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

[EternallyBored]

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.

Your definition is off, from Merriam-Webster: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. Calling someone a racist or sexist is not a violent act.

To commit terrorism is to attempt to inflict terror upon a target or populace. The definition of terror is: a state of intense fear.

Can you honestly, with a straight face, tell me that Blizzard is in any way in actual terror at the threats being leveled at them? That a multi-billion dollar company actually feels real terror over being called racist or sexist? They want to avoid it sure, but trying to avoid a PR backlash is not the same thing as feeling terror or being terrorized.

The problem with the way you use terrorism, is that trying to equate a bunch of random internet yahoos calling you names to the act of physical violence and murder for political gains is grossly melodramatic at best, and intellectually manipulative or dishonest at worst.

Even if the definition included mere verbal harassment, it cheapens the concept to use it to refer to something as petty as the ideologues that harass companies for ideological reasons. Even with the threat of ending their "employment", that cheapens the idea of terrorism to consider a job or business anywhere in the same ballpark as what we commonly term terrorism.

Yes, it is like the Intel tweet, I doubt the Intel guy defined himself by his dislike of GG or identified as part of some coherent movement, you've used emotionally charged terms linked with some of the worst atrocities going on in the world right now in order to paint a side you don't like as infinitely more sinister than they actually are. That may not have been your intention, but to an outside observer, it is every bit as over the top and repugnant as the Intel Tweet comparing GG to ISIS.

 

[Bocaj2000]

Oh... I thought they made this character because they genuinely wanted to, not because they thought they had to.

Bob: I think I'll have a roast beef sandwich.
Alice: I'd be happier if you had the chicken sandwich.
Bob: Okay. Chicken it is!
Chris: Curse you, Alice, for forcing Bob to eat chicken!

Seriously, Blizzard has said repeatedly that they want to provide diversity. The idea that they are somehow being strong armed into doing it is just bonkers.

Do NOT strawman me.

Blizzard's public statement has me questioning the reason behind the choice, not the choice itself. Here's why:

Diversity for the sake of diversity is dumb...
Just like innovation for the sake of innovation
Or convention for the sake of convention.

I'm not complaining about diversity/innovation/convention in games. I want it just as much as anyone else. But it should exist to suit the work it's in, not the other way around. Diversity/Innovation/Convention is the side effect of a series of choices made, NOT the main goal itself.

Also, your analogy kinda sucks... What Bob eats has no affect on Alice, so the issue shouldn't even exist. Alice is being controlling and Bob has a weak personality. Meanwhile Chris is being melodramatic over a small issue. None of them should be around each other for extended periods of time.

 

[Aetrion]

Eternally Bored: I'll gladly give you that the term is loaded, using it is hyperbole and what they are doing isn't immediately violent. You are the one claiming I'm comparing them to ISIS however, and that shows that you are assigning meanings to what I'm saying that go beyond definitions all the same. (And I don't even want to get into a debate about whether or not ISIS can be defined as terrorists without logically making all armies terrorists)


I mean, if I call them bullies does that mean they hang out in a schoolyard and beat up kids for lunch money?

If I say they are on a witch hunt does that mean they drag people to a pyre?

If I called them Daleks would that make them hate fueled robotic plumbers?



You can argue all day about what words should and shouldn't be used to describe something, but in the end that doesn't improve the level of the debate, it just derails it entirely. Just accept that metaphors are a thing in the English language, they aren't going away, and can even replace existing definitions over time.

 

[Dr.CritSpam]

I don't really know what to think about this. If Blizzard did this because the Overwatch team really wanted this character to be a part of their universe, than that's great. If they did this just to appease a crowd of "SJW's" then that sucks because they gave up their artistic integrity due to someone else complaining over nothing. If I were to take an educated guess, I'd say that Blizzard did it to pander to the "SJW" crowd mostly because A. She's a buff "I can do anything a man can do" character with bright pink hair. And B. Because pandering to this crowd is a safer bet (No games media site will bash Blizzard for being more inclusive, but many will bash them for not having this kind of character in the game).However, we can never really know what Blizzard's intentions really were.
Also, isn't it ironic that so called "Gaming academics" and feminists are praising this character when she's just a man with boobs (which is a trope in itself)? Seriously, just imagine this character with black hair and no boobs. You would have a perfect male counterpart.

