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

[SecondPrize]

How could anyone ever think it acceptable to remove for everyone a completely optional aspect of a character which you do not like? It's mind-boggling to me how you can be so self-centered.

Not to be rude, but just about everyone in this thread is talking purely about what they want.

It's the internet. People only care about what others want when it conveniently falls into line with what they themselves wanted.

Also the devs are putting something in to replace it, something that they feel fits the character's personality more.

There's a difference between wanting something and wanting what everyone gets to be tuned to what you yourself want. I don't want a lot of things, that doesn't mean I feel others shouldn't have them.

Yeah okay that's cool and all but guess what? Blizzard themselves decided that they didn't want Tracers butt pose to be enjoyed by everyone. Not the person who made the thread. If Blizzard thought it was dumb than they would of ignored it like everything else they deem irrelevant to complain about.

That assumes Blizzard made their decision based only on the pose itself. If you are a game developer or publisher in this day and age, you can only completely ignore something which can have an identity politics angle at your own peril. Whether the original poster intended it or not, things like these always come with the threat that your brand will take a severe beating.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Is this really worth getting upset over? I mean really? This is such a non-issue I just don't get why it's getting so much attention. Blizzard made the changes because they clearly thought it was the best one, and if you're going to bring up the argument with me that Blizzard couldn't just ignore the feedback, it was a minor thread no one was paying attention too, and apparently Blizzard has a tendency to drag their feet on even the most basic thing. I struggle to see them as being cowed here.

Someone liked it better? Well the game is in beta. There hasn't been a beta under the sun where a change has made everyone happy. This is how betas work. It's how game development works.

 

[Silvanus]

And women who object to the change are getting shit on: http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20742895690

Uhrm, that doesn't show people who object to the change getting "shit on". She's describing how the change made her feel-- which is completely valid, of course-- but there's nobody denigrating people who object, or anything. Don't mischaracterise that.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Funny how no one seems to be advocating that all the male characters be given a sexual butt pose for them, despite them likely being just as sexual as Tracer. I mean, there has been literally no indication that they're someone who would flaunt their sexuality as a way to celebrate winning a firefight, but isn't assuming that just because they've not been shown to be the type to flaunt their sexuality they wouldn't strike a butt pose genuine misandry?

When the double standard that exists for female sexuality and male sexuality ends, then we can have that conversation.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

How could anyone ever think it acceptable to remove for everyone a completely optional aspect of a character which you do not like? It's mind-boggling to me how you can be so self-centered.

Not to be rude, but just about everyone in this thread is talking purely about what they want.

It's the internet. People only care about what others want when it conveniently falls into line with what they themselves wanted.

Also the devs are putting something in to replace it, something that they feel fits the character's personality more.

There's a difference between wanting something and wanting what everyone gets to be tuned to what you yourself want. I don't want a lot of things, that doesn't mean I feel others shouldn't have them.

Yeah okay that's cool and all but guess what? Blizzard themselves decided that they didn't want Tracers butt pose to be enjoyed by everyone. Not the person who made the thread. If Blizzard thought it was dumb than they would of ignored it like everything else they deem irrelevant to complain about.

That assumes Blizzard made their decision based only on the pose itself. If you are a game developer or publisher in this day and age, you can only completely ignore something which can have an identity politics angle at your own peril. Whether the original poster intended it or not, things like these always come with the threat that your brand will take a severe beating.

While the shitstorm they've been receiving for removing the pose is not a threat that their brand will take a severe beating???

It's not even that fitting of a pose. Her other animations are extremely dynamic or silly, this one just looks awkward. It portrays purpose and deliberateness, not silliness and motion. Fitting for a sneaky or stalky type, not a run and jump type. It's really weird. If they wanted a sexy pose, they should have done a runner's stretch or something.

 

[EternallyBored]

How could anyone ever think it acceptable to remove for everyone a completely optional aspect of a character which you do not like? It's mind-boggling to me how you can be so self-centered.

Not to be rude, but just about everyone in this thread is talking purely about what they want.

It's the internet. People only care about what others want when it conveniently falls into line with what they themselves wanted.

Also the devs are putting something in to replace it, something that they feel fits the character's personality more.

There's a difference between wanting something and wanting what everyone gets to be tuned to what you yourself want. I don't want a lot of things, that doesn't mean I feel others shouldn't have them.

