New Overwatch Hero Is a Response to Body-Type Diversity Criticism
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There's also one that seems to be complaining she isn't diverse enough (of course he could be being sarcastic).TheRealCJ said:
Honestly it's impossible to please everyone and there will always be someone ready to criticize no matter what you do.
In fact if i remember correctly one of the female characters got a similar treatment (for being too sexist or whatever) from the other camp in the beginning.
On one hand the burly russian is a stereotype. On the other I just don't see it that often on women.
I like the character. I like that she's actually a tank and not the usual glass canon/rogue sort which is pretty rare for a female character. She's muscular which is pretty rare as far as women in games go, too.
I like the character. I like that she's actually a tank and not the usual glass canon/rogue sort which is pretty rare for a female character. She's muscular which is pretty rare as far as women in games go, too.
Then where the heck did the "Expecting everyone to agree with you" thing come from? No one here has made that argument or anything close to it. It's not relevant.inmunitas said:
What's wrong with it is we don't get skinny, we get one specific bodytype that isn't even remotely like what a majority of women look like.Bob_McMillan said:
Also we call women fat who really aren't anything but a pretty healthy weight to be.
Besides, I always find this very helpful for a discussion in bodytypes: http://www.boredpanda.com/athlete-body-types-comparison-howard-schatz/
Look at the diversity of body types. All of these are professional athletes.
The weightlifters always stand out as an extreme example. That, Ironically, is what extreme strength often really looks like, yet because of biases and preconceptions we associate strength with the bodybuilder types. Who, while not exactly weak, are certainly weaklings compared to a typical weightlifter, or some of the others that look less obviously muscular...
That's one thing that becomes apparent when you look at reality. Muscle definition Isn't a sign of strength, merely of low bodyfat percentage. Possibly unhealthily low bodyfat in fact.
Still, we have completely lost touch with reality when it comes to what's healthy and what isn't, what an athlete looks like, what's normal and what's unusual...
Women are often told they are fat when they really aren't, because we've set the standard for a 'healthy' weight absurdly low, perhaps even at a point that is only just above anorexic.
Or perhaps just we've defined it as the shape and size of a typical 16 year old, but that's not something that is still that typical anymore in an adult...
And this ties back to the design of a character in a video game how? And I'm pretty sure there's a difference between disagreeing with someone (Twitter and current news) and expecting everyone to think the same.inmunitas said:
We're talking about the idolisation/worship of video game characters, video game characters don't have agency, so a persons idolisation of them is going to be self-projection which of course is inherently subjective. Thus when that character is criticised it's going to be taken somewhat personally by a person who idolises that character, which typically leads to some form of conflict. So idolisation of a "fictional being" can be seen as problematic, if you wish to avoid conflict that is.erttheking said:
I like heavy lazer-weapons gal.
Hell, I am all for this. Variety? Freedom of choice? A well-playing character that is as balanced as the rest? What isn't to like about it?
Granted, I get the feeling this is motivated by an attempt to pander which I find a bit annoying, but even still, since it isn't a total conversion from what they had for the sake of pandering (namely, it is variety for the sake of variety, rather then trying to reply one specific target audience for another), I am all for this. Unlike, say, replacing the avengers with an entire female avenger quad like a freakshow attraction, this just gives all players one more option without subtracting from the rest or forcing the spotlight on them. They are part of the choices there and that is all I ask for, just variety and choice.
The over-buff female russian seems a bit of a stereotype though I guess, but in terms of character model and play style in a game that goes pretty all over, it fits fine. Also was a lot of TF2 comparisons mentioned before, so I see this as sort of a nod there too.
Got to ask, why is it that people idolize those characters? Why is it those characters they idolize and not others, and why is it hat idolized characters and popular characters don't always cross over? I think it is less to do with the character look themselves and more the stories they are a part of and the role they play in them that distinguish them as characters to idolize. The "character", the personality, behavior and morality of the characters tends to be what people latch onto when they idolize them. As such, it seems physical representation in games should be a lot less important then character representing traits the audience will want to idolize with. Also the old argument about people seeing what they want to see in characters and more likely liking/disliking them based on their own positive/negative perceptions.
Hell, I am all for this. Variety? Freedom of choice? A well-playing character that is as balanced as the rest? What isn't to like about it?
