"SJW" and the Spectrum...

[Varrok]

They already do, and it's disgusting.

It's not fun, its not silly, it has nothing to do with being a samurai-based killer. It just reduces him to another bland male sex symbol.

[Moot]

Is it just me, or is that pose of Tracer not sexy? I could understand the argument if she was suddenly in lingerie and was bent over a few notches.. But she's turned about, with her hips quirked. I'd argue that if you feel like this pose is sexy, you're sexualizing it yourself.

This is seriously a none-issue, imo.

Edit: Not that issues like this in general aren't real issues, this on in particular is a none-issue!

[Xorlidyr]

I, as a consumer, never wish to play a game, when there are a lot of non-oversexualized, ordinary men in a game.

Please, have some sympathy.

I would gladly play a game, where everyone is oversexualized. Expression is so much fun!

[Varrok]

It wouldn't be a non-issue, if Blizzard ignored the irrational request to remove the non-sexual pose.

The issue is that they didn't.

[Moot]

It wouldn't be a non-issue, if Blizzard ignored the irrational request to remove the non-sexual pose.

The issue is that they didn't.

Did they respond or did they actually remove it? Feed me the news, Varrok, don't hold out on me!

[Varrok]

They both did repond to the original post (here) and said they'll remove it (here), and that's why the internet is angry over it.

They've also made an attempt of damage control by the long post here

[Xorlidyr]

Honestly, I wish that the culture becomes much more sexualized, but clean.
We need more revealed flesh and tempting poses.

[Nepsotic]

And people say that feminists aren't ruining anything or censoring anybody's expression.

[Varrok]

Please, act less like a sexual frustrate, Gishy.

[Moot]

This none-issue is a real issue. It's baffling sometimes.

I'll stand stalwart in the fact I'll never jump in on these arguments.

Edit: Thanks for the info Varrok.

[Manco]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeqTyM7XIAA8N0g.jpg
They already do, and it's disgusting.

It's not fun, its not silly, it has nothing to do with being a samurai-based killer. It just reduces him to another bland male sex symbol.

Notice how his ass is not visible, highlighted or sticking out, and he’s standing completely upright.

Is it just me, or is that pose of Tracer not sexy? I could understand the argument if she was suddenly in lingerie and was bent over a few notches.. But she's turned about, with her hips quirked. I'd argue that if you feel like this pose is sexy, you're sexualizing it yourself.

No, you can see that she’s leaning forward and arcing her back as well, so her ass sticks out. Compare and contrast with the picture Varrok posted.

It wouldn't be a non-issue, if Blizzard ignored the irrational request to remove the non-sexual pose.

The issue is that they didn't.

And people say that feminists aren't ruining anything or censoring anybody's expression.

The article specifically states that Blizzard were already discussing removing it, nobody was “censored”. It also states that there are other characters in the game who are specifically designed with sex appeal in mind, and they’re not being changed.

[Nepsotic]

Don't you remember that shit with MKX

[Varrok]

Notice how his ass is not visible, highlighted or sticking out, and he’s standing completely upright.

It's nearly 1:1 the same pose as the one of Tracer. And it was the pose that gets removed, not her latex outfit.

No, you can see that she’s leaning forward and arcing her back as well, so her ass sticks out. Compare and contrast with the picture Varrok posted.

Yeah... no.

The article specifically states that Blizzard were already discussing removing it, nobody was “censored”. It also states that there are other characters in the game who are specifically designed with sex appeal in mind, and they’re not being changed.

Damage control. If the team was unhappy with the pose, they wouldn't have added it in the first place. It's the same standard pose (even of the same name) that other characters use.

[Moot]

No, you can see that she’s leaning forward and arcing her back as well, so her ass sticks out. Compare and contrast with the picture Varrok posted.

