Do you think the writers are "incompetent"?

[tommyhil622]

Just because a work has "flaws" doesn't mean it's a sign of incompetence. Incompetence isn't determined by whether you liked something or not. I love Lotr, and i'm aware it has flaws and i don't hold it against Tolkien. But i do the same for wow even though they aren't in the same league (which doesn't matter anyway).

[Kehego]

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.

basically.

WoW is good from the world-building aspect. WoW has always had an atrocious story.

[Aucald]

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.

The "Powers that aren't evil" would likely be the Valar and Maiar, or perhaps Ilúvatar itself. It was also the nature of Hobbits that conferred on them their general resistance to the One Ring's power, which is pretty well established in the Lost Tales concerning them and their origins. As for your other examples, well, they certainly fit into the general rubric of what I was saying - farcical "could have been's" that would've short-circuited all the narrative drama and quickly ended the story. Notice I never said any of those options were *better*, actually in point of fact I said they'd make the story shitty, which they would. That was the point of the original argument. "But Thou Must" type tropes are often drivers of story-based drama, and also "Tropes Are Tools."

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?

Denial doesn't make your obvious attempt less true.

My comparison was neither flawed nor dishonest - it was a comparison between two popular works who share the same general genre, as well as many of the same internal elements and tropes. There's no such thing as "equivalent flaws," either in number nor in structure, flaws are unique to the work to which they belong and rather incomparable beyond that. I'm merely pointing that that the commission of flaws in a written work don't make an author "incompetent," unless you want to make the dual-claim that Tolkien was also incompetent. And speaking of pedantry, I pointed out Tolkien's rather extensive bona fides to hammer home the notion that he, too, was a professional author. As a scholar, philosopher, academic, linguist, and celebrated author in his own time he is *more* professional, and certainly more educated, than any of the writers of WoW could profess to be - and he still committed errors in his works. That's how and why it make a difference in context, as I will extend you the benefit of doubt on accidentally missing the point.

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.

Pretty much a general observation stemming from your word-choice, and your own ad hominem attacks towards the writers of WoW in general. At no point did I make the claim that WoW was the equal of Tokien's writing, either; quite the contrary. Given your history in this very forum, I'd say you attempting to backtrack on your own professed animus toward the WoW writing team would be in bad taste, or at least very quickly disproved.

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.

"Your point" would have no bearing in this context, so I'm unsure what you're referring to here. Whose point? Which plot? When did they ignore established factions and/or entities?

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.

Not necessarily - a single author possesses total control over their own literary process, whereas writing by committee is often subject to a number compromises to reach a group consensus on the output, a process that can often be to the detriment of the final work. Pretty sure you know this, but in case you didn't there it is. As for the "accusation," such as it is, I stand by it - I do feel you have a personal bias in this matter, and your overall track record of condemnation toward both WoW and Blizzard is evidence enough of that. I don't really think a true statement, even if it is detrimental to your argument, is an "attack" of any sort. But it is true, and it does effect your ability to be objective in this matter. By contrast, I can admit WoW is a flawed product with a number of both major and minor issues in its writing, without relying on hyperbolic attacks on the authors themselves. And no, my argument isn't absurd because that would help you "win," this isn't how argumentation works. I don't think your argument is absurd, either; I just think you're incorrect and I'm using both evidence and reasoned explanation to demonstrate that.

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

"We often scrutinize our previous work in an effort to improve our storytelling as a team. Looking back, I think we could have done a better job of making sure both factions got a deeper context for where the story was going so that the threads that connected all the elements were clearer. But the major beats of the story were intended from the beginning, and we feel good about how the players got to experience them." - Steve Danuser, "Interview with Massively Overpowered"

That looks to me like the current Lead Writer for WoW admitting to a mistake in the story. I was able to find that in just a few moments of research, as well; I wonder how many instances I could find with more effort? Which points to further lack of objectivity on your part.

"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."

Wrong about what? I don't think Tolkien is incompetent - is that wrong? I think the story of WoW has flaws both major and minor - is that wrong? That you're decidedly less than objective when it comes to WoW's writing - well, that's kind of something for the audience to decide. I would probably be seen as biased there as I'm actively arguing against you, but I think it stands.

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.

So this is your roundabout way of trying to cry "Blizzard shill!" and then run away? No. A simple search of my post history can unveil all kinds of criticism about WoW's writing and elements of its storytelling, and my position on many of things is quite known. I think Med'an is a horrid creation that I'm pleased has been consigned to limbo, I think characters like Lucan Foxblood are blighted, and I thought War Crimes was a 400+ page exercise in abject futility given its squalid ending. I do defend the story from hyperbolic claims I feel are wrong, though; guilty as charged - I dislike misinformation in the general sense, and when I see it I often address it. I've been accused of "headcanon" many times, but I maintain that sourced and relevant speculation isn't headcanon at all, so long as you don't make the dual-claim that it is fact (and I don't).

