Do you think the writers are "incompetent"?

[Feanoro]

I'll make whatever comparisons I choose to, and yes, I know the story and the reasons why the Valar don't intercede. I'm saying that this kind of second-guessing of the narrative itself is ultimately pointless - the same way choosing to sit on your ass and not answer the call to adventure in a fantasy context is pointless.

Then if you must, you might want to choose examples that don't shoot your point down. For anyone who hasn't read the Silmarillion and The History of Middle-earth, the Valar did not intervene specifically because their overwhelming power risked far greater harm than good. The last time they directly acted against Morgoth, Sauron's master, they sank half a continent. Tolkien explicitly points this out and that they DID act by sending the Wizards. Trying to claim they sat on their duffs is completely ignoring that.

Meanwhile, there is exactly zero reason beyond But Thou Must! that we don't just kill the warlocks powering the portal. Sure, "choosing to sit on your ass and not answer the call to adventure in a fantasy context is pointless". No problem there. The problem is that the Dark Portal event only works if the PC is a complete moron and Khadgar too.

"Hi, I'm Khadgar, I was deeply involved with the events of WC1 and 2, know damn well who Gul'dan is, know damn well how Dark Portals work, but screw it, I'm not going to bother dealing personally with shutting down this Dark Portal." Hey, the portal is being created by channeling power through these warlocks, who are canonically anathema to everyone else. Let's just let them go their merry way. A slight tweak such that we accidentally freed them would have been worlds better, something like a booby trap laid by the Iron Horde, since they were expecting us.

Your defense of the Dark Portal events in WoD revolves around speculation. "Maybe they didn't know", "maybe they thought those people might be different", and maybe pure speculation with nothing to back it.

- - - Updated - - -

Dont expect to be taken seriously then.

Why not?

For the same reason that you don't compare Mozart and Justin Beiber.

Sure, Tolkien has errors and inconsistencies, largely due to two things:
1) Writing over years if not decades.
2) Perfectionism such that he'd be unhappy with something and revise it.

When he realized he'd made errors, he either corrected them or created something better, such two of Glorfindel leading to an entire structure of how Elves could reincarnate.

Trying to list such errors is nothing more than deflection from your flawed comparison. The Valar had explicitly spelled out reasons not to intervene directly and did so indirectly. We had exactly no reason whatsoever not to kill Gul'dan while he was a portal conduit.

[Verdugo]

I never said you didnt??

To me thats just so fucking cringe. Why not spend your time on something you like instead?

Short memory? Cant wait for your backtracking "I didnt mean you of course!!!".

[Tylanthia]

I think WoW has had many moments of brilliance and memorable quest lines/characters. I'm thinking of stuff like Suramar, Runas, Wrathgate, the original Lillian Voss quests, Thomas Zelling, Crusader Bridenbrad, Ga'nar in frostfire ridge, the culmination of Jade Forest, Yrel in Shadowmoon Valley, etc. However, in general, I don't think WoW's writing has even been consistently good and it has a tendency to ruin good characters whose stories are really kind of done by re-introducing them after ignoring them for a while. Inevitably since the writers are different, it never ends up very good. For example, I think Warcraft III had a good story and many good characters . But most of its main cast honestly peaked during it (Thrall, Jaina, Tyande, Malfurion,--pretty much the whole cast IMO other than Arthas) and probably shouldn't have appeared in WoW beyond cameos. When it comes to original characters--like say Garrosh--I think they often end up such a muddled mess of who Blizzard wants them to be--that I feel like "that could have been a good character) by the end of it. I guess, in general, I think WoW is much better at setting than story/characters.

[Aucald]

Then if you must, you might want to choose examples that don't shoot your point down. For anyone who hasn't read the Silmarillion and The History of Middle-earth, the Valar did not intervene specifically because their overwhelming power risked far greater harm than good. The last time they directly acted against Morgoth, Sauron's master, they sank half a continent. Tolkien explicitly points this out and that they DID act by sending the Wizards. Trying to claim they sat on their duffs is completely ignoring that.

