Archives 2022: some confirmations on "Cassidy / McCree"

I am eagerly awaiting archives 2022, but for a “particular” reason: to definitively confirm Cassidy’s retcon. I’ve seen a lot of people saying that this Twitter post should help the lore justify that at some point “McCree” decided to become “Cassidy” after Reunion.

someone insists on canonizing the name change with this post, “justifying” why Cassidy didn’t appear from Deadlock Rebels until Reunion. But there is already a clear signal that all this will no longer make sense: I often delight in extracting the internal files of the game, and still today the dialogues containing “Jesse McCree” in Retribution (including the voiceline of Moira and McCree on the Italian accent) are absent. For those who don’t know, event dialogues are always present in the game throughout the year. Barring that they take out a lot of Retribution dialogue … we should consider the possibility that they are planning the re-dubbing of the event in “Cassidy”, just like they did for Echo in her ultimate.

IF in the retribution of archives 2022 there will be the name “cassidy”, we must officially declare game over to all fans of the lore: it is a retcon, no narrative justifications.

Seems a tad dramatic, don’t you think? Even if they do decide to retcon it, it’s not like there’s massive story implications anywhere. His name isn’t an important plotpoint.

I’d wager they just remove the lines with his old name, anyways. It’s not a big deal.

13 Likes

I’m pretty sure it’s going to be just an article that makes the retcon true to the lore.
Anything beyond that is way too much effort imo.

1 Like

No … or rather, it is relative. Narratively, as a reader I can understand the annoyance of having a name while “following” the lore and then reading another and having to research why it has changed through news on the web. Even more annoying if you know that these are reasons not strictly related to the game itself.

But what I want to highlight is that I have seen some say “but no, can’t you see that they explained that this change of name after zero hour is canonical?” … and it is fundamentally wrong. BLizzard MUST take responsibility that this retcon will forever be evident in the game and for those who decide to read Overwatch lore. And we’re not talking about the same kind of retcon that exists between the originals WarCraft 3 and WoW, because there at least you have the benefit of time to evolve things. Here no, we have to admit 100% that we will always find ourselves having to know the moment McCree became Cassidy … on a news article about Blizzard Entertainment.

This. Any new/updated media from Blizzard is going to have his name as Cassidy, no matter when it takes place

Team 4 doesn’t want to be associated with Jesse McCree - that’s why the character’s name was changed in the first place.

I’m not sure why this is so difficult for some people to understand.

8 Likes

I don’t mean to sound rude, I’m sorry, but so what? The alleged retcon isn’t confirmed, unless I’ve just been ignoring something.

And if they do choose to, for most people, it’s a minor annoyance for like 10 minutes. They’ll move on. There’s no major story or theme revolving around his name. The ramifications are mostly a personal thing, not a narrative one.

3 Likes

I’m fine with them retconning it. I just don’t know why they didn’t use “Joel” when it was already related to lore and could’ve fit in more seamlessly. They’ve always tried to reveal lore bits in a natural way, particularly with sexuality, but I don’t see why they couldn’t do it here. Cole Cassidy is random as hell and it’s no wonder so many people reject it. It’s jarring.

Also, the alliteration was seen as a plus for some reason. To me, it just makes it feel more forced.

It shouldn’t have narrative justifications. It should be a retcon.

Giving an in-universe explanation keeps the name in the universe. If you say, “This guy used to be called Jesse McCree,” then you haven’t actually solved the problem you are trying to solve. The name is still part of OW lore and the OW universe. If anyone ever wants to tell a story about his past, they would still need to use that name. Almost everyone that knows him in-game would know him mainly as Jesse McCree.

It would be like the WoW team removing the Afrasiabi NPC and replacing it with a gravestone that says “Afrasiabi” on it to explain where the NPC went. It doesn’t remove the name at all, so the change is pointless.

If the team wants the name removed, it should be removed. It shouldn’t be some half-measure, because that doesn’t solve anything. It’s a meaningless change that accomplishes nothing (except making the writers and weird nerds who obsess over esoteric trivia feel smart).

5 Likes

For me, I just feel like it’s a waste of narrative potential. So much could be done with the theme of moving past ones identity and former life, and yet, they do the bare minimum? It just feels so… uninspiring, to me.

1 Like

It’s not being changed for any narrative reason. It’s being changed because they don’t want it in the game. In which case, it shouldn’t be in the game. Get it?

Making it a plot point doesn’t remove it from the game, which is the entire point of the change.

Think of it like a bugged hero ability. It’s not relevant to the story or world of OW, it’s a mistake they want corrected and, in time, forgotten.

1 Like

Still, I feel like this is a missed opportunity for character development.

Imagine a short story where McCree–seeking to distance himself from his past as both a criminal, Blackwatch agent, and bounty hunter–has a run-in with a shadow from his past, this prompting him to look inwards and reconsider what he’s been doing all his life. After some time, he admits that he’s a new man, and is going to need a new identity. And what better identity than the name he once scorned in his youth? (Although, I think they could’ve come up with a better name or callsign, like “Jericho/Renegade” or “Cole Callaway”).