Also, nothing in this conversation "threatens" me in any way - such a claim is laughable. Threatens me how? The only threat I can think of would be to my free time, and occasionally my patience, but that's about it. I debate and discuss here because I find it generally enjoyable, and it exercises my creativity and imagination in the general sense. If it were threatening, or persistently even unpleasant, I just wouldn't do it - I'm not in the custom of actively seeking out self-harm or discomfort. Life is too short for all that.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

"Shit," like most judgments, is subjective. I tend not to call something I enjoy "shit," but I can admit it's not high literature or classy in its own right. In fact, it's often the comparison itself I find unnecessary. I can readily admit that a movie like "Hudson Hawk" isn't "The Godfather," but I don't really require something to be of that caliber to enjoy it. It would actually kind of suck for me if I did, really; great things tend to be correspondingly rare - and if you can't get enjoyment from some of the more middle-of-the-road offerings out there, well life is going to be rough for you in the general sense.

[Queen of Hamsters]

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

LOL, sure it does.

Thanks for proving my point about raving Narcissists.

[ClassicPeon]

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

1. You are taking this on yourself. i didnt put it on you. If the hat fits bro

2. You are moving the goalposts.

What i said was in direct relation to wow lore. As in - "instead of spending time on this, spend your time on something you like."

What i didnt say was: "Why dont you ever spend time on something you like?"

Nice try tho

[Melsiren]

I would use the term hack.

[Syegfryed]

If you don't know them, then why kill them?

but we did knew then???

They're seemingly not enemies considering the Iron Horde has them captive, after all.

???
???
??

they were shadow council and warlocks and they had their fel energies being sucked up, even cho'gal looked just like the old god chogal in cata

we knew things, and you having to downplay our intelligent trying to justify their obnoxious plot just show how incompetent they were

The story that was told was fine - it explained the reason that we freed them (to de-power the Dark Portal), and set-up several plotlines to be explored later on. And fighting them without a group or raid behind us would've ended in defeat for us in any case, because they were the bloody Shadow Council, all of which turn out to be raid-level bosses in their own right. By the time you whittled them all down to nothing the Azerothian Vanguard forces might well have been dead and the Iron March would be conquering Azeroth.

the way i was told was not enarly enough fine, it was nonsensical boderline deus ex amchina, just because set-up "several plotlines" don't justify a half-assed lame excuse of "we have yo free then and not kill then cause ~~reasons~~

[Aucald]

they were shadow council and warlocks and they had their fel energies being sucked up, even cho'gal looked just like the old god chogal in cata

we knew things, and you having to downplay our intelligent trying to justify their obnoxious plot just show how incompetent they were

They were captives of the Iron Horde, which was the immediate threat at the time - meaning they were the enemies of our enemies. And, as I said several times already, it was another world with an altogether other timeline - there's no way of knowing that they were the same people with the same histories, either. Khadgar made a gamble and while it worked out in the short-term (e.g. closing the Dark Portal), it had ramifications later on. It's also not quite what he wanted from the situation, but his dialogue underscores the notion that he didn't have much of a choice in the matter, either.

the way i was told was not enarly enough fine, it was nonsensical boderline deus ex amchina, just because set-up "several plotlines" don't justify a half-assed lame excuse of "we have yo free then and not kill then cause ~~reasons~~

Because you couldn't, simple enough. You had neither the firepower nor the time, and thus you didn't have the opportunity. This entire exercise is one in rather pointless nitpicking.

[Syegfryed]

They were captives of the Iron Horde, which was the immediate threat at the time - meaning they were the enemies of our enemies. And, as I said several times already, it was another world with an altogether other timeline - there's no way of knowing that they were the same people with the same histories, either. Khadgar made a gamble and while it worked out in the short-term (e.g. closing the Dark Portal), it had ramifications later on. It's also not quite what he wanted from the situation, but his dialogue underscores the notion that he didn't have much of a choice in the matter, either.

like i said it was a lame ass excuse, and you are not making any better, we were not stupid, being "enemies" of the iron horde means nothing when we knew damn well then and how bad they were.

Because you couldn't, simple enough.

thats it, an incompetent and half-asset excuse

"you could not" end of history, while there is not a single thing showing why you could not finish the job

This entire exercise is one in rather pointless nitpicking.

not rly, it just show blizzard incompentence in giving us a meaningful reason for that plot to happen, like i said, we could have everal explanations, several routes, like we indeed trying to kill then but failling, those are things a competent writing team would do to not leave a nonsensical plothole behind.

