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

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I take it, like most everyone else, you didn't see her last rant on strategic but coverings.

I saw her dumb video a while ago as well as Crafty Ape's glorious response. And I'd just like to say that I don't think I've ever seen a clearer case of confirmation bias and I debated Creationists in my high school days. Do people actually believe in this retarded shit?

 

[09philj]

I take it, like most everyone else, you didn't see her last rant on strategic but coverings.

I saw her dumb video a while ago as well as Crafty Ape's glorious response. And I'd just like to say that I don't think that I've ever seen a clearer case of confirmation bias and I debated Creationists in my high school days. Do people actually believe in this retarded shit?

I've interacted with one person who does. Although this was a whackjob who insisted that men couldn't be feminists, BDSM enforced rape culture, and any sex without verbal consent was tantamount to rape.

 

[Ukomba]

You said it couldn't be proven that the people making these complaints weren't customers. I provided proof of one of the loudest critics literally saying she was not a gamer, knew nothing about gamers, and had to learn about gaming. Seems to me that might be enough to convince anyone who wasn't being intellectually dishonest that maybe she isn't a game companies target audience.

Just throwing this out there but Sarkeesian has nothing to do with this situation.

Like literally nothing at all.

I take it, like most everyone else, you didn't see her last rant on strategic but coverings.

-Video-

Opps, well that's the wrong one but you get the idea. So not literally nothing. Just very little.

Well no she really has nothing to do with this. People are dragging her into this.

Except it's a topic she covers so it does involve her. Yes, strictly speaking, she had no direct involvement, but she's made herself the but critic so now anytime people think of an ass, she's going to come to mind.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

As much as I like bringing Anita Sarkeesian up in as many completely unrelated threads as possible, can we like, not? Just this once? Just to see what happens?

That said, I'd like to meet the person who made the original forum post. I mean, to meet someone with the ability to shift the course of a multi-million dollar corporation with naught but praise followed by mild criticism is a level of power wielded by very few of the course of history. That they'd use this power on something like an in-beta videogame speaks to madness when they could command companies and nations with naught but a stern word and look of disapproval.

Or Blizzard isn't lying. I mean, it's one or the other.

 

[Redryhno]

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.

Snip

It's not about good or bad. It's simply a matter of being sexy fitting Widowmaker's character more than Tracer's.

How exactly? Isn't Widowmaker essentially just a botched experiment from a kidnapping that she's mostly just an emotionless husk? How does "sexy" fit her character more? I mean, it's not like she has many lines that don't directly involve the current mission/job/etc where Tracer has that bouncy flity-ish personality to begin with.

I mean, I know people think she's some kind of femme fatale archetype, but considering what we've got right now, that's just her origin(and only a very tiny part of it to boot). That was just what she started as before she actually underwent the rest of her conditioning. So where are people getting the "mild sexy pose doesn't fit Tracer, but fits the emotionless killing machine" idea? I really wonder sometimes how people rationalize these arguments.

I mean, shit, this is RollerDerby Nova in HoTS all over again. A silly skin in a really bad game that got everyone up in arms because it "didn't match her character". No shit it doesn't match her character, it's supposed to be a silly fun skin, much the same here. Nobody makes/made this much of a fuss over Chef Stitches, Archangel Diablo, Ladybug Anub-Arak, Santa Rehgar, etc. None of those skins match their characters and are alot more opposed to those characters and what they represent than a pose.

Hell, in the same game, they've got like three skins for Reaper themed around him being in a mariachi band, how is that ok? What about Bastion's poses? using a similar line of thought, he's got one where there's a bird in his cannon, how is that not encouraging animal cruelty? Dva's got all of hers revovling around being cute Korean mech girl, how is that not dehumanizing in a similar fashion? Hanzo, Mcree, Mercy, Soldier76, Symmetra all have the exact same pose, and often wear even less in some of their skins than Tracer's jump suit with even more focus put on their ass. And it's not any of their default poses, you have to buy it to begin with. Hell, look at Tracer's other poses and seriously tell me that it doesn't fit her with that impish grin she's got on at every single shot there is of her.

...

...er... unless in a later patch they, in fact, decide to remove tha booty.

