Tracer #Buttgate - Shots fired by professional cosplayer at Heroes Championships
- Thread starter Paragon Fury
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"We decided not to sexualize one of our characters."
Expect to see "okay, sure. Your game, Blizzard."
Instead "my freedom of speech!!!! Censorship!"
Maybe I'm just not seeing how this is the evil company censoring its games more and more so that it can make us more used to companies being more controlling so that it can one day take over the world and turn us into its slaves while continuing to pacify us through their use of chemtrails while laughing their way to the bank with their Iraq war money since they obviously funded the US to go there so that they could take a cut of that oil money.
Sorry, I've probably watch too much Internet Comment Etiquette lately.
Expect to see "okay, sure. Your game, Blizzard."
Instead "my freedom of speech!!!! Censorship!"
Maybe I'm just not seeing how this is the evil company censoring its games more and more so that it can make us more used to companies being more controlling so that it can one day take over the world and turn us into its slaves while continuing to pacify us through their use of chemtrails while laughing their way to the bank with their Iraq war money since they obviously funded the US to go there so that they could take a cut of that oil money.
Sorry, I've probably watch too much Internet Comment Etiquette lately.
Man, she's got a fine set of legs.
Anyway.
I would have loved to see the Twitch chat go up.
I imagine it's the sort of thing SheSellsSeaShells would have had a hey-day making a "Twitch reacts to Buttgate" out of.
Anyway.
I would have loved to see the Twitch chat go up.
I imagine it's the sort of thing SheSellsSeaShells would have had a hey-day making a "Twitch reacts to Buttgate" out of.
Nope. I had no idea things had gotten so silly that a developer choosing to agree with someone was now a scandal intended to evoke Watergate.Paragon Fury said:
I have a serious question: does anyone really think they're coming off as the good guys here?
I mean, I'm all for free speech and if she wants to make silly protests, I wish this "cosplayer" the best. But when people create protests and boycotts and ______gates over a developer opting to not include a single pose, how do you think that looks? Honestly. Nobody comes out looking good in this scenario.
Hey, why can't it be a straw woman? I demand equal straw representation!Worgen said:
#Worgengate
...what a pointless exercise.
Woe be unto any Game Developer that tries to enact it's creative control over something that doesn't fall in line with the loudest group, apparently.
Honestly after years of dealing with the World of Warcraft Community, they're probably used to people picking stupid hills to die on. Slight balance changes often resulted in hundred-page threads about how they're 'ruining the game', so people getting up in arms over something like this is just usual business for 'em, really.LifeCharacter said:
Woe be unto any Game Developer that tries to enact it's creative control over something that doesn't fall in line with the loudest group, apparently.
They evidently disagree. Why is it okay to try and enforce a contrary opinion on Blizzard? Isn't that stifling their creative freedom?Loop Stricken said:
It actually does make some sense with some context.The_Kodu said:
1) They were already considering removing it.
2) Someone complained about the same thing they were considering removing.
3) It doubtful that anyone had voiced equal and opposite opinions prior to this (Conjecture, please correct me if I'm wrong)
4) Said change impacts literally nothing else about the game
I'm firmly in the "This whole discussion is stupid" camp, so please take all of this with a healthy dose of salt, but if this logic holds then it's not a completely senseless decision.
Wait... So are we making new hills from the corpses to counteract erosion, or is this just a public works program or something?Houseman said:
Who actually posted a falsified complaint, because they're a man (not a woman as they alluded to in their OP), don't have a daughter or children and lied about their age.Sylveria said:
So Blizzard literally took the words of a troll and ran with it.
Troll? Or false flag planted by Blizzard so they had plausible deniability and built in scapegoat so they could censor their own in-development game before release?Paragon Fury said:
I'm sorry, the person in question doesn't actually have a child? Was that ever proven? And I don't even recall the person claiming to be a woman, I feel like people just ran with that.Paragon Fury said:
Has it occurred to you that, for many people who put dozens if not hundreds of hours into a single character, a "slight balance" change can and will ruin the game for them? Especially when you take into consideration how needlessly min-max obsessed the WoW community is in general, something as simple as a 1% shift in DPS or eHP can change entire raid comps and leave swaths of the player base entirely out in the cold.Wrex Brogan said:
Remember in BC when Blizzard stuck a cooldown on BoSac? The paladin community -- at least those in the paladin community who knew what the fuck they were talking about -- were in open revolt. The rest of the community, including the stupid paladin players, went on and on playing down the potential ramifications of that "slight" balance change. And, when it went live, every paladin build in the game in PvP and PvE (especially PvP) alike got kicked straight in the nads, some to complete inexistence, since no-cooldown BoSac was the difference between viability (genuine viability, not tryhard min-max "viability") and respeccing.
Can you demonstrate this? Given that even the archived versions of the OP I can find don't claim gender, I'm not holding out for any of this being true.Paragon Fury said:
That would be absolutely pointless. Blizzard could have just said "we don't like that so many characters have generic poses, this one's a bit rubbish, we're going to make something better" and I imagine most people would agree with it. I know I would.altnameJag said:
But when it was removed because, paraphrasing, 'someone complained it was too sexual so we capitulated', people are going to be ticked off at this bizarre kowtowing to a vast, vast minority.
Since the thread is now 48 pages long - and WoW forum thread discussing it 248 pages, since I didn't save it when it was relevant, it will likely be hard to prove again. However, on this page http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20743015583?page=18#343erttheking said:
the OP admits to not being a woman despite earlier letting people assume and respond as such. I think it was later on Reddit or the WoW thread where someone did a little digging and found that found that the OP in the past has stated they don't have children and has made trolly posts like these before. But like I said - 248. pages. of. responses.
