Why Blizzard Shouldn’t Remove Symmetra’s Devi Skin

Pure PlayStation writes, "Someone is offended in the world. Who would have guessed? This time the person being offended is Rajan Zed, President of Universal Society of Hinduism. He happens to not like the way my favorite, Overwatch defender looks in one of her skins. Symmetra’s Devi skin to be exact. According to him it is inappropriate and “trivialized Hinduism’s highly revered goddesses.” Mr. Zed further went on to say it was belittling and confusing. Essentially, he wants Blizzard to remove the skin entirely from Overwatch."

[Kalebninja]

You know its dissapointing that so many people just don't care about disrespecting entire groups as long as they're enjoying themselves and it doesn't bother them personally. The skin was named after their goddess and if its offensive to them at least change the name of the skin.

[GOODKylePS]

We don't have to censor ourselves to comfort people's ignorance.

[Kalebninja]

And what makes them ignorant?

[GOODKylePS]

Thinking that their religion dictates what other people can or can't do. It's all in the article.

[Kalebninja]

No one said that it does, no ones being forced to do anything though it doesn't change the fact that their taking offense, its completely up to blizzard but I don't see what's so hard about changing the name of the skin.

[lociefer]

im offended by people being offended, please remove self pushing offendees from the world

[ChrisW]

"We don't have to censor ourselves to comfort people's ignorance."

Which is exactly why it's perfectly fine to build a Noah's Ark replica in Kentucky. Creationists view Scientific / Theistic Evolution beliefs as ignorance. If they were concerned about the majority of American's (approximately 60%) irreligious beliefs, the Ark replica would have never been built.

[Swiftfox]

Ah but one could argue the simple misuse in accordance with the traditions of Hindu is ignorant of Blizzard. This isn't about censorship, it's about respect. I know Blizzard meant no harm and just wanted a cool looking skin for one of their characters, but Blizzard chose not to do research. It's like paving over a temple to put up a Walmart and then calling the owners of the temple ignorant when they get very reasonably upset.

They have every right to be upset, it's THEIR Deity. This gentleman didn't say the game should be banned, condemned, or anything. He simply asked for a little respect to a Deity still worshiped today. I would work with this individual to come to an agreement. There are plenty of other concepts and ideas for costumes out there.

[WelkinCole]

So using and making fun of what others hold sacred is fine?.

[Maxor]

The only ignorance here is coming from GOODKylePP. I'm an atheist and even I know that you absolutely must respect people's religion when a logical request is being made. To ignore the influence of religion, directly or indirectly is to displace true ignorance.

For example, I dare Blizzard to make a Jesus or Muhammad skin. That's right, nobody in their right mind would do that. I wonder why? Hmmm.

[KwietStorm_BLM]

The goddamned irony in your statement is EXACTLY what Kalebninja is talking about. The sad truth is we are in a society today where every.single.time something like this comes up, people are told to get over it, grow thicker skin, deal with it, etc. At what point do humans take a step back and respect each other as humans, if ever? The damn opening statement in this piece is "... someone is offended, who would have guessed?" That total lack of respect for your fellow man is why this planet is spiraling into the toilet, and all the disagrees just proves that people do not care. It's not about catering to every qualm. It's not about giving preordained rights. It's just about respecting others. Washington Redskins. Cleveland Indians logo. Black face. It's all the same thing.

[Christopher]

***So using and making fun of what others hold sacred is fine?.***

Actually, yeah, it is.

First, in the U.S., it's covered by the 1st amendment.

Second, anyone of true faith would not care at all because of what someone says about their own faith or its figures. They would wave it away as someone without faith and go on to preach as their religion dictates. How many times have you seen the Pope come out and tell people to stop making movies like Dogma?

Third, many many religious figures have no issue at all dictating what is right and what is wrong purely based on their religion. Abortions, same-sex marriages, abstinence vs safe sex, and so many other things. But, they don't take well when others disagree or utilize imagery that is a part of history, not just religion, as they see fit? Seems a bit uptight and controlling to me.

[ziggurcat]

care to explain how this character skin is disrespecting "entire groups"? is it excessively/inappropriately sexualized? is it excessively violent? does it portray hinduism in a negative light in any way, shape or form?

[Kalebninja]

I was talking about the author not caring not the skin.

[ziggurcat]

and i'm asking you how this skin is offensive, since that's the argument you're defending.

[Kalebninja]

its offensive to this man because its named after their goddess and it portrays her in a sexual manner, just compare the two it's not hard to notice.

