WoW’s “feel” of the world.

[Ameonna]

"Undone" has a lot of meanings depending on the context. There's undone as a thing, as you said, complete destruction. There's undone in the sense of an organized, controlled force - which would be true, without a controlling Lich King. There's also undone in the sense that Ner'zhul considers himself "the Scourge" in the form of the royal "we," as in "I will be undone, and I am the Scourge." Even back when I played WC3: TFT, I don't think I thought this would mean the Scourge would just dissolve if the Lich King was killed - I thought they'd be freed, and then they'd react in any number of ways to that freedom (some of them, of course, would likely go mad). It works either way, really.

You kinda sound like people who argue that the word "destroy" dont mean "destroy" but defeat...

In any cases, i can bring up other breaking rules points if you want, like the demons deaths being a problem since WoD.

I consider the lore as a cohesive whole, with "future" lore supplying context and color to previous lore. WoW is an ongoing story, there's no real sense in segregating lore into isolated segments, nor does it supply context as it actively removes it.

If you take the lore like this, then the writer never make mistakes since they can always correct them with later materials...To me it is more fair to considere the lore as a shifting thing but to keep a track of what was added over the years and always considere the older materials to know when the writers did mistakes.

If you only see the lore your way, over time you simply forget the old materials.

[Le Conceptuel]

The race war is the point of the game. The clash between different factions of visually and culturally distinct groups. Every aspect of the game and of the RTS pushes into that direction. Even when the RTS resolved the Horde and Alliance conflict by effectively writing humans and orcs out of the plot it did so having standbys in the form of the Night Elves and Undead who's internal and external conflicts took center stage in TFT.

In retrospect, perhaps it would have been more suitable to frame the conflict from the get-go as being between the Forsaken and the Alliance, and the Night Elves and the Horde; that the Horde even sought to return to the Eastern Kingdoms at all feels strange to me, given that they had no relevant conflict with the Scourge after WarCraft III. While the Night Elves had a strong moral justification to involve themselves on account of their interest in preserving nature, the Horde really had no stake in that conflict at all.

Alternatively, perhaps it may have been better if the divide between the factions was framed differently between the Eastern Kingdoms and Kalimdor. Perhaps the branches of the Alliance and the Horde in the Eastern Kingdoms would've consisted of their more violent, less placid incarnations through a reactionary Stormwind and some remnants of the Eastern Kingdoms' Horde clans, unwilling to end the war but also opposed to Demonic influence. Meanwhile, Kalimdor could have remained wholly separated from the faction war, with the primary object of the undertakings there being colonization, with the internal moral conflict coming more from any number of enjoyable travesties that emerge from taking what's rightfully yours from those stupid upstarts who "owned it first" and "live there already".

Trying to backtrack from the natural distinctions of the game and from the point (violence) that every mechanic points towards is a large part of why near every prominent character right now is a palette-swapped neutral good nice dude who's main values are about how no matter what happens you should be smiling.

One thing I've always felt is that there's plenty of value to having characters who are, by all rights, neutral good agents of sincere benevolence. My own understanding is that there exists some kind of inherent value to benevolence, and it's only made more profound by the presence of evil; this is precisely why I think the hegemony of unequivocally benign characters wholly devoid of negative traits beyond occasional self-doubt is so frustrating. In the absolute absence of evil or adversity,—most critically evil or adversity that challenges the foundation of the aforementioned quality of benevolence,—it is difficult to portray mercy and heroism with any value. The present portrayal of our main cast is defined strict moral adherence which consistently goes almost entirely unchallenged because the villains they face are typically wholly devoid of sufficient character or justification to force them to agonize over their beliefs. There is no value to their virtues if it's impossible to tell if they would hold up under pressure, as the only time that we have recently seen our protagonists' values actually put to the test in any capacity was in Shadowlands with Anduin and Sylvanas' moral conflict, and there was still nothing that could potentially tempt Anduin or make him reconsider his approach to morality because there was absolutely no benefit in willingly subjecting himself to subjugation to an unequivocally-evil bald man.

