World Of Warcraft

"General consensus is..." [citation needed]

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

RE: Fighteer

Majority of Wo W communities have said it makes Anduin doing that makes Saurfang look bad.

Thats why the choice to not side with Saurfang was added.

You really think Blizz didn't have that planned out? [sigh] The story line for this expansion was developed before there was even the slightest hint of fan responses to it.

Again, [citation needed]. Has someone conducted a survey of communities to quantify opinions?

This is why arguing with you is pointless.

Edited by Fighteer on Nov 14th 2018 at 5:01:21 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

On Warcraft forums including battle.net the handling of Saurfang is frequently brought up and criticized. They get the top votes as well. Here's just one of many.

The core, simplest reason for all these is the simple phrase 'One person's meat is another's poison.' Some would be fine with how WoW is carried out today, but some doesn't like it. And it should be okay to keep it that way.

To me, yeah. There's a bit too much Alliance bias, whereas Horde tends to get played as the 'bad guy who kept getting problematic people without justification', bad people in the Alliance will get vindicated or never grow into such big problems. But in the end, it's all just my opinion and I have no rights to push them onto others (just merely saying it isn't pushing). If that is not in line with what Blizzard envisioned, so be it.

That being said, the thing about Status Quo Is God... One of the things it could cause was to make the old 'magic' ending up stale. It was super great at first, but being repeated a lot of times, with increasingly contrived reasons to do so... well I think that may end up taking away the magic, even if it is staying true to the 'heart and soul and principles' of the old. But as I said from the phrase above... well, some could take it and that's OK.

If you want to consider it as the end of Warcraft, that's OK and I can understand: People feared change. The old identity of Warcraft will die, and from its corpse, a new identity will be born. Unless it's the other way around: Warcraft is discontinued. That means it's dead and no new birth take place. That said, it's only a matter of opinions of keeping the old identity as far as possible (develop the story within a closed circle), or shake the status quo up to see development in story.

Reminds me of a certain real life history/development of a country of the rising sun.

Edited by ChrisX on Nov 14th 2018 at 5:59:45 PM

You would seriously use the forums as a sample of fan opinion? The forums, where every opinion is magnified by the forces of herd agreement?

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

RE: Fighteer

The forums is what Blizzard looks at and has community managers respond to.

Anyhow you ask what is my complaints. I say the Horde has lost much of its cast and constantly loses even more each expansion. For all the heroes and lore the Horde has lost, they've never been given any chance to recover.

As for the faction conflict, it fails to get Horde players to get invested in it, whilst Villain balling the Horde to be Alliance player's Hatesink, also making the community more toxic as many Alliance fans ask for the Horde playerbase to lose even more.

It seems like a repeat of the already hated story in Mists of Pandaria. We've already seen that it makes the Horde player base apathetic to the storyline and it makes the Alliance player base feel like the Horde as a whole gets off as a Karma Houdini.

I'm not saying the Alliance faction storyline is perfect either.

Edited by Monsund on Nov 14th 2018 at 3:33:57 AM

I think if you avidly followed Blizzard franchises, you would have realized and accepted that Blizzard games, especially Warcraft, tends to hold the worst, most toxic fandom in the gaming community.

RE: Chris X

When Wo W's faction stories start, even normal civil communities like here end up loaded with Alliance players complaining about the Horde player base.

The storyline makes Alliance players hate the Horde as much as possible and blame them for decisions done by the Developer team, all while the Horde storyline if anything makes the Horde player hate the Horde, resulting in a unfun experience for the playerbase.

If what you said about 'Blizzard goes to the official forums to listen to feedback'... well I guess that may explain the constant Villain Ball-ing of the Horde and making Sylvanas only likable from the 'waifu' POV, otherwise hell no (which I think is a REALLY bad characterization), like you claimed. I think the official forum is the biggest concentration of 'Glory to the Alliance, **** the Horde' players. Though not that other communities like Reddit are any better. If it's this place, I dunno.

Though it isn't our place here to describe our dream, ideal Warcraft scenario. We'll just have to stomach through what Blizzard offers.

Edited by ChrisX on Nov 14th 2018 at 6:37:22 PM

RE: Chris X

Alot of Mists of Pandaria plot line was actually a response to the worst and most vocal section of Alliance players who kept on insisting Horde players should suffer because the Alliance lost several zones to the Horde.

Nevermind that the Alliance lost those zones because they had far more leveling areas then the Horde and that losing those zone was done for game balance as it evened out the leveling areas for both factions.

As you can expect, those same Alliance whiners still cried over the Siege of Orgrimmar and Alliance players gaining the Hordebreaker is somehow a Horde victory.