Yeah okay that's cool and all but guess what? Blizzard themselves decided that they didn't want Tracers butt pose to be enjoyed by everyone. Not the person who made the thread. If Blizzard thought it was dumb than they would of ignored it like everything else they deem irrelevant to complain about.

That assumes Blizzard made their decision based only on the pose itself. If you are a game developer or publisher in this day and age, you can only completely ignore something which can have an identity politics angle at your own peril. Whether the original poster intended it or not, things like these always come with the threat that your brand will take a severe beating.

What peril are you talking about? Game revs get away with ignoring identity politics stuff all the time, especially in cases where the complaint is initiated rather than responding to something someone in the company said. People on Twitter bitched about Ubisoft saying creating female characters for assassins creed is hard and that Farcry 4 picture that some people mistakenly thought was a white guy sitting on a broken Buddha statue, but Ubisoft released an empty PR response, ignored the critics and nothing happened. Eidos had that weird statement about Lara Croft that sparked a lot of Twitter outrage, they released an empty PR statement and nothing happened. Same with Blizzard completely ignoring similar critiques about its other female characters, they'll ignore it, some people will whine, and nothing will happen.

For a small time indie dev such backlash may be significant, for any AAA dev, I have yet to see outrage in either direction cause any noticeable damage to any game. Even smaller devs like the pillars of eternity guys, the tombstone thing got changed, the backer that changed it decided to call out the people offended by it by making fun of them with the new message, those same people demanded they change it again and were ignored, nothing happened. I could go on all day, I can't really think of any times that Internet identity politics complaints has resulted in long lasting harm or damage to any large dev or publisher. The main problems seem to be caused when the internet decides to dogpile a single individual and they get fired, but that's an individual not a product or company.

I imagine if blizzard had ignored this particular complaint, nothing would have come of it, just like nothing will come of them ignoring similar identity politics complaints currently surrounding Widowmaker, Mercy, or Symettra.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

And, until then, any female character that doesn't strike a sexy pose upon winning a violent confrontation is relegated to the celibate bin and anyone who thinks that not every single female character needs to have their sexuality flaunted and on display is expressing genuine misogyny.

Well shit then, her victory pose may as well be taking her leggings off, sitting down, and shooting ping-pong balls out her cooch. Clearly, there's no middle ground and any display of sexuality by a woman, no matter how innocuous or subjective, is full-on flaunting.

Because any female character who isn't entirely informed by sexual tropes needs to have her sexuality hidden, at all times, by any means necessary.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I imagine if blizzard had ignored this particular complaint, nothing would have come of it, just like nothing will come of them ignoring similar identity politics complaints currently surrounding Widowmaker, Mercy, or Symettra.

Dammit, don't tell me they removed Mercy's victory pose where she sits on a throne made of gold and impressionist art.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Considering that simply removing a pose that doesn't fit what's been established as her character is relegating her entirely to celibacy, yes, there apparently isn't any middle ground.

Yeah, are are those "established" character traits again, which were specifically cited in regards to the appropriateness of the butt pose again?

Which is a problem, because God forbid a single female character not have any attention drawn to her sexuality for once.

God forbid a female character display any sexuality at all without it being the focal point of the character, to the point of negating any and every other salient point of characterization.

That sort of thing is reserved exclusively for male characters who no one ever seems to accuse of having their sexuality hidden regardless of how nonsexual a lot of them seems to be.

Gee, it's almost as if male sexuality is by and large accepted by society, and fully normalized, to the point we as gamers are, at best, dimly aware a shirtless pose or full-on ass shot a la Metal Gear Solid can even be construed as sexualized in any way. Meanwhile, female sexuality is so repressed and controversial even a bog-standard third-person view camera angle is assumed sexualized by default.

Or the other way around. Either works. But please, do go on.

 

[Redryhno]

snip

I'm seeing nothing different with the Genji pose beyond an arm being up...Can you perhaps explain why it's bad that Tracer has that pose when Soldier 76 is taunting me with that old-man ass of his? Or Hanzo with his rippling chest he's so shyly hiding from the camera? What about Reaper's conveniently placed trenchcoat that shows you his legs all the way up to his ass before it's hidden from view?

