Opinion on Chronicle now that we see it in a different light

[Traveler Voltin]

no. it now means Blizzard can do whatever retcon they want for the rule of cool.
its pathetic.

Metzen they are ruining your baby, come save it.

[Th3Scourge]

I think it's stupid to release media that explains the background into lore, that isn't actually the background into lore because reasons. It's meant to explain to the reader the events of Azeroth and beyond from a narrative point of view. This whole thing that Chronicles is written from the Titans POV is a cop out

[Wyrt]

I never really liked the Chronicles. They over-explained and simplified so many things in WoW lore that it made things feel shallow and empty.

It being the Titan's view point helps that a bit, I guess. But I also feel kind of bad for people who bought it thinking it was the definitive lore book only to find out several years later that it's not.

[Puupi]

I have never even heard of the chronicle, which was confusing during the Blizzcon QA.

[Raisei]

First, people are hanging way too much onto the words "from titan's perspective".

Second, what exactly has been retconned that is causing this new hysteria?

Exactly this.

People are going hysteric because they are given additional info about past events and they barely know what that info is going to be yet. Our information on the Shadowlands was extremly limited up till now (and still is, we know nothing yet).

If this is about the Helmet and Frostmourne then there are all manners of holes in the very few words we know about their creation to this point and adding context to this is NOT a retcon. Besides the announcement was that we "will learn more about their creation", nothing more.
This could mean anything in the world and people are going hysteric and ballistic at Blizzard as if they had stolen their homes and murdered their children. Geezus, get a grip.

[Vakna]

The fact that chronicle cant tell you where the shadowlands came from, and never mentions Argus is proof enough that chronicle was never omnipotent

It's impossible for Chronicle to be omnipotent, in a game that is forever evolving and expanding it's stories there is always going to be some form of retcon or addition later that was never thought about during the days of writing Chronicle.

The only way you could be satisfied is if either the game completely stopped updating on release of Chronicle, or the books just never existed.

You can't compare it to a lore encyclopedia from a story like LotR that is finished and not actively continuing.

[Extrakt]

Doesn't it have stuff on Troll wars and Vrykull etc? So how is that written? By the Titans or were they written by Titanic Keepers? Sounds like a retcon to me.

[TickTickTick]

Do you like that the Titans wrote chronicle?

It wouldnt be a problem if they called it out when they released it, not when it was convinient for them and they had to come up with an excuse to their retcons. Let's face the truth here. They wanted this story to happen really badly, but Chronicles stood in the way. So they called it "potentially true, but not certainly" and called it a day.

How does this change what you think about the book?

It's non canon for me. This book was advertised as the one setting the lore in stone, correcting mistakes from the past and filling the plot holes. What they did not only reversed that, it also makes you question if the things so far belived to be canon are indeed canon, since they can change it as they want it and say the previous source wasn't accurate.

[Ianus]

Well, anyway warcraft 3 was first that established first glances of lore.. And was made by Blizzard NORTH which was autonomous dev team.. WoW was made after blizzard north seized to exist.. Blizzard that made WoW isnt same as blizzard north..

Blizzard is unable to write new lore without spitting on old lore or running circles inside old lore retconing everything .. so Chronicle became retchronicle typical blizzard

[Dastreus]

If they are going to keep retconning to be able to make more lore and expansions, they should just get on with bringing WoW to a close, and have a time skip so they can do WoW 2 so they can keep their money train going and establish a whole lot more lore in the development time.

[Raven]

But its not writen by Titans, as i understood it, its writen from Titans point of view but not writen by the Titans themself, much like the Bible is a collection of Christian texts that is the result of refinement by people who thought they were led by God to discern his teachings.

[Mehrunes]

It's nothing more than Blizzard making a flimsy excuse for their typical sloppy bullshit writing that caused them to retcon the chronicle already. Had Chronicles not been retconned, the question about whether Chronicles remain canon or not wouldn't need to have been asked in the first place.

Alot of people dont like that it was sold as a book that knew everything, but I have some counter arguments - first off, why would blizzard sell a book that knew everything about the wc lore in the past. They want to keep some things surprising for us. Secondly, if you read closely you could always tell chronicle was not 100% true. There was always some bias and stuff the Titans left out. The fact that chronicle cant tell you where the shadowlands came from, and never mentions Argus is proof enough that chronicle was never omnipotent

But we're not in the past of Warcraft so what was there to surprise us? And Chronicles didn't explain Shadowlands and the like because Blizzard didn't figure out what they want its story to be yet. That doesn't warrant "must have been the Titans" conclusion any more than pyramids existing warrants "must have been aliens" conclusion.

It’s so much better. Consistency matters, sure, but objective knowledge ruins my immersion because I’m certainly not omniscient in real life.

So do all Warcraft books ruin your immersion? Because they have an omniscient narrator.

You make it sound as though they fell for a real-estate ponzi scheme and lost their life savings instead of having bought a book.

Because either something goes all the way to a Ponzi scheme or it isn't a scam at all. Yeah, no. Blizzard retroactively made their own presentation of Chronicles false advertising.

Doesn't change anything for me, always assumed it was from the PoV of the Titans. Was surprised to find out most people didn't think it was.

And what was surprising about that given how Blizzard itself advertised it as codification of lore, the definite source for lore and even flat out likened it to the Bible in terms of its canon status? None of that even remotely hints at "lel, it's an unreliable narration of the Titans, please don't pay attention to what we've already retconned from these books".