 

[KazeAizen]

I'm as anti-SJW as you can be, and I greiviously lament that it is their incessant hectoring that has spurred this change. Because, actually, I'd much rather the company had come to these conclusions themselves.

You see, as much as I can't stand the imposing zealots who make up the ranks of Social Justice Warriors, I do actually appreciate diversity. And in a game like this, there's really no reason not to represent as many different shapes, shades, and sizes as possible. And, in fact, this is the way toward diversity: companies not being kowtowed into censoring their current characters, or bowing to pressure to restrict the types of bodies women are 'allowed' to have in games (no tits, no hips, no thighs, etc); but instead, through encouragement, having them experiment and introduce as much diversity to character design as possible - but always through their choice.

So although I don't like how this has come about, I do like the diversity in character design. It keeps things fresh.

What about free market demands and appealing to your consumer base or bringing in new consumers? No one is going to stop making model skinny idealistic women. Ever. In the history of the world. Till eternity. No one. However clearly the free market is demanding more representation and body types.

This is not the free market deciding this though. Nope, this is the evil SJW agenda censoring a company and forcing them into making more diverse characters because when diversity happens it is always part of the agenda and could never possibly be part of new market demands because we are such anti free market.

 

[theNater]

Do NOT strawman me.

I'll admit, that part was aimed more at those who are literally claiming Blizzard has been forced. I apologize for sweeping you up with them.

I'm not complaining about diversity/innovation/convention in games. I want it just as much as anyone else. But it should exist to suit the work it's in, not the other way around. Diversity/Innovation/Convention is the side effect of a series of choices made, NOT the main goal itself.

Is it your position, then, that Zarya's design is a poor choice for this game? If so, why is it a poor design choice? If not, what's the problem?

What Bob eats has no affect on Alice...

You don't know that. Maybe there's only two sandwiches, and Alice wants the roast beef. Maybe Alice is selling the sandwiches, and there's a better profit margin on the chicken. Maybe Alice knows Bob is allergic to something on the roast beef sandwich, and doesn't want him to get sick. There's lots of ways she could reasonably have an opinion on this.

Meanwhile Chris is being melodramatic over a small issue.

You know there's someone in this thread who is calling people who ask for diversity terrorists, right?

 

[Nurb]

I'm really annoyed by SJW nonsense, but this issue really isn't a big deal. I don't like checklisting or tokenism, but in this context, it's just another choice in a list of oddball stylized characters for a fast paced multi-player game.

There isn't a story they're trying to tell, she's not replacing an existing character, and it doesn't alter anything by having another character in with the rest which includes an ape.

Besides, there's porn of her popping up everywhere, so plenty of gamers are accepting of her as it is.

 

[Redryhno]

I'm as anti-SJW as you can be, and I greiviously lament that it is their incessant hectoring that has spurred this change. Because, actually, I'd much rather the company had come to these conclusions themselves.

You see, as much as I can't stand the imposing zealots who make up the ranks of Social Justice Warriors, I do actually appreciate diversity. And in a game like this, there's really no reason not to represent as many different shapes, shades, and sizes as possible. And, in fact, this is the way toward diversity: companies not being kowtowed into censoring their current characters, or bowing to pressure to restrict the types of bodies women are 'allowed' to have in games (no tits, no hips, no thighs, etc); but instead, through encouragement, having them experiment and introduce as much diversity to character design as possible - but always through their choice.

So although I don't like how this has come about, I do like the diversity in character design. It keeps things fresh.

What about free market demands and appealing to your consumer base or bringing in new consumers? No one is going to stop making model skinny idealistic women. Ever. In the history of the world. Till eternity. No one. However clearly the free market is demanding more representation and body types.

This is not the free market deciding this though. Nope, this is the evil SJW agenda censoring a company and forcing them into making more diverse characters because when diversity happens it is always part of the agenda and could never possibly be part of new market demands because we are such anti free market.

Considering the circumstances surrounding the character's reveal, I would like to say that imo the free market had very little to do with it. Don't care for the character myself(that hair just looks stupid instead of goofy or charming, there's a photoshop around one of these threads that changes the color to not neon pink and it clears up alot of the problems i have with her, and her face doesn't look like her head was made with it in mind, but that's me. And that's before we get to her abilities making her everyone's worst annoying dream that inserts herself into her carry's butt and stays there.) But that's beside the point.

I did not see criticism when Blizzard released the roster, I saw alot of complaining, moaning, and general all-around negativity as opposed to even preferred character concepts. Here, my very limited understanding of Twitter, and my monthly Tumblr laugh-a-thon. There's alot of people out there on the internet that will never be happy with AAA games and their art assets, but will demand a whole host of junk without any tolerance or patience that what they want is getting there and new characters are still in the process of being conceptualized. Anybody that's played a MOBA knows this or even games similar to Skullgirls knows this. Variety will come, if you have the patience to wait for it. Unfortunately, I didn't see much, and it led to this.

Nothing wrong with the character, but when another character you want to be just as memorable gets a "oh, and we have John Marston with a Gunslinger he ripped off the Engi over there, he's not really that important", as opposed to a reveal, apology, thanks to the world, and hope for the complaints to stop, the free market is not a major factor from where I'm standing.

Besides, there's porn of her popping up everywhere, so plenty of gamers are accepting of her as it is.

To be fair, there's porn of the Succubus from the new DmC, Cologne from Ranma, Markus from Borderlands, Diablo's Butcher, and half of the Dark Souls universe is Yaoi.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Given the way some of the discussion of the design has been, I figured I'd point out that the characters appearance seems to be heavily based on one of Blizzard's 3D Character Artists. Tamara Bakhlycheva specifically, who's been around for awhile and has been known to do a decent amount of Cosplay. She also did work on the Sylvanas Ranger skin, which recently came under attack by a few people for being too sexy and a step-back compared to Zarya's announcement.

My bold for emphasis.

This right here is the problem I have with this sort of thing. Some of these people (on either side of the "aisle") are just inconsolable tossers who, frankly, seem to exist purely to feed on and perpetuate drama.

That "step back" BS is from Polygon's reviews editor too...so-

Yeah.

I'm really annoyed by SJW nonsense, but this issue really isn't a big deal. I don't like checklisting or tokenism, but in this context, it's just another choice in a list of oddball stylized characters for a fast paced multi-player game.

There isn't a story they're trying to tell, she's not replacing an existing character, and it doesn't alter anything by having another character in with the rest which includes an ape.

Besides, there's porn of her popping up everywhere, so plenty of gamers are accepting of her as it is.

Any potential misgivings aside? This about sums up my overall opinion on the matter.

Also, do not google.

Do. Not. Google.

[small]You should probably google.[/small]

 

[theNater]

To be fair, there's porn of the Succubus from the new DmC, Cologne from Ranma, Markus from Borderlands, Diablo's Butcher, and half of the Dark Souls universe is Yaoi.

Rule 34: it may not be a good idea, but it's still a rule.

 

[EternallyBored]

Eternally Bored: I'll gladly give you that the term is loaded, using it is hyperbole and what they are doing isn't immediately violent. You are the one claiming I'm comparing them to ISIS however, and that shows that you are assigning meanings to what I'm saying that go beyond definitions all the same. (And I don't even want to get into a debate about whether or not ISIS can be defined as terrorists without logically making all armies terrorists)

No, you seem to have missed the point entirely, I did not in any way claim that you were saying anything about ISIS, I said your statement was similarly hyperbolic to another incident where a different person used ISIS as a comparison.

I mean, if I call them bullies does that mean they hang out in a schoolyard and beat up kids for lunch money?

If I say they are on a witch hunt does that mean they drag people to a pyre?

If I called them Daleks would that make them hate fueled robotic plumbers?



