Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
10
11
... LastLast
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    Even basic high fantasy is hardly medieval, frankly. WarCraft never really had medieval, magic played far to big a role.
    It's medieval in terms of the setting and the fact that big armies play out fighting on foot. In the RTS games, magic didn't really dominate the setting, it was meant to support your army of knights and soldiers. Today, Jaina magically brings a battleship that shoots arcane cannonballs to a siege. Magic imbues your one character granting supernatural abilities that makes every player character the equivalent of a standing army.

    We've gone from medieval fantasy to superhero fantasy.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Eurhetemec View Post
    So you think monarchy is a medieval concept? Well that explains an awful lot.
    To be very frank, you're arguing semantics. Yes, Warcraft is well beyond the structure of 'a European fantasy setting between the 5th and 15th century', and one can argue that it was always considered 'High Fantasy'. But the whole concept of all medieval fantasy is more broadly applicable to what WC1-3 originally were like, to an extent including WoW Vanilla.

    Even though there were many non-traditional Medieval Fantasy elements already present throughout the series, the core of it was based on a general medieval setting. What you are arguing against is true, but at the same time it's semantics considering how niche a true medieval fantasy setting really is. If you don't like the particular wording used in this thread, then perhaps think of the OP's argument as 'I liked it better when the focus was on Knights and Soldiers fighting instead of space ships and god-like super beings'. There is a reason why "Medieval" is being used in quotation marks in the title of this thread; it's to dissuade arguments over semantics like this.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-03 at 07:25 PM.

  2. #162
    Scarab Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    In the same urn as Vol'Jin
    Posts
    4,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It's medieval in terms of the setting and the fact that big armies play out fighting on foot. In the RTS games, magic didn't really dominate the setting, it was meant to support your army of knights and soldiers. Today, Jaina magically brings a battleship that shoots arcane cannonballs to a siege. Magic imbues your one character granting supernatural abilities that makes every player character the equivalent of a standing army.

    We've gone from medieval fantasy to superhero fantasy.
    Because there were no bombers or battleships or the like in WC2/3. Because none of the WC1/2/3 characters were basically superheroes? Who are you even kidding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    To be very frank, you're arguing semantics. Yes, Warcraft is well beyond the structure of 'a European fantasy setting between the 5th and 15th century', and one can argue that it was always considered 'High Fantasy'. But the whole concept of all medieval fantasy is more broadly applicable to what WC1-3 originally were like, to an extent including WoW Vanilla.

    Even though there were many non-traditional Medieval Fantasy elements already present throughout the series, the core of it was based on a general medieval setting. What you are arguing against is true, but at the same time it's semantics considering how niche a true medieval fantasy setting really is. If you don't like the particular wording used in this thread, then perhaps think of the OP's argument as 'I liked it better when the focus was on Knights and Soldiers fighting instead of space ships and god-like super beings'. There is a reason why "Medieval" is being used in quotation marks in the title of this thread; it's to dissuade arguments over semantics like this.
    It's not medieval fantasy in the broadest sense. It's kitchen-sink fantasy.

    He's the one claiming kings FORCED it to be "medieval fantasy". So your argument is with the other guy.
    "A youtuber said so."

    "... some wow experts being interviewed..."

    "According to researchers from Wowhead..."

  3. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurhetemec View Post
    He's the one claiming kings FORCED it to be "medieval fantasy". So your argument is with the other guy.
    Then stop thinking it as medieval fantasy.

    OP explained it pretty clearly as Sword and Sorcery.

    Again, your whole argument is centered on semantics which the OP already intended to avoid with the liberal use of quotations.

    Sword and sorcery instead of spaceships and superheroes. You are kidding yourself if you think this is a legitimate discussion about medieval settings.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-03 at 08:42 PM.

  4. #164
    Scarab Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    In the same urn as Vol'Jin
    Posts
    4,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Then stop thinking it as medieval fantasy.

    OP explained it pretty clearly as Sword and Sorcery.

    Again, your whole argument is centered on semantics which the OP already intended to avoid with the liberal use of quotations.

    Sword and sorcery instead of spaceships and superheroes. You are kidding yourself if you think this is a legitimate discussion about medieval settings.
    Dude, have you even been following the argument? Have you read the last few pages? Nerovar is the one saying it's "medieval fantasy". I'm saying it's NOT.

    I just re-read the OP and he doesn't use the term Sword and Sorcery or anything like it, and his explanation doesn't amount to Sword and Sorcery, either. He said:

    "but i miss the grounded sense of medieval fantasy in WoW."

    There's no quotation marks there (only in the title). There's no "let's avoid semantics", that's a claim you're making.