When I said "bent over a few notches" I more so meant literally bent over. When I stand with a straight posture, my back arches too so I'm not really seeing a "sexy" correlation because her back's arched. I won't argue that she's not leaned forward at all though, because I honestly can't tell if she is or not. But I'll stand by the fact that I don't find it sexy, nor does it come off that way. But that's an entirely subjective stance. I still feel like this isn't something to be heated about (referring to the outcry on Blizzard forums, and the original "it's too sexzzzyyy 4 kids" post).

That particular picture of the male character in a similar stance isn't quite the equivalent of Tracers, imo, and isn't comparable. I feel like men can be sexualized just as much as women in video games. They're always burly, buff and toned, which is the unrealistic representation of men. But tha'ts an unrealistic representation and not exactly sexualized.

If Blizzard was already thinking about removing the pose, they were most likely waiting for the feedback. I believe the OG post (the one complaining about the pose) is a little ridiculous and overblown, but I don't see Blizzards removal as blasphemous.

[Xorlidyr]

I simply wish that people become much more expressive.
All this grayness is a bit depressing.

[STM]

I'm in two minds about this; one the one-hand I don't see the pose as inherently sexual per-se, considering what's out there you know? I mean, her outfit is more revealing, that's what I'd take up contention with. On the other hand, it's just a pose, and it's just a game character...but then an obviously male-designed female character is kind of annoying; you could hire some female designers to work on female characters, if the sweaty neck-beard in-house male designers can't go five minutes without working tits 'n arse into the female's design.

[Xorlidyr]

Let women design male characters instead!

[Manco]

When I said "bent over a few notches" I more so meant literally bent over. When I stand with a straight posture, my back arches too so I'm not really seeing a "sexy" correlation because her back's arched. I won't argue that she's not leaned forward at all though, because I honestly can't tell if she is or not.

It's nearly 1:1 the same pose as the one of Tracer. And it was the pose that gets removed, not her latex outfit.


Yeah... no.

Here, I drew a diagram:



Her back is more arched, she’s leaning forward while he’s standing straight, her hips are at an angle, and her legs are spread apart. They’re different poses.

Damage control. If the team was unhappy with the pose, they wouldn't have added it in the first place.

Spoiler alert: the team could have initially been happy with the pose and changed their minds about it. They explicitly stated they were considering removing it, why would they lie about it?

EDIT: The game is also still in beta, so changes are perfectly normal.

I still feel like this isn't something to be heated about (referring to the outcry on Blizzard forums, and the original "it's too sexzzzyyy 4 kids" post).

Yeah I would agree with that. I wouldn’t care either way if it was removed, but I don’t think the decision warrants any backlash either.

I feel like men can be sexualized just as much as women in video games. They're always burly, buff and toned, which is the unrealistic representation of men. But tha'ts an unrealistic representation and not exactly sexualised.

My favorite example of sexualization of male characters is Metal Gear Solid. It has such a weird focus on macho men with nice asses I’m like 99% sure Hideo Kojima is bisexual.

The usual difference between sexualization of men in fiction is that it’s still aimed at men and is more about their power – when women are sexualized it’s “hey guys check out this hot bod”, whereas when men are sexualized it becomes “whoa look how STRONG and HARDCORE these dudes are”.

It still sets an unrealistic image and is really weird and gross, but for different reasons.

[Varrok]

Her back is more arched, she’s leaning forward while he’s standing straight, her hips are at an angle, and her legs are spread apart. They’re different poses.

That difference is hardly noticeable for an average observer. It does not scream "rape me" or anything sexual in particular. They're removing a non-sexual pose for being potentially sexual. Everything is potentially sexual. The male ninja could be potentionally sexual. That was precisely the point TotalBiscuit was making in his Winston parody video.

Spoiler alert: the team could have initially been happy with the pose and changed their minds about it. They explicitly stated they were considering removing it, why would they lie about it?

Because avoiding as fire bad press (even if it's totally unjustified) from overly sensitive feminist groups isn't a good motivation, right?

