Blizzard to Remove "Sexy" Tracer Pose in Overwatch - Update
- Thread starter Nick Monroe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Did they somehow miss or not take a class in human sexuality in high school or college?
Do they not, or have they not figured out that the human race does have sexuality in its design?
Or do people think those inny and outty bits are just for decor?
Look if you create a human character in a game you're going to have some degree of sexuality displayed no matter the pose or the stance that character has. Anyone whom uses the "think of the/my children" line in a post seems to have forgotten what age group they were targeting with Overwatch. Teens and adults whom in one way or another though life have already been long "corrupted". Even the CDC census of high school student that had intercourse was at 47% in 2013. So who exactly is she protecting again? because it definitely cannot be teenagers or adults.
(info at http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/sexualbehaviors/)
Luckily this change will not affect the games mechanics, nor was the pose really needed. Do I personally think this is making Tracer a sexual symbol? No, because in order to do that, she would have to have no personality or such a weak one which would make her nothing more than a silhouette. Which is the completed opposite of what Tracer is, as both this post and Fipps has established. The last question is how did a single company pay more attention to a single voice then the rest of Overwatch's community that didn't have a problem with the pose?
Do they not, or have they not figured out that the human race does have sexuality in its design?
Or do people think those inny and outty bits are just for decor?
Look if you create a human character in a game you're going to have some degree of sexuality displayed no matter the pose or the stance that character has. Anyone whom uses the "think of the/my children" line in a post seems to have forgotten what age group they were targeting with Overwatch. Teens and adults whom in one way or another though life have already been long "corrupted". Even the CDC census of high school student that had intercourse was at 47% in 2013. So who exactly is she protecting again? because it definitely cannot be teenagers or adults.
(info at http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/sexualbehaviors/)
Luckily this change will not affect the games mechanics, nor was the pose really needed. Do I personally think this is making Tracer a sexual symbol? No, because in order to do that, she would have to have no personality or such a weak one which would make her nothing more than a silhouette. Which is the completed opposite of what Tracer is, as both this post and Fipps has established. The last question is how did a single company pay more attention to a single voice then the rest of Overwatch's community that didn't have a problem with the pose?
Lol well I read about this story in about 10 different places before I even saw the pose.
THATS IT?????
That's barely even sexual. Simply having an ass is now a sexual thing? When did we unwittingly get invaded by Saudi Arabia?
I think what people dislike is the complaining. If you were just really outraged and angry about something but kept it yourself, no-one would care.
THATS IT?????
That's barely even sexual. Simply having an ass is now a sexual thing? When did we unwittingly get invaded by Saudi Arabia?
I think whether someone appears "offended" or not isn't really the issue in these sort of things. The thing people care about is just whether you're going to complain or not. Usually being "offended" and complaining correlate highly. But no always.Pluvia said:
I think what people dislike is the complaining. If you were just really outraged and angry about something but kept it yourself, no-one would care.
@Olas - "pants don't conform to the butt like that", an assertion made based on a piece of digital artwork.
"pants do conform to the butt like that", an assertion made based on photos of real people, and of people's real experiences (either first or secondhand xp).
Belief in one of those should cause concern about a person's perception of reality, and it ain't the one based on what real-life pants look on real-life women.
"pants do conform to the butt like that", an assertion made based on photos of real people, and of people's real experiences (either first or secondhand xp).
Belief in one of those should cause concern about a person's perception of reality, and it ain't the one based on what real-life pants look on real-life women.
We can safely assume that the research was conduted purely to bring the point across. They had nothing else in mind except a birther future of gaming.dunam said:
At the end of the day, to anyone still reading this thread. The problem was not that blizzard removed an image. It was that they made the claim that you can't be sexy and strong or heroic. They didn't quite slut shame but they did err on the side of the root of slut shaming. That a woman who is proud of her sexuality is somehow less valuable and less competent as a person. It also makes the assumption that women and men do not feel empowered by being attractive and sexy. Shame on Blizzard for such a blunder in offensiveness and assumptive reasoning.
Had they merely said that expressions of overt sexuality do not match the theme of their game then I would still be mildly annoyed that they created and released it in the first place and then removed a perfectly valid and finished asset for players to select if they wanted to, but at least then I could respect their artistic integrity. Instead, they did it in a way that again demonized sexuality. A mind set that the same people arguing against this image today would have fought against during the sexual empowerment revolution that enabled women to show off some ankle if they damn well pleased and everyone else be darned. It's so silly, we wouldn't say shit about a woman in a sports bra and booty shorts jogging down the street. That fight has already been fought and women won. This is just nonsense and puritanical.
Areloch, for butt-conforming-pants hero!
Had they merely said that expressions of overt sexuality do not match the theme of their game then I would still be mildly annoyed that they created and released it in the first place and then removed a perfectly valid and finished asset for players to select if they wanted to, but at least then I could respect their artistic integrity. Instead, they did it in a way that again demonized sexuality. A mind set that the same people arguing against this image today would have fought against during the sexual empowerment revolution that enabled women to show off some ankle if they damn well pleased and everyone else be darned. It's so silly, we wouldn't say shit about a woman in a sports bra and booty shorts jogging down the street. That fight has already been fought and women won. This is just nonsense and puritanical.
