Blizzard removes Overwatch unlockable & optional "Butt Pose" because 1 fan complains....

Oh god they really brought out the "think of the children" excuse for a teen rated shooter

@bigfatmistake said:

MMMOoooonster KILL!

i thought he banned himself from social media?

I think they should replace that pose with one of her spread eagle for one patch, just to mess with us.

Make your own fucking game. Do you see the avg 510 man complain about these brollic character ? Are we afraid our sons will be let down when there find out the genes might not make them look like the characters ?

Man the **** up women. If it aint equal pay shut the hell up. Scream at yall nieces and and females cuzzins that will be showinh cleaving or wearing tight clothes this weekend

14 is the new 4

Another day, another story about someone getting upset over a video game.

Removing the pose isn´t that big of a deal at all,the issue is the way they handled it on a forum,basically publically caving because someone was too touchy feely about that shit.

How a company with Blizzards experience doesnt see this would lead into a shitstorm...

PR stunt by blizzard to bring OW back into the limelight / press. Pretty obvious.

Now that Chun Li's "glitch" has been "fixed", I suspect you'll be seeing a larger trend of "fixed glitches" and "more appropriate creative decisions that better reflect the developers' vision" in the face of further complaints of sexism, racism, et al.

I believe the earliest example of this phenomenon was kicked off by Dan Didio of DC Comics who, in response to a feminist twitter campaign to change the cover of Batgirl, told the artist to endorse a cover change so as to address alleged "threats" against said feminists. But, of course, he and Didio put greater emphasis on the excuse that the cover was allegedly inappropriate for the atmosphere reflected by the comic itself, thus making it a "more prudent creative decision".

Now that DC has found lip-service they can fall back on in the event of socially-charged criticism, Capcom and Blizzard are taking notes from them for future crises.

We're in for a deluge here.

And once again, SJWs trot out the "creative freedom" strawman as though anyone denied the devs have any to speak of.

We're the ones pointing out that their creative freedom is being overrided and censored for the sake of people's feelies for fuckssakes.

Stop trying to spin this.

OMFG will companies stop listening to these obvious trolls and shallow SJWs. There will always be people offended by something. Any game developer who value their creative freedom should not pander to these children. Any adult would know to simply ignore what offends them, but they pathetically cry about it until they get their way, we should not give in to this.

What about this guy?

Blizzard's solution to people who say that Tracer is too sexualised!

@kozio:

How many times do I need to post this?

Well, that escalated quickly…

While I stand by my previous comment, I realize I should have been more clear. As the game director, I have final creative say over what does or does not go into the game. With this particular decision, it was an easy one to make—not just for me, but for the art team as well. 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. 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.

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. 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.

If it isn’t, feel free to continue sharing your concerns, thoughts, and feedback about this and other issues you may have with the game, please just keep the discussion respectful.

Thanks,

jeffre

The developers are sticking to their creative vision. Their creative vision however just doesn't align with what you want. Why don't you people stop trying to pressure developers to pander to you and just accept that fact that they have the final say on what goes in their game?

http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20743015583?page=11#211

I read it. That's just damage control after removing the thread last night ( it was reinstated today and unlocked) , it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that they were working on extra poses since the other characters have other poses. The second post was extremely obvious PR speak damage control. Still doesn't change the fact that he apologized to a "customer" and promised to change the pose. This is class A pandering. The guy flat out mentions his daughter and how he wants a "safe environment" (paraphrasing) for her growth. It's hilarious how clear his "think of the children!" politically correct bullshit message is. He doesn't care about the other sexualized characters because Trace is the one his daughter likes and therefore the one he's worried will influence his daughter to become a slut. Because of a pose. In a game. And now all of a sudden they change their art direction. It's too much of a coincidence to just have been something they were working on all along. This isn't about the pose, this is about ignoring the requests of the vast majority (95%+ in a poll) to appease the extreme minority. Bullshit. Absolute bullshit attempt to save face after the reaction. Widowmaker is the overtly sultry sexuality-is-a-weapon character. Like someone from a Bond movie. Tracer is the cute hyperactive innocent-but-not-really flirts with everyone girl next door. She knows damn well that butt pose is cute and flirty but plays innocent. You can't tell me that being cute and flirty is not part of her personality when she wears that outfit and calls everyone flirty names like 'Love' constantly.