I find a little nugget of hypocrisy in these sorts of conversations rather sad.
A game removing something actually sexual, people complain that it'll reach a prudish level in the future; "Stop complaining, its a slippery slope fallacy, complain when they do that, until then they're just removing something actively offensive".
A game removes something not remotely sexual, except to the lives-in-my-room sort who think any girl looking attractive is "Sexual": "Its the game dev's rights, I mean who cares, why are you complaining".
Why the complaints? Because its reached a level people see as ridiculous. It has slid down the slope from removing actually offensive and sexual content, to potentially offensive and potentially sexual content, to non-offensive, non-sexual content.
And honestly the whole reason anyone has an issue with this pose: The woman who is performing it is attractive. The guys do it, too, but because their clothing isn't the same style as the leggings or tights Tracer wears - and to anyone who says that's sexualised, look at how many women IRL wear similar clothes, vs how many wear baggy tracksuit pants. Are they all being sexual? - and they aren't as conventionally attractive, its not counted as sexual.
The pose isn't sexual. Its a standard, generic victory pose, on an attractive girl. We are getting to the point of saying being attractive is being sexual, and that's a message that I feel is harmful to send. Others draw a similar line, and that's why its being complained about. Because we've found the line of reasonable changes, and we're crossing it. You don't need to hide attractive people just because they're attractive. That's body shaming in and of itself. It informs the gaming community that this is a level of being afraid of criticism for being 'sexual' that is not required, and beyond the tastes of their market. Its an attempt to show companies in the future that such things are not something to be ashamed of, and in the future maybe these changes to something we like won't occur. It sets a level that the community widely agrees is acceptable of this sort of content, and that further 'censorship' of ideas up to this point does not need to occur - and yes, this is a widely held community belief. The arguments against those who complain aren't "OMG its too sexual", its "Blizzard can do what they want" - ironically the same argument used against 'censorship' previously, funny how its an acceptable argument when the shoe is on the other foot.
Put simply, a lot of people want to make a statement that this is the line of reason. You don't need to change more than this, and this is a level the market both accepts and wants. And regardless of anything else, its valuable insight for game developers as to narrowing down what the opinions on the issue of 'sexualisation' held by the wider community actually are.
And hey, its a handful of threads and people making a complaint about something they think is silly. Its not like its really taken over the internet in a bad way. If you're not a fan of people voicing their opinion, other active threads do still exist, and ironically its entirely up to Blizzard with what they do and whether they listen to this feedback or not - if they react to the feedback and include similar things in the future, its entirely their choice. Its just making the community's opinion on the matter known, and the same goes for those who support the removal. Its a conversation that has a right to be had, even if its not something you see as reasonable.
A game removing something actually sexual, people complain that it'll reach a prudish level in the future; "Stop complaining, its a slippery slope fallacy, complain when they do that, until then they're just removing something actively offensive".
A game removes something not remotely sexual, except to the lives-in-my-room sort who think any girl looking attractive is "Sexual": "Its the game dev's rights, I mean who cares, why are you complaining".
Why the complaints? Because its reached a level people see as ridiculous. It has slid down the slope from removing actually offensive and sexual content, to potentially offensive and potentially sexual content, to non-offensive, non-sexual content.
And honestly the whole reason anyone has an issue with this pose: The woman who is performing it is attractive. The guys do it, too, but because their clothing isn't the same style as the leggings or tights Tracer wears - and to anyone who says that's sexualised, look at how many women IRL wear similar clothes, vs how many wear baggy tracksuit pants. Are they all being sexual? - and they aren't as conventionally attractive, its not counted as sexual.
The pose isn't sexual. Its a standard, generic victory pose, on an attractive girl. We are getting to the point of saying being attractive is being sexual, and that's a message that I feel is harmful to send. Others draw a similar line, and that's why its being complained about. Because we've found the line of reasonable changes, and we're crossing it. You don't need to hide attractive people just because they're attractive. That's body shaming in and of itself. It informs the gaming community that this is a level of being afraid of criticism for being 'sexual' that is not required, and beyond the tastes of their market. Its an attempt to show companies in the future that such things are not something to be ashamed of, and in the future maybe these changes to something we like won't occur. It sets a level that the community widely agrees is acceptable of this sort of content, and that further 'censorship' of ideas up to this point does not need to occur - and yes, this is a widely held community belief. The arguments against those who complain aren't "OMG its too sexual", its "Blizzard can do what they want" - ironically the same argument used against 'censorship' previously, funny how its an acceptable argument when the shoe is on the other foot.
Put simply, a lot of people want to make a statement that this is the line of reason. You don't need to change more than this, and this is a level the market both accepts and wants. And regardless of anything else, its valuable insight for game developers as to narrowing down what the opinions on the issue of 'sexualisation' held by the wider community actually are.
And hey, its a handful of threads and people making a complaint about something they think is silly. Its not like its really taken over the internet in a bad way. If you're not a fan of people voicing their opinion, other active threads do still exist, and ironically its entirely up to Blizzard with what they do and whether they listen to this feedback or not - if they react to the feedback and include similar things in the future, its entirely their choice. Its just making the community's opinion on the matter known, and the same goes for those who support the removal. Its a conversation that has a right to be had, even if its not something you see as reasonable.
Hahah they are actually calling it #buttgate? Really? Fucking really? This is literally the most pathetic thing I have ever seen.