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

So you don't support developers doing what they want. What you support is developers making something that panders to the masses regardless of what they actually want to make.

So no you can't go one post without contradicting yourself.

Misuse of the English language aside because I don't want to spend this whole post on that (sexualization = misogyny, the concept of an "objective opinion", etc), let me put this another way that may help you understand where I'm coming from. I'm judging this based on the merits of the arguments on both sides. The argument on the side against the pose is that it doesn't necessarily fit with the character in question. I haven't seen any arguments on the other side saying that it -does- fit the character, they all are about censorship, feminism and SJWs. While I don't care about the pose itself, I absolutely support Blizzard's decision to change it because the argument against it is reasonable while most of the ones I see against it are not.

If the beta tester who complained about the pose used the same arguments you are using, I would absolutely be against the removal of the pose because the argument against it would be ridiculous.

Let's walk through that:

Beta tester complains that the pose should be removed because by not changing it they are "forcing me to conform to the non-objective opinion of other players", I would say "no, that's dumb. Nobody is forcing you to conform to anything by not removing this butt pose from a video game you don't have to buy. The only reason to assume you are being forced into anything would be if you somehow felt entitled to get the exact game you want and not the one that the developer wants to make"

The dev team says that "we are not changing it because although were were on the fence about it, we decided that it should stay". Beta tester says "no, the developer is just giving lip service to the majority to keep them happy. I think they really -do- want to change it but they are caving to external pressure". I would respond, "no, that's ridiculous. You're assuming that they are lying because they are saying something you don't agree with. Assuming the developer is lying just because you don't like what they are saying is cherry picking. If they said something you agreed with you'd be quoting them right now."

-Byshop

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

"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."

I can do this all day.

Boo to coercion. Boo to a tyranny of the minority.

@speak_low: if they didnt offer you a position there messed up lol. Your idea in there game and all. If im making a game anybody that has a idea that makes it on the game gets a job lol

How do you not see how those two statements directly contradict each other?

You claim that developers should be allowed to do what they want when it comes to style. But you then go on to argue that if the majority of people who play the game demand they change the style then they must. So where is the developer freedom here?

@dynamitecop: Bet it was one of those fools over at that crap site neogaf.... you know the site that has turned into an indoctrination center for sjws, censorship and all manor of dengeracy in the last few years.... uggh... Sick of this crap!!!

What is wrong with so many of the millennials? ( I am guessing its one as this behavior didn't happen in any other gaming gen...and I have been around since the 1st).

Problem is they now have these creeps in the hr departments of these companies and as "community managers", and "pr".... boo!

haha..... that is true....

Don't care about the unatractive ass.. Care about stupid sjws and cultural marxist fools who want to censor art. Also care that too many people in the last two years overuse and scream to the rafters that "everything is sexist, racist, and mysoginistic...blah blah blah... " also can't stand "progressive stack' bullshit, or anything to do with the poisonous super communist left wing ideology.... Its just wrong.

The world needs a reset back to the 1990s and stat! (Hell I'd settle for mid 2000's or hell anytime when people weren't trying to silence and censor people or art because of "muh feels" ...ughh.

You know before 2014, I didn't even know that misogyny was even a word .... my wife didn't either until i told her... stupid bullcrap that gets made up in crazy Vietnam war protesting professors' college classes who hate America....

Exactly! If we don't fight back who will. Next thing you know there will be no shooters either... because "guns are offensive to the politically correct".... Hell some of the Feminists were calling out doom for this. We fault and won over Jack Thompson regarding censorship... but the devs and espeically hipster game jornalists want to bow down and kiss the feet of all these special snowflake whining sjws... Time for devs, jornos who actually love gaming and fans to grow some balls and call bullshit for what it is!

No that's next...just wait. Femfreq and Mcintosh already mirrored Jack Thompson regarding Doom4 .... and jornos were taking their side... I don't get it, feels like bizzaro world. Where did all these freaks come frome? Are all colleges now dens of indoctrination? I haven't gone in over 15 years and it wasn't like that back then.

It's the same thing as Yelp, the advent of the Internet has turned everyone into a critic and given everyone a voice who didn't have one previously, obviously this is destroying society and the natural order of things in favor of being "politically correct".

The reality is these attention seeking millennials form internet social groups now to impact things to their liking, and people are afraid of them because they're so vocal that they think it has some kind of effect on the industry, it doesn't though. That's the real problem, these people don't effect or change anything, they're a gross, GROSS minority and society and industries such as gaming give into them because they think it's going to negatively reflect on them.

