Why is Blizzard replacing women with bowls of fruit?

[m76]

Recently Blizzard has made a few stealthy changes to some assets in World of Warcraft. Most notable of these changes of course was the one where they removed a painting on a wall depicting a woman donning what seems like a harem attire. The image was really small and low resolution so it was hard to make out. which makes their decision to specifically target this asset for self censorship all the more interesting. But what really got the ire of the gaming community is that they done and replaced the painting with one depicting a bowl of fruit.

But this is old news by now, so why am I bringing it up? Because Blizzard has released a statement regarding the changes, and of course  they are citing inclusion as the reason. It is strange to me how inclusion always ends up excluding things, and banning certain depictions. You'd think that inclusion means everyone is welcome, but apparently even low resolution blurry images of sexy women are problematic now.  But let's dive in to the statement.

Quote

Over the last few weeks, artists and writers across the WoW team have updated a small number of old quests, art assets, names, and dialogue that we identified as outdated and inconsistent with our values as a team.

I wonder what exactly about that picture was inconsistent with their values, was it women in entirety? Going by how they treat them among their workforce if some of the allegations that come out are true, then I'd say yeah, Blizzard is inconsistent with women.  But seriously if not the woman part was the issue, then what was? The harem attire? Last I checked sex was still legal and not an issue.  So dear Blizzard why on earth would you remove this asset unless you are trying to tell us something about yourself? And indeed they do:

Quote

These updates are a relatively small part of a comprehensive, company-wide effort to improve the WoW team and Blizzard as a whole, but they’re important to us as developers.

So it's not about the game at all. You are improving the Team by changing the game. That makes sense, oh no it doesn't actually.  You improve the team by firing problem figures especially those responsible to the egregious things that supposedly went on there. And not by removing any reference to sexiness no matter how minuscule and obscure from a game.

Then they go on a tirade about how these changes are worthwhile, ending up repeating themselves over and over again, like it's them who needs convincing that that they are doing "good work". Hey, that almost sounds like "God's work". Yeah, i fully expect the people thinking that these are worthwhile changes to be as pretentious as religious fundamentalists.

But there is one more telling line in the statement that I wanted to highlight:

Quote

We also want players to be able to express themselves through their characters, so we don’t intend to change existing player looks or cosmetics.

I might be overreaching here but when reading between the lines this sounds like "We wish we were able to remove certain cosmetics and character customization options, but we know we couldn't get away with it"

And if you think this is an isolated case just look at the character redesigns that were done in diablo 2 resurrected.

Edited October 3, 2021 by m76

[Crazycrab]

Great, another "boo!  Their taking my pixel boobies away!" Rant.  I'm sorry but one of these day your to have to accept that nobody with a mental age higher than 13 gives a crap!

 

I VERY strongly dislike Blizzard for a number of different reasons.  Their association with Activision, their popularizing of loot box skin economies with Overwatch, their blatant slap in the face to their fans with their Diablo Immortal announcement, their multitude of middle fingers to WOW players over the years and of course recent sexist frat boy crap for which they are getting sued.

 

I would take just about any shot I can at these assholes, but replacing pixilated pictures of semi-naked woman with fruit is so deep into the barrel of Whatever that it's not even worth my worthless time bringing up.  I mean given their current legal situation it makes perfect sense.  Of they are going redecorate their room and clear out all the Hustler magazines and bikini posters and I personally don't see that as a bad thing.  They and that man-babies that care enough to complain about this ridiculous shit need to grow up.

 

Before you start your usual "this is infringement on their creative freedom" or "it political" shit, dev's have the equal creative freedom to cover the women up (or replace them with fruit) and even if was politically motivated I still wouldn't care.  If I wanna see skin I go watch porn like a normal person.

[skyfire]

To be honest this looks funny but they must be getting the signals from people to do so I suppose.

