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

[Sixcess]

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

She's strong and Russian, but she's nowhere near a "gender-flipped" heavy anymore than Master Chief is a gender-flipped Samus Aran.

Well let's look at the comparisons.

A character in a team based online shooter with distinctive character designs? Check.
Russian? Check.
Bulky - dare I say heavy - body type? Check.

Perhaps Master Chief would be closer to being a gender flipped Samus if he had an arm cannon, but he doesn't. Zarya meanwhile even holds her weapon in the same stance as Heavy. Check.

That's four for four, and seeing as Blizzard has a track record of taking existing ideas and repolishing them I see nothing to counter my original opinion that this is a gender flipped Heavy.

 

[Karadalis]

Well if we go by anita logic here she is either a fighting fuck toy (boob breastplate)... or ms male character thought so its not really surprising that you saw these complaints.

I still really dont know what these people want in a female character since they basically ruled out any depiction of female characters from the getgo.. no matter what they look like in the end.

Make them unatractive... its a mockery of femminists somehow...

Make them athletic... then its objectivication...

Make them muscular... its just a male character with tits...

Jesus.. can these people make up their bloody minds?

I'm not seeing those complaints from "feminists". I'm seeing these complaints from people who whine about feminists.

Although I find it helps to
A) Realize that Sarkeesian isn't the end all and be all of feminist thought. They tend to disagree with each other about a lot.
and B) Don't strawman the arguments in the first place.

Funny that you mention feminists since i even didnt used that word.

I would really apreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth thought so please abstain from that in the future. you know... kinda follow your own B) advice yourselfe while youre at it. I mean you do look kinda silly here telling people to not use strawmen while putting them up yourselfe...

But for your information: Anita is not a feminist, she is not for equality. After all she believes that there is no sexism against males. No one who really is for feminist ideals would say something like that.

But what i actually mention was anita logic: No matter what you do, no matter how much you try... anita logic says it is still the wrong thing for reason XYZ and is only the right thing if the one using anita logic does it.

 

[Redryhno]

snip

Look, I really hate getting involved with this stuff, but there's sections of the government that have a name denoting Agriculture when they actually work solely on forestry and have nothing to do with farming or animal care. The Ministry of Truth doesn't exactly tell the truth. Curriculum Advisors are glorified calendars that just mark a date for state tests to be taken. Feminist Frequency implies it's up to date, but it's got arguments from the 70's fueling alot of its reasons that most other Feminists dropped because they were no longer relevant and were doing alot more harm than improving anything.

And it's really hard to find Feminist literature that people on this site and others don't immediately dismiss because the person writing it isn't their kind of feminist.

And c'mon, I think the center of most of her criticism is a neat idea and all, and I'm certainly not going to try to get her to stop speaking, but critic denotes someone that knows what they're talking about, and I've yet to see one of her videos that isn't laden with inaccuracies and misrepresentations of the media she "critiques". Also it's fun to see her rip apart 30 year old games where the story is like twelve rungs below gameplay in terms of importance because anything more than rudimentary was a waste of space that could be better spent on more game and getting so bent out of shape over it.

 

[Mikeybb]

Well, for what it's worth, I kinda like the look of this character.

As to how good a character she is, that is probably more in the hands of the team responsible for the rendered cut scenes and the community (basing this on the synergistic way valve and tf2 fans expanded on the teams in said game).
Granted, some personality will come through with the voice work, but there's only so much you can do with a team based shooter.

Based purely on the superficial then, given that's all we have to go on at the moment, I like the design.


Anyone who tells you I have a weakness for tall, strong ladies is just spreading malicious, salacious and scandalous rumor.
The fact it happens to be true is irrelevant.

 

[Redryhno]

Feminist Frequency implies it's up to date, but it's got arguments from the 70's fueling alot of its reasons that most other Feminists dropped because they were no longer relevant and were doing alot more harm than improving anything.

