Why Blizzard's Story-Telling Has Deteriorated

[Undeadprotoss]

Hey guys, this post is not directly related to WoW. However, I wanted to post it because it does talk about an issue which is very much directly related to WoW. That is, the shifting focus away from story-telling as a key aspect of the game and more towards story-telling as a compartmentalized aspect of said game. I think we saw this with the end of WoLTK, wherein Arthas, a character who was built up substantially since WC3, had finally been killed.

Since then, Blizzard has arguably neglected much of WoW's lore in favor of short-term, gameplay benefits. I hope this piece, using Starcraft's development, is telling as to why.

-----------------------

A while ago, Polygon did a feature piece on Starcraft's evolution as a game, but with a specific focus on development and story. The same piece (http://www.polygon.com/2015/11/6/967...y-dlc-blizzard) was briefly discussed on these forums some time after it came out. One passage in particular, stuck out to people:

"Among those storylines that didn’t make the cut was a serious "down and out" drinking problem for Raynor. The missions Metzen wanted showed Raynor screwing up in some way, even after players successfully achieved their goal. People would end up hurt, but eventually, Raynor would overcome his personal demons and find redemption."

"At the time, the team was just like, ‘Why? It’s unnecessary,’" Metzen says. "‘I just wanna see things nuked! I want to feel badass right out of the gate.’ That’s perfectly valid. If I were writing a novel about it, it might have been great.

I've been going over a lot of old interviews, presentations, etc by people involved in the development of SC2, and I honestly think that this idea, with little variance, is very pervasive. There's this idea that instead of designing a game holistically, you rigidly adhere to this belief that players care more about jumping into the action immediately than a good, interesting story. Though it's definitely true that gameplay must often trump lore (like in multiplayer for instance) the more you look into how Chris Metzen and Dustin Browder describe the design process, the more you begin to see that it's an issue of priority.

Take this interview of Chris Metzen by PC Gamer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBSb9suA2lM) starting at 8:05, the interviewer asks about designing story in video games, and Chris Metzen talks about how story was told in a game such as Warcraft 3 vs Starcraft 2.

"Warcraft 3 we tried a much more cinematic take on things, we had these cinematic sequences that wove the whole story together, so we tried a much bigger story on Warcraft 3. And while I love Warcraft 3, there's times when it was a little too top-heavy. When you're stories so woven in and out of all the gameplay, and the gameplay has to change up until you ship the game you have to optimize levels and make it fun, it can be really really top heavy to tell that much story"

"So there was this suggestion, when we decided to build Starcraft 2, there was kind this suggestion of, what if we tried to pull the story a little bit out of the maps and let the level design be what it is, and just faciltate really fun maps, and really just let the story rest in it's own space."

"our games, people tend to want to get back into the action very, very quickly. And so a lot of cinematic content or a lot of story context can become very cumbersome very quickly"

As you can see, there seems to be this self-conciousness with expressing too much story through maps and cinematic content (WC3's story boards, where dialogue took place, also analogous to SC1 characters pausing in the map to have some dialogue, mission briefings, etc) Chris Metzen also briefly mentioned the mission briefings in the Polygon piece

("Our aspirations were much higher in coming back to StarCraft," Metzen says. "Instead of the screen with the portraits yelling at each other, I wanted it to be living. I wanted to be in the scene. Some would argue that we took it too far, photographs on the bulletin boards and the jukeboxes and all that stuff. But we were very different developers. ... It pushed us to think bigger and be more farsighted about the product we wanted to build")

Chris Metzen continues, a couple minutes past that point in the interview, he goes on about how instead of putting story into maps and cinematics, the team instead opted to let the player explore the universe, through the character interactions in Wings of Liberty.

"Kind of like that old Wing Commander idea, where you'd have sets and you move through this set to that, small talk with people, develop relationships... and just be able to explore a bit more of the ship and the universe ultimately. I love that experiment with Wings of Liberty"

Again, we see that the development team seems to push the story further and further into a compratmentalized space. Instead of being central and almost unavoidable (keyword: almost, people should be able to skip it.) The story mostly functions as stricly separate from the gameplay. Which gives the writers even less freedom because they can't put anything jarring in the character conversations, since you need to be able to understand the overall plot without them. Here's the part that I find the most telling though, partially because Chris Metzen uses similar language from the Polygon article, and partially because it's pretty direct in terms of the design philosophy.

"Sometimes you have to way the storytelling, even though we can run very deep with things, even though you can construct and tell very nuanced scenes. you have to remember that the whole reason someone picked the game off the shelf in the first place, is because htey wanted to drive it, they wanted to feel like the center of events. Sometimes that can run counter to your genius, but how does that feel though?"

"You need to stay off the players toes, and remember that the player wants to feel like the center of events."

