Lore Interview with Dave Kosak

[KrazyK923]

This illustrates the bias. People highlight Alliance losses as depicted from the Horde quests (Dalaran, Azshara), but completely dismiss Alliance victories from the Horde quests (Gilneas, Silverpine). Neither of those is presented to people playing the Alliance side, but people jump all over Sunreavers being rescued and escaping. What was presented in the Alliance side of Dalaran was a victory.

First off, really? Gilneas and Silverpine? Those are considered Alliance victories? Silverpine, where the Gilneas Liberation Front invades and is pushed out entirely within the storyline of the zone with no consequences to the zone? Gilneas, where the Worgen at least regain part of their HOMELAND that the Forsaken have already largely destroyed and are still occupying parts of? Woo, those were some great victories! Silverpine you can't even count, because the outcome is "Sylvanas controls it" at the end.

And I'm not sure how you're calling Gilneas an Alliance victory when originally it was "Shits fucked up, but they finally got the Worgen under control" to "Half the zone is plaguebombed/destroyed and the Forsaken have pushed in." Even if the Forsaken were 100% pushed out it still wouldn't be a victory, because half the goddamn zone is filled with plague. Also not even mentioning that the Worgen storyline is continued during the HORDE'S Silverpine zone.

And maybe Dalaran was a victory for the Alliance. But you know what would have been great? Seeing some Alliance storylines/scenes in the game showing it as such. In 5.1, Dalaran is made to be as grey as an event as possible morally. Jaina is painted as a monster. And aftewards, Aethas escapes and the majority of the Sunreaver military forces merge into Rommath's Magi. And then the Sunreaver Onslaught is shown on EXACTLY EQUAL ground as the Kirin Tor in 5.2. Woo, such a great victory. Good thing the Kirin Tor are wrecking the Sunreaver's shit. Good thing Dalaran is flying around raining fire upon our enemies.

Varian even flat out tells you that it was a victory for the Alliance. There was nothing morally gray about Varian being mad at Jaina for screwing up peace talks. He says he can't fault her for her actions.

Woo, that's so fucking great. That really eases my anger. Its the same bullshit logic that Kosak was using during the interview. Blizzard can yell until their blue in the face that the Alliance are winning, but if they don't even try to represent it in the game then its nothing but words. Its the same logic as "WELL YOU'RE GETTING THE CONQUEROR OF ORGRIMMAR TITLE!" Its something you either can't or refuse to see. The Alliance wants to see its fucking victories represented appropriately in the goddamn game.

The morally gray part all comes from the Horde side of the quest so they'd have a justification to go in there. There was no harassing of people just going about their day in the Alliance part. There was no dangling of Sunreavers over sharks in the Alliance part. If Horde players telling you what happened on their side of the story tainted you opinion of your side, then that's your problem. Those things don't happen in the Alliance game-play.

Dude...we're playing the same fucking game. We can make Horde alts. We can see the other story. Youtube is a thing that exists. The Alliance storyline doesn't happen in a vacuum. This feeds into that same distinction I was talking about before. We're not the Alliance members in the game, we're PLAYING THE GAME. Saying somehow that we can't count the Horde's story because we don't see it as the Alliance is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard you say.

Except they got a whole fortress right next to UC.

Good thing Fenris Isle plays any significant part in any storyline whatsoever except to introduce the Southshore survivors as Worgen. You know, the majority of which you then kill and mow down their nameless Worgen soldiers the next quest.

[Deleted]

It would be nice if the Horde suffered even one setback the majority of its players cared about. Something like, I dunno, Southshore, Gilneas, Theramore, etc. You know, places people had played in for years and had good memories attached to.

Hmm.

[Aquamonkey]

Dude...we're playing the same fucking game. We can make Horde alts. We can see the other story. Youtube is a thing that exists. The Alliance storyline doesn't happen in a vacuum. This feeds into that same distinction I was talking about before. We're not the Alliance members in the game, we're PLAYING THE GAME. Saying somehow that we can't count the Horde's story because we don't see it as the Alliance is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard you say.

