Blizzard Website Source Code - Dragonflight Expansion

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Iconic design > fruit

Nuance context > raging shitposting

[Auburst]

Nuance context > raging shitposting

"Nuance". Good one.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

the game has been getting worse since before 9.0. and while i get thats just my opinion i know im not alone in having that opinion.

that said, i pointed out to you that purposely making the game bad then making it less bad isnt making the game good. theyve done this for multiple expansions and the next will be no different.

as for the art team, they generally do a good job imo. i think its better for them to add rather than subtract. surely theres better things they could be doing than changing pictures that noone noticed till they changed them.

sure every thing bad with the game didn't start with 9.0 but that's a completely moot point given that you said they were removing sexy women from the game instead of making it better which and then sited the pictures which didn't happen until 9.1.5 which also brought improvements and has so far nothing of the like has happened since yet we got even further improvements to the game.

No matter what angle you look at it making the game better is higher on there priority list then removing sexy woman and while yes the art team could obviously be doing something better with the time changing all of 2 paintings isn't gonna cost us a raid tier.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

the "improvements" brought in were literally them just undoing the purposely bad things. they do this EVERY EXPANSION for like the last 4

if making the game better was a priority at all i doubt the game would be in the state that its in, i dont think it wouldve ever gotten that bad to begin with.

the pictures thing is just one of the examples of stupid shit they waste their time on. and no its definitely not the worst thing theyve done.

Sure there undoing Purposely bad things, another mote point though as those bad things have zero to do with them taking out sexy woman nor have they chosen to leave in said bad things to better spend there time removing sexing woman which was the point you made.

and ya it is just one example but even with every example it is next to no dev time lost as all they have done other then the pictures are change some quest text npc names take out some jokes and add male counterparts to some night workers, all of course have nothing to do with removing sexy woman though.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

its not a moot point, the time and resources were spent making the game intentionally bad and then slightly less bad. at no point did they focus on making the game GOOD.

at the same time they had people removing fun stuff from teh game that people enjoyed and gave it character... which doesnt improve the game either.

The time spent making the game bad had nothing to do with removing sexy woman, and they did focus on making the game good in both 9.1.5 and 9.2 with things like torghast improvements, tier sets coming back, more character customizations, mage tower coming back and new time walking, more legacy content being made soloable, ect. They didn't at all stop at just making things less bad.

and the Idea that there were any notable portion of players who enjoyed or thought a couple pictures a few npc names or quest text gave the game character is laughable. only the character jokes have a leg to stand on in that regard as they were something you could do any where other wise not a soul ever thought about these things.

[Sialina]

I'm asking you to call me something accurate is all. Call me a "prude"—"puritan" associates with Protestantism historically. There's far better ways to call someone who you perceive to be censorious or someone who is generally iffy about sexual matters. Even then, I'm not iffy about sex or anything. As I've said ad nauseum, I just don't see why this is so important to you.

You still didn't manage to answer my main point, the problem isn't that this is a one time thing, or even that Alexstrasza is less sexy now, the problem is that this is applied very unevenly to men and women. Because it is applied so unevenly we get opinions like your own, that people that find Illidan looking ripped is totally okay, but if I like the way Alexstrasza looked previously, it's somehow just fan service. It's the same thing, It's okay for Illidan to be shirtless and for Alex to show her midriff, it's also okay for both of them to get shirts, or not get them.
The problem is that ALL women that get updated get MORE covered, while the same isn't happening to the men at all, this means there is a difference in what a man and a woman can wear, and this contributes to sexism.
I don't find sexism okay, and I very much enjoy femme fatale characters the same way you guys enjoy ripped male characters, as such I speak out against the double standard.

[Le Conceptuel]

You still didn't manage to answer my main point, the problem isn't that this is a one time thing, or even that Alexstrasza is less sexy now, the problem is that this is applied very unevenly to men and women. Because it is applied so unevenly we get opinions like your own, that people that find Illidan looking ripped is totally okay, but if I like the way Alexstrasza looked previously, it's somehow just fan service. It's the same thing, It's okay for Illidan to be shirtless and for Alex to show her midriff, it's also okay for both of them to get shirts, or not get them.
The problem is that ALL women that get updated get MORE covered, while the same isn't happening to the men at all, this means there is a difference in what a man and a woman can wear, and this contributes to sexism.
I don't find sexism okay, and I very much enjoy femme fatale characters the same way you guys enjoy ripped male characters, as such I speak out against the double standard.

