Pose to be removed from Tracer after complaints of it being too suggestive/sexual

[Jingoism]

The best thing to come out of this debacle are the mimic posts for other characters.

[deadman1]

There were no complaints about this before. Fipp's post was the only complaint of this pose as far as I know.

I don't know either way, it's just the most publicized because this is where Jeff Kraplan caved.

And let's say you're right and Blizzard is just "caving" to complaints. What's the problem? Blizzard said they wanted more diverse female characters, so surely they should be welcoming criticism about the presentation of their female characters.

It doesn't change the character, that's the prime issue, her character isn't changed because she made a cheeky (pun intended) pose.

If shes still a time traveling adventurer that has a healthy sexual petite, whats the difference?

[Magicalcrab]

But hes the one that made the initial statement showing him caving to the pressure.Evidence

Then he made a second statement AFTER the uproar. Backpedaling

So why is it impossible that there was an internal discussion? It's very unclear how "further explanation" equals "obvious lie".

If they cared about fan feed back then they could read their site, reddit, mmochamp and see that the majority of people disagree with them.

So is this about censorship or not? When you make Blizzard keep the pose, it's suddenly okay? Even if they clearly don't agree with you? What about their creative freedom to do what they want?
What are you trying to say?

[Flurryfang]

I really must say that is good to wake up and see that people are still mad about this Hopefully we can get some words out of blizzard soon, that would be nice to see them communicate in any way Might come some good out of this inferno yet

[deadman1]

So why is it impossible that there was an internal discussion? It's very unclear how "further explanation" equals "obvious lie".

I didn't say it was impossible, it just seems all too convenient especially taking the initial statement by Kaplan into account.

So is this about censorship or not? When you make Blizzard keep the pose, it's suddenly okay? Even if they clearly don't agree with you? What about their creative freedom to do what they want?
What are you trying to say?

I want them to design the game how they want. I just don't think that they are being honest. I think I've made this part clear.

And by "how they want" I mean what they actually want, and not what they want taking into consideration that some puritanical nutcakes might be upset by a butt.

[Magicalcrab]

I didn't say it was impossible, it just seems all too convenient especially taking the initial statement by Kaplan into account.

I want them to design the game how they want. I just don't think that they are being honest. I think I've made this part clear.

I think it's pretty darn natural to elaborate and further explain your position if you think you did so poorly the first time around. Isn't that how a conversation is supposed to go?

Blizzard's one of the most stubborn developers I've ever come across. They only barely change their mind a tiny percentage of the time whenever there's mass outrage caused by a design choice of theirs. That said, they've expressed a desire to be better at representing female characters for ages, especially in regards to the Overwatch title.
Is it really so hard to believe that they actually figured "Yeah, let's do something else for Tracer that's a bit more Tracer-y", even if the final drop in that hypothetical bucket was due to a feedback thread on their forums?
I don't think so, personally.

[Daethz]

Just ban female characters, if i can see the outline of a boob i automatically sexualize her, and according to a million feminists being sexualized makes you an object.

Let's just make women wear burkas in videogames at all times in all situations.
Since feminism seems to share it's views on women.

What ever happend to the women who felt sexually empowered when they could have a dozen men following her, doing things for her?
That wasen't a "Strong" woman? Idk, subterfuge and control is pretty powerful, just ask politicians.

[deadman1]

I think it's pretty darn natural to elaborate and further explain your position if you think you did so poorly the first time around. Isn't that how a conversation is supposed to go?

Then why wait till after the backlash? Why does the second statement have a different tone to it?

Blizzard's one of the most stubborn developers I've ever come across. They only barely change their mind a tiny percentage of the time whenever there's mass outrage caused by a design choice of theirs. That said, they've expressed a desire to be better at representing female characters for ages, especially in regards to the Overwatch title.

Because of "certain people" badgering them. Straight from the horses mouth http://kotaku.com/new-overwatch-char...ten-1689904549
Both horses in fact, it's an old fashioned dog and pony show.

Is it really so hard to believe that they actually figured "Yeah, let's do something else for Tracer that's a bit more Tracer-y", even if the final drop in that hypothetical bucket was due to a feedback thread on their forums?
I don't think so, personally.

So tracer isn't human, she isn't sexual at all?

I'm right
You're right
We're all right

In the end I doubt Jeff Kaplan is bothered by a butt made out of pixels so I doubt it was a really personal decision for him.

[Daethz]

Blizzard needs to ignore players like this.
Giving into the demands of everyone eventually means the game will have no violence, all humans would wear full body burkas and killing animals would be also banned because of peta, even fake animals not based on existing ones would probably make peta angry.

- - - Updated - - -

Blizzard giving into radical feminists is just another reason I wont be buying overwatch, and increasingly less likely to buy any of their games.

[Magicalcrab]

Then why wait till after the backlash? Why does the second statement have a different tone to it?

When you see opposition caused by a misstep on your part, you usually take a step back and approach the situation a little differently the next time. That's just basic social tact.

So tracer isn't human, she isn't sexual at all?

Please don't do the hyperbole thing.
If you think that an overt sexuality is part of Tracer's persona, that's up to you. Go for it. I don't think that's really what Blizzard were going for, though, judging by their descriptions at Blizzcon and by their recent choice to adjust her pose in the beta.

Widowmaker is still on board, so it's not like they're entirely opposed to characters being designed with sensuality in mind. Tracer just happens to not be one of them.

[deadman1]

When you see opposition caused by a misstep on your part, you usually take a step back and approach the situation a little differently the next time. That's just basic social tact.

It definitely could be, it could also be backpedaling.

Please don't do the hyperbole thing.

Not trying to be inflammatory, but I genuinely don't think you know what that word means.