[m76]

1 hour ago, Crazycrab said:

Great, another "boo!  Their taking my pixel boobies away!" Rant.  I'm sorry but one of these day your to have to accept that nobody with a mental age higher than 13 gives a crap!

Does this change the game significantly? No. Do I give a crap about how it affects the game? No. I never even played WOW for more than 10 minutes in my life. But to go by your slur, anyone with a mental age higher than 13 can see the hypocritical nature of this action, and the cultural implications.

1 hour ago, Crazycrab said:

I VERY strongly dislike Blizzard for a number of different reasons.  Their association with Activision, their popularizing of loot box skin economies with Overwatch, their blatant slap in the face to their fans with their Diablo Immortal announcement, their multitude of middle fingers to WOW players over the years and of course recent sexist frat boy crap for which they are getting sued.

Well you should be able to connect the dots then that this change is directly related to the exposed laundry. They try to pretend to be pure of heart and soul, by changing things that were never a problem to begin with.

1 hour ago, Crazycrab said:

I would take just about any shot I can at these assholes, but replacing pixilated pictures of semi-naked woman with fruit is so deep into the barrel of Whatever that it's not even worth my worthless time bringing up.  I mean given their current legal situation it makes perfect sense.  Of they are going redecorate their room and clear out all the Hustler magazines and bikini posters and I personally don't see that as a bad thing.  They and that man-babies that care enough to complain about this ridiculous shit need to grow up.

Oh it makes perfect sense does it? Only if you  assume that hustler magazines and bikini posters should be burnt. Which is ludicrous. Calling people names for caring about the entertainment value of entertainment products is still no argument though. Whether you care to admit it or not, sexy is more entertaining.

1 hour ago, Crazycrab said:

Before you start your usual "this is infringement on their creative freedom" or "it political" shit, dev's have the equal creative freedom to cover the women up (or replace them with fruit) and even if was politically motivated I still wouldn't care.  If I wanna see skin I go watch porn like a normal person.

Of course it is political, you preemptively try to dismiss that argument before it was even made because even you know it is true. And what of the creative freedoms of the creators of the original, whose works are to be removed? The only creative freedom that matters is the one that aligns with your world view, where sexy women are to be shunned and eradicated from mainstream entertainment?

Of course they are free to exercise their creative freedom to cover up, uglify or even completely exclude women in every future game they make. However I'll also exercise my freedom of speech to call them a sexist puritan ideologs for it every step of the way.

There is no logic in this: OOPSIE we did bad things to our women in the company, therefore we need to remove any references to sexiness from our games and make any remaining female characters the least attractive possible to make up for that. On what planet does that make sense?

[m76]

2 hours ago, skyfire said:

To be honest this looks funny but they must be getting the signals from people to do so I suppose.

If there was widespread outcry about it I'd understand changing something, but it is a slippery slope. There is always one person who doesn't like something. If the goal is to not offend anyone, we might as well kiss goodbye to all videogames, because I'm sure even pong annoys someone, somewhere.

[Shagger]

Seriously @m76, given your history when it comes to discussing inclusion and how women are depicted in games, I'm struggling to understand why you even bothered to post this topic in the first place. Coming from you, this carries absolutely no weight whatsoever. You're not stupid, you must know how this looks coming from you. Not that this rant would be that relevant if somebody else was to say it anyway.

 

So, I'm not even going to entertain you, not this time. You wanna piss and moan like a teenage boy mad that your mum took away your Playboy's, then be my guest.

Edited October 3, 2021 by Shagger

[Crazycrab]

26 minutes ago, m76 said:

Oh it makes perfect sense does it? Only if you  assume that hustler magazines and bikini posters should be burnt. Which is ludicrous. Calling people names for caring about the entertainment value of entertainment products is still no argument though. Whether you care to admit it or not, sexy is more entertaining.

 

(Sigh...)  It's a metaphor you dummy!  I blame myself though, I should have figured you wouldn't click on.  What I mean is they want to wash themselves of their current reputation of misogyny in the workplace.

