[Edits 1 and 2: Note: I’m editing with new bad arguments as I see them]
[Edit 3 : some logical and definitional errors and ambiguities were pointed out, so I’ve corrected the post.]
Hi all,
I’ve been seeing a lot of people discussing the proposed Symmetra changes, which is great – the more open, good-natured discussion about it the more likely it is that it’ll be brought to the devs’ attention and the more likely it is that we’ll get a positive outcome. However, I’ve also been seeing a lot of arguments that, while potentially rhetorically effective, are based on certain beliefs and axioms that don’t necessarily hold true for the people who are arguing, e.g., in favor of a more inclusive Symmetra. Often, these arguments are thrown out as though they are self-evident, and are not buttressed with their own definitions and logic. This is a huge problem, since these viewpoints often privilege a certain type of player but aren’t explicitly based on categorical inference.
I’m calling the specific arguments detailed below, which are of this category, “fallacious” when they fit this definition: they are ineffective or uncompelling due to a lack of logical cohesion, a use a privileged definition that doesn’t apply generally to the situation, a lack of argument or definitions for their premises, etc. Not to spoil anything but one such example is “it’s more important to balance Symmetra around X group of players than around Y group of players!” This statement isn’t justified and it isn’t clear WHY X group of players is more important than Y group. So, I’d call this argument “fallacious.”
So, I wanted to highlight a few of these arguments and address them in hopes that the discussion surrounding Symmetra’s design, particularly her accessibility, will be more fruitful.
Premises
Every sound argument defines its terms and assumptions, then builds out logical conclusions from there. Here are five premises I’m starting with. These are based on observation of Symmetra the character as she is currently designed (premises 1, 2, 3) , the kits of other characters (premise 4), and the observed/inferred and explicity-stated beliefs of the developers with respect to accessibility (premise 5).
-
Symmetra, as she is currently built, is accessible. From the beginning of Overwatch, Symmetra’s auto-lock has been praised as an accessible game design mechanic. You can easily Google “Symmetra accessibility” or search on these forums and see stories of people for whom Symmetra represented an avenue for inclusion into Overwatch, a playing field-leveling mechanic that accommodated disabilities, etc. Having a character who can do a lot of damage at close range without pixel-perfect aim is an accessible design choice.
-
Symmetra, as she is currently built, is oriented toward control, information, and strategic thinking, rather than direct damage contribution or mitigation, and that kind of contribution is meaningful. Symmetra’s six turrets are useful not only for dealing damage and slowing enemies, but for gaining information (“what avenue are enemies taking toward the objective?”), control (“if I put turrets here they’re more likely to go a different route”), and making strategic choices (“do I want to give my team movement options via teleport or sustain via shield generator?”). While she has the photon barrier, the fact that it (a) is on cooldown and (b) moves forward rather than being stationary implies that its primary purpose is to provide damage mitigation at critical moments rather than a primary barrier like Orisa or Reinhardt’s. I believe that this strategic kind of kit can contribute valuable things in a match that direct fighting can’t, and therefore suppose that strategic kits are meaningful.
-
Symmetra’s strategically-oriented kit is an element of accessible design in and of itself. The fact that Symmetra’s primary contribution to her team is through utility (“out-of-battle”) rather than damage or damage mitigation (“in-battle”) relieves pressure to react quickly, position perfectly, etc. In my opinion her lock-on is more of a holdout ability than her turrets, acting more as a strong incentive for enemies to leave her alone than an incentive for her player to be aggressive with her. These elements combine to make Symmetra shine outside of direct team fights, making her even more accessible.
-
While there are other characters in the game who embody accessible design to some degree, no character is as accessibly-designed as Symmetra. The next-closest heroes I can think of in terms of accessibility are Reinhardt and Moira (I’d love it if any disabled gamers would chime in and let me know their assessment). But – both of these characters are primarily designed to facilitate direct fighting, either through direct damage and up-close healing or through direct damage mitigation. They don’t have the out-of-combat utility that Symmetra does.
-
Accessibility MATTERS in games like Overwatch, and Overwatch was presented from the start as an accessible shooter. I would love the devs to chime in on this and let me know if my perception of this game back in 2014 was correct or not. I saw an inclusive, accessible shooter that took place in an optimistic future setting, built on the idea that anyone could be a hero. This is tremendously important viewpoint, and I was so excited to see this game trying to be more than just another aggression-fueled call-of-duty clone. Accessibility matters in these games not only because we want as many people playing them as possible, and therefore need to enable them to do so, but because it provides a way for games to be about more than just passing time.