The guy is an idiot and so are Blizzard for pandering to his special needs.

wasn't up to par with Blizzard standards.

other characters (including a male shirtless one) still have that exact same pose.

“We'll replace the pose. 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,”

For fucks sake.

His 2nd reply doesn't seem so genuine when you read what he first posted. This was him caving in to the first posters needs and concerns. His 2nd reply was him trying to justify his groveling and apologizing. It is damage control, shitty damage control because he makes it clear he was pandering because "We want everyone to feel strong and heroic in our community."

So a pose doesn't make you feel strong? You're not pandering or backpedaling? Blizzard has teams for each game. The team working in overwatch bends over to sjw complains. Other teams might not care as much. The problem is backpedaling. First it's game art, then it's game balance, then it's the game all together. That's what SJWs follow.

This can be seen with any game with women in it. Let's take GTA V for example.

1) Game oversexualizes women and depicts them negatively.

2) You can kill hookers for money! [even tho there is plenty of other people you can beat and kill for money]

3) The game is problematic and needs to be removed from shelves!

Then comes the double standard, woman doing slut walks and demanding they can wear anything. Then when it comes to video games. All video game females have to wear a Niqāb and be "Balanced" to unrealistic standards that they move the goal post on all the time.

Point is, People shouldn't have a input on character design. If a game artist wants a sexy butt, it should be there. It's freedom of expression. It shouldn't circle back around and break someone's vision of the character. Given the devs response I wonder if the complaint was manufactured. Look at all this attention the game is getting now, no sane company would waste their resources and throw away their work from one complaint. Blizzard, proud of their games, but not so proud that they stand by their own choices and art directions. As shown in HotS when Tychus's iconic cigar was removed. I feel like more game developers are losing that sense of pride and confidence these days and it's sad.

@kozio: You seem to completely miss the point of the complaint and why it was removed. It had nothing to do with opposition to sexy women in sexual poses. It was simply that they felt it didn't suit the specific character

Like I said why don't you stop trying to pressure devs to pander to you and accept the fact if they want to add something or remove something, it's entirely up to them?

What's wrong with a bit of booty?

@toast_burner: ... so you didn't read the thread then? The initial reasoning given was different. Their first statement was basically "We will change it because we don't want to leave you out of feeling heroic." Which raised some eyebrows, especially considering the arguments presented were relatively subjective. It wasn't until after it blew up in a negative way that they said "We totally wanted to do it anyway." That's why it seems like damage control. The emphasis that there had been some internal voices in the team who thought the pose could be improved only came a bit later. Too late, apparently. To be fair, this was said after it blew up. The total biscuit video was 10/10. Stressing everyone in that sentence is probably done to show that they don't want to leave even one person out of the equation. Did they plan to replace it anyway? Possibly. Does it look that way from how they responded? No. And unless you were in the meeting when they decided, you don't know any more than anyone else either.

@speak_low Because the community voted 9:1 to keep the animations? Overwatch sub > NeoGAF bullshit. You seem misinformed about whats going on. Yes, because you only believe people when it fits your narrative. People aren't complaining because they want ass, they're complaining because they caved to a very small minority of people over the wishes of the majority, which doesn't look good to the playerbase. No one is saying screw all social justice. The term should be used for its literal sense. The W in SJW is an ironic use of the word warrior. Like keyboard warrior or armchair x. SJWs tend to be people who spend most of their time complaining about issues that are inconsequential or personally offend them and few others while acting as if they are the worst travesties or the worst forms of oppression. SJWs aren't the people who are fighting for equality, they are the ones complaining about things like how a women's bottle of shampoo is in a pink bottle and the men's is in a blue bottle, when they are a woman and prefer blue over pink and then claiming that it's sex discrimination. I was pointing out that it's just as easily said for the other side. Wasn't addressing what Blizzard did. I don't think it's the filter itself, but the reasoning. It's rated M, for mature. By definition: Content is generally suitable for ages 17 and up. May contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language. He's basically saying "My kid isn't of the recommended age of your game, but I'm going to let him play anyway. That means you need to put a filter in." Btw don't get me start on GAF. This is video games not politics. Don't care. Just want the game to finally come out.

