Ugh....

The game was great. But it added a stupid post script at the end that served no purpose beyond inflating Neil Druckmann's over-indulgent ego and depressing the player.

I realize that the game is as much a cinematic feature as it is a game, but that kind of soft-headed bullshit is not the reason that people [i]play[/i] videogames.

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.

If it were an error, it wouldn't have been designed that way and they would have removed it before the update. There's no way they didn't see it, and there's no way that her character model didn't include reactive physics that specifically allowed for the effect. PC Western culture mocked it, and so Capcom responded with fear, just like they were fearful of leaving in Cammy's crotch and Mika's meat-slap.

Whether or not it occurs anywhere else in the game doesn't really change anything. That being said however, it was there:

I know you want to treat it like a bug, but.....that makes no sense.

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.

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").

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

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

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.

"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.

"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."