As I said, I know the reason. But if the Valar *had* acted, and sank Middle Earth, the story would be just as over and done with in any case - so that's really not out of scope relative to what I was talking about. Yeah, it'd be a short and pretty shitty story, wouldn't it? Sending the Wizards was also tantamount to doing nothing considering only one of them actually aided directly in the fight against Sauron, and while one of them just sat it out and the other three apparently aided Sauron. Big help there.

Meanwhile, there is exactly zero reason beyond But Thou Must! that we don't just kill the warlocks powering the portal. Sure, "choosing to sit on your ass and not answer the call to adventure in a fantasy context is pointless". No problem there. The problem is that the Dark Portal event only works if the PC is a complete moron and Khadgar too.

Their capture by the runestones seems to make them unable to be effected by outside magic or forces, probably so that they or their underlings couldn't free them surreptitiously. We free them to stop their power from being drained to power the Dark Portal, and they immediately power out. The Dark Portal event works fine on its own, because we weren't in control of what was going on and had few choices in the matter - were we supposed to take on both the Iron Horde *and* the newly freed Shadow Council, since we weren't able to kill them while effectively shielded? Sounds like a losing proposition.

"Hi, I'm Khadgar, I was deeply involved with the events of WC1 and 2, know damn well who Gul'dan is, know damn well how Dark Portals work, but screw it, I'm not going to bother dealing personally with shutting down this Dark Portal." Hey, the portal is being created by channeling power through these warlocks, who are canonically anathema to everyone else. Let's just let them go their merry way. A slight tweak such that we accidentally freed them would have been worlds better, something like a booby trap laid by the Iron Horde, since they were expecting us.

MU Draenor != AU Draenor, and Khadgar and co. knew that going in. He'd never met the original Teron'gor as an Orc, only encountering him as the Death Knight Teron Gorefiend, and while he would know Cho'gall and Gul'dan from his experiences in the First and Second Wars, he was still on a world that wasn't the same as the one he'd previously encountered (he'd never been on Draenor proper before, after all, only Outland). Khadgar also thought Gul'dan was the one doing the channeling to keep the Portal open, not that he and his minions were the unwilling captives of the Iron Horde - in order to stop the process the machine had to be broken, which reflexively freed them. As I said previously, killing them may not have even been an option as the system was feeding on souls, that well could've killed everyone there when the Dark Portal overloaded and possibly detonated. Hell, it may have even take Azeroth with it as imploding giant portals never herald anything good in the Warcraft universe. Khadgar knew that, as well.

Your defense of the Dark Portal events in WoD revolves around speculation. "Maybe they didn't know", "maybe they thought those people might be different", and maybe pure speculation with nothing to back it.

All speculation based on facts and elements of the story we do know, though. The ultimate rationale is that that's the way the story was written, both to give an intro to WoD's cast of characters and given them a voice within the introduction. As opposed to unnecessary cynicism about the nature of fantastical stories, I find it more appealing to actually accept the story at face-value and judge it on its merits within the story, as opposed to grousing about things that didn't or couldn't happen, or characters not making perfect decisions or actions 100% of the time.

- - - Updated - - -

For the same reason that you don't compare Mozart and Justin Beiber.

Sure, Tolkien has errors and inconsistencies, largely due to two things:
1) Writing over years if not decades.
2) Perfectionism such that he'd be unhappy with something and revise it.

When he realized he'd made errors, he either corrected them or created something better, such two of Glorfindel leading to an entire structure of how Elves could reincarnate.

Trying to list such errors is nothing more than deflection from your flawed comparison. The Valar had explicitly spelled out reasons not to intervene directly and did so indirectly. We had exactly no reason whatsoever not to kill Gul'dan while he was a portal conduit.

The story of WoW has also been written over decades, so no help there. Revising something in a later work would be a dreaded "retcon" that everyone hates so very much, whether it's driven by "perfectionism" or misjudgment is immaterial. I mean you can't give Tolkien a pass on retconning his work to improve it, but lampooning the writers at Blizzard for doing much the same thing (e.g. the Eredar/Draenei retcon).

It's not a flawed comparison at all, it's just pointing out that what's good enough for the goose is just as good for the gander, as the saying goes.

[Feanoro]

Sending the Wizards was also tantamount to doing nothing considering only one of them actually aided directly in the fight against Sauron, and while one of them just sat it out and the other three apparently aided Sauron. Big help there.