I think you're reading too deep into this. I really think it's just a redesign choice because the new design looks generally better. It looks more regal and superior to the original. The thing I've been being picky about is why people think this is an issue at all, because it frankly isn't—I highly doubt, especially provided the new Sylvanas models, that Blizzard changed the model for censorship's sake. It's likely just a redesign to something that looks ridiculous and more like something you'd expect some kind of royalty to wear.

[rhorle]

It's okay for Illidan to be shirtless and for Alex to show her midriff, it's also okay for both of them to get shirts, or not get them. The problem is that ALL women that get updated get MORE covered, while the same isn't happening to the men at all, this means there is a difference in what a man and a woman can wear, and this contributes to sexism.

So why is it automatically sexism if a female model gets updated to cover some skin when it is okay if that happens? There is no evidence of a sexist approach to models. Males still show skin or get covered. Females still show skin or get covered.

If you actually do like Femme Fatale characters then Alexstraza getting a little more covering does not go against that type of character. Which makes me think you really only like scantily clad characters and call it sexist because of your taste no longer being catered to. Though maybe it is just a cultural/language thing on what a Femme Fatale is. For a lot of western countries the amount of skin shown isn't part of the definition.

[Sialina]

So why is it automatically sexism if a female model gets updated to cover some skin when it is okay if that happens? There is no evidence of a sexist approach to models. Males still show skin or get covered. Females still show skin or get covered.

If you actually do like Femme Fatale characters then Alexstraza getting a little more covering does not go against that type of character. Which makes me think you really only like scantily clad characters and call it sexist because of your taste no longer being catered to. Though maybe it is just a cultural/language thing on what a Femme Fatale is. For a lot of western countries the amount of skin shown isn't part of the definition.

Again, I'll go first, here are some female characters that got spotlighted and covered up
Jaina, Sylvanas, Alexstrasza
Here are some male characters that got spotlighted and nothing happened
Illidan, Thrall, the Jailor.
This is also a recent thing, post age of mortals, before that the game was perfectly fine with having both Sylvanas, Thrall and Alexstrasza being sexy and dressed that way.

There is nothing wrong with either getting covered up, the problem is when it's ONLY one sex.

Of course I dislike when showing skin isn't an option, I've stated so earlier in the thread, I like when cool female characters can look hot and cool, just like I like when male characters can. The sexism part is that only one sex has been affected. There is nothing wrong with liking something looking hot or beautiful, you guys can have your ripped Illidans, let us ladies have some characters that gets to at least the same state of dress while still being badass.

[ey b0ss]

What's with all the hype for the tinker bs? As if 36 specs aren't hell to balance, let alone more.

[rhorle]

This is also a recent thing, post age of mortals, before that the game was perfectly fine with having both Sylvanas, Thrall and Alexstrasza being sexy and dressed that way.

You can't claim it is a recent thing by using a character from 2016 which is 6 years ago and that is on top of Illidan not having much model changes between TBC and Legion. That is old in the terms of game development. Again you counter your own argument from before though because you said it is okay for characters to get clothing. Now you are again arguing that it is not okay and any change will be weighed as sexist or not.

The Jailer even got covered up for his final fight which again shows that you don't care about equality or it being fair. Or using Thrall as an example when his model has gone back and forth between showing skin and no skin over the years. Or how Tyrande shows more skin now with her dress updates compared to the past. Or Sylvanas that got covered up in Legion but is somehow also new and now has had a covered stomach for the same amount of time she had an uncovered one. 8 years.

If there is nothing wrong with getting covered up then you wouldn't be calling it sexist just because a character got covered up.

[Sialina]

You can't claim it is a recent thing by using a character from 2016 which is 6 years ago and that is on top of Illidan not having much model changes between TBC and Legion. That is old in the terms of game development. Again you counter your own argument from before though because you said it is okay for characters to get clothing. Now you are again arguing that it is not okay and any change will be weighed as sexist or not.

The Jailer even got covered up for his final fight which again shows that you don't care about equality or it being fair. Or using Thrall as an example when his model has gone back and forth between showing skin and no skin over the years. Or how Tyrande shows more skin now with her dress updates compared to the past. You only care about calling it sexist because a female character you liked being in a skimpy outfit no longer is.

