New Overwatch Hero Is a Response to Body-Type Diversity Criticism

[Redryhno]

You wanna know devs in similar genres that try hard without overdoing it? Go look at Riot and Reverge, both have artists that are absolutely in love with the splashes and models they make, or even at other Blizzard [s/]ripoffs[/s] products, where overdesigning things is ok and is consistent in-universe, Zarya just doesn't look like she fits the same as the other characters to me.

Riot's weird. They have half the art teams desperately scrambling to ensure the new champs at least have pants, and half the art team making splashes trying to imitate the spine-twisting excesses of comic male gaze poses.

Right...I never thought I'd see someone use male gaze unironically...

Spoiler: Look at all that pantsless male gaze!

Of all those(some of the most recent skins, champs, and splash updates), the only time you'd be able to even make the slightest amount of sense saying male gaze like that, is the DJ skin, which has a helluva lotta work put into it, the least amount of which is her body.

 

[ensouls]

Also, gender-terrorists? Really? That's the most ridiculous hyperbole I've seen since that intel tweet that compared GG to ISIS. I am saving that for next time I need to prove a point about how the "SJWs" and "anti-SJWs" have basically become twisted reflections of each other.

Terrorism - The use of violence or threats to coerce people for a political agenda.

How does this not fit when basically their entire MO is "Do what we want or we will collectively accuse you of being a racist, sexist evil person to threaten your employment and public image" ?

Also hello false dichotomy. Just because I'm against people using these kinds of tactics to stifle public discourse and coerce people to their side doesn't mean I define myself by my dislike of them or am part of some movement. I just want people to stop listening to people who use threats to get their way and are never going to be satisfied anyways.

When the hell did you even dredge that quote up from? It's totally out of context here, where A)no one is threatening anyone's employment and B)I don't support people doing that in the first place - with maybe the exception of truly twisted games like RapeLay. This is a thread primarily about character design, the sooner that whole GG fiasco can be behind us all the better. Please don't necro my own posts from OTHER THREADS Lord almighty

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

i relly dislike the design, i looks like your typical tumblr user


some people made made some changes and i think their edits are sooo much better

Spoiler

The average Tumblr user looks like a five hundred pound bodybuilder?

And all those edits do was change the hair color. The long blonde one just looks weird.

no tatoos, no pink hair, different hair style or being a ginger

i explained in another post that the main problem with her design is they its trying to hard (a problem not limited to her character), being more subtle in the display of strength i believe yields better results

also i like the long hair blonde

So the average tumblr user has tattoos and pink hair? Somehow I doubt it.

Also trying too hard is something I don't put a lot of stock into. Trying hard? Why in the seven hells is trying hard a BAD thing? Trying hard is an indicator that the developer CARES.

How does long blonde hair and the lack of tattoos make strength more subtle? They don't exactly make her muscles look smaller. And you had to point out that her tattoos were missing because I didn't notice it. Frankly they were hardly noticeable on the original design. Also the second one has red eyes, hardly something I'd call subtle.

look i think you misinterpret me

when i say its trying to hard, i mean she is trying way too hard to look tough, it doesnt mean the developer cares, it means the developer doesnt know about subtlety, this is a problem with another character called... sigh... the Reaper, is an absolute edgelord, black clothes, skull kinda looking mask, absolutely cringeworthly dialogue, itd almost be a parody if they werent playing it straight

as for Zarya, she is russian because you know, the stereotypical russian is strong and fights agaisnt bears and such, she has big muscles, she has a big gun, she has tatoos, she has punk hair, she is a weight lifting champion

what a ridiculous resume, compare this to Valve's approach

the Heavy, he is russian because you know, the stereotypical russian is strong and fights agaisnt bears and such, he has big muscles, he has a big gun, stop. see? they know when the message gets accross and avoid flanderization

the redesigns i showed remove some of the extra elements, and how are red eyes a sign of toughness?

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

i relly dislike the design, i looks like your typical tumblr user


some people made made some changes and i think their edits are sooo much better

Spoiler

The average Tumblr user looks like a five hundred pound bodybuilder?