Similarly, the absence of conflict between heroes preempts any kind of compelling war story produced from a setting wholly defined by war; without grayscale conflicts featuring good and evil on both sides, you can hardly find the conflicts that render wars between nations tragic. How are we supposed to take a war seriously where every half-decent person on one side will invariably defect? There is no conflict over what's the "right" side, or if either faction is actually justified in their undertakings. The values of the Horde and Alliance are difficult to weigh against one another precisely because there is no difference left between their values insofar as Anduin's aureate shadow looms.

it was deliberately about rekindling that war by placing Garrosh and Varian at center stage and having the factions at large fight rather than just keeping it to local conflict.

To tie together both of my prior observations, I think the absence of internal faction schisms contributed significantly to their loss of friction. It would be perfectly easy to sell the golden children of each faction working together in perfect harmony under a certain set of overlapping subfactions, whereas the more jingoistic subfactions within the geopolitical powers could carry further conflict. Initially, that manifested through Varian and Garrosh, and their cognate subfactions. Now, I think it manifests through Tyrande (Turalyon, to a lesser extent, but he's always struck me as fairly reasonable, so I expect him to instead "bridge the gap" between the warmongering and dovish factions of the Alliance) and Geya'rah, and their cognate subfactions. There is hope to rekindle it,—especially because harmony within the factions can now be compromised on account of the weakening of faction barriers, and thus of the absolute nature of the factions,—but that is wholly contingent on Blizzard having any motivation to do so.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I'm not even talking about the Jailer. The Lich King entity is a multi-faceted thing. When Arthas joined he became the "prime" face of the entity, but it's not like he was the same Arthas. He was almost wholly corrupted by it and followed its original purposes (but reigned it back to some extent).

Bolvar absolutely was corrupted. What do you think the entire Legion deal was? It's not like regular Bolvar Fordragon was out there encouraging the slaughter of red dragons and plotting questionable tyrant bids. He had a stronger will than Arthas and was able to keep himself relatively neutrally aligned, but he still very much got pulled towards the general will and morality of the entity.

Arthas was able to send the scourge to do scourge beneficial things. "Go jump en masse into lava for no reason" is a very different order from "take this strategic location at any cost". One is in direct conflict with the prerogative of the Lich King entity, the other is wholly in line with it.

The lichking was a two faceted (arguably three) there was Ner’zhul and arthas’s (and arthas), by the time arthas awoke Ner’zul was gone and when we killed arthas he was gone leaving only Bolvar (pre SL).

I went ahead and even checked chronicles and and while it’s not really an excuse for what they did in wrath as it’s years down the line it does show that they weren't going for influence left in the Helm and instead it was just Bolvar not being ok every necromancy and having trouble coming to terms with it making it hard to override Arthas’s general order.

At best in legion we can say he was going insane because he still couldn’t come to terms with it if we want to go off the chronicles version or it was the jailer if we want to go off SL, both are kinds irrelevant to the wrath version where neither were ever hinted at.

[Jastall]

It's not about killing the protagonist, it's about making the villains believable or just not annoyingly stupid/clumsy/etc.

I'd love to cite some examples off the top of my head, but that's hard on the spot...but the point is that it's not particularly fun or engaging writing to say, "Oh no! Look! The good guys are losing! Isn't that dramaaaatic!? But wait, now the bad guy will choose to stop winning! What a twist!"

Basically, it's much more fun when it's written such that the protagonists win by doing something, rather than the antagonist doing nothing or doing something painfully stupid. (Some allowances given for when it outlines a meaningful character flaw in the antagonist, but that's rarely written for shit.)