If there is nothing wrong with getting covered up then you wouldn't be calling it sexist just because a character got covered up.

I think you need to read what I wrote again, and you need to argue in good faith. Either you are obtuse or you simply do not understand what I'm writing.
That it's okay isn't countering my own argument, my argument is simply that the rule is applied unevenly.

"Jailer got covered up for his final fight" I'd be totally fine if Alexstrasza donned an armor going into her final fight, you are comparing apples and oranges, and thrall got a nice juicy CGI model in BFA with absolutely nothing up top, looking very hot and sexy.
I'd call it sexist if Alex Jaina and Slyvanas all had their midriffs still but Illidan and Thrall had to wear fully covering shirts too. But that is not the case, the trend that is currently going on is that females can't be too sexy, because god forbid, but it's ok for guys.
I don't care if you think it's icky when girls look pretty, I like it, is that not acceptable for you? Or maybe my opinion isn't worth comparing to yours because you are a mighty male and I'm a female?

Also, lets make it clear to everyone what you are accusing me of, write out to everyone what you think I want to do with Alexstrasza showing her midriff.
We are on the internet, any character can be found wearing any amount of clothing, your argument that someone would log into WoW and find that character and use it for gratification seems utterly stupid, if you wanted to get that, I promise there are easier ways than using a game client, infinitely better ways, and if you are proficient enough to get onto the internet and into wow, I'm sure you would be proficient enough for the alternative too.
It just makes no sense to argue that it is for that purpose, but you seem to be, so make your logical argument why you think so.

[rhorle]

I'd be totally fine if Alexstrasza donned an armor going into her final fight, you are comparing apples and oranges, and thrall got a nice juicy CGI model in BFA with absolutely nothing up top, looking very hot and sexy.

Would you? You are calling it sexist based on a leak, that might not even be true, with out any context of the outfit. Don't try to give yourself a better light by saying context suddenly matters. You even show that you are not arguing in good faith by saying you would call it sexist if Illidan and Thrall were covered up. Your accusation was projection because you keep saying that characters can get covered up yet keep saying it is also sexist if they do.

There is no trend saying that females can't be too sexy and your notion that sex appeal requires bare skin is silly. It again shows how little you know of the Femme Fatale stereotype that you kept saying you like. You also show how inherently sexist and in bad faith you are by now saying that I only oppose you because I'm a "Mighty male". All you want to see is sexism and you even invent it just so you can attack.

- - - Updated - - -

It just makes no sense to argue that it is for that purpose, but you seem to be, so make your logical argument why you think so.

I have never said you, or anyone else, is using a WoW model for sexual gratification. You are clearly confused.

[Sialina]

Would you? You are calling it sexist based on a leak, that might not even be true, with out any context of the outfit. Don't try to give yourself a better light by saying context suddenly matters. You even show that you are not arguing in good faith by saying you would call it sexist if Illidan and Thrall were covered up. Your accusation was projection because you keep saying that characters can get covered up yet keep saying it is also sexist if they do.

There is no trend saying that females can't be too sexy and your notion that sex appeal requires bare skin is silly. It again shows how little you know of the Femme Fatale stereotype that you kept saying you like. You also show how inherently sexist and in bad faith you are by now saying that I only oppose you because I'm a "Mighty male". All you want to see is sexism and you even invent it just so you can attack.

- - - Updated - - -



I have never said you, or anyone else, is using a WoW model for sexual gratification. You are clearly confused.

Again, you need to read, you didn't start at the beginning, you started somewhere in the middle, it's apparent from your lack of understanding.

Lets say I bet you 1000 dollars that if the art work is real and from blizzard, that is now Alexszstrasas base outfit, not her combat gear, would you bet against me? The answer is obviously no.

Second, you seem to not understand what sexism is, it's treating the 2 genders differently for no reason. I was clearly making an example in my post, that if the rolls were reversed that would also be sexism, but the other way.

Third, this take is just not very bright, nowhere did I say a femme fatale needs to show skin, it's still about the trend that you keep denying. But you are denying it because you think it will strengthen your argument, the problem is again that it's systematic, and it's one sex. There will be no guys turned into fruit bowls in wow.

Okay, so why is it a problem if she shows midriff if you agree with me that it makes no sense for gratification? again you made no argument.

[alturic]

I'm over here wondering why in the utter fuck do people seriously go back and forth about what cartoon characters are wearing in a video game. /shrug

It's cringy as hell that people actually look at these characters sexually at all.