[Feanoro]

The "Powers that aren't evil" would likely be the Valar and Maiar, or perhaps Ilúvatar itself.

And yet, when I alluded to them, it was "conjecture and speculation". Now that I've given you specifics, you turn around and try to frame it as if you were the one who originally argued that the Valar did act. That's just unbelievable.

As for your other examples, well, they certainly fit into the general rubric of what I was saying - farcical "could have been's" that would've short-circuited all the narrative drama and quickly ended the story. Notice I never said any of those options were *better*, actually in point of fact I said they'd make the story shitty, which they would. That was the point of the original argument. "But Thou Must" type tropes are often drivers of story-based drama, and also "Tropes Are Tools."

Sure, they could have ended the story. Tolkien provided us fully thought out stories as to WHY those short circuits didn't occur. The WoD Dark Portal event did no such thing, we just blundered in and released Gul'dan like utter morons. Hell, even a few tiny tweaks would have helped. "Oh shit, isn't that...?! Go get Khadgar!" or "Damn, we tripped a booby trap, it disrupted the machine and let them escape!" No one is arguing we should have just shut the portal, thanks everyone, expansion's over. People are saying it could have been handled a damn sight better.

Denial doesn't make your obvious attempt less true.

If being forced to explain context that anyone should find blindingly obvious is moving goalposts in your book, so be it. Fortunately, your opinion is only your opinion.

My comparison was neither flawed nor dishonest - it was a comparison between two popular works who share the same general genre, as well as many of the same internal elements and tropes. There's no such thing as "equivalent flaws," either in number nor in structure, flaws are unique to the work to which they belong and rather incomparable beyond that. I'm merely pointing that that the commission of flaws in a written work don't make an author "incompetent," unless you want to make the dual-claim that Tolkien was also incompetent.

You attempted to excuse Warcraft's flaws on the basis that Tolkien also committed errors. You have completely ignored all context, and it's fucking rich seeing you pretend the bolded part has been your stance all along.

And speaking of pedantry, I pointed out Tolkien's rather extensive bona fides to hammer home the notion that he, too, was a professional author. As a scholar, philosopher, academic, linguist, and celebrated author in his own time he is *more* professional, and certainly more educated, than any of the writers of WoW could profess to be - and he still committed errors in his works.

Yes, he was a professional author of scholarly works on linguistics. That does not automatically translate to other genres, such as fantasy. Fortunately, he had the talent to do so, but you rarely see such. Fantasy writing was his hobby and thus it's even more of an achievement. If fantasy writing puts food on the table, it's reasonable to expect expertise on the writer's part.

That's how and why it make a difference in context, as I will extend you the benefit of doubt on accidentally missing the point.

How gracious of you.

Pretty much a general observation stemming from your word-choice, and your own ad hominem attacks towards the writers of WoW in general. At no point did I make the claim that WoW was the equal of Tokien's writing, either; quite the contrary.

That explains multiple posts where you profess not to understand the vast differences in quality of writing (@Combatbutler's "tiers"), or try to equate them to excuse Warcraft's flaws.

Given your history in this very forum, I'd say you attempting to backtrack on your own professed animus toward the WoW writing team would be in bad taste, or at least very quickly disproved.

You attempted to frame it as some ridiculous grudge, rather than a pronounced dislike for their poor quality work and completely unprofessional behaviors. Since you're so acquainted with my history, you can't claim to have done so accidentally.

"Your point" would have no bearing in this context, so I'm unsure what you're referring to here. Whose point? Which plot? When did they ignore established factions and/or entities?

I see I need to clarify. When asked about why X didn't do Y in BfA (such as "where was the Vindicaar?" "why were druids, shamans, and paladins ok with this?" and so on), they simply handwaved those away with "That's not the story we wanted to tell." That's a dismissal, essentially "had we addressed that element in BfA, it would have disrupted our story, so we ignored it", a deliberate choice.

Not necessarily - a single author possesses total control over their own literary process, whereas writing by committee is often subject to a number compromises to reach a group consensus on the output, a process that can often be to the detriment of the final work. Pretty sure you know this, but in case you didn't there it is.

Speaking of those goalposts... I see, now the excuse is that it's committee writing. I accept your tacit admission that a professional team should reasonably be held to a higher standard than a single man working on a hobby, even one somewhat related to his expertise, since that's the case for every field of human endeavor.

As for the "accusation," such as it is, I stand by it - I do feel you have a personal bias in this matter, and your overall track record of condemnation toward both WoW and Blizzard is evidence enough of that. I don't really think a true statement, even if it is detrimental to your argument, is an "attack" of any sort. But it is true, and it does effect your ability to be objective in this matter. By contrast, I can admit WoW is a flawed product with a number of both major and minor issues in its writing, without relying on hyperbolic attacks on the authors themselves. And no, my argument isn't absurd because that would help you "win," this isn't how argumentation works. I don't think your argument is absurd, either; I just think you're incorrect and I'm using both evidence and reasoned explanation to demonstrate that.