There are a lot of reasonable Alliance players, it's very unfortunate that the story had chosen to respond to the unreasonable players who would never be satisfied.

All in all, the story made players of both factions angered and unhappy.

Edited by Monsund on Nov 14th 2018 at 3:40:00 AM

No, the Mists storyline was not written to becuase Alliance players wanted the Horde to suffer, you just made that up.

RE: Druplesnubb

The whole storyline was about the Horde being Card-Carrying Villains, regardless of prior characterization, and the Alliance ultimately stopping them.

Alliance PC's literally gain the title, Hordebreaker, after storming the orc capital, killing much of the orc cast and defeating their leader. With the Alliance leaders only allowing the Horde to live of as mercy, whilst claiming moral superiority.

The same storyline also rewrote Jaina as a Horde hating voice, in response to Alliance fanatics accusing her of being Horde biased throughout the years. Nevermind that Jaina was always willing to fight the Horde if it protected her citizens.

The faction conflict in it was clearly written to appease the loudest Alliance fans who were extremely vocal about their angry about the Horde's victories in Cataclysm and claims of Horde bias.

Edited by Monsund on Nov 14th 2018 at 3:52:12 AM

Once again no, you just made that up. One of the main stories of Mists was the Horde leaders banding together to bring down a tyrant. The most important theme brought up is that the Horde isn't about military might or Orc supremacy but about allies helping each other out like a family. It's been confirmed by the devs that the entire evil Garrosh plotline was in the plans the very moment it was decided Garrosh would become Warchief (but it was pushed forward earlier than originally planned due to Mists having a general anti-war theme), which would put its conception around the time of Wot LK, if not earlier.

Edit: Your entire Modus Operandi is to state things that happened (often in a very slanted way) and then invent a motivation for writing said events with zero evidence.

Edited by Druplesnubb on Nov 14th 2018 at 12:56:52 PM

I'm actually impressed that from what I heard, Jaina has been toning that down in BFA. But I still haven't forgiven her stint in Legion... but it's an improvement.

That being said, I believe that you need to made it clear that most of these tends to be your opinion. Not fact. CMIIW, but I think that we can only take it as a fact if we have official proof straight from Blizzard's mouth, something like "Yeah, we saw the majority of fans wanting the Alliance to be morally superior, and we delivered."

Edited by ChrisX on Nov 14th 2018 at 6:56:17 PM

RE: Druplesnubb

That comment was agreed to be obvious backpedaling.

As for the Horde rebellion, virtually every orc NPC, barring Thrall, Eitrigg, and Saurfang were shown to side with Garrosh. Basically the entire second generation of orcs was killed off and the orc race hasn't recovered since.

Most of this went entirely against their prior characterization too.

For example, Zaela in Cataclysm:

• Wanted to break free her clan from corruption.
• Was close friends with Cozwynn(undead human) and worked alongside Garona Half Draenei with no issue.
• Admired Garrosh for being corruption free and managing to hold together such a diverse group of people.
• Opposed the Alliance, but viewed external threats like the Twilight's Hammer as a higher priority.
• Was a female orc clan leader not defined by her mate as well as a prominent female character who wasn't conventionally attractive.

Yet Mists Of Pandaria depicts her as:

• Supportive of the orcs using old god corruption and basically damns Dragonmaw clan once again.
• Hating all races of the Horde and believing Vol'jin was dumb because he was a troll in Warcrimes.
• Loved Garrosh for corrupting himself with Old God artifact and alienating the races of the Horde.
• Goes all Leeroy Jenkins on the Alliance, prioritizing them and the Horde above all else.
• Defined solely by her devotion to Garrosh and unceremoniously killed off.

As I said Character Derailment on an entire race.

As for your last bit, criticize the argument, not the other poster.

Edited by Monsund on Nov 14th 2018 at 3:59:53 AM

I am criticizing your arguments. They're almost completely based on claims that pretend to know what Blizzard is thinking despite no evidence (or sometimes contradicting the evidence).

See, once again you just made things up with zero evidence. Why do you keep doing this?

Edited by Druplesnubb on Nov 14th 2018 at 1:09:34 PM

Others in the thread have said it.

I already showed how the characterization of NP Cs like Zaela was clearly done last minute.

I can also get the Metzen interview where he talks about how Garrosh and Jorin were introduced to give the Orcs some new heroes that also tied in with old lore.

Edited by Monsund on Nov 14th 2018 at 4:01:35 AM

I have no idea why Blizzard keeps killing off or removing the older parts of the Horde, kept making new generations of Horde stuffs... yet the Alliance gets to keep their old guards. Even Turalyon and Alleria came back.

