"We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
I actually liked the story.
Plus. This is a videogame, not a book. Mild drama is enough. And they know it, why spend more money on something that already sells?
Depends on if you think humanity is defined by having nipples. Most of the WoW races have nipples, as do all mammals in real life - so the operant question would be if having nipples makes your dog human?
I would imagine the Jailer was humanoid in life, if it was ever alive - and its current state is a case of residual self-image, basically it holding on to the form it recognizes itself as having albeit with some alterations over time.
"We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
What's with everyone here being a revisionist in here? How the fuck is a guy killing civilians before they turn into zombies, him stabbing his father in the hearth, to him travelling all the way to Northrend where he's cursed to stick in ice for the remaining... what 10 years?
How exactly is that a saturday morning cartoon.
What the fuck is it with posters in here trying their best to install a revision that wasn't even fucking there.
I'd like to know what kind of fucking cartoons you all watched as a kid on a saturday morning.
- - - Updated - - -
Garbage comparison but okay.
It is what happens when the team that develops the lore is biased and does not know it very well.
Your reaction is the typical knee-jerk reaction to viewpoints you can't relate to. I've seen it so many times, accusing the other party of nostalgia is the biggest cope by some modern WoW players. You don't see what the other person sees, so instead of putting in the effort to understand, the lazy route is taken instead and you chalk it up to nostalgia.
Last edited by Edward Wu; 2021-03-02 at 01:15 PM.
Nowhere in my post did I ever state that it once had great writing or anything. I just want writing that is more mature and isn't one-dimensional Saturday morning cackling nonsense. Apparently this is great writing to you, but it's actually just very average.
My standards really aren't very high, and even average storytelling can be very enjoyable for me, problem is we aren't even close to average anymore. The writing team blows.
I'd say this is ANYTHING but one dimensional Saturday morning cartoon villain shit. https://www.wowhead.com/item=183742/...ration-preface Also, what's so 1 dimensional about Sargeras' story? or Garrosh? Or even Illidan or Sylvanas? Like, come on bro.
Also, "mature"? Damn, cannot wait for us to get fucked after the Sanctum of Domination raid, and you're still here randomly arguing that "OH NO! THIS GAME ISN'T MATURE ENOUGH HURR!" Did you forget about the SL shorts? The dark nature of the Maw? How fucked the Broken Shore was? Seriously?
Sure, WC3 story was no Shakespeare !@#$ or anything like that, but it was at least serviceable, and more importantly, it made sense. On the other hand, BC, a lot of Cata and all of WoD and BfA was either a disjointed mess or the adventures of the Mary Sue du jour - and little else. And frankly SL doesn't look a lot better (so far).
"but it's actually just very average."
"problem is we aren't even close to average anymore. The writing team blows."
Oh, so you're not only wrong. But you're also dishonest, and in the very same post as well. Nice.
- - - Updated - - -
Who's a mary sue? Don't say Sylvanas, cause we literally have in lore reasoning as to why she's as powerful as she is. Also, she's lost multiple times, so you're wrong either way. Cata made sense, so idk what you're on about. WoD's story was fine. And BFA's was good for the narrative it wrote. You just don't like that N'Zoth was rushed, which I get.
TBC, I only agree with cause Blizzard didn't know wtf to do with it story-wise.