Yes, you always ultimately resort to the "you're just biased, and I am an objective judge" shtick with everyone who tries to talk with you. Bullshit. You're human too. I suppose pointing out Danuser's otaku behavior or Golden inserting political rhetoric is "hyperbolic attacks"? The writers are not above criticism, particularly when their behavior has demonstrable negative effects on the writing.

"We often scrutinize our previous work in an effort to improve our storytelling as a team. Looking back, I think we could have done a better job of making sure both factions got a deeper context for where the story was going so that the threads that connected all the elements were clearer. But the major beats of the story were intended from the beginning, and we feel good about how the players got to experience them." - Steve Danuser, "Interview with Massively Overpowered"

That looks to me like the current Lead Writer for WoW admitting to a mistake in the story. I was able to find that in just a few moments of research, as well; I wonder how many instances I could find with more effort? Which points to further lack of objectivity on your part.

That quote says they could have done a better job in presentation, but in no way admits a story mistake. It's very typical corporate speak where certain things are "to be regretted", but not a soul did a damn thing wrong. You do understand that bias can be in favor of things, right?

Wrong about what? I don't think Tolkien is incompetent - is that wrong? I think the story of WoW has flaws both major and minor - is that wrong?

Care to drop the sophistry? You attempted to dismiss everything I said as some irrational grudge. You did so because I pointed out your attempt to dismiss Blizz writers mistakes because Tolkien made mistakes and pointedly ignore multiple posters on the issue of quality.

That you're decidedly less than objective when it comes to WoW's writing - well, that's kind of something for the audience to decide. I would probably be seen as biased there as I'm actively arguing against you, but I think it stands.

Here's the "you're just biased, and I am an objective judge" crap again. You're not objective. You're light years from it, but you don't care to see/admit it.

So this is your roundabout way of trying to cry "Blizzard shill!" and then run away?

Nope, this is my way of pointing out you have a vested psychological interest in this, in how you have tied your identity to being the "oh so objective just ask me how objective I am" mod on a Warcraft forum. Anything that hurts Warcraft indirectly threatens that position, so you attempt to dismiss legitimate criticisms as bias, grudges, and so on with your evidence being essentially that my posts have contained frustration or anger in the past. If being upset by something was enough to instantly dismiss a point being made, at a bare minimum there would never have been the American War for Independence, to give one example.

No. A simple search of my post history can unveil all kinds of criticism about WoW's writing and elements of its storytelling, and my position on many of things is quite known. I think Med'an is a horrid creation that I'm pleased has been consigned to limbo, I think characters like Lucan Foxblood are blighted, and I thought War Crimes was a 400+ page exercise in abject futility given its squalid ending.

Congratulations, you dislike some parts. Now can I dismiss you as hopelessly biased or grudge bearing on that basis? No? Why not, that's exactly what you're doing to me.

I do defend the story from hyperbolic claims I feel are wrong, though; guilty as charged - I dislike misinformation in the general sense, and when I see it I often address it. I've been accused of "headcanon" many times, but I maintain that sourced and relevant speculation isn't headcanon at all, so long as you don't make the dual-claim that it is fact (and I don't).

When you attempt to excuse flaws in a story based on pure speculation, yes, that's merrily strolling through head canon land. Further, if you keep getting such accusations (and I know that one has come from many posters in many threads), you might want to consider that you might very well be doing so, or at the very least, not making yourself very clear.

At this point, here's where we stand, leaving damn little room to continue meaningfully:
- You insist on a logical fallacy that because other fantasy works have flaws, it excuses Warcraft's flaws.

- You completely refuse to acknowledge that Tolkien went to great lengths to address errors, while Blizz simply dismisses them as inconveniences.

- You refuse to admit a professional team should be held to a higher standard than a single man pursuing a hobby somewhat related to his expertise.

- Only after three or four posters (I didn't explicitly count, before the semantics games) point out that the quality of Tolkien's writing is much higher quality than Blizzard's do you concede the point, while pretending you did so all along.

- You refuse to see the difference between a story that goes to great pains to explain why a "short circuit" (your term) isn't possible and one that makes no effort whatsoever to do so.

- You once again congratulate yourself on your vaunted supposed objectivity and dismiss me as hopelessly biased. For this alone there's no point in me trying to continue, as I can't expect to be taken seriously.

[Aragoth]

Or do you think that the writers are doing okay, but think that book writing just doesn't work for an MMO?