You see it yet? It's the same language from the Polygon article, there's this idea that players want to feel like the hero of the story, before being entertained and immersed in the story itself. That's where I think this idea of gameplay before story starts to become problematic, it's a gradual progression. Slowly the devs seem to separate the story from the core game, even in the campaign. We see this with the excellent level design of the past three expansions, as well as the poor story-telling. In SC2 game design is driven far more by gameplay, while story follow suit whereas in Warcraft 3, the game design is more of an equilibrium. The maps exist to tell the story and narrative, but game-play and story are valued almost equally and they are forced to meld together.

Now, that's what I have for Metzen, and this post is already quite long, so let me just close off with Dustin Browder, who was game director throughout WoL and HOTS. Here, he's giving a presentation on how E-Sports has affected *cough* poisoned *cough* SC2's development. Especially on story (http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014488...n-of-STARCRAFT) (Scroll down the side bar until you see "Story")

"We do crazy, crazy things, we have this armory (referring to Swann's room in WoL) so you can see these vehicles, you can see the 50-ton siege tank, as big on the screen as you can get it, so when you see the little tiny siege tank in the game, you imagine the 50 ton siege tank in your mind"

"Our units are ants, marines are tiny little guys. They die like flies...I want you to care about Tychus, even if you hate him. I want you to have some emotional connection to him. But in the game he's gonna be this little tiny little ant. So we go nuts with this stuff, we make these insanely over the top comic book characters, he's this tough guy who drinks and smokes, he's ridiculous, he's insane, but when he's an ant, you'll remember him

To close out, I just want to say. I don't think Blizzard has any lack of ability, besides some interns writing cringe-worthy dialogue, much of the same people who made a game as amazing and as immersive as the original Starcraft still work on the development team today. Chris Metzen certainly hasn't gone anywhere (thank god. I love the guy).

Ultimately, the problem is that Blizzard tends to swing the pendulum to far when it comes to feedback. They often OVER-react, instead of making the small, necessary adjustments. In this case, they've heard that players just want to skip through much of the story, and so they reacted by pulling much of the story-telling out of the maps and reducing the amount and quality of dialogue. For those of you (most?) who played the original games, the delivery mechanisms to the story are hugely different, there's almost a 5 minute conversation before each map, and even some dialogue while playing as well.

I know it's crazy, but I do have hope, if we send the message, I think we can prove that players do care about a deep, interesting, and compelling story.

[logintime]

I somewhat agree, and this is something I've noticed as well. Since Cataclysm, Blizzard's MO has been "we want to deliver epic events." But instead it comes across as trying too hard. The game becomes overblown and cartoonish, and the story gets lost.

Really though, the change seems to have been gradual. I started playing WoW in 2005, and I remember reading this NYT article about the game which ended with the following quote from Metzen: "You might spend hundreds of hours playing a game like this, and why would you keep coming back? Is it just for the next magic helmet? Is it just to kill the next dragon? It has to be the story. We want you to care about these places and things so that, in addition to the adrenaline and the rewards of addictive gameplay, you have an emotional investment in the world. And that's what makes a great game."

That sentiment - story comes before gameplay - was echoed widely at the time. I remember reading about all the handwringing involved in whether or not to let druids even be playable (lorewise, they were only a Night Elven and male class), seeing devs talk about the firm reasons behind class restrictions, seeing why the Forsaken start off only neutral with other factions, etc. I remember when both the players and developers took the lore so seriously that Metzen himself had to come to the forums to apologize for the Draenei retcon. And you know what? The seriousness with which Blizzard approached its lore made the game all the better for that.

Since then, the mantra has become "gameplay first, story second", and you can feel it in all their design decisions, from the heavily-optimized zone designs, to the homogenized classes, to the removal of most class restrictions, to the constant retcons and general 'who gives a damn about the firmness of the story' that seems to have guided all of WoD. As Metzen had said, the story is what creates an emotional investment, and as long as they keep punting it into the back seat, the game will keep feeling more than a little empty.

[Undeadprotoss]

I somewhat agree, and this is something I've noticed as well. Since Cataclysm, Blizzard's MO has been "we want to deliver epic events." But instead it comes across as trying too hard. The game becomes overblown and cartoonish, and the story gets lost.

Really though, the change seems to have been gradual. I started playing WoW in 2005, and I remember reading this NYT article about the game which ended with the following quote from Metzen: "You might spend hundreds of hours playing a game like this, and why would you keep coming back? Is it just for the next magic helmet? Is it just to kill the next dragon? It has to be the story. We want you to care about these places and things so that, in addition to the adrenaline and the rewards of addictive gameplay, you have an emotional investment in the world. And that's what makes a great game."