Because all I'm continuing to see is that the only people seriously arguing about the pose being bad/out of character/etc. seems to continually be the ones that focus on her ass and nothing else with the pose. Are her pants tight? Fuck yeah. But why are you worried about her pants when she's got that little smirk going on up top? Why has it taken THIS long for people to realize that she's got alot of stuff showing off her ass? And why is nobody wanting to talk about the multitudes of promotional material that have roughly the same pose and optional focus?

Also multiple people have said what's wrong with adding in sexy poses for the guys. I mean, besides Hanzo, because that guys' just designed as eye-candy.

Snip

Is this really worth getting upset over? I mean really? This is such a non-issue I just don't get why it's getting so much attention. Blizzard made the changes because they clearly thought it was the best one, and if you're going to bring up the argument with me that Blizzard couldn't just ignore the feedback, it was a minor thread no one was paying attention too, and apparently Blizzard has a tendency to drag their feet on even the most basic thing. I struggle to see them as being cowed here.

Someone liked it better? Well the game is in beta. There hasn't been a beta under the sun where a change has made everyone happy. This is how betas work. It's how game development works.

Dude, for alot of people, this is just another brick in the road of "is this worth getting upset over". Is it really worth getting upset over another white guy being the protagonist? Is it worth getting upset over something as inane as the girl being turned into a guy? Is it really worth getting upset over an urban setting using black guys as the predominant criminal element? Because those are just as pointless, but they've all kicked up a shitstorm on this site in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. So what exactly makes those complaints worthwhile, while this is just some stupid cosmetic thing?

And yes, they have the tendency to drag their feet. So what makes this post so special to respond to? Especially since there's been MULTIPLE threads and posts coming from women and not just concerned fathers worrying about their pre-teen daughter playing a T rated game since it was decided to be taken out supporting the option for the pose to be there that have been ignored or outright locked. And why say anything more than "yeah, we decided that would be a placeholder pose for alot of heroes, thanks for the feedback, but it's not necessary"? Why go into a spiel about making everyone feel "heroic"? I've yet to get an answer that can't be summed up with "I dunno, because they said so in the PR speak!".

In those pants? YES. If I can see whether or not she waxed with the pants still on, and the separation of the ass cleavage, then yes.

Honestly not saying much with the ass cleavage honestly. My girlfriend wore leggings in high school to get around the dress code and if she wasn't wearing a skirt over it you could easily see the same stuff...was never any kind of invitation like that at that point in time for anyone involved.

And she was giving you over-the-shoulder looks with that pose? Maybe you were just missing some signals. If you're JUST talking about the clothing alone though, that's all on you.

Her? Nah. Part of what I've love about her is how blunt she is when she wants something. If she wants to screw, she makes it alot more apparent than half-assing it with looks over the shoulder. I mean, I'm dense as a rock at times, but considering how much we REALLY didn't like one another those four years(very long time we've known each other, going back to when we thought Barney was the height of awesomeness) I don't think she was giving out any signals.

And the women I've had do it has more been just an attention getter to get me to talk to them(not many, but a handful, got some pretty good friends out of it too). That's the extent of my experience with this pose. I dunno, most of my friends through my life have been girls, and we've seen each other in various states of (un)dress, nothing special with something this mild. Hell, it's one of those poses that some women just naturally fall into, the only thing making it any bit "sexy" is just looking over her shoulder honestly.

And again, I have to reiterate this because it seems to be the defining element of people against the pose, but maybe quit paying attention to her ass so much? Yeah, it's there, yeah, she's wearing a neon yellow catsuit, but c'mon, she's got more than her ass and overall, it's OPTIONAL on it being there in the first place. You can save up and just skip that tier of poses and just stick with the default until you get one of the ones you like more.

 

[Sic Transit Gloria]

Wait, you mean the giant corporation making a giant AAA game for maximum mass market appeal doesn't care about a singular artistic vision?

Well no fucking shit.

 

[wulf3n]

God forbid a female character display any sexuality at all without it being the focal point of the character, to the point of negating any and every other salient point of characterization.

No, no, no, you're doing it wrong. See, you have to actually find something people are doing to complain about, not just make up some strawman that no one seems to have ever even hinted at.

You mean like the post [http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20743015583#1] that started this controversy?

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.

If the characters are so cool how does 1 pose "reduce them to sex symbols"?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Silliness, friendliness, and, most relevant, a complete absence of anything resembling sexuality.

The hidden premise being silly and friendly women can't be sexual beings. Especially when you compare her to, say, Widowmaker who is a case example of the femme fatale archetype, and apparently her sexuality is A-okay!

