[POLITICS] Overwatch's newest hero causes controversy

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Honest to god I would gladly ban every Overwatch account that belongs to someone who was offended by this. We wouldn't want them to play a game that offends them so deeply. Goddamn imbeciles.

 

[TopazFusion]

Ugh, no just no. Sigma didn't become villainous because he's mentally ill. He became a villain because he was captured and brainwashed by Talon.
Y'know, the same thing that happened to Widowmaker.

It annoys me when I see people getting offended without fully understanding the lore first.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

I think it's overblown to treat every discussion as a controversy. And it's fine to have discussions like that. If someone has an issue with a design it should be discussed freely. Not everything has to be treated as a matter of life and death. Sometimes something can just be a minor disagreement.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

It would be more accurate to say a handful of twitter weirdos and gaems jurnalitz got offended, and everyone else shrugged. This is just another nontroversy that will blow over in a matter of days.

 

[IceForce]

So...it?s a game about (who could?ve guessed) oddball characters killing each other...and they?re worried about sending the wrong message because one of them happens to be an escaped lunatic/genius?

Maybe the most recent Halloween movie should?ve never been made either, because Michael Myers isn?t even an evil genius. Well, unless you count being able to escape death itself numerous times.

Anyways, a big face palm and WTF is our society coming to seem to be warranted here.

 

[Hawki]

Maybe we could just stop acting like the media is out to get us? It's okay that people bring stuff up. They aren't trying to hurt you physically or mentally. We don't HAVE to get offended about everything

What? You mean, stop the outrage cycle so we don't get those juicy clicks and juicy ad revenue?

Nah!

Speaking of, I guess this is now #FootGate ?

...why does that sound like some brand retailer that sells shoes? 0_0

 

[Xprimentyl]

Ok, this is just silly. Saelune got on my case for this sentiment a while back when discussing the sexist messages left by players in Dark Souls games, but I feel this is another example of pettiness trivializing the importance of a broader, more serious issue. Certain groups are under/misrepresented throughout gamedome and stereotypes abound as well, but the laser-precise focus one has to exercise to be offended by a barefooted character and a loose association to mental institutions (not to be confused with mental illness) is asinine. There was literally NOTHING to be offended by until the artist subjectively linked the bare feet to mental institutionalization; I know I never would have made the connection, and I seriously doubt most would. And even then, what?s offensive about it?? I mean I don?t know anyone with a mental illness who can float (though some might believe that they can,) so no, I don?t see how a floating, barefoot tank somehow misrepresents an entire demographic of people.

Where was this outrage when Outlast had a scene in it wherein a mental patient quite overtly performs necrophilia on a headless corpse? Because I can?t recall if he was wearing shoes or not, but it was certainly a bad look for the mentally ill.

V This.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

In a recent public comment, the designers revealed that the bare feet were a deliberate design choice, to give him an "asylum look".

Blizzard's designers should get on with the times.
Barefeet is more of a "exclusive patron content" look than "asylum" look nowadays.

 

[Trunkage]

Maybe we could just stop acting like the media is out to get us? It's okay that people bring stuff up. They aren't trying to hurt you physically or mentally. We don't HAVE to get offended about everything

What? You mean, stop the outrage cycle so we don't get those juicy clicks and juicy ad revenue?

Nah!

The other options is that most of this outrage is just a bunch of trolls that know exactly how to trigger the conservatives. "Those Libs are complaining about what now?!" Trolls love those comments

Game journalists could also be described as trolls but, it seems, that everything the say seems to outrage something. So I might consider a pass. Not pointing out something just because it might cause offence to someone is ridiculous

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I'm more offended people still play and pay attention to this game as it continues to validate and encourage the present day business practices infesting "AAA" titles for however long it takes the laws to catch up.

Where was this outrage when Outlast had a scene in it wherein a mental patient quite overtly performs necrophilia on a headless corpse? Because I can?t recall if he was wearing shoes or not, but it was certainly a bad look for the mentally ill.