I have my opinions about the writers, but I honestly think that book writing has to go, and that Blizzard should hire world designers and quest designers again, that make up a story through the lense of world building.

Chris Metzen never wrote much books, but it was thanks to his vision and other developpers at that time that Azeroth was shaped.

I think Blizzard just needs to drop the whole novel thing. I don't think making Warcraft books that post set the game works at all.

Sure you could hire writers to write the Warcraft universe after the story is set ingame maybe? But I just don't think that books work for MMO's

The only major problem I have with Metzen is he ruined Garrosh because he felt it infringed on his personal character, Thrall, and Afrisiabi was the one who wanted Garrosh to be the honorable Conan-esque warrior king. This was stated at a blizzcon a few years ago, no I don't have a link, go look it up.

THAT ASIDE. I don't think it's as much as incompotence as the problems inherent in writing by committee; you have varying degrees of writer passion and retention, have to constantly re-introduce the material to every new hire regardless of how frequent or infrequent hirings are, and have to deal with the group's individual ego and whether they're offended by something or want their idea to come first etc etc.

It's comic book writing, basically, and while some graphic novels are stellar it's because they're isolated pieces usually written by one or a small group of people heavily invested in the material. So while I don't necessarily think the writers are incompotent, I think plot consistency is progressively being destroyed by the current system Blizzard has for producing plot. Activision also screws with it because now it's on a set timeline, no delays, no "when it's ready", none of that. You have x date to finish and if you don't you lose funds or have only z number of times you can push a deadline back. Some guidance is required obviously, but it's a creative process and shouldn't be hurried.

I don't know who writes for FFXIV but that story is a lot more stable and non-bipolar, because that's how the current story in WoW feels; bipolar. One bad to the next, each in the neat little window of 1 calendar year (exception to Mists of Pandaria which was *gasp* two years!), people making stupid decisions and doing stupid things and endlessly surprised their stupid decisions have stupid consequences... All while having apparently infinite resources, coin, machines, and soldiers. I don't need to go into examples, there's plenty.

As for novels that's another huge problem and it goes back years. I will use an example there; Aggra only existed in side-material of the book and then all of a sudden pops up in Cata as if you're already supposed to know who she is. Not only that, she's flipping married to Thrall. Wait, what??? When? How? Who??? "Read the book!" No thanks, I'm playing the game. It's a terrible decision to progress in-game story out-of-game and only adds to the jumble of disorganization and instability. Marty O'Donnell, the former lead composer and sound director for Halo and Destiny recently said similar regarding book material for Halo in an interview he had with a youtuber.

There ought to be one central figure leading creative development like way in the past(Dear lord not Ion Hazzikostas though), and delegates to some others to produce with solid direction for alleviating workload. Probably won't happen w/ Activision at the helm, Blizzard doesn't even have a CEO anymore.

[Feanoro]

LOL, sure it does.

Thanks for proving my point about raving Narcissists.

Just within the first two pages of your post history sees you attacking people as "ignorami", "mental gymnastics" and more, always in defense of Blizzard. I don't think you know the definition of "raving" or "narcissist".

[Talrath]

In my opinion, they are incompetent.

I understand that writing a story can be sometimes difficult, however, if your job is to write a story and you have more than ample of time to come up with one, then it should be easy to do.

Right now, they are trying to put some lore in books, but those lore aren't that important. Still... People want to know what X character is thinking.

Another problem is that they have introduced so many side characters and immediately forgot about them. The non important characters which help you take over a base, are forgotten, they could have used them as foot soldier and what they are thinking. The important side characters as broll bear mantle are forgotten aswell. It would help people get some connection with certain characters IF blizzard told what these characters were doing and thinking. Every character has his own story, make them the protagonist of their own story. A very good example is final fantasy 14, almost every character you meet will come back, none of them is forgotten. And when you see X character come back, you somehow get a grin.

Now, putting all the lores of what I mentioned above in the books, could be a daunting task. People will like it IF the books are free to read.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Just within the first two pages of your post history sees you attacking people as "ignorami", "mental gymnastics" and more, always in defense of Blizzard. I don't think you know the definition of "raving" or "narcissist".

If you actually read those posts, you'd see that they're not "a defense of Blizzard", but rather criticisms of people's attitudes on certain things such as all WoW races needing to be "taken seriously".

You're clearly too blinded by your own reflection to realize the difference between "defending the company" and "addressing points made by people". What, I can't disagree with people without being a "white knight attacking them"...? Please.

You'd also, if you bothered to look in your stalker-esque mindframe, that I've got SO many posts critiquing Blizzard just fine, to the point where I'm called a hater by others. But alas, you're such an authority on just about anything that you don't need the whole picture, just the details reaffirming your world view.