[Swiggins]

Hindu goddesses are almost ALWAYS depicted as being either nude, or close to it...nothing Symmetra does sexualizes her in any real capacity. If you think having slightly revealing clothing "sexualizes" something that's on you dude.

[ziggurcat]

@kaleb:

"its offensive to this man because its named after their goddess and it portrays her in a sexual manner"

1. it's not offensive to name a video game character after a deity. it's been done countless times in the past.

2. yeah.... no. that's a stretch, and you know it. there is nothing overtly sexual about this character skin.

[gamer7804]

we should probably make a generic male and a generic female protagnoists with kahaki pants and a white polo top for every single protagonist, then every antagonist we can make them where dark jeans and a black polo. This way no one has to censor anything, no one is offended it also speeds up development time, developers can share resources, it would be amazing!!!! oh darn, I forgot, we can't do a white polo... what if its the day after labor day! we'd have to have something to swap it out with, maybe a blue polo.

[JOWAPPO]

Why does the bad guy get to wear a black polo and I don't? Are you trying to say something about people who wear black polos?

#POLOffended #POLOpposites #kkkahaki #notallblacktops #darkjeansmatter

[KakashiHotake]

I may be in the minority but I dont think this Kalebninjas comment deserves so many down-votes. Obviously I'l be down-voted also but its the truth. These days people are just greedy and don't know what it means to respect ones culture. That's one of the biggest problem in the world today, but people are too blind and ignorant to see it. As long as their bellys are full and they're happy, no one else happiness matters.

[GameBoyColor]

i dont respect the rape culture in islam/muslim communities, am i ignorant? Can i not make a game about shaming the practice because it offends them?

[Salooh]

Basically they want to do what ever they want even though they are the one that interfere with things that doesn't concern/matter to them or even have an effect on them.

As a gamer changing the skin will do nothing to me. I find it more respectful, honourable and lead to harmony and peace if they respected the request even though it came from small percentage of the religion. As a muslim this is what i would do, never insult people religions and leaders especially if they don't mean harm to me.

This is up to Blizzard. They did something in good intentions( which is cool ), yet the religious guy still didn't find it appropriate and he made a request and that's his right. No one is forcing them to do anything. It's just a request. If it is offending and have bad consequences then it is better for everyone( for the greater good ) to remove it but i don't sense that here.

Don't add unnecessary fuel to the fire if you want to receive the same respect.

[Hanilugtehul]

You the one who is blind and ignorant but you don't even see it!! I'm pretty sure you belly is full to " Mr.I can't get down from my high horse"

[Notellin]

How is this offensive to anyone? If you find something offensive then don't support the product. Simple as that.

In our day and age where we have limitless opportunities we are all chomping at the bit to find something to get upset about for the sake of getting our voice out there.

It's video game skin at the end of the day. Go outside and help a hungry kid or donate some clothes to those less fortunate and quit worrying about being offended over some thing that has zero impact on your well being.

[babadivad]

Unless you are Hindu, you don't really have a right to say what's offensive to him or not. It's HIS deity. If you were a very religious Christian and bought a game like Witcher 3. Then there's a spell that the Virgin Mary has to get raped every time you used it. Or Jesus would have to be beheaded and his corpse defiled. I'm betting people would be offended even if it were the most powerful spell in the game.

That's taking it to the extreme but I'm just trying to make my point. I'm guessing hear in the Christian West, that would offend a TON of people and would've been changed.

How about a skin that was called Africanize. And it made the character run and jump faster than her other skins. Don't mean to take it to race but you can see how that would offend some people. Not all, but some.

Hell, even if there was a spell called "Christ Word" that killed enemies, I'm betting that there would be still a sizable amount of Christians that would be offended that a game is using Christ name in vain. It would've offended people even though they weren't trying to.

You don't know how offensive it is because you yourself are not a Hindu. It's ignorant for you to assume to know how offended someone else should be.

It's not a big deal for Blizzard to just change the name of the skin. Blizzard probably thought this was a good thing and they would appreciate the reference. I'm sure this guy isn't the ONLY Hindu who would be offended by this.

[ZombieGamerMan]

Let me impart onto you a very important life lesson I learned as a child, no matter what you say or do there will always be people who don't like you for 1 reason or the other.

It is not the place nor the priority of Blizzard to alter something of their game because someone is offended by an aspect of the game, if they are bothered by it there is an easy solution to solve it, do not play with the skin or do not buy the game.

[babadivad]

It is Blizzard's place and priority to change it. They are the one's who inadvertently offended someone. If not them then who's responsibility is it?

They could've been smart enough not ti put a religious figure in their game since they know that can be a sensitive subject for very many people.

