Blizzad reveals new characters for Overwatch

[Mutant1988]

Expect no one is against any changes here, are they? I've not seen a petition for Blizzard to undo anything, have you? Video game characters do not have to be "relatable". Video games are pure fantasy, nothing in a video game has to remotely resemble anything in real life. Video games are games, not stories. Games provide the player a challenge to complete or an opponent to over come, and that's all they're required to do because that's what a game is. If you where talking about film/TV with real life actors, what you're saying would make more sense, but video games aren't a medium where the goal is to narrate a story to an observer.

Except it is. Every single element put into the game tells a story. If it didn't, it wouldn't be interesting. It would not be engaging.

If you can't relate to the design of a game, you won't play it.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. Some people wanted more diversity and Blizzard saw fit to add it, because they wanted to. Your pseudo-philosophical ramblings about what is or isn't part of a video game is obfuscating the point.

This is not a big deal. It is for some people, because they don't get catered to very often, while me and you get catered to by default most of the time (Well, maybe not me, because I'm a critical bastard with peculiar tastes). How about just not giving a shit about others getting what they want, when you always have and still get what you want?

It's not like the male majority audience disappeared or anything. But here's the thing - There's enough games and developers to go around to give everyone something they like.

That's the biggest load of BS I've seen from you so far, congrats. Where do you even go to learn this rubbish?

Do cite which parts are rubbish and in what way. You know, for the sake of clarity.

Every single visual element of a game tells a story, of the developers, of the world the characters inhabit or the characters themselves. We, the audience, relate to what we recognize and are immersed in the story with the aid of familiarity. This is why "audience surrogate" is a thing. This is why some protagonists are "Player avatars". We put ourselves in their shoes, to experience the story through them. But that's in regards to story.

If it's a multiplayer game, it's enough to just look cool. Or like yourself.

Is it really unthinkable that someone could relate to this character? I mean, really? Because it seems like any attempt to break the established molds are derided as unnecessary. Why? Why is it so unnecessary to let people have what they want or at least try to give it to them? Because it takes away from your entertainment? Way to be egocentric.

 

[Req]

Alright, let's see if I got this right.

Blizzard announced Overwatch, and from the very first look we got of it, announced that they wanted to include a more diverse cast of characters than they usually do.
People called them out on saying that, but every female character we had seen so far had mostly the same body type.
Blizzard includes a female character with an atypical body type to show that they noticed the criticism and wanted to address it.

What is the problem again?

Personally, I think Zarya looks great and have some fun abilities, though I am a little skeptical on what seems to a very short range on her standard attack. I will say that if Blizz truly wants a more diverse female cast, Zarya on her own won't be enough, but the game is in alpha and she's the first response to that particular criticism I've seen so far, so I'll wait and see what other characters they eventually announce.

 

[Gengisgame]

Lol it would be a pile of BS to think otherwise, all this is not over some character people really, really like

I do respect people who like the character for the design, they are just few and far between because people do not get this many people don't get this worked up over a character design, there are actual articles about how this is good, what others like is bad.

Because it had nothing to with muscles it just shows what it was really about, it was making an unattractive female as some sort of protest, I gave examples of things people may actually want (robots, monster girls, elementals) you have made my point for me, this was simply about making it not be attractive

As you point you just wanted unattractive females despite there being plenty of diversity within that area, not interesting just unattractive. You can have unattractive if that's what you want but that should be personnel taste, not some statement against what others like.

Of course, it's easy to win a game no one else is playing.

I think she's fairly attractive to be honest. Maybe it's just the novelty of seeing a female character in a video game with actual muscles, rather than inexplicable waif strength.

So no, the point of it wasn't to make an "unattractive" character. It's to make a relatable character for someone else but the usual people. Everything is not made for you all the time and if you think she's ugly, well... That just tells me a lot about your values. Or rather, how little of a **** you give about what others like.

It seems you didn't read my post.

Look at last part, I quote "You can have unattractive if that's what you want but that should be personnel taste"

An apology would be appropriate and to associate what people like in fictional media with there how they treat people in there day to day life is crazy.

[link]http://thespectacularspider-girl.tumblr.com/post/113010314274/female-portrayals-in-video-games[/link]

 

[Mutant1988]

Lol it would be a pile of BS to think otherwise, all this is not over some character people really, really like

I do respect people who like the character for the design, they are just few and far between because people do not get this many people don't get this worked up over a character design, there are actual articles about how this is good, what others like is bad.

