Post by Layla Littlenymph on Apr 2, 2016 16:38:49 GMT -5
Revised: 04-14-2016.
The original post on this topic was a facebook link which contained my commentary, but required members to go offsite in order to see the article that prompted the commentary in the first place. I am revising this post to include the original article in order to remove the need to go offsite, and to provide a more fluid context.
~LL
Blizzard Removing Overwatch Butt Pose After Fan Criticism
"Apologies and we'll continue to try to do better."
An article by Eddie Makuch on Game Spot.
Blizzard Entertainment has announced it will remove a character pose from multiplayer shooter Overwatch in the wake of fan criticism. The character in question is Tracer (real name Lena Oxton), a fast-moving female character who is 26 years old according to the game's fiction. The "over the shoulder" pose in question, as outlined by Overwatch forum user Fipps, prominently features the character's backside.
Fipps didn't appreciate this appearance and claims the stance reduces her to a sex symbol. "What about this pose has anything to do with the character you're building in Tracer?" Fipps said. "It's not fun, its not silly, it has nothing to do with being a fast elite killer. It just reduces Tracer to another bland female sex symbol."
TRACER
Fipps goes on to say that, besides Tracer's appearance, they are pleased with how Blizzard went about depicting Overwatch's other female heroes, including Mei, Zarya, and Widowmaker.
"This kind of pose might make more sense for the Widowmaker character," Fipps said, "so it seems somewhat out of place for Tracer according to the fiction."
WIDOWMAKER
"We aren't looking at a Widowmaker pose here," Fipps added. "This isn't a character who is in part defined by flaunting her sexuality. This pose says to the player base, 'Oh we've got all these cool diverse characters, but at any moment we are willing to reduce them to sex symbols to help boost our investment game.'"
Tracer's over the shoulder victory pose, according to Fipps, undermines the positive work that Blizzard has done in creating what they called strong female characters.
As you might have guessed, Fipps' forum thread, which is now 26 pages long, is stuffed with other comments that both support Fipps' position and argue against it. You can read all the responses HERE.
Overwatch game director Jeff Kaplan replied to the thread, saying Blizzard will replace the pose so as to create a more welcoming environment for all players. "We want *everyone* to feel strong and heroic in our community. The last thing we want to do is make someone feel uncomfortable, under-appreciated, or misrepresented," he explained. "Apologies and we'll continue to try to do better."
In a follow-up post, Kaplan said it was an "easy" decision to make to remove the Tracer pose. Additionally, the art team already created the pose that will take its place.
"We actually already have an alternate pose that we love and we feel speaks more to the character of Tracer. We weren't entirely happy with the original pose, it was always one that we wrestled with creatively," Kaplan explained. "That the pose had been called into question from an appropriateness standpoint by players in our community did help influence our decision--getting that kind of feedback is part of the reason we're holding a closed beta test--but it wasn't the only factor. We made the decision to go with a different pose in part because we shared some of the same concerns, but also because we wanted to create something better."
Some have suggested that Blizzard's decision to revisit the pose is bad news because it means the developer is caving in to community demands, which could create a slippery slope. But Kaplan doesn't exactly see it that way.
"We wouldn't do anything to sacrifice our creative vision for Overwatch, and we're not going to remove something solely because someone may take issue with it," he said. "Our goal isn't to water down or homogenize the world, or the diverse cast of heroes we've built within it. We have poured so much of our heart and souls into this game that it would be a travesty for us to do so.
"We understand that not everyone will agree with our decision, and that's okay. That's what these kinds of public tests are for. This wasn't pandering or caving, though. This was the right call from our perspective, and we think the game will be just as fun the next time you play it."
Kaplan ended his post by encouraging people to continue to share their thoughts and concerns about this item and others.
Overwatch launches on May 24 for PC, Xbox One, and PlayStation 4. The beta starts earlier in the month and you can read THIS POST on Game Spot to get all the details about how you can get in.