Well, there's a whole laundry list of stuff in Outlast that would set off some people. It's just a matter of exposure and numbers I'd imagine. Outlast is niche within a niche genre. Whereas everyone and their blind, deaf and dumb chinchilla knows about overwatch. There's also the e-sports scene, which attracts all manner of humans who flock to money like moths to legally cleansing arson. The wider the pool of human grow, the higher chance of controversial knee-jerk feedback. Then there's also the fact that you kinda have to actually play through Outlast to observe these things , whereas this overcharge cycle relies on presenting a simple image upon which anyone with a functioning phone could see and respond to, regardless of interest in said game.
Anyway, I thought Outlast laid a fairly safe groundwork to avoid such criticism, including that the behaviours were caused by rogue doctors and staff experiments instead of naturally from the patients, amongst other things. Could be wrong, but I remember thinking at the time that, despite the schlocky b-movie premise/homage, it was walking a pretty thin line quite spectacularly, considering the content one could easily present without context. Should really get around to trying the sequel at some point.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I'm more offended people still play and pay attention to this game as it continues to validate and encourage the present day business practices infesting "AAA" titles for however long it takes the laws to catch up.

Where was this outrage when Outlast had a scene in it wherein a mental patient quite overtly performs necrophilia on a headless corpse? Because I can?t recall if he was wearing shoes or not, but it was certainly a bad look for the mentally ill.

Well, there's a whole laundry list of stuff in Outlast that would set off some people. It's just a matter of exposure and numbers I'd imagine. Outlast is niche within a niche genre. Whereas everyone and their blind, deaf and dumb chinchilla knows about overwatch. There's also the e-sports scene, which attracts all manner of humans who flock to money like moths to legally cleansing arson. The wider the pool of human grow, the higher chance of controversial knee-jerk feedback. Then there's also the fact that you kinda have to actually play through Outlast to observe these things , whereas this overcharge cycle relies on presenting a simple image upon which anyone with a functioning phone could see and respond to, regardless of interest in said game.
Anyway, I thought Outlast laid a fairly safe groundwork to avoid such criticism, including that the behaviours were caused by rogue doctors and staff experiments instead of naturally from the patients, amongst other things. Could be wrong, but I remember thinking at the time that, despite the schlocky b-movie premise/homage, it was walking a pretty thin line quite spectacularly, considering the content one could easily present without context. Should really get around to trying the sequel at some point.

Fair points, but still think there?s ?legitimate outrage? and ?reaching for outrage,? this particular case being an egregious example of the latter, and the more the latter keeps making clickbait headlines, the more diluted the message of inclusion, consideration and representation gets. If there was a character with dark brown skin, big white eyes, plump red lips wearing white gloves and holding a slice of watermelon, you, I or anyone could point at that and say confidently that it?s insensitive at best, intentionally offensive at worst. Without the artist?s insight, who was going to look at Sigma, a floating guy with huge shoulder pads and badass armor who?s clearly built for combat, see his bare feet, and not only make the association with mental institutions, but also label it as offensive to the mentally ill? No one. And if anything, I doubt the artist visited his local mental institution seeking inspiration; he likely drew from tropes of mental institutions in all forms of media since time immemorial, so why is this even a thing much less worth noting? It?s this kind of petty outrage that has people who don?t see the problems with inclusion, consideration and representation in gaming rolling their eyes and laughing with each other in their echo chambers about how much the issue actually isn?t one.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Fair points, but still think there?s ?legitimate outrage? and ?reaching for outrage,? this particular case being an egregious example of the latter, and the more the latter keeps making clickbait headlines, the more diluted the message of inclusion, consideration and representation gets. If there was a character with dark brown skin, big white eyes, plump red lips wearing white gloves and holding a slice of watermelon, you, I or anyone could point at that and say confidently that it?s insensitive at best, intentionally offensive at worst. Without the artist?s insight, who was going to look at Sigma, a floating guy with huge shoulder pads and badass armor who?s clearly built for combat, see his bare feet, and not only make the association with mental institutions, but also label it as offensive to the mentally ill? No one. And if anything, I doubt the artist visited his local mental institution seeking inspiration; he likely drew from tropes of mental institutions in all forms of media since time immemorial, so why is this even a thing much less worth noting? It?s this kind of petty outrage that has people who don?t see the problems with inclusion, consideration and representation in gaming rolling their eyes and laughing with each other in their echo chambers about how much the issue actually isn?t one.