Just feels like wasted potential to teach a lesson that just because you have a troubled past doesn’t mean that you’re bound to it, rather, you can decide to make a name for yourself and what it means.

Honestly, so many possibilities to turn this controversy into a meaningful life lesson, and all they do is a half-hearted attempt to sweep it under the rug…

I was under the impression that they’re going with Cassidy being the only thing he’s ever been known as, and they’ll never address McCree ever again

True. It is a shame that they couldn’t–at the very least–make a somewhat entertaining sendoff to the name (I’ve had my own ideas, but something official would’ve been preferred).

To me, I feel like they could do so much more with the given opportunity placed before them, but alas–like most things in this franchise–it’s just narrowly slips through their grasp.

Frankly, I’m not opposed to the new name, though I would’ve preferred something like “Callahan” or “Callaway” for a last name (they sound more rugged than “Cassidy”). Additionally, they could’ve given him a new callsign that every Overwatch agent should’ve gotten (to stay anonymous and what-have-you). Something like, “Jericho” or “Renegade” that still fits that cowboy theme.

[Offhandedly, why did they not make Ashe’s callsign “Calamity”? It’s literally in her bio as her alias.]

How is removing the name a “half-hearted attempt” to sweep it under the rug? Or, put another way, what would a full attempt look like to you?

And how is turning the name of a presumed sex pest into a core part of OW lore a better option? That’s moving the exact opposite direction from what they want.

This isn’t a moral guide, it’s a video game. It’s about cartoon superheroes. One of them is a talking gorilla from the moon. This game is not required to “teach” anyone anything, and I wouldn’t trust it to do so competently even if it tried (as with any light entertainment product).

Sounds like a not-very-remarkable story built around the most uncomfortable feature in the entire game, the name of a presumed sex pest. If you want to write this fan fiction version of events, go for it. But Blizzard doesn’t owe this to you, and it’s not some universal value they are failing to uphold. It’s just a version of the story you would like, nothing more.

In fact, I clearly said that this note is for those who insisted last fall by saying that that twitter post “canonized” the name change within the lore. I didn’t say at all if it was right or wrong as a choice.

I have never considered this comparison acceptable, since it is an NPC and not a character in a comic or a short film. :grimacing:

Yes, basically it is also for this reason that the silence of an explicit retcon confirmation is a bit annoying. There was, however, a well-known back-up name in the community that considered lore. Don’t get me wrong, I like the irony of the pun between Cole and Ashe (coal, ash …) but … well, why not Joel, that one wonders. or “Why Cassidy?”

no, you are not rude, do not worry and I hope you do not misunderstand me about my tones (which are calm). but it’s not fair to see it that way, honestly. Not for the plans they have for OW2, which is highly based on the importance of narrative. Whether you are a new or old gamer, when you are promising a PVE you also attract the audience of “readers” who are passionate about a story, not just “gamers” who are passionate about a competitive challenge.

The change of the name of a hero you accept it if it was a character not particularly involved in the lore. Zenyatta? Sigma? No one would have noticed them simply because their narrative material is simply nil and lacking in meaningful publications. The speech is not applicable for Jesse McCree: you have books, comics, short films, a PVE event that involves him in archives … it is not exactly “10” minutes "to explain why there is this change in unchanged publications (for how understandable the editorial impossibility). But censoring it causes a “streisand” effect: you formalize the separation with Mr. Jesse McCree, but you have drawn attention to who it was also to those who knew nothing about this story. and inevitably the readers new to inquiring about the time will notice that his name was McCree, they will have to go and read an article on the Blizzard scandal.

They may have all the reasons in the world for not wanting to associate with that person anymore (and I for one can understand them), but it is a not negligible problem for the narrative “completeness”. So why correct this decision by changing the Kindle version of the Deadlock Rebels book with the new name? or put the short film Reunion in the Blizzard download section with the re-dubbing of the new name instead of publishing it on Youtube? or the change in the name on the comics that say “McCree” at least on the official website and on the most recent reissue of “Overwatch Anthology - Expanded Edition”? and let earlier publishing products become collectibles where “once upon a time there was a cowboy named McCree”.

You probably ask yourself “Why should it do all this if it’s useless?”

… well, because OW2 has promised to give importance to lore, so it’s not “useless”. this is why this “silent” retcon is rather controversial, if we have to analyze how many official sources allow us to still see the name “McCree” outside the game.

As I said before, I created this post to highlight that many used that tweet as a “narrative justification” but it’s not enough to be. and it will likely be even more debunked when Retribution 2022 arrives.

No, it’s the exact opposite: Ow2 will become a product that encourages the desire to know the history of Overwatch by drawing on its official sources, mainly on PlayOverwatch which is still full of the name “McCree”. If anything, those who knew that Jesse McCree was taken from a developer’s name is a “trivia-obsessed nerdy thing” to make it such a central issue as to enforce censorship.

