Edit | Leave a Comment | Favorite
More Like This: (Beta Temporary Feature)
User Comments:
Anonymous commented at 2016-05-20 02:36:52 » #1953517
Okay, I'm getting tired of the butt poses now. I've seen so much of them, I'm starting to even smell sweaty butt smell.
This damn controversy has only assured that she's become the very thing Blizzard didn't want her to be and every artist from here on out is going to be taking advantage of this for clicks, screaming "hey, I'm relevant".
Nevermind that Widowmaker still has the pose that was removed on Tracer. They took it off of Tracer because it doesn't fall in line with Tracer's fucking character. She's silly, perky... not really the sort to tease like that. Whereas with Widowmaker, they kept it because sexuality can be part of her character.
People need to grow up and realize it's not censorship, it's damn art design. /rant
28 Points
Flag
Okay, I'm getting tired of the butt poses now. I've seen so much of them, I'm starting to even smell sweaty butt smell.
This damn controversy has only assured that she's become the very thing Blizzard didn't want her to be and every artist from here on out is going to be taking advantage of this for clicks, screaming "hey, I'm relevant".
Nevermind that Widowmaker still has the pose that was removed on Tracer. They took it off of Tracer because it doesn't fall in line with Tracer's fucking character. She's silly, perky... not really the sort to tease like that. Whereas with Widowmaker, they kept it because sexuality can be part of her character.
People need to grow up and realize it's not censorship, it's damn art design. /rant
28 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2016-05-20 02:43:58 » #1953519
Yeah, people are way too quick to claim censorship. It's only censorship if an official institution, such as government, dictates what can and cannot be shown. If a private company decides to change its product, that's not censorship. Doesn't matter why they decided to change it -- as long as they had a choice, it doesn't count as censorship.
24 Points
Flag
Yeah, people are way too quick to claim censorship. It's only censorship if an official institution, such as government, dictates what can and cannot be shown. If a private company decides to change its product, that's not censorship. Doesn't matter why they decided to change it -- as long as they had a choice, it doesn't count as censorship.
24 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2016-05-20 10:56:34 » #1953672
@Anon1: The worst part is that these attention seeking artists probably don't even play the game, so they're not going to know the replacement is plenty sexy too, just more in line with her character. Blizzard just should have quietly switched the pose design to the current 50s pinup inspired one instead.
@Anon3: Well I mean... It depends on your kinks. Sure not a bad thing to me though, heh.
15 Points
Flag
@Anon1: The worst part is that these attention seeking artists probably don't even play the game, so they're not going to know the replacement is plenty sexy too, just more in line with her character. Blizzard just should have quietly switched the pose design to the current 50s pinup inspired one instead.
@Anon3: Well I mean... It depends on your kinks. Sure not a bad thing to me though, heh.
15 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2016-05-20 17:46:56 » #1953827
#1953780 - The official statement from Blizzard says that the creative team wasn't sure about the pose themselves, hence their willingness to change it. It's not really a case of fan-vs-fan opinion, so much as it is the creators agreeing with the concerns voiced by some fans.
#1953788 - Think of it this way - if I'm writing a novel that contains a sex scene, but later choose not to include that scene in the final draft? Not censorship. If I wanted to keep the sex scene but it was removed from the novel against my wishes? Censorship. It comes down to whether the creator of a work has the ability to include whatever he or she wishes. Blizzard clearly could have kept the pose if they wished. They chose not to. They had the choice, therefore the concept of censorship simply does not apply here.
20 Points
Flag
#1953780 - The official statement from Blizzard says that the creative team wasn't sure about the pose themselves, hence their willingness to change it. It's not really a case of fan-vs-fan opinion, so much as it is the creators agreeing with the concerns voiced by some fans.
#1953788 - Think of it this way - if I'm writing a novel that contains a sex scene, but later choose not to include that scene in the final draft? Not censorship. If I wanted to keep the sex scene but it was removed from the novel against my wishes? Censorship. It comes down to whether the creator of a work has the ability to include whatever he or she wishes. Blizzard clearly could have kept the pose if they wished. They chose not to. They had the choice, therefore the concept of censorship simply does not apply here.
20 Points
Flag
pyxeldust commented at 2016-05-21 15:29:10 » #1954355
The issue you have @1953827 is that your idea of censorship is quite loosely based. It could have been removed because they were harassed to do so, which is becoming a norm for a lot of Social Justice Warriors. If they dont like the sexuality portrayed by any sort of media producer they will constantly harass the said individual or company till their demands are met. That is the base issue that boils down from censorship. Does it boil down to someone simply saying, "does that really fit the character design??" or did they say "that character isnt supposed to portray sexuality, it should be removed". Both are comments directed at the company, but the latter often in large enough numbers will cause the company to literally say "fuck it" and just make the change because the hassle is not worth it. In that case it is actually censorship, they were not FORCED to make the change but people screamed for it and it happened as a result of people not wanting to deal with the backlash of not changing it.
tl;dr pointless censorship of video games is stupid
/rant
1 Points
Flag
The issue you have @1953827 is that your idea of censorship is quite loosely based. It could have been removed because they were harassed to do so, which is becoming a norm for a lot of Social Justice Warriors. If they dont like the sexuality portrayed by any sort of media producer they will constantly harass the said individual or company till their demands are met. That is the base issue that boils down from censorship. Does it boil down to someone simply saying, "does that really fit the character design??" or did they say "that character isnt supposed to portray sexuality, it should be removed". Both are comments directed at the company, but the latter often in large enough numbers will cause the company to literally say "fuck it" and just make the change because the hassle is not worth it. In that case it is actually censorship, they were not FORCED to make the change but people screamed for it and it happened as a result of people not wanting to deal with the backlash of not changing it.
tl;dr pointless censorship of video games is stupid
/rant
1 Points
Flag
1 2