I figured that much. That's really all there is to it? There's no story behind that specific one that I'm missing?gigastar said:
Well, if you actually read the article, you'd see that the dev said, "While not ideal, unfortunately the same issue that's causing the unintended invisibility is also preventing us from disabling the skin on its own." In other words, they can't just disable the skin.Silent Protagonist said:I don't understand why they disabled the entire character and not just the specific skin causing the invisibility glitch.
Swapping out one sexy pose for another is about as far as it goes. I just posted the image because i knew some people wouldnt get the reference.WhiteTigerShiro said:I figured that much. That's really all there is to it? There's no story behind that specific one that I'm missing?gigastar said:
But if there's no massive posts and topics of people hating on this, and the art team actually like this pose now, doesn't that mean the change is a good thing? I mean that was what started the whole thing in the first place.WinterWyvern said:Eeeeh I didn't find it funny at all...
I wasn't offended by Tracer's original pose, but now I am offended that Blizzard sexualized it more as if only to mock people who may have a problem with oversexualizing everything.
The only reason I'm not outraged is that Blizzard recently has done a lot of positive and varied female characters and therefore I hereby proclaim that Blizzard guys are not sexist.
But to me that new Tracer pose still feels like a bad joke by Blizzard, in a way.
Yeah I have no idea if it was an uproar or not but it seemed that way with everyone talking about it.WinterWyvern said:I guess the reason there's no uproar about Tracer's new pose is that there never was any uproar about the old pose either.
It was ONE guy complaining and I'm starting to wonder wether it was all a sort of marketing stunt.