Thats not true and you know it. I know its a lie because, rather than getting all huffy about somebody being wrong on the internet, I've read feminist literature instead. You don't have to agree with something to understand, yet it seems that most people who have severe disagreements, if not outright hate, for Feminist Frequency's particular brand of feminism have never done any serious foray into feminist literature, which really isn't that hard nor expensive to do. Somebody saying that FemFreq isn't feminist in nature is pretty much hanging a glowing neon sign that reads "IGNORANT" around their neck.You don't have to agree with it to understand it.

And it's really hard to find Feminist literature that people on this site and others don't immediately dismiss because the person writing it isn't their kind of feminist.

Not really. I keep seeing you constantly bringing up Dworkin, who is a well known sex-negative feminist, even in lieu of the fact that most people are just plain sex-positive feminists. The thing about that though, self-identifying feminists on these forums typically don't say that she isn't a feminist, but rather they just tend to say that her particular feminist ideals are wrong. Big difference. They're fully capable of understanding an ideology and still disagreeing. Its easier to knock down a strawman of "evil ball-crushing feminist who hates men!" than it is to tackle why somebody's ideology is wrong, but thats what they do anyways because they're intellectually honest.

And c'mon, I think the center of most of her criticism is a neat idea and all, and I'm certainly not going to try to get her to stop speaking, but critic denotes someone that knows what they're talking about, and I've yet to see one of her videos that isn't laden with inaccuracies and misrepresentations of the media she "critiques".

I have. Its a lot easier when:

a) You're reading the script and not watching the video, or at least watching the video alongside of reading the script.
and b) Not taking your talking points of the video from somebody else who themselves is blatantly misrepresenting Ms. Sarkeesian herself because they couldn't keep their hate boner down long enough to listen and understand what she actually said rather than what they think she said *cough* [sub]Thunderf00t[/sub] *cough* Again you don't have to agree with it, but for the most part, her videos are pretty solid, and most people seem to get pretty easily tripped up on the nuance of her words.

Also it's fun to see her rip apart 30 year old games where the story is like twelve rungs below gameplay in terms of importance because anything more than rudimentary was a waste of space that could be better spent on more game and getting so bent out of shape over it

Its history, just like the gameplay from those games. They set precedent. They were the games that an entire generation of developers grew up on, so its not irrelevant. Its like saying that sci-fi pulp from the 50s and 60s was unimportant despite the fact that it was the inspiration for tons of cinematic visionaries like George Lucas. Unimportant at the time is not the same as unimportant in retrospect.

Look there's alot of ways you could've argued, but you went and decided it was because you were more educated without really knowing much of anything about me or my education on the subject. I like to think I've read enough books on most subjects to have at the very least a transparent opinion on them.

But I have questions:

1. Am I uneducated or knowingly lying? Make up your mind and get back to me.

2. Constantly? I don't think I've ever brought up ANY feminist online, so please tell me how you got ahold of that mind-reading Minority Report-style tech, I'd like to help you sell it for profit.

3. I'll have you know right now that I've never really watched Thunderfoot's stuff. I know who he is, but if I want an opinion on something, I'll watch the thing myself, and they release scripts? I'm really not sure what you're trying to bring up with the Thunderfoot whispered name-drop, the guy's got his beliefs and a PhD in some hard science thingy, I've got my beliefs that conflict with his in alot of areas and a lesser degree, other than that, we don't have much of anything in common and don't agree on anything.

4. Nuance of words? Eh? Misogynistic tendencies, sexist attitudes, "the only people that disagree with me are manchildren", and single mother Bayonetta? Nuances? They're pretty straightforward words with very specific meanings. I don't much care for much of anything she says, and I'm pretty sure I understand her pretty well, we both speak the same language after all, but I don't know, maybe we don't and I'm just some kind of spawn that likes to think it knows MuricAnglish.