But what else to expect from someone with such a high opinion on themself.

[Feanoro]

stuff

So you have no argument beyond calling names in what you think is a clever manner. Got it.

[Queen of Hamsters]

So you have no argument beyond calling names in what you think is a clever manner. Got it.

"But alas, you're such an authority on just about anything that you don't need the whole picture, just the details reaffirming your world view."

I rest my case. And I'm done with your tantrum.

PS. Calling people "white knights", is namecalling. But I suppose it's not bad if it's coming from your highness.

Bye.

[Feanoro]

PS. Calling people "white knights", is namecalling. But I suppose it's not bad if it's coming from your highness.

Bye.

Or... back in reality, all your posts in this thread have been nothing but name calling, though to be fair in this one, you've added flamebait. Well done!

I called you on it, and you didn't like it which apparently is narcissism in your book. Too bad that's not what the word means.

[Aucald]

And yet, when I alluded to them, it was "conjecture and speculation". Now that I've given you specifics, you turn around and try to frame it as if you were the one who originally argued that the Valar did act. That's just unbelievable.

Sorry, that was actually sarcasm. I suppose I could've added a snark mark or something. Of course since we don't actually *know* that, and only have some out of context albeit authorial speculation on the matter, it also still kind of stands. It's pretty soft canon given that it's not really explained or explicated in the story itself all that well. A lot of things are also "unbelievable" for you.

Sure, they could have ended the story. Tolkien provided us fully thought out stories as to WHY those short circuits didn't occur. The WoD Dark Portal event did no such thing, we just blundered in and released Gul'dan like utter morons. Hell, even a few tiny tweaks would have helped. "Oh shit, isn't that...?! Go get Khadgar!" or "Damn, we tripped a booby trap, it disrupted the machine and let them escape!" No one is arguing we should have just shut the portal, thanks everyone, expansion's over. People are saying it could have been handled a damn sight better.

The narrative basically implies that without the need to belabor it - it's a pretty obvious takeaway all told. Only you and Syegfryed are the only people I've ever heard make this particular critique of WoD (which is odd, as WoD has much more you could critique with more relevance). I suspect you only picked up this banner for ulterior reasons, but I suppose that's neither here nor there. Sure, it could've been better related to the player, I can grant you that - but it wasn't ultimately necessary to do so, nor is it a huge problem that it wasn't. It's still a nitpick, IMO.

If being forced to explain context that anyone should find blindingly obvious is moving goalposts in your book, so be it. Fortunately, your opinion is only your opinion.

Or perhaps you're neither as clear nor as obvious as you believe. Fortunately, your opinion is only your opinion.

You attempted to excuse Warcraft's flaws on the basis that Tolkien also committed errors. You have completely ignored all context, and it's fucking rich seeing you pretend the bolded part has been your stance all along.

And this tells me that you didn't understand my argument at all - whether or not that's a willful choice on your part I can't rightly say. This sort of makes the rest of the argument rather futile if you're not even willing to accept the basic premise. The point is that *both* are *flawed*, and that flaws alone do not mean the author or authors are incompetent, which I am claiming is a hyperbolic charge based on essentially nothing.

Yes, he was a professional author of scholarly works on linguistics. That does not automatically translate to other genres, such as fantasy. Fortunately, he had the talent to do so, but you rarely see such. Fantasy writing was his hobby and thus it's even more of an achievement. If fantasy writing puts food on the table, it's reasonable to expect expertise on the writer's part.

It does translate to one's technical skill at writing in general, as well as overall mastery of effective language, regardless of genre. If you're saying Tolkien's academic achievements had zero impact on his writing, well then I'm going to say you have a poor grasp of both the craft of writing and Tolkien himself. This by no means diminishes Tolkien's many achievements, just that you have a poor understanding of the relationships therein.

That explains multiple posts where you profess not to understand the vast differences in quality of writing (@Combatbutler's "tiers"), or try to equate them to excuse Warcraft's flaws.

I see you also did not understand that argument, which I suppose is in keeping with the rest of this back and forth. I never tried to equate the two (more to the point, I've repeatedly maintained you actually can't), nor did I at any point excuse Warcraft's flaws (which I've repeatedly said both exist and are many). Based on this, I can pretty conclusively say that in the most charitable sense possible, we are definitely talking past one another.

You attempted to frame it as some ridiculous grudge, rather than a pronounced dislike for their poor quality work and completely unprofessional behaviors. Since you're so acquainted with my history, you can't claim to have done so accidentally.

No, that was actually very pointed and not at all accidental on my part, but also quite apt to the discussion. Objectivity in criticism is sort of a requirement when there isn't an agreement on the nature and/or extent of the criticism.

