Why Blizzard's Story-Telling Has Deteriorated

[alabaster jones]

For me, I'd been wanting to kill Arthas since WC3, so that was always a goal I was pushing towards through vanilla/bc/wotlk, when we finally did get to kill him, it did leave me without one of my greater goals... I like that we went after Deathwing after Arthas, but they really should have had more of a buildup (at least one more expansion, possibly a nerubian/qiraji expansion) before we could kill Deathwing, it's just not mathematically possible to be taking down one of the biggest names in the lore with every expansion, and if you do you end up with alternate universes (WoD).

[Super Kami Dende]

WoD's leveling story was great. What deterioration?

[dope_danny]

Theres only so many times Metzens corruption fetish can be used without the audience tiring of it.

I'm waiting for him to shoehorn something horrible happening to tracer or mei in overwatch so he can really cover his fetish in all the products.

[Deleted]

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.

I strongly agree with this. It is seeping into all their games and they are starting to feel hollow to me. This is most apparent in Overwatch. I bought it, played for a few days, and have never gone back. It feels wafer thin and aside from the excellent gameplay, there is nothing there for me.

WOD is a story-telling black hole. Once you find yourself going off on alternative timelines, you know you've become creatively bankrupt. Give us new characters, new heroes, new villains. Give us drama, tragedy, love and loss. Just like the movie, real story telling, and real characters are sacrificed at the altar of the spectacle. This decision limits the appeal of these things in the West. The balance needs to be right, and at the moment, I think Blizzard have it slightly wrong, particularly in WOW.

[Phantombeard]

Ultimately, the problem is that Blizzard tends to swing the pendulum to far when it comes to feedback.


In all my days alive I NEVER thought I would hear those words. Every post I've read in the last decade seems to resolve around Blizzard not hearing players voices. Who would have thunk.....

[Undeadprotoss]

Ultimately, the problem is that Blizzard tends to swing the pendulum to far when it comes to feedback.


In all my days alive I NEVER thought I would hear those words. Every post I've read in the last decade seems to resolve around Blizzard not hearing players voices. Who would have thunk.....

Yeah I strongly agree there. I think they are very sensitive to how their projects turn out, and rightfully so, because the developers, and the company as a whole, has very high standards. Sometimes swinging the pendulum far works REALLY well, like when the OG starcraft developers came out with the original conception of Starcraft but it was referred to as "Orcs in Space". They put in a lot of work and made an amazing game.

Problem is though, Blizzard doesn't suck, often times when people strongly complain about an aspect of the game that needs significant change, the developers will go to the polar opposite equivalent. Perfect example is with the MOP dailies, everybody complained (rightfully) that they were too structured. Then the developers gave almost no structure in much of the WoD content come launch. The proper response would have probably;y been to have 65% of MOP structure with 35% of WoD to spice things up. Hopefully the pendulum doe swing too far in favor of lore though, that'd be great.

[Jokubas]

The quotes in those interviews are interesting, and explains a lot. I remember Blizzard saying awhile back (around Pandaria?), that they didn't think every story should or had to be about a world-ending threat. Garrosh seemed to be an example of that at first, he was just a tyrant whose biggest danger was how he riled everyone up and destroyed the stability Thrall had worked so hard to build. But then they released that Blank Scroll story and explained that, if he wasn't stopped immediately, he would instantly win (while they also admitted that Garrosh only had a tiny fraction of the orcs supporting him, so his success should never have even been possible). The Iron Horde followed in the same trend. An army made up of duplicates of just one of the many races we have defending Azeroth? Sure, a lot of people will die before they're stopped, but stopping them should be a foregone conclusion. Then they go and make every plot about a new superweapon they've dug out that will instantly destroy the world.

After reading those quotes, I feel like some people in Blizzard might legitimately be trying to write subtler plots, but keep getting overruled at the last moment, explaining why we are getting threats that can't really threaten the world and are worth dealing with for other reasons, but then we get constant insistence that they magically can.

I disagree with the problems coming after Wrath, though. Burning Crusade was an absolute mess, not just with the draenei thing. It took until the Illidan novel to even attempt to rectify many of the events there. I'll admit, though, I think Burning Crusade's biggest problem was from growing pains. We take it for granted, but MMOs used to be different, and World of Warcraft launched with a different perspective. It wasn't intended to tell stories originally, at least not in the traditional sense. Azeroth was our world to explore, and us adventurers were dealing with local issues as we encountered them. Burning Crusade was a bridge to giving each expansion a traditional plot.