* The Overwatch beta will run May 5-9 across Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC. Customers that preorder by April 29 can play starting May 3, and can invite a friend to play as well. ~LL
Overwatch becomes the new skirmish grounds in the ongoing Battle of the Booty.
By Layla Littlenymph
Let me begin by stating an indisputable fact. The on-line gaming industry is no longer the near exclusive province of young males. Can we agree on that? It is no small wonder then that as more female players embrace this entertainment venue that some of them will be adverse to the highly sexual nature that many... well... MOST strong female characters are represented. Speaking for myself, I happen to agree with female (and some male) players that there should be more option in how their characters are presented. I also believe that there is room in this crowded industry for games in which this is not an issue for the simply reason that sexualized characters would not be an option. Having said that, I suppose that some of you will be bewildered at the fact that I strongly disagree with Blizzard's decision to remove this character pose from player options.
I have many reasons behind my opposition to Blizzard's decision on this issue, but will restrict them to the main points. We have all been exposed at some point to the limitless number of internet memes circulating at any given time. Allow me to show you one that has been modified to fit this specific topic, and happens to address my key complaint.
Let's ponder what Marge is saying here...
I firmly believe that Marge should not be forced to view something she finds offensive. Does that give her by extension the right to force others to view only that which she finds acceptable?
While I support both your and Marge's right to determine that which you find acceptable for yourselves, not everyone shares your opinions, tastes, standards, and morals. You have every right to determine the content to which you wish to be exposed, but that choice does not, and should not extend to what others may or may not do. To put it bluntly, if I were to remove all content from the internet that someone found objectionable, there would be no internet at all.
Let's put this to a litmus test...
Q: Would you support a game with an ESRB of "T" or higher that gave players alternate choices on character representation that ranged from sensual to modest?
1: YES. That would allow players to choose what was acceptable to their personal tastes without forcing anyone to a choice they may find objectionable.
2: NO. I disagree with the overly sexual representation of female characters in on-line games and do not want to see it, even as an option, because some may find it objectionable.
If you chose the first option, we have something in common. You agree as I do that people should have option in their personal choices, even though you may not always agree with the choices others make.
If you chose the second option, I'm not sure there is any reason for you to read further. This is the same mind set that led to the failed social experiment of the American prohibition on alcoholic beverages. Anyone recall how well that worked out? The belief that morality, according to your definition and standards of morality, is something which can and should be legislated.
Self determination and freedom of choice will always reside upon a slippery slope, as does freedom of speech. It has always amazed me the number of people that will cry out for their personal freedom of expression while trying to limit the expression of others. Take for example those that demand the right to protest as guaranteed under freedom of speech, then use that right to protest by blocking access to a political rally in order to deny the opposition the opportunity to speak. Personal liberty can not exist so long as you deny personal liberty to another, or choose to define personal liberty in a manner that benefits your standards without consideration for the standards of others. If you believe otherwise, you have only succeeded in deluding yourself.
The point here is that if you feel there is a market for the game environment you like, you should seek out and encourage the development of that market, or perhaps even be a part of developing that market yourself. This you have every right to do. What you do NOT have a right to do is to enforce your personal beliefs upon others; to demand the market conform to your personal standards. Call this what you will. I choose to call it censorship and oppression.
And now it is my turn to be offensive.
It's not that I'm trying to be, mind you. It's just that I'm about to express an opinion that some will choose to be offended by.
This entire controversy, in this instance, is nothing short of frivolous.
Offended? Why? It's just an opinion. I do find it frivolous, for the following reasons.
First, the costumes in Overwatch are sensual for male and female characters alike. Most all of them are like this. This should have been obvious to anyone that looked at the game prior to playing it. You chose to play a game with sensual character portrayal, yet are offended by this one, and only this one pose? Only on this one character? When you chose to play this game, it already was what it is. If you find aspects of it to be offensive, why did you choose to play it in the first place?
