Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
LastLast
  1. #101
    Scarab Lord Valarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Sowf Wails
    Posts
    4,052
    No I don't. They don't make a whole lot of sense in terms of their own lore and ideals set against the Horde and Alliance.

    The whole Houjin vs Tushui thing is the main problem. They are both highly disciplined and although they have differing ideals, they still work together and get along. How do they go from that to fighting and killing in the name of the two warmongering kings of the Alliance and Horde? I don't buy the whole "oh they spar but don't kill each other" thing either. Why would Varian or Garrosh have any use for soldiers that would leave their enemies intact in a time of war?

    They also haven't had much influence on anything. They appear to be mostly inept and require us with our leaders to clean up their mess. The only Pandaren with any degree of competence are the Shado-pan. What even happened to the characters introduced to us in the start zone? I don't recall even seeing Ji or Aysa between 85 and 90.

    Moving on from Mists, we'll obviously be seeing less of them and my guess is they'll essentially become Draenei/Blood Elf 2.0 and be forgotten for the next 3 expansions.

    In other terms though I think they are certainly the prettiest race Blizzard has created, and I can only hope the new models in future get as much love and care put into them.

    If Blizzard wants to do Neutral it should be either a third faction (which will obviously require an overhaul of some systems though not all that much; some new 3-way BGs might be cool, but existing 1v1 can work by simply matchmaking Alliance vs X or Horde, Horde vs X or Alliance. Doesn't need to make sense in lore, we do after all have Pandaren, Worgen and Goblins fighting in WSG and AV)

    OR they should do it with a race that is actually known for warmongering and being bastards with many warring "sub-factions". Goblins could have been a good candidate; the cartels always fight one another and they're known for selling their services. This is the main thing Pandas are missing IMO. They aren't a warlike people, so why would they join two factions that would force them to fight one another?

  2. #102
    I thought they worked out fine. The angst over them always seemed ill-founded to me.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "Almost every time I have gotten to know a critic personally, they keep up with the criticism but lose the venom." -- Ghostcrawler
    I hate these casual Fridays ruining it for real Fridays.

  3. #103
    Over 9000! Nindoriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    9,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaelsino View Post
    And I mean more than in just terms of the race itself. They introduced the "bi-faction" system and are Warcraft's first neutral race, something a lot of us never thought Blizzard would go for.

    What do you think? Did it work out? Do you want to see more neutral races in the future, or go back to unique races for each side?
    I don't like it that there is a race that is on both factions. With all other races you can say that, Worgen are part of the Alliance, Goblins are part of the Horde. You can never say Pandaren are an Alliance or Horde race, and there's no real racial identity behind them. I can see that the Pandaren were not really a race that naturally made sense for just one of the factions, and the faction that didn't get the Pandaren would've been highly disappointed, so I can accept this. But I hope they don't ever do this again, with the exception of High Elves, if they give them a unique model.

  4. #104
    They're great. Certainly a far cry from the Pandapocalypse that many foretold with furious voices.

  5. #105
    I thought they turned out awesome. And I really enjoy how it became cross-faction. Overall, I thought it was very well done.

  6. #106
    Mechagnome Whidbey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Whidbey Island, WA USA
    Posts
    714
    I think Pandaren were successful, but had their faults as well. Part of this has to do with not having gear that looked right on them until they got back to Pandaria. I do think though that monks failed as a class, because unlike DK's they never got them working correctly or viable enough to make people want to keep playing them.

  7. #107
    I guess since many people like them, my only complain is how they made their models, they have good quality yes but IMO they look really dumb, if they looked more serious and ferocious like bears should I would probably play one.

  8. #108
    I think they were a success just based on seeing how much of my server race changed once mop dropped. The bi-faction thing is great, I wish theyd do it with more races that aren't so staunch to one side. Tauren would be a good next one

  9. #109
    I am Murloc! Arrashi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Beautiful city of Duwang
    Posts
    5,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Senarx View Post
    I think they were a success just based on seeing how much of my server race changed once mop dropped. The bi-faction thing is great, I wish theyd do it with more races that aren't so staunch to one side. Tauren would be a good next one
    Wait what ? That doesnt even make sense. Its like saying that humans should become neutral.

  10. #110
    Its okay,
    but dont want to see another neutral race, also Panda models are bad Imo,
    female look too simmilar, and male look too fat, I dont like the race overall,
    Simply because I dont see It fit properly with the WarCraft Universe, yes there was a pandaren In WC3 ,
    but they could made them look less childish.

