Blizzard to Remove "Sexy" Tracer Pose in Overwatch - Update
- Thread starter Nick Monroe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As much as I appreciate that considering the moral implications of, or... I suppose "what could arguably be inferred" by x does have it's place. If we're doing the "won't somebody please think of the children?" thing, then my primary concern isn't "what does this piece of media say beneath the surface?" so much as it is "what kind of culture are we leaving for them?" if we carry on down the road of allowing ourselves to bend to the whim of ideological zealots (which isn't to say that's what happened here) who would seek to impose ideas of what is/isn't acceptable art, or even what is/isn't acceptable thought.Lightknight said:
Yes people can be over reactionary in these instances(yes, to the point where it can seem silly), but it's because these things are worth considering. Precedents are being set all the time, so if other people have a voice that is apparently being listened to, you can't be too mad at others for speaking up to say "No, we don't agree with that at all".
2 cents. Your thoughts, Lightknight?
No idea if this was already adressed, but I just wanted to point you can't say that you want to include everyone, and then remove something. This will automatically exclude the people who liked it. The only way to include everyone is making everything optional.
If the designer thought the pose is not fitting for his character, that is his right and he can change it all he wants, but he cannot say that he wants to include everyone. It is just this type of toothless corporate speek that annoys me.
If the designer thought the pose is not fitting for his character, that is his right and he can change it all he wants, but he cannot say that he wants to include everyone. It is just this type of toothless corporate speek that annoys me.
I just want to throw it in that they are going to replace the pose with something that's more in line with their character. It's not like the game has less content.ManutheBloodedge said:
If you want to call it just PR speak though, fair enough, I can't really argue that.
Yes, in the rise of a global economy and even a global culture, it is more important than ever to stop letting small fractions of the population control or so heavily influence what the majority of the population can or can't get. It simply doesn't make sense to say that a person can't have something as small as a character pose just because "zealots" as you call them don't want other people to get to have those.Sexual Harassment Panda said:
My comment about how to appropriately teach healthy sexuality is to portray it properly rather than to demonize and hide it was moreso to show how the current shunning of it altogether is actually carrying the wrong message too. Her being sexy isn't a problem. She is one of many women portrayed in the game, one of which certainly isn't being pitched as a sex object.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Jzt0HGixY/maxresdefault.jpg
Or at least not a conventional one.
It is extremely poignant to point out that the people who are making the call to censor/remove/hide sexuality are typically the same people who would cry havoc if anyone else tried to force their personal values on them. It is crazy to see how opposite these groups of people have become from their roots.
ManutheBloodedge said:
Even if you really wato get technical, he specifically DIDN'T say this, but that "We want everyone to feel strong and heroic in our community".
No one feels weak, or unheroic, by not getting to look at a particular pinup girl pose. The reverse is not necessarily true.
This should be an obvious spirit of the reply even if he DID say that they want to "include everyone", but it's super obvious given the actual wording.
Even it the game had less content, if the designer thought the content clashed with his vision, it is his right to remove it. My problem is indeed the PR speak, just say: "we don't want this particula character to be sexy, that is not how we envisioned her" and not: "we want everyone to feel heroic", because you are automatically excluding everyone who liked your more sexy take on the char and feels more powerful with sexy chars in general. When you make a statement, make a friggin statement, don't spout bullshit phrases, especially not when they are factually wrong. I respect your opinion, I don't respect you insulting my intelligence.erttheking said:
Do people feel weak or unheroic when they see some badass girl jogging down the street in little more than a sports bra and boy shorts? Do people feel weak when Ronda Rousey makes a sexy pose for a picture before kicking someone's ass?Alterego-X said:
Also, how do you know that no one feels "weak" or "unheroic" when their characters don't portray their sexuality in attractive ways? One could argue that women in real life feel powerful when they look sexy so one could argue that there is a non-zero number of people who would feel weaker than they could at the poses presented. The moral of the story being that you can't usually please all people with a single decision. Let's not forget that this is an entirely optional pose. People aren't going to get it unless they purchase it. So...?
The message they're sending is that being sexy is weakness. That you can't be a woman who posts sexy selfies and also be competent and powerful. That should also be insanely offensive but for some reason the group that should be offended about this happening to real people are holding a double standard when it comes to digital characters.
As I've stated in previous posts, the correct way to teach people about sexuality is to depict it as one of many qualities and not as a detraction from competence. Failing to depict it at all doesn't teach people anything. Our sexuality is part of our being and should not be stamped down just because us having sexuality makes some people feel funny in their pants region. That's their problem, not ours.
Sigh. I feel like I wrote something like that before, but you don't have to explicitly SAY something to MEAN it. Feeling strong and heroic is obviously a core concept in the game. So if the developer wants everyone to be able to feel that with their game, they want everyone to be able to enjoy it, so they want to include everyone. Implication and Subtext are very much a thing, you don't have to spell out everything. This is not Sesame Street.Alterego-X said:
And regarding the "No one feels weak by not getting to look at sexy things", that is just one opinion. Yours. Maybe there are females who are shy in real life and like their characters to convey sexual confidence, and they would feel stronger then? IDK, there could be many reasons why someone feels stronger and more heroic when presented with a hero in a sexy pose, I don't speak for all of humanity.
Perfect elaboration on what I was trying to say in one paragraph. There is a significant portion of women who do feel more powerful when they are perceived as sexy. So much so that one of the most massive industries in the world has been entirely built around it.ManutheBloodedge said:
To pretend that some women to feel power in being sexy would be as silly as saying that men don't feel power in being handsome.