Even Wrath though, which truly had a plot, and even cutscenes, was far from perfect. Arthas' defeat was a narrative blunder. In Warcraft III, we became invested in Arthas' story, in his fall, and in all the lives he affected along the way. This was a major plot, with far reaching emotional and narrative connections. And then how is he defeated? By a guy who was missing during Arthas' fall and had no significant connection to him. Two of the characters who actually did, Jaina and Sylvanas, only got a short arc in the preceding dungeons, before promptly leaving (Sylvanas' reaction had to be addressed later in a short story). Most of the run time of the cutscene for Arthas' death was not resolution for Arthas, but about his successor, which was a plot invented at the last minute (I'm pretty sure they admitted that the Bolvar thing in particular was inspired by the fan reaction to his disapperance). For a plot that mattered so much and had taken so long to get a resolution on, it doesn't even spend a minute on that resolution, and in that time neglects to address even a fraction of what it had built up.

If I had to summarize my biggest problem with Blizzard's writing in the last decade or so, it's that it seems they're afraid to move forward. Warcraft II and III both moved on from their previous plots and grew the world. Diablo II did something similar, and left a sequel hook that would move it in a new direction. Diablo III, however, decided to soften the blow of that sequel hook in exchange for deciding that the epic, final deaths we had earned for the villains, were somehow never what was going to happen anyway. Seemingly afraid of an artifact title, which is nothing to be ashamed of, it lets you defeat the villains only to release them again in the same game. I'm not familiar with it, but from what I understand, Starcraft II does something similar, retconning the status quo shifts that the previous had left for it, just so it could retread similar plots. World of Warcraft started doing that with Wrath of the Lich King. Suddenly the Lich King is necessary to the world despite being relatively new. The Forsaken continue on with plagues and blights. We're not allowed to move on from the Scourge. Legion retcons away the weight behind Warcraft III's ending so much that, while it seems like it's supposed to be a reveal in-universe (look at Gul'dan's taunt at the Broken Shore), all the characters take it for granted (look at Khadgar's attitude at the end of Warlords).

Villains keep coming back, even after plots that were explicitly about destroying them forever, only to see a plot that parallels the original. We're not allowed to move on to the next thing anymore, to a new conflict, or a new race, or a new status quo. Even when things change, it's mostly in-name only.

[Darkulous]

I think when the old storylines got played out, the old fans were destined to hate anything that came after. That's just how it goes, especially with never-ending stories. People eventually become less interested in them. The comic industry learned long ago that rebooting a story and releasing a #1 edition on the shelf will sell far better that #250 of the old storyline. Why do you think Disney boxed up the EU? Same reasons. No matter how the story was told, people were going to eventually lose interest.

[Kickbuttmario]

No offense, and I, or someone should make a thread on this, but does anyone really fucking believe their pendulum swing bullshit reasoning??

As soon as I read that, all I could think of was basically them "lol let's have fun and go full blown on it". >_<

[Magemaer]

Agreed, OP. This makes a lot of sense.
As a company they've been trying as whole to target the elusive general public, and have, imho, taking a poor approach at that. They're taking CoD kids as a paradigm for general public, which just isn't true.
And it's not only their games. The movie itself hurt itself badly by trying to be a fast paced action movie instead of a more well paced one focused on just...telling a great story.

As others said, a good story is compelling. And it only makes the action and the epic moments more epic.

[Gadzooks]

The quotes in those interviews are interesting, and explains a lot. I remember Blizzard saying awhile back (around Pandaria?), that they didn't think every story should or had to be about a world-ending threat. Garrosh seemed to be an example of that at first, he was just a tyrant whose biggest danger was how he riled everyone up and destroyed the stability Thrall had worked so hard to build. But then they released that Blank Scroll story and explained that, if he wasn't stopped immediately, he would instantly win (while they also admitted that Garrosh only had a tiny fraction of the orcs supporting him, so his success should never have even been possible). The Iron Horde followed in the same trend. An army made up of duplicates of just one of the many races we have defending Azeroth? Sure, a lot of people will die before they're stopped, but stopping them should be a foregone conclusion. Then they go and make every plot about a new superweapon they've dug out that will instantly destroy the world.

