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

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

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

They must really hate Smite then.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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!"

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.

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).

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.

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

Tell me again how the multiplatform strategy was supposed to fix everything. Look at your results and compare them to Nintendo, which keeps thriving with exclusives. Your loyal fans are gone. And let’s not forget the pile of IPs you purchased only to let them rot.

The worst thing is this is down from last years numbers/expectations which was down from the previous years numbers/expectations. You think about how long “down” has been a consistent part of the communication and you realize those subscriptions are what’s holding that boat together. The price cut of gamespass is still a price raise in a string of price raises. They are trying to use players to offset the missing revenue. Now call of duty is out of gamespass, which is literally WHY they bought the company. To draw people to the subscription. They realized they missed a boatload of money and that wasn’t sustainable. Now you pay for it like you would have if they never bought the company… so why buy the company? Mind you those billions still need to be paid back. Yeah it gives you a chance to say we make the biggest FPS… but the internal conversations must be brutal at high level on topics that really matter. Like revenue. Profitability. And ROI for the shopping spree.

Is this like the 10th quarter in a row they're down 33% on hardware how is that even mathematically possible. You would think their mediocrity would Plateau