And all those edits do was change the hair color. The long blonde one just looks weird.

no tatoos, no pink hair, different hair style or being a ginger

i explained in another post that the main problem with her design is they its trying to hard (a problem not limited to her character), being more subtle in the display of strength i believe yields better results

also i like the long hair blonde

Eh, different strokes I guess, while big and muscular isn't my type, I think she fits in better with the rest of the cast the way she is, editing her that way strikes me as turning her into a generic Gears of War looking grunt the pictures posted just make me like the original more.

I guess I'll just go with Yahtzee on this one, "trying too hard" just seems like a weak criticism, and I wouldn't even apply it in this place, I looked at the pictures posted earlier in this thread of female body builders, and Zarya looks pretty close, so she definitely looks distinctly feminine enough to me.

Eh, I suppose it's just a taste thing, but the edits you posted just make me happier that they decided to go the direction they did.

EDIT: whoops, meant to quote your reply to me, hit the wrong post by mistake, close enough I guess.

yeah i guess, each on his own, but i still think there a way to do "tough women character" right and this isnt it


but ill be fair and say that in general, the characters are good, some of the women character designs are nice, the black lady with the fancy dress looks cool, some might complain it doesnt look practical but i dont care, i havent seen many designs like that before

the scout looking girl is also cool

so is the flying medic woman

the gorilla

the dwarf

the robo monk

the egiptian girl

the robot/turrent and the cowboy are ok altough very safe concepts

the knight guy, the sniper/assasin girl and the asian guy are just mediocre designs, playing it way too safe

 

[Karadalis]

Im more miffed about her "breast" breastplate design... breast breastplates dont make for good armor...

 

[LordFeast58]

So, this character is a response for diversity, for a game that already needs diversity in the first place? Of course you need different kind of people. Who want to choose a number of 20 or 30 characters who have the same skin and palette? Fighting games and the MOBA games already take diversity in the first place, because they needed it.

What? Is she the main character in the single player game where there are no other type of hero, and the game will have a really good narrative? No? So what's the point of showing people that they are supporting diversity? The pledge of people these days are the same as before, only exaggerated more, which I don't like. "Look at me, my game have diversity". *Sigh*

 

[Loonyyy]

I mean, look at the blatant tumblr hair cut

WTF does tumblr have to do with that style???
Were you even conceived by the time Punk/Ska music was gaining momentum in the 80's??
your own avatar has pink hair ffs....

Cannot stop laughing. Well said sir. And it's definitely not like anything of the sort happened in the 90s either. Kool-aid crystals anyone?

His avatar is also a 4 eyed, red pupil monster

Joking aside, there is no denying that neon-died, sometimes short hair is definitely a part of the SJW/Tumblr culture that wanted this. I have been around them, they are not like punk rockers at all.

You see, your first mistake was thinking I cared about your opinion on this. The second was calling punks "punk rockers". Not very punk. The last mistake was thinking that punks aren't progressives. If your exposure to punk rock is limited to Sandi Thom's "I wish I was a punk rocker with flowers in my hair" this may be forgiven, but don't play an authority on it.

And yeah, the dying of hair to unnatural colours to stand out? Pretty punk, in an old-school, look at me, I'm not part of the system way. Like mohawks and safety pin piercings. Either way, it's meaningless as a description of politics. And many, many prominent punks have participated in it. Would you call Fat Mike dying his hair green "Social Justice Warrior" "Tumblr" stuff? He's been doing it and making music before those terms existed. And it's not like every other image of Cobain floating around with the new documentary coming out is when his hair was dyed maroon with kool-aid crystals.

Though the punk rock culture has similar styles. Is this character a blatant pandering attempt towards SJWs?

If you're going to use the term SJW, I'll laugh at you. If you're going to contrast punks with SJWs, I will laugh at you. Violent music about positive social change. Fuck, punk rock is literally about being a warrior for "Social Justice". Go listen to some NOFX, some Bad Religion, go listen to some Minor Threat, some Sick of It All. And I don't care if it's pandering to a different group. You say pandering, I say appealing. Better not have a character that a group could like. Mario is pandering to nostalgia, Link is pandering to fantasy nerd-dom, Marcus Fenix is pandering to bros. Calm. Down. Unless you have a real objection to the character, that the character is actually objectionable, then I don't care. It's a Russian woman with dyed hair. Deal with it.

Maybe? I want to see more of this character's personality before she is *completely* judged, though I will judge the circumstances surrounding her creation.