Game development is not a democracy. The games director said he wanted to change it, therefore it changed. No amount of whining about it will change that.

You SJWs really need to accept that not everything needs to be bent to your will.

Some of you guys are being ridiculous. If something changes in a game (and for some reason, only when it's related to sex appeal or portrayal of women), you complain that it's pandering, SJW nonsense, or PC police. When the developer themselves come out and say "nah, we were on the fence about this and were already working on another option" you claim it's PR Speak or damage control. Assuming the devs are honest when they say something you agree with and are being dishonest when they say something you disagree with is such an obvious double standard that I didn't really think it should need to be pointed out. If you are going to use developers as a source, you don't get to cherry pick just the stuff they say that you like.

This is a perfect of why this whole "oh, but it's not about butts and boobs, it's about the creative vision" because you have no idea what the creative vision is, you just have an idea of what you think it is what you'd like it to be. Game development (especially in AAA studios) are huge collaborative efforts. There are leads and directors, but there's no single "artist" who's vision is being perverted by any changes from external influence. Literally thousands of changes happen over the course of development internally through collaboration, meetings, debate, etc. Storylines, characters, gameplay elements, etc all change, get tweaked, scrapped, and rebuilt from scratch. Hell, sometimes the studio throws out the entire game and rebuilds it from scratch as something different (maybe even multiple times, as was the case with RE4). Unless you actually have someone from the studio telling you otherwise (like we had with Bungie's former composer talking about all the stuff that changed with Destiny internally around the story), you have no clue so don't make these sweeping assumptions of injustice.

The vision for the game is what the final product becomes, not the thousands of decisions that they didn't go with along the way to get there. If you like boobs and butts, that's fine. Props to those of you who are upfront (pun!) about liking boobs. But don't try to make out like this is some sort of censorship issue because it isn't. No dev studio or publisher is going to make a change just because someone asked them to. If they make a change to their game just because someone complained. They change the game because they agree with the complaint.

-Byshop

Really? Like SOPedius says, there are BIGGER things to complain about than this. If it's optional, then why remove it, or better yet even complain? Complaining about optional things like this is why I headdesk when people complained when Nintendo added things like Super Guide (Super Mario Galaxy 2 and DKCR) and Invincibility (Super Mario 3D World and Star Fox Zero).

KEK

A woman's sexuality is a facet of female empowerment, to deny woman that is to deny women their empowerment, which is sexist, misogynistic. Those offended people that offended person might as well move to Middle East and wear women wear burkas.

Blizzards a bunch of pussies, been that way for a while now. Changing such a mundane thing like this pose simply because a couple other pussies have an issue only further drives this conclusion. Hopefully people ignore this tf2 rip off.

The tears of people whining about this is so tasty.

Now they use "stick to developer vision" argument, while few years ago they attacked Ubisoft for female hostage at Rainbow Six:Siege trailer.

@speak_low: lawl.

Yeah, when the anti-SJW crowd complain about instances like this or the SFV bug fix, it pretty quickly saps credibility from their position. When the dev team's director told everyone that even their internal team was divided on whether or not it was a good fit for this character (note that none of the other way more sexualized characters in Overwatch like Windowmaker or Symmetra are getting any changes like this), that should have been the end of the discussion but I think logic and reason went out the window here long ago.

-Byshop

You're right, there are bigger things to complain about then the removal of dumb butt pose in a video game.

The only people outraged are the people complaining about Blizzard's decision. Is the butt pose a hill worth dying on? Seems like that energy could be spent complaining about stuff that actually matters.

ROFL this is a thing now? You must mean normal people. SJW are the exception, not the rule. http://strawpoll.me/7212830/r

Labels are for the outliers, not the default position. Just like we don't call normal guys "anti-cucks".