5.Yes, it is history, and like most of it, it stays where it is and serves as a starting point that most people learned from and moved on to improve on. There's sexist games out there, don't get me wrong, but nearly every one of the examples she puts forth are either done as a joke/wacky bit of the world, or is completely unintentional and she just doesn't get the nuance of the game and situation presented that made her go to that conclusion.(see what I did there? Hyuk hyuk.)Edit: Also, my entire point in the starting paragraph was to show just because there's a name that says something doesn't make it so like you were saying, guess you missed the nuance there too(hyukhyuk, I'm so clever)

Edit: Nevermind, it's too much of a hassle for me to talk with you in the same thread, forget everything said here and go back to...whatever you thought I said at one point or another.

 

[theNater]

Well, you've gotta ask how many people want the stress of being an elected official first of all. That slices the available population into a tiny fraction, then there's who has the capital to finance election, then who either has the record-keepers or the morality to keep their image clean.

Why do you have to ask those things? None of them have anything to do with one's "jiggly bits". Are you suggesting it's just coincidence that the people who meet these conditions just happen to be men more often than women?

Not to mention alot of elected officials have been elected officials since the 80's, and the lack of choice from a voter's perspective, because you don't have enough time to devote to having a well informed opinion of every name on the ballot, so name recognition plays a large part in this.

So men are in power now because men were in power in the past? How is that not exactly what male privilege is?

Oh that has more to do with old rich families traditions then the fabled "male privilige". Since youknow.. if you dont have money... good luck becomming more then a local politician... male or female.

Its kinda expected in those circles of priviliged (speak: filthy rich) families that the male Heir be groomed into becomming a big name politician if he wants to or not.

So in the circles where the decision of who has the power is made, there are built-in systems that work to give the power to men rather than to women? There should be a name for that.

Germany for example had a female chancellor for the last 9 years or so and has a female minister of defense, and alot of other women in the parlament and in top spots in all the factions.

Indeed! According to the IPU, some 40% of parliamentary seats in Germany are occupied by women! That's so many women! Just a check, what percentage of people in Germany are women, roughly?

I still really dont know what these people want...

Who do you mean by these people? The ones complaining now? Or the ones who were complaining earlier? Because those are (mostly) different people.

 

[Redryhno]

Well, you've gotta ask how many people want the stress of being an elected official first of all. That slices the available population into a tiny fraction, then there's who has the capital to finance election, then who either has the record-keepers or the morality to keep their image clean.

Why do you have to ask those things? None of them have anything to do with one's "jiggly bits". Are you suggesting it's just coincidence that the people who meet these conditions just happen to be men more often than women?

Not to mention alot of elected officials have been elected officials since the 80's, and the lack of choice from a voter's perspective, because you don't have enough time to devote to having a well informed opinion of every name on the ballot, so name recognition plays a large part in this.

So men are in power now because men were in power in the past? How is that not exactly what male privilege is?

When did I say that? The parts you clipped out to make your point attributed it alot more to voter apathy and name recognition more than male privilege. Not to mention alot of people have a "they haven't screwed me yet, I'll vote for 'em because that one over there has a higher chance of doing it" attitude. Nothing at all to do with them being male and all to do with people not being interested or educated enough to do much more than keep voting for the same people. I think there's only been one President(Cleveland) that wasn't voted back for a second term immediately following his first in the history of the U.S., we sorta just go with the flow and switch parties every other term as a voting population.

And the reason you have to ask those things is because, just going by game demographics, guys apparently are more interested in, and catered more to with, power fantasies than women. More men go looking for judgeships than women, more men go looking for power. That's not to say that there are men without power-wanting, or women who do want it just as much, but the law of numbers is against women. It shouldn't be a 50/50 split in anything, there's something like a 8 to 1 ratio in women to men educators in public schools(and I'm talking educators, not secretaries or principles or bus drivers), shouldn't that be completely equal as well? But it isn't, because most guys aren't as interested in kid education as they are in university level education if they're even interested in education and not mainly coaching.

 

[theNater]

The parts you clipped out to make your point attributed it alot more to voter apathy and name recognition more than male privilege.