I don't care about your judgement. A bit. It's meaningless to me, and it's meaningless to them. I think the character has a nice design, and fits the art-style of the game, and I don't give a damn if it's meant to be diverse. The cast has robots and animals, and you think a woman with died hair is shoe-horning in diversity. This is one of the less extreme characters.

 

[runic knight]

I don't care about your judgement. A bit. It's meaningless to me, and it's meaningless to them. I think the character has a nice design, and fits the art-style of the game, and I don't give a damn if it's meant to be diverse. The cast has robots and animals, and you think a woman with died hair is shoe-horning in diversity. This is one of the less extreme characters.

I would say criticizing the motivation and intent behind the creation of the character is rather relevant actually. We live in an era of intentionally hobbled and sliced-apart games for the sake of milking for profit through dlc. We live in an era where games are market tested to appeal and decisions in the AAA industry seems heavily "inspired" by bureaucrats rather then creativity of the staff. And in this case, an argument can be made relating to the reason why they designed the character the way they did and marketed the way they did, resulting in a valid criticism even if that judgement means nothing to you personally. The reason being, even if it means nothing to you, it may mean something to others if argued well and that in turn should most certainly mean something to the company presenting this, as that tends to shape buying habits if left to roll downhill long enough.

The character is less extreme, uses various tropes, and is largely a harmless addition to the roster I agree. But there is still worthwhile conversation to be had as to why the character was included, why it was designed the way it was (one might even go into how it is a reflection of that whole market testing idea as a means to present an appearance of creativity or inclusivity without actually doing anything to do either), or why it was presented in such a way compared to the other characters. If, for instance, the character was suppose to represent Blizzard listening to the audience as some have suggested, why them and not other portions of the audience?

There just seems entirely too much meat on this bone to so casually wave away as someone's judgement being meaningless.

 

[Sixcess]

I'm not seeing some brave act of diversity here. I'm seeing TF2's Heavy, gender-flipped.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I don't care about your judgement. A bit. It's meaningless to me, and it's meaningless to them. I think the character has a nice design, and fits the art-style of the game, and I don't give a damn if it's meant to be diverse. The cast has robots and animals, and you think a woman with died hair is shoe-horning in diversity. This is one of the less extreme characters.

I would say criticizing the motivation and intent behind the creation of the character is rather relevant actually. We live in an era of intentionally hobbled and sliced-apart games for the sake of milking for profit through dlc. We live in an era where games are market tested to appeal and decisions in the AAA industry seems heavily "inspired" by bureaucrats rather then creativity of the staff. And in this case, an argument can be made relating to the reason why they designed the character the way they did and marketed the way they did, resulting in a valid criticism even if that judgement means nothing to you personally. The reason being, even if it means nothing to you, it may mean something to others if argued well and that in turn should most certainly mean something to the company presenting this, as that tends to shape buying habits if left to roll downhill long enough.

The character is less extreme, uses various tropes, and is largely a harmless addition to the roster I agree. But there is still worthwhile conversation to be had as to why the character was included, why it was designed the way it was (one might even go into how it is a reflection of that whole market testing idea as a means to present an appearance of creativity or inclusivity without actually doing anything to do either), or why it was presented in such a way compared to the other characters. If, for instance, the character was suppose to represent Blizzard listening to the audience as some have suggested, why them and not other portions of the audience?

There just seems entirely too much meat on this bone to so casually wave away as someone's judgement being meaningless.

What does it matter why they added a character? So if I told them to add more muscular female characters and they did what would be the problem with that? What portions of the audience are they supposed to add?They already have a good deal of the audience covered .. look at it, they even covered furries. Adding everything they can think of and throwing in the kitchen sink pretty much covers most of the bases they would be able to bring in with a game like this anyhow.

 

[iller3]

Also, I don't know about Trishbot, but I AM an artist with over a decade of anatomy lessons and training. I do comics for a living. I agree they are definitely close to the same builds, especially compared to the exaggerated features of many of the male characters.

