New Overwatch Hero Is a Response to Body-Type Diversity Criticism
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
I really don't care how or why she came about, she looks like a fucking boss.
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.
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.Paradoxrifts said:
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.
Yeah, considering that Humans, Blood Elves and Night Elves are the most popular races in that order, I doubt you're wrong, but that would mean that guys are playing those same races, so having you make it sound like it's only female behaviour is a moot point.Teepop said:
To be specific, those 3 races make up 38% of all players.
Oh no! Look at this, people! LOOK AT THIS! This is what your incessant demands for inclusivity and diversity has wrought! Look at all the artistic vision that's been tossed away! Look at how creativity has died and developer passion has ceased to exist! This is all your fault; you gamers and all you SJWs out there that demanded women be treated with more equality and respect. Look at this scourge, this abomination, this wastrel abandonment of everything gaming has always stood for!
This must be stopped. If we don't stop this right now, we may get MORE playable women in game, in possibly even MORE shapes and sizes! Don't you wish to preserve gaming's integrity? Do none of you care?
We all know that most women don't look like this, thus NO woman should look like this in a game. It's not like the male characters, whom we know men in real life come in all shapes and sizes. This is pure, wanton acquiescence to the whims of other people, not our special little bubble where everything must be made just for us, as it has always been and should always be. The developers have shown themselves to be cowards, COWARDS I tell you, taking an interest and effort in stepping outside of their comfort zone and trying something new because they felt it was worth doing and might make gaming a better, more diverse place. The fools; such choices make me actively lose interest in this game, so much so that I'm still writing about it at length!
I can't be alone. Surely other people see what a horrible state the industry is in once it starts catering to demographics outside of young men. Did you not see the signs back in 1986 when Metroid revealed it's super strong, super tough hero actually lacked a Y chromosome?
And, seriously, a butch strong Russian girl? How stereotypical can you get! This is not improvement. Remember the lessons Homer Simpson espoused, "you tried your best and failed miserably. The lesson is NEVER TRY." I think we could all learn from such a paragon of logic and common sense.
I'll leave you with this: should BLIZZARD's attempt to diversify the industry succeed, they will no doubt continue to do so. This may cause other developers to take risks on women, even minorities, and we may end up with games staring strong women, black people, or even, gasp, gay people, and those games could be great and be successful. Do you really want to live in a world where that's a possibility?
So look at this, gamers. Look at the face of regression, the face of devolution, the face of cowardice, and the face of lost artistic integrity.
You have no one to blame but yourselves.
This must be stopped. If we don't stop this right now, we may get MORE playable women in game, in possibly even MORE shapes and sizes! Don't you wish to preserve gaming's integrity? Do none of you care?
We all know that most women don't look like this, thus NO woman should look like this in a game. It's not like the male characters, whom we know men in real life come in all shapes and sizes. This is pure, wanton acquiescence to the whims of other people, not our special little bubble where everything must be made just for us, as it has always been and should always be. The developers have shown themselves to be cowards, COWARDS I tell you, taking an interest and effort in stepping outside of their comfort zone and trying something new because they felt it was worth doing and might make gaming a better, more diverse place. The fools; such choices make me actively lose interest in this game, so much so that I'm still writing about it at length!
I can't be alone. Surely other people see what a horrible state the industry is in once it starts catering to demographics outside of young men. Did you not see the signs back in 1986 when Metroid revealed it's super strong, super tough hero actually lacked a Y chromosome?
And, seriously, a butch strong Russian girl? How stereotypical can you get! This is not improvement. Remember the lessons Homer Simpson espoused, "you tried your best and failed miserably. The lesson is NEVER TRY." I think we could all learn from such a paragon of logic and common sense.
I'll leave you with this: should BLIZZARD's attempt to diversify the industry succeed, they will no doubt continue to do so. This may cause other developers to take risks on women, even minorities, and we may end up with games staring strong women, black people, or even, gasp, gay people, and those games could be great and be successful. Do you really want to live in a world where that's a possibility?