That's been a WoW staple since forever tho. In TBC Illidan stuns the raid and monologues instead of finishing the job then Maiev rescues us. Arthas famously decided to never kill us, instead monologuing for an entire expansion in the name of a harebrained scheme to have us kill his whole army then slay and raise us so that we could command his whole army. Deathwing in Cata burned a couple places and then was literally AFK until it was time for us to collect his loot. Garrosh had the tendencies of a Bond villain and fictional Hitler rolled into one. I'm sure I could cite multiple other examples from earlier eras. Some examples make a bit more sense, like Azshara luring us into her palace so the Heart could be used to free N'zoth, yet even then one has to ask why simply killing us and taking the thing wasn't an option.

Warcraft only had edge in places for the entirety of its lifespan. TBC had the gruesome Path to Glory alongside quests where you sift through poop and an ending that's all about being friends in the face of the big red demon man, to say nothing of some blue dragon's puzzling love (?) story with the sentient energies of a well.

We've had the literally same conversations in Pandaria where of course being Kung Fu Panda meant the game was for kids and not Warcraft and rrrruined and whatnot. Then Blizzard overcorrected with the SAVAGE and BADASS and COOL WoD and it was just shit.

[Aucald]

You kinda sound like people who argue that the word "destroy" dont mean "destroy" but defeat...

In any cases, i can bring up other breaking rules points if you want, like the demons deaths being a problem since WoD.

"Destroy" is a bit more final than "undone," IMO - but words are reliant on context and shared understanding to have meaning. How demons work and the way they resurrect is a series of retcons, though; that's pretty much undeniable. They've changed or tweaked that aspect of demons several times now (usually for the worst).

If you take the lore like this, then the writer never make mistakes since they can always correct them with later materials...To me it is more fair to considere the lore as a shifting thing but to keep a track of what was added over the years and always considere the older materials to know when the writers did mistakes.

If you only see the lore your way, over time you simply forget the old materials.

Not really, no. A "mistake" in the form of a retcon simply means that the older version of the lore has been superseded and replaced by a new one - this is something that happens all the time in serialized fiction, especially in cases where the story is both long-running or changes hands (both of which happen all the time with WoW). The idea that lore is or could ever be inerrant is, in my view, kind of foolish - anything managed by people is going to get messed up at some point, it's unavoidable and happens to even the best of us. But that doesn't mean you can throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water, either; saying "Lore version X is the only version of the lore I accept, and all future lore is heretofore inconsequential to me." The story moves on, and new lore trumps older lore where inconsistencies are concerned.

This is not to say you have to "forget" the old lore, or that the mistakes don't matter, but simply that as a living document you go with the current and most recent versions as essential canon, up to and including how it informs older storylines.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

And really, do you think Ner'zhul or Arthas did not try hard to conquer the world with the Scourge? You clearly cant claim that they were less efficient that scourge with no lich king, its just not how it work.

Technically even in wrath only Ner’zhul wanted to take over the world atleast directly. Arthas was trying to prove a point and only after that did he want to take over and trying to prove that point is what got him killed when frostmourn was shattered.

- - - Updated - - -

The Lich King could never directly control the entire scourge, he could just suggest to them. And keep them under general control. He could command them to "defend icecrown" but not "kill yourselves"
He could only directly control undead in close proximity, this has been stated since the original warcraft games. Literally why arthas has to retreat, and the undead of eastern kingdoms were able to break free, they felt the suggestion of the Lich king but we're able to free themselves of it.

You don’t need to control the entire scourge directly to thin them you could do it over time taking command of small groups directly like we see in the Arthas novel when Ner’Zhul dirrctly controls arthas at parts.

It would take time but would be possible to get if all those still bound to the crown.

[Le Conceptuel]

"Destroy" is a bit more final than "undone," IMO - but words are reliant on context and shared understanding to have meaning. How demons work and the way they resurrect is a series of retcons, though; that's pretty much undeniable. They've changed or tweaked that aspect of demons several times now (usually for the worst).

I'm of the mind you're both thinking too much about this. "Undone" could retroactively be interpreted as meaning that the Lich King's objectives for the Scourge would be undone, with a rampant Scourge hardly really constituting something comparable to the order the Lich King sought to institute.