I can't help but noticed you missed one. It begins with an "I" and is commonly associated with asexuality, chiefly virginity. (Hint, it's "innocence")

No, no, no, you're doing it wrong. See, you have to actually find something people are doing to complain about, not just make up some strawman that no one seems to have ever even hinted at.

Oh, really? Well, let's just see about that.

...It just reduces tracer to another bland female sex symbol.

We aren't looking at a widowmaker pose 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.

In case you may not recognize the quote, it's from the original post by Fipps about the pose.

http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20743015583

You see, to espouse that position, you must first assume female sexuality is a reductive force which stifles or outright negates all other aspects of characterization. Straw man my rosy pink ass, do better.

Well, I would certainly say that female sexuality is a bit repressed and controversial, but that's only if we're talking about actual sexuality, as in, having sex and being a sexual being, rather than the most common conflation with sexuality, fanservice.

Just maybe the problem lies with people who cannot tell the difference between a depiction of a female character who is a sexual agent, and fanservice. Or maybe people who erase the existence, even the potential for existing, of the former, by screaming from the rooftops about the latter.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

snip

I'm seeing nothing different with the Genji pose beyond an arm being up...Can you perhaps explain why it's bad that Tracer has that pose when Soldier 76 is taunting me with that old-man ass of his? Or Hanzo with his rippling chest he's so shyly hiding from the camera? What about Reaper's conveniently placed trenchcoat that shows you his legs all the way up to his ass before it's hidden from view?

Er, maybe the fact that one is a person in a completely neutral standing position while Tracer looks like she's about to do a turn on a catwalk? Her body is at completely different angles from his.

Because all I'm continuing to see is that the only people seriously arguing about the pose being bad/out of character/etc. seems to continually be the ones that focus on her ass and nothing else with the pose. Are her pants tight? Fuck yeah. But why are you worried about her pants when she's got that little smirk going on up top? Why has it taken THIS long for people to realize that she's got alot of stuff showing off her ass? And why is nobody wanting to talk about the multitudes of promotional material that have roughly the same pose and optional focus?

Also multiple people have said what's wrong with adding in sexy poses for the guys. I mean, besides Hanzo, because that guys' just designed as eye-candy.

Mine hasn't. The original post focused on it being a deliberate and seductive pose which is odd for a silly dynamic character.
EDIT: It appears I projected my own opinion onto the original post to some degree. I still don't find it anything close to rage inspiring, just unfortunately worded, but whatever.

Snip

Is this really worth getting upset over? I mean really? This is such a non-issue I just don't get why it's getting so much attention. Blizzard made the changes because they clearly thought it was the best one, and if you're going to bring up the argument with me that Blizzard couldn't just ignore the feedback, it was a minor thread no one was paying attention too, and apparently Blizzard has a tendency to drag their feet on even the most basic thing. I struggle to see them as being cowed here.

Someone liked it better? Well the game is in beta. There hasn't been a beta under the sun where a change has made everyone happy. This is how betas work. It's how game development works.

Dude, for alot of people, this is just another brick in the road of "is this worth getting upset over". Is it really worth getting upset over another white guy being the protagonist? Is it worth getting upset over something as inane as the girl being turned into a guy? Is it really worth getting upset over an urban setting using black guys as the predominant criminal element? Because those are just as pointless, but they've all kicked up a shitstorm on this site in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. So what exactly makes those complaints worthwhile, while this is just some stupid cosmetic thing?

So, what you're saying is that a team removing a single pose in a game is as big a deal as the lack of minority protagonists in games and the reinforcement of black stereotypes in light of recent major discussions on race? One butt pose, in a game with dozens? I mean, I'm not generally the guy that makes those arguments against particular games, more just games in general, but you've got to see the world of difference here.

And yes, they have the tendency to drag their feet. So what makes this post so special to respond to? Especially since there's been MULTIPLE threads and posts coming from women and not just concerned fathers worrying about their pre-teen daughter playing a T rated game since it was decided to be taken out supporting the option for the pose to be there that have been ignored or outright locked. And why say anything more than "yeah, we decided that would be a placeholder pose for alot of heroes, thanks for the feedback, but it's not necessary"? Why go into a spiel about making everyone feel "heroic"? I've yet to get an answer that can't be summed up with "I dunno, because they said so in the PR speak!".