I see I need to clarify. When asked about why X didn't do Y in BfA (such as "where was the Vindicaar?" "why were druids, shamans, and paladins ok with this?" and so on), they simply handwaved those away with "That's not the story we wanted to tell." That's a dismissal, essentially "had we addressed that element in BfA, it would have disrupted our story, so we ignored it", a deliberate choice.

Sure, it is a dismissal - but that's not in itself a bad thing. The Vindicaar, the Druids, the Paladins, they all have a story to be told - a perhaps those stories will be told at some future point. That quote is less "we didn't explore that because we didn't think about it," and more "we wanted to tell a specific story about specific characters in a specific context." That's fine on its face - pretty normal convention of writing. You don't see a lot of people pontificating about the intergalactic GDP in Star Wars, or hear about the nature of pop music on Qo'nos in Star Trek because those things aren't germane to the stories being told. Sure, I'd love to have a rolling update feed on what Q is up to, but that's generally not required for me to enjoy an episode of Star Trek. For now, the Druids and Shamans are busy with the giant sword in Silithus, the Paladins actually are fighting in the Fourth War (e.g. Turalyon, Liandrin, etc. etc.), and the Vindicaar is likely out of commission for reasons as yet unknown (probably out of gas since it now runs on Argunite, which isn't really found in many places outside Argus). I answered all those quibbling questions without resorting to calling Danuser or Roux a "hack fraud" to boot.

Speaking of those goalposts... I see, now the excuse is that it's committee writing. I accept your tacit admission that a professional team should reasonably be held to a higher standard than a single man working on a hobby, even one somewhat related to his expertise, since that's the case for every field of human endeavor.

This is really disingenuous and kind of terrible argumentation. Of course any kind of communal or team-based writing is going to be committee-based, is this really the line you want to try to sell me? As for standards, why would it be held to a higher or different standard than "normal" writing? Both processes have merits and flaws, after all. The whole notion that WoW's writing is terrible in comparison because "professionals" wrote it is rather trite and essentially wrongheaded. It's an excuse for heaping scorn on them, and little else.

Yes, you always ultimately resort to the "you're just biased, and I am an objective judge" shtick with everyone who tries to talk with you. Bullshit. You're human too. I suppose pointing out Danuser's otaku behavior or Golden inserting political rhetoric is "hyperbolic attacks"? The writers are not above criticism, particularly when their behavior has demonstrable negative effects on the writing.

Always? That's pretty hyperbolic in and of itself. I think I am more objective than you are in this arena, yes; I'm going to stand by that claim and I think our relative approaches speak for themselves in that capacity. Sure, I'm also human, which has nothing at all to do with this discussion so I'm unsure why you felt the need to bring it up. Danuser's "otaku behavior" is also neither here nor there unless you want to make the dual-claim that it is somehow a factor in his writing - which if you have some form of psychic "in" on Danuser's thought processes then by all means let me know. I can't really clam to know the man's mind intimately, so if you have some form of conclusive proof of psychic ability than I will of course concede to your superior vantage on his thoughts and feelings. Beyond that, I'm going to chalk his admittedly cringy Twitter humor up as simply that: cringy humor. As for authors inserting political rhetoric into their writing, well, I hate to be the one to tell you this but that's *always* been part and parcel of the gig. Every writer inserts part of themselves into their work, and that includes their politics. No way to avoid it, and any writer who claims that they have is either lying to you, or they're simply unaware of it themselves. No writer is above criticism, but criticism should be as objective and fair as it can be - both in service to the writer, and the other readers.

That quote says they could have done a better job in presentation, but in no way admits a story mistake. It's very typical corporate speak where certain things are "to be regretted", but not a soul did a damn thing wrong. You do understand that bias can be in favor of things, right?

Wow, so you're trying to say someone admitting "we could've done a better job" is not an admission that the original job wasn't done well, and was thus a mistake? I don't really know what to say here that wouldn't come across as demeaning, so I'm just going to say that you're wrong - just flatly and rather unabashedly wrong. And to tack on an accusation of bias in the fact of flat-out ignoring someone's statement is just gilding the lily with inelegance.

Care to drop the sophistry? You attempted to dismiss everything I said as some irrational grudge. You did so because I pointed out your attempt to dismiss Blizz writers mistakes because Tolkien made mistakes and pointedly ignore multiple posters on the issue of quality.

Sophistry implies some kind of deceit, but there is no deceit here. I'm not a fan of dragging up people's post history, and I think you know as well as I do how easy it would be to do so in this particular vein. I'll politely ask you to drop the accusation as an attempt to besmirch my character without cause. Especially since at no point did I dismiss anyone's mistakes - meaning that not only are you attempting to insult me, you're not even being truthful about the reason.