Its something you either can't or refuse to see. The Alliance wants to see its fucking victories represented appropriately in the goddamn game.

And that's the thing, you aren't playing it like a game. You are taking it personally like the Devs punched you in the gut and shat on your face.

[KrazyK923]

And that's the thing, you aren't playing it like a game. You are taking it personally like the Devs punched you in the gut and shat on your face.

I am? Maybe in your opinion, but you've been wrong a shitton during this thread, so that wouldn't surprise me. I can't believe you're legitimately making this argument. I enjoy both sides of the lore, but I play the Alliance. I can see both sides of the story. Its an interactive story to be sure, but it is still a story. Saying somehow that I dislike how fucking crappy one side of the story that I particularly like means I'm taking the story personally as if the devs punched me in the gut makes no sense. I want both sides of the story to be good.

It feeds into something myself and my cohosts on But Wait! There's Lore! have been talking about lately. Even the Horde players. When the Alliance are shown to be totally incompetent or nonexistent, aside from pissing off Alliance players, it makes the Horde story less impacting because its enemy is made so foolish. I like both sides of the story, I want both sides to be good. Me playing the Alliance doesn't change this in any real capacity.

[Aquamonkey]

I am? Maybe in your opinion, but you've been wrong a shitton during this thread, so that wouldn't surprise me.

"Woo, that's so fucking great. That really eases my anger. Its the same bullshit logic that Kosak was using during the interview. Blizzard can yell until their blue in the face that the Alliance are winning, but if they don't even try to represent it in the game then its nothing but words. Its the same logic as "WELL YOU'RE GETTING THE CONQUEROR OF ORGRIMMAR TITLE!" Its something you either can't or refuse to see. The Alliance wants to see its fucking victories represented appropriately in the goddamn game."

Certainly sounds like you're taking it personally.

[KrazyK923]

"Woo, that's so fucking great. That really eases my anger. Its the same bullshit logic that Kosak was using during the interview. Blizzard can yell until their blue in the face that the Alliance are winning, but if they don't even try to represent it in the game then its nothing but words. Its the same logic as "WELL YOU'RE GETTING THE CONQUEROR OF ORGRIMMAR TITLE!" Its something you either can't or refuse to see. The Alliance wants to see its fucking victories represented appropriately in the goddamn game."

Certainly sounds like you're taking it personally.

I'm taking it personally because I don't believe the pandering bullshit? Sure, that makes sense. I most definitely am not just point out the absolute ridiculousness of the argument you and Kosak are making. I'm so glad you're addressing my actual points instead of "dude, you must be butthurt, loilolololol"

Good on ya.

[Aquamonkey]

It feeds into something myself and my cohosts on But Wait! There's Lore! have been talking about lately. Even the Horde players. When the Alliance are shown to be totally incompetent or nonexistent, aside from pissing off Alliance players, it makes the Horde story less impacting because its enemy is made so foolish. I like both sides of the story, I want both sides to be good. Me playing the Alliance doesn't change this in any real capacity.

And there's players from both sides who think it's fine. Subjective tastes are subjective.

[KrazyK923]

And there's players from both sides who think it's fine. Subjective tastes are subjective.

Yeah its just a few Alliance players who are upset. Keep ignoring my actual points.

