‘Stone age’ itself - especially as used to imply a broad set of characteristics - is also a bit of a problem in and of itself, given that used outside its original professional context (describing a rough period of time specifically in European archaeology) it takes a very narrow category (what kind of material is being used for some tools and weapons?) and then uses that to make a much larger set of assumptions about the culture being described, all while representing itself as a universal measure of how societies work*.
*“Alright fellas, we have metal tools. Now we’re allowed to develop complex communities - wait, what do you mean those are totally unrelated concepts?”
A brief and by no means complete rundown of how this both has and can lead to misinterpretations of human societies is quoted below:
In developing his theory of technology-based social evolution, Childe generalized from his extensive knowledge of European, west Asian, and northeast African archaeology to the experiences of all human societies everywhere. In this, his work was classically Eurocentric (although this probably never occurred to him, because he would not have been trained to consider any other way of proceeding). But archaeologists and anthropologists studying peoples outside of Europe and the Mediterranean basin have found the three-age system to be an inaccurate and misleading way of classifying historical societies.
For instance, the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas all established extensive empires with strong central governments and built large cities with monumental architecture. These developments were not characteristic of Stone Age peoples in Europe. Classical Mayans in particular had astronomy and mathematics whose feats of precise prediction equaled or exceeded those of ‘Iron Age’ societies such as Egypt under the Pharaohs and Classical Europe.
The ‘primitive’ Iroquois League developed a system of political representation, characterized by a balance of powers, that influenced the constitution of the United States of America.
Recent scholarship has shown that the Aboriginal peoples of Tasmania, long considered as the most ‘primitive’ people on Earth, engaged in extensive projects of ecosystem management, one that included controlled burns of the forest to encourage the growth of food plants and carefully chosen nomadic routes that prevented the over-use of any one source of food.
Likewise, archaeology of North America shows that Indigenous peoples extensively cultivated forest ecosystems to produce an abundance of food well in excess of what would be available in uncultivated wilds. European colonists, of course, failed even to perceive cultivation practices that did not resemble their own form of agriculture; they thought they were walking through ‘wild’ forests.
Of course, none of this information prevents WoW using ‘stone age’ in its more deceptive, misinformative, and unhelpful sense as part of its story. It just explains why it might do so.