to be getting an incomplete experience, just an ironed out one. Hell, the pose will probably be similar to the last one, just with some changes here and there.

If it wasn't for all of the people making a fuss about censorship (only when its related to sexualized women I can't help but notice) this would've flown under the radar
It is a loss for someone. There's some Tracer player out there who selected that pose out of all the options they had and was happy with it. Then there's everyone else who did not. The difference here is this Fipps guy wasn't happy with merely doing that, he wanted the Tracer player who liked the pose to not have it. It's bullshit.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
SecondPrize said:
erttheking said:
SecondPrize said:
How could anyone ever think it acceptable to remove for everyone a completely optional aspect of a character which you do not like? It's mind-boggling to me how you can be so self-centered.
Not to be rude, but just about everyone in this thread is talking purely about what they want.

It's the internet. People only care about what others want when it conveniently falls into line with what they themselves wanted.

Also the devs are putting something in to replace it, something that they feel fits the character's personality more.
There's a difference between wanting something and wanting what everyone gets to be tuned to what you yourself want. I don't want a lot of things, that doesn't mean I feel others shouldn't have them.
Yeah okay that's cool and all but guess what? Blizzard themselves decided that they didn't want Tracers butt pose to be enjoyed by everyone. Not the person who made the thread. If Blizzard thought it was dumb than they would of ignored it like everything else they deem irrelevant to complain about.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
Dragonbums said:
SecondPrize said:
erttheking said:
SecondPrize said:
How could anyone ever think it acceptable to remove for everyone a completely optional aspect of a character which you do not like? It's mind-boggling to me how you can be so self-centered.
Not to be rude, but just about everyone in this thread is talking purely about what they want.

It's the internet. People only care about what others want when it conveniently falls into line with what they themselves wanted.

Also the devs are putting something in to replace it, something that they feel fits the character's personality more.
There's a difference between wanting something and wanting what everyone gets to be tuned to what you yourself want. I don't want a lot of things, that doesn't mean I feel others shouldn't have them.
Yeah okay that's cool and all but guess what? Blizzard themselves decided that they didn't want Tracers butt pose to be enjoyed by everyone. Not the person who made the thread. If Blizzard thought it was dumb than they would of ignored it like everything else they deem irrelevant to complain about.
That assumes Blizzard made their decision based only on the pose itself. If you are a game developer or publisher in this day and age, you can only completely ignore something which can have an identity politics angle at your own peril. Whether the original poster intended it or not, things like these always come with the threat that your brand will take a severe beating.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
SecondPrize said:
Is this really worth getting upset over? I mean really? This is such a non-issue I just don't get why it's getting so much attention. Blizzard made the changes because they clearly thought it was the best one, and if you're going to bring up the argument with me that Blizzard couldn't just ignore the feedback, it was a minor thread no one was paying attention too, and apparently Blizzard has a tendency to drag their feet on even the most basic thing. I struggle to see them as being cowed here.

Someone liked it better? Well the game is in beta. There hasn't been a beta under the sun where a change has made everyone happy. This is how betas work. It's how game development works.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,826
3,316
118
Country
United Kingdom
Cati said:
And women who object to the change are getting shit on: http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20742895690

Uhrm, that doesn't show people who object to the change getting "shit on". She's describing how the change made her feel-- which is completely valid, of course-- but there's nobody denigrating people who object, or anything. Don't mischaracterise that.
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
Funny how no one seems to be advocating that all the male characters be given a sexual butt pose for them, despite them likely being just as sexual as Tracer. I mean, there has been literally no indication that they're someone who would flaunt their sexuality as a way to celebrate winning a firefight, but isn't assuming that just because they've not been shown to be the type to flaunt their sexuality they wouldn't strike a butt pose genuine misandry?
When the double standard that exists for female sexuality and male sexuality ends, then we can have that conversation.
 

Revnak_v1legacy

Fixed by "Monday"
Mar 28, 2010
1,979
0
0
SecondPrize said:
Dragonbums said:
SecondPrize said:
erttheking said:
SecondPrize said:
How could anyone ever think it acceptable to remove for everyone a completely optional aspect of a character which you do not like? It's mind-boggling to me how you can be so self-centered.
Not to be rude, but just about everyone in this thread is talking purely about what they want.

It's the internet. People only care about what others want when it conveniently falls into line with what they themselves wanted.

Also the devs are putting something in to replace it, something that they feel fits the character's personality more.
There's a difference between wanting something and wanting what everyone gets to be tuned to what you yourself want. I don't want a lot of things, that doesn't mean I feel others shouldn't have them.
Yeah okay that's cool and all but guess what? Blizzard themselves decided that they didn't want Tracers butt pose to be enjoyed by everyone. Not the person who made the thread. If Blizzard thought it was dumb than they would of ignored it like everything else they deem irrelevant to complain about.
That assumes Blizzard made their decision based only on the pose itself. If you are a game developer or publisher in this day and age, you can only completely ignore something which can have an identity politics angle at your own peril. Whether the original poster intended it or not, things like these always come with the threat that your brand will take a severe beating.
While the shitstorm they've been receiving for removing the pose is not a threat that their brand will take a severe beating???