  11. #111
    I am Murloc! rhorle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffter View Post
    I think from a story perspective, it's very strange and implausible that they would join opposing factions of strangers they just met, and then fight against each other.
    Because that is just how Pandaren are. They can fight for a cause and don't fault people for fighting for their cause. But they can put those feelings aside when the fighting is over with and drink and be friends with the people they were just fighting. It is the whole story of Pandaria and how Pandaren culture has adapted around the Sha and how the Sha manifest in Pandaria. Pandaren aren't not pacifists they just don't hold onto emotions just for the sake of the emotion.

    It isn't that implausible or strange. Most wars in real world History have ended in the same fashion. Where the people were fighting for X reason but after they were defeated or won they did not continue to fight or hold grudges against the other side.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  12. #112
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    640
    I think they did well with how they introduced them, but should we have more neutral races in the future? I can't see this happening again, other than with the Etherals.

  13. #113
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    363
    I liked the neutral race idea. It gives both factions something, but without all the effort of balancing the racials and things that cause people to complain about faction favoritism.

    I do feel like they missed the chance to really introduce a new player to both factions before they chose. It's only the last few quests that have to do with the factions and I didn't really feel like either of them were really introduced before I was asked to pick sides (aside from perhaps the implication of the Horde as chaotic and Alliance as lawful, only by the description on the selection dialog).

  14. #114
    I really like the Pandaren as a race, as my signature would tell , heck I even have 3.

  15. #115
    I think they came out pretty brilliantly.

    And frankly, IMO we should have more bi-faction options. People of pretty every country/race, have been known to defect/switch sides. Who is to say that a tauren somewhere wouldn't be so tired of Garrosh's HAHAH LETS MAKE SHA INTO AMMUNITION FOR OUR CROSSBOWS AHAHAHA craziness that he/she wouldn't at least consider playing for the other team.

    ---------- Post added 2013-04-26 at 08:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadii View Post
    I really like the Pandaren as a race, as my signature would tell , heck I even have 3.
    Lovely signature!

  16. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrashi View Post
    Wait what ? That doesnt even make sense. Its like saying that humans should become neutral.
    Sorry for the confusion i guess. I only mentioned Tauren, because in a sense they already have some neutrality via Cenarion Circle. In my opinion there are some, but few races on each side already who could go the other way. I know opening the door for one should mean for all, but isn't there a big difference between a human going horde, and a tauren going alliance.

  17. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Whidbey View Post
    I think Pandaren were successful, but had their faults as well. Part of this has to do with not having gear that looked right on them until they got back to Pandaria. I do think though that monks failed as a class, because unlike DK's they never got them working correctly or viable enough to make people want to keep playing them.
    lolWHAT?

    Other than PvP monks are in a decent spot right now. Because monks are not omg overpowered like DKs where they are failures?

  18. #118
    The Insane Trassk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Having beers with Dorothy
    Posts
    17,849
    The problem mists of pandaria had was that it came off the back of cataclysm, what I still regard as the biggest mistake in wow's history (and yes, I was saying this during the expansion, not just after it). The devs made a lot more mistakes in cata then they did with anything right, only exceptions being things like transmog, LFR, and firelands raiding, everything else was just terrible.

    Pandaria thus had to lot to go on, a lot of things to make right. And well i think blizzard were aware of the mistakes they made in cata, what they did wrong in mists was go completely overboard in the things they lacked in cata. People had nothing to do at max level in cata, so they have LOADS of things to do in mists at max, to much infact.

    Mists, unlike cata, had all the hallmarks of a great expansions, great backdrop, good raiding, nice heroic dungeons and scenarions introduction. Its problem is just its still come off the back of cata and its mistakes, so the rebound left ripples over the water.

    Pandaren are a nice touch, but the weird thing with mists is the odd mix of cute, fluffy panda people, mixed in with the harsh elements of negative emotions and bloody warfare.

  19. #119
    I honestly was really hoping they would make a "pandaren" expansion and was really, really excited that they were. That being said, now, it seems to be a big disappointment. I honestly would not be bothered if they removed pandaria and pandas tomorrow as if they never existed.

  20. #120
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tempest Keep
    Posts
    2,807
    There no pandaren... "splinter" groups you fight... like the Defias, Burning Blade/Searing Blade, Grimtotem, Leper Gnome, etc...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •