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

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I have the same issues with bunny-suit Riven, so I'm really not the person to make this argument to. However, assuming I'd humor that, it still doesn't work. There's just not enough there to present a thorough, separate interpretation of the character, it only shows enough to not gel with the current version of the character. There's no good joke to the whole thing, just an out of character pose. That's it.

And no, other promotional material does not show her being deliberate and seductive. It just also shows her ass, which I've already pointed out I'm not taking issue with.

Finally, I'm not calling it deeply, profoundly immoral, I'm saying that it is a bad pose. Like the bad animation in Sonic Boom or something. It just doesn't work, it feels off. If I were the designer, I'd remove it, and so I am not at all okay with the outrage caused by doing so. And I think ultimately that last bit is the main thing that upsets me. I know I may in the future make a decision just like this, removing some cheesecake because I didn't think it fit the character or adding it because I did, and I don't appreciate the idea of half the Internet exploding over it because I worded my reason for doing so a bit poorly. That's my problem here. You guys all fucking terrify me.

So it doesn't gel with what you want the character to be, therefore you deem it to be not good? I never said they all had to be fun or humorous to work either, that's you. I just said that they could have fun with them. I'll go with you so far as saying the pose is sorta bad, but it's bad on all of the characters that use it, but it's only Tracer people are taking issue with.

Yes, if I don't like a thing, I use negative adjectives to describe it, like not good.

Never said you did give humor as a reason why this would hypothetically work, I said that is a hypothetical justification, one which wouldn't apply. I was covering my bases.

So get rid of it for them too, don't crucify the people who got rid of it for her.

And what you said about the promotional material is exactly what I've been saying all along. People are focusing on her "seductive" pose, when all I'm seeing is more of her cheeky terrible out of this world accent and personality(in that it sounds like someone that just heard about the brits tried to do it). It all seems to tie back to whether you're seeing it(pose or Tracer) as overly sexual or not. For some women, it's empowering to have someone as light-hearted as her still knowing that she looks good, for some it's just more imp, tomboy-type stuff, for others it's just another pose they llike for no particular reason. I mean, there's still people that think Reaper is the most amazingly designed character in the game(personally like his backstory and gameplay, just not his design, just feels really generic)

Too bad the pose portrays none of that, it portrays deliberate seductiveness. That is what that body language is. It's not even subtle.

And then there's the people insisting that it's completely out of character and saying that Widowmaker is who the pose should go to when she's not even the femme fatale archetype in the universe's lore. She's not even supposedly "sexy", essentially she's just the Winter Soldier. She's honestly the one design I have alot of problems with in regards to lore since they released more than the bare minimum.

No, but she's a cold, calculating sniper (based on what little I can tell from just her visual design) and deliberate seductiveness does gel with that, namely the deliberate part.

 

[Nemmerle]

People sometimes find it uncomfortable to have the same sex being blatantly sexual around them. I worked nightclub security and we had gogo dancers, almost always women, but sometimes men. Whenever we had the male dancers on stage there was always a not insignificant number of male patrons that would complain that they didn't want to see, "that gay shit" when they were out clubbing. I always thought it was odd that women never seemed to complain much about the female dancers until I realized when I asked that it did bother them but the sheer prevalence of it desensitized them to it. Even then stats we collected at the door would always show less men showing up on nights with male dancers, and more women, and vice versa when it was solely female dancers. It wasn't some colossal swing, but in a club with thousands of people through the door on some nights, it would get high enough that the difference could reach a couple hundred people.

I don't think it's so much that girly men are especially attractive to women, but that such men are often called girly by other men that aren't comfortable with the sexuality on display, or at least that's my experience with it. The guys we had on stage were athletic dancers with visible muscles and they weren't gyrating like the female dancers, they were more often almost just straight up break dancing, which to be fair, the female dancers couldn't really do in high heels. Even then, the most common insults hurled at them behind being called gay, was that they were too girly and/or effeminate. Not that I'm accusing you of doing that, but I find that from many females I've asked, what some men call girly, many women find to be both attractive and masculine.

Huh

I mean I don't have any problem if the standard of attractiveness is closer to what I'd think of as femininity - flatter distribution or a different centre, whichever - but... huh. It's not what I expected.

Thanks for your post, most interesting reading ^_^

 

[Redryhno]

I have the same issues with bunny-suit Riven, so I'm really not the person to make this argument to. However, assuming I'd humor that, it still doesn't work. There's just not enough there to present a thorough, separate interpretation of the character, it only shows enough to not gel with the current version of the character. There's no good joke to the whole thing, just an out of character pose. That's it.