Behold D.VA The Latest Addition to the Overwatch Character Roster
Second, If this pose is removed, as Blizzard said it will be, has it occurred to you that the character will still be in the same costume during actual game play? Has it occurred to you that other characters will be in equally sensual costumes? Are you willing to let the rest of the game be when this one pose is removed, or will you move on to the next thing you find offensive? Sensuality is an inherent part of all fantasy based MMORPG's in the Blizzard library. So why this one pose by this one character in this one game? It is no worse than many other characters and poses in what Blizzard offers, so why... this... one? Is it really all about this one character pose, or is this but the first salvo of many to come? I believe it may well turn out to have been a mistake for Blizzard to retreat at the first whiff of powder.
D.VA Poses With Her Bubblegum Pink Battle Mech.
Finally, I started this post with an indisputable fact, and here is another. You have choice.
You can choose what to play. You can choose what not to play. You can choose to withhold your money from companies you disagree with. You can choose to support those companies that cater to your standards. In the free market system, this is what brings about lasting change. If enough people want that change, companies will adjust to meet tha demand. If they do not, another company will come along to fill the void. How and where you spend your money will always be the most powerful means of change in a free market system. All the boycotts, petitions, and public outcry will never trump the dollar. There is no doubt that such tactics have worked with weak kneed companies in the past, but it only brings about a transient change which has substance only so long as the whim of the public gives it such. Your choice of where you spend your money brings greater, more permanent change than your opinion ever will, so choose. Choose well and in time you will be rewarded.
In a time of global crisis, an international task force of heroes banded together to restore peace to a war-torn world. This organization, known as Overwatch, ended the crisis and helped maintain peace for a generation, inspiring an era of exploration, innovation, and discovery.
After many years, Overwatch's influence waned and it was eventually disbanded. Now in the wake of its dismantling, conflict is rising once again. Overwatch may be gone…but the world still needs heroes.
Get a first look at Tracer, and her pulse pistols, Blink ability, Pulse Bomb, and more.
The original post on this topic was a facebook link which contained my commentary, but required members to go offsite in order to see the article that prompted the commentary in the first place. I am revising this post to include the original article in order to remove the need to go offsite, and to provide a more fluid context.
~LL
Blizzard Removing Overwatch Butt Pose After Fan Criticism
"Apologies and we'll continue to try to do better."
An article by Eddie Makuch on Game Spot.
Blizzard Entertainment has announced it will remove a character pose from multiplayer shooter Overwatch in the wake of fan criticism. The character in question is Tracer (real name Lena Oxton), a fast-moving female character who is 26 years old according to the game's fiction. The "over the shoulder" pose in question, as outlined by Overwatch forum user Fipps, prominently features the character's backside.
Fipps didn't appreciate this appearance and claims the stance reduces her to a sex symbol. "What about this pose has anything to do with the character you're building in Tracer?" Fipps said. "It's not fun, its not silly, it has nothing to do with being a fast elite killer. It just reduces Tracer to another bland female sex symbol."
TRACER
Fipps goes on to say that, besides Tracer's appearance, they are pleased with how Blizzard went about depicting Overwatch's other female heroes, including Mei, Zarya, and Widowmaker.
"This kind of pose might make more sense for the Widowmaker character," Fipps said, "so it seems somewhat out of place for Tracer according to the fiction."
WIDOWMAKER
"We aren't looking at a Widowmaker pose here," Fipps added. "This isn't a character who is in part defined by flaunting her sexuality. This pose says to the player base, 'Oh we've got all these cool diverse characters, but at any moment we are willing to reduce them to sex symbols to help boost our investment game.'"
Tracer's over the shoulder victory pose, according to Fipps, undermines the positive work that Blizzard has done in creating what they called strong female characters.
As you might have guessed, Fipps' forum thread, which is now 26 pages long, is stuffed with other comments that both support Fipps' position and argue against it. You can read all the responses HERE.