Either way, I prefer to take a somewhat neutral position on the matter of the "there must always be a Lich King" bit: on one hand, it's an ass pull with no prior foreshadowing which exists solely to keep the office of the Lich King intact. Conversely, it was also a much-needed ass pull to preserve a prominent symbol of the setting, which was unfortunately squandered when Danny needed to wank Sylvanas so he wouldn't have to kill her off after the rapey guy decided he wanted to set a tree on fire without a game plan.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Bolvar as soon as he dons the Helm. His later characterization in Legion when he sends a DK PC to raise a Red Dragon as a mount, and comments that the DK's soul is "empty, like his." In BfA he threatens the PC with death for trespassing on his domain. Needless to say, his personality is quite different from that of the living, breathing Bolvar Fordragon.

in wrath and all prior lore this just isn’t a thing, in chronicles it isn’t a thing, this only becomes a thing in SL. In legion you can say he’s going insane as chronicles points to, in wrath there is just no justification.

It appeared like he was his own master, sure; and when it came to maneuvering against the Legion controlling him he had full license to act - why not, after all, since that served the Jailer's goals as well. The Jailer himself says his control wasn't perfect, thus viewing the progressive Lich Kings as failures from his perspective, but he definitely seemed to have a degree of sway over them. Arthas' words on losing the Helm seem to convey that, too; asking if the ordeal was over showing that wearing the Helm was no picnic (and now we know why that was).

the jailer wasn't even an idea in wrath so him retroactively put into the narrative doesn’t justify there choices in wrath.

I don't think Shadowlands really rings in any substantive changes to how the Helm functions, but rather illustrates the why and also fills in the gaps. Since the Helm was destroyed in the same instant the role of the Jailer was largely unveiled means we'll never know what the Helm might've been able to do absent his continual influence on its wearer.

shadowlands just doesn’t line up with any of the pre or post chronicles lore on the helm, every thing in SL about it is a massive retcon.

[Aucald]

in wrath and all prior lore this just isn’t a thing, in chronicles it isn’t a thing, this only becomes a thing in SL. In legion you can say he’s going insane as chronicles points to, in wrath there is just no justification.

I'm referring to the scene in WotLK, which actually essentially closes out the story of WotLK, where Bolvar dons the Helm and his voice takes on the customary reverb of the Lich King, and then he begins booming at Tirion and the PC to "leave this place and never return" in a rather threatening manner he didn't have at all prior to donning it. I guess you could say it's a difference of opinion as to whether that constitutes a change in behavior, but I definitely remember a sense of foreboding as soon as it happened and thinking that Bolvar could become as bad as Arthas was over time. YMMV, of course.

the jailer want even an idea in wrath so him retroactively put into the narrative doesn’t justify there choices in wrath.

No, but his retroactive role as it concerns WotLK definitely gives additional context and explanation as to some of the events of WotLK, nonetheless. There was, in my view, always a sense of "there's more to this" to the Helm and the Lich King - which is why the topic remained discussed and debated well after the Ligh King's arc largely closed in WotLK.

shadowlands just doesn’t line up with any of the pre or post chronicles lore on the helm, every thing in SL about it is a massive retcon.

Chronicle basically has no lore on the Helm outside of what was already known at the time - the Helm was made by the Legion, given to Ner'zhul, and allowed him to psychically control the undead. Nothing about that lore was changed by Shadowlands, either; we just learned that the demons in the Legion got their knowledge of the Helm from "elsewhere," and that they weren't as loyal to the Legion as previously thought. Again, nothing of that really changes the nature of the Helm - it just adds to its backstory.

[Ameonna]

"Destroy" is a bit more final than "undone," IMO - but words are reliant on context and shared understanding to have meaning. How demons work and the way they resurrect is a series of retcons, though; that's pretty much undeniable. They've changed or tweaked that aspect of demons several times now (usually for the worst).