Granted, I get the feeling this is motivated by an attempt to pander which I find a bit annoying, but even still, since it isn't a total conversion from what they had for the sake of pandering (namely, it is variety for the sake of variety, rather then trying to reply one specific target audience for another), I am all for this. Unlike, say, replacing the avengers with an entire female avenger quad like a freakshow attraction, this just gives all players one more option without subtracting from the rest or forcing the spotlight on them. They are part of the choices there and that is all I ask for, just variety and choice.
The over-buff female russian seems a bit of a stereotype though I guess, but in terms of character model and play style in a game that goes pretty all over, it fits fine. Also was a lot of TF2 comparisons mentioned before, so I see this as sort of a nod there too.
Touching on this because it caught my eye on the scroll down.erttheking said:
Got to ask, why is it that people idolize those characters? Why is it those characters they idolize and not others, and why is it hat idolized characters and popular characters don't always cross over? I think it is less to do with the character look themselves and more the stories they are a part of and the role they play in them that distinguish them as characters to idolize. The "character", the personality, behavior and morality of the characters tends to be what people latch onto when they idolize them. As such, it seems physical representation in games should be a lot less important then character representing traits the audience will want to idolize with. Also the old argument about people seeing what they want to see in characters and more likely liking/disliking them based on their own positive/negative perceptions.
Everyone's at each other's throats over artistic freedom vs. SJWs and I'm over here thinking:
"I am Heavy Weapons Gal...and THIS is my weapon."
In all seriousness, pick your battles, people. This really isn't worth the effort. Nobody forced Blizzard to make this, and "big Russian stereotype" isn't nearly as progressive as some are trying to make it out to be.
"I am Heavy Weapons Gal...and THIS is my weapon."
In all seriousness, pick your battles, people. This really isn't worth the effort. Nobody forced Blizzard to make this, and "big Russian stereotype" isn't nearly as progressive as some are trying to make it out to be.
The writing quality however was hedious. I've seen better fan fiction written by kindergartners.
If you've seen kindergartners writing fanfiction, kidnap them and sell them to an unscrupulous lab so they can dissect their brains.
First because science demands to know how quasi toddlers can write
Second because a two year old making up sci-fi science-fiction is bound to turn into some megalomaniacal super-villain after puberty: better kill the threat when its still wearing diapers.
If you've seen kindergartners writing fanfiction, kidnap them and sell them to an unscrupulous lab so they can dissect their brains.
First because science demands to know how quasi toddlers can write
Second because a two year old making up sci-fi science-fiction is bound to turn into some megalomaniacal super-villain after puberty: better kill the threat when its still wearing diapers.
Perhaps not in games, per se, but in popular culture it is definitely a cliche. Just off the top of my head:loa said:
"Mother Russia" in Kick-Ass 2 and "Missi Pyle" in Dodgeball. I'm certain there is a few in some James Bond movies too (which may be where the Sterotype initially came from TBH)
I don't think it's a "bad" sterotype, as pretty much all of the other characters in this game are sterotypes, but Blizzard certainly isn't breaking the mold here.
A character is not diverse. That doesn't even make sense. A group of characters is diverse. If all of the characters were classic stereotypes, that would not be diverse. If none of them were, that would also not be diverse. The Overwatch roster is now noticably more diverse than it was before Zarya was added.Cavouku said:
Those of us asking for examples aren't the ones attaching the nationality to it. We're responding to people who claim that this kind of character-with nationality attached-is overused in games.Gatlank said:
I'm a little annoyed that some of the people politely asking/annoyingly whining/wanting/complaining for this character were doing so instead of learning game development skills to create a game/character they wanted. Complain about not having enough "representation" in an art piece you are not a part of? Get out. Learn to create the art you want to see in the world? Go for it.
That being said, I don't hate what this character represents, but I'm annoyed at how it came to be. People wanted "diversity" and got, essentially, a stereotypical white, neon-haired SJW with muscles. I get the sense there's some pandering going on here.
With all that aside, I think the design for the character isn't all bad. I do desperately wish Blizzard would give me a free option to change the hair color or style, since it seems to be associated with certain... abrasive attitudes.