Because current politicians are disproportionately male, voter apathy and name recognition disproportionately favor male candidates. This is one form of male privilege. Male privilege isn't an active force of people trying to benefit men; it's the inertia of centuries of male-dominated society. The insidious part is that because it's a continuation of history, it looks normal. But there's nothing natural about it; it's a societal construct.

And the reason you have to ask those things is because, just going by game demographics, guys apparently are more interested in, and catered more to with, power fantasies than women. More men go looking for judgeships than women, more men go looking for power. That's not to say that there are men without power-wanting, or women who do want it just as much, but the law of numbers is against women. It shouldn't be a 50/50 split in anything, there's something like a 8 to 1 ratio in women to men educators in public schools(and I'm talking educators, not secretaries or principles or bus drivers), shouldn't that be completely equal as well? But it isn't, because most guys aren't as interested in kid education as they are in university level education if they're even interested in education and not mainly coaching.

This difference is at least partially cultural. It is unclear what proportion is cultural vs. biological, but I strongly suspect that most occupations would be much, much closer to a 50-50 split if not for those social norms.

 

[Loonyyy]

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.

Except they didn't. They threw around the term SJW and got annoyed at hair colour.

If the motivation and intent is to appeal to people who use tumblr because some of them dye their hair like that, and the character has an atypical body type, then I have no problem with it. That's why I asked for an actual problem. Not looking for boogiemen.

We live in an era of intentionally hobbled and sliced-apart games for the sake of milking for profit through dlc.

Pray tell how that's related to anything I said, or anything I responded to.

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.

News: Everything is made to appeal to someone, even if it's only someone who thinks like you. And if something more out there and original is a problem, as opposed to sequels, brown, dreary faux-military settings, and cynical cash ins with ridiculous budgets, then you're focussing in the wrong direction. Note also that the gorilla and robot do not get the same criticism.

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.

Sure, if you completely rewrite the post I responded to. That isn't what they said and you know it. And as I said, it appeals to someone. Big fucking whoop. This appeals to people for a reason that I don't find at all contentious. When I said it means nothing to me, it was in response to the pretentious assertion that they will reserve their judgement. Shit, I'm not going to follow that guy to hear his ever so important final judgement. And the devs will never hear it.

If here the restriction is that they appealed to a tumblr crowd, then in doing so, they have created something a mite more original than a vast chunk of what's coming out of the games industry, and I am fine with that. There are restrictions, even deliberate ones, in any art. And who is to say that the developers are unhappy with the character? Who is to say that they aren't unhappy with the gorilla? Maybe they were asked to make it zanier, or include an animal? Is that the restriction of creative freedom? Blizzard has a vast amount of employees. Most of them won't be involved creatively. Is this a problem?

More to the point, how does this relate to the sentiment that this isn't at all reminiscent of punk, and that it is in fact, some "SJW" bit? Because I am well past done with replying to people who insist on quoting me to spout irrelevant things at me. Hence the condescension towards the original reply. At least you can articulate your sentiments, and one or two of them has merit, but why are you asking them of me?

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.

It was not argued well. In fact, you had to make an argument from wholecloth for it. And no, one barely-coherent criticism on the Escapist is meaningless to Blizzard. The overall trend is, and the post I responded to will not let the ball rolling, which is a lovely rephrasing of the term "slippery slope". Me, I like the character design, I'm more likely to play it with it there than not. That's buying habits, shaped. I don't know what the fractions come out to, so I'm not going to speculate. But I like the look of the character well 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?

Why not them, and why some other portion of the audience? There was limited diversity in the body types of the female characters. They included a character with a vastly different body type to the existing ones. Seems like they responded to some valid criticism. They based the look of the character on one of their employees, with respect to hair, tattooing, etc. Fair enough, they have a distinct and appealing style. If there's a worthy conversation to be had, why do we direct it at overall harmless creations, that are visually distinct and display some originality, and not at every other same-y game that comes out? Why are people annoyed at this?

Because it isn't about those things, not for most of them. It's the implication that the complaints about body diversity were right. It's the irrational hatred of dyed hair that has cropped up from god knows where. And it's just fucking boring, and no-one gives a shit about those criticisms. Because they're ludicrous.