That sentiment - story comes before gameplay - was echoed widely at the time. I remember reading about all the handwringing involved in whether or not to let druids even be playable (lorewise, they were only a Night Elven and male class), seeing devs talk about the firm reasons behind class restrictions, seeing why the Forsaken start off only neutral with other factions, etc. I remember when both the players and developers took the lore so seriously that Metzen himself had to come to the forums to apologize for the Draenei retcon. And you know what? The seriousness with which Blizzard approached its lore made the game all the better for that.

Since then, the mantra has become "gameplay first, story second", and you can feel it in all their design decisions, from the heavily-optimized zone designs, to the homogenized classes, to the removal of most class restrictions, to the constant retcons and general 'who gives a damn about the firmness of the story' that seems to have guided all of WoD. As Metzen had said, the story is what creates an emotional investment, and as long as they keep punting it into the back seat, the game will keep feeling more than a little empty.

Wow, thank you for that. That was really insightful. To be honest, I was more or less a little kid even during BC, though I was still a YUUUUGE fan of the lore, especially that of the Forsaken. I've read that comment about the Draenei retcon that Metzen posted from Wowwiki/Wowhead, whichever website. It didn't really occur to me until just now when you brought it up that Metzen would do something like that on the offical forums. Nowadays, stuff like that is pretty much strictly related to Ion Hazzikostas, raiding, and gameplay. It has to have been ages since something like that has happened for the story.

I agree that the game, as a whole, is MUCH better because of the trade-offs that put lore first. You can see it reflected even in the informal slang players use every now and then, nobody really shouts "FOR THE HORDE!" anymore. And I genuinely think it's because people don't have the same emotional attachment to the races of the horde, the orcs who were redeemed from the blood curse, the Tauren who were probably the most peaceful race in the game by far, the clever and yet noble Darkspear tribe, and even the Forskaken, who despite having ambiguous moral alignments at best, still had a rich and sympathetic backstory.

I'm not sure if I touched upon it that much (if at all) in the initial post, but I think this whole situation is a result of Blizzard over-compensating to criticism. I remember in one interview with a couple WoW devs (Ion Hazzikostas and Josh Allen I think) where they spoke about how Warlords of Draenor basically had very little to no structured content at the beginning of the expasnion, they mentioned how Blizzard tends to "swing the pendulum too far". That is, they over-react to the criticism of MOP being too rigid that they gave WoD almost no structure.

If I had to propose a solution, it would be to try and force that pendulum shift again. Thank you for that NYT article, I'm gonna add it to my list of sources and hopefully it will inform my posts in the future.

[Wondercrab]

I somewhat agree, and this is something I've noticed as well. Since Cataclysm, Blizzard's MO has been "we want to deliver epic events." But instead it comes across as trying too hard. The game becomes overblown and cartoonish, and the story gets lost.

Indeed. It seems to stem from a pretty core misunderstanding of how storytelling works. I think the quote about Raynor and his drinking problem pretty much exemplifies that. Making a story "epic" is not a case of having grandiose visuals, cheesy heroic dialogue, and climactic end-of-the-world action. Those things are just the cherry on top that can help elevate an already dramatic narrative, and on their own they quickly become boring.

It's the small details, the human drama, and the emotional connection this creates that hooks your audience into a narrative. You need to create that investment before you blow up the death star, otherwise it's just another meaningless explosion. It might wow a few people the first time they see it, but there's no substance to something like that in and of itself.

Blizzard have never had good writers. They've got some good creative people on board with some cool ideas, but the nuance of storytelling is practically non-existent in most of their games, and the dialogue is routinely bad. That being said, the stories in some of their older games worked because they meshed better with the experience as a whole. Diablo II, for example, is a masterclass in music, sound design, and visuals coming together beautifully to create an incredibly powerful emotional tone that permeates the entire experience, propping up some of the weaker writing and minimalistic story elements.

It seems that, based on the quotes linked in the OP, the problems with the writing have been exacerbated over time by an increasing lack of ability and/or willingness to incorporate story with gameplay in Blizzard's titles. What we're left with is stories devoid of the nuance required to set up their epic moments, resulting in a plethora of narratives that feel like they're trying too hard to be something they're not. Ironically a lot of Blizzard's recent stories would've turned out way better if they'd embraced their cheesiness more and amped up the schlock factor. When your subject matter is inherently silly, you have to put in work to make your audience take it seriously and get engaged. If you're not willing to do that, then you might as well just run with the silliness and play the whole thing off as a slightly more campy, tongue-in-cheek experience. Because at least that'll be fun.

[Undeadprotoss]

Indeed. It seems to stem from a pretty core misunderstanding of how storytelling works. I think the quote about Raynor and his drinking problem pretty much exemplifies that. Making a story "epic" is not a case of having grandiose visuals, cheesy heroic dialogue, and climactic end-of-the-world action. Those things are just the cherry on top that can help elevate an already dramatic narrative, and on their own they quickly become boring.

