Will you trust the word of Blizz execs in future lore discussions?

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

Most of the nonsense that gets said about this topic never happened.
It starts as an out of context comment and balloons into a blanket statement about everything possible.

All you should be focused on is the actual writing.
If you are worried about what others are telling you to think about the writing, you don't really have the proper investment to complain about it being bad or good.

[Daedius]

One of the main reasons why I stopped playing WoW was due to how shaddy the company has become.

That, and when I lost millions of gold from expired AH'ings in mail.

[Carolus Rex]

Which made the Garrosh 2.0 outcome all the more predictable. At least Garrosh could be granted the benefit of the doubt in the beginning.

It was predictable, but it still ended up being different. Of course Garrosh could be granted the benefit of the doubt, and Sylvanas not, Sylvanas was evil since Warcraft 3.

[Triceron]

I think a logical problem with it though is that like I said before, you can't just go blabbing about your plans with everyone. You also have to factor in Sylvanas/illidan's personality which is very "We do this my way, no exceptions" and it comes across as extremely heavy-handed which can be a good or bad thing if you consider making the act convincing. Illidan's story was absolutely flip floppy but this current sylvanas storyline follows the same trend but it has the advantage of being planned out since Legion.

Yes but if you give the audience nothing redeeming about this character, you aren't creating a tragic anti-hero, you're creating an asshole villain. The ends do not justify the means, and we've been given nothing redeeming to see from Sylvanas' point of view. Even if there is some plot twist that resolves it all, we're not going to empathize with her since we're given a strict bias of her as a villain through the course of an entire expansion. That's the difference.

If Blizzard is 'keeping things secret' and we're expected to care about Sylvanas at all, then we need to see at least some redeeming value. And simply said, there is none. To the point where we're even given a comic about how she wants to kill her sisters. 'I'm saving everyone by killing them and having them serve death" is not a sympathetic reason that will redeem her character.

As for the Azshara bit, she clearly opposes N'zoth more than anyone but like previously mentioned, she didn't want to lose everything so she took the deal for the moment. She literally has an in with N'zoth and they both want his ugly ass off Azeroth.

The Tree while it still comes across as her throwing a tantrum because an elf talks shit. Bring up the novel all you want, you shouldn't have to read outside material to make up for poor story telling in game. Imagine in Age of Ultron instead of tony making it clear that he made ultron to protect humanity, he just makes it on a dime and its only explained later in a spin off comic. That's shitty storytelling but i'm getting off track though.

And derek she ressurected purely to have a mole in the alliance, that's pretty obvious considering she says it herself (iirc).

Yet none of this would make her character redeemed at all. Siding with a villain and ressurecting your enemy's family member for the sake of information is not a gold star in her book. It's against the Horde concept of Honor, and her actions are downright evil. Consider that she had the upper hand in taking Teldrassil; she didn't have to burn it with all the citizens still there. That is a massacre, not an act of war. Even if it's very clearly plotted, it's a dick move at best, and has no redeeming values whatsoever. You don't need to massacre enemy civilians to protect your own people.

It comes down to what her actions are. You can have a main character kill someone and be painted as a bad guy, only to later explain that dead person was actually a bad guy and the main character was doing it in self defense or to protect others. But if the main character kills them then defiles their body, you don't really have a sympathetic main character any more.

[UnluckyAmateur]

Yes but if you give the audience nothing redeeming about this character, you aren't creating a tragic anti-hero, you're creating an asshole villain. The ends do not justify the means, and we've been given nothing redeeming to see from Sylvanas' point of view. Even if there is some plot twist that resolves it all, we're not going to empathize with her since we're given a strict bias of her as a villain through the course of an entire expansion. That's the difference.

If Blizzard is 'keeping things secret' and we're expected to care about Sylvanas at all, then we need to see at least some redeeming value. And simply said, there is none. To the point where we're even given a comic about how she wants to kill her sisters. 'I'm saving everyone by killing them and having them serve death" is not a sympathetic reason that will redeem her character.