You can argue all day about what words should and shouldn't be used to describe something, but in the end that doesn't improve the level of the debate, it just derails it entirely. Just accept that metaphors are a thing in the English language, they aren't going away, and can even replace existing definitions over time.

Definitions change, but the current definition of terrorist is not one you can just spontaneously decide means something else. Language is a consensus you wanting it to mean something it doesn't does not make your post any less hyperbolic.

Your examples are inaccurate and the opposite of what you are doing here, this isn't an overly precise definition, bullying is defined as: https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrT6VpseP5UyY4AuyQnnIlQ?p=bully&.sep=&fr=yhs-mozilla-001
notice how there is no mention of schools or lunch money, you basically just made up a new definition for bullying, schools have never been a part of the definition of bullying, the term is older than school yard antics.

What you are doing with the word terrorism is the opposite of your examples, you've done the equivalent of using the word bullying to describe someone saying they don't like something you like, or calling a boss asking for your timesheet a witch hunt, you haven't used the word terrorism overly specifically, you've changed the term to apply it to something far less severe.

So basically, you've just decided on a new definition for terrorism, a definition so broad and useless you've just lumped a good number of consumer boycotts under the label of terrorism, language is not always precise, but broadening the use to the point to where I can call both the Gamergate boycotts and the Chick-fil-a boycotts terrorism isn't a semantics issue, its diluting a word to the point where it becomes meaningless.

Do you think anyone is going to have an honest debate with you when you come out of the gate calling people terrorists? This is the same language that "SJWs" use to shame people into siding with them, you've just replaced racist and sexist with terrorist.

 

[raiiban]

yo this chicks pictures give me the impression that she smells like sweaty feet at a gym. nasty.

 

[Sarge034]

I seem to remember there was leaked concept art of her before "everyone" started talking about diversity. So I call bullshit on them making this character to appease people. I think they were making her and took this PR opportunity to release a character they were going to already but because "we" asked for it. Well played Blizzard, well played... :/

 

[TehChuckles]

Cool thing is happening, but in response to bad people people.

I wish this was a thing more Developers would experiment with in character writing without the huge commotion that has come out in the industry regarding... so many different things. The way I see this particular story is Blizzard is buckling to a group of mean-spirited people and trying to make the best of it.

I do wish that Blizzard makes more diverse character rosters, but I wished they didn't give a group of bullies and just really mean people validation for their actions. all of this progress could have been made without the shit-storm.

 

[EternallyBored]

Cool thing is happening, but in response to bad people people.

I wish this was a thing more Developers would experiment with in character writing without the huge commotion that has come out in the industry regarding... so many different things. The way I see this particular story is Blizzard is buckling to a group of mean-spirited people and trying to make the best of it.

I do wish that Blizzard makes more diverse character rosters, but I wished they didn't give a group of bullies and just really mean people validation for their actions. all of this progress could have been made without the shit-storm.

Who says that is what they did? Why are we treating Blizzard like a child that can apparently be bullied into action by a bunch of anonymous yahoos online? They are a multi-billion dollar company, they could have easily come to this decision through the perfectly sane non-bullying people that were making the same criticisms in a rational manner.

Blizzard has people on staff to be communications directors, PR managers, and Community representatives, whose whole job it is is to look at what people are saying about them and filter the wheat from the chaff in order to send it up the chain of command, maybe those people did that thing that Blizzard pays them to do and brought the devs the concerns and criticisms of the community sans the insane people.

By putting the blame for this solely on the loud crazy people who could only criticize through insults, you are creating a potentially false narrative that just gives them more power. What should Blizzard have done? Ignore a criticism that they may have agreed with just because some people were being mean about it? So basically, anytime a company gets criticism from bullies and crazy people online, they should just change nothing to spite those people, which basically means no company should ever listen to its customers ever again since there are always mean people behind every criticism taking it way too far.

Unless you are saying that every single person who made that criticism after the announcement was bullying Blizzard? In which case, it comes off as kind of paradoxical to want more diversity, but apparently think that everyone actually talking about it was bullying Blizzard. Are we just supposed to hope Blizzard adds more diversity by crossing our fingers and hoping really hard?