Considering Gandalf brought about Sauron's downfall, yes, I'd say that helped. The others falling were very much in line with his theme of evil being seductive. There's also very broad hints about intervention in Bilbo obtaining the Ring and being able to give it up.

The story of WoW has also been written over decades, so no help there.

WoW has been written by entire departments of professional writers with budgets. Tolkien was one man, writing largely as a passion project. Try again.

Revising something in a later work would be a dreaded "retcon" that everyone hates so very much, whether it's driven by "perfectionism" or misjudgment is immaterial. I mean you can't give Tolkien a pass on retconning his work to improve it, but lampooning the writers at Blizzard for doing much the same thing (e.g. the Eredar/Draenei retcon).

I certainly can with the conditions I just listed above. Notice the Mozart comparison? Good writing is given a LOT more grace for mistakes, and you can't seriously be claiming with a straight face that the writing quality of Warcraft comes even close to Tolkien. There's a large difference between revision and flat out "nah, we decided all that old stuff was just wrong, so we're just erasing or ignoring it".

Additionally, there is another glaring difference. Blizzard writers flat out ignore anything they find inconvenient and even admit it with "that's not the story we wanted to tell". Tolkien on the other hand, is a case of iterations to which we happen to be privy, especially for the posthumously published materials. He would revise things to correct errors. For example, the entire detailed story of the Elven hröa and fëa (how Elven spirits differ from Men, how they can reincarnate, and so on) were all written to explain him accidentally reusing the name Glorfindel. Meanwhile, Blizzard arrogantly handwaves their mistakes and accuse the audience of failing to understand their intent.

It's not a flawed comparison at all, it's just pointing out that what's good enough for the goose is just as good for the gander, as the saying goes.

One situation has explicitly spelled out reasons for not acting in a certain way and other actions were taken that are in line with those reasons. The other has no such defense, just "maybe...".

[Queen of Hamsters]

No, but I'm not a raving Narcissist like so many of the armchair writers/developers found on these forums.

[Feanoro]

No, but I'm not a raving Narcissist like so many of the armchair writers/developers found on these forums.

Nope, you're one helluva white knight whose post history shows rabidly attacking anyone who dares to criticize Blizz-sama.

[Combatbutler]

It's not a flawed comparison at all, it's just pointing out that what's good enough for the goose is just as good for the gander, as the saying goes.

It most certainly is, if you want to compare it to something, with pretty much the same level as the wow story, try your average comic book.

[Aucald]

It most certainly is, if you want to compare it to something, with pretty much the same level as the wow story, try your average comic book.

Why? Is LotR some kind of sacred calf that cannot endure criticism or be compared to other high fantasy settings or IP's?

[Combatbutler]

Why? Is LotR some kind of sacred calf that cannot endure criticism or be compared to other high fantasy settings or IP's?

Nope but it most certainly is a few tiers above wow, which is very much on comic book level.

[Feanoro]

Nope but it most certainly is a few tiers above wow, which is very much on comic book level.

I think I see the problem. He's not the moderator of a Tolkien forum, but a Warcraft one.

[Aucald]

Considering Gandalf brought about Sauron's downfall, yes, I'd say that helped. The others falling were very much in line with his theme of evil being seductive. There's also very broad hints about intervention in Bilbo obtaining the Ring and being able to give it up.

Gandalf didn't bring about Sauron's downfall - he helped, but he wasn't directly responsible for the act that ended the threat. The part about "broad hints" just sounds like conjecture and speculation on your part.

WoW has been written by entire departments of professional writers with budgets. Tolkien was one man, writing largely as a passion project. Try again.

And now you're moving the goalposts - I can see the allure behind always being on offense when it comes to criticizing. You never really have to check yourself if you don't care to. Regardless, being written by one man as a passion project or a committee of professional writers is immaterial to the subject - amusingly omitting that Tolkien himself was a Merton Professor of English Language and Literature, which I think qualifies one for the descriptor of "professional" in any case.

I certainly can with the conditions I just listed above. Notice the Mozart comparison? Good writing is given a LOT more grace for mistakes, and you can't seriously be claiming with a straight face that the writing quality of Warcraft comes even close to Tolkien. There's a large difference between revision and flat out "nah, we decided all that old stuff was just wrong, so we're just erasing or ignoring it".