Yet none of this would make her character redeemed at all. Siding with a villain and ressurecting your enemy's family member for the sake of information is not a gold star in her book. It's against the Horde concept of Honor, and her actions are downright evil. Consider that she had the upper hand in taking Teldrassil; she didn't have to burn it with all the citizens still there. That is a massacre, not an act of war. Even if it's very clearly plotted, it's a dick move at best, and has no redeeming values whatsoever. You don't need to massacre enemy civilians to protect your own people.

It comes down to what her actions are. You can have a main character kill someone and be painted as a bad guy, only to later explain that dead person was actually a bad guy and the main character was doing it in self defense or to protect others. But if the main character kills them then defiles their body, you don't really have a sympathetic main character any more.

How does having a redeeming quality somehow determine whether or not she has a plan to handle the old gods? I don't see the relation. If she serves death and like we've seen, more souls = more power, its fair to assume that having everyone die would make whoever Bwonsomdi's boss strong enough to spank the old gods out of existence.

The war, is completely irrelevant as we've all seen but for some reason, no one can see beyond the surface level insulting nature of "You're all nothing" when compared to cosmic horrors.

[Casperite]

I never trusted them to begin with, and rightfully so. The writers are so full of themselves and how awesome their story is that they are actually surprised when people don't like it.

I doubt they are surprised at all that the small handful of people that complain about literally everything on MMO-C didnt like their story. They probably laugh about it, I know I do.

[Triceron]

How does having a redeeming quality somehow determine whether or not she has a plan to handle the old gods? I don't see the relation. If she serves death and like we've seen, more souls = more power, its fair to assume that having everyone die would make whoever Bwonsomdi's boss strong enough to spank the old gods out of existence.

Hmm, I guess you're talking about something else entirely then. At which point I'm not sure why you were replying to me, since I was specifically talking about Sylvanas' character portrayal as not having any redeeming motivations that the audience can relate to. Her actions are purely to serve an evil purpose, and from a story point of view, it only makes sense in that context. So yes, if you're just talking about the story making sense, it completely does as long as you recognize her as a villain from the very start.

The war, is completely irrelevant as we've all seen but for some reason, no one can see beyond the surface level insulting nature of "You're all nothing" when compared to cosmic horrors.

Which is the exact point I made earlier. She's Illidan 2.0, but as a pure villain rather than an anti-hero. And as bad as Illidan's writing was in TBC, at least they kept his character fairly intact throughout the story. While Sylvanas is supposed to be a manipulator, Blizzard's writers broke some rules by having her manipulate and lie to the audience. I don't think it's fair to the audience to ever trust her character after this.

[Sangris]

I doubt they are surprised at all that the small handful of people that complain about literally everything on MMO-C didnt like their story. They probably laugh about it, I know I do.

Ah yes, because expecting the least bit of consistency and logic in a story is too demanding. How dare people complain when these things are missing. But you're right. The expectations for their writing is way too high. I'll try to do better in the future and expect even less.

[Saltysquidoon]

Most of the nonsense that gets said about this topic never happened.
It starts as an out of context comment and balloons into a blanket statement about everything possible.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/world-of-wa...lvanas-garrosh

“We’re super excited with where it’s going to go, and I can just say that we’re not going to do to Sylvanas what happened with Garrosh,”

This quote from a producer 100% confirmed never happened and if it did happen I must be using it out of context because papa Blizz (who is also a small indie company plz no bully) would never lie.

Please ignore the fact it is being posted in a thread responding to a cinematic where orgrimmar is sieged... by a combined force of the alliance and the horde... resulting in the ouster of a genocidal dictator who is in some way intending on using an old gods power... that instigated a war by an unprovoked first strike resulting the destruction of a city causing mass civilian deaths.
But I mean like it was a cinematic, not a raid and sylvanas team rocket blasted off to either go Kerrigan 2.0 or full moustache twirler and that's different enough for me to ignore all the weirdly specific similarities that took place before.

[Rozz]

In terms of confirmations? Yes

For future plans? No. I would not trust that the words of an exec from 5 months ago, would accurately describe what their project became in the present.

Their Intent? Yes, I actually like to where the vision started to evolve or shift.

Describing the story? No, it's usually cringey and out of touch anyways. Reminds me of when Metzen would describe everything in a rule of cool "HOOHAAH" way. It made me roll my eyes.

