[Spoilers] Safe Haven Cinematic

[formerShandalay]

Thrall is a Frostwolf, of course he's wearing blue. This being some hint towards the Alliance is just the same hyperbole that made people think Saurfang was going to join the Alliance and the Alliance armoured Frostwolf was some kind of hint ^^

Now if you count 'blue' as being a hint towards being more on the 'peaceful' and 'balance' side and 'red' more the 'fierce' and 'warlike' side, you may have a point that even fits with the elements that represent those things.

[Shefu]

You have no authority to tell anyone to stop complaining. If you don't want to see people complaining and disagreeing with your totally objective view that the cinematic is dope, you can make a blog dedicated to praising Blizzard to high heaven.

Do you ever read your own messages and realize how ridiculous you sound? Or are you that narcissistic into thinking that your opinions are canon? Look at how much you rage at almost everyone who's opinion you don't agree with?

If anything your reply to me is a perfect example of the point I was trying to make, Mr Complainer Pants.

[Aucald]

Again, it looked like Thrall was not going to join. The reasonable thing is to wait. Wait and see if Saurfang leaves. If not, move forward and lay a proper ambush.

It looked to me like Thrall was ruminating on it, not an outright rejection of Saurfang's entreaties. But yes, hindsight being 20/20, I probably would've waited as well. As for the ambush, it seems likely that if Thrall was on board then they'd leave together, making that less than ideal. If it wasn't then it would've been a better route.

[Shefu]

We're mad because this is yet another Horde themed cinematic, while we haven't even gotten one that focusses on the Alliance. The only one thing close was Lost Honor and that was mainly about Saurfang anyway.

Let's be honest here if this wasn't the reason, there would've been something else. There's always something for you guys to be angry over. That's how you are.

Thank God you guys have these forums. What would we ever do without your unconditional Rage?

[omeomorfismo]

We're mad because this is yet another Horde themed cinematic, while we haven't even gotten one that focusses on the Alliance. The only one thing close was Lost Honor and that was mainly about Saurfang anyway.

at least you can kill your enemies, instead to have to help them and murder your comrades

[Aucald]

Even if he was on board, given that they failed to arrive early enough to engage them solo, better to try and move faster so you can set up a proper ambush; something with traps and so. I mean the reasonable thing is that Thrall will at least want to tell Aggra instead of disappearing on her and his children before leaving so that would leave them time to chose a spot, add a few traps, get some proper cover. There are so many other options than attacking then and there when both of them were alert and when you have no cover and no advantage beyond momentary surprise.

We don't know when they arrived nor the substance of their orders, so both of us are more or less speculating. They might've just been there to spy on Thrall, and ensure he didn't feel motivated to act against Sylvanas - killing him may not have even been their mission, but rather something they decided to attempt when Saurfang showed up at his doorstep. As I said previously, hindsight is 20/20 and the assassins made a bad call - it might've been the only call they had to make, though; or its possible another call they made would've ended up the same way.

There's always a 1,001 ways a story could end up being told differently, but at the end of the day that's not the point. Thrall or Saurfang dying here was never in the cards. We know that because we already know that Thrall ends up in Orgrimmar and helps to free Baine, so of course he doesn't die in Nagrand.

[Mehrunes]

Do you ever read your own messages and realize how ridiculous you sound? Or are you that narcissistic into thinking that your opinions are canon? Look at how much you rage at almost everyone who's opinion you don't agree with?

If anything your reply to me is a perfect example of the point I was trying to make, Mr Complainer Pants.

Except I don't give a damn about your opinion, nor was your opinion the part of your amazing post that I actually addressed. And I have no idea how you got from me saying that you have no right to tell people to stop complaining to me thinking that my opinions are canon. Please, do elaborate on your train of thought here, it's simply fascinating.

[Evaddon]

Her motivation throughout this entire expansion is simply doing lolevil things for the sake of lolevil. This is perfectly in character.

I disagree, but if that's how you feel I'm not here to argue

- - - Updated - - -

His Heroes model has blue on it...

He's literally wearing the color of the Frostwolves in the cinematic lol

[Mehrunes]

I disagree, but if that's how you feel I'm not here to argue

Well, she theoretically has some deep, intricate plan that for completely moronic reasons she's even less forthcoming to her people than Illidan was in his book.

[Kralljin]

That comic Mak'Gora was Mak'gora in name only. Said blood elf paladin didn't care about the rules, didn't even listen to them and lashed out on the female orc.

He still followed the rules, like removing his body armor.

I gues she too didn't care considering she has spared him afterwards.

It is within the right of the victor to spare the loser.

All clans would be ruled by magic users with no warrior ever having a chance to challenge the rule.

First off, Shaman were the only spellcasters within orcish society up until Gul'dan.