Overwatch game director Jeff Kaplan replied to the thread, saying Blizzard will replace the pose so as to create a more welcoming environment for all players. "We want *everyone* to feel strong and heroic in our community. The last thing we want to do is make someone feel uncomfortable, under-appreciated, or misrepresented," he explained. "Apologies and we'll continue to try to do better."
In a follow-up post, Kaplan said it was an "easy" decision to make to remove the Tracer pose. Additionally, the art team already created the pose that will take its place.
"We actually already have an alternate pose that we love and we feel speaks more to the character of Tracer. We weren't entirely happy with the original pose, it was always one that we wrestled with creatively," Kaplan explained. "That the pose had been called into question from an appropriateness standpoint by players in our community did help influence our decision--getting that kind of feedback is part of the reason we're holding a closed beta test--but it wasn't the only factor. We made the decision to go with a different pose in part because we shared some of the same concerns, but also because we wanted to create something better."
Some have suggested that Blizzard's decision to revisit the pose is bad news because it means the developer is caving in to community demands, which could create a slippery slope. But Kaplan doesn't exactly see it that way.
"We wouldn't do anything to sacrifice our creative vision for Overwatch, and we're not going to remove something solely because someone may take issue with it," he said. "Our goal isn't to water down or homogenize the world, or the diverse cast of heroes we've built within it. We have poured so much of our heart and souls into this game that it would be a travesty for us to do so.
"We understand that not everyone will agree with our decision, and that's okay. That's what these kinds of public tests are for. This wasn't pandering or caving, though. This was the right call from our perspective, and we think the game will be just as fun the next time you play it."
Kaplan ended his post by encouraging people to continue to share their thoughts and concerns about this item and others.
Overwatch launches on May 24 for PC, Xbox One, and PlayStation 4. The beta starts earlier in the month and you can read THIS POST on Game Spot to get all the details about how you can get in.
* The Overwatch beta will run May 5-9 across Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC. Customers that preorder by April 29 can play starting May 3, and can invite a friend to play as well. ~LL
Overwatch becomes the new skirmish grounds in the ongoing Battle of the Booty.
By Layla Littlenymph
Let me begin by stating an indisputable fact. The on-line gaming industry is no longer the near exclusive province of young males. Can we agree on that? It is no small wonder then that as more female players embrace this entertainment venue that some of them will be adverse to the highly sexual nature that many... well... MOST strong female characters are represented. Speaking for myself, I happen to agree with female (and some male) players that there should be more option in how their characters are presented. I also believe that there is room in this crowded industry for games in which this is not an issue for the simply reason that sexualized characters would not be an option. Having said that, I suppose that some of you will be bewildered at the fact that I strongly disagree with Blizzard's decision to remove this character pose from player options.
I have many reasons behind my opposition to Blizzard's decision on this issue, but will restrict them to the main points. We have all been exposed at some point to the limitless number of internet memes circulating at any given time. Allow me to show you one that has been modified to fit this specific topic, and happens to address my key complaint.
Let's ponder what Marge is saying here...
I firmly believe that Marge should not be forced to view something she finds offensive. Does that give her by extension the right to force others to view only that which she finds acceptable?
While I support both your and Marge's right to determine that which you find acceptable for yourselves, not everyone shares your opinions, tastes, standards, and morals. You have every right to determine the content to which you wish to be exposed, but that choice does not, and should not extend to what others may or may not do. To put it bluntly, if I were to remove all content from the internet that someone found objectionable, there would be no internet at all.
Let's put this to a litmus test...
Q: Would you support a game with an ESRB of "T" or higher that gave players alternate choices on character representation that ranged from sensual to modest?
1: YES. That would allow players to choose what was acceptable to their personal tastes without forcing anyone to a choice they may find objectionable.
2: NO. I disagree with the overly sexual representation of female characters in on-line games and do not want to see it, even as an option, because some may find it objectionable.
