Do you think the writers are "incompetent"?

[callipygoustp]

I think the world with the internet is a harsh place for creative types to live in: sometimes justified, often not.

[|Dexter|]

Heroes indvertantly being responsible for setting the villain free is one of the tropeiest tropes to ever trope. I feel that one must be very young or have very low standards of fantasy writing to be impressed by something that has popped up in virtually every fantasy franchise since Tolkein's era.

I was just saying it works for this game, I didn´t say its the best ever writing, Warcraft writing has always been border cartoony the writing will always be tropeiest tropes, it was like this for years on years, it's more tabletop style campaign writing with some USA style comic book pop culture writing on top of it. But it always was the same goes for Warcraft 1,2,3 and it works!

[Raisei]

I think the world with the internet is a harsh place for creative types to live in: sometimes justified, often not.

You bet. With all the self-apointed critics in this forum alone I wonder how the WoW writers deal with it. I assume their contracts forbid them from defending themselves from private accounts, since otherwise one would think that we'd have seen at least one or two here over the years (while this is not the official forum it is definately one of the most active), but I also very much doubt they are not aware of all the nonesense flung at them. They either have a self-help group or self-confidence made from adamantium.

@Aucald: That was one enjoyable read, but I have no clue where you find the patience for these fruitless discussions. These guys are determined that nothing could ever be as terrible as WoW, that the writers are either incompetent or purposefully malevolent in their intent and basically want their product to fail. All because the narrative does not do what they want it to do. There are probably no words that will ever make them reconsider.

[Combatbutler]

@Aucald: That was one enjoyable read, but I have no clue where you find the patience for these fruitless discussions. These guys are determined that nothing could ever be as terrible as WoW, that the writers are either incompetent or purposefully malevolent in their intent and basically want their product to fail. All because the narrative does not do what they want it to do. There are probably no words that will ever make them reconsider.

Oh there are things far more terrible than wow out there, but saying it is well written is downright wrong.

[Aucald]

Aucald: That was one enjoyable read, but I have no clue where you find the patience for these fruitless discussions. These guys are determined that nothing could ever be as terrible as WoW, that the writers are either incompetent or purposefully malevolent in their intent and basically want their product to fail. All because the narrative does not do what they want it to do. There are probably no words that will ever make them reconsider.

I think some people simply have their minds concluded, a state borne mostly out of a strong sense of disenfranchisement or disappointment (for any of a number of reasons). And that just is what it is, at the end of the day; everyone's got the right to their own personal opinions and summary judgments. The issue there, as I see it, is when that strong sense of disenfranchisement sort of drives you rain on everyone's parade, to so speak; a kind of strange: "well if *I* can't enjoy this thing I previously liked then no one will" type of sentiment. I have a pronounced distaste for those kind of antics, and I see them on these forums pretty often (to varying degree).

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but it's in bad taste to try to dictate other people's opinions to them, or to try to disallow them from having an opinion based arbitrary or terrible arguments.

[rogueMatthias]

Nah they're not incompetent. I can't say I agree with all their writing decisions but that's more my own judgement.

It's not like the new Star Wars films where they throw the whole concepts of narrative themes, character arcs and story structure out of the window. I'd argue that that trilogy is OBJECTIVELY written badly.

[Combatbutler]

It's not like the new Star Wars films where they throw the whole concepts of narrative themes, character arcs and story structure out of the window. I'd argue that that trilogy is OBJECTIVELY written badly.

But they do, the whole Draenei retcon being a prime example, it essentially jumbled the entire established origin story around

[Raisei]

I think some people simply have their minds concluded, a state borne mostly out of a strong sense of disenfranchisement or disappointment (for any of a number of reasons). And that just is what it is, at the end of the day; everyone's got the right to their own personal opinions and summary judgments. The issue there, as I see it, is when that strong sense of disenfranchisement sort of drives you rain on everyone's parade, to so speak; a kind of strange: "well if *I* can't enjoy this thing I previously liked then no one will" type of sentiment.

Interestingly enough this kind of mindset is often observed in real-world religious converts. There was a big historic name (I think Augustine of Hippo, but not 100% sure, been too long since my studies) who converted from one religion to another and became one of the most vocal critics of the first group, much more then non-converts of his new faith.
Might be something in human nature that when you experience a strong personal disappointment you feel the need to make everyone feel it too and can't fathom if they don't.