Its the example i should have used from the start (sadly did not think of it back then) but the demon resurection system is a very good example of "breaking the rules of your universe" because they so much so wanted to retcon it that you have countless contradicting informations EVEN IN THE SAME PATCH which makes it a biiig mess.

Such a big mess that they finally said that "we are allowed to speculate" on how it work ><

I'm of the mind you're both thinking too much about this. "Undone" could retroactively be interpreted as meaning that the Lich King's objectives for the Scourge would be undone, with a rampant Scourge hardly really constituting something comparable to the order the Lich King sought to institute.

Either way, I prefer to take a somewhat neutral position on the matter of the "there must always be a Lich King" bit: on one hand, it's an ass pull with no prior foreshadowing which exists solely to keep the office of the Lich King intact. Conversely, it was also a much-needed ass pull to preserve a prominent symbol of the setting, which was unfortunately squandered when Danny needed to wank Sylvanas so he wouldn't have to kill her off after the rapey guy decided he wanted to set a tree on fire without a game plan.

Well, lets be fair and not do such a wtich hunt, because even if you remove Danuser from the picture, you must admit that the Lich King (Bolvar) and therefore the scourge was not being used since 10y....so yes they kept the Lich King and the scourge but what exactly they did with it? Nothing...so at this point it woudl have been better to just end it in Wrath because if you considere what played out, how the Lich King was used in the end (even without Danuser influence) it was still bad. Not to forget an important point is that Shadowlands was NOT Danuser full expacs, it was still (as he said) made with what was left of the plans left by previous writters.

About the "tree being on fire without any plans" i think you are being a bit dishonest here, it is like if i said that the writers had no plans when they made Garrosh blow up Theramore. Because its kinda the same.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm referring to the scene in WotLK, which actually essentially closes out the story of WotLK, where Bolvar dons the Helm and his voice takes on the customary reverb of the Lich King, and then he begins booming at Tirion and the PC to "leave this place and never return" in a rather threatening manner he didn't have at all prior to donning it. I guess you could say it's a difference of opinion as to whether that constitutes a change in behavior, but I definitely remember a sense of foreboding as soon as it happened and thinking that Bolvar could become as bad as Arthas was over time. YMMV, of course.

Because the voice was actually Ner'zhul, i recall that in chronnicles they dont say that Ner'zhul is dea,d they say that his soul was reduced to a glimps that arthas simply pout at the back of his head/thoughts.

Ner'zhul was still linked to the Helm he did not "die" when Arthas beaten him, you can even see him in Legion during the artefact questline

[Aucald]

Its the example i should have used from the start (sadly did not think of it back then) but the demon resurection system is a very good example of "breaking the rules of your universe" because they so much so wanted to retcon it that you have countless contradicting informations EVEN IN THE SAME PATCH which makes it a biiig mess.

Such a big mess that they finally said that "we are allowed to speculate" on how it work ><

I think the main issue with the demon thing is that they never really codified it to begin with and it was always handled inconsistently, leading up to its handling in Legion which was, as you said, completely bungled and retconned multiple times in the same story. I think the biggest incident of "breaking your own rules" was actually done in WoD as concerns alternate timeways or timelines, which had the unintended side-effect of making the Legion both transcendent and fundamentally infinite but also making its goal manifestly impossible as every act spawned new, permanent timelines they would have to destroy in order to effectively complete their Burning Crusade to destroy all life. Thankfully they addressed and closed this issue with another retcon in Chronicle Vol. 3, but for all of WoD it actively bugged me discussing the story.

Danuser did a sort of miniature version of that in Shadowlands with souls, too; and suffice it to say it's one of those aspects of WoW you've got to actively ignore or else you get recurring headaches.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I'm referring to the scene in WotLK, which actually essentially closes out the story of WotLK, where Bolvar dons the Helm and his voice takes on the customary reverb of the Lich King, and then he begins booming at Tirion and the PC to "leave this place and never return" in a rather threatening manner he didn't have at all prior to donning it. I guess you could say it's a difference of opinion as to whether that constitutes a change in behavior, but I definitely remember a sense of foreboding as soon as it happened and thinking that Bolvar could become as bad as Arthas was over time. YMMV, of course.