It's the small details, the human drama, and the emotional connection this creates that hooks your audience into a narrative. You need to create that investment before you blow up the death star, otherwise it's just another meaningless explosion. It might wow a few people the first time they see it, but there's no substance to something like that in and of itself.

I definitely agree with you on that, part of what made the original Starcraft (In my opinion) so great, was that it wasn't an overly large space opera-setting compared to SC2. Sure there were giant battles and planets being destroyed (albeit just Mar Sara/Tarsonis) what made the atmosphere so incredible was that all three races formed to make this cold, horror-esque setting. The Terrans, with rusted space-marine armor and rifles, caught in a conflict between a brutal and repressive regime and the Sons of Korhal rebel group. The Protoss who were this absolutely badass mix of samurai, roman, custom asthetics combined with the common faceless alien trope. And lastly, the Zerg, who were almost always portrayed as malicious, especially through the Overmind's dialogue.

Blizzard have never had good writers. They've got some good creative people on board with some cool ideas, but the nuance of storytelling is practically non-existent in most of their games, and the dialogue is routinely bad. That being said, the stories in some of their older games worked because they meshed better with the experience as a whole. Diablo II, for example, is a masterclass in music, sound design, and visuals coming together beautifully to create an incredibly powerful emotional tone that permeates the entire experience, propping up some of the weaker writing and minimalistic story elements.

It seems that, based on the quotes linked in the OP, the problems with the writing have been exacerbated over time by an increasing lack of ability and/or willingness to incorporate story with gameplay in Blizzard's titles. What we're left with is stories devoid of the nuance required to set up their epic moments, resulting in a plethora of narratives that feel like they're trying too hard to be something they're not. Ironically a lot of Blizzard's recent stories would've turned out way better if they'd embraced their cheesiness more and amped up the schlock factor. When your subject matter is inherently silly, you have to put in work to make your audience take it seriously and get engaged. If you're not willing to do that, then you might as well just run with the silliness and play the whole thing off as a slightly more campy, tongue-in-cheek experience. Because at least that'll be fun.

I actually strongly disagree that the writers are Blizzard are bad. If you look at the older games especially, such as Warcraft 3 and Starcraft/Brood War. The dialogue isn't even remotely as cheesy as it can sometimes be in recent expansions (Cata, WoD, even from MoP a bit). In SC1/BW and WC3, the narrative, dialogue, character progression, and overall atmospherics is absolutely phenomenal. That and they match up fantastic voice-actors that make you feel like the characters are literally alive and breathing.

The problem is that, especially recently, story has been compartmentalized to game-play, such to the point that, I think, really nuanced and compelling dialogue, storylines, etc are set aside for the immediate gameplay benefit (or so it appears).

[NoiseTank13]

It's the "dadification" of the people working at Blizzard.

"I just want to make games my kids can play, ya know."

It's not a particularly bad sentiment, but such a shift doesn't do much for your large playerbase.

[Wondercrab]

I actually strongly disagree that the writers are Blizzard are bad. If you look at the older games especially, such as Warcraft 3 and Starcraft/Brood War. The dialogue isn't even remotely as cheesy as it can sometimes be in recent expansions (Cata, WoD, even from MoP a bit). In SC1/BW and WC3, the narrative, dialogue, character progression, and overall atmospherics is absolutely phenomenal. That and they match up fantastic voice-actors that make you feel like the characters are literally alive and breathing.

I agree that the writing was probably better overall in the past, but still not particularly good. A lot of what sold it was the voice acting, cinematic direction, music etc. In a collaborative storytelling medium, the script isn't necessarily all that important to the story if the narrative is a relatively simple one. A really good example of this is the character Alarak in Legacy of the Void. Most people would probably agree that he's the most memorable and entertaining part of that story, and it's entirely down to John de Lancie's performance (well, that and a great character design). He takes woefully generic Blizzard villain dialogue and fills it with expression and personality, really chewing over every one of those lines to give it as much flavour as he can. The rest of the cast, by comparison, mostly feel like they've been given very basic direction and are just ticking the appropriate boxes. They all perform well, but none really strive to elevate the material or inject much passion or personality into it beyond what they were told by the directors. As a result you end up with characters sounding like "blizzard hero #35B", "blizzard villain #129", "female badass #13" etc. as opposed to creating anything unique and memorable.

You can take a lot of the lines from those older games, imagine them being yelled by Deathwing or D3 Diablo, and it becomes really apparent how much of it is down to the delivery. It also doesn't help that Blizzard have a habit of re-using plots, cliches, and generic fantasy phrasing over time, with each successive iteration making you roll your eyes a little more than the last. Every time I hear some variant of "insignificant whelps" in WoW these days it makes me cringe.