Yes I found your work on Deviant already. Is there something more current though? In any case I don't believe in just tearing an artist down, esp not in public, b/c I know nomatter how much they may say otherwise, underneath they still have motivations and egos that can be easily bruised by the wrong words. So I won't say what I actually think either way about the execution of said anatomy (& again, it's not current).... But I would like to note that it fails to demonstrate as wide a variety in form compared to Blizzard's. Atleast proportionally. That said, keep up the CG Modeling work if that's still something you're doing, you really do show more compositional potential there. I'll probably reciprocate and share a WIP later of Zarya just to demonstrate equal proof of experience.

 

[runic knight]

I don't care about your judgement. A bit. It's meaningless to me, and it's meaningless to them. I think the character has a nice design, and fits the art-style of the game, and I don't give a damn if it's meant to be diverse. The cast has robots and animals, and you think a woman with died hair is shoe-horning in diversity. This is one of the less extreme characters.

I would say criticizing the motivation and intent behind the creation of the character is rather relevant actually. We live in an era of intentionally hobbled and sliced-apart games for the sake of milking for profit through dlc. We live in an era where games are market tested to appeal and decisions in the AAA industry seems heavily "inspired" by bureaucrats rather then creativity of the staff. And in this case, an argument can be made relating to the reason why they designed the character the way they did and marketed the way they did, resulting in a valid criticism even if that judgement means nothing to you personally. The reason being, even if it means nothing to you, it may mean something to others if argued well and that in turn should most certainly mean something to the company presenting this, as that tends to shape buying habits if left to roll downhill long enough.

The character is less extreme, uses various tropes, and is largely a harmless addition to the roster I agree. But there is still worthwhile conversation to be had as to why the character was included, why it was designed the way it was (one might even go into how it is a reflection of that whole market testing idea as a means to present an appearance of creativity or inclusivity without actually doing anything to do either), or why it was presented in such a way compared to the other characters. If, for instance, the character was suppose to represent Blizzard listening to the audience as some have suggested, why them and not other portions of the audience?

There just seems entirely too much meat on this bone to so casually wave away as someone's judgement being meaningless.

What does it matter why they added a character? So if I told them to add more muscular female characters and they did what would be the problem with that? What portions of the audience are they supposed to add?They already have a good deal of the audience covered .. look at it, they even covered furries. Adding everything they can think of and throwing in the kitchen sink pretty much covers most of the bases they would be able to bring in with a game like this anyhow.

Adding for variety sake I think is a great thing. Still one has to wonder the motivations and why they are listening to who they are listening to, even if only from the same outside perspective I might look at yet another game adding something with zombies in it a few years ago. Trying to determine the motivations for business decisions in term gives hints as to future decisions as well, which with a game that seems like it will continue to grow over time like overwatch, seems a little important. Presuming the character was added to appeal to a less often appealed to demographic, does that mean they will continue to keep going after smaller demographics as time goes on? Will that desire be reflected in other aspects of the game? What happens if one decision runs contrary another and the company has to choose a side of some sort? There is relevance in tackling this issue I think.

 

[iller3]

The rest of your post is just rambling about minor differences

I figured as much. You don't know what you are actually looking at and describing. And you can't argue back specifics because all you can tell as being structurally different at the anatomy level are things that are exaggerated beyond reason or "species". That really defeats the ENTIRE POINT of having characters that convey subtlety, elegance, or identify as "female" in the first place

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I don't care about your judgement. A bit. It's meaningless to me, and it's meaningless to them. I think the character has a nice design, and fits the art-style of the game, and I don't give a damn if it's meant to be diverse. The cast has robots and animals, and you think a woman with died hair is shoe-horning in diversity. This is one of the less extreme characters.

I would say criticizing the motivation and intent behind the creation of the character is rather relevant actually. We live in an era of intentionally hobbled and sliced-apart games for the sake of milking for profit through dlc. We live in an era where games are market tested to appeal and decisions in the AAA industry seems heavily "inspired" by bureaucrats rather then creativity of the staff. And in this case, an argument can be made relating to the reason why they designed the character the way they did and marketed the way they did, resulting in a valid criticism even if that judgement means nothing to you personally. The reason being, even if it means nothing to you, it may mean something to others if argued well and that in turn should most certainly mean something to the company presenting this, as that tends to shape buying habits if left to roll downhill long enough.