 

26 minutes ago, m76 said:

Of course it is political, you preemptively try to dismiss that argument before it was even made because even you know it is true.

 

If you define political definite being more inclusive so their products appeal to a wider audience then of course it's bloody true!  I personally don't see it as a political issue but what you don't seem to be getting is that even if I did:

 

 

It doesn't matter to me what motivates their creative choices it's still THEIR choices.  Do I always like it, No.  Do still accept it, yes because at end of the day it's just my opinion.  I can be critical but I it's not up to me to stifle their creative vision regardless of why they are going for it.  If I like it great, if I don't I have a choice of keeping quiet or bitching and moaning but at the end of the day it's still creative freedom either way.

 

If you're saying you don't want to see political influence in a game developers creative vision, and that covering up the ladies bodies is political then by your own logic, showing them off is political to.  So why do you call out WOW for this:

 

 

But not this:

 

 

I'll tell you why, It's because one of them is YOUR politics and the other one is isn't.  Once again just make it clear, I've no issue with either of these.

[Reality vs Adventure]

Once again this is nothing more and nothing less than ‘Out of Touch Syndrome.’ Blizzard has been in trouble for their work environment, so what do they do? Turn a woman into fruit. This isn’t political, this is business! Because of their bad reputation,  they want to change their image so it looks better for business. And you are upset about this for the wrong reasons. You assume it’s political and sexualization is getting scrutinized and females have to cover up or get replaced. Instead you should be offended by their careless approach in trying to fix their reputation and work environment. I mean, to change the female into a bowl of fruit? What were they thinking? This is exactly why they are in trouble in the first place. Why fruit? Because that is how they view women. Even in their attempt to fix problems, they still objectionalize and sexualize as a reminder of what once hung there. Because they are completely out of touch.

It’s not really a big deal if you think about it, because I don’t know exactly how many pictures they did that to; but the fact they sat there to think that up and talk about it, and come to the conclusion to change a female to fruit instead is leftover irony from what got them in trouble in the first place. Think about how a female co-worker must feel about everything, then to hear your employer do something as shallow as once again objectionalize women as fruit just as one last final reminder. If a female was a part of that change, then even worse for the work environment because those they assume should be helping are actually blind. And this type of thing is used as bait for politics to attack something that just isn’t true, while dismissing another opportunity to promote a better workplace.

[Reality vs Adventure]

I want to add that fruit usually symbolizes fertility. So that's why it is such a strange decision to replace the female picture with fruit. So I don't think their mindset is right yet at Blizzard. They can change a picture, but their beliefs remain at the workplace. 

[Crazycrab]

2 minutes ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

I want to add that fruit usually symbolizes fertility. So that's why it is such a strange decision to replace the female picture with fruit. So I don't think their mindset is right yet at Blizzard. They can change a picture, but their beliefs remain at the workplace. 

 

To be honest, I don't think they were putting that much thought into it. I think they just took JPEG's of some generic hotel art or something and it just happened to be fruit in this case.

[Reality vs Adventure]

12 minutes ago, Crazycrab said:

 

To be honest, I don't think they were putting that much thought into it. I think they just took JPEG's of some generic hotel art or something and it just happened to be fruit in this case.

Maybe so; maybe I looked too much into it; but their inability to see that irony shows how distanced they are. At times that can be just as bad as any deliberate intentions. But overall, this is just a small issue from the bigger problems Blizzard has had in the workplace. 

[killamch89]

To be honest, I didn't even notice. I don't think they'd achieve anything from doing it...

[m76]

23 hours ago, Shagger said:

Seriously @m76, given your history when it comes to discussing inclusion and how women are depicted in games, I'm struggling to understand why you even bothered to post this topic in the first place. Coming from you, this carries absolutely no weight whatsoever. You're not stupid, you must know how this looks coming from you. Not that this rant would be that relevant if somebody else was to say it anyway.