[Undeadprotoss]

I agree that the writing was probably better overall in the past, but still not particularly good. A lot of what sold it was the voice acting, cinematic direction, music etc. In a collaborative storytelling medium, the script isn't necessarily all that important to the story if the narrative is a relatively simple one. A really good example of this is the character Alarak in Legacy of the Void. Most people would probably agree that he's the most memorable and entertaining part of that story, and it's entirely down to John de Lancie's performance (well, that and a great character design). He takes woefully generic Blizzard villain dialogue and fills it with expression and personality, really chewing over every one of those lines to give it as much flavour as he can. The rest of the cast, by comparison, mostly feel like they're been given very basic direction and are just ticking the appropriate boxes. They all perform well, but none really strive to elevate the material or inject much passion or personality into it beyond what they were told by the directors. As a result you end up with characters sounding like "blizzard hero #35B", "blizzard villain #129", "female badass #13" etc. as opposed to creating anything unique and memorable.

You can take a lot of the lines from those older games, imagine them being yelled by Deathwing or D3 Diablo, and it becomes really apparent how much of it is down to the delivery. It also doesn't help that Blizzard have a habit of re-using plots, cliches, and generic fantasy phrasing over time, with each successive iteration making you roll your eyes a little more than the last. Every time I hear some variant of "insignificant whelps" in WoW these days it makes me cringe.

That's a good point about delivery, but I think that's part of making good dialogue. Any amazingly written speech, for instance, could potentially sound boring or unimpressive if it were to be delivered in a flat-tone, without inflection at the appropriate times. Indirect factors like a game's atmosphere or art style also affect how dialogue is perceived. Writing that is good enough for Warcraft might not do well in some of the older Diablo games. So much of judging what makes dialogue "good" also depends on the context of the story and the speaker. A well-crafted mood and setting, combined with delivery, as you noted, help elevate okay dialogue into something that is much more entertaining.

To the point about D3 Diablo and Deathwing though, I honestly don't think I can say that. Take for example, the Overmind's or Kerrigan's monologues in SC1. The Overmind practically portrayed himself and the larger conflict between the Protoss and Zerg as this mystical, religious war. Let me give specific examples:

Awaken my child, and embrace the
glory that is your birthright. Know
that I am the Overmind; the eternal
will of the Swarm, and that you
have been created to serve me.

Behold that I shall set you amongst
the greatest of my Cerebrates,
that you might benefit from their
wisdom and experience. Yet your
purpose is unique. While they carry
forth my will to the innumerable
Broods, you have but one charge
entrusted to your care.

For I have found a creature that
may yet become the greatest of
my agents. Even now it resides
within a protective Chrysalis,
awaiting its rebirth into the Swarm.

You must watch over the Chrysalis,
and ensure that no harm comes to
the creature within it. Go now and
keep safe my prize

I am well pleased young Cerebrate,
and so long as my prize remains
intact, I shall remain pleased. Thus,
its life and yours shall be made as
one. As it prospers, so shall you. For
you are part of the Swarm. If ever
your flesh should fail, that flesh shall
be made anew. That is my covenant
with all Cerebrates.

These too shall be eradicated by
your hand, Cerebrate, for you grow
more cunning with each passing
battle. Indeed, you are a testament
to my will and the fury of the
Swarm.

Yet first must you stay your wrath,
and watch over the Chrysalis a
while longer. For the very hour of
the sleeper's rebirth is at hand, and
soon my greatest creation shall be
loosed.

That was from the Overmind, from Kerrigan:

Of course. They aren't stupid,
Duran. They're siding with the evil
they know over the evil they don't...
They simply don't yet realize what
it will cost them.

(You can see the entire transcript of SC1's dialogue, as well as that of Brood War, here: http://www.samods.org/175 and http://www.samods.org/195


I think these, largely, are VASTLY superior to any of the Villian dialogue in the recent SC2 games. Even on their own, they aren't bad. But I think it's really important to note, still, that dialogue is very dependent on the context of the story, speaker, etc. The most fantastically written monologue can seem very out of place given the speaker, the information the reader is aware of, music, setting, etc. I think when we mention dialogue, a lot of that has to go into the judging process as well.

[MoanaLisa]

Since the Lich King, it's pretty clear that Blizzard hasn't had much of a story to tell. I'll except Mists from that. There might be a story in Legion but probably only due to their killing off a lot of the game mainstays. It's all very George R. R. Martin in a way. But even Legion is just a sequel in terms of story.

I've been unhappy with Blizzard for a lot of things the last couple of years but most of it boils down to their obsession about keeping everyone in a relatively small area as defined by an expansion and their increasing problems with patches.