Yeah I would agree with that. I wouldn’t care either way if it was removed, but I don’t think the decision warrants any backlash either.

I haven't even played Overwatch, it doesn't affect me at all. But it's still a stupid decision made because of a stupid post.

My favorite example of sexualization of male characters is Metal Gear Solid. It has such a weird focus on macho men with nice asses I’m like 99% sure Hideo Kojima is bisexual.

That's a dumb reason to assume that. Also, it's wrong.

The usual difference between sexualization of men in fiction is that it’s still aimed at men and is more about their power – when women are sexualized it’s “hey guys check out this hot bod”, whereas when men are sexualized it becomes “whoa look how STRONG and HARDCORE these dudes are”.

How do you know how most people react to it, exactly?

It still sets an unrealistic image and is really weird and gross, but for different reasons.

I never thought a game featuring scientific super gorrilas should be realistic.

[Moot]

The usual difference between sexualization of men in fiction is that it’s still aimed at men and is more about their power – when women are sexualized it’s “hey guys check out this hot bod”, whereas when men are sexualized it becomes “whoa look how STRONG and HARDCORE these dudes are”.

It still sets an unrealistic image and is really weird and gross, but for different reasons.

Exactly! Men and woman are different, media especially has created a dynamic where males and females are attractive for vastly different reasons. Woman need to be feminine, and have very define features of a femininity (big breasts, large hips, susceptible looking). While males need to be absolutely masculine, and need to physically be portrayed that way (muscles, intimidating, protective/savior).

Males and females aren't attractive for the same reasons (of course attraction is objective, but I'm talking in a bold sense here). So to some degree, I feel that the sexualization of men and woman in media are similar, just in different ways.. if that makes sense!

Edit: Varrok, it's also worth noting that there's more then likely hundreds of posts like the OG post that has gotten so much attention. I wouldn't correlate Blizzards removal of the pose to be the fault of that post, because frankly, it is a stupid post. They could have honestly been thinking about removing it.

On the other hand, Blizzard could verywell be saying that as a PR move, we simply don't know and never will know. There's not much use using it as an argument for either side, tbh!

[Varrok]

Edit: Varrok, it's also worth noting that there's more then likely hundreds of posts like the OG post that has gotten so much attention. I wouldn't correlate Blizzards removal of the pose to be the fault of that post, because frankly, it is a stupid post. They could have honestly been thinking about removing it.

On the other hand, Blizzard could verywell be saying that as a PR move, we simply don't know and never will know. There's not much use using it as an argument for either side, tbh!

Agreed.

[Manco]

That difference is hardly noticeable for an average observer.

It was noticeable enough that other people saw it and commented on it, and noticeable enough that Blizzard was already considering removing it.

It does not scream "rape me" or anything sexual in particular.

Why is that the first thing you jump to when talking about sex? It doesn’t need to have anything to do with rape to have sexual connotations, chill the fuck out.

They're removing a non-sexual pose for being potentially sexual. Everything is potentially sexual. The male ninja could be potentionally sexual.

It does have sexual connotations. It’s not hardcore nudity or obscene gestures, but it has obviously been designed to accentuate the character’s sex appeal by drawing attention to her ass.

Perhaps you just have difficulty identifying that because of the oversaturation of female sex appeal in modern culture~

That was precisely the point TotalBiscuit was making in his Winston parody video.

I watched the TotalBiscuit video, it was just a massive strawman, and TotalBiscuit has a history of defending sex appeal in games anyway.

Because avoiding as fire bad press (even if it's totally unjustified) from overly sensitive feminist groups isn't a good motivation, right?

I haven't even played Overwatch, it doesn't affect me at all. But it's still a stupid decision made because of a stupid post.

What bad press was Blizzard trying to avoid exactly? A forum post from one person was gonna end up getting every gaming news website calling for their blood?

They could have completely ignored this and nothing would have happened at all.

That's a dumb reason to assume that. Also, it's wrong.