And no, other promotional material does not show her being deliberate and seductive. It just also shows her ass, which I've already pointed out I'm not taking issue with.

Finally, I'm not calling it deeply, profoundly immoral, I'm saying that it is a bad pose. Like the bad animation in Sonic Boom or something. It just doesn't work, it feels off. If I were the designer, I'd remove it, and so I am not at all okay with the outrage caused by doing so. And I think ultimately that last bit is the main thing that upsets me. I know I may in the future make a decision just like this, removing some cheesecake because I didn't think it fit the character or adding it because I did, and I don't appreciate the idea of half the Internet exploding over it because I worded my reason for doing so a bit poorly. That's my problem here. You guys all fucking terrify me.

So it doesn't gel with what you want the character to be, therefore you deem it to be not good? I never said they all had to be fun or humorous to work either, that's you. I just said that they could have fun with them. I'll go with you so far as saying the pose is sorta bad, but it's bad on all of the characters that use it, but it's only Tracer people are taking issue with.

Yes, if I don't like a thing, I use negative adjectives to describe it, like not good.

Never said you did give humor as a reason why this would hypothetically work, I said that is a hypothetical justification, one which wouldn't apply. I was covering my bases.

So get rid of it for them too, don't crucify the people who got rid of it for her.

And what you said about the promotional material is exactly what I've been saying all along. People are focusing on her "seductive" pose, when all I'm seeing is more of her cheeky terrible out of this world accent and personality(in that it sounds like someone that just heard about the brits tried to do it). It all seems to tie back to whether you're seeing it(pose or Tracer) as overly sexual or not. For some women, it's empowering to have someone as light-hearted as her still knowing that she looks good, for some it's just more imp, tomboy-type stuff, for others it's just another pose they llike for no particular reason. I mean, there's still people that think Reaper is the most amazingly designed character in the game(personally like his backstory and gameplay, just not his design, just feels really generic)

Too bad the pose portrays none of that, it portrays deliberate seductiveness. That is what that body language is. It's not even subtle.

And then there's the people insisting that it's completely out of character and saying that Widowmaker is who the pose should go to when she's not even the femme fatale archetype in the universe's lore. She's not even supposedly "sexy", essentially she's just the Winter Soldier. She's honestly the one design I have alot of problems with in regards to lore since they released more than the bare minimum.

No, but she's a cold, calculating sniper (based on what little I can tell from just her visual design) and deliberate seductiveness does gel with that, namely the deliberate part.

"Too bad it doesn't portray that"? Seriously? have you read through this with people talking about how it can mean different things to what you think of Tracer and/or the pose? I'll take it as it being your interpretation, but so the fuck what? Everyone's interpretation of the pose is different.

And nobody really is nagging on Fipps for much of anything but their "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" bullshit, everything else has been towards Blizz's reaction to it and how people refuse to allow other people to have their fun because they deem it to "not fit with the character" when there's multiple different examples of characters not fitting with the poses and skins given to them that isn't included in this discussion.

And that's exactly my problem, why the fuck would any sniper need to be seductive to begin with? It's one of the most impersonal ways to kill someone, who gives a fuck what you look like.

 

[Dizchu]

Does each character have a three hour, single-player campaign that gives a bit of background story on them? No? Then there is no official character.

On the contrary, if there is no expansive background story or character-specific campaign things like poses and animations become vital.

Saying there's no "official character" sounds defeatist. As if Blizzard's attempts at characterisation are somehow futile and "none of it really matters". But a key component of a quality product is consistency and if that's what they're going for then so be it.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I have the same issues with bunny-suit Riven, so I'm really not the person to make this argument to. However, assuming I'd humor that, it still doesn't work. There's just not enough there to present a thorough, separate interpretation of the character, it only shows enough to not gel with the current version of the character. There's no good joke to the whole thing, just an out of character pose. That's it.

And no, other promotional material does not show her being deliberate and seductive. It just also shows her ass, which I've already pointed out I'm not taking issue with.

Finally, I'm not calling it deeply, profoundly immoral, I'm saying that it is a bad pose. Like the bad animation in Sonic Boom or something. It just doesn't work, it feels off. If I were the designer, I'd remove it, and so I am not at all okay with the outrage caused by doing so. And I think ultimately that last bit is the main thing that upsets me. I know I may in the future make a decision just like this, removing some cheesecake because I didn't think it fit the character or adding it because I did, and I don't appreciate the idea of half the Internet exploding over it because I worded my reason for doing so a bit poorly. That's my problem here. You guys all fucking terrify me.