So look at this, gamers. Look at the face of regression, the face of devolution, the face of cowardice, and the face of lost artistic integrity.
You have no one to blame but yourselves.
To put another voice in the echo chamber, I think her design is overall well done. Obviously it's first person, but judging by the little animations of her, she's well defined in both appearance, movement, and (seemingly) gameplay. Kudos, looks fun.
On the political side of things, well... I'm not really sure there needed to be a political side to it, I suppose. I don't see how the bulky Russian female is really breaking open the diversity-sauce, and as others have mentioned, she's still rather attractive (I'm not much for muscly girls, but she has what I'd say is an adorable face, and I'm good with the hair). And that's not inherently a bad thing, I don't think.
Now if Blizzard wants to put more diverse characters in their game, go nuts. It looks like it's the kind of game where a bunch of radical character designs from across the spectrum of whatever spectrum everyone's got themselves in a tuss over will fly without much genuine complaint. But don't make this character your flagship for diversity, Blizzard. Just say it's a new character in the game, and I think we'll be okay.
Here's a fun little challenge for whatever game developer may stumble across it: make a paraplegic pansexual half-black-half-asian transgendered obese anorexic (technically speaking, not an oxymoron) bipolarguy woman intersex from Antarctica, and don't wave it around like you're the most inclusive thing since Lord Byron's bedsheets. Just have the character in the game. Make little cues like dialogue or pick-ups or something explain the non-visible components. Don't tell us. Show us.
Let us play it out. I think we'll be okay with that (for the most part). I think that's what made Bill from The Last of Us so memorable (to me, anyway); he wasn't trying to be a quota-requirement, checkbox, flagship, or anything other than himself.
I dunno. I'm not trying to be down on anyone, really, but I've always been a fan of the more implicit style of character exploration, rather than explicit announcements and such.
On the political side of things, well... I'm not really sure there needed to be a political side to it, I suppose. I don't see how the bulky Russian female is really breaking open the diversity-sauce, and as others have mentioned, she's still rather attractive (I'm not much for muscly girls, but she has what I'd say is an adorable face, and I'm good with the hair). And that's not inherently a bad thing, I don't think.
Now if Blizzard wants to put more diverse characters in their game, go nuts. It looks like it's the kind of game where a bunch of radical character designs from across the spectrum of whatever spectrum everyone's got themselves in a tuss over will fly without much genuine complaint. But don't make this character your flagship for diversity, Blizzard. Just say it's a new character in the game, and I think we'll be okay.
Here's a fun little challenge for whatever game developer may stumble across it: make a paraplegic pansexual half-black-half-asian transgendered obese anorexic (technically speaking, not an oxymoron) bipolar
Let us play it out. I think we'll be okay with that (for the most part). I think that's what made Bill from The Last of Us so memorable (to me, anyway); he wasn't trying to be a quota-requirement, checkbox, flagship, or anything other than himself.
I dunno. I'm not trying to be down on anyone, really, but I've always been a fan of the more implicit style of character exploration, rather than explicit announcements and such.
Yeah Zarya was definitely made to answer the female body type critism when it was first announced. Unlike McCree she did not appear in the cinematic trailer at all (MdCree had a small cameo if you spot carefully). Still I didn't know she was tank class, I thought she was support cos her ability to CC people.
You know, I'm not sure about it. Not the diversity thing, that's all well and good. But this character just feels lazy. Like if you had told me she was a dude and 'he' was a new character I'd shrug and move on. My point is she simply looks like a dude, and I'm not sure that's the diversity people were hoping for. I mean if they cast The Rock as Little Orphan Annie no one would be saying "Oh wow, way to break the mold on what little girls can look like!" they'd just say "No, he's not."
And that's what this new character feels like. You didn't change the model or challenge society's rules of physical appearance. You just added an 'S' to the Bio of a new character and hope no one noticed.
And that's what this new character feels like. You didn't change the model or challenge society's rules of physical appearance. You just added an 'S' to the Bio of a new character and hope no one noticed.