When Sylvanas dies or deposed later, I believe that none of the WC3 era Horde will remain (since Thrall doesn't seem to want to come back for... reasons.) The oldest they would have is Saurfang.

Edited by ChrisX on Nov 14th 2018 at 7:04:31 PM

RE: Chris X

Thrall also got depowered and firmly put on a bus, meanwhile Jaina to do us.

Sylvanas is the last leader the Horde has back from Vanilla. The only other Horde characters left from WC 3 are Rexxar and Rokhan, everyone else is dead.

Not only did Turlayon and Alleria come back, every WC 2 Alliance hero came back. Yet the Horde didn't even got one. I'll note that the vast majority of WCII Horde heroes was actually depicted as Noble Demons at worst, even the evilest of them, Teron was genuinely loyal to the Horde and interested in helping the orcish race as a whole.

Edited by Monsund on Nov 14th 2018 at 4:07:58 AM

Rexxar doesn't look like someone who'll lead. While he's on the Horde, he looks like someone who'd wander here and there.

And like I said, Jaina has been a bit recovering from her irritating war hawk attitude persisting until Legion. This continues and I may end up easing and returning to HOTS, if I still have time for PC MOBA.

... Look, I'd love for a return of the real Grommash Hellscream, but at this point, it would take a super ridiculous reasons to make him come back because he's REALLY dead. Well, there is the WoD version of Hellscream, but that's not on the same level, that's kinda a different character. I've seen enough 'ridiculous reasons' thrown into Blizzard's storytelling... So no, probably better for Grom to stay dead. Same goes to Cairne.

Edited by ChrisX on Nov 14th 2018 at 7:08:58 PM

I already went through how Garrosh's slide into villainy was rushed. He was already kicking out "weaker" races from the center of Orgrimmarin Cata and talking about the Horde achieving global domination back in Twilight Highlands, he was just less extreme about it.

Here's some fun questions. If the intent was to make the Horde more evil, why is Garrosh replaced by Vol'jin at the end? And why does Varian go from hating the Horde to being the voice for peace? And why does the Alliance commit one of their most infamous acts to date in Dalaran? Why does the alliance story start with an alliance commander slaughtering defenseless orcs and said event immediately resulting in creation of Sha and a Pandaren chastising said commander?

Edited by Druplesnubb on Nov 14th 2018 at 1:10:35 PM

RE: Druplesnubb

Only the Darkspear were gone from the center of Orgrimmar and this was due to a feud between Vol'jin and Garrosh. Even then, Vol'jin admitted at one point in Cataclysm that Garrosh was an alright person.

Varian spared the Horde to show the moral superiority of the Alliance and as a two faction game, neither faction can be destroyed.

The Alliance was depicted as in the right during the purge of Dalaran as always. They even rewrote the event to give the Alliance more moral superiority, originally in the PTR Aethas was completely ignorant of agents stealing the Divine Bell, whilst in the final released patch, he was complicit in it to make the Horde less sympathetic.

The same expansion glorified an Alliance general who committed genocide and attacked Horde civilians, also whilst vilifying a random orc whose only sin was protecting tauren in Cata.

As for Rogers, her actions were swept under the rug and she continued to be treated as a heroic character. Note they gave her justification for her actions, whilst no Horde character in the same expansion was ever given anything to explain their hatred of the Alliance.

Vol'jin became leader, yet got to do absolutely nothing other then get killed by a nameless Mook, so the Horde could be vilified once again. Thus the Trolls joined the orcs in the leaderless pile.

Edited by Monsund on Nov 14th 2018 at 4:17:47 AM

Wow, you actually dodged all of my questions excpet one, and that one managed to completely miss the point. If Blizzard wanted the Horde to be evil, they would just have kept Garrosh or jumped straight to Sylvanas.

Edited by Druplesnubb on Nov 14th 2018 at 1:12:22 PM

RE: Druplesnubb

Again, discuss the argument not the other person. I addressed your points, look again.

As for why they wrote Garrosh's overthrow, it was both to appease the Alliance fans who wanted a victory and so they could prepare for the next faction conflict coming two expect later, where again the Horde would be vilified.

Note orcs got no focus in Mists storyline except as character derailed villains for the player to kill. If it was about the Horde, they would've focused on the Orcs and how they aren't Garrosh. Instead they depicted the orcs as a Planet Of Copy Hats, even more then older games like WC 2.

Edited by Monsund on Nov 14th 2018 at 4:15:16 AM