So it doesn't gel with what you want the character to be, therefore you deem it to be not good? I never said they all had to be fun or humorous to work either, that's you. I just said that they could have fun with them. I'll go with you so far as saying the pose is sorta bad, but it's bad on all of the characters that use it, but it's only Tracer people are taking issue with.

Yes, if I don't like a thing, I use negative adjectives to describe it, like not good.

Never said you did give humor as a reason why this would hypothetically work, I said that is a hypothetical justification, one which wouldn't apply. I was covering my bases.

So get rid of it for them too, don't crucify the people who got rid of it for her.

And what you said about the promotional material is exactly what I've been saying all along. People are focusing on her "seductive" pose, when all I'm seeing is more of her cheeky terrible out of this world accent and personality(in that it sounds like someone that just heard about the brits tried to do it). It all seems to tie back to whether you're seeing it(pose or Tracer) as overly sexual or not. For some women, it's empowering to have someone as light-hearted as her still knowing that she looks good, for some it's just more imp, tomboy-type stuff, for others it's just another pose they llike for no particular reason. I mean, there's still people that think Reaper is the most amazingly designed character in the game(personally like his backstory and gameplay, just not his design, just feels really generic)

Too bad the pose portrays none of that, it portrays deliberate seductiveness. That is what that body language is. It's not even subtle.

And then there's the people insisting that it's completely out of character and saying that Widowmaker is who the pose should go to when she's not even the femme fatale archetype in the universe's lore. She's not even supposedly "sexy", essentially she's just the Winter Soldier. She's honestly the one design I have alot of problems with in regards to lore since they released more than the bare minimum.

No, but she's a cold, calculating sniper (based on what little I can tell from just her visual design) and deliberate seductiveness does gel with that, namely the deliberate part.

"Too bad it doesn't portray that"? Seriously? have you read through this with people talking about how it can mean different things to what you think of Tracer and/or the pose? I'll take it as it being your interpretation, but so the fuck what? Everyone's interpretation of the pose is different.

And apparently the Design team has a similar interpretation. Can they not impose that interpretation on their own work?

People have their own interpretation. So the fuck what. If they aren't backing it up, I don't have to just accept it.

And nobody really is nagging on Fipps for much of anything but their "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" bullshit, everything else has been towards Blizz's reaction to it and how people refuse to allow other people to have their fun because they deem it to "not fit with the character" when there's multiple different examples of characters not fitting with the poses and skins given to them that isn't included in this discussion.

I don't care about Fipps, I don't like that you're saying a developer changing their own game to suit their own interpretation of their character in response to player feedback is somehow wrong (EDIT: In the sense that it is immoral for them to change it, not that the change could be a poor decision). Maybe Blizzard will make such changes in the future, maybe they won't, but assuming they're doing this out of some evil pandering and making their decision some arbitrary talking point in some arbitrary conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with this game. I'm tired of this.

And that's exactly my problem, why the fuck would any sniper need to be seductive to begin with? It's one of the most impersonal ways to kill someone, who gives a fuck what you look like.

Deliberate. I emphasized the deliberate part. Snipers are deliberate.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I don't like that you're saying a developer changing their own game to suit their own interpretation of their character in response to player feedback is somehow wrong

The way this is worded, no, that's not wrong, since that's a broad statement and can mean many things. I would think that nobody disagrees with you on this.

However, this wasn't "changed", it was removed. Removing content is a crucial detail that should not be left out. People don't like it when you remove content from games they're interested in.

Sometimes you have to remove content from a game to make it better. Watchdogs needed more removed than added, for example.

 

[Shraggler]

External influence... that was explicitly requested, given that it is a beta and Blizzard actually solicits feedback and makes changes in their betas. And it's not like that thread was an organized mob that was clamouring for this change. One poster gave their feedback, a few agreed, a bunch jumped on the OP for daring to give feedback (Zaon 'defending' artistic freedom) and a great many others disagreed. Of course later on that thread blew up. Point is, for external influence, there wasn't a lot of leverage being applied. So one set of feedback lined up with where Blizzard wanted to go and the rest fell by the wayside.

That's right. My point wasn't a jest, just a clarifying observation to those in desperate need of a dictionary, crying 'censorship'.

Also, Blizzard can say they were going to remove it all they want, but acting on it after the post (and after responding to the post) makes the stated claim less credible.