What kind of impact have these people actually had on companies that stood their ground? Absolutely fucking none, and that's what people need to start doing, saying **** you, this is our art and our project, it's going to be whatever we want and you have no say in the matter, and then just proceed to ignore them...

They'll bitch, they'll moan and then they will fade away because it's not working... These pansie ass companies are the ones who gives this lunatics their power by giving in, simply ignoring them entirely solves the problem, why they haven't figured this out yet blows my mind...

This is not a language issue. It's a cultural issue. The very same culture that you deny exists (see also: SJWs). The accusation of undue innuendo placed upon a female character is a basis for describing misogynist tendencies. A developer will respond to that by eliminating the potentially career killing innuendo. The "other side" of this argument hasn't typically bothered to argue that the pose "fits/doesn't fit" because it would support the premise that the pose is suggestive in the first place. The hoopla here--which has already been mentioned and satirized throughout this entire thread--is that the pose is sexually innocuous, and the presence of a buttcrack doesn't mean anything beyond its own self-evidence. The criticism directed at the SJWs addresses their over-scrupulousness whereas the criticism directed at the devs addresses their willingness to give into a veiled threat.

A point I have made multiple times is that, because of the aspects of coercion involved here, you cannot operate according to any premises stated by the devs after the fact. If they had made known these details before the issue arose, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but they didn't and so here we are.

Supposing that the lone complainer made a accusation of conformity is not analogous to anything I've said. I pointed out that homogenizing the content for everyone is the quickest way for devs to kill the issue regardless of the majority opinion. And again, while opinions themselves are not objective, the prevalence of one opinion over another is objective.

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

They have the freedom to do one or the other, and I will approve regardless of their decision--because it's a decision. However, when you introduce the element of coercion, they are forced to pick the latter over the former. In which case, I'm against that.

Again, the point is moot since the devs tend to be a part of the demographics to whom they cater.

Yeah, same contradiction I was pointing out. This whole argument makes that assumption that their position is a) what the majority wants and b) what the devs really want and c) the right thing to do because of A and B (the "objective opinion" I guess, lol). This attitude of "I assume I know what everyone else wants" idea is what I have issue with, even when there are direct facts staring them in the face to the contrary (such as the developer's own words).

-Byshop

crying about what devs change before a game is out=/=fighting back. thats being a whiny baby

Yeah, because keeping your mouth shut is so effective....

who does this negatively affect? how does them removing and optional pose negatively affect your life?

@mems_1224: We lose a great piece of art. Why not just put a filter setting on it like they do for blood. I thought the pose was very bad-ass and sexy.

thats not a piece of art. its a dumb looking pose. stupid argument

No my friend, it is art. And just cause you think its dumb dont make it dumb. It was a brilliant pose.

just because you thought it was brilliant doesn't make it brilliant

@mems_1224: Well you got me there.

Isis just killed some kids, lit them on fire, and these SJW's are concerned about the ass of a person who does not even exist.

Your logic is completely contradictory. "SJWs" are a vocal minority who don't represent gamers as a whole, but they somehow have the power to sway major game companies to do their bidding. So much so that a single SJW voice can make one of the largest and most successful gaming companies in history (with over 1 billion dollars in annual revenue and nearly 5000 employees worldwide) do something against their will and get them to lie about it because deep down -you- know that they secretly agree with you in spite of what they are saying is so utterly ridiculous I don't know where to even begin. Actually, the word "logic" doesn't even apply.

Complaints didn't stop Dragon's Crown from selling almost a million units across its two platforms, or each port of Bayonetta from doing the same each. Hell, Bayonetta 2 sold nearly a million units in spite of being a WiiU game. But in -this- instance the only reason for the change is to appease a minority group for fear of the backlash because... reasons.

-Byshop

What precisely is your standard for deciding what's worth taking out vs what's worth keeping in?

Exactly, betas are for mechanics, and gameplay and netcode, stat balancing, this would never of happend back in the day... i get the feeling that neogaf has crawled into the thread.

Where did all this social justice collectivist bull crap come from anyway? It's a bad bad bad ideology!!!! There should be just "Justice" based on laws... end of story..