Because it had nothing to with muscles it just shows what it was really about, it was making an unattractive female as some sort of protest, I gave examples of things people may actually want (robots, monster girls, elementals) you have made my point for me, this was simply about making it not be attractive

As you point you just wanted unattractive females despite there being plenty of diversity within that area, not interesting just unattractive. You can have unattractive if that's what you want but that should be personnel taste, not some statement against what others like.

Of course, it's easy to win a game no one else is playing.

I think she's fairly attractive to be honest. Maybe it's just the novelty of seeing a female character in a video game with actual muscles, rather than inexplicable waif strength.

So no, the point of it wasn't to make an "unattractive" character. It's to make a relatable character for someone else but the usual people. Everything is not made for you all the time and if you think she's ugly, well... That just tells me a lot about your values. Or rather, how little of a **** you give about what others like.

It seems you didn't read my post.

Look at last part, I quote "You can have unattractive if that's what you want but that should be personnel taste"

An apology would be appropriate and to associate what people like in fictional media with there how they treat people in there day to day life is crazy.

[link]http://thespectacularspider-girl.tumblr.com/post/113010314274/female-portrayals-in-video-games[/link]

Again, do you have anything to support the claim that people wanted "an unattractive character"? Because the dismissive attitude you have is frankly absolute garbage.

You don't like the character? Say so then. Don't say that others like it because it's "ugly" or dismissively claim that it exist only to be ugly.

 

[inmunitas]

Do cite which parts are rubbish and in what way. You know, for the sake of clarity.

Every single visual element of a game tells a story, of the developers, of the world the characters inhabit or the characters themselves. We, the audience, relate to what we recognize and are immersed in the story with the aid of familiarity. This is why "audience surrogate" is a thing. This is why some protagonists are "Player avatars". We put ourselves in their shoes, to experience the story through them. But that's in regards to story.

If it's a multiplayer game, it's enough to just look cool. Or like yourself.

Is it really unthinkable that someone could relate to this character? I mean, really? Because it seems like any attempt to break the established molds are derided as unnecessary. Why? Why is it so unnecessary to let people have what they want or at least try to give it to them? Because it takes away from your entertainment? Way to be egocentric.

I cited all of it, and you didn't answer my question.

Also, what is the result you get on this test? http://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test

 

[Mutant1988]

I cited all of it, and you didn't answer my question.

Also, what is the result you get on this test? http://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test

That's the biggest load of BS I've seen from you so far, congrats. Where do you even go to learn this rubbish?

This is not a question that deserves an answer.

Get back to me when you've matured.

The point of visual design is to convey meaning by visual means. It's not just "things". It's things to convey a narrative, however remote. Who this character is, why they look this why, why they do this thing etc.

This character conveys... Well, strength. And actually looking like she's able to be strong, for once. That a problem for you? Too shallow? Then so is all the other ones, if everything visual is just "superficial" and meaningless. So why should you care?

 

[Haerthan]

snip

Dude. First things first. I saw your unedited post, so changing it after hours without an "EDIT" thrown in there is a really stupid move.SO I will respond to that first. I am a ROMANIAN nationalist, so I know Romanian history and some European history. Second, my minor is history with a focus on early modern and 20th century Europe. Don't try to BS me on history buddy. I will fuck your arguments up. And pointing at a game when talking about historical settings is even more stupid simply because gaming will never be able to fully recreate a historical setting, even with academia's help. I mean lets take Ass Cred Unity for example. Architecturally Paris is very beautiful but not sure if faithful. But that is it. I am quite sure there were black people in Paris in 1789 one way or another. I mean they abolished slavery ffs during the revolution, so they had to have some contact, outside their dominions in the Caribbean. But in this game I haven't seen one black person.

Second. Americans are Americans, their schooling system kinda sucks, so I don't blame them too much for their ignorance. This is for the edited part.

 

[Mutant1988]

I am a ROMANIAN nationalist

I'm not sure "nationalist" is the word you want to use. That's reserved for the more xenophobic elements of countries. Citizen would probably be a good word to use. Or native.

Just a well meaning heads up, not a malicious way to dismiss you by pointing out an insignificant error.

 

[inmunitas]

snip

Dude. First things first. I saw your unedited post, so changing it after hours without an "EDIT" thrown in there is a really stupid move.SO I will respond to that first. I am a ROMANIAN nationalist, so I know Romanian history and some European history. Second, my minor is history with a focus on early modern and 20th century Europe. Don't try to BS me on history buddy. I will fuck your arguments up. And pointing at a game when talking about historical settings is even more stupid simply because gaming will never be able to fully recreate a historical setting, even with academia's help. I mean lets take Ass Cred Unity for example. Architecturally Paris is very beautiful but not sure if faithful. But that is it. I am quite sure there were black people in Paris in 1789 one way or another. I mean they abolished slavery ffs during the revolution, so they had to have some contact, outside their dominions in the Caribbean. But in this game I haven't seen one black person.