In any case I agree that it's not a good position from which to argue, even though I catch myself doing it sometimes when SWTOR comes into play. Especially when like some poster in this thread did, it is propped up as the great example of how good story telling in an MMO can be, without realizing how high a price the game and the playerbase paid for this feature.

[ClassicPeon]

I think the world with the internet is a harsh place for creative types to live in: sometimes justified, often not.

I know this is a bit unrelated but i think the whole George R. R. Martin situation is an extreme showcase that it goes both ways

[Feanoro]

@Aucald: That was one enjoyable read, but I have no clue where you find the patience for these fruitless discussions.

If flawed comparisons, inserting words and strawmen into people's mouths, refusing to address what they actually wrote, zealous efforts to obfuscate via vocabulary, and finally being dismissed as hopelessly biased and petty in lieu of actual arguments are all enjoyable, knock yourself out and argue with him.

These guys are determined that nothing could ever be as terrible as WoW

Or maybe, just maybe, some of us think:
- the writing has gone down in quality
- the writing is not considered a corporate priority based on key employee statements
- the writers have more than demonstrated poor ability and choices

Nah, we're just haters, that's it. Only positivity allowed here in the echo chamber!

that the writers are either incompetent or purposefully malevolent in their intent and basically want their product to fail.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Of course they don't want it to fail, they'd be out of a rather comfy job. There has been more than enough evidence including their public statements and opinions to conclude they are objectively of low quality.

All because the narrative does not do what they want it to do.

Ah yes, the current state is just dandy after all:
- Factions have effectively swapped governing models

- The Horde keeps going through idiotic civil wars, losing characters without meaningful replacement, and is routinely tarred as the villains

- The Alliance is reduced to the non-human races either ignored or appearing only to make the humans look good, a Blue Warchief who's a sockpuppet for one writer's political ideas, and is completely bland, never allowed to be proactive or even strike back effectively

- Both sides are lectured about morality lessons that are absurd in Warcraft's context, when you quite literally commit slaughters for cash and prizes

- Lore that preexisted the current writing team is openly/publicly referred to as constraining, rather than a guideline for going forward. Bonus points for effectively rendering the marketing of Chronicles as fraudulent.

- The Alliance playerbase is effectively ignored (the state of gameplay further argues this), and the Horde is divided between Thrall and Evil Horde factions. It's impossible to please even the majority in such a setup, as BfA just demonstrated.

There are probably no words that will ever make them reconsider.

Sure there are. "Folks, we know many feel the story has suffered, and we're committed to earning back the trust of the audience that made this franchise great, rather than blaming them for not liking the direction we took."

Follow that with concrete actions, such as hiring at bare minimum William King as a typical writer.

----------
As to this "rain on parade" nonsense over a few posts while I was composing this, I suppose it's easier to smear people than actually consider what they're saying. The idea that only Mary Sunshine positivity indicates liking something, that any negativity instantly renders you a "hater" and your thoughts invalid is simple minded nonsense.

[Aucald]

I know this is a bit unrelated but i think the whole George R. R. Martin situation is an extreme showcase that it goes both ways

That's actually kind of interesting, because I'm not really a fan of GRRM's writing. I read A Game of Thrones back in 2002 when praise for the series was really ramping up in literary circles, and I found it rather dry and less than compelling - it was a plodding affair, and while I enjoyed the realistic violent and historical grittiness, it also felt vaguely nihilistic in a way that wasn't compelling for me. That wouldn't compel me to call GRRM a "hack fraud" or heap scorn on him, though; because that was just my personal takeaway and obviously I'm in the minority in terms of my opinion - not that that would matter, either. GRRM has pretty obvious objective talent when it comes to writing, it's just that what he writes is likely never going to be my cup o' tea, and that's okay. I'm a big fan of Frank Herbert's Dune series and I hear a lot of people the say same things about Herbert that I say about GRRM: that Dune is dry (no pun intended) and overblown with academic pretension, that it is both plodding and formulaic at its core. That's a fine criticism, too; and while I don't agree I think it's someone's right to feel that way, just like I do about GRRM's ASOIF series.

- - - Updated - - -

As to this "rain on parade" nonsense over a few posts while I was composing this, I suppose it's easier to smear people than actually consider what they're saying. The idea that only Mary Sunshine positivity indicates liking something, that any negativity instantly renders you a "hater" and your thoughts invalid is simple minded nonsense.