On the contrary, if there is no expansive background story or character-specific campaign things like poses and animations become vital.

But then 'character' is all based on subjective interpretation, so the stance toward "official" becomes arbitrary.

Saying there's no "official character" sounds defeatist. As if Blizzard's attempts at characterisation are somehow futile and "none of it really matters".

Again, it's a team deathmatch game. It's like trying argue that the cars in Rocket League have character - it has no impact on gameplay. It's irrelevant to the game. It just doesn't have relevance in this style or genre of game.

But a key component of a quality product is consistency and if that's what they're going for then so be it.

Absolutely agree.

If they really do care about their creation, and this is a desired choice, I am very much for it. Fools be otherwise.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well, if that's what women find attractive... okay? I'm not convinced it is, but on the assumption that it's not just a joke or something you're saying because it's convenient to the argument - in terms of the general principle behind it, you've as much right to eye-candy as everyone else. Then we can both disregard the calls to remove this sort of stuff, enjoy our attractive counterparts, and we all win.

Just don't see why anyone would have a problem with that. Like, how could you not want women to find men attractive? Kinda seems like shooting yourself in the foot.

Well, I mean, if I'm being honest, Lucio's the Overwatch character I find most attractive, and he does fit a lot of the "effeminate" markers. He even cocks his hips in a fairly feminine gesture, and his outfit kind of emphasises him in ways I think people would call feminine before he even starts moving. I mean, I say this speaking only for myself. Maybe one of the other characters gets a lot of love. It could be that 95% of the femalde population is really into dat Zangief.

But TBH, what I really want is what the guys get routinely. And that's to have characters that look cool or badass. This is not to say that I was being glib before, as the Lucio example may demonstrate. My primary interest when playing a game is usually playing a game. It's just that I'm not averse to some attractive guys at the same time.

The thing where it usually becomes an issue is that most women in games seem to fall intothe fanservice area. At least, prominent characters and the like. Being honest, though, I'm not really sure this is a problem with Overwatch. Granted, I haven't watched a lot of animation--I haven't followed Overwatch closely and saw this mostly because I was wondering what the hubbub was about--but I definitely see female characters that would fill the niche I'm looking for. Zaryah looks like a boss, Mei and Tracer look cool (both in a sort of adorkable sense), and Pharah's at least decent. Again, this is animation notwithstanding--they could all do strip teases for all I know, but at least on a design level, I can pick out characters I like.

But I can't speak for other people. They may not be satisfied. This is where coexisting gets a little more tricky, and especially so in a market where mainstream games have a variety of sexy women and not necessarily a lot of sexy guys. Hell, it was only about a year ago the news hit they were toning down Mevis' attire in that Final Fantasy mobile game. Now, I think FF costumes are ridiculous, and pretty much none of them do it for me, but his outfit was kind of in line with the way a lot of women end up designed, and it made people uncomfortable and needed to be changed. It always seems to go the other way. When WoW redesigned their races, for example, you got an even larger dispiarity between orcs/trolls on a male/female basis. When I checked out those models, I was thinking "wow, wouldn't it be great if modern computers had the capacity to do both?"

Which brings me to the frank issue about Tracer and her pose. I'm not losing any sleep over it being removed. If Blizzard decided tomorrow to bring it back, I would lose no sleep either. When I saw the news article, I was sort of incredulous. Like, "that's it?"

Admittedly, the meta argument interests me more than the specific one. They keep it in? Fine. They take it out? Fine. I'm generally in favour of more options. At the same time, Blizzard seems to have agreed that this was inappropriate for their character, and as I don't really care much one way or another, I'm fine with their decision. Though one of her other poses still shows off her butt quite well. Forget which. So I'm not entirely sure this changes anything.

But back to that meta argument for a moment, there's still an issue of conflict. Say I want strong female characters and someone else wants sexy, and our values of the two words end up being incompatible. We essentially have to coexist in the same space, so how do we proceed? Even a handful of women who aren't eye candy seems like it's too large a concession to make and that doesn't even get into male characters.

Again, that doesn't necessarily apply here, but you made a comment as to what women wanted, and I think that touches upon it.

I also don't think there are many characters in gaming designed with women in mind, period. Whether male or female, power fantasy or just plain fantasy, I think the industry tends to design around a male ideal of what women like. That doesn't mean there are never attractive characters (Classic Dante comes to mind), just that I don't think anyone was thinking "we need to appeal to the female base" when the design process was happening.