[TheFirstOnes]

"The war, is completely irrelevant as we've all seen but for some reason, no one can see beyond the surface level insulting nature of "You're all nothing" when compared to cosmic horrors."

We literally just defeated the Burning Legion last expansion...

[shadowmatrix]

Which is the exact point I made earlier. She's Illidan 2.0, but as a pure villain rather than an anti-hero. And as bad as Illidan's writing was in TBC, at least they kept his character fairly intact throughout the story. While Sylvanas is supposed to be a manipulator, Blizzard's writers broke some rules by having her manipulate and lie to the audience. I don't think it's fair to the audience to ever trust her character after this.

There is no rule requiring the audience to be in on the joke, on the contrary most people would rather be left in the dark. It is one of the reasons people came to enjoy Game of Thrones books so much, never knowing what was around the corner.

[Nzx]

How can we draw conclusions to a story arc that isn't finished yet? We still don't know what is really going on, we only got a new piece to the puzzle. Sylvannas is an incredibly morally grey character.

You answered this entire thread on the first page, but because it's MMOC you can guarantee it's gonna go on for ten more with people who don't even play the game complaining about how "garbage" the storyline is without even seeing the final act.

I'd love to see what some of these people think of other stories. Maybe the first two books of LOTR and call that story resolved, or the first four Harry Potter books. Perhaps two thirds of a TV drama, or two thirds of a movie heroes' journey, where they never see the actual resolution to the character development. Never change, angry children. Never change.

[SirKickBan]

As fickle as it can be, Word of God is still a staple we should bank on when discussing lore, otherwise anything goes.

The issue, though, is when they tell us something 'out of character', as the developers, that then fails to manifest in the story.

I remember being told we'd get to see how Drek'thar lost his eyes / sight, during the Blizzcon preceding Warlords of Draenor, for instance, which... We never did. There have been other examples since then, but the most relevant now seems to have begun with them telling us we'd be left guessing about who really burned Teldrassil down, or something closely along those lines, which.. -We absolutely were not. -And then it went on into the infamous 'morally gray' territory, and we're left in a state where we're wondering if we can trust what we're told 'out of character' by the developers about their story and lore. I mean, hell... There are even parts of Chronicles (Small parts, granted, but even so.. -That was supposed to be the definitive lore book) that they've already retconned.

Maybe other people feel differently, but while none of that has to be inherently bad (Skipping out on showing us Drek'thar's story isn't a huge deal, it's just a missed opportunity), it creates expectations that they then fail to meet, which can be absolutely disastrous when the expectation we're being given is "There's going to be this amazing, world-changing event and it's going to be a compelling mystery for you all", and that then falls completely flat. It creates a sense of being 'tricked', or 'strung along' by the developers, and is another handful of straws on an already laden back.

You answered this entire thread on the first page, but because it's MMOC you can guarantee it's gonna go on for ten more with people who don't even play the game complaining about how "garbage" the storyline is without even seeing the final act.

I'd love to see what some of these people think of other stories. Maybe the first two books of LOTR and call that story resolved, or the first four Harry Potter books. Perhaps two thirds of a TV drama, or two thirds of a movie heroes' journey, where they never see the actual resolution to the character development. Never change, angry children. Never change.

Each of the LOTR books had their own compelling, involved storyline with highs, lows, and character motivations that made sense in the moment, without needing the promise of some giant revelation to come at the very end that would make it all satisfying. The hero's journey, as well, is a structure that's designed, sensibly, to continue to provide a sense of rising drama and continual character growth towards a satisfying climax, as opposed to a series of nonsensical actions resulting in a final act that exists only to justify what came before.

One could argue, in fact, that a story that relies on such a twist is an incredibly weak one, as well, as it's intentionally creating a feeling of dissatisfaction in the audience for the majority of its narrative. Even if at the end they go 'Oh. Well, I guess that all made sense in hindsight', that story still left them dissatisfied for the majority of the time they spent with your product.

Raymond Chandler once said that a good detective story was one you would read even if the last page were missing, and it doesn't seem like a far stretch to apply that to any other brand of mystery, or indeed, most forms of entertainment.

Would BfA's story be worth reading, if its last page were missing?