Second, it is entirely possible that not every Shaman wanted to rule the clan, simply because they could beat the chieftain, doesn't mean they want.
Not like Mak'gora for leadership is declared on a whim, if the Shaman overall agrees with the leadership of a chieftain, why challenge him?

Like, going by the looks of things, Mak'goras, at least if they're declared for a leadership position, are done because the challenger fundamentally disagrees with the leadership of the challenged - not just because they could beat them.

The advice of a Shaman was already on the level of a chieftain in a lot of clans, then why risk your neck and rob the clan of a potentially fine leader simply because you want to put the "crown" on your head?

Lastly, not every Shaman is by default on Thrall level that throws around deadly lightning bolts within seconds or just call upon the earth to immobilze opponents.
If you take too much time to call upon even rather simple spells, you lose your head against a decent warrior, that simple.

[Aucald]

But again, how this could turn out was not really the topic. What I said is that having something stupid happen just to move the plot forward is bad writing. What these two assassins did qualifies as stupid because there are numerous scenarios that are actually reasonable and this is the least rational response to their situation. They are just a plot device. Good writing uses characters, not plot devices.

Good writing uses both characters, plot devices, settings, and believable circumstances. I'm still not sure how anything related here is either unrealistic or bad writing? When they attack might not change anything, their numbers might not change anything, and it's possible that even attacking Thrall or Saurfang along would ended up in their deaths. What, exactly, is "stupid" about it? They tried to quickly dispatch both their targets and they failed to do so. It still feels like trying to find fault for fault's sake.

[Powerogue]

Reading thru 14 pages of comments here.......honestly it feels like a lot of you simply live to complain. Like that's what you guys like to do at this point in your life.

Complain about BFA, WoW, cinematics, movies, shows....complain complain complain....

Just fucking stop.

Cinematic is dope af, if you think otherwise....wtf r u still doing here?

I don't know why I even come to the lore forums anymore. Even when something good happens, it's bad, because everything is gone into with this "I don't know what this is, but I hate it by default because it's part of BFA which I've already long decided to hate."

The cinematics have all been incredible. Some of the best Blizzard have ever done. But this one does leave me confused as to where the loyalist subfaction is headed, since obviously that section of the playerbase can't simply be killed off. We continue to see parallels with the MOP storyline, but it simply can't end the exact same way due to that player choice.

Will we simply have player choice totally forfeited at the very end, like my pandaren handing over Xal'atath? That would be extremely disappointing if so, and I would most certainly join the BFA hate train full force. I could compare such an outcome to my playthrough of The Walking Dead Season 2, where I spent the entire game trying to encourage Sarah to do something useful, holding out for my cumulative choices to matter, and they didn't and she dies anyway, with the game seemingly hammering into my head "the choices you are trying to make are wrong" with every bit of symbolism possible.

[MikeBogina]

Maybe it's Lelouch story with zombies. Dat creativity!

After reading the leaks to how GoT ends, it reminded me of the Lelouch ending aswell

[Evaddon]

Well, she theoretically has some deep, intricate plan that for completely moronic reasons she's even less forthcoming to her people than Illidan was in his book.

Its the case of not being able to see from her perspective like a single character driven narrative would be able to properly portray.
But what I'm referring to is her actions taken against the Alliance, Baine, Saurfang and even War of Thorns and Battle for Lordaeron. I've understood that. The "lolevil" and "mustache twirling" memes aren't really accurate in my book, yet anyway.

Her endgame now? That's unknown to the player with only subtle hints and random dialogue we as players get to observe. But we miss key things, which hurts the story we get to see develop,until we can see the full picture.

[Walross]

It still feels like trying to find fault for fault's sake.

Basically the Warcraft fandom since at least Warcraft III.

[Fetus Rex]

He still followed the rules, like removing his body armor.



It is within the right of the victor to spare the loser.



First off, Shaman were the only spellcasters within orcish society up until Gul'dan.

Second, it is entirely possible that not every Shaman wanted to rule the clan, simply because they could beat the chieftain, doesn't mean they want.
Not like Mak'gora for leadership is declared on a whim, if the Shaman overall agrees with the leadership of a chieftain, why challenge him?

Like, going by the looks of things, Mak'goras, at least if they're declared for a leadership position, are done because the challenger fundamentally disagrees with the leadership of the challenged - not just because they could beat them.

The advice of a Shaman was already on the level of a chieftain in a lot of clans, then why risk your neck and rob the clan of a potentially fine leader simply because you want to put the "crown" on your head?

Lastly, not every Shaman is by default on Thrall level that throws around deadly lightning bolts within seconds or just call upon the earth to immobilze opponents.
If you take too much time to call upon even rather simple spells, you lose your head against a decent warrior, that simple.

I guess it is the only thing he heard considering the rest.

It was on Alternate Universe.


And? Ahh not every shaman wanted to rule the clan. What is it, explanation for 10 years old? Of all shamans at least one would want to challenge a chief and gain clan for himself.

