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

[Disco Biscuit]

So, if you put the two together, then maybe there was a reason beyond "Someone may take issue with it"? Such as "Many people actually took issue with it" or "We're worried about some crazy christian group in Australia boycotting our game".

Considering how alot of Australians are portrayed in the game, I wouldn't be surprised(which is sorta strange considering I sympathize a helluva lot more with them than pretty much any other faction I've seen) if there were boycotts called of the game to begin with. I'm honestly surprised nobody's mentioned the crap that led up to Australia becoming actual Mad Max but a fucking pose gets mentioned and suddenly everyone knows everything there is to know about the characters.

Australia, which really does ban games too. Aussie is a bit like the US in the 1950's, in a lot of ways, socially and politically.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Ok, there is a lot to say here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Travis Fischer]

Surely if her leggings were not painted on then this wouldn't be an issue?
Give her realistic trousers and everyone is happy.

Oh... you sweet summer child...

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

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

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

Give her realistic trousers and everyone is happy.

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

 

[loa]

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

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

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

 

[Redryhno]

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

Give her realistic trousers and everyone is happy.

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

Damn, now you're just appealing to the Roadhog R34 base, what kind of child-hating monster are you?

 

[Objectable]

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

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

 

[Travis Fischer]

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

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

First of all, the Street Fighter V controversy was months ago.

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

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

 

[UberGott]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Erttheking]

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

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

First of all, the Street Fighter V controversy was months ago.

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

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

Eh, it's a flawed argument. Because when you don't buy a game, it's kind of a crapshoot as to WHY you didn't do it. I get the idea behind it, but honestly it's not the be all end all people make it out to be.

Plus "Vote with your wallet" usually has a "I don't want to hear your complaints about this game, just don't buy it and shut up" vibe to it.

 

[sonicneedslovetoo]

And yet they wont listen to people about removing Macro Mechanics in Starcraft 2.

Macro mechanics in SC2 are not a one sided issue though. On the one hand, the original Starcraft was an extremely macro heavy game where the winner was generally decided by who could build units faster. Making macro easy makes it a game that is fundamentally not Starcraft.

On the other hand, a lot of people feel that a strategy game should be won by outwitting the opponent rather than outbuilding the opponent. In the original game, doing clever stuff, or even scouting, would distract the average player from their macro enough to make them worse off for doing it. It's very easy to sneak up and psi storm a bunch of enemy units only to find that you forgot to build pylons and that it will cost you more than the psi storm cost your opponent.

Either way, Blizzard has to disappoint a substantial number of players.

I should defiantly clarify here, I meant the Mules/Chrono Boost/Larva Injection, the ones that you can only do well enough and have no alternate strategies or upward gain on them(nobody can chrono boost faster than the recharge rate allows, same with Mules and Larva). Since the only thing you can do is fail at them its just busywork that adds a wall that most casual players don't care to vault over.

 

[Redryhno]

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

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

First of all, the Street Fighter V controversy was months ago.

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

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

Eh, it's a flawed argument. Because when you don't buy a game, it's kind of a crapshoot as to WHY you didn't do it. I get the idea behind it, but honestly it's not the be all end all people make it out to be.

Plus "Vote with your wallet" usually has a "I don't want to hear your complaints about this game, just don't buy it and shut up" vibe to it.

Problem is, there's not really much else consumers can do that actually has an impact. Give the game a bad score, and you just have a bunch of people laughing at you(we've seen this happen with multiple games). Start a petition, nobody signs it and the company just waves it off even if you do get people to sign it because it's a company and they get a million and a half like it a day.

"Vote with your wallet" is the only option available while also being one of the most effective if you give solid reasoning behind it. For most people this time around, it's the bullshit reasoning given by the company that IS bullshit becasue they don't remove it from any other character despite the reason given being not wanting to make others uncomfortable and staying true to the characters(Mariachi Reaper skins and Gone Apeshit Winston poses). Consistency is one of the best traits you can have honestly, and Blizzard has shown over the last few years that they've lost it big time. We saw it happen with Bioware with DA2, ME3, and finally Inquisition being the thing that broke people completely. For Blizzard, it's been their handling of Diablo3, Starcraft2, the last third of the game, HoTS largely failing as anything other than a Mario Kart(except even Mario Kart is more beloved and competitive) equivalent, and finally this.

Shit happens, companies rise and fall all the time, about the only thing you can hope for is that they don't make a bunch of small, but still significant mistakes in rapid succession with their products as often as what happens with videogames the last few years.

 

[Strazdas]

The title is wrong. The pose is not sexy. the pose is defiant. In martial arts this pose is meant to point out that you are so far superior than your oponent you can turn your back to him without fear.

Cue the cries of "censorship" and "SJWs ruin everything" (which, naturally, wouldn't occur if we were talking about something like a male character thrusting his ass at the camera) in 3, 2, 1....

The very same game - Overwatch - has a guy thrusting his crotch as a victory pose. Ive yet to see a single complaint.

 

[Not a Cobra]

Almost all the characters in the game have such a pose.
Saying that a woman posing in a way that accentuates certain characteristics that have been sexualised in the media for the purposes of a positive reaction from onlookers devolves her into "nothing but a sex symbol" is a sexist opinion.