I never made out that it is only female behaviour. Remember this topic is about female characters. The news story specifically mentions it. That is why I was referring to female players.Lotet said:
I am sure male players prefer traditional/stereotypical portrayals of attractiveness too. I talked about female characters because *that is what the news story was about*. That's the topic we are discussing.
However I believe that males have slightly different ideas of what constitutes attractive or cool in that a big muscle-bound orc is considered as attractive as a muscle-bound human male even though the former is "ugly". I mean I'm guessing here but I think males will favour traditionally desirable male traits such as strength, dominance, power, agility or general badassery over pure "beauty". This will lead to some deviation from the females choices.
Also in my experience the casual guilds have a higher percentage of female players than the hardcore raiding guilds so racial perks probably have more sway over male race choices. This no doubt leads to a more even racial choice spread for males.
I'd expect males to favour Human/NE/Belf too, but I'd expect female racial choices to be massively more skewed in favour of those races versus males.
E.g. you mention 38% of all players, I bet you for females it is close to double that. As I say I bet that Humans, NE, Belf and Draenai (I forgot them) account for almost all female player choices and those would be followed by Gnomes and Dwarves/Pandas.
I bet Undead for example are fairly well represented by males but extremely rare choices for female players.
Anyway there is no point debating over guesses and assumptions, I am calling on Blizzard to back up their statement by publishing the statistics that they most definitely hold.
At any time they can prove that there is genuine demand for diversity and that they are not just trying to get cheap headlines/publicity by exploiting the conflict between these two tiny but vocal pressure groups. My opinion is that they are exploiting (or being bullied by) the publicity over these pressure groups and that their own figures for female players categorically conflicts with their statement.
Blizzard can disprove my assertion any sweet time they like....
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,499
- 3,448
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Probably what happened was instead of ignore one artists concept drawing of a female with out a standard body type, they instead decided to add it. Without the complaints about female body type the game would probably just be a mix of waifs like every other game out there. Because the thought process for making a female character seems to be, "if we are going to make something with boobs then it has to have those boobs hanging out for everyone to see, otherwise whats the point?".kael013 said:
She looks a lot like a character that some folks on /v/ were working on and drawfa-drawfriending up with the intention of submitting their idea to Blizzard. I wonder if they ever actually did that, I was only in one of those threads. Would be pretty cool if that was the case.
The sad thing here is that people are complaining about her for some damn reason.
"SJW bullshit"
"It's just ticking off a checkbox"
"Not a woman of colour"
You just can't please anyone these days.
The sad thing here is that people are complaining about her for some damn reason.
"SJW bullshit"
"It's just ticking off a checkbox"
"Not a woman of colour"
You just can't please anyone these days.
Have people actually been complaining about this?! They already have Egyptian and Indian women... do they not count?VanQ said:
The funny thing is that these complaints are the least of Blizzard's worries. You know they will be quickly replaced by people bitching about game balance two days after the game comes out.
Adding diversity by adding another cliche? Some people are really easy to please... I thought one of the ways not to make a compelling female character was by basically making a male character and slapping boobs on them. I guess it's all that it takes, after all.
lol strong Russian soldier woman is a pretty "been there and done that" character.
Am I the only one who's watched an action movie from the 80s?
I'm not saying it's bad, but treating aping films and comics from the 80s as some kind of fantastic revelation is kind of laughable.
Am I the only one who's watched an action movie from the 80s?
I'm not saying it's bad, but treating aping films and comics from the 80s as some kind of fantastic revelation is kind of laughable.
Works a treat for Bioware. My DA:I character is simply a reskinned man in the cutscenes and in-game the only modification appears to be a slightly exaggerated female walking animation where as every other action I take is again a reskinned man.Davroth said:
Check out the "manspreading" when I'm sat down in a cutscene!
I literally cannot play that game as it is so jarring. I mean even playing as Lithariel in Shadow of Mordor is less jarring and that's saying something (but hey its free DLC so I'm cool)!
Yet the gaming press is all blowing sunshine up Biowares behind for being "inclusive".