In my experience with friends in the corporate field, they generally prefer people actually complaining versus dissatisfied silence, you can't listen to a market that won't tell you what they want, if that means dealing with a few bullies and crazies, well, again, that's why they hire community managers, they pay those people so the managers and directors don't have to deal with the crazies.

 

[theNater]

all of this progress could have been made without the shit-storm.

This seems...less than obvious to me. I mean, your own vision of these events is that Blizzard only did it because of the pressure; that's what "buckling" means.

You can have your choice: Blizzard buckled, meaning that the pressure was necessary for the progress; or Blizzard is doing what they want, in which case the the progress didn't need the pressure. But you can't have it both ways.

Personally, I believe it's the latter. They don't seem upset about this direction, and Blizzard has historically been pretty good about telling their players "no" when they believe they are in the right.

 

[EternallyBored]

all of this progress could have been made without the shit-storm.

This seems...less than obvious to me. I mean, your own vision of these events is that Blizzard only did it because of the pressure; that's what "buckling" means.

You can have your choice: Blizzard buckled, meaning that the pressure was necessary for the progress; or Blizzard is doing what they want, in which case the the progress didn't need the pressure. But you can't have it both ways.

Personally, I believe it's the latter. They don't seem upset about this direction, and Blizzard has historically been pretty good about telling their players "no" when they believe they are in the right.

Shit, if Blizzard caved everytime some group of gamers got together to fling insults at them or start online petitions demanding change, we wouldn't have gotten Starcraft II in three installments, the WoW expansion packs and class balancing would look way different, Hearthstone wouldn't exist, and Blizzard wouldn't have told the people criticizing things like Sylvanas' or Kerrigan's skimpy armor designs to take a hike. Not to mention if they were just giving in to the louder bullies after Overwatch's announcement, they would have edited Widowmaker's outfit, not just added a new character.

I know people like to anthropomorphize large entities because it is hard to conceptualize massive organizations, but once again, Blizzard is a massive multi-billion dollar company and partnered with one of the largest video game publishers in the world. Blizzard could have told every Overwatch critic to fuck right the hell off, and Overwatch would have been just fine sales and publicity wise, they know there is basically nothing those "internet bullies" could have done to force them to do anything, much less inspire real fear or terror in them.

 

[Shinkicker444]

Eh, I think she looks pretty cool (even if I'll probably end up playing either Tracer or Mercy). Although I probably would have went with neon blue hair. I think people get bent way to much out of shape for a video game character. Didn't know she was based on a Blizzard employee though - with a quick google search looks like she does a bunch of cosplay stuff as well, unless there are two Tamara Bakhlycheva's out there who look similar to Zarya.

 

[theNater]

Shit, if Blizzard caved everytime some group of gamers got together to fling insults at them or start online petitions demanding change, we wouldn't have gotten Starcraft II in three installments, the WoW expansion packs and class balancing would look way different, Hearthstone wouldn't exist, and Blizzard wouldn't have told the people criticizing things like Sylvanas' or Kerrigan's skimpy armor designs to take a hike. Not to mention if they were just giving in to the louder bullies after Overwatch's announcement, they would have edited Widowmaker's outfit, not just added a new character.

The event on my mind while writing was:

Hearthstone players: We hate random! Less randomness please!
Blizzard: Random is awesome! Have Goblins vs. Gnomes!

 

[Skatologist]

Look at McCree! He's obviously just a combination of the engineer's southwest persona and the spy's revolver from TF2. I mean, he's from the southwest and his opening line is "justice ain't gonna dispense itself". Obviously just an unoriginal character designed that borders on plagiarism to pander to filthy skeletons and their pancho wearing sensibilities.

On a serious note, I really do like both McCree and Zarya. This was basically my reaction to Zarya:

I just really like everything about her at this point from a design perspective. Hopefully she'll be fun to play.

Added note: I'm anticipating seeing really good cosplay of this in the near future.