And rest assured that if OW2 comes out with a narrative, people will come back more and more to remark that they had to read a newspaper article about what happened to Blizzard in the summer of 2021 to learn about this break in their lore reading. Today we don’t ask ourselves this problem because (obviously) the lore is NOTHING in OW1. but when the lore will be THE product of Overwatch2 … it will always be a noticeable note. The exact opposite of "we don’t talk about Jesse McCree ".

Officializing the retcon also means allowing you not to have too many easy links on what you wanted to hide. But the entire Media section of playoverwatch is pointing to Jesse McCree, with the exception of New BLoods.

Last I checked, aren’t superheroes all about teaching life (meaningful) lessons to young, impressionable minds? Sure, there’s things like Spawn and Punisher, but even they teach some valuable lessons (both positive and negative).

Unfortunately for them, it happened. Nothing will change that. It’s in their dossiers, and it’ll always be a present reminder. The least I would do would be to own up to it; understand that what happened; and use it as a teaching experience so others don’t fall into the same situation. Sadly, that won’t be the case.

This is not a matter of what I like or dislike, but merely, how I think they should’ve handled this situation. How they did it was rather ineffective (in my eyes) and could’ve turned a controversy/tragedy into an opportunity/redemption. After all, isn’t that what companies are after: opportunities to look good?

(Sighs) It’s such a shame that this controversy will be held above their heads. Had they at least tried to instead own it and learn from it, they could’ve salvaged some of their good will (some will always be upset, that’s unavoidable).

I really just dislike when companies try to sweep things under the rug and act like it never happened. It just seems disingenuous to me? Why can’t people be more honest about their shortcomings and failures?

Completely arbitrary distinction.

Except the biggest movie franchise in the world did this and no one cared. Rhodey showed up in Iron Man 2 with a completely different face and personality than he had in Iron Man 1, he said, “I’m here, deal with it,” and that was it. Everyone got over it immediately. People even admired the bluntness of how the movie addressed it.

That’s how you make a change like this, when you don’t want to dwell on the past. You just move on and tell people to deal with it – the same way we deal with Tracer and Widowmaker being on the same team, and all the other immersion-breaking interactions we see when playing the game.

Just because you can’t erase the past completely doesn’t mean you make the most uncomfortable part of your project a central pillar of the world and lore. That’s absurd.

If the goal is removing the name, they should remove the name. If the goal is making weird nerds feel clever, sure, turn all of Blizzard’s internal work culture issues into in-game storylines and we can all marvel at the ingenuity of the writers and how we know what the story is “really” all about. Seems like a pointless waste of time, and extremely uncomfortable on about 50 different levels, but if that’s what you guys want, go for it.

1 Like

I didn’t misunderstand. I was just worried because me saying “so what?” might seem very blunt.

I do agree that the story is very important. I’m much more invested in the story and upcoming PVE than the PVP at this point. I also agree that they could have handled the name change better, but I still maintain that the change itself isn’t all that important to the story.

But it is important to the team and the work they do. They care about the change and I want them to be comfortable in their workplace. I do think they should have changed all their past content, but at some point, it just isn’t all that viable to do, especially because of their work on OW2.

I also think that they did a good job projecting the name change. They announced it well in advance and explained their motivations for changing it. There will always be people out of the loop. No amount of announcing and explaining will change that.

In all, I say we just agree to disagree.

1 Like

Either remove the name where you can (because you CAN, in official website) or you don’t change it and assume there aren’t any know-it-all who know perfectly well the history of the namesake with Jesse McCree (THIS is SO nerdy).

It’s not “making those who have been lore-conscious so far look smarter” because too nerdy, it’s simply a problem when you’re promising that your product will ALSO be dedicated to fiction readers in the future. Literally, the one you can access Overwatch from the main site. There is no “nerdy” intelligence whatsoever and you have to see what PVE is going to be. TODAY is not a problem (and here you are right to call it “nerdy”), but tomorrow … it will be. it will ALSO be this.

it is more absurd that you put it on the fact that there are people too stubborn about accuracy, because as I said, it is not comparable as an NPC, it is a MAIN character of many parts of the lore. if we were “nerdy” then I would always say that Research comics should be censored because it has an incorrect temporal logic of events. Or that Mei’s official biography is “unworthily wrong” compared to Rise of Shine. No, we are talking about the accessibility to a certain type of basic information of a character, a name that then leads you to have to read (and know) things that the developers say they no longer want to remember / highlight. it’s a paradox, if you know the meaning of “streisand effect”.

exactly what I meant. I respect that they feel annoyed to still see the name McCree, and that editorially it is impossible to remember it (Especially Deadlock Rebels) … but on the digital level there was still the possibility of giving access to some “officially” correct information, just like changing Cassidy’s name on the character page. Not giving the same care to the official website media is controversial enough for what they have promised to be the future importance of lore. the basis of a reading.

1 Like

How many retcons do you think other popular stories have gone through?
Wow?
The Marvel films?

EVEN MARIO HAS RETCONS, them koopalings are no longer bowser’s children!

I would have preferred a lore reason. But I understand that leaving “McCree” in the game in any form would kinda slightly undermine the goal of the changes.

3 Likes