Why wasn't Deathwing more like Smaug?

[Soeroah]

The Deathwing in the books is a brilliant, manipulative tactician. A wonderful villain, one unlike other we've seen in the game. Wrathion comes closest.

The Deathwing in the game is...a disappointment.

[Al Gorefiend]

If they gave Deathwing a personality Cataclysm would have resonated with a lot more people.

[Icaras]

You know...mentioning Wrathion is actually a good point. Wrathion in MoP I think is actually (albeit in an antagonistic sense) how a lot of us expected Deathwing to act during cata. Better late than never I guess, lol.

[Krazzorx]

Because that is what Old Gods do. Drive you insane.

That's another problem, we never fought N'Zoth or at the very least it wasn't explained near enough. While we do fight possibly too many Old Gods, they seem to be relatively acceptable as villains by most people.

For example, if I told people that Deathwing was corrupted by N'Zoth they would've gone "who?" the vast majority of the time. At least in MoP, while we never fight Y'shaarj, they make enough references to her that average playes know who Y'shaarj is.

[rcshaggy]

He could've done it himself, but he let his minions do it instead.
If he did it himself the whole of Azeroth would be toast, and he thought the world was unimportant to him as well.

[Destinas]

Deathwing used to be affably evil (friendly chat respectful cunningly evil) but by the time of cata he's long past that point and absolutely insane and going further into it every moment.

After reading the War of the Ancients and Day of the Dragon, I was extremely disappointed by Deathwing's personality in-game. However, Ysera and Nozdormu don't have the personalities or characteristics they have in the books, either - Nozdormu moreso.

[ro9ue]

If they gave Deathwing a personality Cataclysm would have resonated with a lot more people.

I can't believe they built that sick looking human form too. Only to use it like one time in the badlands. Should've used it to be Arthas-like hitting us up in dungeons on the way to 85 and stuff.

[klaps_05]

the difference is DW is simply broken in the head, while Smaug is 1) "treasure-hoarding dragon" and 2) he suffers from the "gold disease" just like Thror

[Terridon]

Or... having read the Hobbit.

You mean to tell me there's a book made over the hobbit? o0

To OP:
Wouldn't have minded that. More burning down of the the cities he visited and BURN them, instead of leaving because "lol there be fire, i better leave" >.>

- - - Updated - - -

I can't believe they built that sick looking human form too. Only to use it like one time in the badlands. Should've used it to be Arthas-like hitting us up in dungeons on the way to 85 and stuff.

Wait. What? They made a new human form in cataclysm? I haven't noticed that. Where do i find that?

[ro9ue]

They already copied Lotr, what's the diff?

A dying Blood Elf in the Ghostlands gives a quest called Anok'suten. One of the rewards for killing this elite (a giant spider) is a one-handed sword called Stung. This is an obvious reference to Sting, which is Bilbo's sword in The Hobbit, used effectively against spiders in the book. He later gives it to Frodo in LotR.


Someone has clearly never head of the tale of Sigurd and the curse of the ring. Sigurd's uncle Fafnir turns into a treasure hoarding dragon. And the tales of Sigurd have been around for centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigurd

All of Tolkien's books are based on folklore and other stories. He has read a lot of literature, that man. While his stories are amazing, none of them are actually "original".

It's a known fact that Tolkien has based his works on folklore. If you like wikipedia as a source, here you go.

And a good "rip-off" is always better than a bad story you made up yourself. He did a great job at writing such a repertoire of books all in the same world, all interesting.

I think a game with a great story is good and all. But the main purpose of a game is to give good gameplay. Story comes second. In films and books story is a lot more important. Even though in some cases it's the action or romance or humour that you want to see. Do you want South Park to have a great story? No, you want South Park to be funny. I wouldn't say story is bad, no not at all. A good story is a plus, it's even required to a certain extent. But it's only literature where story is really important.

Allow me to quote the great poet of our day, Drake: "It ain't about who did it first, it's about who did it right."

Wait. What? They made a new human form in cataclysm? I haven't noticed that. Where do i find that?

here you go
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=46471/deathwing#.

[Okacz]

If Deathwing was as sane and smart as Smaug then Cata would be over within several days. Deathwing casually walked into stormwind and casually wrecked a part of it to pieces, which means that if he had intention to actually kill people, then he would, pretty effortlessly as well.

How was Smaug sane or smart? All he did was hoard money and get his ass kicked due to toying with his opponents. I quite liked the movie, but the dialogue between him and Bilbo seemed quite sad. Like a dragon, driven to insanity by being lonely for decades, desperately trying to communicate.

Still better than "RAAAAAWR CATACLYZM HOUR OF TWILIGHT FUCKERS" tho.

[Shinrael]

Not much of Deathwing's personality has been show in-game but if you have read Day of the Dragon and the War of the Ancients trilogy you would've known. He has a very detailed personality. His obsession with Demonic Soul is similiar to Smeagoul's with the Ring. He is also as intelligent, if not more intelligent. He captured a demon and tortured him and "spoke" with it in a similiar way to how Smaug speaks with Bilbo. Or when he saves Rhonin. It actually made Deathwing one of my favourite characters because of that. Because he had a personality. I felt that I could speak with him, were he real.