I mean Bolvar tells them to say the lichking is dead and that no one should ever know he’s up there which every one agrees to keep a secret he wasn’t by any means threading any one as we had a follow up story of sylvanas later going back and him doing nothing.

Chronicle basically has no lore on the Helm outside of what was already known at the time - the Helm was made by the Legion, given to Ner'zhul, and allowed him to psychically control the undead. Nothing about that lore was changed by Shadowlands, either; we just learned that the demons in the Legion got their knowledge of the Helm from "elsewhere," and that they weren't as loyal to the Legion as previously thought. Again, nothing of that really changes the nature of the Helm - it just adds to its backstory.

there are like 5-8 pages on the helm and it’s function with things like it grows in power with the more kinds under its command and that it cuts the user off from the light ect.

Things that are directly at odds with the SL are things like domination magic being part of it when that wasn’t a thing or more on point Bolvar faltering because of his sense of necromancy being at odds with Justice when really it was the jailer all along.

[Aucald]

Because the voice was actually Ner'zhul, i recall that in chronnicles they dont say that Ner'zhul is dea,d they say that his soul was reduced to a glimps that arthas simply pout at the back of his head/thoughts.

Ner'zhul was still linked to the Helm he did not "die" when Arthas beaten him, you can even see him in Legion during the artefact questline

What we see in Legion is just the Echo of Ner'zhul, essentially a memory of the events of his existence within the Helm, but not really a sapient and/or willful aspect of him. Pretty sure in the CDev interviews they confirm that Ner'zhul was completely and finally dead when Arthas' psychically deposed him during WotLK, which is why we later encounter him in the Shadowlands being punished for his "failure" by the Jailer (and he implies he's been there a long, long time).

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Because the voice was actually Ner'zhul, i recall that in chronnicles they dont say that Ner'zhul is dea,d they say that his soul was reduced to a glimps that arthas simply pout at the back of his head/thoughts.

Ner'zhul was still linked to the Helm he did not "die" when Arthas beaten him, you can even see him in Legion during the artefact questline

Chronicles says arthas and Ner’zhul fought in his body and then Arthas shattered his soul leaving nothing but a screaming fragment in the back of his mind, Bolvar taking up the crown has no mention of Ner’zhul.

The artifact quest is also in frostmourn not the helm so it seems likely what ever was left of him went into the blade.

[Aucald]

I mean Bolvar tells them to say the lichking is dead and that no one should ever know he’s up there which every one agrees to keep a secret he wasn’t by any means threading any one as we had a follow up story of sylvanas later going back and him doing nothing.

The implicit threat is in what he says: "Leave this place and never return." That's not really the courteous or polite way to phrase saying "goodbye" to someone, especially the people who saved you from torment or were your friends. His not carrying through with said implied threat isn't really germane in the sense that his issuing it in the first place was out of character for Bolvar as a person in that context.

there are like 5-8 pages on the helm and it’s function with things like it grows in power with the more kinds under its command and that it cuts the user off from the light ect.

Things that are directly at odds with the SL are things like domination magic being part of it when that wasn’t a thing or more on point Bolvar faltering because of his sense of necromancy being at odds with Justice when really it was the jailer all along.

Why is any of that "at odds" with the Shadowlands story? Domination magic is pretty much a graduated form of Necromancy, created by the same individual who pioneered both forms of magic, the Primus of Maldraxxus. It'd make sense that both forms of magic are inimical to the Light given what they do, as both of them belong to the primordial sphere of Death.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

The implicit threat is in what he says: "Leave this place and never return." That's not really the courteous or polite way to phrase saying "goodbye" to someone, especially the people who saved you from torment or were your friends. His not carrying through with said implied threat isn't really germane in the sense that his issuing it in the first place was out of character for Bolvar as a person in that context.

dude was burned alive/dead tortured and then damns his self to controlling abunch of ravening undead, I think going through all of that he can get a pass on not giving a polite good bye without it being a threat.