"Good writing" is entirely subjective, and I don't need to make a claim in any capacity here. Basically this boils down to you saying "authors I like should get special treatment, but writers I don't like only deserve to have scorn heaped upon them." You said he "changed things to make them better," so that definitely falls more along the latter item than the former, wouldn't you agree? Unless the difference between "revising" and "deciding the old stuff was wrong" is also based on a hypocritical standard predicated solely on whether you like the author(s) in question.

Additionally, there is another glaring difference. Blizzard writers flat out ignore anything they find inconvenient and even admit it with "that's not the story we wanted to tell". Tolkien on the other hand, is a case of iterations to which we happen to be privy, especially for the posthumously published materials. He would revise things to correct errors. For example, the entire detailed story of the Elven hröa and fëa (how Elven spirits differ from Men, how they can reincarnate, and so on) were all written to explain him accidentally reusing the name Glorfindel. Meanwhile, Blizzard arrogantly handwaves their mistakes and accuse the audience of failing to understand their intent.

"That's not the story we wanted to tell" is both an admission of error and a solid reason for changing the work, is it not? I see no reason to tack on arrogance or accusations of ignorance on the readers' part to an admission that is apologetic in nature - well, unless as above you want to make a special case for one author but hold another to a mysteriously higher standard because of personal reasons. Writers like Metzen were pretty straightfoward with their mistakes and reasoning for changes. Your charge here seems to underscore that you have something of a personal grudge against the WoW writing team that seems to strongly color your judgments of them - which would explain the reason why you seem rationalize away one author's errors and mistakes while simultaneously demanding that the other be held to account without quarter.

One situation has explicitly spelled out reasons for not acting in a certain way and other actions were taken that are in line with those reasons. The other has no such defense, just "maybe...".

Or "one situation concerns something I appreciate, and the other I just dislike and thus can never have a justifiable defense."

- - - Updated - - -

Nope but it most certainly is a few tiers above wow, which is very much on comic book level.

Insofar as I'm aware, relative "tier" shouldn't insulate a flawed work from criticism, should it? I mean even if I were to admit LotR was better written than WoW (which it is), that still doesn't demand that I never compare the two, or venture criticism toward the superior franchise.

- - - Updated - - -

I think I see the problem. He's not the moderator of a Tolkien forum, but a Warcraft one.

Sounds like an evasion, and a pretty poor one all told. We're still talking Warcraft here, especially in the context of how it compares to other works in the same general field.

[Combatbutler]

I think I see the problem. He's not the moderator of a Tolkien forum, but a Warcraft one.

Well warcraft has potential to be fair, I mean it cannibalized enough materials around it and could have built on it, but they didn't. How much do we really know about the races, how big Azeroth roughly, why the hell are there so few cities and settlements, what is the cultural difference between different subraces, its religions, warrior creeds, different magi organizations and the list just goes on and on.

- - - Updated - - -

Insofar as I'm aware, relative "tier" shouldn't insulate a flawed work from criticism, should it? I mean even if I were to admit LotR was better written than WoW (which it is), that still doesn't demand that I never compare the two, or venture criticism toward the superior franchise.

You wanted to elevate warcraft into a league it just doesn't belong to, by pointing out the flaws in Lotr saying, hey tolkien did some shit too and that shit I can't let slide.

Wow is very far beneath anything Tolkien related, heck it is also below its fellow franchise of warhammer fantasy.

[Aucald]

You wanted to elevate warcraft into a league it just doesn't belong to, by pointing out the flaws in Lotr saying, hey tolkien did some shit too and that shit I can't let slide.

Wow is very far beneath anything Tolkien related, heck it is also below its fellow franchise of warhammer fantasy.

I wasn't elevating Warcraft anywhere, actually - I was just saying it wasn't alone in being flawed, and that containing flaws isn't a mark of incompetence unless you also want to extend that accusation to Tolkein's work, which is also flawed, as well as having many errors and inconsistencies both narrow and broad. The entire point was that "tier" is not insulation from criticism.

