???
I said something about nationality cause Avian isn’t american, and has no context of anything involving Butch Cassidy. It isn’t an insult. Most people outside of america wouldn’t know Butch Cassidy, and that is fine.
Go outside please, you need it.
I’m just gonna split the difference and call him cowboy.
I think we all call Winston “Monkey”
We all refer to Hammond as “Ball”
We can give a nickname to this one too
Considering your American comment was flanked by hostility, it certainly came across as an insult, never-mind irrelevant.
Considering you have been following me around this forum cause I am living rent free in your head and coming at me with hostility, I don’t see how this is relevant.
No, it is very relevant.
Today has been the first day in a long time that I’ve actually been on here. Posting on two topics you happen to be on is hardly “following you around.”
You aren’t exactly front and center in my brain.
Great rebuttal. 
I particularly like the Hopalong Cassidy point you made. He will of course completely ignore that point because it demolishes his argument.
Who cares about what he knows. What matters is what you know, you’re the one making the fact claims. Do you know that Blizzard isn’t referencing Hopalong Cassidy?
Exactly why he shouldn’t have the name Cole Cassidy either. 
If you wanna change it for that reason fine, but you go from one terrible person in the real world to honoring another, who most of us wouldn’t have heard about before the name change???
…a few posts up is a link to a Blizzard post confirming Butch as an inspiration for the name.
I imagine you’ll do what you described that guy would do and proceed to ignore this inconvenient fact because it ‘demolishes’ the counter-argument.
There’s definitely some hypocrisy in changing the name because it’s a problematic reference, to a name inspired by Butch Cassidy who is also a problematic reference.
But tbh I think as long as the person isn’t known specifically for something racist or sexist they’re probably fair game to be used as reference in the current public climate. I except a total of 0 media attention on this being hypocritical because of the need to applaud the change in the first place. It’s like how we can have heroes who are war criminals (basically every modern president). Only some kinds of evil are taboo in this world.
Of course if I was a betting man I’d imagine a gun slinging white outlaw from the 1800s probably wasn’t the pinnacle of virtue when it comes to issues of racism or sexism. Luckily the history isn’t well known enough to ID those problems so people are free to perform the mental gymnastics to imagine he probably wasn’t such a bad guy after all. I imagine he was one of the few who transcended the attitudes of the time and acted in a benevolent manner to others and especially women. Seems likely given his history haha.
Of course the main problem is they coulda just given him a name not based on a criminal and there’d be nothing for people to mention except they think it’s a bad name (which realistically people woulda said no matter what they changed it to). It’s really as simple as that. Why name the character after a criminal if the whole reason for the name change was association? If you want to pretend it makes sense because you can split hairs and say it’s ancient history… all I can ask is why not just avoid the issue and name him without such connotations? What’s gained by naming him after a criminal?
I’ll be honest though I’m only interested in this because I think it’s interesting how people are so committed to arguing there’s no problem with it. No one in the whole board who was pro name change initially can say “oh yeah it’s good they changed it, but it’s weird they named it after a criminal”. Instead they have to bend over backwards trying to defend the exact name change because they agree with the idea of a name change. ‘Maybe it wasn’t named after a famous Cowboy outlaw!’ And then when presented with a smoking gun showing it was ‘well it’s not the same thing this change is fine’. Why can’t people be genuine? Admit it’s an improvement but also has issues.
It increasingly feels like no one can have a discussion these days it’s all about ‘winning’ and calling the other person a clown. No one is willing to actually argue in good faith. It’s just so weird to me. Why even come to the forums if that’s what you do? But it’s most of the forum lol. Makes me wonder how bad politician rhetoric is gonna be in a generation and it’s already awful. I’m just imagining being raised from childhood in an environment like this as representative of discussion or debate and man it’s a dystopia lol
Because one of them is actually Western inspired. And it isn’t the one with a girl’s name.
ROFL Now that’s all I can think of.
Never said they did. They weren’t uneasy when they named him and from reading the reports and what not it seems it was fairly known that he was doing this sort of crap before OW.
Looked a few posts up. I see no such confirmation.