[Nzx]

Would BfA's story be worth reading, if its last page were missing?

Yes, if you don't have your "blizzard sucks" blinders on.

People are complaining that BFA's story sucks because of what has come before it (eg Garrosh) but when you tell them to consider what comes after the current beat of the story, that's impossible. Every patch so far in BFA has had a reasonable storyline (blood trolls/g'huun/MOTHER in Uldir, Bwonsamdi/Talanji/Jaina in 8.1, Naz'jatar/Azshara/Alliance+Horde in 8.2) which have all been mostly contained to their particular patches, while the Sylvanas arc has been ongoing since Legion, let alone BFA, and hasn't been wound up yet. What you're saying is like watching a single episode of a procedural drama and assuming that the entire season's story arc has already been told, when it hasn't.

People are expecting The Wire levels of writing from a totally different medium and it's ridiculous. All anyone does is complain, and then once they get bored of complaining about the story they waddle along and start complaining about something else, because they don't actually want to be satisfied, they just want to shit on things because it makes them feel better.

[Tiwack]

OP you'll have to either elaborate or provide more examples dude. It's hard to judge without the full picture, you know..

[Saltysquidoon]

What you're saying is like watching a single episode of a procedural drama and assuming that the entire season's story arc has already been told, when it hasn't.

Facetiousness aside. What's more likely, blizzard did a pretty bog standard villain story, got datamined too early, shat their pants at the community backlash and lied to secure those juicy juicy unit sales.
Or their handling of what you yourself call a multi expansion arc is actually a masterful 7D chess, galaxy brain bait and switch where the final patch will reveal a twist so jaw droppingly amazing it will change the face of writing forever.

People are expecting The Wire levels of writing from a totally different medium and it's ridiculous. All anyone does is complain, and then once they get bored of complaining about the story they waddle along and start complaining about something else, because they don't actually want to be satisfied, they just want to shit on things because it makes them feel better.

Notwithstanding the accidental use of a police procedural example which is opposed to your point immediately above it. The argument that everyone who thinks that if blizzard says one thing then does the exact opposite of that thing they said they were going to do it somehow a 'hater' who will never be satisfied (and by implication their arguments are in bad faith and need not be addressed) is a fundamental lack of actually engaging meaningfully with the conversation.

[Triceron]

There is no rule requiring the audience to be in on the joke, on the contrary most people would rather be left in the dark. It is one of the reasons people came to enjoy Game of Thrones books so much, never knowing what was around the corner.

You are right, they don't need to be in on it. And thats why everyone is mad, and have the right to be mad, because the joke wasn't funny.

[therealstegblob]

No. She isn't. At most you can describe her as chaotic evil. But she is not neutral or grey by a longshot.

She's relatively morally grey.

If you can formulate a moral argument both for and against someone doing something, then it is morally grey as there is no right or wrong answer clearly defined from any other answer. If a character's entire moral backbone is comprised of a highly morally grey struggle (Like Orgrim Doomhammer, who is by far one of the most morally grey characters in the entire canon) then you have a character who is morally grey.

Sylvanas is selfish but you could make a moral argument that she's merely looking out for herself because she knows what will happen when she dies. She hasn't done anything incredibly evil as of yet, or anything for the sake of causing pointless harm to others. Even the burning of Teldrassil was to destroy a powerful military and logistical base of her most pressing enemy. This is what sets her apart from, say, the Lich King who just wants to kill everyone to rule them and be an edgy death lord and stuff.

Of course they're leaning her more and more towards either a boring Garrosh retread (as stupid and predictable as that would be) or some dumb galaxy-tier chess player who is somehow outwitting the void. Neither are good paths, but I'm not exactly defending the quality of the writing.

[Budong]

Look, its incredibly obvious that "shades of gray" was a bald-faced lie. But how does that impact future lore videos and discussions from the writers and devs? Will you place your trust in their word in the future? Or is their word no longer currency to you?

The only thing incredibly obvious is the fact that you make conclusions based on partial information.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right, they don't need to be in on it. And thats why everyone is mad, and have the right to be mad, because the joke wasn't funny.

Apparently not everyone. Do you usually make blanket generalizations about groups of people with no statistical proof?