[rhorle]

Second, you seem to not understand what sexism is, it's treating the 2 genders differently for no reason. I was clearly making an example in my post, that if the rolls were reversed that would also be sexism, but the other way.

Right. I am calling you out for calling any model change sexist. They show skin or cover up when it fits no matter the gender. You keep calling it sexism no matter what.

Third, this take is just not very bright, nowhere did I say a femme fatale needs to show skin, it's still about the trend that you keep denying. But you are denying it because you think it will strengthen your argument, the problem is again that it's systematic, and it's one sex. There will be no guys turned into fruit bowls in wow.

So if it is a trend why do female characters still show skin? Why does Kyrestia show her stomach and legs if the trend is to cover up or "make females less sexy"? Turning a guy into a fruit bowl is irrelevant to your current claim because we are talking about models and what their attire covers. The fruit bowl was a painting. Don't move the goal posts.

I have never said it was a problem if she shows a midriff. It doesn't matter. Covering up or showing doesn't matter. It isn't sexist to do one or the other and you agree with that because you keep saying either option can happen. Yet you keep trying to make it sexist and nothing but at the same time. Just like you've moved the goal posts to sexual gratification when I've never talked about it. Again you are confused on who you are responding to and what is being discussed.

[Sialina]

Right. I am calling you out for calling any model change sexist. They show skin or cover up when it fits no matter the gender. You keep calling it sexism no matter what.



So if it is a trend why do female characters still show skin? Why does Kyrestia show her stomach and legs if the trend is to cover up or "make females less sexy"? Turning a guy into a fruit bowl is irrelevant to your current claim because we are talking about models and what their attire covers. The fruit bowl was a painting. Don't move the goal posts.

I have never said it was a problem if she shows a midriff. It doesn't matter. Covering up or showing doesn't matter. It isn't sexist to do one or the other and you agree with that because you keep saying either option can happen. Yet you keep trying to make it sexist and nothing but at the same time. Just like you've moved the goal posts to sexual gratification when I've never talked about it. Again you are confused on who you are responding to and what is being discussed.

Again you didn't read, we were talking about characters fronting expansions. If you want to start going for minor characters the trend gets even worse, you surely didn't miss the fruit bowl.

And to the person above, there is a divide between what is allowed for males and females, some guys and girls enjoy the Boris Vallejo style fantasy, because looking beautiful while kicking ass is fun.

[rhorle]

Again you didn't read, we were talking about characters fronting expansions. If you want to start going for minor characters the trend gets even worse, you surely didn't miss the fruit bowl.

Thrall wasn't the front runner of Battle for Azeroth and yet you've brought him up before. Kyrestia as a covenant leader would hold the same position of a major lore figure. Sylvanas was also covered up in Legion. She wasn't "fronting" the expansion but did become the Warchief. Again you try to move the goal posts to a painting that was changed into a bowl of fruit.

The only trend you have pointed out is that characters get model updates as they become important to the story even when they are not "fronting" an expansion. That isn't sexism it is just updating their models for their importance to the story/scene.

[cface]

I'm over here wondering why in the utter fuck do people seriously go back and forth about what cartoon characters are wearing in a video game. /shrug

It's cringy as hell that people actually look at these characters sexually at all.

Yes, tmog and tierset appearances arent important at all, nobody cares right? And who are you to say what is sexually or not for other people? Maybe you get a boner, while others just like the looks? And please use the word cringy, it's an automatic ignore from my side, cause it's so overused and silly and has nothing to do with anything.

Imagine thrall in questgear, nobody would care right?

[Sialina]

Thrall wasn't the front runner of Battle for Azeroth and yet you've brought him up before. Kyrestia as a covenant leader would hold the same position of a major lore figure. Sylvanas was also covered up in Legion. She wasn't "fronting" the expansion but did become the Warchief. Again you try to move the goal posts to a painting that was changed into a bowl of fruit.

The only trend you have pointed out is that characters get model updates as they become important to the story even when they are not "fronting" an expansion. That isn't sexism it is just updating their models for their importance to the story/scene.

If you don't see this trend I can't help you, maybe you are just obtuse because you lost the argument, so you need to stick to a position that is far removed to reality.

One simple question, answer this so we all know how dishonest you are

Would a painting of a male character ever get turned into a bowl of fruit?

Just answer this with yes or no.