The character is less extreme, uses various tropes, and is largely a harmless addition to the roster I agree. But there is still worthwhile conversation to be had as to why the character was included, why it was designed the way it was (one might even go into how it is a reflection of that whole market testing idea as a means to present an appearance of creativity or inclusivity without actually doing anything to do either), or why it was presented in such a way compared to the other characters. If, for instance, the character was suppose to represent Blizzard listening to the audience as some have suggested, why them and not other portions of the audience?

There just seems entirely too much meat on this bone to so casually wave away as someone's judgement being meaningless.

What does it matter why they added a character? So if I told them to add more muscular female characters and they did what would be the problem with that? What portions of the audience are they supposed to add?They already have a good deal of the audience covered .. look at it, they even covered furries. Adding everything they can think of and throwing in the kitchen sink pretty much covers most of the bases they would be able to bring in with a game like this anyhow.

Adding for variety sake I think is a great thing. Still one has to wonder the motivations and why they are listening to who they are listening to, even if only from the same outside perspective I might look at yet another game adding something with zombies in it a few years ago. Trying to determine the motivations for business decisions in term gives hints as to future decisions as well, which with a game that seems like it will continue to grow over time like overwatch, seems a little important. Presuming the character was added to appeal to a less often appealed to demographic, does that mean they will continue to keep going after smaller demographics as time goes on? Will that desire be reflected in other aspects of the game? What happens if one decision runs contrary another and the company has to choose a side of some sort? There is relevance in tackling this issue I think.

I think in a game like this where they are adding so many characters, they can afford to appeal to smaller demographics with new characters they add, since they have so many characters to begin with they also have the opportunity to make them appeal to as many people as possible widening their market rather than just trying to appeal to one area. I would think looking at what they have here, the only decision that I think would really throw a wrench into the work they have already done would be to go the route of or adding nudity or too much mature sexual content ect, as that appeals to a specific demographic but would also limit their market at the same time. Also going that route would put them in much more steep competition since that market is already flooded.

 

[SweetShark]

Ok guys, seriously. How the heck this Thread reach to talk about Tumblr and SJW?
Of course I didn't sit to read all this posts to understand more, but again, why?

 

[Karadalis]

Ok guys, seriously. How the heck this Thread reach to talk about Tumblr and SJW?
Of course I didn't sit to read all this posts to understand more, but again, why?

Because it was the tumblr and SJW crowd who was bitching at Blizzard to do what blizzard was going to do anyways.

Does anybody here believe the guys at blizzard wouldnt have put such a female character in no matter the bitching or not?

The are the guys who made undead, troll, orc and dwarfen females... all who dont subscribe to the "standard" athletic build of females (very lithe without an overly muscled build)


Blizzard just made a big deal out of it in an attempt to garner more PR for their game... and seeing how everyone is talking about it i would say: mission accomplished.

They sure as hell did NOT include such a character merely based on the bitching of SJWs. Because those wont even play the game as it is a FPS... when was the last time you saw one of those people play a FPS or talk about FPSs in a positive light?

 

[SweetShark]

Ok guys, seriously. How the heck this Thread reach to talk about Tumblr and SJW?
Of course I didn't sit to read all this posts to understand more, but again, why?

Because it was the tumblr and SJW crowd who was bitching at Blizzard to do what blizzard was going to do anyways.

Does anybody here believe the guys at blizzard wouldnt have put such a female character in no matter the bitching or not?

The are the guys who made undead, troll, orc and dwarfen females... all who dont subscribe to the "standard" athletic build of females (very lithe without an overly muscled build)


Blizzard just made a big deal out of it in an attempt to garner more PR for their game... and seeing how everyone is talking about it i would say: mission accomplished.

They sure as hell did NOT include such a character merely based on the bitching of SJWs. Because those wont even play the game as it is a FPS... when was the last time you saw one of those people play a FPS or talk about FPSs in a positive light?

Ah! I didn't knew that.
So the SJW/Tumblr are ok with the other cliche archetypes, but not with a female version of the Heavy from TF2?
Ok then.
Btw, as I said, I love her design and I don't care about the whole thing in this Thread. I am just saying.
I am waiting for Zayra X Heaxy artworks.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Im more miffed about her "breast" breastplate design... breast breastplates dont make for good armor...

That was the first thing that jumped out to me as odd. I admit it is a pet peeve of mine in armor design though.

 

[kommando367]

I like what I'm seeing here. More heavily muscled badass females please.