Second. Americans are Americans, their schooling system kinda sucks, so I don't blame them too much for their ignorance. This is for the edited part.

You do realise that slavery had nothing to do with skin tone, right? Humans had been enslaving each other for thousands of years, they still do in some parts of the world.

 

[Timeless Lavender]

The art/character design looked awesome (except the cowboy, he looked too generic), and this is coming from a person who doesn't even care about this game or anything that is related to Blizzard.

 

[Mutant1988]

You do relies that slavery had nothing to do with skin tone, right? Humans had been enslaving each other for thousands of years, they still do in some parts of the world.

You do realize that slavery in the west world was enforced by racism, right?

 

[inmunitas]

You do relies that slavery had nothing to do with skin tone, right? Humans had been enslaving each other for thousands of years, they still do in some parts of the world.

You do realize that slavery in the west world was enforced by racism, right?

That depends on which part of history you are referring to and where.

 

[Mutant1988]

You do relies that slavery had nothing to do with skin tone, right? Humans had been enslaving each other for thousands of years, they still do in some parts of the world.

You do realize that slavery in the west world was enforced by racism, right?

That depends on which part of history you are referring to and where.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Justification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles#Enslaved_Africans - Also touched upon the concepts of serfdom, which is essentially enslavement of the poor (By the "superior" upper class with a god given right to, well, everything).

Also:

"During the early colonial period, The Scots and the English, along with other western European nations, dealt with their "Gypsy problem" by transporting them as slaves in large numbers to North America and the Caribbean. Cromwell shipped Romanichal Gypsies as slaves to the southern plantations and there is documentation of Gypsies being owned by former black slaves in Jamaica.[20]"

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Classical_Antiquity

"As the Roman Republic expanded outward, entire populations were enslaved, thus creating an ample supply from all over Europe and the Mediterranean. Greeks, Illyrians, Berbers, Germans, Britons, Thracians, Gauls, Jews, Arabs, and many more were slaves used not only for labour, but also for amusement (e. g. gladiators and sex slaves). This oppression by an elite minority eventually led to slave revolts (see Roman Servile Wars); the Third Servile War led by Spartacus being the most famous and severe."

Keep in mind that "race" has been synonymous with nationality for the majority of history. It is not the modern concept of "race", which is almost entirely a token concept to describe skin colour.

 

[Islandbuffilo]

I don't like McCree much, looks like every other gunslinger ever with a missing body part.

Zarya's armor looks pretty cool though.

 

[Haerthan]

snip

Dude. First things first. I saw your unedited post, so changing it after hours without an "EDIT" thrown in there is a really stupid move.SO I will respond to that first. I am a ROMANIAN nationalist, so I know Romanian history and some European history. Second, my minor is history with a focus on early modern and 20th century Europe. Don't try to BS me on history buddy. I will fuck your arguments up. And pointing at a game when talking about historical settings is even more stupid simply because gaming will never be able to fully recreate a historical setting, even with academia's help. I mean lets take Ass Cred Unity for example. Architecturally Paris is very beautiful but not sure if faithful. But that is it. I am quite sure there were black people in Paris in 1789 one way or another. I mean they abolished slavery ffs during the revolution, so they had to have some contact, outside their dominions in the Caribbean. But in this game I haven't seen one black person.

Second. Americans are Americans, their schooling system kinda sucks, so I don't blame them too much for their ignorance. This is for the edited part.

You do relies that slavery had nothing to do with skin tone, right? Humans had been enslaving each other for thousands of years, they still do in some parts of the world.

Ty Doctor Obvious. Of course I know slavery has little to do with skin colour. And it is "realize". Christ I hate intellectual bureaucracy.

I am a ROMANIAN nationalist

I'm not sure "nationalist" is the word you want to use. That's reserved for the more xenophobic elements of countries. Citizen would probably be a good word to use. Or native.

Just a well meaning heads up, not a malicious way to dismiss you by pointing out an insignificant error.

Nope. I am a nationalist. Yes a citizen of both Romania and Canada, but a Romanian nationalist. And believe me I am well acquainted with the more xenophobic elements of my country. But the Iron Guard is long dead and my people are either idiots (best case scenario) or traitors (worst case scenario) selling out their country. Only ultranationalists are xenophobic scum. And last I checked I am not a xenophobe. But don't worry I am not taking your writing personally.