After reading those quotes, I feel like some people in Blizzard might legitimately be trying to write subtler plots, but keep getting overruled at the last moment, explaining why we are getting threats that can't really threaten the world and are worth dealing with for other reasons, but then we get constant insistence that they magically can.

I disagree with the problems coming after Wrath, though. Burning Crusade was an absolute mess, not just with the draenei thing. It took until the Illidan novel to even attempt to rectify many of the events there. I'll admit, though, I think Burning Crusade's biggest problem was from growing pains. We take it for granted, but MMOs used to be different, and World of Warcraft launched with a different perspective. It wasn't intended to tell stories originally, at least not in the traditional sense. Azeroth was our world to explore, and us adventurers were dealing with local issues as we encountered them. Burning Crusade was a bridge to giving each expansion a traditional plot.

Even Wrath though, which truly had a plot, and even cutscenes, was far from perfect. Arthas' defeat was a narrative blunder. In Warcraft III, we became invested in Arthas' story, in his fall, and in all the lives he affected along the way. This was a major plot, with far reaching emotional and narrative connections. And then how is he defeated? By a guy who was missing during Arthas' fall and had no significant connection to him. Two of the characters who actually did, Jaina and Sylvanas, only got a short arc in the preceding dungeons, before promptly leaving (Sylvanas' reaction had to be addressed later in a short story). Most of the run time of the cutscene for Arthas' death was not resolution for Arthas, but about his successor, which was a plot invented at the last minute (I'm pretty sure they admitted that the Bolvar thing in particular was inspired by the fan reaction to his disapperance). For a plot that mattered so much and had taken so long to get a resolution on, it doesn't even spend a minute on that resolution, and in that time neglects to address even a fraction of what it had built up.

If I had to summarize my biggest problem with Blizzard's writing in the last decade or so, it's that it seems they're afraid to move forward. Warcraft II and III both moved on from their previous plots and grew the world. Diablo II did something similar, and left a sequel hook that would move it in a new direction. Diablo III, however, decided to soften the blow of that sequel hook in exchange for deciding that the epic, final deaths we had earned for the villains, were somehow never what was going to happen anyway. Seemingly afraid of an artifact title, which is nothing to be ashamed of, it lets you defeat the villains only to release them again in the same game. I'm not familiar with it, but from what I understand, Starcraft II does something similar, retconning the status quo shifts that the previous had left for it, just so it could retread similar plots. World of Warcraft started doing that with Wrath of the Lich King. Suddenly the Lich King is necessary to the world despite being relatively new. The Forsaken continue on with plagues and blights. We're not allowed to move on from the Scourge. Legion retcons away the weight behind Warcraft III's ending so much that, while it seems like it's supposed to be a reveal in-universe (look at Gul'dan's taunt at the Broken Shore), all the characters take it for granted (look at Khadgar's attitude at the end of Warlords).

Villains keep coming back, even after plots that were explicitly about destroying them forever, only to see a plot that parallels the original. We're not allowed to move on to the next thing anymore, to a new conflict, or a new race, or a new status quo. Even when things change, it's mostly in-name only.

A lot of good points here. I hope that the Chronicles project was an attempt to not only nail down the backstory of WoW, but to build a foundation for the next chapters - and building NEW characters to get invested in. They really only have Azshara left, after Legion, for old school characters that players give a damn about, unless they kill off Sylvanas as a raid boss. Metzen has his work cut out, figuring where the game goes after Legion.

[Bosen]

I think with popularity comes harsh criticism by people that truly live the games and want everything to be at the highest levels that they believe are possible but I think that being a fan distorts/alters perception sometimes,or maybe it's an ever shifting perspective.

Blizzard can't please everyone with stories told in a game that is loved by many people for many reasons. I may love a storyline that you hate. I think perception of lore quality is subjective.

[Kaljurei]

While I agree with the sentiments of people posting in this thread, I can't say I agree with all their reasoning.

Not having a coherent story made so that people can enjoy a campaign or enjoy leveling is stupid. You don't need to read the entire goddamn flavor text in the quest to know what the quest is about, because once you accept it it's more or less going to tell you what to do i.e

-> Kill that.
-> Follow and protect this guy.
-> Collect this.