[Raven]

The Hobbit is actually a book from year 1937. And what Smaug looks like and what kind of personality he has, is all explained in the book. So no, they don't need yet to build a time machine =)

If you go just by looks i thought Smaug looked more like deathwing than the way he was portrayed in the book.

[Wildtree]

Fafnir says "hi".

Damn straight...
It puzzles me every time when I see people referring to modern fantasy, when in fact the source lies often thousands of years in the past.
Tolkiens Smaug is hardly the "original treasure hoarding dragon". Fafnir/Fafner can be called that, if any at all.
The Nibelungen Saga can be called the original source. It dates back to late 1100s early 1200s.. Which is just a tad earlier than the Thidreks Saga.

As for myself, if it wasn't for the Nibelungen saga, I would have never had a strong interest in fantasy literature. It was the first book I've read from that genre when I was around 10 years old. And what put the sauce into the awesome is that it mashes fiction with facts. That leads to how still until today, tons of people including scientists are on the hunt for this very treasure, which was - as the legend says - sunk into the Rhine river.
http://www.dw.de/treasure-hunt-on-the-rhine/a-17059710

You either believe the treasure exists, or you don't.

And to the question of the thread.... Why wasn't Deathwing like Smaug?
Because we would play LOTRO then, and not WOW.
Aside from that, "The Hobbit" was not like it's follow up LOTR a full blown fantasy work, it was/is a children's book. Peter Jackson turned it into a movie, and has all the children book typical aspects removed. Making 3 movies out of a rather small size novel means, that there's a lot of stuff added to it, to artificially inflate the story to more than there is to it.

[Argalin]

I think the OP is trying to say why couldn't Deathwing have a personality? Not one "like Smaug's", but using Smaug as an example of a dragon with a personality to say, "hey, it can be done."

Insanity doesn't have to exclude personality. Some of the most menacing villains have distinct personalities to go along with their insanity. Batman's "The Joker" is a good example. A personality makes them relatable, but then you realize how evil they are and it becomes horrifying because you were able to identify with them. Effective emotional storytelling.

[Deleted]

Cata was years ago, isn't it time to get over it already?

[enchanted]

Because blizz sucks right now with plot making/storytelling and integrating it into the game ever since cata. I'm pretty sure he's portrayed in the books more epic than in the game. In the game when did he make appearance? Like only in the beginning in some parts and then only in DS.

Afterwards Deathwing whom did we get pandas... Ok pandas didn't take part of the major plot in any of the warcraft games (except referenced in WC3) but there really wasn't a need for them to be present in warcraft lore. After being introduced to pandas, we get to chase Garrosh for the entire expansion just in the end to escape and bring WoD into our timeline, so that means all our efforts were nothing and so goes another orc centric expansion.

So to me it seems blizz is running out of ideas, and soon we will see an expansion with Kael'thas riding Onyxia after being risen by the Lich King due to someone messed up with the timelines after WoD.

[Ringthane]

Because people bitched about Arthas being EVERYWHERE so they dialed back Deathwing's appearances in-game to the point that people didn't really know who Deathwing was other than being some RAWR DRAGON.

And Arthas being everywhere in Lich King was just because people bitched that Illidan wasn't in BC enough.

[Dooney]

I think the OP is trying to say why couldn't Deathwing have a personality? Not one "like Smaug's", but using Smaug as an example of a dragon with a personality to say, "hey, it can be done."

Insanity doesn't have to exclude personality. Some of the most menacing villains have distinct personalities to go along with their insanity. Batman's "The Joker" is a good example. A personality makes them relatable, but then you realize how evil they are and it becomes horrifying because you were able to identify with them. Effective emotional storytelling.

Seemed that Blizz is more focused on its landscapes, glitches and gadgets than plot and character development. For example, think about how Blizz could have paved the way for MoP toward the end of Cata, but they are so focused on "surprising" us with what they are doing next. Many of us know that there were pandas in WoW before, but why would be care about them. I cared about a Sha????

[Elian]

Because blizz sucks right now with plot making/storytelling and integrating it into the game ever since cata. I'm pretty sure he's portrayed in the books more epic than in the game. In the game when did he make appearance? Like only in the beginning in some parts and then only in DS.

Afterwards Deathwing whom did we get pandas... Ok pandas didn't take part of the major plot in any of the warcraft games (except referenced in WC3) but there really wasn't a need for them to be present in warcraft lore. After being introduced to pandas, we get to chase Garrosh for the entire expansion just in the end to escape and bring WoD into our timeline, so that means all our efforts were nothing and so goes another orc centric expansion.

So to me it seems blizz is running out of ideas, and soon we will see an expansion with Kael'thas riding Onyxia after being risen by the Lich King due to someone messed up with the timelines after WoD.

Harrison Jones in uldum, anyone?