[Aquamonkey]

wrong attitude to have. Like saying last of us shouldn't have story, cause its a game.
There are studios that believe in story first or world first or maybe social first. Blizzard is gameplay first. (Source)

conquered a city but after the raid it will be a horde city again, Theramore is still a hole in the ground
If this was a single player or non-persistent game, we'd consider removing one faction's capital permanently. (Source)

Example of game mechanics needing to trump in-universe logic. AvH always going to be central theme, says Metzen.
The story is always going to serve the needs of the game, not the other way around. We understand that doesn't sit well with all. (Source)

It would be nice to know what we worked towards somthing in MoP, deposed one Horde Warmonger for another not cool.
H and A competed over the newly rediscovered continent. It ended up coming at a huge cost though. (Source)

I agree, progressive phasing would help keep the world large and alive. The world shrinks as zones become irrelevant.
That provides gameplay though. That's a different argument IMO from Alliance get Ashenvale just for a sense of victory. (Source)

[KrazyK923]

Those mean nothing.

It also demonstrates Blizzard's blatant hypocrisy since they dismiss the Alliance suggesting we get changes in the world to demonstrate victories while sticking to Theramore and saying "Oh well its just phased to be a crater." They love to use the lore excuse when to change what they want, but run away from it as fast as they can when people use it against them.

Can I also just say, they could probably add in the things that they've said the Alliance has done and that would be a start? Dalaran being Alliance? Sure'd be nice to see that. Alliance using SI:7 to establish the best way to hit at Garrosh? Sure'd be nice to see that (Mechanical cat is probably the most angering thing this expansion until Varian leaves Org.). The Alliance is more united than ever? Sure'd be nice to see that instead of Blizzard's repeated insistence that we can't siege Orgrimmar on our own and need the Rebellion.

[Deleted]

Lore is part of gameplay. Otherwise the whole idea of questing and events happening in the world is completely pointless.

"Lore serves gameplay" is a transparent excuse. It sure is easy for gameplay to mesh with lore when it comes to the Horde. There's no reason it couldn't do so for the Alliance.

[Slowpoke is a Gamer]

wrong attitude to have. Like saying last of us shouldn't have story, cause its a game.
There are studios that believe in story first or world first or maybe social first. Blizzard is gameplay first. (Source)

conquered a city but after the raid it will be a horde city again, Theramore is still a hole in the ground
If this was a single player or non-persistent game, we'd consider removing one faction's capital permanently. (Source)

Example of game mechanics needing to trump in-universe logic. AvH always going to be central theme, says Metzen.
The story is always going to serve the needs of the game, not the other way around. We understand that doesn't sit well with all. (Source)

It would be nice to know what we worked towards somthing in MoP, deposed one Horde Warmonger for another not cool.
H and A competed over the newly rediscovered continent. It ended up coming at a huge cost though. (Source)

I agree, progressive phasing would help keep the world large and alive. The world shrinks as zones become irrelevant.
That provides gameplay though. That's a different argument IMO from Alliance get Ashenvale just for a sense of victory. (Source)

Huge changes of course shouldn't happen. But I do hope there are NPCs that are gone forever after MoP. And not just Garrosh and Nazgrim. I'm talking Borc the random NPC that walks between some houses. Why is he gone? Because he was one of the Kor'kron trash mobs we killed in our quest to capture the city. I want to see the Horde hurting, like they did just experience a siege AND civil war all at once.

[jealouspirate]

Ugh, the section on the Alliance was so frustrating. Just saying "I don't get it, you're killing Garrosh!!!!" is so dense and completely ignores the concerns laid out by many thoughtful Alliance players. (Of course some Alliance complainers are unreasonable, but many aren't and this doesn't address their justified frustration)

[Aquamonkey]

I listend to the Dave Kosak interview, and its just disappointing to see that a leading dev does not understand the Alliance playerbase,

and more disappointing that he expects us Alliance playerbase to fist-pump because he said they gave fist-pumping moments (WHICH WERE NOT) to Alliance players.

Do they even read the forums at all?
Read the forums? Sure. We also send them reports of the hot topics on the forums, which oftentimes include Alliance concerns about story development.

Take feedback from the forums as design gospel and an appropriate summation of all player opinions? No. (Source)

[KrazyK923]

I'm not sure the point of your posting.

We already know Blizzard doesn't understand the problem.