I don't know why any Morello keeps using the word toxic for fucking everything in his posts about league, but I'm willing to bet it's just a term the team decided they needed to focus on to describe things that were bad. Maybe for these guys they want to focus on the idea of heroic, and by that they mean something equatable to iconic, someone with clearly defined and incredible personality traits, and they feel the mixed language in the pose got in the way of that.

As for why they changed now, probably just because they felt like it. They've probably wanted to change this for a while to suit some general vision of the game and posted in that thread because it was convenient. I've seen this with league a ton.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Silliness, friendliness, and, most relevant, a complete absence of anything resembling sexuality.

The hidden premise being silly and friendly women can't be sexual beings. Especially when you compare her to, say, Widowmaker who is a case example of the femme fatale archetype, and apparently her sexuality is A-okay!

I can't help but noticed you missed one. It begins with an "I" and is commonly associated with asexuality, chiefly virginity. (Hint, it's "innocence")

My mother, assuming my existence is not some miracle, has done the sex thing, and is definitely not someone I would describe as innocent. She also doesn't do those kinds of poses. She just doesn't do a lot of sexy things. Sexuality does not define her. This is true of many women. That does not make them innocent virgins, that just means sex isn't a big deal for them. It doesn't appear to be a big part of Tracer's design either. That doesn't make her some innocent virgin.

 

[Something Amyss]

I got no problem with ass-hugging tights either, though I do have a problem with how often I see them on female character designs, its on of those design elements that almost feels like the designer isn't certain that they've presented this character as female so they emphasise something, sometimes its a low-cut cleaving showing top, sometimes its boob armour, sometimes its pants, regardless of fabric (or intended fabric) hugging the females cheeks like their afraid of slipping off. Oddly enough whenever this get brought up people are quick to rush to bring up pics of Solid Snake and go 'MALE CHARACTERS GET THIS TREATMENT TOO!' but in most cases where they do its cause they get designed with skin tight clothing like a wetsuit or something. But yeah, its a design element that always bugs me if I see it, kinda like whenever I see male character designs for warriors/fighters or typical fantasy combat roles and its always some super buff dude, actually one example I could give is Street Fighter where the male characters get really absurd muscle design to the point where they sometimes just look too beefy, sure you have instances like Birdy in SFV or Rufus in USFIV, but those are like the only two differences. Also I'm aware that if I wanted to see sleeker male character designs for fighters then JRPGs are the place to look but... most of those designs are too anime for my taste at times.

Honestly, I think it's mostly fanservice. Well, actually, I suspect fanservice becomes normalised and that's what this is. So we get these de facto getups where women look like they're poured into almost any material, with asset-emphasising clothes and poses (I've even heard people say women naturally move like this, to which I must ask if they've ever seen women in the wild). I mean, in this case, Tracer may have been designed as-is for that exact reason. This is just what you do.

And yeah, men get a lot more body diversity, period. It's not controversial to have a fat character, or a scarred one. Or a thin one. That's one of the big issues, that women tend to have a much narrower range in terms of assets.

This carries over into gaming a lot for me. Like, I've played a fair share of DC Universe Online with friends. And They're all playing male characters. They get these awesome armour drops. I'm like, wow, cool, I want that for my character! And then I get it, and it's like, a halter top or has a giant boob window in it. Might even be closer to spandex than the cool battle armour the male models get. Same pieces of equipment.

In fact, there are threads on the game's forums looking basically for help making certain characters who aren't proudly flaunting their tits and ass.

I've mentioned this online, and I've been accused of wanting to censor people. I've been accused of hating video games or being an anti-sex prude. And, I mean, I like looking at the female form. That doesn't mean that I want my character to be all torpedo tits and a thong. I just wish there were more options that didn't do that, because it means female pickings are slim if you don't want to make a sexy character. And it's not necessarily even the worst example, because high-level gear doesn't strip you to a thong, but I don't play many MMOs and so I rarely have a direct comparison between male and female armour.

But like, I want my characters to look the way I want them to. Often time, I want them to look badass. Not always, but often times.

And I mean, obviously this gets a bit off the track of these characters, who are non-created characters, but it's still sort of an issue that there's such slim pickings. But it's basically a scandal when a woman doesn't show off her butt in a game.

