Overwatch's "ButtGate" and the Sexualisation of Game Characters

Butts, butts, butts. Everyone’s got one, or is genetically predisposed to having one. Two rounded fleshy bits that sit between the legs and the lower back. Since the very most ancient of ancient times the butt has been a symbol to humanity. Fertility goddesses from thousands upon thousands of years ago have all been depicted with rather large derrières, while anthropologically an extended posterior can be an indicator of wealth and health in some areas of the world. It’s also an ever-lasting sex symbol, one focused upon in art and literature for millennia.

So it’s pertinent that a butt in an art form should be causing so much discussion at the moment. Overwatch, Blizzard’s answer to fun-loving class-based FPS games everywhere, has been at the centre of a crazy storm of criticism and debate since one forum user pointed out a pose adopted by one of the characters. Tracer, as she is known, is supposed to be an energetic, happy-go-lucky pistol-wielding sprinter hailing from the beautiful British Isles. She has a funky hairstyle, smirks at the camera and wears a bulky device on her upper body. It’s what she wears beneath the waist that has caused so much consternation, however.

Tracer is clad in lycra, or whatever the substitute for lycra is in the Overwatch universe. Meaning that the details of her legs and behind are plain to see, leaving little to the imagination. However, it’s not her costume that people have been taking umbrage with. In one of her poses, Tracer faces away from the camera, leaning prominently on one leg and looking over her shoulder with a smirk. This drew complaints from a forum user, who described the pose as completely out of character and an attempt by Blizzard to unnecessarily sexualise Tracer by placing undue prominence on her rear.

Blizzard (who have since come out and said they planned to remove the animation anyway) went ahead and released a statement that they care about their fans’ opinions and didn’t want to create a situation where players could misconstrue their intentions for the characters. At this point everything seems to be peachy, right? Fan complains, company makes it right, everyone gets on with their day, right? Wrong, unfortunately.

The issue (as much as it can be called that) has been leaped upon by the two ever-warring factions which plague any gender-based discussion in videogaming. An uproar was created that Blizzard were pandering to feminists and social justice warriors by removing the animation, while the other side of the argument claimed that Blizzard were correcting a wrong that plagues the industry - sexualisation of female characters.

There are multiple facets to this argument but let’s go at it from a technical point of view first. Rendering clothing is hard. Realistically simulating the movement of cloth is both time-consuming and resource-intensive. It’s for this reason that many early videogame characters simply had their clothing painted onto their frame: It’s extremely difficult to have a wire-frame model and then place animated clothing on top of it. Yes, you can make a few pieces here and there move around - a backpack, a belt, holsters - but animating an entire set of clothing is a task that even current gen tech has trouble coping with. As such, it makes sense for a lot of characters in videogames to have a form of body-tight clothing to minimise the resource use. You can see this throughout a number of gaming titles: Mass Effect, Metal Gear Solid and the Arkham games are just a few examples.

Now let's move on to the character. I don’t pretend to understand the intricacies of Overwatch, but Tracer is supposed to be a fast-moving character not unlike the Scout in Team Fortress 2. She spends much of the game sprinting around the arena so, design-wise, it makes sense for her to have tighter-fitting clothing to reduce drag. On the other hand she does wear a jacket that is strapped with what looks like a tonne of heavy armour, so that renders the point half-moot.

The character is the key point in this debate. Tracer is supposed to be a character who likes to joke around. The forum user raised the issue of her suddenly moving from this playful attitude to being overtly sexual. Others have criticised this by asking if it is fine for another of Blizzard’s characters in Overwatch, the Widowmaker, to be portrayed as sexual (she is designed to ape the femme fatales of golden cinema, wearing a tight-fitting bodycon outfit) then why is it suddenly not okay for Tracer?

The sexualisation of a female character has become a discussion that re-occurs again and again in videogames. Lara Croft is the first name you think of, surely, when discussing this topic. In her early days she was the epitome of sexualisation - she was marketed as a buxom woman in tight-fitting clothing to an audience of predominantly young males - Lara was the first sex symbol in gaming and, arguably, the only enduring one. Yet she has taken on a transformation in the recent titles and has been given motives, background, emotions and feelings - she’s no longer just an object.

That is not to say that male sexualisation does not occur in gaming. If we focus on the subject of butts then the male rear is in almost every game imaginable in some form or another. Multiple male protagonists have had their bottoms clad in tight-fitting clothing. However, a point to be made here is that the male protagonists - Solid Snake, Shepherd, even Spider-Man - have motivations, characterisation and emotions. They’re relatable characters who are not only there for someone to gaze at.

And neither is Tracer.

In giving her a personality, Blizzard have created a character that players can connect with on a deeper level than their physical attributes. She’s fun-loving, spunky, energetic and fond of tea (probably), so why should it matter what clothes she wears or what poses she takes up, especially if they’re not overtly sexual in nature (other characters in Overwatch also have the same pose, from male to female to monkey)?.

There is much more to be said about the storm in a teacup that has accompanied this saga. Had this forum user quietly sent a message to Blizzard, and then Blizzard just as quietly removed the pose, would anyone have cared as much? Of course not. As with many topics that should be discussed from a far more logical (and technical, in terms of game and character design) perspective, the angriest voices shout over those looking for genuine discussion.

“ButtGate” has become just another battleground for angry people on the internet to type in capitals to one another. Like the majority of gamers, people will continue to play games and they will continue to enjoy Overwatch. The uproar and the needless personal insult taken by gamers on both sides is just another point of embarrassment for an industry that is trying its best to move towards something greater.