So, don't tell me that quest design, or even story design was dumbed down because it slows down leveling, because it really doesn't.

And now we have the class order hall quests. Oh you got the artifact - you are now our great leader. WTF. We have Darion Mograine, who's been a death knight, and before that a paladin/warrior for god knows how long, has done awesome shit in the meantime, saved his father's soul, helped kill the Lich King etc etc and now he has to obey you, "The Deathlord", because you were able to get the Artifact? Horseshit.

And then we have warriors - yeah let's get saved by angels and Vrykuls who have had nothing to do with warriors ever. While Valhalla concept is nice and everything, none of them really do anything for you, like ever, hell even they can't leave the damn place because of the curse. Terrible storylines.

I think what they've done is maybe go about it wrong. They wanted to simplify story, but at the same time to make it somewhat interesting they had to come up with a plan to make it interesting - which was to overly glorify your character. Leader of your garrison. Leader of your class hall. Wielder of artifacts. Come on.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

It is pretty hard for them. I mean when they try something different like MoP they get a ton of shit from people for not sticking to "the norm" for WoW. Then when they go as "norm" for WoW they can with WoD they get shit for it being to plane and the same as other parts of the game. I personally thought both iterations were pretty solid story wise to be honest. It just doesn't last into the end game where it becomes mostly about grinding currency, points, and gear instead of story telling. Patches come in and sometimes extend the story but those also eventually dry up and end up just being the same thing a grinding currency, points, and gear. Story only lasts so long. Not to mention I think it suffers from the greatness that was really WC3. That game was, at the time, pretty revolutionary when it came to story telling in a video game and story in general. Once it ran out of steam like even the greatest story will they had to pivot and for the most part they got shit on for every attempt to pivot. Hard to blame them for not giving a shit after getting shit on like 3 times.

[Kaljurei]

It is pretty hard for them. I mean when they try something different like MoP they get a ton of shit from people for not sticking to "the norm" for WoW. Then when they go as "norm" for WoW they can with WoD they get shit for it being to plane and the same as other parts of the game. I personally thought both iterations were pretty solid story wise to be honest. It just doesn't last into the end game where it becomes mostly about grinding currency, points, and gear instead of story telling. Patches come in and sometimes extend the story but those also eventually dry up and end up just being the same thing a grinding currency, points, and gear. Story only lasts so long. Not to mention I think it suffers from the greatness that was really WC3. That game was, at the time, pretty revolutionary when it came to story telling in a video game and story in general. Once it ran out of steam like even the greatest story will they had to pivot and for the most part they got shit on for every attempt to pivot. Hard to blame them for not giving a shit after getting shit on like 3 times.

I find it funny that you equate "going with the norm" as to make an expansion with such a shit storyline as WoD. Like are you fucking serious? The Twisting Nether ignores multiverses. Bullshit.

[Undeadprotoss]

Agreed, OP. This makes a lot of sense.
As a company they've been trying as whole to target the elusive general public, and have, imho, taking a poor approach at that. They're taking CoD kids as a paradigm for general public, which just isn't true.
And it's not only their games. The movie itself hurt itself badly by trying to be a fast paced action movie instead of a more well paced one focused on just...telling a great story.

As others said, a good story is compelling. And it only makes the action and the epic moments more epic.

I think Blizzard makes a big deal out of making their games accessible, which isn't inherently a bad thing, but honestly, the best paradigm is to do what they did in the past, create the best game you can, and make the controls as simple as possible without losing depth. That was the case with World of Warcraft and Starcraft, both games had relatively little information to retain (3 races, 9 classes at first), yet they had sooo much depth, sacrificing that golden medium for more accessibility, even when it comes to lore, is a mistake in my mind. It's ok if not ALL players get something at first.

[Niwes]

lots of really good (and true) points in this thread. hopefully some of blizz read it.

but, at the end of the day (and as the realist i am) i believe it comes always down to

"who is my target audience ?"

if your target audience should be long-time-playing, loyal customers, a lot of whats spoken here is important then. there you NEED storytelling as an integral part of the game. but, if your target audience are short-term, quick-instant-action gamers, sub for 2-3 months and after that vanish into the dust, well, then storytelling become a very low priority on a managers/designers cost-efficient-list. and everyday another 12-16 year old kid is "born".

in my oppinion, this is the real problem, when it comes down to storytelling.