“Man puts unusually large amount of male sex appeal and homoerotic subtext in his video games” is probably one of the best reasons to assume that. Regardless, the comment was made in jest, calm down.

How do you know how most people react to it, exactly?

How do you?

I never thought a game featuring scientific super gorrilas should be realistic.

Yes, fictional media can absolutely never contribute to cultural trends and body image, you’re absolutely right.

[Varrok]

Despite that my style of writing may suggest otherwise, I'm actually pretty chill. I don't know, maybe it's a manner of talking on my side.

[Nepsotic]

I don't think Manco realises that the target audience for these games is men, and men like to look at sexy tits and arses, I'm sorry if that upsets you.

[Manco]

I don't think Manco realises that the target audience for these games is men, and men like to look at sexy tits and arses, I'm sorry if that upsets you.

• There’s nothing to suggest that Overwatch is targeted at an exclusively male audience, the list of playable characters is fairly diverse so they’re more likely to be targeting a broad audience
• Roughly half of gamers are female, so it would be in Blizzards’s own financial interest to make the game appeal to more than just horny men
• Team Fortress 2 is a similar game which appeals to a similar audience, and features no titillating female characters at all
• Do men need titillating women in their games to be interested in them?
• The article already states the character who was designed to be titillating will not be changed, they are only removing the pose from a character who isn’t designed with titillation in mind

[Moot]

There’s nothing to suggest that Overwatch is targeted at an exclusively male audience, the list of playable characters is fairly diverse so they’re more likely to be targeting a broad audience

I can only help but agree.

[Varrok]

A non-sexual pose, let's not forget about that little fact.

[Nepsotic]

[*]There’s nothing to suggest that Overwatch is targeted at an exclusively male audience, the list of playable characters is fairly diverse so they’re more likely to be targeting a broad audience

There is always a target demographic in mind. It's a good move to have sexy female characters, business wise, considering men play more games than women.

[*]Roughly half of gamers are female, so it would be in Blizzards’s own financial interest to make the game appeal to more than just horny men

Actually this is totally false, that statistic includes mobile games, you know, shit like Candy Crush? I don't think 50% of Dark Souls players are female. (it's an example)

[*]Team Fortress 2 is a similar game which appeals to a similar audience, and features no titillating female characters at all

And?

[*]Do men need titillating women in their games to be interested in them?

Nobody said this?

[*]The article already states the character who was designed to be titillating will not be changed, they are only removing the pose from a character who isn’t designed with titillation in mind

Cool, but that wasn't my point.

[Vlam]

Arguing with Manco...

[Manco]

There is always a target demographic in mind. It's a good move to have sexy female characters, business wise, considering men play more games than women.

Except that even if you assume that Overwatch is only targeted at men (and it likely is not), it’s completely unnecessary to include titillation to get good sales, which is why I highlighted TF2.

Actually this is totally false, that statistic includes mobile games, you know, shit like Candy Crush? I don't think 50% of Dark Souls players are female. (it's an example)

The study didn’t segregate by device for either gender, and if we consider the ubiquity of smartphones it’s likely that both genders play a high proportion of mobile games.

But if you want further statistics:

• Researchers find that female PC gamers outnumber males
• 44% of Japan's console gamers are women
• “47% of [UK] female gamers polled had played a disc-based game in the last six months, and 68% had played an online game. 56% of female gamers have played on a console.”
• 42% of American women stated they owned a games console

And?

So it’s absolutely not a requirement to make a game for this demographic with titillating characters in it, neither is it a requirement to guarantee good sales or a strong player base.

Nobody said this?

The implication is there. The argument goes something along the lines of “more men play games, men like to be titillated while playing games, we should put titillation in our game to improve sales”. It’s the same argument that you’re trying to justify here.

Cool, but that wasn't my point.

Your point is “men like to look at sexy things while playing games”, my point is they don’t need to but there are still sexy things in this game anyway, so there’s no reason to complain about it.