Oh, I wasn't intending to defend this particular example, was only speculating on the Outlast part. Though choice of language may have given that impression, as jumping on the 'outrage at outrage' wagon is something I prefer to avoid due to it, more often than not, turning out to be overblown melodrama born from an unknown nutcase on twitter or something. And in this case seems only a paragraph or two from a couple of opinion pieces that are just acknowledging the potential connections as opposed to actual outrage worth getting outraged at, even if I don't quite see what they're saying despite spending some time in similar places a few years back. Certainly don't remember compulsory bare feet at least.

Alas, my previous speculation was ill-advised, as a quick search has produced some history on Outlast's reception regarding the topic; https://thepolyphony.org/2018/11/30/getting-mental-illness-right-in-gaming/

In particular;

The debate over mental health and gaming has started and gained momentum after the release of the indie creation, Outlast, in 2013. The game is set in a derelict asylum where patients are depicted physically deformed and monstrous, and they are either catatonic or violent towards the player or fellow inmates. The criticism opened up the possibility of debunking urban legends surrounding mental health as it can be read an insightful piece by Jack Yarwood, ?Mental illness in video games and why we must do better?, quoting James Harris, the head of communication for the Mental Health Foundation:

?In gaming, and more widely film, the backdrop of an abandoned asylum or casting a psychiatric patient as the principal villain is a common theme. Whilst acknowledging that the creator?s intention is not to increase stigma but rather to entertain, by default they are helping to perpetuate the stereotype that there is a correlation between people living with mental health problems and violent behaviour. The reality is, however, that people with mental health problems are more likely to be victims of violence.?

The heavy backlash the game received for the pejorative representation of mental illness also inspired a creative response from independent game developers in the form of the Asylum Jam. The Asylum Jam has been running successfully since 2013 in each November, challenging developers to create games depicting mental illness avoiding the tropes of asylum and dangerous inmate. Even outside of the Asylum Jam, there is an increasing number of narrative driven games (as far as I can see, mainly but not exclusively indie), such as Layers of Fear, The Town of Light and Unravel, which seek to represent various mental health matters from bereavement and trauma to schizophrenia and psychosis experimenting with new concept designs and game mechanics either sticking to horror elements or discarding them altogether. The consensus of the debate was the current aesthetic and socio-political narrative surrounding mental health has to change, and, in this context, indie and AAA game developers have to find new ways of telling stories about sufferers, and more importantly, to those living with mental illness.

So it appears it was noticed, though I don't recall seeing any of this at the time. Then again, I wasn't really looking for it either, and I hesitate to assume neither were you.

Edit: bah! Why does my quoting not recognise your punctuation still? Sorry!

 

[Xprimentyl]

Peach Schnips

Oh, I wasn't intending to defend this particular example, was only speculating on the Outlast part. Though choice of language may have given that impression, as jumping on the 'outrage at outrage' wagon is something I prefer to avoid due to it, more often than not, turning out to be overblown melodrama born from an unknown nutcase on twitter or something. And in this case seems only a paragraph or two from a couple of opinion pieces that are just acknowledging the potential connections as opposed to actual outrage worth getting outraged at, even if I don't quite see what they're saying despite spending some time in similar places a few years back. Certainly don't remember compulsory bare feet at least.

Alas, my previous speculation was ill-advised, as a quick search has produced some history on Outlast's reception regarding the topic; https://thepolyphony.org/2018/11/30/getting-mental-illness-right-in-gaming/

In particular;

But what about the CHILDREN?!?

