I really don't care how or why she came about, she looks like a fucking boss.
Paradoxrifts said:
True artistic vision and creative freedom is the first casualty of a culture war.
Right now we are at the stage of the conflict where each side has dug their trenches and written out a checklist of what they do and don't find acceptable. They then go about trying to destroy, ruin or sling shit at anything that doesn't fit within their critera of what is to be considered acceptable in terms of artistic and creative expression.
Design via checklist, whether that checklist was created by social justice advocates or a marketing team targeting specific demographics is artistically bankrupt. What annoys me about this entire situation is how many dishonest participates claim to be on the side of the artist, but are infact are either trying to preserve the old status quo or establish a new status quo on top of the ashes of the old.
Both of these positions are anti-art positions
The other side of this argument is that there are clearly some creative people working at Blizzard who like to think outside of the box, so there has to be some explanation for why there is so little variety in the shape and size of female characters. The assumption that "diversity" is caused by filling checklists and narrowing artistic vision comes from the assumption that the other characters WEREN'T designed by filling checklists or narrowing artistic vision. I absolutely promise you the original lineup for Overwatch was discussed ad nauseam in meetings about demographics and was put before many focus groups. It's always about demographics, and to me there is really no difference between the original decisions which lead to their original lineup and the decision which lead to this character.
I work in television advertising, I am very aware of the careful and shrewd decisions made about every detail of even a "creative" advertisement to cater to demographics. They have meetings and discussions on everything from the age and race of the talent to be used in the ad to the amount of stubble on their chin, the amount of gray in their hair, and the amount of makeup on their face. Even the most "creative" and "artsy" advertisements out there have been gone over with the fine-toothed comb of demographic research. And I promise you the same is no different for games, especially ones which come from such big companies as Blizzard.
There's also a difference between narrowing artistic vision and focusing it. The characters of Team Fortress 2 were designed with very different body types and silhouettes, however the developers have talked at length about how that was extremely deliberate. At first they were going with the typical military style, but there was a point where they decided to go with a more cartoony, 60s pop art style, so they needed to find a new way to make the characters distinct from one another. They did this not only for diversity in an aesthetic sense, but also because diversity would greatly aid in gameplay. Because their sizes and silhouettes are so different, it's easy to tell from a distance and at a glance if you're dealing with a Heavy or a Scout or a Pyro. It also aided in character development, as making them distinct in looks required them to be distinct in character as well. And of course without these distinct characters and traits, the Meet the Team videos wouldn't have been possible.
In this process of creating diversity there were probably many designs and characters scrapped for looking too much like another character, but that doesn't mean that is something which is anti-creativity. There isn't a "creative" project out there which didn't require some kind of limitation or constraint at some point to make it work. No creative work is completely unbridled, there are always goals to be met with a project and certain angles and ideas which must be altered or scrapped to achieve that goal. Creativity isn't about letting creation run wild, it's about harnessing that craziness into something which is is useful. I love certain fonts which are a bit crazy or very stylistic, but there are simply some times where another font is required to achieve the goal. As much as I love the tall, geometric, and bold fonts of the "roarin 20s," those fonts simply won't do in a rugged, outdoorsy advertisement for tents or fishing poles. And as much as many character designers might enjoy designing long-legged and spindly women, sometimes that just doesn't suit the task at hand.
The challenge of doing something creative for a living isn't letting your creativity run wild all the time, it's having a goal and using that creativity to achieve it, and being willing to make the sacrifices and changes necessary to achieve that goal. And the best way to do that is to not see limitations as barriers, but rather as refiners. Often I'm told I have to use very specific fonts or very specific images in the ads I make, and often I don't like those fonts or images. But in this business, that cannot stop me from being creative with it. If I can't change the image or font, then I have to work with different sizes or layouts to make it interesting and effective. Could I make something more "creative" by being able to use different fonts or images? Perhaps, but that isn't the point. The reason they constrain me with certain images or fonts is because staying with certain visual styles is an integral part of brand establishment--that is, making your style and brand recognizable and distinct. Just as the TF2 characters were designed to be distinct at a glance, staying within certain boundaries of style and imagery makes brands distinct. It's why Old Navy ads look nothing like Macy's ads, or why Subway ads look nothing like Red Lobster ads.
Creativity isn't anarchy, and vision and focus do not have to be the enemies of creativity. In fact, to a truly creative person, they are catalysts.