Again, these are my premises for these discussions. You might not agree with them, and I’d be happy to discuss anything factually wrong (i.e., something that can be demonstrably proven false), but all of what I’ll say from this point forward will draw on these premises.
With that, I’ll turn my attention to some of the illogical arguments I’ve been seeing about Symmetra:
-
"She’s more impactful with three turrets than with six, because the turrets do more damage." You might have seen this comment on the thread asking if new Symmetra will be support or defense. This argument is based on the idea that the overall damage done by her three new turrets is actually greater than the damage done by her current six This argument is fallacious because it assumes that the only way to contribute to a fight is through direct damage, not via strategic manipulation of the situation. Someone arguing this presumably does not share the viewpoint espoused in Premise 2 above that strategic contributions are meaningful in Overwatch.
-
"You actually have to be more strategic now, not less, because she has fewer turrets." This is true – as long as you define “strategic” in a very specific way that runs counter to that described in Premise 2 above. This argument is fallacious because it redefines “strategy” as merely a question of when to use a one-dimensional ability, rather than how to use a multi-dimensional ability. With this definition, reducing Reinhardt’s shield health to 500 would make him more “strategic” because he now can only block critical shots on reaction or on a read, rather than using his ample barrier to create situations that your team can benefit from. You can see how this doesn’t actually promote strategic play.
-
"There are plenty of other characters disabled players can use." I shouldn’t have to show how this is a bad argument but sadly I’ve seen this comment more times than I care to admit. **This argument is fallacious because it assumes incorrectly (a) that other characters are as accessible as Symmetra (Premise 4) and it also, incredibly, makes normative statements about the experiences of the disabled players of this game. Think about how insane that is, to tell another person what is or isn’t accessible for them.
-
" It’s more important that Symmetra be viable/meta/not niche." This argument privileges certain types of play over others. This argument is fallacious because it assumes that Symmetra’s “viability” (how? at what level of play? to what group of players?) is more important than her accessibility (Premise 5). Acccessibility MATTERS in Overwatch, and arguing that, because OWL pros don’t play her, the removal of her accessible design is justified is hostile to the disabled players that populate Overwatch.
-
"Symmetra is no-skill, these changes just make it so that you have to have skill to play her." This is similar to the previous point. This argument is fallacious because it assumes the only metric for “skill” in Overwatch is direct mechanical skill, measured through direct contribution to team fights. Overwatch was presented as a game where that wasn’t the only way to contribute, and I’d really be interested to see the devs weigh in on this point to see whether their design philosophy has shifted, as it would appear given these changes.
-
"The only reason you like this character is because she doesn’t take aim to be good with." Yup, that is about the size of it. This argument seems to imply that this is somehow a bad philosophy, but (a) Symmetra statistically is not a threat at high-level play despite her low-aim design, so it’s not like she’s ruining the game, and (b) the whole point of Premises 2 and 3 above is to posit a philosophy that aim isn’t the only metric through which skill can be measured. This argument is fallacious because it assumes, again, that only mechanical aiming skill matters in judging a character’s contributions to a match.
-
"Maybe you should try another game if you can’t handle Overwatch." This argument is not only illogical, it’s directly hostile towards disabled gamers. Anyone arguing this seems to think that Overwatch should be designed for their sensibilities, rather than for accessibility, which is clearly illogical (because why should their sensibilities take precedence?). This argument is fallacious because it sets as normative the speaker’s preferences for the game, without considering whether accessibility matters (Premise 5) or whether other players’ experiences matter as well.
-
"Just adapt and move on." This comment is insane. The whole point of Symmetra being accommodating toward players with disabilities is so that they are able to play at their level! If you are a player and you have a disability preventing you from playing other characters besides Symmetra, then to “adapt and move on” would be to LEAVE OVERWATCH, because the devs have removed the character you could play and there are no other characters you can adapt to. This comment is fallacious because it assumes a baseline ability of adaptation (again, assuming that mechanical skill is all that matters) possessed by all players, rather than coming from an accessibility-oriented mindset (Premise 5).
I’m sure there are many other bad arguments about Symmetra. I’d love to open up a discussion and hear from anyone who has also wanted more open, honest, and rational discussion. I’d also love it if any players who play Symmetra primarily for her accessibility would weigh in – I’m hopeful that I’m not misrepresenting your position but would love to learn more.
Finally, I’d like to offer a respectful challenge to the devs to articulate the rationale behind these design choices, here on this thread. I want to know if the game I fell in love with in November 2014 is still the game you’re working on, or if accessibility isn’t a priority any more.
Thanks for sticking with this long post. Please feel free to share your own thoughts below!