So it appears it was noticed, though I don't recall seeing any of this at the time. Then again, I wasn't really looking for it either, and I hesitate to assume neither were you.

Edit: bah! Why does my quoting not recognise your punctuation still? Sorry!

I didn?t think you were necessarily defending this outrage; I was just issuing a reply to the general ether should anyone try to use your well-reasoned rationale as anything other than matters of fact.

And you?re correct; I had no idea Outlast caught any scrutiny, though I?m not surprised given the papier-mache skin virtue signalers would have us believe we should all be wearing. I was being flippant citing what I felt was the biggest ?ok, that was a bit much? moment of the game. Bare feet are a no-no while there exists a game that takes place in a literal asylum where the mentally ill are making sexy time with the dead? Talk about pissing on a forest fire?

Asylum Jam does sound like a good idea; any exercise that encourages creators to think outside the box and do something unique and different is a worthy one, but that doesn?t mean any efforts that adhere to the tropes are intrinsically bad or offensive. Hell, GTA San Andreas is one of the most popular and influential video games of all time, and it based its entire premise on ?90s gang wars and criminal activity without setting black people back 30 years. There?s plenty of room in works of entertainment fiction to explore mental illness; why grab the torches and pitchforks over bare feet?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

At this point, a new thing in OW not causing a controversy of some sort is what's noteworthy.


I remember reading about a controversy regarding new optional outfits because they were police outfits. (apparently police is de-facto conservative now?)

 

[IceForce]

Well, his skins and cosmetics just went live.

Spoiler

Problem solved?

 

[Hawki]

Well, his skins and cosmetics just went live.

Spoiler

Problem solved?

Never!

(Stolen skin from Heroes of the Storm, rabble rabble rabble!)

 

[Something Amyss]

In a recent public comment, the designers revealed that the bare feet were a deliberate design choice, to give him an "asylum look". Problem is, many people have found this to be offensive, with the way the hero's design conflates mental illness with stereotypical villainy.

I'm offended. I'm not a villain because I'm insane, I'm a villain because society laughed at my plans to make living dragons! I'll show them all! Mwahahaha...errrr.....

I don't get how this helps the "asylum": look in the first place, though. Typically, mental health hospitals don't allown battle armour. They wouldn't even let me keep my experi...I mean....

OW is like a controversy magnet. They get it from both ends too.

I'd feel bad for Blizzard, but then I remember how much they have been sucking it up lately.

I'd feel bad for Blizz, but it's clear they are courting controversy, and it's hard to feel bad for people who are getting what they wanted. Think of all the free press this gets them. They're probably going to reveal their next hero shooter characvter is pro-life to watch the other sides' heads explode.

Controversial in that a number of sites have brought it up.

Yeah., but all that means is more than three people have talked about it. For example, the second link features a whole two tweets...from then same person.

Seems like there are more people talking about people getting offended than actual people getting offended.

I just checked Kotaku and its really just people making fun of his design. Cause its a weird design. Their explanation is only a little better then the whole thing with Silence... whatever her name was from Metal Gear Solid 5. The whole breathing through her skin thing.

The Silence, you say? Now I really want a MGS/Doctor Who crossover.

 

[MrBoBo]

Because Overwatch is s serious simulation of real life.

 

[Hawki]

I'd feel bad for Blizz, but it's clear they are courting controversy, and it's hard to feel bad for people who are getting what they wanted.

I've got lots of gripes with Blizz right now, but where have they actually "courted controversy?" That certain elements of Overwatch have become controversial isn't an inditement on the creator, it's an inditement on snowflakes.

Maybe the Qhisa reveal counts, but it strikes me as less being courting controversy and more the results of how the dev team behind HotS has been downsized to the extent that throwing in "chainsword girl" was the easiest way out.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I feel the barefoot thing started out as "because he doesn't walk" but they needed a better excuse and just threw a dart that hit "Because asylum?"

Because literally nothing else about him says 'asylum'