It's not even that fitting of a pose. Her other animations are extremely dynamic or silly, this one just looks awkward. It portrays purpose and deliberateness, not silliness and motion. Fitting for a sneaky or stalky type, not a run and jump type. It's really weird. If they wanted a sexy pose, they should have done a runner's stretch or something.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
SecondPrize said:
Dragonbums said:
SecondPrize said:
erttheking said:
SecondPrize said:
How could anyone ever think it acceptable to remove for everyone a completely optional aspect of a character which you do not like? It's mind-boggling to me how you can be so self-centered.
Not to be rude, but just about everyone in this thread is talking purely about what they want.

It's the internet. People only care about what others want when it conveniently falls into line with what they themselves wanted.

Also the devs are putting something in to replace it, something that they feel fits the character's personality more.
There's a difference between wanting something and wanting what everyone gets to be tuned to what you yourself want. I don't want a lot of things, that doesn't mean I feel others shouldn't have them.
Yeah okay that's cool and all but guess what? Blizzard themselves decided that they didn't want Tracers butt pose to be enjoyed by everyone. Not the person who made the thread. If Blizzard thought it was dumb than they would of ignored it like everything else they deem irrelevant to complain about.
That assumes Blizzard made their decision based only on the pose itself. If you are a game developer or publisher in this day and age, you can only completely ignore something which can have an identity politics angle at your own peril. Whether the original poster intended it or not, things like these always come with the threat that your brand will take a severe beating.
What peril are you talking about? Game revs get away with ignoring identity politics stuff all the time, especially in cases where the complaint is initiated rather than responding to something someone in the company said. People on Twitter bitched about Ubisoft saying creating female characters for assassins creed is hard and that Farcry 4 picture that some people mistakenly thought was a white guy sitting on a broken Buddha statue, but Ubisoft released an empty PR response, ignored the critics and nothing happened. Eidos had that weird statement about Lara Croft that sparked a lot of Twitter outrage, they released an empty PR statement and nothing happened. Same with Blizzard completely ignoring similar critiques about its other female characters, they'll ignore it, some people will whine, and nothing will happen.

For a small time indie dev such backlash may be significant, for any AAA dev, I have yet to see outrage in either direction cause any noticeable damage to any game. Even smaller devs like the pillars of eternity guys, the tombstone thing got changed, the backer that changed it decided to call out the people offended by it by making fun of them with the new message, those same people demanded they change it again and were ignored, nothing happened. I could go on all day, I can't really think of any times that Internet identity politics complaints has resulted in long lasting harm or damage to any large dev or publisher. The main problems seem to be caused when the internet decides to dogpile a single individual and they get fired, but that's an individual not a product or company.

I imagine if blizzard had ignored this particular complaint, nothing would have come of it, just like nothing will come of them ignoring similar identity politics complaints currently surrounding Widowmaker, Mercy, or Symettra.
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
And, until then, any female character that doesn't strike a sexy pose upon winning a violent confrontation is relegated to the celibate bin and anyone who thinks that not every single female character needs to have their sexuality flaunted and on display is expressing genuine misogyny.
Well shit then, her victory pose may as well be taking her leggings off, sitting down, and shooting ping-pong balls out her cooch. Clearly, there's no middle ground and any display of sexuality by a woman, no matter how innocuous or subjective, is full-on flaunting.

Because any female character who isn't entirely informed by sexual tropes needs to have her sexuality hidden, at all times, by any means necessary.
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
EternallyBored said:
I imagine if blizzard had ignored this particular complaint, nothing would have come of it, just like nothing will come of them ignoring similar identity politics complaints currently surrounding Widowmaker, Mercy, or Symettra.
Dammit, don't tell me they removed Mercy's victory pose where she sits on a throne made of gold and impressionist art.
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
Considering that simply removing a pose that doesn't fit what's been established as her character is relegating her entirely to celibacy, yes, there apparently isn't any middle ground.
Yeah, are are those "established" character traits again, which were specifically cited in regards to the appropriateness of the butt pose again?

Which is a problem, because God forbid a single female character not have any attention drawn to her sexuality for once.
God forbid a female character display any sexuality at all without it being the focal point of the character, to the point of negating any and every other salient point of characterization.

That sort of thing is reserved exclusively for male characters who no one ever seems to accuse of having their sexuality hidden regardless of how nonsexual a lot of them seems to be.
Gee, it's almost as if male sexuality is by and large accepted by society, and fully normalized, to the point we as gamers are, at best, dimly aware a shirtless pose or full-on ass shot a la Metal Gear Solid can even be construed as sexualized in any way. Meanwhile, female sexuality is so repressed and controversial even a bog-standard third-person view camera angle is assumed sexualized by default.