I'm admittedly not as familiar with the Warhammer franchise, but I bet if I were to do a bit of research I could discover all sorts of errata, retcons, and inconsistencies in that IP as well. Which goes to the point - retcons aren't unique to Warcraft, nor are they a singular mark of incompetence, unless one is willing to extend the charge of incompetence very broadly, even to franchises often considered "sacred."

[Combatbutler]

I wasn't elevating Warcraft anywhere, actually - I was just saying it wasn't alone in being flawed, and that containing flaws isn't a mark of incompetence unless you also want to extend that accusation to Tolkein's work, which is also flawed, as well as having many errors and inconsistencies both narrow and broad. The entire point was that "tier" is not insulation from criticism.

Sure, but there is flawed and then there is flawed and wow is definitely the latter.

I'm admittedly not as familiar with the Warhammer franchise, but I bet if I were to do a bit of research I could discover all sorts of errata, retcons, and inconsistencies in that IP as well. Which goes to the point - retcons aren't unique to Warcraft, nor are they a singular mark of incompetence, unless one is willing to extend the charge of incompetence very broadly, even to franchises often considered "sacred."

Sure you would and still it would be above wow, due to world building "adapted" cultures world size different factions and motivations etc. I can tell you right now warhammer fantasy caught its fair deserved share of flak for its storytelling at times, yet it has not reached blizzard level.


To judge a franchise you look at the whole thing, which is precisely what I am doing here. Retcons happen everywhere, to say otherwise is ignorant, but how often they are used and for what. It is also extremely important how much the set boundaries of the franchise are being kept in mind.

[Alteiry]

Blizzard has never been very concerned about the depth of their writing. That isn't to say they have never written anything with depth - just that it's not a priority for them. They're very much a "Summer Blockbuster" kind of storyteller, that relies on a ton of flair over substance. And they're extremely good at flair... but it can only carry a story so far.

[Feanoro]

Gandalf didn't bring about Sauron's downfall - he helped, but he wasn't directly responsible for the act that ended the threat. The part about "broad hints" just sounds like conjecture and speculation on your part.

I see. Bilbo would have gone to the Lonely Mountain on his own to prevent Smaug being used by Sauron, Frodo would have gone to Mordor on his own, Theoden would have realized he was being deceived... Good Lord, man, it's made crystal clear that Gandalf moved most if not all the major events of the Third Age opposing Sauron. As to the hints, those are canon as well. Gandalf explicitly refers to Powers that aren't evil and what I said about Bilbo. Tolkien's letters and his son also confirm authorial intent. I don't have to speculate.

And now you're moving the goalposts - I can see the allure behind always being on offense when it comes to criticizing. You never really have to check yourself if you don't care to. Regardless, being written by one man as a passion project or a committee of professional writers is immaterial to the subject - amusingly omitting that Tolkien himself was a Merton Professor of English Language and Literature, which I think qualifies one for the descriptor of "professional" in any case.

Haven't moved them an inch, you've been making flawed and dishonest comparisons. You tried to claim that both works have flaws and render those flaws equivalent. You completely ignored the quality of the writing of each, and you're trying desperately to ignore the difference between one man's passion project and a team of professionals dedicated to their writing. Yes, he was a professor, didn't think I had to point that out, but if you insist on being pedantic, fine. His profession was linguistics, studying literature as a means to understand the ancient Anglo-Saxon and other Teutonic languages. His fantasy writing was essentially a hobby. Meanwhile Danuser and pals write Warcraft as their profession. Do you actually not understand why that makes a difference?

"Good writing" is entirely subjective, and I don't need to make a claim in any capacity here. Basically this boils down to you saying "authors I like should get special treatment, but writers I don't like only deserve to have scorn heaped upon them." You said he "changed things to make them better," so that definitely falls more along the latter item than the former, wouldn't you agree? Unless the difference between "revising" and "deciding the old stuff was wrong" is also based on a hypocritical standard predicated solely on whether you like the author(s) in question.

And now a very fancy ad hom ("it's just your preference, hypocrite!"), ignoring entirely the difference in quality. I invite you to ask any serious literary critic or literature professor to compare Tolkien and Warcraft as equals. You'll be laughed out of the room.

"That's not the story we wanted to tell" is both an admission of error and a solid reason for changing the work, is it not?