I made no claims about the name; I asked him to support his claim that Butch Cassidy was partial inspiration for its inclusion in the name Cole Cassidy. The guy went all “I’m going to get in your face about this” as people do on these forums when challenged. I wouldn’t be wrong about anything regarding the inspiration for Cole Cassidy (again I made no claims), so no need to ignore that fact. And if this individual was right about Butch Cassidy, he was right on the basis of happenstance since he did not and could not provide supporting evidence beyond “Come on now, it’s OBVIOUS that this was inspired by Butch Cassidy.”
I don’t know who you’re referring to here. Butch Cassidy?
If the name Cole Cassidy was truly inspired by Butch Cassidy, particularly after explicitly stating that they’d no longer use real people as inspiration due to unforeseen complications (i.e. Jesse McCree the developer) then really there’s very little overarching organizational intelligence at Blizzard. It’s a decision that’s almost unfathomably imbecilic. Can a company actually be against learning?
It’s problematic but far less problematic than “Jesse McCree.” I mean, if there’s a bar for outrage, it’s been set substantially higher for “Cole Cassidy” than for “Jesse McCree,” the deplorable guy we JUST found out about who was JUST working at Blizzard. I mean, surely these are not trivial differences. I’m not sure where we draw the line though. Many of the characters in the game are portrayed as trained killers, criminals, derelicts, anarchists, etc. Seems a bridge to far to claim that the same moral system that objects to the inclusion of Jesse McCree must find issue with any character associated with criminal behavior. But to be clear, the obvious right move was to pick a name with NO SUCH real-world associations.
I think it comes down to peoples’ egos and feeling belittled if they’re proven wrong or confronted in front of hundreds/thousands of people. I like to take the high ground, but I can be rude to those who are rude. Most often, I try to remind myself that arguing with such people is pointless.
If the species is even around in a generation consider that a win – cordiality being a bonus.
Where’s your evidence that Butch Cassidy was a murderer?
Which is why they should have used the new name as an internal name for themselves without also forcing everyone else to put up with it.
I think you’re failing to understand that Jesse McCree is alive and the people he hurt and affected are still working at blizzard too.
Butch Cassidy is dead. He died centuries ago. Everybody he hurt and affected is dead. He has no lasting or immediate effect on anybody.
Jesse McCree hurt people and it’s a current issue.
That’s a pretty big difference between the 2
You aren’t being forced to put up with it.
If it bothers you that much you can not play.
Or you can like just call him McCree anyway and absolutely nothing will change in your life.
Nobody is saying you can’t keep calling him that.
But his name has been changed by the dev team for the Dev team.
If they use it internally only they still have to input the changes as “McCree”
I can ignore the name change and keep calling him McCree, but that doesn’t mean I’m not dealing with the change, it means I choose that particular way to deal with it.
Not being forced to put up with it would mean I’d still read the name McCree in game and hear the voicelines referring to him as such, but instead I’ll read Cassidy and I’ll hear new voicelines calling him Cassidy. Of course it’s an insignificant thing, but saying it’s not being forced on us is simply false.
If anything you could say we’re not being forced to accept the change or be fine with it, which is completely true, but it’s still a change we’re going to have in our games that’s not intended for us and we didn’t ask for.
Unless we the community are suddenly the dev team, of course.
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/cole-cassidy…-i-love-it/638393/26
Is what got linked earlier
Thanks for being reasonable in your reply. I agree it’s a lesser issue but thematically is the same problem which does beg the question why didn’t they just go name neutral.
I think it was reasonable to infer that Cassidy was either referring to Butch Cassidy or Hopalong Cassidy (who’s name is also inspired by Butch Cassidy but would be a dramatically different character to base someone off of). Cassidy was never gonna be a random name in the context of a cowboy character anymore than naming your politician character Lincoln or Nixon would be free from association.
The concept of being able to have as an example murderers as ‘the good guys’ (which realistically Blackwatch is) does seem more extreme than for example sexual harassment (not that it isn’t a major problem). That said I think the major difference is black watch isn’t real, the people black watch killed didn’t exist or have families, etc. Violence in video games is a main stay but I think any issue will have a different look if it’s inspired by real world events. Cloud can destroy a reactor with no hurt feelings, but if he ran a plane into a pair of buildings (even were they empty) it might have different reactions.
All’s that is a long way to say I think it’s fair to criticize their decision here and I find the very straight divide in opinion after the change pretty instructive