This is kind of funny, because I wasn't actually referring to you specifically with that post - although I'm sure you won't actually believe that claim. But the fact that you would take mild criticism of your argument as a "smear" is somewhat telling, and I think it goes toward demonstrating that my sketch of your motives is closer to correct than anything else. I've never really been accused of being "Mary Sunshine" either, so that's kind of a first for me; I'm actually kind of a down to Earth type of fellow when you get to know me. But yeah, I do think your hyperbolic criticism is more borne out of emotionalism than it is measured or quasi-objective analysis of the subject matter.

I also don't want to get the ball rolling on another multi-page exegesis of one another's critical motives, but I felt your charge above sort of required a response. So back to non-engagement for me.

[adcesamo]

Yes, the actual writters suck. It's like they don't care at all, it seens they just want to realize their fantasy of what would be cool, ignoring or destroying anything that came before. At this point it is a bad fanfiction in my eyes (although a fan would have more respect for the lore)

[Feanoro]

This is kind of funny, because I wasn't actually referring to you specifically with that post - although I'm sure you won't actually believe that claim.

I can say the same, hence "over a few posts" indicating more than one person. I previously wrote that I'm not interested in further discussion with you after your insulting dismissal of me as some petty grudge bearer.

But the fact that you would take mild criticism of your argument as a "smear" is somewhat telling, and I think it goes toward demonstrating that my sketch of your motives is closer to correct than anything else.

I could note you completely dodged my reading of you, but I'll stick to this. You are far too eager to play armchair psychologist, as this is not the first time you have tried to tell me my intentions (a patently absurd exercise, especially in light of your admission of lack of psychic ability), nor am I the only one to receive such treatment. I suggest two things:

1) After dismissing people as haters, however eloquently worded, don't be terribly surprised when they don't care to engage with you further or view you persisting as similarly insulting.

2) Your manner is incredibly condescending in every post, as if your opinion is somehow more enlightened, reasoned, and considered than anyone else's. I suggest some serious self-examination into how you present yourself. I fully expect a "nuh-uh, you do it too!" response here based on past behavior, sadly.

I've never really been accused of being "Mary Sunshine" either, so that's kind of a first for me; I'm actually kind of a down to Earth type of fellow when you get to know me.

You decided that was directed at you. It wasn't. It was a general statement in response to multiple posts essentially accusing anyone with a negative opinion of the writers as acting in bad faith among other charges.

But yeah, I do think your hyperbolic criticism is more borne out of emotionalism than it is measured or quasi-objective analysis of the subject matter.

And I could comment about your pseudo-intellectualism as a means of compensating, then act surprised when you don't particularly enjoy such labels. That's exactly what you do to others.

So back to non-engagement for me.

I thought "Ignoring you" posts were against forum rules. Guess it's ok when you do it, much like how this entire debacle was a derailment.

[Aucald]

I can say the same, hence "over a few posts" indicating more than one person. I previously wrote that I'm not interested in further discussion with you after your insulting dismissal of me as some petty grudge bearer.

I could note you completely dodged my reading of you, but I'll stick to this. You are far too eager to play armchair psychologist, as this is not the first time you have tried to tell me my intentions (a patently absurd exercise, especially in light of your admission of lack of psychic ability), nor am I the only one to receive such treatment. I suggest two things:

1) After dismissing people as haters, however eloquently worded, don't be terribly surprised when they don't care to engage with you further or view you persisting as similarly insulting.

2) Your manner is incredibly condescending in every post, as if your opinion is somehow more enlightened, reasoned, and considered than anyone else's. I suggest some serious self-examination into how you present yourself.

You decided that was directed at you. It wasn't. It was a general statement in response to multiple posts essentially accusing anyone with a negative opinion of the writers as acting in bad faith among other charges.

And I could comment about your pseudo-intellectualism as a means of compensating, then act surprised when you don't particularly enjoy such labels. That's exactly what you do to others.

I thought "Ignoring you" posts were against forum rules. Guess it's ok when you do it, much like how this entire debacle was a derailment.

"I'm going to hurl a bunch of invective at you, like calling you a pseudo-intellectual and armchair psychologist, and then try to take the high road hoping no one will notice my massive hypocrisy."

All I can say is "yikes." You're not making my argument look any less convincing, I can say that for you.

[Feanoro]

I don't actually read what people say to me.

So you can rudely dish out personal criticisms, but can't take it when someone returns the favor. Thought you were "back to non-engagement", but I can see you like having the last word.