 

[Nemmerle]

Funny how no one seems to be advocating that all the male characters be given a sexual butt pose for them, despite them likely being just as sexual as Tracer. I mean, there has been literally no indication that they're someone who would flaunt their sexuality as a way to celebrate winning a firefight, but isn't assuming that just because they've not been shown to be the type to flaunt their sexuality they wouldn't strike a butt pose genuine misandry?

Or is "sexuality" something that simply every female character must have and display in such overt gestures regardless of what their character actually is, but male characters can just not while not falling into some sort of problematic celibate/whore dichotomy?

Male and female standards of attractiveness are different. We've not got any conditioning that striking butt poses is attractive to our counterparts. To the point it's hard to take the contrary view seriously. I mean really, you want girly-men? As something more than a joke? Just don't think it would sell.

But if they want some man-candy, so to speak, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that as a general principle. I fully support hot men in video games for women that want them.

 

[Something Amyss]

Spoiler: A Male Character edited to actually be in literally the same pose

Can that be the compromise? Can we get some skimpy outfits and titillating poses from the men? Because I think he'd look nice with a metal thong and a pose like that. Come on, Blizzard! It'll make him more "agile!"

If it wasn't for all of the people making a fuss about censorship (only when its related to sexualized women I can't help but notice) this would've flown under the radar

I am still saddened that Mevis gets no love. :'(

That assumes Blizzard made their decision based only on the pose itself.

Yes, because that's the only assumption that can be made based on the given information without adding it ourselves. To assume otherwise would be to assume evidence not actually demonstrated.

More to the point, you ignore anyone at your own peril if you're in business. They're choosing to ignore the people upset by this change over gender politicians at their own peril, despite the response of the latter being a fraction of a percent of the former. If that's the case, maybe there's more to it than that.

Uhrm, that doesn't show people who object to the change getting "shit on". She's describing how the change made her feel-- which is completely valid, of course-- but there's nobody denigrating people who object, or anything. Don't mischaracterise that.

Oh my god, the irony of that OP. Complaining that she has to prove herself and then accusing others of not really playing the games. And she's the one being shit on.

Sorry, tangential, I guess.

I can't help but noticed you missed one. It begins with an "I" and is commonly associated with asexuality, chiefly virginity. (Hint, it's "innocence")

Does a woman have to show off her ass to not be "innocent?" It really seems like this is the artificial paradigm being set up here. But not because of LifeCharacter. Not every woman who likes sex goes around waving their ass. You're not innocent simply because you don't give people a look at your butt.

My mother, assuming my existence is not some miracle, has done the sex thing, and is definitely not someone I would describe as innocent. She also doesn't do those kinds of poses. She just doesn't do a lot of sexy things. Sexuality does not define her. This is true of many women. That does not make them innocent virgins, that just means sex isn't a big deal for them. It doesn't appear to be a big part of Tracer's design either. That doesn't make her some innocent virgin.

Hell, sex could still be important to a woman and not impact the way she poses and dresses. I think most people understand that not every moment is sexy times.

For all we know, Tracer had a lot of sex before the match began. Or none at all. She could be a virgin, which shouldn't be an issue, but she doesn't have to be. She might love sex, like it, hate it, be indifferent to it, or have had no experience with it. None of this is changed by whether she shows off her butt or how she dresses.

 

[Something Amyss]

I mean really, you want girly-men? As something more than a joke? Just don't think it would sell.

I want girly-men. Or, if this is what counts as girly men, then yes. Moar sexy and provocative guys, please.

 

[Something Amyss]

Can that be the compromise? Can we get some skimpy outfits and titillating poses from the men? Because I think he'd look nice with a metal thong and a pose like that. Come on, Blizzard! It'll make him more "agile!"

While generally I'd agree, in this case there seems to be roughly three men who being put in skimpy outfits and sexy poses would actually achieve titillation: McCree, Hanzo, and Lucio. The rest are either old men, robots, a cyborg, a gorilla, or a comically fat guy. I mean, some of them could no doubt still be sexy, but it's somewhat lacking when compared to the female roster of six supermodels, one average looking woman in a winter coat, and sexy, sexy Zarya.

Though, if Blizzard was willing to put practicality before appearance, everyone would be wearing those metal thongs. Everyone knows the extra speed is worth the loss of armor, especially when you pair it with some heels.[/quote]

Yeah, I was mostly joking anyway. Not that I would complain about some more T&A (testosterone and assets), but it doesn't exactly address the inequity in "diversity," I guess.