If people want to complain about "social justice warriors" influence game development, I don't have a problem with that honestly. I don't agree with it, but it's a viewpoint I'm willing to talk out. The problem is that when people stop evaluating each instance of what they think is an example of "PC Police" or SJW meddling, then it stops being a valid point and becomes rhetoric. One forum goer sees one person complain and they come to pile on without taking even a moment to stop and see if the complaint even applies in this situation or not, or they start to complain about the people rather than the philosophy, etc, etc.

-Byshop

@kozio: He literally says he has creative control. Essentially a "because I said so" response. How is that damage control?

please remove male muscle hulks, it triggers me

a) Conversing with the devs on functionality and mechanics is not comparable to forcing every consumer to conform to the non-objective opinion of a single player on the alleged misogyny of game visuals.

b) You're apparently unfamiliar with concepts such as "precedent" and "principle". With this move made by Blizzard to kowtow to a single voice on the game's stylistic visuals, they have established a precedent for ignoring or disregarding the larger community and thus supporting the principle of homogenizing their userbase--something that they said, specifically, they would never do. Before you pull a Toast_Burner and try and tell me that it's not up to us whether or not they incorporate such a practice: NOBODY IS SAYING ANY SUCH THING. The point here is that one person is leveraging the community as a whole by coercing the game's developers, thereby turning them into a fulcrum by which everyone must re-calibrate their own comforts and preferences for the game they are buying. It doesn't matter whether or not you think the content being changed/removed is irrelevant. What matters is that it's not truly being left up to the developers--the ones being leveraged into self-censorship by the specter of sexism.

c) It's has not been objectively established that the complaint about the pose exposed anything truly sexual in nature beyond its own reactionary exaggeration. The point has been stated in this thread more than once that the complaint was a perfectly esoteric loner before the issue blew up with the developers caving into fear of being seen as misogynistic or overly-sexualizing a given character with a pose that features her buttcrack--which is also true of many male characters, none of whom are being complained about. More homogenization (and double standards).

a) See above: "Conversing with the devs on functionality and mechanics is not comparable to forcing every consumer to conform to the non-objective opinion of a single player on the alleged misogyny of game visuals."

I would point out however that your last sentence defeats the sentiment of your post. Indeed, game development is a huge collaborative effort--especially the beta, which involves the voluntary efforts of hundreds or even thousands of players testing out the game's functionality and reporting to the devs its deficiencies/strengths as a community, and not simply as an individual voice dictating one fan preference to the who of the consumership....Except, that's exactly what this issue involves.

b) Pretending that a homogeneous trigger-culture doesn't exist through claims of over-generalization (which is actually a logical fallacy), is rhetoric unto itself--in the same vein as Speak_Low's attempt at writing everyone off as "insecure". If a community-wide phenomenon exists, it operates qua generality and sans individuality. Identifying the "SJW" agency establishes a pattern that can be followed according to case studies without having to worry about overgeneralizing since the cases themselves are evidence of general phenomena.

I agree with you on the second point. SJWs are a disease. But....yeah, AGAIN, no one has claimed that devs can't do what they want or that development is a democracy. You're putting words in people's mouths in an effort to obfuscate the issue again.

Please--PLEASE stop with the strawmans. You guys can't even properly conceal them let alone type them out coherently. If your new talking point is going to be "The Beta is not the vision!", that's fine and dandy--it doesn't make any sense, but It's still fine. However, when the time comes to compare the visceral to the mechanical, don't try and pretend that devs wouldn't be scared into changing allegedly sexual poses that allegedly degrade women whether the game's in the beta stage or not. Please to note that Capcom edited out Chun Li's visuals after SF's final release. If you think Blizzard wouldn't have done the same thing had the complaint arrived post-Beta, then you're either fooling yourself or simply being disingenuous.

Reading your sophist, long-winded posts was a waste of a perfectly good fifteen minutes that I will never get back. My recommendation to the three of you is stop talking down to people and launching veiled insults of "insecurity". The sooner you stop writing people off according to your own social biases, the sooner you'll be at peace with yourselves.

@Pariah-:

Nothing is being forced on you, if you don't like the decisions a dev makes then you don't have to buy the game.