Patches are really important because that's the only time the story really "moves". Patches are a bit like chapters of a book. Don't even start about Warlords and how much of a lost opportunity they blew even with the cobbled-together premise of time travel and alternate universes. You got start and end and much like end game nothing really in-between because there was little in the way of anything to progress a story forward. It's actually a shame but whatever creative framework existed in lore for telling big stories in a well-paced manner they apparently lost the thread with the death of the Lich King and their obvious problems getting out expansions in a timely manner since.

Their emphasis on gameplay over story and use of the world has largely unstitched their game by confining the "world" to a small space, removing a large part of the adventure and storytelling through exploration aspect and generally made the game a bunch of pieces with nothing much holding them together.

Shocking, I know.

Mod Note: As much as possible this thread needs to center on WoW using other Blizzard games as examples of how things may have gone awry. Otherwise it doesn't really belong in this forum. I'm already of a mind to move it to StarCraft but I think there are important points to make that really do relate to World of Warcraft. So let's try and do that.

[Undeadprotoss]

Since the Lich King, it's pretty clear that Blizzard hasn't had much of a story to tell. I'll except Mists from that. There might be a story in Legion but probably only due to their killing off a lot of the game mainstays. It's all very George R. R. Martin in a way. But even Legion is just a sequel in terms of story.

I've been unhappy with Blizzard for a lot of things the last couple of years but most of it boils down to their obsession about keeping everyone in a relatively small area as defined by an expansion and their increasing problems with patches.

Patches are really important because that's the only time the story really "moves". Patches are a bit like chapters of a book. Don't even start about Warlords and how much of a lost opportunity they blew even with the cobbled-together premise of time travel and alternate universes. You got start and end and much like end game nothing really in-between because there was little in the way of anything to progress a story forward. It's actually a shame but whatever creative framework existed in lore for telling big stories in a well-paced manner they apparently lost the thread with the death of the Lich King and their obvious problems getting out expansions in a timely manner since.

Their emphasis on gameplay over story and use of the world has largely unstitched their game by confining the "world" to a small space, removing a large part of the adventure and storytelling through exploration aspect and generally made the game a bunch of pieces with nothing much holding them together.

Shocking, I know.

Mod Note: As much as possible this thread needs to center on WoW using other Blizzard games as examples of how things may have gone awry. Otherwise it doesn't really belong in this forum. I'm already of a mind to move it to StarCraft but I think there are important points to make that really do relate to World of Warcraft. So let's try and do that.

Hey MoanaLisa, thanks for the heads up, I started talking about Starcraft briefly (obviously with the references to the Overmind's dialogue) but since this is the WoW sub-section of the forum, I'll do my best as the OP to keep things going in that direction. If stuff gets out of hand and you need to put the thread into a different forum, I totally understand.

To your other points though, I think you're right in noting that Blizzard has burned through a lot of their characters fast. Though I honestly think it's kind of a "golden goose egg" problem (for those who don't know what I'm referring to, click here: http://www.storyit.com/Classics/Stor...engooseegg.htm) wherein the writers and developers do whatever they can to squeeze the most thematic drama/story out of old characters, such as Illidan, Arthas, Thrall, etc. But they struggle to make new characters, and when they do, they end up like Garrosh, attached to another major lore character, almost an extension of another character's story, one could say/

That's one of the biggest reasons why a bigger focus on story is absolutely crucial for the WoW dev team if they want to keep putting out consistently compelling content. It's not enough to expand off old characters, stories, themes, etc. You need to have the vehicle to advance the story as much as with the old games.

[MoanaLisa]

That's one of the biggest reasons why a bigger focus on story is absolutely crucial for the WoW dev team if they want to keep putting out consistently compelling content. It's not enough to expand off old characters, stories, themes, etc. You need to have the vehicle to advance the story as much as with the old games.

For an MMO like World of Warcraft creating "compelling content", however one wants to define that, has to involve story. Raiding has devolved into an intricate puzzle of piling boss mechanics on top of one another like blocks. The puzzle of how to deal with that can be interesting as an intellectual exercise that invokes theory-crafting and other things but compelling on its own, as I think of what I consider compelling, it is not.

Story is compelling. Fitting the game into a good story is compelling. The questing in Shadowmoon Valley in Warlords was pretty compelling because of its story. Silverpine Forest--an early leveling zone--has one of the best stories in the game. Killing mobs without much of a purpose or a purpose of why it's important to do this and what will happen once enough of it is done can be satisfying but does not wear well with time for most people.

People come to see the sights and to live the story. When story gets pushed far into the background of the game there's not much reason to stick around to see what happens in future installments, assuming there are future installments, which brings us back to patch content.