If you think that an overt sexuality is part of Tracer's persona, that's up to you. Go for it. I don't think that's really what Blizzard were going for, though, judging by their descriptions at Blizzcon and by their recent choice to adjust her pose in the beta.

Widowmaker is still on board, so it's not like they're entirely opposed to characters being designed with sensuality in mind. Tracer just happens to not be one of them.

I don't think doing a playful pose is "overtly sexual." That's where we differ.

I don't remember Hanzo being described as "Overtly sexual" either, but here we see this little trollop slutting it up.




If people don't have issues with this pose for this character, but do for tracer, then they are hypocrites dead to rights.

[Kallisto]

Once again you're ignoring that there had already been internal discussion the matter. This complaint just tipped the scales. If you want to believe that Kaplan is lying that's your problem. But the two posts do not contradict one another.

Honestly I now wonder if any post would have convinced some of the more extreme of these posters once the complaint was made. Even though this is something they talked about internally someone complained and it was changed. Even if they were independent of each other someone is going to put the two together and bitch.

I honestly believe Blizzard could bring out time stamp time stamp videos of them discussing whether or not to have Tracer's pose in the game and deciding before said complaint was made to change it and it wouldn't be enough for some people.

[deadman1]

Honestly I now wonder if any post would have convinced some of the more extreme of these posters once the complaint was made. Even though this is something they talked about internally someone complained and it was changed. Even if they were independent of each other someone is going to put the two together and bitch.

I honestly believe Blizzard could bring out time stamp time stamp videos of them discussing whether or not to have Tracer's pose in the game and deciding before said complaint was made to change it and it wouldn't be enough for some people.

I can tell you it would be enough for me as long as they were making the decision based on their personal choices and not "what will the x, y, z's think, and what will the children do etc."

[Magicalcrab]

It definitely could be, it could also be backpedaling.

Not trying to be inflammatory, but I genuinely don't think you know what that word means.
I don't think doing a playful pose is "overtly sexual." That's where we differ.

In order for it to be backpedaling he'd actually have to reverse. I agree that the first post is a bit on the silly side, though. It wasn't the best or most tactful way to articulate a point in such a contentious discussion. That's why the second post helps shine a light on where he was coming from when he made the first statement.
Try reading them in reverse order, if that helps?

Regarding the sexuality of the pose, maybe "overtly sexual" is a bit strong. There is certainly a hint of sexuality to it that we've not really seen in any other representation of her as a character, though.
And to be completely transparent, I don't really have much against the pose myself. It's a bit silly, for sure, but I don't consider it offensive or anything. I'm personally just fine with Blizzard changing it if they'd like to replace it with something more character-appropriate.
I'd probably do the same thing if I were them. I just wouldn't have posted anything in that thread, knowing it'd make the internet explode.

[deadman1]

In order for it to be backpedaling he'd actually have to reverse. I agree that the first post is a bit on the silly side, though. It wasn't the best or most tactful way to articulate a point in such a contentious discussion. That's why the second post helps shine a light on where he was coming from when he made the first statement.
Try reading them in reverse order, if that helps?

I'm not saying your proposition is impossible it's about 50/50 for me, I've just seen them and other devs cave to social pressure before

Regarding the sexuality of the pose, maybe "overtly sexual" is a bit strong. There is certainly a hint of sexuality to it that we've not really seen in any other representation of her as a character, though.
And to be completely transparent, I don't really have much against the pose myself. It's a bit silly, for sure, but I don't consider it offensive or anything. I'm personally just fine with Blizzard changing it if they'd like to replace it with something more character-appropriate.
I'd probably do the same thing if I were them. I just wouldn't have posted anything in that thread, knowing it'd make the internet explode.

Fair enough, but blizzard has always been terrible with internal and external communication.

- - - Updated - - -

[Zatachi]

I still have a really hard time finding that pose sexual.
Its still her persona, a time jumping speedo looking back saying "To slow lad!"

Ok, you see her behind....yes, i see tons of that everyday yet i dont think its sexualized. With her character how can anyone even think about sexy before thinking "Damn shes fast, of course she looks back to me."....miracles. XD

[deadman1]

In the end, there is nothing different between these photos on the surface. It's only what people infer on their own. If you find one sexual and not the other, that is YOU sexualizing the character, not blizzard.



And if you say, b-b-but her outfit, you are missing the point, no one was complaining about her outfit, just the pose.

[Deleted]

Because overly sexualised male characters aren't a trend.

HHAHAHHAHA

No really.

Almost every character I see in Videogames has a 12 pack in front, two asscheeks which can crush stones, and their body is of course a V shape.

[La]

HHAHAHHAHA

No really.

Almost every character I see in Videogames has a 12 pack in front, two asscheeks which can crush stones, and their body is of course a V shape.

What is in other games is irrelevant to what is in this game. But truth is, most people want their character to look attractive.

"The cast of playable characters in Overwatch was stated as being intended to portray diverse representations of genders and ethnicities (including males, females, and non-human characters such as robots and a gorilla). Jeff Kaplan explained that the industry was "clearly in an age where gaming is for everybody", going on to say that "increasingly, people want to feel represented, from all walks of life, boys and girls, everybody. We feel indebted to do our best to honor that." Metzen admitted that even his daughter had asked why the characters in a Warcraft cutscene were wearing swimsuits.Despite this, however, a writer for Kotaku still remarked that "Overwatch's women are mostly super slim and clad in cat suits."

[RoKPaNda]

What is in other games is irrelevant to what is in this game. But truth is, most people want their character to look attractive.

So it's okay to sexualize and objectify men, portray them with "perfect" body types, etc ... but it's NOT okay for female characters. Got it.