And it's possible that I'm no longer coherent because it's almost 2 Am. Hopefully this was actually coherent outside of my head.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

*stops reading book*

What the hell's the fuss all about? Are people still being dumb about sexuality and women? Oi, I swear this kinda crap never seems to end with whiny people. I've seen sexier women in real life, so can we ban them from doing this? I might give a shit if that actually happens. My kinda rule for things like this is: If I've seen it done more exaggerated in real life than in video games, I don't complain about it, no matter what the issue is.

*goes back to reading Samson and Delilah*

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Well, you apparently did better, considering you managed to completely ignore the original point about your argument being summed up as "All female characters are required to display sexuality."

Actually, my original point is Fipps is unconsciously drawing on the gender stereotype that sexuality is a reductive force to a woman's character, and by aligning themselves with him by removing the pose for the reasons given, Blizzard is intentionally or not perpetuating that harmful stereotype.

But please, do go on building straw men by arguing what I'm "really" saying is that all women are required to flaunt their sexuality.

I mean, that would require that fanservice and a character's actual sexuality not exist as wholly independent things...

Penny in the air...

...pretend that, say, Quiet's dumb outfit and stretching were meant to convey that she is this really sexual character and not just tickle Kojima's funny parts.

You know, here's the funny thing about Quiet. She's a mute character in a game the central theme of which is language and communication. In a game series in which the central, overarching theme is memetics -- chiefly, how ideas are perceived and evolve as they pass between people. Created by a guy who is really, really into metanarrative.

By amazing coincidence, she's also the only character in the game whose voice actor is also responsible for facial and body mocap. Which means the same person, with the same interpretation and vision of the character, is portraying the bits of voice, but most importantly (and here comes the metanarrative) body language. Were you to watch the footage of Joosten in mocap, you'd quickly note KojiPro went to an insane level of detail, above and beyond any other character in the game or accompanying actor, to depict Quiet.

Being a mute character, Quiet can only express herself through nonverbal communication; i.e. body language. Which is where the extreme detail that went into mocapping Joosten came in. And, by being reliant upon body language, the player has to actually watch her (face and posture) to actually receive any information whatsoever from her. And, by sticking her in a tiny-ass bikini, Kojima forced the player to choose between objectifying her, and negating her characterization in the process, or look beyond sexualization to accept her character.

That bikini and her more sexual actions in the game aren't there to portray her as a sexual character at all. Sure, Quiet is the main love interest in the game, and being mute and all body language is her only means of expressing romantic interest to Snake. That bikini is there to point out the hypocrisy inherent in anti-objectification arguments itself.

That hypocrisy being that sexuality is perceived as a reductive force to a woman's character. Penny drops.

In short, Kojima trolled all y'all, and made every person who bitches about objectification in games look like a complete, utter ass, because the very act of objectification in this case as perpetuated by nominally "anti-objectification" critics completely silences the character.

 

[Dizchu]

But then 'character' is all based on subjective interpretation, so the stance toward "official" becomes arbitrary.

EVERY character is based on subjective interpretation.

Again, it's a team deathmatch game. It's like trying argue that the cars in Rocket League have character - it has no impact on gameplay. It's irrelevant to the game. It just doesn't have relevance in this style or genre of game.

It's a team deathmatch game that goes the Team Fortress 2 route of having strong, identifiable characters instead of the Call of Duty route of having every "character" be interchangeable.

I would actually argue that the cars in Rocket League have character (compare them to the purely functional cars in Gran Turismo).

In short, Kojima trolled all y'all, and made every person who bitches about objectification in games look like a complete, utter ass, because the very act of objectification in this case as perpetuated by nominally "anti-objectification" critics completely silences the character.

Uhh I'm pretty sure all Kojima did was make himself look desperate. The reason he gave was a cheap bait-and-switch which he tried to pass off as profound. "Hey we're not objectifying her, you are" just sounds like "I know you are, but what am I?" It's childish.

 

[Silvanus]

In short, Kojima trolled all y'all, and made every person who bitches about objectification in games look like a complete, utter ass, because the very act of objectification in this case as perpetuated by nominally "anti-objectification" critics completely silences the character.

That doesn't really work. Quiet being mute-- and breathing through her skin-- are not aspects she was born with; they are characteristics written for her by the creator.

When people criticise the design choice, the in-game reason for it is not a suitable response, because that was included in order to get her to take her clothes off. There's an implicit criticism of that, too. You could justify any design choice by appealing to an in-game rationale you included specifically to justify it. We know to look past that-- because it's fictional-- and ask for the motivations of the designer/writer, not the character.