Your argument makes as much sense as claiming that GTA forces you to conform to violence. If you oppose virtual violence then don't buy a violent game. If you oppose a character not having a sexy pose then don't buy that game. When you start demanding that games must pander to you then thats when you've crossed the line. Grow up, the devs should be allowed to make the game they want to make regardless of what you or "95% of people" think.

I asked once. I asked you twice. I asked you three times. And then I asked you a fourth.

Stop with the strawmans.

No one has said anything about being forced to buy the game. Pointing out the homogenization of a userbase according to one voice among said base is not conducive to saying that we're forced to buy the game.

You said so yourself.

"Conversing with the devs on functionality and mechanics is not comparable to forcing every consumer to conform to the non-objective opinion of a single player on the alleged misogyny of game visuals."

So how are you being forced to conform to anything? Aren't you the one demanding the dev to conform to what you want? Why can't you accept that what the devs what doesn't have to align with what you want?

Like I said the arguments your making are identical to those made in favour of censoring violence in games like GTA.

Here's a question for you. If the majority of the beta testers wanted to remove the pose, but the devs said they want it to stay in. Who would you side with?

1) The complaint wasn't of "misogyny", it was a complaint that maybe this one pose didn't fit the personality of this character. I already mentioned that there are at least two other far more sexualized characters in the game who aren't getting any changes. This was never a complaint about misrepresentation of women in the game in general, and the original post even goes so far as to specifically exclude making changes to the other characters who's personalities -are- defined by their sexuality.

The complaint was that this pose doesn't seem to fit with what you are trying to do with -this- specific character.

2) It's -obviously- not "one fan" dictating the course of this game's development. Kaplan already specifically said that the team was so split on this that they had already come up with another pose. That means a significant portion of the dev team -agreed- with this one beta tester even before the complaint came up. How is that just "one fan"?

3) Assuming you are serious about this whole "forcing every consumer to conform to the non-objective opinion" comment, for one an opinion is non-objective by definition. Also, nobody is forcing you or anyone else to conform to anything. Conformity and non-conformity are patterns of behavior, and how you behave has nothing to do with the content of a video game. Nor is anything being "forced" upon you. When Watch Dogs turned out to be a mediocre GTA clone instead of the awesome hacking world that everyone thought it was going to be, does that mean that Ubisoft forced a crappy game on you or made you conform to Watch Dogs' mediocre gameplay? Of course not. If you decided you don't want to buy this game because of this change, that's totally your choice but I don't understand where this sense of entitlement comes from that the company somehow owes you the exact game that -you- want.

The fact of the matter is, you're arguing not because this is some injustice in the world of game development, but because you disagree with the decision. If the fan feedback were for bigger boobs or more sexualized poses, I doubt anyone would be complaining about a "perversion of the artists vision" or external pressures ruining games. Someone in the beta test didn't like the pose, while you dislike that they decided (and again, it was Blizzard's decision and not the beta tester's) to change it. While there are vocal minorities on both sides of the argument in the microcosm of internet gaming forums and article comments, the vast majority of people who are going to buy this game do not going to care either way.

-Byshop

If I'm identifying them as the "consumer[s]", that means I'm pointing that the ones that have bought the game have been homogenized against their prerogative. Not that they were forced to buy the game. Reading comprehension.

If the majority of consumers agree that the game would be better without it, then it's in the developer's best interest to cater to the their userbase's whim, if not their obligation to do so. Unfortunately for the perceptions of you and your ilk, the videogame community as a whole isn't that sensitive and out of whack with reality; the fans tend to belong to a demographic that reflects the devs themselves since they cater to them professionally, so your attempt at a gotcha is a self-consuming nonstarter.

LOL, yeah. If people like boobs, just say you like boobs. I like boobs, but that doesn't mean they have to be in literally every video game. If the dev changed the game to make all the boobs bigger because one beta tester asked for it, I doubt we'd hear any complaints about that.