We absolutely do.
Anyone who would receive that message from the fact that a single female character with her painted-on pants is NOT striking pinup girl pose, would already receive the same message from every anime that fails to have a panty shots, every novel that has an asexual character in it, and every film that fails to gaze at one of the female characters' breast at one certain opportunity.Lightknight said:
In other words, already too thin skinned to consume any media.
Either that, or actually arguing in hypotheticals on a gaming forum.
Not really, they removed a sexy pose with the explanation that it was because they wanted players to feel strong and heroic.Alterego-X said:
The logical implication of that statement is that people who are sexy are weak and non-heroic or should be seen as such regardless of the reality.
My personal problem here isn't so much that they're removing it but that the reason behind moving it is bad. It trivializes a significant portion of the female population and perhaps even insults them.
Had they not given a reason (the didn't owe us one), given a non-offensive reason or just not included it to begin with then there would be no discussion on the matter from me, so your slippery slope argument that this would somehow mean an anime must show panties just doesn't follow. But it is wrong to think that every girl posing in the mirror for a selfie is somehow less powerful than every girl that doesn't. That's the wrong message to send.
His argument was that the pose in question was optional, so by removing it, he got this message not because the char is not striking a pinup pose, but because the char isn't allowed to strike that pose at all. No need to shoot out the Hyperbole when you are not properly representing his point in the first place.Alterego-X said:
You don't get to plead subtext, when your entire point is resting on pretending not to get the context of inclusivity towards demographic groups.ManutheBloodedge said:
Maybe if the he said "we want to make everyone equally happy", you could play an overtly literal nitpicking and point out, that technically removing something that made people unhappy, will make those less happy who wanted the first one to be unhappy.
It's silly, and semantic, but technically true.
But when they actually DID use terminology that makes it clear that the are talking about being welcoming to women (as in, not alienating), you don't get to reword that statement's intended meaning, and then nitpick while ignoring the intended meaning.
Technically removing a particular pose might alienate someone who was fixated on seeing that particular pose, but no, removing a message that makes some people feel unwelcome, isn't necessarily making anyone feel unwelcome in the same manner.
Then I'm sure those girls will love Widowmaker. They will also love Tracer's costume design.ManutheBloodedge said:
I haven't even said "No one feels weak by not getting to look at sexy things", I have said "No one feels weak, or unheroic, by not getting to look at a particular pinup girl pose."
Even if you would be right that a single game not particularly objectifying any of it's it's female characters at all would potentially alienate players, that's not what we are talking about here, but about fine-tuning the appropriate degrees of sexualization for a partiular character.
Sorry, your post only appeared after I already posted mine. I let you speak for yourself next time.Lightknight said:
I appreciate you pointing out the poster's response was unnecessary hyperbole, but my point wasn't really an issue with the Char not being allowed to strike the pose. I mean, I agree that one could say that giving us all these options empowers us to have a character that poses in the way we want and as such we do feel more powerful. Since it is option and we have all the choice in the matter then just having it as an option is only a positive. So I do agree with this sentiment on that level.ManutheBloodedge said:
Rather, my contention here is removing the pose under the guise that her being sexy evokes weakness and unheroic feelings. The implication is that women who are themselves sexy and value their looks are weak an less competent or should be correctly seen as such. That is highly problematic and devalues a significant portion of the population.
You still brought up a valuable point regarding how the reduction of options diminishes player choice and ergo power over how they portray their avatar. It was a good point.ManutheBloodedge said:
Am I talking to the God-Emperor of the human race? For someone who tries to reprimand me for being too semantic, I hope you realize you are interpreting the statement of the developer in a very certain and rigid way yourself. He said he wants everyone to feel heroic and strong. How does this message refer to being welcoming to women (by the way, "not alienating" and "being welcoming" are two very different things) specifically? He didn't say anything about any specific group, he said everyone, which even in context here means everyone. We have two different interpretations of the meaning of this qoute and the intention of the developer. This does not prevent me from using subtext at all. And the context of including demographic groups doesn't change my original argument, because he was not specifically talking about making such groups feel included, but everyone. At least in my opinion. Apart from that, the point of my original comment was to point out this kind of uncommited language from the developer which allowed so many different interpretations of what he said, so in a way you are only strengthening my point.Alterego-X said:
And regarding your assumption that the removal of this particular pose is not unwelcoming to anyone, there is someone chatting with you in this very thread who stated he feels that way.
Not really, it just brings us back to the previous point about how really it's the changing of previously known content that makes this into a big issue.Lightknight said:
No one would receive the message from Beyond Good and Evil that it's disempowering to women because it's denying the option for Jade to wear a swimsuit through the game. This reminds me of what Yahtzee once said about murdering kids in Skyrim [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/extra-punctuation/9246-What-Is-the-Matter-with-You-People.2]. Ultimately every game controls it's tone, and decides which options it wants to give to gamers.
If the gaming industry in general would noticeably tend to disproportionally deny female characters control over their mannerisms, or try to obsessively cover up their sexuality, that could send a neative message.
But in this case, you are not really talking about how THE GAME sending a negative message, but about how the fact that we had the opportunity to follow the creative process, sends a negative message.
If Overwatch would have been released in a finished version first, with the pose already remove, no one could reasonably claim that it's a sex-negative or puritanical game.
The entire outrage rests on the belief that fine tuning during beta exactly WHICH characters should be HOW sexualized, is inherently censorous even if the end result is nothing remarkable.