People don't really talk much about this but if I were to posit a single fundamental reason for WoW's problems the last few years it would have to do storytelling being treated as a side issue. There's nothing really compelling about doing dailies. Unless there are more dailies down the road that further the story that's being told. It's really hard to do in an MMO and most game studios fail terribly at it. But most of them don't have the rich lore and history that Metzen has created for the Azeroth universe. And game mechanics are only going to hold the interest of casual gamers, most of the audience for any mass market title, for just so long.

The game in some ways has lost its heart and soul and become the domain of so many technocrats and engineers with their spreadsheets and whatnot. It explains a lot as to why people do not stay.

I think the writing has gotten worse over time but the lack of will to even tell much of a story at all other than "Kill big thing" is a bigger problem.

[Undeadprotoss]

For an MMO like World of Warcraft creating "compelling content", however one wants to define that, has to involve story. Raiding has devolved into an intricate puzzle of piling boss mechanics on top of one another like blocks. The puzzle of how to deal with that can be interesting as an intellectual exercise that invokes theory-crafting and other things but compelling on its own, as I think of what I consider compelling, it is not.

Story is compelling. Fitting the game into a good story is compelling. The questing in Shadowmoon Valley in Warlords was pretty compelling because of its story. Silverpine Forest--an early leveling zone--has one of the best stories in the game. Killing mobs without much of a purpose or a purpose of why it's important to do this and what will happen once enough of it is done can be satisfying but does not wear well with time for most people.

People come to see the sights and to live the story. When story gets pushed far into the background of the game there's not much reason to stick around to see what happens in future installments, assuming there are future installments, which brings us back to patch content.

People don't really talk much about this but if I were to posit a single fundamental reason for WoW's problems the last few years it would have to do storytelling being treated as a side issue. There's nothing really compelling about doing dailies. Unless there are more dailies down the road that further the story that's being told. It's really hard to do in an MMO and most game studios fail terribly at it. But most of them don't have the rich lore and history that Metzen has created for the Azeroth universe. And game mechanics are only going to hold the interest of casual gamers, most of the audience for any mass market title, for just so long.

The game in some ways has lost its heart and soul and become the domain of so many technocrats and engineers with their spreadsheets and whatnot. It explains a lot as to why people do not stay.

I think the writing has gotten worse over time but the lack of will to even tell much of a story at all other than "Kill big thing" is a bigger problem.

To be completely honest, the only reason I'm really attached to Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo to a lesser extent, to the point where I constantly keep tabs on all three games, have such strong opinions on the direction of the lore, what happens to major characters/factions, etc is because of the story. I loved the horde because of the Orcs who were a fundamentally noble, peaceful race, only to be corrupted by the Burning Legion, and freed by Grom Hellscream. I main undead precisely because of the Forsaken's tragic backstory, and because I desperately wanted to paint them as some warped "good" faction, against the scourge.

The compartmentalization of the story in favor of gameplay has ironically destroyed some of the most entertaining gameplay that WoW has ever known, that of the open world. Especially in Vanilla/TBC, when leveling was a huge time sink, you had this amazing, asymmetrical leveling experience where you ventured through a spontaneous, vibrant, and compelling game world.

Nowadays, there's far too much standardization, and the lore reflects that. All major cities are connected through portals, dungeons and raids are entered through an option in the menu, and world PvP is almost a thing of the past in many respects.

I completely agree with you when you said that the primary reason for WoW's problems in the past few years has been the lack of focus on lore, but it goes deeper than that. When you don't feel like the story is deep, nuanced, and believable, the world loses its magic. Even tasks like dailies and PvP feel meaningless because you don't know why you're fighting, or even what you're supposed to be. I remember how awesome it felt to be an undead mage, venturing out into the world, and if Blizzard could start erring on the side of the story one last time, man would I rejoice.

[MoanaLisa]

@Undeadprotoss Thanks for the conversation. I've said most of what I have to say for now. Hopefully some others will chime in with their thoughts. It's an important topic and I was happy to throw some meat on the grill for people to chew on. Anyway, best regards.

[Undeadprotoss]

@Undeadprotoss Thanks for the conversation. I've said most of what I have to say for now. Hopefully some others will chime in with their thoughts. It's an important topic and I was happy to throw some meat on the grill for people to chew on. Anyway, best regards.

Of course! Best regards to you as well.

I'm really hoping this debate gains traction, just because I want a return to those old Blizzard days, oooh man.

[melodramocracy]

Lots of good points in this thread so far.

I think the story they're trying to tell isn't all that bad. Sure, there could have been advancement rather than time travel for legion, and absolutely, quite a few of the characters could have had more depth to them. However, the advancement has to happen, and the game absolutely has to move things far past what players are familiar with from the earlier titles in terms of recognizable faces etc. Returns of various known entities can only take the game so far....I mean, you know at some point the LK is going to be seen again.....