Nope, this is my way of pointing out you have a vested psychological interest in this, in how you have tied your identity to being the "oh so objective just ask me how objective I am" mod on a Warcraft forum. Anything that hurts Warcraft indirectly threatens that position, so you attempt to dismiss legitimate criticisms as bias, grudges, and so on with your evidence being essentially that my posts have contained frustration or anger in the past. If being upset by something was enough to instantly dismiss a point being made, at a bare minimum there would never have been the American War for Independence, to give one example.

Threatens that position? How? WoW will eventually die off and the nature of these forums will either adapt to the times (which arguably they already have) or close, and I'm not going to be harmed by either outcome. And since you love to bring in the fact that I'm mod (which is equally irrelevant), I'm also just a volunteer, so no real harm comes to me regardless - this isn't a source of income or anything, it's more or less a hobby. I think you're grasping at straws here, and it's not really a great way going about making your case, either. Being personally upset by something *does* effect your ability to be quasi-impartial about that thing, as well - and I find criticism that is driven by elements outside an actual judgment of the thing being criticized is often invalid at best, or simply a personal attack at worst.

Congratulations, you dislike some parts. Now can I dismiss you as hopelessly biased or grudge bearing on that basis? No? Why not, that's exactly what you're doing to me.

I mean, you could do the same and prove some level of impartiality yourself. I imagine with as often as you post here you do have some kind of lingering enjoyment of the game or its story - otherwise I'm not sure why you'd care to argue about it with as much passion. Then again, there are a lot of people here who seem like they outright hate WoW with a passion, yet post with considerable frequency. So I can't really say, I guess.

When you attempt to excuse flaws in a story based on pure speculation, yes, that's merrily strolling through head canon land. Further, if you keep getting such accusations (and I know that one has come from many posters in many threads), you might want to consider that you might very well be doing so, or at the very least, not making yourself very clear.

At this point, here's where we stand, leaving damn little room to continue meaningfully:
- You insist on a logical fallacy that because other fantasy works have flaws, it excuses Warcraft's flaws.

- You completely refuse to acknowledge that Tolkien went to great lengths to address errors, while Blizz simply dismisses them as inconveniences.

- You refuse to admit a professional team should be held to a higher standard than a single man pursuing a hobby somewhat related to his expertise.

- Only after three or four posters (I didn't explicitly count, before the semantics games) point out that the quality of Tolkien's writing is much higher quality than Blizzard's do you concede the point, while pretending you did so all along.

- You refuse to see the difference between a story that goes to great pains to explain why a "short circuit" (your term) isn't possible and one that makes no effort whatsoever to do so.

- You once again congratulate yourself on your vaunted supposed objectivity and dismiss me as hopelessly biased. For this alone there's no point in me trying to continue, as I can't expect to be taken seriously.

There's a marked difference between "excusing flaws," and explaining or speculating over apparent inconsistencies. And I've found a lot of apparent inconsistencies to be nothing of the sort, if you do some quick research or happen to have access to an encyclopedic resources on WoW lore. But while I thank you on your, uh, constructive criticism of my methodology I think I'll cleave to it nonetheless, as it's been a net benefit to me and I hope others in my time here. I'm not always right, of course, and sometimes in the process of checking something I actually learn something I didn't know before as well. I call that a win-win.

Since you continue to harp on me "excusing WoW's flaws," which is something I actually never did, I think we're at an rhetorical impasse here. I also view many of your claims are either far-fetched or completely imagined, solely created as props to your argument - like the insistence that team-based writing must be held to a higher standard than "normal" writing, apropos of nothing. I also never made the claim that WoW's writing was better than Tolkien's, only that both were valid subjects to criticism, and only when I was told that Tolkien was sacrosanct and not to be at all compared or contrasted to WoW writing (again, apropos of nothing). I've already explained several times why the particular story element being discussed is valid, and the stated criticism rather flimsy. Said criticism basically being told "nuh-uh it's dumb" over and over as a response to several reasonable constructions.

At this point, I think there's no real forward progress to be had here, and these exchanges have gotten way too long to be fruitful. You can of course riposte if desired, but I think that'll be my last reply on this particular argument.

[kansor]

The zone questing and smaller stories are competent, but the main story team is a confused mess to the point that a paint-by-numbers storyline handed down by Activision would probably be better.

[Zandalariprelate]

Honestly? Seeing one lore curator of the company say: "story consistency is just to enhance the experience of the player, not tying the hands of the writers" pretty much solidifies how much they care about the story of the game

I know usually gameplay>lore is a feature in games but c'mon if GW can keep a lot of consistency despite they recon at every their previous stories to make space for a new character, Blizzard has zero excuse considering they borrowed their own fantasy setting from then and has less people working in story deparment.