@Pariah-: it's not up to me, developers can do what they want with their games

SJW culture is a derivative of special interest cultures (see also: unions, racial/sexual minorities, etc), the roots of which trace back to Alinsky-ite practices that are designed to leverage the largest institutions possible using the least amount of effort and manpower from the ground up. The very definition of a "tyranny of the minority". It's the same principle as screaming "Fire!" in a crowed theater or fraudulently crying out "Rape!" (see also: Crystal Gail Mangum and the Duke Lacrosse team) for that matter. SJWs couldn't, and wouldn't, operate as they do if they weren't a minority. The strategy is an application of Deconstructionist theory applied to socioculture: identify a binary and then frame the argument that makes your organization out to be an oppressed victim pushed to the side. It is a very effective means of getting large corporations and state institutions to do your bidding without direct control over their offices (see also: Governor Nathan Deal coerced into violating the will of his constituency by threats made by private corporations such as the NFL). SJWs--or victim culture--is a study of fulcrums, meaning you don't need a massive organization or a great deal of public support (see also: Adrienne Shaw's essay written for DiGRA on "disrupting [the] market" to artificially raise the awareness of feminism in video games without necessarily having a feminist audience to which to cater). Just an accusation and culture-based gender/race/class theory. And that is exactly why so many Critical Theorist hipsters got into games journalism: so they could frame and control the narrative from a platform that's directly related/associated with the industry they seek to leverage.

It is the very fact that these games sell well without the consideration or application of Critical race/gender/class theory that they feel the need to control the content before it hits the market. They can't control the consumers, and so they control the devs and the publishers.

Exactly. So if someone tries to coerce them into removing something, we should shout and scream and critique about not giving in to terrorist threats.

EDIT: Fixed major typo ("with" ==> "without").

I can give you dozens of examples of what the less educated on the topic would have called SJW censorship going all the way back to the SNES/TG-16 days. DOAX3 isn't coming to the US and it's SJW's fault? What about all the "pretty girl voyeurism" type games that came before that most Japanese devs never even considered bringing to the US because they understand that there's little to no market for them here. Hell, the only reason DOA sold at all was because it was a spinoff from a highly recognized franchise, and even then it sold terribly compared to the actual fighting games in the series.

What about N.U.D.E., a game where you talk to a robot girl for the Xbox using a mic? SJW pandering prevented it from coming out in the US? No, it's a virtual pet game like Seaman, and while those games do great in Japan they do miserably over here (plus localization costs of such a dialog heavy game).

How about localization of Nintendo games getting sanitized for the US market? That's been going on since the 8-bit NES days. Do you really think this modern concept of SJWs is to blame? They changed text in the old Pokemon games to remove hints of transgendered characters, changed the pose of a Pokemon so it didn't look like a Nazi salute anymore, and re-wrote a library book in-game that used to describe how humans used to marry Pokemon.

How about dating sims? Tokemeki Memorial is a series in Japan that has (literally) over 50 installments (more than double the number of games in the Assassin's Creed when you include mobile titles from both sides). Even if those games sold poorly, and they obviously didn't since they made friggin 50 of them, that's a -ton- of units and downloads. But unless you live in Japan, you've likely never heard of this series in spite of how many games there are in it, and that's just -one- dating game series.

-Byshop

I don't think you're going to get very far conflating this issue with a lack of date simulators being licensed in the US or DOAX-type games that are staples of a more insular Japanese culture.

It's neither here nor there.

You're comparing the sway that huge private organizations like the NFL, Coca Cola, Salesforce, Home Depot, The Walking Dead (tv show) and all the other organizations whose departure would have a significant impact on the economy of an entire state to the sway that you claim a single beta tester has over a multi-billion dollar company? Again, reasons? Logic?

The idea that the Nathan Deal chose to veto the bill from outside pressure from private companies (even though he specifically said he didn't do it from pressure from either side) is at least plausible. I can believe that this might be the case because there is some logic to it; there's a quantifiable penalty that would likely occur if he didn't veto the bill. But that situation is nowhere even remotely comparable to a beta tester suggesting to Blizzard that maybe this pose isn't right for this character, and Blizzard agreeing.

You talk about victim culture, but the only person on either side of the argument I'm hearing claim to be a victim is, honestly, yourself. You're using ridiculously hyperbolic statements like how this is "just a few voices manag(ing) to coerce a centralized power into changing a policy that affects every voice" as though your words are somehow censored by this action. Or how about how they are "forcing every consumer (you among them, right?) to conform to the non-objective opinion of a single player" because a pose has been removed from a game you wanted to play is forcing you to conform to something. And you're calling the other side the ones who make themselves out as victims? Again, if the other side had used these sorts of ridiculous arguments in the first place, I'd be on your side on this issue.