[Auxora]

I thank goodness for the novels because frankly that's 98% of the lore now. Tides of War for example, the novel explained in great depth the reasoning behind Garrosh destroying Theramore and all the twists and turns that happened leading up to it and the event. In-game, the events in the novel were simply a quick scenario with a 3 second cutscene of Theramore blowing up. WoD barely even touched on Garrosh's trial in-game which was a huge event in the novels. Without the books there virtually is no lore, the quest text and cutscenes just don't come close to covering it. In fact I don't know how anyone can claim to understand wow lore if they haven't read the books. The in-game text and cutscenes are just a very (very) high level overview of the storyline, just enough to barely explain why certain things in-game are happening.

Ed: Also just a suggestion. Even if you aren't typically a book reader, if you love wow you will gain a far greater appreciation for the game by reading the novels. At a minimum try to read the pre-expansion novels, which are amazing and will get you pumped for Shadowlands. They are great, especially the Christie Golden novels, and most of them also are available as audiobooks on Audible.

[Feanoro]

I thank goodness for the novels because frankly that's 98% of the lore now. Tides of War for example, the novel explained in great depth the reasoning behind Garrosh destroying Theramore and all the twists and turns that happened leading up to it and the event. In-game, the events in the novel were simply a quick scenario with a 3 second cutscene of Theramore blowing up. WoD barely even touched on Garrosh's trial in-game which was a huge event in the novels. Without the books there virtually is no lore, the quest text and cutscenes just don't come close to covering it. In fact I don't know how anyone can claim to understand wow lore if they haven't read the books. The in-game text and cutscenes are just a very (very) high level overview of the storyline, just enough to barely explain why certain things in-game are happening.

Ed: Also just a suggestion. Even if you aren't typically a book reader, if you love wow you will gain a far greater appreciation for the game by reading the novels. At a minimum try to read the pre-expansion novels, which are amazing and will get you pumped for Shadowlands. They are great, especially the Christie Golden novels, and most of them also are available as audiobooks on Audible.

Sadly, they've seemingly given up on presenting the story in game. It's a crying shame they don't call on William King more often, since they've chosen the external books route.

[Aucald]

I thank goodness for the novels because frankly that's 98% of the lore now. Tides of War for example, the novel explained in great depth the reasoning behind Garrosh destroying Theramore and all the twists and turns that happened leading up to it and the event. In-game, the events in the novel were simply a quick scenario with a 3 second cutscene of Theramore blowing up. WoD barely even touched on Garrosh's trial in-game which was a huge event in the novels. Without the books there virtually is no lore, the quest text and cutscenes just don't come close to covering it. In fact I don't know how anyone can claim to understand wow lore if they haven't read the books. The in-game text and cutscenes are just a very (very) high level overview of the storyline, just enough to barely explain why certain things in-game are happening.

Ed: Also just a suggestion. Even if you aren't typically a book reader, if you love wow you will gain a far greater appreciation for the game by reading the novels. At a minimum try to read the pre-expansion novels, which are amazing and will get you pumped for Shadowlands. They are great, especially the Christie Golden novels, and most of them also are available as audiobooks on Audible.

That's one area where I think WoW definitely gets it wrong from a storytelling capacity. While I really like the novels for the way they explore both the game world and the various characters on a level you just can't get in a game, it does a disservice to the story when a great deal of said narrative is "gated" behind a task a lot of people just don't want to be bothered with (e.g. reading 400+ page novels). I think it would be really cool if the books had these Afterlives type cinematics, or in-game cutscenes even, that sort of served as a quick "catch-up" on the events of any given novel to sort of let you know what had happened. Even better would be actual playable in-game content that touched on all the highlights, like a series of quests or a scenario or what-have-you.

But yeah, large swathes of story ideally shouldn't go missed if you opt not to read all the novels.

[Stormspellz]

I think the better term would be "hand tied", between the overall story arc of warcraft, and the needs of the gameplay. Doesn't leave much room to do much of anything.

[Vorkreist]

I did skip D1 and D2, but I played through the entirety of SC and Broodwar.

I don't see much of a disconnect between the story of SC and SC2, do you have anything specific to cite as an example of where SC2 trampled over the original lore? (Excluding anything from LotV, because as I already said I think LotV took a strange turn for a reason that has literally nothing to do with the story).

Anime Fairy Kerrigan seems in tune with SC to you ? Same thing with Sheablo.