First, people are hanging way too much onto the words "from titan's perspective".

"People are hanging way too much onto the words that changed the Chronicles into a piece of writing tainted by an unreliable narration, which stands in direct conflict with what they were advertised as." Huh, I never would have imagined that not bending over for corporations engaging in false advertising constitutes "handing too much on something".

Is it really a scam to sell a book that doesn't contain lore they hadn't written yet?

Had @Goldielocks said that this was the reason why? Not really.

You realize they write the lore as they go, right? Every bit of actual history in all of existence has been written by a biased source. Objective truth is an impossibility.

That's not even remotely close to how narration works. A book written by some omniscient narrator is the objective truth for a given imaginary setting.

Alot of it is still correct, in fact, its more interesting know because you have to read between the lines and think critically now

Yeah, no. If one has to read between the lines of Chronicles then it's not definite anything.

They wouldnt of told anyone about the pov if no one asked. You could see from the beginning that there were always things wrong or odd with chronicle.

But no one asked that. The question wasn't about the PoV of Chronicles, it was whether it's still canon or not. Which had to be asked because Blizzard already retconned parts of it. This whole "oh, but we didn't tell you the PoV before" came from Blizzard and is nothing more than a sloppy excuse for those retcons that made the question necessary.

Especially since it wasn't until at least 10 years in that continuity even became in any way relevant. Changing stuff was basically inevitable.

Except for the part where in no way, shape or form is it even remotely true. It's not like Blizzard didn't have access to the Chronicle. If for once in their life their writers spent some effort they could have checked it whenever they wanted if they had to make sure they are making a consistent story. And no matter what people flimsily valiantly excusing Blizzard's blatant horseshit want to pretend, the concept of consistency isn't some impossible dream.

And even that aside, none of what you said actually excuses Blizzard. If "changing stuff was inevitable" for some magical reason you made up, nothing forced them to present the Chronicles the way they did. Or wait, was that also "inevitable"?

[Hugnomo]

Doesn't change anything for me, always assumed it was from the PoV of the Titans. Was surprised to find out most people didn't think it was.

This. I actually like it, because it ads complexity to the story and the possibility for things to be developed from another point of view.
I still love the books and do not regret buying them at all.

[Mehrunes]

yea thatll fall on deaf ears around here.

Could have something to do with the fact that for some inexplicable reason other video games manage to keep their story straight. Huh, it's almost as if being a video game isn't mutually exclusive with being consistent. Who'd have thunk.

Some people voice genuine frustrations with an ever-evolving, ever retconned lore. It's understandable. Other people act like Blizzard broke down their front door and robbed them at gunpoint for having the audacity to change something.

Continuing your brilliant idea of how there's no range whatsoever to dishonest practices a company can engage in, eh? With some sad straw-man on top of it? What a stellar argument you got here

eh those whining ever constantly are just nuts. yea blizz has fed up before but in the end its their game. someone aptly pointed it out in another thread that all these goobers keep complaining and then go resub or rebuy, like wtf is all the complaining for then. Even for this aspect of titans and all, no one wept this much when the void lords and all were added, or titan forged vs old ods rather than titans themselves. Ive just notched it down that some of these folks just suffer from excessive depression. Blizzard could pop out a golden egg from their ass and hand deliver it to them and theyll prolly complain why it wasnt shaped like frostmourne.

So your "counter" argument against criticism of saint Blizzard is an inability to discern a new piece of lore like the addition of the Void Lords from a retcon, as well complete failure to grasp that the main problem people have with this isn't actually any retcon, but Blizzard retroactively making their own advertising of Chronicles false? Damn, it's so convincing.

[UnluckyAmateur]

Canon until proven otherwise, same old shit as usual. It helps them keep from writing themselves into holes.

[Makorus]

Releasing Chronicles was an idiotic thing that has done nothing good for the game.


Why would you release something like that before the story is over? It was literally rendered pointless the same expansion it was released in.

[Mehrunes]

It's impossible for Chronicle to be omnipotent, in a game that is forever evolving and expanding it's stories there is always going to be some form of retcon or addition later that was never thought about during the days of writing Chronicle.

Except Chronicles were never said to contain all of the lore. Blizzard said just the opposite in fact. Only that the lore it does cover is the definite canon. Blizzard adding new lore after the fact doesn't conflict with the concept of Chronicles, including it being written by an omniscient narrator, as long as it doesn't contradict what has been said in it.

[Beefhammer]

no. it now means Blizzard can do whatever retcon they want for the rule of cool.
its pathetic.

Metzen they are ruining your baby, come save it.

Metzen contradicted himself constantly because he couldn't remember half the shit he wrote.

[Dellis0991]

I bought em and now I'll a bit pissed.

[Beefhammer]

Except Chronicles were never said to contain all of the lore. Blizzard said just the opposite in fact. Only that the lore it does cover is the definite canon. Blizzard adding new lore after the fact doesn't conflict with the concept of Chronicles, including it being written by an omniscient narrator, as long as it doesn't contradict what has been said in it.

New lore is doing something similar to what Chronicles did to old lore. Give more insight and a better perspective to things that happened. Like, in game, most of our knowledge comes from inaccurate sources or sources without all the information. So Chronicles gave us a better perspective. New lore is doing a similar thing to Chronicles for new places they want to go.