I get that you feel strongly about this, and that's fine, but if you want to be taken seriously by anyone you really need to dial it back a notch.

-Byshop

They can keep their butt pose but I demand some of males be more sexy and provocative. Seriously I mean it though I'd be all over that. Sure the men look beefy but unlike the woman they aren't doing anything to eye-candy worthy

Here's a good take on the subject. Spider-man butt-crack ok, Tracer butt-crack not ok. Mr. Fipp!

The reference was not meant to refer directly to Overwatch's specific conditions. I was responding to your assertion that the few can't compel the many, explaining the mechanics of a tyranny-of-the-minority format and its tactics--as they're applied by the SJW culture--using Nathan Deal as a corollary. In which case, private corporations represent the will of only a handful of people who hand down fiats and directions to the larger organization. Using the cultural clout of that organization to hand out ultimatums to a head of state--who represents millions of voters--compromises the integrity of the office that has been put in their crosshairs and constitutes a crony/rent-seeker relationship that puts the fate of policy in the hands of private citizens. In other words: tyranny of the minority. And while those companies are big, they're not as big as the state of Georgia--but their size shouldn't be relevant to the representation of the state's constituency (who should recall Deal for his weakness). To digress however, consider for a moment that Social Justice Warriors treat their pet causes as forms of enterprise by which to reinforce their critiques. If you think of sexism, racism, and the various phobias as brands in the same vein as Coca Cola or Football, you'll get a pretty good picture picture. As such, the Overwatch complaint incorporates Critical Theorist brand names in the same manner that private corporations use their own to attack Georgia's legislature.

Also, while I understand the appeal of arguments based on words from the horse's mouth, I must again point out that public statements made by the actors after the fact are useless as a form of evidence. If Deal--or the devs for that matter--are being pinched, then they are deterred from stating as such.

I make a point of never being a victim or claiming victimhood. You won't see any posts in this thread where I state that I've been wounded by this incident--I don't even like Blizzard games quite frankly. I just try to critique and squash out the disease of coercion and all of its endorsements wherever I see it. I consider it a moral obligation if you will. I don't think you, yourself are a proponent of coercion or cloaked tyrannies. But I do believe you've been to blinded by these high profile Critical Theory brand names to see the reality of what's going on.

Any artist will tell you that art isn't just what you put in but also what you take out.

Are you opposed to films having deleted scenes? Shouldn't every second recorded stay in the final cut?

@toast_burner: If they delete a scene due to negative feedback, then yeah.

Pretty much every film has test screenings where they then edit or remove scenes based on feedback.

@toast_burner: That would be up to them. If they ask for feedback and get it, then thats fine. I dont recommend it though. Never let another dictate your art. I would never percent my art until it was finished, if they didnt like it, o well, dont buy it.

So then how is that any different to what Blizzard did?

They asked for feedback, received feedback, took the feedback into consideration, and then decided to make alterations to the game. Nothing was dictated to them, everything they did was entirely their own decisions.

@toast_burner: What about the 90% feedback that do not agree? They ran a poll on Blizzard at the time and with over 15K votes, 90% said they loved it and were against the removal of the pose. Blizzard can make whatever decision they want, im not against that. Whether they decide to keep it or not, thats not up to me or anyone else, its up to the team.

Im against Mr.Fipp. My war is with him.

Like I said before game development is not a democracy. If 90% of people opposed sex in games would you be ok with Rockstar then removing prostitutes and all mentions of sex from their games regardless of what the developers actually want to make?

The developers of the game want to remove the pose, so why get angry when they make the game they want to make?

@toast_burner: Im not angry at Blizzard, i love Blizzard and respect any decision they decide to make. But when a company announces that it made art changes due to negative feedback, then i will criticize the negative feedback. I dont agree with the negative feedback and will voice my opinion on why i disagree. I want Mr. Fipp to know i do not agree with his opinion and that i have a different one.

Any who agree with Mr. Fipps opinion, well then, i disagree with theirs too and would love to debate their opinion in the discussion boards.

Blizzard needs to grow a spine. In fact, every developer faced with feminist criticism needs to grow a spine. Protect your artistic integrity. I highly doubt much money would have been lost had they kept this pose in. I'm more inclined not to play this game now because of this omission.

@JustPlainLucas: And the worst part about it, it was an optional pose.

You're using increasingly flowery language to not answer my question. I'm asking you a specific question about this specific instance, and because you don't have a good answer you're trying to bring in order debates instead of responding. You're going through an impressive array of mental gymnastics to maintain the position that what you think represents the majority and that the reasons for this innocuous cosmetic change to this video game is actually part of a nefarious plot when there is a far, far simpler explanation:

Blizzard agreed with the criticism, just like they said.