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

His judgement, as it pends, is meaningless. Done. Have you read every post on Overwatch? Are some of them beneath your notice? You didn't even represent his criticism. Hell, you didn't even touch on my post, which mostly dealt with punk subculture.

There is no meat on this. There is rancid vomit on the bone that has been left by flies coming to try to get at the marrow.

 

[Redryhno]

The parts you clipped out to make your point attributed it alot more to voter apathy and name recognition more than male privilege.

Because current politicians are disproportionately male, voter apathy and name recognition disproportionately favor male candidates. This is one form of male privilege. Male privilege isn't an active force of people trying to benefit men; it's the inertia of centuries of male-dominated society. The insidious part is that because it's a continuation of history, it looks normal. But there's nothing natural about it; it's a societal construct.

And the reason you have to ask those things is because, just going by game demographics, guys apparently are more interested in, and catered more to with, power fantasies than women. More men go looking for judgeships than women, more men go looking for power. That's not to say that there are men without power-wanting, or women who do want it just as much, but the law of numbers is against women. It shouldn't be a 50/50 split in anything, there's something like a 8 to 1 ratio in women to men educators in public schools(and I'm talking educators, not secretaries or principles or bus drivers), shouldn't that be completely equal as well? But it isn't, because most guys aren't as interested in kid education as they are in university level education if they're even interested in education and not mainly coaching.

This difference is at least partially cultural. It is unclear what proportion is cultural vs. biological, but I strongly suspect that most occupations would be much, much closer to a 50-50 split if not for those social norms.

When did I say or imply it was normal? I said it was apathy, something that should never be as large a part of a voting Republic as it is. It's not normal to have the percentage of people that vote dropping every year, it's not normal to have the same people in office for life effectively collecting an obscene income on account of people knowing of them and not what they're about or what they'll do. It's not normal to have people so concentrated on working off their mortgage they can't spend the time to trust the news to tell them anything worthwhile, with C-Span being the only direct line that unless you've been educated for government and have the time/money to look up documents, you will have no idea what's going on. It's not normal in any way, shape, or form.

And go ahead and say it's mostly cultural, you're entitled to your opinion, which or if both of us are wrong, we'll find out eventually. Personally, I think culture's got very little to do with it, only tipping the scales the slightest of amounts, if at all.

 

[theNater]

When did I say or imply it was normal?

You didn't, and I'm not claiming that you did. See, it's not the voter apathy I'm saying looks normal. We both know that voter apathy hurts everybody. But what I'm not sure you've recognized is that it hurts women more than it hurts men. It's hard to see the differing level of harm because it's always been there. That's what looks normal; those levels of harm.

 

[Karadalis]

But for your information: Anita is not a feminist, she is not for equality.

Really? So why does she run an organization called "Feminist Frequency"?

Really...? You just... really?

Just because you claim to be something doesnt mean you are something... theres this little concept thats called a "lie"?

Anita sarkesian is asmuch of a feminist as a member of the KKK is a humanitarian.

Anita is not for equal treatment of both genders. Shes for special treatment of the female gender (listen and believe anyone? Ofcourse you should allways just take a womans word instead of pursuing the truth) She denies the existance of sexism against males, wich no serious feminist would ever do ( around 40% of domestic violence victims are men http://www.mintpressnews.com/woman-aggressor-unspoken-truth-domestic-violence/196746/ ). She completly ignores the use of males as throwaway characters that get murdered every day by the hundrets of thousands in games but totaly lambasts the existance of female characters in games that arent prominently featured?

But go ahead and call her a feminist... that only shows that that word has lost any tangible meaning in this generation and everyone who hates on the male gender / demands "special" treatment of women can call themselves feminist

Oh that has more to do with old rich families traditions then the fabled "male privilige". Since youknow.. if you dont have money... good luck becomming more then a local politician... male or female.

Its kinda expected in those circles of priviliged (speak: filthy rich) families that the male Heir be groomed into becomming a big name politician if he wants to or not.

