Originally Posted by
Haven
To a degree, yes, but still this formula kind of irritates me: "you can disregard your people as you please, but just you dare touch other faction...". I can't find any other explanation why people adore characters like Wrynn and hate Sylvanas and her Forsaken.
It's like being hit first gives one a carte blanche for being a righteous avenger and slaughter anyone they deem dangerous with no repercussions to one's reputation, but striking first, even when the threat is obvious, is strictly prohibited and should be punished by everyone in the world, including neutrals.
I suppose the measure of depiction represents how much Blizzard stresses over certain things.
Well, she still succeeds despite losses. She's not a genius, but she wins war nevertheless, even without raining plague or throwing waves of cannon fodder like Scourge did.
About losses - that's war. Not every plan is brilliant, especially when enemy has plans of his own, it's not like going out and killing 50 static aimless mobs.
Though in the end, where did they truly lost? Gilneas ended up with Gilneans chased off and Alliance occupying their most elite regiment with clinging to that isolated warzone. Silverpine is purged of threats (save for maybe Ivar who is in a feud with Gilnean worgen), Hillsbrad is fully under Forsaken control, Stormpike Guard is slaughtered, Battle for Andorhal is won, but they get pushed back from Hinterlands. Overall, it looks great. For a single race, it's a tremendous progress.
And that's Blizzard's way of depicting things - after all, it's a 12+ game. Yes, I don't like it, too, I'd rather have it darker and more realistic, like in my ever beloved Witcher series, but alas.
At this point I kind of doubt that the author himself cared about such nuances.