How they deliver the story, at least in WoW, has its own set of pros / cons that I think are separate from the lore itself.

[Deleted]

The game in some ways has lost its heart and soul and become the domain of so many technocrats and engineers with their spreadsheets and whatnot. It explains a lot as to why people do not stay.

I think the writing has gotten worse over time but the lack of will to even tell much of a story at all other than "Kill big thing" is a bigger problem.

The gameplay seems to be the main priority. That's what mostly keeps people coming back IMO (or did -- LOL). There's also only so much you can do with a PEGI 12 rating. The books should take the opportunity to be much darker.

[Darktbs]

I believe is because the lore need to fit with the MMO theme.In Wc3 you play with Arthas,Thrall,Tyrande and more throughout all the campaigns,you see their story and reasons,you see the conversations and understand what the character is thinking.

On a MMO you are another person,From Vanilla to the Cata revamp you were no one important and you are tasked to do X Quests while the Npcs are talking and doing their own thing.

Im pretty shure if they made the Campaign were Arthas burned the boats in WoW.You would be tasked by Captain Falric too.

Kill 12 Undead in the Woods.
Rescue 6 Peasants
Cut down 10 Trees

And when you finish the QUests Arthas would be with the mercenaries burning the boats,he give his speech and you and the npcs kill the mercenaries in cutscene.

[Lothaeryn]

I believe is because the lore need to fit with the MMO theme.In Wc3 you play with Arthas,Thrall,Tyrande and more throughout all the campaigns,you see their story and reasons,you see the conversations and understand what the character is thinking.

On a MMO you are another person,From Vanilla to the Cata revamp you were no one important and you are tasked to do X Quests while the Npcs are talking and doing their own thing.

Im pretty shure if they made the Campaign were Arthas burned the boats in WoW.You would be tasked by Captain Falric too.

Kill 12 Undead in the Woods.
Rescue 6 Peasants
Cut down 10 Trees

And when you finish the QUests Arthas would be with the mercenaries burning the boats,he give his speech and you and the npcs kill the mercenaries in cutscene.

I think most people here would be pretty fine with that kind of experience, in fact, thats exactly the kind of experience most players want when they say they want a story driven experience.

You want to be a random nobody in the world who gets to interact with legends, it makes the world feel alive because you are witness to stories being driven before you and the repercussions of those actions taken reverberating throughout the story and world later.

However, Blizzard's design philosophy doesnt emphasize this anymore, most of these story developments are heavily isolated and compartmentalized into one zone at best. Characters you see in one zone often will not have a story continued for them afterwards, whereas in Vanilla people who looked like nothing but ordinary quest hub NPC's eventually became major players in stories to come, Chromie in Andorhal became a major influence in quests involving the Bronze Dragonflight.

I never even knew about Tirion Fordring in Vanilla, it wasnt until Wrath of the Lich King that I heard about this guy hiding out in Eastern Plaguelands and I went to do his quest in the TBC prepatch, and I was shocked such a dramatic and brilliant quest chain was just hiding in the most random corner of the map with no real indication he was there to begin with. He became a major player in things to come and became a leader of an entire NPC faction while wielding Ashbringer as his story was driven forward.

Nowadays its not that easy, some characters can get a random spotlight but just glimmer and fade back into the background of the zone never to be touched again, some characters will move on and hopefully get more dialogue like Fiona and her Caravan of misfits did in WoD, but even in these instances the story is still isolated, the NPC's get exposition, but the world being affected by their actions does not.

Theres a fine line that Blizzard made with Warcraft III that actually worked perfectly well with storytelling and gameplay, I dont understand how they thought it necessary to deviate from this formula as years went by.

[Imnick]

The enforced status quo of the alliance/horde puts a real strain on any kind of useful story telling.
If they didn't literally have to in order to maintain the MMO, there is no way the factions would still be drawn in a two-way split across the same lines that they are now.

Characters constantly make wild shifts in behaviour or act in completely unprecedented ways purely to justify the continuance of this meaningless divide, which needs to always be reinforced for gameplay purposes.

[Lothaeryn]

The enforced status quo of the alliance/horde puts a real strain on any kind of useful story telling.
If they didn't literally have to in order to maintain the MMO, there is no way the factions would still be drawn in a two-way split across the same lines that they are now.

I honestly think the way they go about the Alliance/Horde war is just too binary. There are many ways to make the factions work together but still be hostile.

For instance, an Alliance could be formed between the two citing peace, but rebel "loyalist" factions could still be fighting each other in the background, fostering a background for PvP being justified between both factions. Its not the perfect bridge in storytelling, but still better than coming together and being enemies immediately after.