TLDR; Give her normal hair color (or just the free option to change it) so it doesn't feel like pandering to SJWs and I have no problem with it.
That being said, I don't hate what this character represents, but I'm annoyed at how it came to be. People wanted "diversity" and got, essentially, a stereotypical white, neon-haired SJW with muscles. I get the sense there's some pandering going on here.
With all that aside, I think the design for the character isn't all bad. I do desperately wish Blizzard would give me a free option to change the hair color or style, since it seems to be associated with certain... abrasive attitudes.
TLDR; Give her normal hair color (or just the free option to change it) so it doesn't feel like pandering to SJWs and I have no problem with it.
No, they're definitely going through a checklist too. That's why I had a parenthesis calling out publishers for executive meddling. Sure, on some level the devs think it's cool, but there were limits put in from the beginning. I hate that.Gizen said:
[quote/]The argument you're espousing is flawed on multiple levels, not the least of which being that games need to make money. This isn't the life work of some starving artist who's sacrificing everything to create his perfect vision, this is a product by a large corporation produced with the goal of making money. As such, there's a certain degree of giving the audience what they want that's mandatory. Then take into account that a game is not produced solely as the creative product of a lone individual, but by a large team of hundreds of people, each of which likely to have their own interests and thoughts on what qualifies as interesting or cool. Do you really think that not a single person working on Overwatch thought this concept looked good and that every single person on the entire development team is genuinely interested in this?[/quote]
1. Implying that only the safe, formulaic approach makes money. It doesn't. Otherwise we'd never innovate and would still be committing genocide a la Doom.
2. Game design for large studios is, by definition, design by committee. It's impossible to get everyone's ideas into a game. The idea is to get the ones that the majority likes, that the majority thinks are interesting and cool. No, not everyone will like the end result or be interested in it, but that will always happen, so why not try to get something good that (most of) the studio is genuinely interested and proud of out of it?
[quote/]Then there's the interview Chris Metzen (one of the creative leads at Blizzard) gave where he said that his desire to create more varied female characters came from his own daughter asking him why all the women looked like super models, which, you will find very few sources that can provoke a more genuine desire to do something different than that.[/quote]
And that's good. That's what I want, game devs to create varied things [i/]because[/i] they want to create varied things. But their statement read like they were trying to vary things up solely to please the crowd. To some extent that's fine, but letting the consumer base tell you what should be at the core of a character's design is just as bad as letting the publishers tell you.
[quote/]But then there's also this to take into account. Any one who's focused on creating, anyone who makes art of any kind, whether it be visual, or audio, or writing, if all you ever do is make the same thing you like non-stop, your work will eventually stagnate. Good artists force themselves out of their own comfort zone and force themselves to create things that maybe they normally wouldn't think to, and maybe might not even normally enjoy, because it forces them to utilize and improve different skills than they normally would. Not everything they make will be a hit out of the park, but in the long run it leads to improvement.[/quote]
Since I draw as a hobby, I know this. What you seem to misunderstand though is that while they may not like the things they create outside of their comfort zone, the end result is usually something they're proud of and would like utilized, so the end result is the same.
What I'm saying is that devs should listen to the consumers, but keep it secondary in their design decisions. If they come up with a lithe character that they like, they should add it. If they come up with a heavy-set design that works better and they like it as well, they should scrap the lithe one - remembering the consumers' demands - and add the heavy-set one instead. The consumers' opinions are heard, but don't influence the design decisions any more than just trimming down the potential designs - something that the devs have to do anyways.
I don't see the issue with this character. She will certainly appeal to les or body-builded straight.
In a more likeable twist, I think Eiger from Shadowrun Returns is a good example of "diversity" in videogame. She fills the russian trope, while bringing sensibility (for a female orc) with some kind of sex appeal.
If i want ugly females, I can look at Loadout...
...or most of Zelda female characters since OoT. (which I like btw, for its Grimm Brothers aesthetics).
In a more likeable twist, I think Eiger from Shadowrun Returns is a good example of "diversity" in videogame. She fills the russian trope, while bringing sensibility (for a female orc) with some kind of sex appeal.
If i want ugly females, I can look at Loadout...
...or most of Zelda female characters since OoT. (which I like btw, for its Grimm Brothers aesthetics).