Or the other way around. Either works. But please, do go on.
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
I'm seeing nothing different with the Genji pose beyond an arm being up...Can you perhaps explain why it's bad that Tracer has that pose when Soldier 76 is taunting me with that old-man ass of his? Or Hanzo with his rippling chest he's so shyly hiding from the camera? What about Reaper's conveniently placed trenchcoat that shows you his legs all the way up to his ass before it's hidden from view?

Because all I'm continuing to see is that the only people seriously arguing about the pose being bad/out of character/etc. seems to continually be the ones that focus on her ass and nothing else with the pose. Are her pants tight? Fuck yeah. But why are you worried about her pants when she's got that little smirk going on up top? Why has it taken THIS long for people to realize that she's got alot of stuff showing off her ass? And why is nobody wanting to talk about the multitudes of promotional material that have roughly the same pose and optional focus?

Also multiple people have said what's wrong with adding in sexy poses for the guys. I mean, besides Hanzo, because that guys' just designed as eye-candy.

erttheking said:
SecondPrize said:
Is this really worth getting upset over? I mean really? This is such a non-issue I just don't get why it's getting so much attention. Blizzard made the changes because they clearly thought it was the best one, and if you're going to bring up the argument with me that Blizzard couldn't just ignore the feedback, it was a minor thread no one was paying attention too, and apparently Blizzard has a tendency to drag their feet on even the most basic thing. I struggle to see them as being cowed here.

Someone liked it better? Well the game is in beta. There hasn't been a beta under the sun where a change has made everyone happy. This is how betas work. It's how game development works.
Dude, for alot of people, this is just another brick in the road of "is this worth getting upset over". Is it really worth getting upset over another white guy being the protagonist? Is it worth getting upset over something as inane as the girl being turned into a guy? Is it really worth getting upset over an urban setting using black guys as the predominant criminal element? Because those are just as pointless, but they've all kicked up a shitstorm on this site in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. So what exactly makes those complaints worthwhile, while this is just some stupid cosmetic thing?

And yes, they have the tendency to drag their feet. So what makes this post so special to respond to? Especially since there's been MULTIPLE threads and posts coming from women and not just concerned fathers worrying about their pre-teen daughter playing a T rated game since it was decided to be taken out supporting the option for the pose to be there that have been ignored or outright locked. And why say anything more than "yeah, we decided that would be a placeholder pose for alot of heroes, thanks for the feedback, but it's not necessary"? Why go into a spiel about making everyone feel "heroic"? I've yet to get an answer that can't be summed up with "I dunno, because they said so in the PR speak!".

Dgezar said:
Redryhno said:
Dgezar said:
In those pants? YES. If I can see whether or not she waxed with the pants still on, and the separation of the ass cleavage, then yes.
Honestly not saying much with the ass cleavage honestly. My girlfriend wore leggings in high school to get around the dress code and if she wasn't wearing a skirt over it you could easily see the same stuff...was never any kind of invitation like that at that point in time for anyone involved.
And she was giving you over-the-shoulder looks with that pose? Maybe you were just missing some signals. If you're JUST talking about the clothing alone though, that's all on you.
Her? Nah. Part of what I've love about her is how blunt she is when she wants something. If she wants to screw, she makes it alot more apparent than half-assing it with looks over the shoulder. I mean, I'm dense as a rock at times, but considering how much we REALLY didn't like one another those four years(very long time we've known each other, going back to when we thought Barney was the height of awesomeness) I don't think she was giving out any signals.

And the women I've had do it has more been just an attention getter to get me to talk to them(not many, but a handful, got some pretty good friends out of it too). That's the extent of my experience with this pose. I dunno, most of my friends through my life have been girls, and we've seen each other in various states of (un)dress, nothing special with something this mild. Hell, it's one of those poses that some women just naturally fall into, the only thing making it any bit "sexy" is just looking over her shoulder honestly.

And again, I have to reiterate this because it seems to be the defining element of people against the pose, but maybe quit paying attention to her ass so much? Yeah, it's there, yeah, she's wearing a neon yellow catsuit, but c'mon, she's got more than her ass and overall, it's OPTIONAL on it being there in the first place. You can save up and just skip that tier of poses and just stick with the default until you get one of the ones you like more.
 

Sic Transit Gloria

New member
Mar 29, 2016
13
0
0
Wait, you mean the giant corporation making a giant AAA game for maximum mass market appeal doesn't care about a singular artistic vision?

Well no fucking shit.
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
Eacaraxe said:
God forbid a female character display any sexuality at all without it being the focal point of the character, to the point of negating any and every other salient point of characterization.
No, no, no, you're doing it wrong. See, you have to actually find something people are doing to complain about, not just make up some strawman that no one seems to have ever even hinted at.
You mean like the post [http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20743015583#1] that started this controversy?

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.
If the characters are so cool how does 1 pose "reduce them to sex symbols"?