Then, all will truly be lost. For now though, meh, it's just a pose. They clearly still want her to have a small bit of sex appeal, otherwise they'd change the tights. The whole "We don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable" thing comes off as disingenuous though, and seems to have made the situation worse. If you no longer like the pose, just say you no longer like the pose, my dude. I don't like a lot of things about my work.

I really think that probably has to be the biggest reasoning for people not liking this decision. Blizzard has a gigantic history of having "worse" examples in their games, and if I'm remembering right, with Kaplan at the head there too and allowing it. It's easy PR that requires pretty much nothing for them to do but condemn anyone that liked it or think their reasoning is bullshit, much like how much those with the same mindset drooled over Zarya when she was revealed as a strong female character or whatever the reasoning then was(personal opinion, why the hell did she have to bright neon hair? I know she's supposed to be two stereotypes for points, but did they have to make her hair like that when the closest equivalent she's got in the game is a guy with sparklers stuck in his head?).

Hey, remember when the Mass Effect 3 ending came out and it was eventually changed? Boy, I sure remember the outrage that was caused cause the writer wasn't allowed to follow his artistic vision!
http://40.media.tumblr.com/992f2d448d149697c9460818cf545023/tumblr_o4so6ewOBF1r9s07oo1_500.jpg

Can we please stop pulling that shit show out? The one where Bioware specifically said it wouldn't be an A,B, or C type ending and it ended up being exactly that? That your choices throughout the entire series would very much matter only for everyone to end up with an ending that had no input on what you did beyond what happened in that game? The game that dropped you into the middle of an ongoing story that you had no idea what was going on unless you'd done the DLC in the last one? The generous amounts of retconning that went on? That a minor comic nobody had any idea existed had more canon in it than the game series that spawned it in the first place? That multiple characters did 180's on their roles in the story and the ending largely just was the final nail in the coffin for what could've easily been the best series of the generation? The ending was a problem, yes, because it gave no amount of closure at all and called itself artistic when half their writing staff was laidoff, quit, and ignored if they weren't buddy-buddy with the project leader and it spread to nearly ever facet of the game's narrative that nobody that brings that example up to talk about. Only about the Red, Green, Blue, ending lights that somehow have more artistic merit than the last two games leading up having hints that were alot more scientific and actually smart than "man vs. machine".
[hr]
Also, as an aside, apparently the person that originally made the claim of being a mother to a young daughter is not exactly true...turns out they're a dude. So does anyone want to comment on WHY someone MIGHT want to claim to be something else to make one argument, then turn around and say something completely different when what they wanted changed was taken care of and how that's more than a bit scummy?

I've got a link to their post history with them saying this that anyone can look up pretty easily since their username is plastered everywhere, but I'm not sure if it's exactly allowed to just link it here.

 

[Cati]

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.

 

[Rastrelly]

Funny. This event kinda finally solved my issue with "to buy or not to buy" Overwatch. Not to.

Spoiler

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.

 

[Cati]

@Redrhyno - implying he was a woman, or deliberately being vague and omitting the fact he was actually a man, would have been done to get his initial complaint heard without being discounted for coming from a man (and a dad appearing to worry about the purity of his daughter at that).

Once he had people supporting it that could also be assumed to be female, whether they were or not, the devs are safe to agree and make changes (again, using the poor defenseless women as an excuse), because they're doing it to make women feel included, not to make one guy feel less skeevy for checking out digital ass.

After changes had been announced and apologies made, the media exaggerates the story and runs with the "Blizzard does wonderful thing for women gamers" angle, again using the plight of us poor defenseless women to support the complaints and actions taken.

This is the point where the original complainant and the devs will receive considerable backlash from other players, and the wider community. The media and supporters of the change then push the idea that it's women feeling unwelcome that's the cause of the change, and men wanting to look at digital ass that are upset about the change, because the complainant and the dev handling the complaint have both used women as a smokescreen in their posts on the matter.

It's only once the lines have been drawn, and sides have been determined and pitted against eachother, that it comes out the original complaint actually came from a man. But it's too late. The community are already fighting eachother over this.

The "we must protect the women!" side are ironically attacking any woman that doesn't side with them or agree with the original complaint.

The "why are you caving to one complaint?" side are attacking back.

And neither side is focusing their attention on the bigger problem:
we* are all being played by opportunists who don't want to be caught in the blast when the problematic creepers come and say "that's a nice game/community you have there, it would be a shame if someone were to say it was *ist. Hssss."

Our concerns are being appropriated by people who only care about themselves, to further their own self interest, and they're making mugs of us.

*and by "we", I mean all of us, regardless of "side". We're all people that love our hobby, and want the best for it and our community. We may want different things at times, but none of us want to see it split in half by King Solomon.

 

[SlumlordThanatos]

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.

Man, my respect for this guy has shot waaaaaaaay up. About this time last year, I likely wouldn't have given him the time of day. He also makes some very valid points about this affair that I feel that people have missed.

It never really occurred to me just how badly Jeff Kaplan screwed the pooch on this one until IMC pointed out the effects that Kaplan's statements are going to have on his team. Basically, he threw his art and animation teams under the bus in order to state his opinions, and then used his power as the game's director to enforce his opinions on the game, his development team, and (most importantly) the game's potential customers. Think about the message that sends to not only the customers, but the development team and the company as a whole.

It's the same problem Blizzard has almost always had: their opinions are the most important ones, and the opinions of their customers are only a single rung above meaningless. Of course, Blizzard should get the final say in how they create their product, but they should at least appear to care about their customers as something besides giant, bloated sacks of money.

And the single most frustrating part about all of this is just how easily this whole fucking mess could've been avoided. As I've said before, a short statement saying something to the effect of "We don't think this pose fits the character, so we changed it" would've saved us and Blizzard a lot of trouble. Instead, Kaplan saw it as an opportunity to get up on his soapbox, only for the gaming community to start throwing vegetables.

This mess is like watching a damn train wreck; it's terrible and was caused by something stupid, but I can't bring myself to look away...

 

[chikusho]

A bold developer decides to follow artistic vision despite complaints from the oversensitive, thin-skinned masses. Looks like GamerGate finally worked!

 

[Something Amyss]

Actually yes, being an artist I create a lot and one the things I do an unhealthy amount is doodling and drawing character designs so thats actually why I burn with an unhealthy to know the resigns behind a design. Anytime I sketch up a character design I always ask myself why, why this colour pallete? why are they dressed like this and does it fit their profession? why is this design suited for this particular story universe and not the other?

Shoot one day if the stars align or what have you I'd like to grab all the character designs that I like but one thing or another about them maybe irks me and sit down with their designers and just figure out whats the dealio.

That's cool. I wish I could draw. I am horrible at it. I once drew a stick figure and someone asked me why the dragon looked so sick. Hell, even signing my name is usually considered an invocation of dark magics or a cry for help.

So I'm curious now. Do you ask as you're designing, or after the fact?

Main reason I ask is my first drafts are often rough but written in the moment. Part of it is just to keep going to the end, and part of it is the knowledge I'm going to change things later. Hell, when writing songs, I'll throw in throwaway or even gibberish lines (an idea I may have gotten from "Scrambled Eggs," or was it 101 Dalmatians...) just to get the general flow down.

I imagine when you're an employee as part of a large group, it gets even more potentially confusing. Not only do you have to do your job, but everyone else has to do theirs at the same time. Ideas might be carried along because one thinks that's what they're supposed to be doing and whatnot, and there may not be that hands-on a level of oversight. Thing is, I don't work in environments like that. I'm either the only person doing the work or I'm beholden to a small number of people.

It could be that because this is paid work, they didn't stop to ask why themselves.

Hey, remember when the Mass Effect 3 ending came out and it was eventually changed? Boy, I sure remember the outrage that was caused cause the writer wasn't allowed to follow his artistic vision!
http://40.media.tumblr.com/992f2d448d149697c9460818cf545023/tumblr_o4so6ewOBF1r9s07oo1_500.jpg

The irony there is that the first ending of the game was a rewrite. They self-censored, but because we didn't know how evil that was, we let them get away with it.

I feel we are owed the original ending, even if it will be a great expense for EA/Bioware.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

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]

Funny. This event kinda finally solved my issue with "to buy or not to buy" Overwatch. Not to.

Spoiler

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]

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]

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]

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]

Surely if her leggings were not painted on then this wouldn't be an issue?

Give her realistic trousers and everyone is happy.

 

[Redryhno]

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.

 

[Rawbeard]

Jeff Kaplan has clarified his earlier statement:

I am a lying lier who lies a lot. buy my game

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

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.