 

[Haerthan]

You do relies that slavery had nothing to do with skin tone, right? Humans had been enslaving each other for thousands of years, they still do in some parts of the world.

You do realize that slavery in the west world was enforced by racism, right?

That depends on which part of history you are referring to and where.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Justification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_British_Isles#Enslaved_Africans - Also touched upon the concepts of serfdom, which is essentially enslavement of the poor (By the "superior" upper class with a god given right to, well, everything).

Also:

"During the early colonial period, The Scots and the English, along with other western European nations, dealt with their "Gypsy problem" by transporting them as slaves in large numbers to North America and the Caribbean. Cromwell shipped Romanichal Gypsies as slaves to the southern plantations and there is documentation of Gypsies being owned by former black slaves in Jamaica.[20]"

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Classical_Antiquity

"As the Roman Republic expanded outward, entire populations were enslaved, thus creating an ample supply from all over Europe and the Mediterranean. Greeks, Illyrians, Berbers, Germans, Britons, Thracians, Gauls, Jews, Arabs, and many more were slaves used not only for labour, but also for amusement (e. g. gladiators and sex slaves). This oppression by an elite minority eventually led to slave revolts (see Roman Servile Wars); the Third Servile War led by Spartacus being the most famous and severe."

Keep in mind that "race" has been synonymous with nationality for the majority of history. It is not the modern concept of "race", which is almost entirely a token concept to describe skin colour.

Interesting read. Might I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpieza_de_sangre and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta . It looks at the Spanish way of looking at race, being based on blood rather then skin tone. This was because of the Muslim Conquest and Reconquista. This isn't meant as an attack on you or anything. In fact I am learning about that in my art history classes.

Edit: Hyperlink idiocy

 

[Mutant1988]

Nope. I am a nationalist. Yes a citizen of both Romania and Canada, but a Romanian nationalist. And believe me I am well acquainted with the more xenophobic elements of my country. But the Iron Guard is long dead and my people are either idiots (best case scenario) or traitors (worst case scenario) selling out their country. Only ultranationalists are xenophobic scum. And last I checked I am not a xenophobe. But don't worry I am not taking your writing personally.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just saying what's commonly associated with the word "nationalist". It means something else to most other people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Criticisms

If you're proud of your country but not crazy, you would probably go by "Patriot". But hey, for all I know the word nationalist has entirely different connotations in your language. It's just that nationalism is generally associated with the Nazis (National Socialism you know - Heavy on the nationalism, not really sure they were very socialist).

It's about the meaning of that one word. Not in any way how you are.

I am sympathetic to the economical ruin caused to nations such as yours due to outside influence. I definitely don't approve of the foreign policy that has the misery of other nations as a means for themselves to prosper. It hurts us all in the long run. I do believe there was a case in my own nation with Romanian laborers being exploited (Horrible conditions, horrible pay - Or no pay), which of course also had the effect of lowering salaries for the native population or making it impossible to compete with imported labor, which is only cheap because their own national economies have collapsed.

But this isn't really a discussion for this topic, however interesting it is.

 

[Haerthan]

Nope. I am a nationalist. Yes a citizen of both Romania and Canada, but a Romanian nationalist. And believe me I am well acquainted with the more xenophobic elements of my country. But the Iron Guard is long dead and my people are either idiots (best case scenario) or traitors (worst case scenario) selling out their country. Only ultranationalists are xenophobic scum. And last I checked I am not a xenophobe. But don't worry I am not taking your writing personally.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just saying what's commonly associated with the word "nationalist". It means something else to most other people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Criticisms

If you're proud of your country but not crazy, you would probably go by "Patriot". But hey, for all I know the word nationalist has entirely different connotations in your language. It's just that nationalism is generally associated with the Nazis (National Socialism you know - Heavy on the nationalism, not really sure they were very socialist).

It's about the meaning of that one word. Not in any way how you are.

I know. also the NSDAP (Nationalsozialitische deutsche Arbeiterspartei, or Nazis) werent socialist. They were full on unfettered capitalism, although they did have some public works (like the Autobahn, or a chunk of it anyways, damn but the Germans build to last).

I never did like the term Patriot to be honest. I guess its just my upbringing, but the word nationalism has little bad connotations to me. But then again I am not German (man they also have some big issues, they still haven't come to grips with their Nazi past)

 

[mecegirl]

Wait..."Tumblr" is supposed to hate Zarya? All I've seen is talk about how hot she is, gif sets,fan art, and porn. People are already shipping her with Tracer and cross shipping her with Heavy weapons guy. There are even people talking about creating cosplaying her.