That's just an asinine argument.

[ZombieGamerMan]

@ babadivad no it is not and to say bullcrap like that is just signs of ignorance to their rights as creators they create what they want. Creators should not be hindered or restricted from creating something on the basis that someone will be offended because it kills creativity.

Also inadvertently is keyword as well, they didn't set off to insult anyone with their game which is a pander fest trying to appeal to every ethnicity & gender, it is one thing when a game is purposely offensive for the sake of it but even then those products still have every right to exist because it was their creative decision.

No it is not their priority to change jackshit about their game because some overly sensitive c*nt doesn't want a character in a video game to have an optional skin that makes them look like their religions deity, and if you support this whiner than you are supporting the right to censor.

[annoyedgamer]

I bet if it was a bunch of Christians whining you would be on the freedom of expression train full stop.

[Hanilugtehul]

As Justin timberlake would have said,Cry me a river! You opinion upsets me please stop, it's hurting me feelings:)peace☺

[MEsoJD]

Oh stop. Religion shouldn't have any say over art. Those offended by this need to grow a backbone or actually acquire the common sense that religion is bullshit.

[goathouse774]

You are correct. Religion is compete and utter trash. Offense on religious grounds should be taken no more seriously than the squawking of an ankle-biter.

[Surt]

No. Same with the Washington redskins. Yeah they still suck, but that is still no reason to change that name. Its the fact that people treat getting offended like it gives em certain rights. "i don't like that joke. it offended me" so what?

[Majin-vegeta]

Lol this is dumb.Who cares what a bunch of nobodies who have no intention if playing the game think.Its like me being mad if they decided to use a skin of The Virgen Mary.

[goathouse774]

I'd like to suggest that Zed remove his OWN skin.

[GOODKylePS]

o.o a little too far

[BlaqMagiq1]

PLEASE DON'T REMOVE THIS. Do NOT give in to a bunch of nobodies who don't even give a damn about the game. They are just a bunch of idiots who think their faith is being disrespected.

[SuperbVillain]

lets put in jesus and give him an ak-47 and see how Americans like it

[GOODKylePS]

As an American, I would still defend the outfit.

[GottaBjimmyb]

Umm, I think it would be kind of funny, personally.

[Maxor]

Make sure you're on that front line when hundreds if not thousands of Christians are protesting Blizzard's office. If it'll ever get to that point. Thankfully the people at Blizzard are smarter than your average N4G poster.

[babadivad]

Yeah, you might think it's funny but a shit ton of others wouldn't. I can't believe how obtuse the comments in here have been.

I'm honestly shocked. WTF.

[gamer7804]

its the creator's choice, but anyone has the choice not to buy it.

[Kabaneri]

That totally should be a Soldier 76 skin!

[Concertoine]

I grew up reading Gary Larson cartoons that constantly depicted god or jesus humorously. It was funny.

[Mikerob2007]

Id pay for a game like that

[Aloy-Boyfriend]

South Park already dit it

[annoyedgamer]

We wouldn't care.

[Salooh]

Really ?.

Remember this ?
https://img.buzzfeed.com/bu...

You may not be offended , but others will. So i advice you not to say "We".

[Mithan]

Hopefully Blizzard ignores this request. People being "offended" should not be grounds for taking action on something.

[47]

Offense is taken, not given. You don't get to dictate what appears in another's work of art. Grow the fuck up.

[aquaticDonut]

They must really hate Smite then.

[mynameisBlade]

how stupid.....omg...this is getting out of hand....they better not remove this skin because some piss ant wants it out...nobody is making you play the game...so gtfo...jesus

[ZombieGamerMan]

funny how in an attempt to be as diverse as possible they still end up offending someone, just shows people will always find something to be offended by

[iceman06]

While I believe that Mr. Zed has every right to be offended by something that is revered to him (and the countless followers of Hinduism) being taken out of it's theological context for mere entertainment. I also feel that his being offended shouldn't alter the issue of free, artistic expression.
That being said, there seem to be a lot of people that seem to think that so many things are ideologically exclusive. You CAN respect someone's right to offense AND still not be offended yourself. In this situation, it seems that both parties have been ignorant. Mr. Zed was ignorant to the actual intent and was seeking to inform Blizzard about the his perceptions. Blizzard, on the other hand, was ignorant of the fact that this could be perceived as disrespectful. At this point, it's about mutual respect. Blizzard should be more careful, BUT Mr. Zed should respect their freedom of artistic expression. He doesn't have to like it, much like we don't have to like a differing opinion, but he should at least respect that right (expression) which he is exercising by speaking out against it.