So in the circles where the decision of who has the power is made, there are built-in systems that work to give the power to men rather than to women? There should be a name for that.

Germany for example had a female chancellor for the last 9 years or so and has a female minister of defense, and alot of other women in the parlament and in top spots in all the factions.

Indeed! According to the IPU, some 40% of parliamentary seats in Germany are occupied by women! That's so many women! Just a check, what percentage of people in Germany are women, roughly?

I still really dont know what these people want...

Who do you mean by these people? The ones complaining now? Or the ones who were complaining earlier? Because those are (mostly) different people.

Well lets see how to deal with this clusterfuck:

First of all its not a gender issue, its a class issue.

These rich elitist families have their own culture and traditions that go far beyond anything that you and i would call "normal". Do you really think that our understanding about society is the same that these yale and harvard absolvents have?

Thats like comparing the live of a noble to the live of a peasant in medieval times. (and yes the comparison is apt if you look at how rich some of these people are)

We are talking DYNASTIES here. Where traditions are forced upon the next genereation. Again it is not a "Privilige" to be chosen to be the next successor to the family name. ITs a BURDEN.

While rich white girl over here can live her live as a professional daughter of a billionaire or go into the private sector where the real money is, rich white boy over here has his entire live planned out for him because daddy wants him to become a politician.

Futhermore you have not proven that there are women that want to go into politics that are blocked from advancing because of their gender. Wich is kinda needed if you want to establish that something like "male privilige" actually exists instead of "monetary privilige"

Fact is: The US politic system is driven by old elitist rich families that are the top 1%, and that alone is more important of a problem then any self imagined "male privilige"

Because again: If you have money... lots of money... filthy rich money... you can make it far in US politics no matter if youre male... female.. or something in between. Money makes the US world go around.

Now then...

So yes.. 40% of the parlament are female not even counting all the women who are not part of the parlament but are mayors or state ministers (and seeing how small germany is compared to the US being the mayor of a bigger town is actually a big deal)... thats quite good compared to other western nations and seeing that going into politics is not exactly a desired career for alot of women today (in germany youre not exactly getting rich with politics if you dont have some work on the side in the private sector), but we are getting there with more and more women becomming interested in getting involved.

I dont exactly understand the point youre trying to make here anyways with your little quibble about how many germans are female.. or why you seem to think that it has to be exactly 50/50 for both genders in politics either. More and more females take an interest in german politics and get into it. There are no barriers set infront of them because of their gender, that is clearly shown by the numbers. Its just that the demographic change hasnt been completed yet / is in a constant fluctuating state.

Meanwhile in the US money is still the deciding factor if you make it into politics or not. Having a rich and long lived family name also helps. The reason why there arent more women in US politics is a mixture of the system being heavily reliant on being filthy rich.. having the right connections in the private sector and that the 1% top have a completly different culture then us "normal" mortals who still have to show up to actuall "jobs" to get food on the table. And i mean higher offices here all the way up to the president... people have wasted millions upon millions in just the attempt to become president. That is an investment that even the rich dont make lightly.

However as i said before: This is what the US system looks like to an european, because that is all we get to see of your political system: Rich people voting themselves into office and keeping a tight clique of who gets to run for what office at what time.

And finaly:

What i mean with "these" people?

Well ofcourse i mean the people that ***** and whine no matter what a developer does. They got a female butch character for diversities sake... now suddenly shes a "miss male character"

Its like a child wanting icecream but no matter what flavor you offer it starts crying and whining about.

This goes for both sides of the argument btw. since i have seen whining and bitching from both sides.

 

[Trishbot]

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

She's strong and Russian, but she's nowhere near a "gender-flipped" heavy anymore than Master Chief is a gender-flipped Samus Aran.

Well let's look at the comparisons.

A character in a team based online shooter with distinctive character designs? Check.
Russian? Check.
Bulky - dare I say heavy - body type? Check.