If you chose the first option, we have something in common. You agree as I do that people should have option in their personal choices, even though you may not always agree with the choices others make.
If you chose the second option, I'm not sure there is any reason for you to read further. This is the same mind set that led to the failed social experiment of the American prohibition on alcoholic beverages. Anyone recall how well that worked out? The belief that morality, according to your definition and standards of morality, is something which can and should be legislated.
Self determination and freedom of choice will always reside upon a slippery slope, as does freedom of speech. It has always amazed me the number of people that will cry out for their personal freedom of expression while trying to limit the expression of others. Take for example those that demand the right to protest as guaranteed under freedom of speech, then use that right to protest by blocking access to a political rally in order to deny the opposition the opportunity to speak. Personal liberty can not exist so long as you deny personal liberty to another, or choose to define personal liberty in a manner that benefits your standards without consideration for the standards of others. If you believe otherwise, you have only succeeded in deluding yourself.
The point here is that if you feel there is a market for the game environment you like, you should seek out and encourage the development of that market, or perhaps even be a part of developing that market yourself. This you have every right to do. What you do NOT have a right to do is to enforce your personal beliefs upon others; to demand the market conform to your personal standards. Call this what you will. I choose to call it censorship and oppression.
And now it is my turn to be offensive.
It's not that I'm trying to be, mind you. It's just that I'm about to express an opinion that some will choose to be offended by.
This entire controversy, in this instance, is nothing short of frivolous.
Offended? Why? It's just an opinion. I do find it frivolous, for the following reasons.
First, the costumes in Overwatch are sensual for male and female characters alike. Most all of them are like this. This should have been obvious to anyone that looked at the game prior to playing it. You chose to play a game with sensual character portrayal, yet are offended by this one, and only this one pose? Only on this one character? When you chose to play this game, it already was what it is. If you find aspects of it to be offensive, why did you choose to play it in the first place?
Behold D.VA The Latest Addition to the Overwatch Character Roster
Second, If this pose is removed, as Blizzard said it will be, has it occurred to you that the character will still be in the same costume during actual game play? Has it occurred to you that other characters will be in equally sensual costumes? Are you willing to let the rest of the game be when this one pose is removed, or will you move on to the next thing you find offensive? Sensuality is an inherent part of all fantasy based MMORPG's in the Blizzard library. So why this one pose by this one character in this one game? It is no worse than many other characters and poses in what Blizzard offers, so why... this... one? Is it really all about this one character pose, or is this but the first salvo of many to come? I believe it may well turn out to have been a mistake for Blizzard to retreat at the first whiff of powder.
D.VA Poses With Her Bubblegum Pink Battle Mech.
Finally, I started this post with an indisputable fact, and here is another. You have choice.
You can choose what to play. You can choose what not to play. You can choose to withhold your money from companies you disagree with. You can choose to support those companies that cater to your standards. In the free market system, this is what brings about lasting change. If enough people want that change, companies will adjust to meet tha demand. If they do not, another company will come along to fill the void. How and where you spend your money will always be the most powerful means of change in a free market system. All the boycotts, petitions, and public outcry will never trump the dollar. There is no doubt that such tactics have worked with weak kneed companies in the past, but it only brings about a transient change which has substance only so long as the whim of the public gives it such. Your choice of where you spend your money brings greater, more permanent change than your opinion ever will, so choose. Choose well and in time you will be rewarded.
In a time of global crisis, an international task force of heroes banded together to restore peace to a war-torn world. This organization, known as Overwatch, ended the crisis and helped maintain peace for a generation, inspiring an era of exploration, innovation, and discovery.
After many years, Overwatch's influence waned and it was eventually disbanded. Now in the wake of its dismantling, conflict is rising once again. Overwatch may be gone…but the world still needs heroes.
Get a first look at Tracer, and her pulse pistols, Blink ability, Pulse Bomb, and more.