It's essentially "yeah, your point would wreck our plot, so we ignored it". The quote came about because they established factions and entities, then deliberately ignored them when inconvenient.

I see no reason to tack on arrogance or accusations of ignorance on the readers' part to an admission that is apologetic in nature - well, unless as above you want to make a special case for one author but hold another to a mysteriously higher standard because of personal reasons.

So again, you're trying to desperately defend them and turn it into an attack on me, with flowery language. Classy. Amazingly enough, for most human activities, teams of professionals are held to higher standards than individuals in their spare time. Or perhaps you can provide examples of this apparent widespread phenomenon that everyone who does X activity is judged by the exact same criteria, with no allowances for their situations? Presumably then, the New England Patriots should be held to the exact same standard as a high school quarterback. No. Your argument is fucking absurd.

Writers like Metzen were pretty straightfoward with their mistakes and reasoning for changes.

Metzen at least had the balls to admit mistakes, apologize, and try to improve. The current crew dismisses mistakes when called on them.

Or "one situation concerns something I appreciate, and the other I just dislike and thus can never have a justifiable defense."

"I can never admit that I'm wrong, so I'll keep ignoring all context and accuse you of some personal grudge so I can just dismiss you."

Sounds like an evasion, and a pretty poor one all told. We're still talking Warcraft here, especially in the context of how it compares to other works in the same general field.

An evasion? Fine, I'll spell it out. You are quite heavily invested in Warcraft including your position here. As such, you routinely defend and excuse Blizzard, including inventing explanations to cover their flaws. Only when called on it do you admit such is textbook head canon. Were you not so invested, you wouldn't put near the effort that you do, and certainly wouldn't keep insisting on comparing Mozart and Beiber. In fact, part of the reason you are ignoring all context around my arguments is that acknowledging them threatens you.

[Kehego]

None of those things are retcons. The Titans did die in Chronicle Vol. 1, but the text seeded their means of eventual resurrection. The Shadowlands weren't explored in Chronicle, with it only basically saying "they exist and we know little to nothing about them." Zuldazar *was* destroyed and the Isle of Zandalar majorly effected by the Cataclysm, but they rebuilt it as was described in-game. And those are just a handful of examples of times Chronicle has been used to attempt shut down future storylines.

- - - Updated - - -



Agree to disagree. Arthas' goals and end-game were entirely consistent in WotLK, and minus an 11th hour deus ex machina he actually succeeded in said goal - he killed his enemies (the PC's) at the top of ICC and was in the midst of raising them as generals of the Scourge when the Light broke Tirion free and allowed him to shatter Frostmourne with the Ashbringer. You may have disliked the story and the expansion, but you're in the minority on that score.

A lot of people like shit writing, doesn't mean its less shit.
warcraft story quality has remained consistent. People just dislike the other protagonists.

[Aucald]

Sure, but there is flawed and then there is flawed and wow is definitely the latter.

Which again basically comes across as "well, yeah, but then there's what I like which is "flawed," and what I don't like which is utter garbage." That's like how fandom's typically define an homage: if I like it, then it's an homage; but if I don't like it then it's derivative or outright plagiarized.

Sure you would and still it would be above wow, due to world building "adapted" cultures world size different factions and motivations etc. I can tell you right now warhammer fantasy caught its fair deserved share of flak for its storytelling at times, yet it has not reached blizzard level.

To judge a franchise you look at the whole thing, which is precisely what I am doing here. Retcons happen everywhere, to say otherwise is ignorant, but how often they are used and for what. It is also extremely important how much the set boundaries of the franchise are being kept in mind.

"Blizzard level" is itself just a subjective criteria, though; and roughly half the things that popularly get decried as retcons in WoW usually aren't - a narrative twist or re-contextualization as a result of future knowledge isn't an explicit retcon. Neither is a change in characterization that happens organically due to the story. Criticism needs to be kept fair and ideally objective, free of hyperbolic charges like "incompetence." It's okay for a thing to be flawed - everything is flawed to some degree, and there is always room for improvement as well.

[Orby]

I think they have too many writers which can create problems, but as writers themselves its fine. Despite how shitty the lore can be I can still get some love out of it. Even despite the horrible ending to N'Zoth.