We can only guess why it was removed. Or if there was ever a lore reason, or if it was only intended to titillate.
If you want to get in to the intent of the artist, Blizzard is the owner, and they need little reason to edit their property as they see fit. But perhaps they have knowledge we dont? Maybe one of the fired Devs had to make a list of bad things he included in the game to get his severance, and Blizzard worked with that - which would mean it was in fact designed simply to be offensive.
Whether you give Blizz a market based reason, a legal based reason, the artist’s creative choice as a reason, or pandering/virtue signaling - they are in the right to do as they see fit.
Can we get a hard definition on “sexual objectification” of women? 'Cause I’ve spent a few years on the internet and people arguing against “objectification” typically use a very loose definition that has at times resulted in B-cup boobs being “objectification.” I don’t know if you know about Anita Sarkeesian but a few years back (early 2016 I wanna say), she revealed her ideal female video game character and it was basically a genderless stick figure.
You agree with rape, murder, slavery, torture, and genocide? I get that blizzard has to start somewhere, but why did they stop at cleavage if they are so moral?
Because warcraft are about those themes but not generally about being too risque. Sure abit of sexiness here and there but it has generally been tame about it.
And you can have children’s shows with themes of Genocide, racism, death BUT not being on the too sexy side(a good example is Kipo)
Their ability to act doesn’t mean it’s good. You are making a “can/should” error. I know blizzard CAN do whatever they want. That’s a question of power. That doesn’t mean they are doing what they SHOULD which is a question of ethics.
The hilarious part is that you hiding behind the absolute freedom of a corporation to act as they please is much more right wing than anything I’ve said.
The woman wasn’t naked.
The painting was barely visible.
Most people didn’t know it existed until now, I’m willing to bet you didn’t know of it either.
And more importantly… She’s not real
But suddenly, that it’s deemed “objectifying”… despite the fact that, as you said, “there’s such a thing as respectful nudes”.
If you objectify a woman the problem is with you not her. If you lust after a fake person in a barely adult themed fantasy painting, the problem is you and not the painting.
What ever credibility anyone wants to give me - or not - is up to them. Seeing as I never said those words… people like you will invent what ever words they want to see. I disagree with the Left on some issues.
You are assigning something to me that I never said. Which is predictable. The level of discussion from people against Blizzard on this subject usually amounts to things they invent with no basis in reality.
But on this issue, it is precisely the Right Wing Talking points being parroted by those who disagree with Blizzard’s attempts at changing things they see as problematic.
The Lore is the History of the franchise. And the present. Their lore is what they make of it.
You seem to be lost in your own nonsense.
Most American High School students are taught about murder, genocide, and slavery, and have context to understand them. Which is why those subjects could be in a Rated T game. But nudity and human reproduction type of things usually require a parental waiver. Which gives reason for a company marketing a Rated T game to remove it.