- - - Updated - - -

While I agree with the sentiments of people posting in this thread, I can't say I agree with all their reasoning.

Not having a coherent story made so that people can enjoy a campaign or enjoy leveling is stupid. You don't need to read the entire goddamn flavor text in the quest to know what the quest is about, because once you accept it it's more or less going to tell you what to do i.e

-> Kill that.
-> Follow and protect this guy.
-> Collect this.

So, don't tell me that quest design, or even story design was dumbed down because it slows down leveling, because it really doesn't.

And now we have the class order hall quests. Oh you got the artifact - you are now our great leader. WTF. We have Darion Mograine, who's been a death knight, and before that a paladin/warrior for god knows how long, has done awesome shit in the meantime, saved his father's soul, helped kill the Lich King etc etc and now he has to obey you, "The Deathlord", because you were able to get the Artifact? Horseshit.

And then we have warriors - yeah let's get saved by angels and Vrykuls who have had nothing to do with warriors ever. While Valhalla concept is nice and everything, none of them really do anything for you, like ever, hell even they can't leave the damn place because of the curse. Terrible storylines.

I think what they've done is maybe go about it wrong. They wanted to simplify story, but at the same time to make it somewhat interesting they had to come up with a plan to make it interesting - which was to overly glorify your character. Leader of your garrison. Leader of your class hall. Wielder of artifacts. Come on.

exactly that happens when one hand want to go "class fantasy" and "lore", and the other hand target to a fast-n-pace audience where gameplay>all is key. its like

designer: "hey, lets tell lore! we could *insert deep lore here"..."
manager: "ok, but tell it short! and do it fast!"
designer: "oh... ok... ehrm... so lets cut the deep and at least tell people: warriors -> vallhalla -> blah blah..."
manager: "fine."
designer sitting there after work, with a glas of whisky: "i hate that job...".

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I find it funny that you equate "going with the norm" as to make an expansion with such a shit storyline as WoD. Like are you fucking serious? The Twisting Nether ignores multiverses. Bullshit.

Here is how opinions work. You have them. Then they exsist. I know you might feel it's very important to shit on everyone else's but it kinda just makes you look like an ass. Which likely is your goal. Must be in that look at me internet fame part of your life or something.

I know and love plenty of stories that have time travel, multiverses, and being that are not affect by it for various reasons. To be frank the moment you try to base a fictional universe with orcs, elfs, magic, steam tech, and many other nonreality based things on what you sespect to be real or believable you might need to question if you took some bad drugs. Because it's all fake as shit. None of it is believable. Because it's just a story.

[Undeadprotoss]

The quotes in those interviews are interesting, and explains a lot. I remember Blizzard saying awhile back (around Pandaria?), that they didn't think every story should or had to be about a world-ending threat. Garrosh seemed to be an example of that at first, he was just a tyrant whose biggest danger was how he riled everyone up and destroyed the stability Thrall had worked so hard to build. But then they released that Blank Scroll story and explained that, if he wasn't stopped immediately, he would instantly win (while they also admitted that Garrosh only had a tiny fraction of the orcs supporting him, so his success should never have even been possible). The Iron Horde followed in the same trend. An army made up of duplicates of just one of the many races we have defending Azeroth? Sure, a lot of people will die before they're stopped, but stopping them should be a foregone conclusion. Then they go and make every plot about a new superweapon they've dug out that will instantly destroy the world.

After reading those quotes, I feel like some people in Blizzard might legitimately be trying to write subtler plots, but keep getting overruled at the last moment, explaining why we are getting threats that can't really threaten the world and are worth dealing with for other reasons, but then we get constant insistence that they magically can.

I disagree with the problems coming after Wrath, though. Burning Crusade was an absolute mess, not just with the draenei thing. It took until the Illidan novel to even attempt to rectify many of the events there. I'll admit, though, I think Burning Crusade's biggest problem was from growing pains. We take it for granted, but MMOs used to be different, and World of Warcraft launched with a different perspective. It wasn't intended to tell stories originally, at least not in the traditional sense. Azeroth was our world to explore, and us adventurers were dealing with local issues as we encountered them. Burning Crusade was a bridge to giving each expansion a traditional plot.