Why is any of that "at odds" with the Shadowlands story? Domination magic is pretty much a graduated form of Necromancy, created by the same individual who pioneered both forms of magic, the Primus of Maldraxxus. It'd make sense that both forms of magic are inimical to the Light given what they do, as both of them belong to the primordial sphere of Death.

there at odds because there retcons.

Domination magic wasn’t a thing at all let alone one the helm used and we know exactly why Bolvar was having issues and it had nothing to do with outside influences it was his own morals and views getting in his way his own strong will being at odds with necromancy not that will being subverted.

[Aucald]

dude was burned alive/dead tortured and then damns his self to controlling abunch of ravening undead, I think going through all of that he can get a pass on not giving a polite good bye without it being a threat.

Except up until that point he was more or less cordial and even thankful, even after being tortured.

there at odds because there retcons.

Domination magic wasn’t a thing at all let alone one the helm used and we know exactly why Bolvar was having issues and it had nothing to do with outside influences it was his own morals and views getting in his way his own strong will being at odds with necromancy not that will being subverted.

You keep saying "retcons," but what retcons? We never knew what power the Helm used aside from its control over the undead, which it didn't create directly by the by - most of the Scourge were created through the Plague, the Helm just allowed the Lich King to control them by "expanding his mind" somehow, granting him psychic power over the undead. That psychic power turned out to be the magic of Domination, for which the Helm was named (an early hint it turned out). Necromancy and Domination essentially go hand in glove, only now do we know the actual origin of the Helm's unique powers. But that knowledge and extended backstory don't change the Helm in any way - hence, no retcon, no change to the story that was, etc.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Except up until that point he was more or less cordial and even thankful, even after being tortured.

you and I must have saw vastly different cinematic’s if you think any of this is cordial or thankful.

You keep saying "retcons," but what retcons? We never knew what power the Helm used aside from its control over the undead, which it didn't create directly by the by - most of the Scourge were created through the Plague, the Helm just allowed the Lich King to control them by "expanding his mind" somehow, granting him psychic power over the undead. That psychic power turned out to be the magic of Domination, for which the Helm was named (an early hint it turned out). Necromancy and Domination essentially go hand in glove, only now do we know the actual origin of the Helm's unique powers. But that knowledge and extended backstory don't change the Helm in any way - hence, no retcon, no change to the story that was, etc.

Just go back to the Bolvar page I linked.

Bolvar’s will wasn’t being subverted.

The power to control undead was necromantic not from domination.

And while not on that page, the power it self came form KJ not the jailer or the dread lords, all the Dread lords did was provide armour meant to trap Ner’zhul.

[Berkilak]

I was flying through the Waking Shores today, and I had a sudden feeling of nostalgia. More specifically, of recognizing a place as a place, not a gameplay arena. It felt like the Barrens or Desolace - two places that stick out in my mind as notable experiences in exploration.

Dragonflight gave me a glimmer of that. Other expansions have as well, but I haven’t had those moments since Cataclysm. They’re doing something right.

[Khaza-R]

For me, the current game feels less like WarCraft and more like someone's homebrewed D&D campaign set in the same setting. It just feels inauthentic.

I think part of this is finally burning through all the loose ends from Legion -> Shadowlands without properly setting up anything to take its place. Nothing wrong with moving to a more macroscopic setting, but it doesn't work when the writers just make it up as they go along.

Its like a DM who doesn't plan and improvises everything. Sure they might be able to make some fun story beats here and there, but the whole of the narrative experience will likely suffer from being aimless. Characters will lack proper motivations and players will feel like they are never working towards something measurable.