[Sciurus_vulgaris]

Don't cave in Blizzard. You shouldn't have to censor a character because it resembles an unprovable God.

[PixelOmen]

Would it be ok to censor if it was a "provable" god?

[PixelOmen]

It makes sense that someone would be offended by it. I don't agree, and think it's silly, but I fully support their right to be offended, and their right to politely request it be changed.

[theIndianNoob]

We all talk about being more sensitive and accommodating with everyone, I can't see why that doesn't or can't include Religion?

[fei-hung]

I find it really funny how free speech or am artists creative rights are in question when creating a pose for a female character and what she wears as it may offend them, but creating a skin that may offend the religion of over a billion Hindus is okay.

I'm not saying remove the skin, but I find this article hypocritical where censorship and creative freedom are okay when it comes to faith but not okay when it comes to making sexy women. Sexy half naked or almost naked men? That's fine. Women? No. Offend someone's faith? That's fine. A woman posing sexy? No.

Just as people have pointed out here, if it's offensive, don't buy it. The author has contradicted his own principles for one example over the other. What a tool. You either believe in this version of freedom of speech where there are no limitations and you apply your rules justly or you don't. You don't get to choose when are where you apply them, because that just shows you value one group more than the other and your bias decides who gets freedom of speech not principles or fairness.

[slappy508]

I think artists should be allowed their creative freedom. I simply ignore and avoid things I find offensive. You don't see me demanding from Activision "make Ghostbusters awesome" I simply don't buy it.

[Hotabang]

is this guy serious? Belittling an entire religion and then defending the right to do so?

[JOWAPPO]

You can be offended all you want. It's a deeply personal thing and I can understand an emotional reaction... but when you try to come up with this flimsy argument about the skin "confusing people" because it doesn't properly represent the Hindu goddess, I have to stop taking you seriously, Mr. Zed.

You're basically saying that people are going to be confused about a major religious practice because some video game decided that a skin based on the design of a goddess would look nice (and it does). I don't think you're giving people enough credit. This isn't SMITE, the skin isn't supposed to tell you anything about Hinduism, it's supposed to be a nice looking skin (or am I wrong, did I miss something here?).

That's like me saying that you shouldn't have a Jesus skin in some random shooter because it'll confuse people about Christianity. Because we all know there's serious overlap between those interested in Christianity and those who play Killing Floor.

"Hey, now wait just a minute... Christ never used AK's...!"

"I don't know, Jerry, we may have ta check the book on this one!"

[Zepherite]

If the the skin was truly impacting the hindu faith in a negative way, I would say remove it but all he needs to do is ignore it. Their lives and faith will not be affected by this existing.

It's not like potential sexism in the games industry that could have a tangible affect on the world outside of the videogame. Life goes almost unchanged for everyone if the skin exists.

This guy CHOSE to be offended by it, it didn't reach out and affect him. He looked at something that simply existed and decided he was offended by it. I'm afraid if you choose to be offended by something, something that does not incite any kind of negativity or affect the world around you other than simply existing, you're just going to have to be mature, ignore it and get on with your life.

[Andrealsant]

Jeez, this article is literally garbage, it looks like it's written by an amateur and most of its arguments are easily debunked xD People, no one cares if you are for or against free speech, if you think they are or aren't entitled to this and especially if you spent money on it or not; if you decipt a deity revered by millions (if not billions) of people in provocative clothing and using a FREAKING GUN, don't feel "wronged" when these mllions of people feel offended and request you to remove it >_> (here waiting for a game to make a "Jesus-looking" character using a giant cross as a weapon).

[Blacklash93]

From the article: "He basically says free speech is something important but then throws out the notion in the very next sentence because this skin is sacred to him. His hypocritical argument falls flat even without my previously mentioned points."

I'm not so sure that's hypocritical. Supporting free speech doesn't mean you can't contest others' decisions or argue your own perspective against them.

If he was threatening to get the law involved or some tangible form of force, it would be a different story. But right now all he's expressing is that he believes the skin is disrespectful and is urging Blizzard to change it. And Blizzard can freely choose to act on that feedback or not - there's no violation of freedom here. I get that people are worried that everything in gaming is going to be subject to change whenever someone gets offended by anything, but let's be reasonable and not make this out to be a huge deal that it probably isn't.

I don't think Symmetra's skin should be changed and I don't believe there's anything offensive or harmful about it myself, but let's not treat anyone as villains here and insult them.

[VTKC]

Its not like Blizzard did any SFM Hentai with that skin in Karma Sutra positions.