Even Wrath though, which truly had a plot, and even cutscenes, was far from perfect. Arthas' defeat was a narrative blunder. In Warcraft III, we became invested in Arthas' story, in his fall, and in all the lives he affected along the way. This was a major plot, with far reaching emotional and narrative connections. And then how is he defeated? By a guy who was missing during Arthas' fall and had no significant connection to him. Two of the characters who actually did, Jaina and Sylvanas, only got a short arc in the preceding dungeons, before promptly leaving (Sylvanas' reaction had to be addressed later in a short story). Most of the run time of the cutscene for Arthas' death was not resolution for Arthas, but about his successor, which was a plot invented at the last minute (I'm pretty sure they admitted that the Bolvar thing in particular was inspired by the fan reaction to his disapperance). For a plot that mattered so much and had taken so long to get a resolution on, it doesn't even spend a minute on that resolution, and in that time neglects to address even a fraction of what it had built up.

If I had to summarize my biggest problem with Blizzard's writing in the last decade or so, it's that it seems they're afraid to move forward. Warcraft II and III both moved on from their previous plots and grew the world. Diablo II did something similar, and left a sequel hook that would move it in a new direction. Diablo III, however, decided to soften the blow of that sequel hook in exchange for deciding that the epic, final deaths we had earned for the villains, were somehow never what was going to happen anyway. Seemingly afraid of an artifact title, which is nothing to be ashamed of, it lets you defeat the villains only to release them again in the same game. I'm not familiar with it, but from what I understand, Starcraft II does something similar, retconning the status quo shifts that the previous had left for it, just so it could retread similar plots. World of Warcraft started doing that with Wrath of the Lich King. Suddenly the Lich King is necessary to the world despite being relatively new. The Forsaken continue on with plagues and blights. We're not allowed to move on from the Scourge. Legion retcons away the weight behind Warcraft III's ending so much that, while it seems like it's supposed to be a reveal in-universe (look at Gul'dan's taunt at the Broken Shore), all the characters take it for granted (look at Khadgar's attitude at the end of Warlords).

Villains keep coming back, even after plots that were explicitly about destroying them forever, only to see a plot that parallels the original. We're not allowed to move on to the next thing anymore, to a new conflict, or a new race, or a new status quo. Even when things change, it's mostly in-name only.

I think WoW legitimately does suffer from some constraints due to it being an MMO, mainly the fact that its often hard for players to feasibly see the evolution of major characters because you no longer have the kinds of conversations like you did in Warcraft 3, where in some ways its almost like a written novel. However, I do think tat the lore, and the enjoyment of the game overall, could be significantly better, even though it would be hard, if Blizzard had lore and Gameplay working in tandem, as opposed to one always being placed above the other.

[Gwiez]

"There's a certain kind of very stupid person – several whom, no doubt, will be queuing up to post below this blog – who responds to critiques like this with: "Yes. But it's meant for children. Not for grown-ups." To which I'd reply, well yes – and so, originally, was The Simpsons. And so was Lord of the Rings. And so was The Railway Children. And so was Harry Potter. Do you think in any of these cases Matt Groening or JRR Tolkien or E Nesbit or JK Rowling said to themselves before setting about their endeavours: "The great thing is I can make this really rubbish because it's only for kids."

There's a certain kind of very stupid person who assumes "be wary, you may ruin the nostalgia" means "all stuff for kids is intended to be rubbish". As a person consumes more fiction, they should become a more sophisticated in their tastes. They should recognize story telling techniques, common characterizations, plot holes, etc. Often the stories that we like when we are young don't hold up years later. That's not because the creators thought, "I'm going to make rubbish". It's because they happened to make something mediocre that passed (eg: as a child I was a fan of Encyclopedia Brown stories, which are rubbish). Or they made something that was brilliant for an intended audience, but doesn't translate well for an older audience (eg: Fraggle Rock). There's movies that seem like the script was taken from someone's AD&D session, which can appeal to a 13 year old table top role player.

Blizzard makes video games. Warcraft started as a RTS game, and the story was backstory to flesh it out. There's frequently lore trainwrecks and retcons galore. The story exists to facilitate the game. It's not like the story telling has deteriorated from Gunter Grass levels to Stephenie Meyer levels.