Areloch performed this research in a lab with a lab coat on and goggles. Areloch spent weeks searching and testing and verifying the results. Then they performed a double blind study on the matter and finally put his work to rest. There were lab assistants and volunteers. They even had a government grant or too thanks to a little known trust left running from the Clinton Era.dunam said:
Areloch, for butt-conforming-pants hero!
Are... are you joking or not? Can't tell if Poe's law or not...GZGoten said:
Not only that, but according to Blizzard if you have an ass and pose in any way that displays said ass then you are not strong or heroic. By proxy this logic also supports slut shaming, fyi.Tilly said:
yes, yes they do. I have no idea where you live, but when it's not blistering cold out women in my area pretty much default to yoga pants, and that amplifies x10 when you go to gyms/workout rooms, and unless the ass is just the flabbiest grandma thing in the world, the yoga pants pretty much have a high chance of conforming to the ass like that.Olas said:
I feel very sorry for you since you seem to never encounter these in the wild.
If I were Blizzard, I'd be pissing my myself, laughing right now. "So what, you took out .5 seconds of pose, and they're still talking about it?! WHOO!!! Free publicity!"
Where did they make this claim?Lightknight said:
I think you're looking way too deeply into this, the pose wasn't even sexual and nothing about Tracer from what I've seen suggests that she's the kind of character that flaunts her sexuality proudly. It doesn't mean that she's ashamed of it either, I just don't think it's relevant. I don't think the original forum post had a point and I also don't think these people talking about "female sexuality" have a point.
It's just a butt.
When they said that they are removing them because they want people to feel strong and heroic. The easily applied logical conclusion being that being sexy means you are weak and not heroic.Dizchu said:
Ergo, the devaluation of people who, say, take nice selfies in mirrors because they like how they look. Not as far as slut shaming but somewhere around the same root cause of slut shaming in which a person needs to be ashamed of their sexuality.
The pose itself doesn't matter and had they stated that it was because it was out of character then that's fine. But instead they said they are removing it because looking sexy means weak and unheroic in their minds. That's messed up when you consider it in terms of the whole sexual revolution in which women fought for a world in which no was no long OK to shame women for showing some ankle on their own damn terms.Dizchu said:
This makes just about as much sense as claiming that Rhonda Rousey's sexy photo-shoots make her less strong and capable. Anyone who makes that mistake in the ring with her or in public might find themselves waking up in a hospital. Expressing sexuality =/= weak or less value as a person but that is the statement they made in their public reasoning.
May the portion of the inevitable Nobel prize allotted to their involvement ease their family's pain.Areloch said:
Oh, wait, they were just assistants so they don't get any. Still though, at least their families can rest easy knowing that they died doing what they loved...
Hear hear, pour some out.
Of course, this is why they scrapped the Widowmaker character. Oh wait.Lightknight said:
You are making several jumps in logic here and it sounds like you're deliberately trying to interpret this in the worst way possible.
They did not say "looking sexy" = "unheroic".
And please, let's not dive into pure hyperbole here. People insisting "what next? Tracer wearing a burka?" Come on that is such a childish escalation of what is a very minor issue. It is a single pose of a single character. A single pose.
That is not the statement that they made.
I'm getting tired of the false dichotomies that this controversy has brought. I usually run to the defence of games like Senran Kagura and Dragon's Crown with their hyper-sexual character designs, in fact in this case I thought the original forum post was a bit silly (but not uncalled for). Now everyone's making this a discussion about free speech, female sexuality, censorship, feminism, and so on when it has absolutely nothing to do with those things.
What this controversy is about: Blizzard making an unpopular decision
What this controversy is not about: SJWs destroying video games and female characters not being able to be sexual anymore
Outside of fanart, I haven't even seen any indication that Tracer's character is meant to flaunt her sexuality. I don't even think the "controversial" pose is in any way sexual. So why are you trying to make it about sexuality?
Widowmaker is allowed to be sexy because she's evil.Dizchu said:
Tracer is not allowed to be sexy because she's a good guy.
At least, that's what it seems like to me.
While it is true that the "evil is sexy" thing is a trope, I see no evidence to suggest that's the angle that the developers have approached this with.SlumlordThanatos said:
The pose just didn't look right. I haven't played the game but I've looked at a lot of official material of the Overwatch characters, and overwhelmingly it appears that Tracer's character is meant to be assertive and snarky in that Dreamworks kinda way. The pose that was removed just didn't reflect that. And it's not because it was an "over-the-shoulder" pose that had her butt facing the camera, it just didn't fit. Her posture doesn't look confident and her facial expression looks like she's been caught stealing someone's leftover pizza.
The most likely scenario is that Blizzard wanted an over-the-shoulder pose, made one and then looked back and thought "err I dunno". Then when a fan pointed it out it confirmed their doubts and they decided to change it. This is part of the creative process.
Where Blizzard completely dropped the ball was with their insincere "we don't want to offend anyone" PR nonsense. I mean I know why they said it, it's what any business does. "We're sorry we did this, the customer's always right, we want to make our product inclusive etc." But it was completely counter-productive and now we have people quoting MLK, bringing up Nazi Germany and insisting that Islamic theocracy is taking over and female characters will be forced to wear the niqab.