Could Kaplan be lying? Sure he could, but "you can never know for sure if someone is telling the truth" is not a counterargument. You have to provide some compelling reason for thinking that someone is lying that goes beyond "I don't agree with what he said". Blizzard is a massive game studio, and no one beta tester (or even all the beta testers) can make them do something they don't want to do. They are going to make the game that -they- want to make and that they think their fans (not just the forum goers) want. Blizzard games in general have massive followings and they appeal to multiple demographics (WoW especially). Blizzard would get no backlash had they not removed the pose and the game will do fine (provided it's a decent game) either way. As I already mentioned, there are tons of games out there that are unapologetically sexual or violent that do just fine and Blizzard knows that. It's not about doing something out of fear of reprisal, it's about doing what they want to reach the people they want to. What I think you're starting to realize is, not every game is targeted at you and your interests anymore and you're going very far out of your way to try to rationalize how the game companies are still on "your side" (which you seem to consider to be the side of all "real" gamers) and the only reason they are making changes you don't agree with is because they are being forced to be bad people.

For someone who makes a point of never being a victim, you sure do complain a lot and while you didn't say you personally are hurt by this, you clearly identify yourself as a part of the consumer group you keep insisting is being treated so badly. In fact, you're complaining about the complaint far more than the original complaint. Yet in spite of that, you're criticizing them for making themselves out to be a victim. You even go so far as to throw around words like "tyranny" (over a video game) with no sense of self-awareness or irony. If you want to see tyranny, go visit the favelas of Brazil where people are killed by police on a regular basis. In Australia, aboriginals were considered "fauna" meaning anyone could kill them without fear of any repercussion up until the late 60s. These are examples of real hardship and real tyranny. "My mommy doesn't let me play video games after 10" does not qualify, nor does anything else related to any entertainment medium (reality check: which is a luxury item) and calling this tyranny just illustrates how far from reality your sense of scale is on this topic.

But if you want to talk about Georgia, fine. The "Religious Freedom" bill that the governor vetoed had a lot of opposition. You say the majority of the state's constituency disagreed. Got any data to support that or are you just (again) assuming this is the case because you presumably disagree with the decision? Over 400 local businesses, over 75,000 emails, Atlanta's City Council, and many other organizations were vehemently opposed to this bill. How many voices of opposition do you need to hear before you acknowledge that it's not "just a few" people?

You keep blaming small, special interest groups with some tremendous sway or power to influence government and private companies into doing things that are against what the public wants, but the far simpler reality is that society as a whole is changing and attitudes towards gender and race are changing with them. You don't have to like it, but there also isn't really a lot you can do about it besides what you are doing right now (complaining about it on a forum).

-Byshop

It actually wasn't sexual related, or an expression of sexuality. Most of the characters (male ore female) in this game have the pose it is called "behind the shoulder".

It is a typical superhero/hero pose that is on movie posters or box art were the (usually male) hero walks towards the action while looking back. She just happens to wear a skin suit, so the ass is a bit more defined. The ass is still there in gameplay, they just remove that one OPTIONAL pose.

It really makes no sense why they removed it.

@JustPlainLucas: The devs didn't give in. They simply agreed. Literally only one person complained about the pose, why would a dev team make changes to a game based on a single persons opinion?

@kozio: @kozioAgreed,.... and now you have a new video from neogafs and sjws Queen Anita and I bet they are all discussing it at that degenerate forum.... So expect more outrage.. It saddens me that that place indoctrinates impressionable youth , along with the politically correct MTV (uggh what happened to the world in the last two years!!!! )

@speak_low: I don't buy it. None of this crap was talked about for the last 3 decades... it has only been since 2013-14 that this shit started being talked about, about when the time the sjws started popping out left and right. It was also about that time that places like neogaf started banning anyone who didn't agree with their insane communist anti-western dogma. Then you start seeing it pop up in universities all accross the country.

Why are all these people offended by things that were always ok and never a problem before. Why does what a character wears or look like even matter. Let the artist decide. What you are describing with the gears 3 beta is a gameplay thing not aesthetics. Which is what betas were always about in the past, not art..

Sorry I just don't like tyranny of the minority... It creates anger animosity and resentment.... Is this just a generational thing? Gen X mentality vs millenials (as a member of gen x, I don't know of anyone in real life who fits into this outrage culture.