Why is it so hard for you to address the topic instead of the messenger? If you don't want to address the topic then don't, nobody is forcing you, but attacking me personally yet again is still uncool.

23 hours ago, Shagger said:

So, I'm not even going to entertain you, not this time. You wanna piss and moan like a teenage boy mad that your mum took away your Playboy's, then be my guest.

I refer you with that to the first paragraph of my second post.

[m76]

22 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

(Sigh...)  It's a metaphor you dummy!  I blame myself though, I should have figured you wouldn't click on. 

Calling people who dare to notice "man-babies" is a metaphore?

22 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

What I mean is they want to wash themselves of their current reputation of misogyny in the workplace.

But that's the exact point, in order for that to make sense we must conclude that the picture was mysogyny in the first place. That's what I'm disputing.

22 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

If you define political definite being more inclusive so their products appeal to a wider audience then of course it's bloody true!  I personally don't see it as a political issue but what you don't seem to be getting is that even if I did:

How does removing these make the game more inclusive? Inclusion by exclusion?
You don't care that's your choice, but you seem to want everyone to ignore the trend. 

22 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

It doesn't matter to me what motivates their creative choices it's still THEIR choices.  Do I always like it, No.  Do still accept it, yes because at end of the day it's just my opinion.  I can be critical but I it's not up to me to stifle their creative vision regardless of why they are going for it.  If I like it great, if I don't I have a choice of keeping quiet or bitching and moaning but at the end of the day it's still creative freedom either way.

Removing already included content is technically the same as a book burning, you'll have a very hard time arguing that burning books is part of creative freedom too.

22 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

If you're saying you don't want to see political influence in a game developers creative vision, and that covering up the ladies bodies is political then by your own logic, showing them off is political to.  So why do you call out WOW for this:

You must be a genious because I don't follow. So if censoring content is political, then making the content is also political? WHAT?

22 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

I'll tell you why, It's because one of them is YOUR politics and the other one is isn't.  Once again just make it clear, I've no issue with either of these.

You are drawing a false equivalence. What would be the same is if at the same time they changed another image or character to be more revealing snd sexy than it was before, but that didn't happen. This is a oneway street.

[m76]

20 hours ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

Once again this is nothing more and nothing less than ‘Out of Touch Syndrome.’ Blizzard has been in trouble for their work environment, so what do they do? Turn a woman into fruit. This isn’t political, this is business! Because of their bad reputation,  they want to change their image so it looks better for business. And you are upset about this for the wrong reasons. You assume it’s political and sexualization is getting scrutinized and females have to cover up or get replaced. Instead you should be offended by their careless approach in trying to fix their reputation and work environment.

If you read my full post that's exactly what I'm saying, this is not the way to fix things for them.

20 hours ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

I mean, to change the female into a bowl of fruit? What were they thinking? This is exactly why they are in trouble in the first place. Why fruit? Because that is how they view women. Even in their attempt to fix problems, they still objectionalize and sexualize as a reminder of what once hung there. Because they are completely out of touch.

It’s not really a big deal if you think about it, because I don’t know exactly how many pictures they did that to; but the fact they sat there to think that up and talk about it, and come to the conclusion to change a female to fruit instead is leftover irony from what got them in trouble in the first place. Think about how a female co-worker must feel about everything, then to hear your employer do something as shallow as once again objectionalize women as fruit just as one last final reminder. If a female was a part of that change, then even worse for the work environment because those they assume should be helping are actually blind. And this type of thing is used as bait for politics to attack something that just isn’t true, while dismissing another opportunity to promote a better workplace.

In isolation it is not a big deal, but the trend is already noticeable. Making female characters less and less attracive, and if someone like me raises their voice against the emerging trend they are labelled all kinds of bad words, and how dare I limit their creative freedom.

Do I limit the creative freedom of an artist if I don't buy their painting because I think it is ugly? I don't think so. I'm just letting them know if this is how they choose to depict women I'll not be buying their paintings in the future.

Edited October 4, 2021 by m76