And of course, it's gonna be unrealistic, it's a blizzard game. That's kinda their style.

 

[Erttheking]

i relly dislike the design, i looks like your typical tumblr user


some people made made some changes and i think their edits are sooo much better

Spoiler

The average Tumblr user looks like a five hundred pound bodybuilder?

And all those edits do was change the hair color. The long blonde one just looks weird.

no tatoos, no pink hair, different hair style or being a ginger

i explained in another post that the main problem with her design is they its trying to hard (a problem not limited to her character), being more subtle in the display of strength i believe yields better results

also i like the long hair blonde

So the average tumblr user has tattoos and pink hair? Somehow I doubt it.

Also trying too hard is something I don't put a lot of stock into. Trying hard? Why in the seven hells is trying hard a BAD thing? Trying hard is an indicator that the developer CARES.

How does long blonde hair and the lack of tattoos make strength more subtle? They don't exactly make her muscles look smaller. And you had to point out that her tattoos were missing because I didn't notice it. Frankly they were hardly noticeable on the original design. Also the second one has red eyes, hardly something I'd call subtle.

look i think you misinterpret me

when i say its trying to hard, i mean she is trying way too hard to look tough, it doesnt mean the developer cares, it means the developer doesnt know about subtlety, this is a problem with another character called... sigh... the Reaper, is an absolute edgelord, black clothes, skull kinda looking mask, absolutely cringeworthly dialogue, itd almost be a parody if they werent playing it straight

as for Zarya, she is russian because you know, the stereotypical russian is strong and fights agaisnt bears and such, she has big muscles, she has a big gun, she has tatoos, she has punk hair, she is a weight lifting champion

what a ridiculous resume, compare this to Valve's approach

the Heavy, he is russian because you know, the stereotypical russian is strong and fights agaisnt bears and such, he has big muscles, he has a big gun, stop. see? they know when the message gets accross and avoid flanderization

the redesigns i showed remove some of the extra elements, and how are red eyes a sign of toughness?

Subtlety? This is a character for a game where the other characters include a gorilla from the moon in power armor, a Budist robot monk, a medic named Mercy with angel wings, a German soldier in twelve foot tall power armor with a giant ass hammer, and a cybernetic cowboy that has a belt buckle that says BAMF. Overwatch is many things. Subtle is not one of them. It isn't trying to be subtle and really I don't think it should be, really trying to be subtle would conflict with the overall tone they're going for. And frankly I don't really get why everyone I've talked to dislikes Reaper. I think he looks cool. When I think of "edge" I think of Shadow the Hedgehog saying "DAMN" in the most forced way ever or saying "this is like taking candy from a baby, which is fine by me." I dunno, I just have a preference for shamelessly evil characters who can be pretty flashy about it, something Reaper pulls off. Hey, I like black, skull masks and dual wielding. What can I say?

The game also has characters who are French, German, Egyptian, British, Indian, Swedish, Japanese and American. I don't see why we can't have a Russian too. Also, the American is a cowboy, the French lady is sexy, the German is old fashioned, so I think it's safe to say that this game is taking stereotypes and running with them. And that's not a bad thing. Stereotypes are only bad when they get stale, if a game can put a fresh and entertaining twist on them then by all means use all the stereotypes in the world.

You know, really with Heavy it gets ABSURD as to how strong they make him out to be, so I don't know how you can hold up Heavy as a non stereotyped character. What with literal bear hands he can get, how he loves his gun so much he sleeps with it, how he single handily tore down an entire gulag, how Valve even compares Heavy to a bear in their description, how one of his items is a steak sandwich which is just a slab of steak (beacuse Heavy doesn't need bread) how he refers to everyone else as "little babies" how he speaks broken English. So I'm not seeing what line Heavy didn't cross that could be crossed by the minor addition of a few tattoos and pink hair. Also, you're gonna have to point out to me how tattoos is something unique to Russians and how Zayra's hair is punk. It isn't punk hair, it looks adorable. Or do only punks dye their hair pink in your book? In that case, Blizzard has a "punk" in their midst because they based the character off of one of their employees.

You said subtle. Red eyes are something that draws major attention. They aren't subtle. And if we're on this note, what's so tough about bright pink bubblegum hair?