Perhaps Master Chief would be closer to being a gender flipped Samus if he had an arm cannon, but he doesn't. Zarya meanwhile even holds her weapon in the same stance as Heavy. Check.

That's four for four, and seeing as Blizzard has a track record of taking existing ideas and repolishing them I see nothing to counter my original opinion that this is a gender flipped Heavy.

Going to poke a little bit of fun at you for this (no harm, no foul, I swear), but that's an insanely limited set of criteria.

I can do the same thing with, again, Samus and Master Chief.

A character in a sci fi shooter game battling evil aliens with futuristic guns? Check.
A super-tall super-strong space warrior in power armor granting them unique abilities wearing a visored helmet? Check.
Partners up with a computer A.I. that they have very strong feelings towards? Triple-check.

If you expand your criteria for Zarya and the Heavy, everything else immediately begins to fall apart.
Their abilities are not the same. They share no similarities in hairstyle, eye color, tattoos, scars, etc. You say they're both "heavy" and "bulky" but that's actually not true. The Heavy is large and strong, but he's actually not muscular, lacking discernible muscles, biceps, a total lack of leg girth (someone skipped leg day), and is actually on the overweight scale with a prominent beer belly.

Zarya, by comparison, is cut, with well-defined musculature, well-defined biceps, shoulders, and even neck muscles.

It's the difference between a "strong, fat, heavy" individual versus a "strong, toned, muscular" individual.

Everything else, according to her bio, paints Zarya as someone with a personality entirely different from the Heavy's more sociopath mindset. She's heroic, virtuous, valorous, and self-sacrificial, eager to use her abilities to protect those weaker than herself (according to Blizzard).

Their pose is "similar" because that's how you wield a heavy weapon, regardless of who you are. People wield a pistol and rifle differently, but things like Zarya's weapon and Gatling guns need to be supported a specific way.

So, if you toss out lore, personality, ability, body identifiers, and actual muscle definition, then, yes, at their most basic level, both are "strong Russian people in shooters"... but by that exact same logic, Samus and Master Chief are just "strong space warriors in armor shooting aliens".

At anything other than the most base level, they're different in every other aspect. And Zarya hasn't had nearly 8 years of supplementary material to flesh her out yet or make her truly unique. Her game is still in production.

 

[theNater]

Well lets see how to deal with this clusterfuck:

Okay, this is at risk of becoming a thread derail, so I'm gonna drop it. If you want one more response, PM me and I'll PM the response back.

To everybody else: I apologize for making this a thing, and hope you can return to your regular thread.

What i mean with "these" people?

Well ofcourse i mean the people that ***** and whine no matter what a developer does. They got a female butch character for diversities sake... now suddenly shes a "miss male character"

Well, why don't you ask those people specifically? Here's the "trying not to oversexualize" thread, which is where I remember seeing most of the body type complaints. Skim through there, find somebody who was complaining then and is complaining in this thread and ask 'em!

 

[Atmos Duality]

OT: Cool design. Pity I refuse to do business with Blizzard anymore. (not over this)

Design via checklist, whether that checklist was created by social justice advocates or a marketing team targeting specific demographics is artistically bankrupt.

Simply untrue. Some of the best art is created as a direct result of harsh limitation.

Technically true, because it does happen at the individual level.

However, at the broader collective level, harsh "feelgood" limitations lead to stagnation and blandness.
We've seen that happen before with the Comic Codes Authority and Hayes Code; both based on arbitrary ideological codes.
(the CCA nearly killed the comics industry entirely)

Hypothetically, under an SJW hugbox regime, you might see one or two really good game(s) come out, but the rest would be a flood of endless bland, "safe" derivatives...
...Oh hell! Come to think of it, AAA gaming is practically there already.

 

[chikusho]

Hypothetically, under an SJW hugbox regime, you might see one or two really good game(s) come out, but the rest would be a flood of endless bland, "safe" derivatives...

In this paranoid alternate reality of yours, hypothetically, things would be exactly the same. Good artists would continue to create good art regardless of limitations, and bad artists would continue to be bad.