 

[Something Amyss]

That doesn't really work. Quiet being mute-- and breathing through her skin-- are not aspects she was born with; they are characteristics written for her by the creator.

She's not actually mute, either. Nor does the other character with a similar affliction need the rationale of a thong to survive. Or shove his ass in the camera. Or frolic in puddles and shower in front of people. I guess she was drowning herself to symbolise how her cticis were strangling her?

One thing we learned is that Quiet's ability to breathe through her skin is nothing compared to Kojima's ability to speak through his ass.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Uhh I'm pretty sure all Kojima did was make himself look desperate. The reason he gave was a cheap bait-and-switch which he tried to pass off as profound. "Hey we're not objectifying her, you are" just sounds like "I know you are, but what am I?" It's childish.

Not to get schoolyard here, but the guy created Metal Gear Solid 2, one of the first (and to date, one of a scant handful of) games to receive attention in academic and intelligentsia circles outside the gaming community (most notably, philosophy and literature circles who generally look at video games with the same disdain they would over the idea of eating a dog shit sandwich for lunch), the game that heralded postmodernism and introduced the concept of metanarrative to gaming, a vital tentpole in the argument whether or not games are art, and a game over which fifteen years later people still debate its philosophical and allegorical meaning.

I'll take his word on his own creative work, over that of a pack of revenue-starved glorified bloggers.

You could justify any design choice by appealing to an in-game rationale you included specifically to justify it. We know to look past that-- because it's fictional-- and ask for the motivations of the designer/writer, not the character.

The problem with that argument, is that it's reductive and paradoxically undermines authorial intent since any female character which displays sexuality, and any forthcoming statement made by the creator through that character, can then be disregarded wholesale by simply claiming the creators just wanted to justify fanservice. Just like what happened with Hideo Kojima and Quiet (see above).

 

[Silvanus]

Are you saying that one can't possibly design rules first and then dress characters to fit those rules, and that it always must be the other way around?

1. There exists Vampiric clothing that sucks your blood in proportion to surface area.
2. More powerful clothing uses more blood.
3. Therefore, more powerful clothing must cover a tiny surface area, or else it would kill the wearer.

Are these rules, or are these just excuses to retroactively justify skimpy outfits? Unless you're the creator, the creator has released a statement, or you can read minds, I don't think you can say for certain. It seems like a weighty claim to say "The creative process starts with characters and their outfits first, and everything else is a justification! No exceptions!"

It is indeed a weighty claim. It's also a claim I never made.

She's not actually mute, either. Nor does the other character with a similar affliction need the rationale of a thong to survive. Or shove his ass in the camera. Or frolic in puddles and shower in front of people. I guess she was drowning herself to symbolise how her cticis were strangling her?

One thing we learned is that Quiet's ability to breathe through her skin is nothing compared to Kojima's ability to speak through his ass.

Ahh, but the skin-breathing works differently for men. They... well, they have enough surface area on their hands, y'see, and necks. Owing to the slightly larger hands and necks that men have.

 

[Something Amyss]

The problem with that argument, is that it's reductive and paradoxically undermines authorial intent since any female character which displays sexuality, and any forthcoming statement made by the creator through that character, can then be disregarded wholesale by simply claiming the creators just wanted to justify fanservice. Just like what happened with Hideo Kojima and Quiet (see above).

So why doesn't it happen everywhere? Since it can be so easily done, why is this one instance so prominent? Seems Quiet shouldn't even stand out on this front, and yet she does.

1. There exists Vampiric clothing that sucks your blood in proportion to surface area.
2. More powerful clothing uses more blood.
3. Therefore, more powerful clothing must cover a tiny surface area, or else it would kill the wearer.

That doesn't even make sense, as more powerful clothing would need more blood, and therefore reducing the surface area should reduce its power or increase localised consumption. That would be dangerous.

These rules aren't internally consistent and look exactly like an attempt to justify skimpy clothing after the fact.

Ahh, but the skin-breathing works differently for men. They... well, they have enough surface area on their hands, y'see, and necks. Owing to the slightly larger hands and necks that men have.

Oh, right. Sexual dimorphism. I always forget.

 

[Dizchu]

I'll take his word on his own creative work, over that of a pack of revenue-starved glorified bloggers.

George Lucas created one of the most influential pop culture phenomenons of all time, and along with Steven Spielberg made an everlasting change to the film industry.

That doesn't mean people that think the prequels and special editions suck "just don't get it".