I honestly don't care one bit about the butt pose one way or another. I haven't played Overwatch so I have no opinion on the personalities of the characters and what does or doesn't fit. I'm not big on skirmish multiplayer games for the most part (I have a few that I like but I'm mostly about single player, story driven games). However, I dislike ridiculous arguments or attacking other people because they happen to be of the opinion that they -don't- like it. I also dislike factually incorrect statements, and saying "but it was the artists vision!" is a) a -big- assumption on the person saying that unless they have a quote from the studio saying so and b) factually incorrect when the director of the dev team comes out as says the opposite. It's also one of the most common arguments -against- changes like this.

-Byshop

a) The claim was that it unduly sexualizes a female character. That is a "misogynist" prototype, and the specter of sexism that scares developers into conforming the standards of a product--designed for the many--according to the whims of a few.

b) Using the devs lip-service after the fact is a posteriori. You can't prove that they're not pulling damage control anymore than I can say with absolute certainty that they are. It was a single complaint that only ballooned after it was presented as a pet social issue for SJWs to wear on their sleeves to stave off 'gater critique'.

c) The fact that his opinion is not objective is exactly the point I'm making. But opinions can be approximated, and objectively his opinion is an extreme minority. Ergo, it is esoteric.

Conformity is not relegated to behavior. It alludes to standards, which be passive or active. If just a few voices manage to coerce a centralized power into changing a policy that affects every voice, then the status of the whole is being forced into a singular standard. Case in point: no one has the option to use that pose for that character anymore.

As for entitlement...I really shouldn't have to say this to a mod: Stop addressing things I've never said. I do not feel entitled to anything a developer churns out and I've never said as much. That fantastical conclusion has no connection to me pointing out that the majority of consumers are getting the shaft for the sake of a few. I told Toast and I'm telling you: cut the bullshit.

d) Coercion is disgusting. So yes, it is an injustice.

If they didn't buy the game then they wouldn't be consumers. Buying a product doesn't mean you have any control over the content of it. Like I said if you don't like it don't buy it. There's a lot of irony in claiming my reading comprehension is bad when you can't even understand that incredibly simple point.

The Dead or Alive Extreme games aren't very successful, they would have a better chance of success making games aimed at prudish mothers with iphones. So why aren't you protesting about those games? Yet something tells me you probably opposed the decision to not release that game in the west even though doing so was purely a business decision that was in their best interest.

If it's art you care about then you should side with the devs here. If it's about the interests of a business then why aren't you complaining about DOAX? No matter how you try to spin this all your arguments fall flat.

Odds are the people who are playing the beta are going to buy the game. The vast majority of people who played the beta had no problem with the pose, and yet the option to use it was taken out anyway. Will they still buy the game despite being disenfranchised? Probably. In which case, they have been conformed.

I have no idea why you're mentioned people who "didn't buy the game".

The Dead or Alive Extreme games aren't very successful, they would have a better chance of success making games aimed at prudish mothers with iphones. So why aren't you protesting about those games? Yet something tells me you probably opposed the decision to not release that game in the west even though doing so was purely a business decision that was in their best interest.

If it's art you care about then you should side with the devs here. If it's about the interests of a business then why aren't you complaining about DOAX? No matter how you try to spin this all your arguments fall flat.

I support developers doing whatever they want with their products, be it for stylistic purposes or business needs. What I don't support is coercing them into socially engineering their broader base. If it was the broader base itself making the request, that would be different. But again, that's neither here nor there since the devs tend to reflect consumers in terms of demographics.

You are yet to explain how buying a game let alone playing a free beta gives you control over it's content. So what if the majority of people who played the game didn't mind the pose? It's not their decision to make.

So your ok with a devs having the freedom to add in more boobs to their games, but not to remove them? Can you provide a single reason as to how the two are different?

And you have done it once again.

"I support developers doing whatever they want with their products, be it for stylistic purposes or business needs."

Stop re-stating my position with what you would like to address, and address what I actually say.

Are you paid by the post per chance?

And if you truly do support developers doing whatever they want with their products, be it for stylistic purposes or business needs, then why are you opposed to the stylistic choice of removing the pose?

Can you try not contradicting yourself for at least one post?

"What I don't support is coercing them into socially engineering their broader base. If it was the broader base itself making the request, that would be different. But again, that's neither here nor there since the devs tend to reflect consumers in terms of demographics."