[Flutterguy]

Blizzard has been pretty skillful at avoiding the inevitable conflict of Lore vs Gameplay for most of WoW's life with a few hiccups here and there. Problem is SoO makes that conflict so blatant that there's just no way they're going to get out of it 5.4 without a bruise. When you have a dev admitting that if the game were single-player and/or not a persistent world, the Horde would lose a capital in this war, then you know they didn't quite think this through well enough before giving the greenlight for this story progression.

[bufferunderrun]

Blizzard has been pretty skillful at avoiding the inevitable conflict of Lore vs Gameplay for most of WoW's life with a few hiccups here and there. Problem is SoO makes that conflict so blatant that there's just no way they're going to get out of it 5.4 without a bruise. When you have a dev admitting that if the game were single-player and/or not a persistent world, the Horde would lose a capital in this war, then you know they didn't quite think this through well enough before giving the greenlight for this story progression.

this ^^

blizzard should never ever given in to those asking "bring back the war in warcraft" opening a full out war btw alliance and horde outside the bg has brought all that shit to the fan and rised even more concerns, now they are rushing to close this and go back to old vanilla balance.

[Aquamonkey]

As for Gilneas and Silverpine, neither of these are a lasting victory so I don't get what you're talking about. Yes the Worgen do hurt Sylvannas and the Forsaken for a time, but are eventually sent back like beaten dogs to Gilneas to hide there with the 7th legion. The same 7th legion who was wiped out in Theramore and thus must've been drawn away from Gilneas. This means that currently Gilneas is either scarcely defended and rife for the plucking or under Horde control.
Which is completly ignoring the fact that giving half of the little Worgen story there is to the Horde was sickening and disgusting to no end.

The one biased here is you, a great deal so.

How about the Alliance destroying the Horde base in Darkshore? (this is in Alliance quests, btw)

Or the Horde ships at Zoram'gar Outpost that are on fire, derelict, and blocked in by Alliance ships?

Or the fortress the Alliance got right outside UC?

Or Camp Taurajo being destroyed which forced the Tauren to erect the Great Gate to protect Mulgore from the Alliance siege?

Alliance even tried to invade Orgrimmar from Azshara. Level 10 and at the gates of the Horde capital and Alliance troops are charging the city. Horde sure has a nice sense of security...

[Deleted]

It feeds into something myself and my cohosts on But Wait! There's Lore! have been talking about lately. Even the Horde players. When the Alliance are shown to be totally incompetent or nonexistent, aside from pissing off Alliance players, it makes the Horde story less impacting because its enemy is made so foolish. I like both sides of the story, I want both sides to be good. Me playing the Alliance doesn't change this in any real capacity.

Old Ivo is right - this, a hundred times. Even when I moved over to Horde with no desire to return, every in-game interaction between me and my Alliance foe has been an excruciating experience of boredom - as I was forced to wipe out division after division worth of uninspired enemies that were not threatening in the slightest. This isn't Warhammer's Empire of man, this isn't a Terran army from Starcraft - it is, however, a boring foe.

Or the fortress the Alliance got right outside UC?

As far as I remember my Forsaken playthroughs, we -as a Horde- get to wipe out the defenders as they try to make it to the shore following being exposed during reconaissance.

[Deleted]

How about the Alliance destroying the Horde base in Darkshore? (this is in Alliance quests, btw)

Or the Horde ships at Zoram'gar Outpost that are on fire, derelict, and blocked in by Alliance ships?

Or the fortress the Alliance got right outside UC?

Or Camp Taurajo being destroyed which forced the Tauren to erect the Great Gate to protect Mulgore from the Alliance siege?

Alliance even tried to invade Orgrimmar from Azshara. Level 10 and at the gates of the Horde capital and Alliance troops are charging the city. Horde sure has a nice sense of security...

Durotar is also invaded by the Alliance. It's the only starting zone that a race have to deal directly with the other faction attacks.