Dead set, people have become so focussed on social justice they've gone full circle back into sexist.
I'm not saying "Not standing up for male rights" sexist.
Full on "she's a sex symbol because you can see her arse" sexist.

isn't this the kind of narrow minded ignorance social justice is meant to be working against?

 

[LetalisK]

The title is wrong. The pose is not sexy. the pose is defiant. In martial arts this pose is meant to point out that you are so far superior than your oponent you can turn your back to him without fear.

But it's a female with tight pants. Ergo, automatic fap material.

 

[reciprocal]

Without looking at her profile, I'm going to make some predictions:
1) By the end of this year (2016), the woman who complained will have played the game less than 50 hours if she bought the game at all;
2) By the end of this year (2016), at least one of the persons opposed to the removal will have played the game more than 100 hours;

Entitled gamers at least play the game.

If you bothered to look at the poster's profile[footnote]Whom is a man might I mention so that you can rid yourself of those preconceptions you made up in your mind to bed.[/footnote] they've played the game and have shown concern about many of the game's mechanical aspects multiple times. They're invested in the game and not just looking for something to be offended about.

Furthermore, is there any difference between two people if they both pay for the game if one plays the game a bit more? Entitlement seems to be the appropriate phrase when customer thinks that they're owed more attention than other customers even though they all paid the same amount. Its basically saying this. [http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/859/859634.png]

Also, since when is 50 hours in a game not a significant amount of playtime for a game?

Fair enough it is a man. I will definitely admit to not looking at the person's profile. Can you tell me if that person has pre-ordered the game? Is there a hint that this person is a notable populariser of games?

I definitely would argue that a person who plays the game more deserves more attention:
1) They are likelier to purchase any future DLCs as they are more invested in the game
2) As this game is interactive in nature, someone who puts in more hours is likelier to help survive and develop. Empty servers kill these games very quickly.
3) Someone who plays more will obviously will have to deal with the decision more someone who plays less.

The 50 hours is fairly arbitrary but I did some comparisons with myself and it seems 10 hours a month for about 5 months after the game is released sounds pretty reasonable.

Look, I'm not blaming the poster. Nobody has any control over what they take offence with. Instead, I am criticising Blizzard for their actions. I do not understand why this post alone out of millions of others deserves an apology and relatively fast reaction. In his/her other posts about mechanics did they receive the SAME reaction from the developers? Did other posters get the same attention? Obviously all these posters felt that they were entitled to some attention but why did this one in particular get this response?

All this seems to show is that regardless of how much you've invested in the game, how long you've played, aspect of the game criticised, politeness, viability or strength of the argument does not matter at all. All you have to do is play the 'what about the children' card and you get instant attention.

 

[Cati]

@Earcaraxe "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." OT, but you have a wonderful way with words <3

@ThatOtherGirl "those pants are painted on! I mean literally, I don't think I have ever seen "clothing" that hugs individual butt cheeks so completely like that outside of liquid latex body paint." - Leggings (all types and materials), lycra sports gear cyclists, runners and gymnasts wear, yoga trousers... If the person has a toned and defined ass, it's still gonna show as defined through non-baggy clothing, or baggy clothing of clingy material.

Eta. Forgot to mention Skinny jeans! I got some pairs that can leave nothing to the imagination when I put them on straight out of the dryer.

 

[Vladimir Eremeyev]

Seriousy, FUCK VOCAL MINORITY
FUCK THEM

I don't see why we gotta deal with it while some loud pricks are 'offended', it should be other way around

 

[Alterego-X]

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.

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

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

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.

And that would all be relevant, if the people disagreeing with the change, would owe up to these points.

"We have our own beliefs about standards of appropriateness, and about respecting women, and want to enforce those instead of the ones that this commenter believes in" would be hard to sell, but it would still be more honest than the outrage that is entirely coated in fear-mongering of how Blizzard is "caving in" to a single forum comment, from the "vocal minority", that is trying to "control their creative freedom", while at the same time cancelling the game over a creative choice that Blizzard made.

Your point #4 cut both ways in that regard. Maybe Blizzard hasn't been doing enough to respectfully represent various demographics, but it's sure as hell the Overwatch fandom hasn't been making complaints about any of that until now either.

This is NOT even a culture war outrage where Blizzard has just done something that was really obviously outrageous to one group, and that group's behaviour was really outrageous to others.

Take away the narrative about the censorous "removing" of content, and your four points are all just tired debate points fit for a 20 posts long thread on an obscure forum.

There is a reason the title of this "news story" doesn't say "Blizzard forum post shows double standard", or "Concerned parent online comment might have wrong priorities". Because the outrage is entirely revolving around the fact that Blizzard removed a piece of content from their game, and around the perception that this is censorship.

 

[bladestorm91]

Not outraged per-say, but I'm very upset at the devs who are being such spineless wusses for caving in to such a non-issue.

If it's such a non-issue, why are you upset?

Because it show that the devs will cave to anything as long as enough people whine. It's not about the non-issue, it's about how the devs handled it.