Why? To have absolute power over all things clan related. Ambitions are a thing. In realistic setting those with means usually use them.

I'm sure all of them can cast a basic zap, enough to kill a warrior. If there is no rule against magic then shaman can start summoning spell long before fight.

And then again there is a matter of elements being an actual entities, not very fair.

[Aucald]

I don't know why I even come to the lore forums anymore. Even when something good happens, it's bad, because everything is gone into with this "I don't know what this is, but I hate it by default because it's part of BFA which I've already long decided to hate."

The cinematics have all been incredible. Some of the best Blizzard have ever done. But this one does leave me confused as to where the loyalist subfaction is headed, since obviously that section of the playerbase can't simply be killed off. We continue to see parallels with the MOP storyline, but it simply can't end the exact same way due to that player choice.

Will we simply have player choice totally forfeited at the very end, like my pandaren handing over Xal'atath? That would be extremely disappointing if so, and I would most certainly join the BFA hate train full force.

From an external vantage point, it seems like the goal is to get Sylvanas to cross a proverbial Rubicon that will cause the vast majority of her supporters and loyalists to abandon ship - either joining N'Zoth completely, betraying the Horde completely for her own power, etc. etc. I don't know if there actually is a line she could cross that is so brazen that it would make her lose all support - I don't think Blizzard fully understands the nature of the Horde playerbase, either; and especially not those who ardently support Sylvanas as a character.

But there will come a crux where an ultimate trajectory is decided, and beyond that point the concept of choice (such as it is) will be closed. The story can only continue in one direction, after all.

[Minikin]

In before....nvm too late for the "no alliance cinematic wtf?!"

And also

sHe iS tOtAlLy nOT eViL GaIz

- - - Updated - - -

Re: Draenor or Outland.

Did you watch the cinematic? This long shot makes it very clear.

What do you mean?! That totally doesn't look like oshgun and obviously those floating docks are just clouds!!! /S

On topic: I'm guessing he didn't go to Draenor cuz of yrel.

[Jastall]

Meh I'm out. If you think that what happened makes sense under scrutiny, you are free to do so. I will still think it belongs in a Michael Bay movie.

I think it's a questionable turn of events that only makes some sense if you assume several things; for example, that the rogues did not have initial orders to kill Thrall but to spy on him (which is why there were only two of them and they didn't attack Thrall or Saurfang beforehand) and that Saurfang is way better at staying hidden than he looks, because what kind of Rogue that can turn invisible mid-battle manages to be followed by a green dude in bright red armor twice his height in a field with nowhere to hide?

Spectacle came before substance here, and I doubt the assassins will be mentioned again as they're a plot device to make Thrall take an important life decision within a four minute cinematic instead of hours of explanations and arguing. So it doesn't bug me that much even if it is indeed sloppy, but at least nobody truly acts out of character so it's a step up from most of the BFA faction war plotline.

[Sondrelk]

I don't know why I even come to the lore forums anymore. Even when something good happens, it's bad, because everything is gone into with this "I don't know what this is, but I hate it by default because it's part of BFA which I've already long decided to hate."

The cinematics have all been incredible. Some of the best Blizzard have ever done. But this one does leave me confused as to where the loyalist subfaction is headed, since obviously that section of the playerbase can't simply be killed off. We continue to see parallels with the MOP storyline, but it simply can't end the exact same way due to that player choice.

Will we simply have player choice totally forfeited at the very end, like my pandaren handing over Xal'atath? That would be extremely disappointing if so, and I would most certainly join the BFA hate train full force. I could compare such an outcome to my playthrough of The Walking Dead Season 2, where I spent the entire game trying to encourage Sarah to do something useful, holding out for my cumulative choices to matter, and they didn't and she dies anyway, with the game seemingly hammering into my head "the choices you are trying to make are wrong" with every bit of symbolism possible.

While i agree with you that the Forums is a toxic cesspool of complaints and whining, i am going to briefly adress some legitimate problems with your line of thinking here.

Firstly, the cinematics, while certainly well animated, have also been entirely Horde focused, specifically Saurfang, meaning half the playerbase gets little to nothing out of them, making them bad uses of dev time on that front.

The main problem with player choice though is that fact that they decided to try it out, paradoxically. By giving a nod to alternate narrative paths, Blizz is making an implicit promise to follow up with it, and they had to have known that it was simply not feasible, there is no concievable way the Loyalist questline will ever get a satisfying conclusion, the best those who chose it for legitimate wishes for it to eb the true path is a weak attempt at a story hook taking the shape of Sylvanas saying something like "Though i disappear, i will call upon you again" and even that would completely undermine the characters story going forward.

In short, while suspension of disbelief is necessary, and a vital cornerstone in Warcraft "Shut-off your brain and enjoy" storytelling (And i call it that with all the best meanings) pretending to have a branching narrative path when you know only 1 of them can have an actual ending is pretty awful writing.