    So you're claiming WoW is Sword and Sorcery. That's fine, I guess. It's a lot less of a stretch. The gap between "kitchen-sink fantasy" and "Sword and Sorcery" is pretty small and there's a lot of crossover. I won't argue with you on that. But the idea that Sword and Sorcery doesn't feature "spaceships" or "superheroes" is just ignorant and demonstrably wrong. You ever read any Michael Moorcock even? A ton of D&D, Warhammer, and thus WoW is based on his stuff, his updated Sword and Sorcery output in the 1960s-1980s. Furthermore, Sword and Sorcery crosses over HARD with Planetary Romance, which is what a lot of WoW is also kind of like (TBC and WoD are basically closest to Planetary Romance as for their genres), and there's even more in the way of spaceships and superheroes. I mean, fuck, in earlier editions of D&D, guess what the title was for high-level Fighters? Superhero. Earlier even than that, back in Chainmail, Superhero was a class of character you could have in your army.
    "A youtuber said so."

    "... some wow experts being interviewed..."

    "According to researchers from Wowhead..."

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurhetemec View Post
    So you're claiming WoW is Sword and Sorcery. That's fine, I guess. It's a lot less of a stretch. The gap between "kitchen-sink fantasy" and "Sword and Sorcery" is pretty small and there's a lot of crossover. I won't argue with you on that. But the idea that Sword and Sorcery doesn't feature "spaceships" or "superheroes" is just ignorant and demonstrably wrong.
    Except no one is saying it doesn't feature it. People are saying there's *too much* of it dominating the landscape. And for the most part that is true.

    Look at Age of Sigmar. That is a VERY DIFFERENT tone and landscape from the more general High Fantasy elements of classic Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

    We can analyze both and see that there are cosmic elements and god-like beings and such in both settings, but we also have to be aware that there are differences and Age of Sigmar has grown beyond the classic Sword and Sorcery tropes, and even further from the medieval roots that some of the armies originally were themed around.

    This isn't a discussion of whether super heroes or spaceships exist in Warcraft. We already know they do. Interplanetary travel is exactly what the Dark Portal covers. Yet the root of the fantasy setting is still vastly different than say what we got in TBC or Legion. That is the topic at hand.

    No one is arguing that Warcraft should completely be ABSENT of these themes. This is where you are taking the 'Medieval' part too seriously, and like I said time and time again you are arguing semantics.

    The OP said "but i miss the grounded sense of medieval fantasy in WoW."

    This means he misses the grounded, overarching atmosphere (sense) of a medieval fantasy setting, within World of Warcraft. That is not saying WoW is medieval fantasy. I think you are overlooking this context because you're too focused on the term 'Medieval fantasy' and are applying it literally to the Warcraft setting. The emphasis should be on 'Sense' because the rest of the OP's argument supports this rationale. He is missing the focus on medieval elements that already exist within Warcraft's fantasy setting.

    OP said it clearly. Swords and shields, dragons and magic. That is what Warcraft used to be. Even if Warcraft had god-like beings and cosmic travel, they were incredibly rare and had very limited interaction with the player. When you meet a character like Cenarius, it feels impressive because he was surrounded by mystery and intrigue, and with great reverie. That is the difference with today, where god-like beings are treated as our quest givers.

    Compare this to WC2 where the human expeditions that ventured forth into Draenor ended up being stuck there permanently once the portals closed. Today, interplanetary travel is manageable through portals and hearthstones. It's a very different treatment of the plot and of the lore. Part of this may be due to game mechanics interfering with the overall story, but part of it is also expanding the story well beyond the scope of the original story too, WoD's alternate universe/time travel shenanigans for example.

    Dude, have you even been following the argument? Have you read the last few pages? Nerovar is the one saying it's "medieval fantasy". I'm saying it's NOT.

    As for what you and Nerovar are bickering over - it's still a case of semantics. Nerovar is using a more general and broad application of 'Medieval fantasy' while you are using a much more narrow, specific definition. You both are neither right or wrong, because you are both arguing over apples and oranges when it comes to what Warcraft's setting ultimately is. It is both a medieval fantasy setting and not a medieval fantasy setting, namely because the entire meaning of 'Medieval fantasy' isn't a tangible thing. It's ultimately a subjective definition that applies to a range of themes and settings that include fantasy elements. If you bring up a more specific definition to argue 'No, that is wrong because Medieval Fantasy means this instead' then that is what I mean by arguing semantics. The term is acceptable here because Warcraft is a still understood as a fantasy setting that has medieval themes within it. No one really gives two fucks that it's not specifically 'Medieval fantasy', which is a niche definition to begin with.

    In context to the OP's statement, the term 'Medieval fantasy' is being used to differentiate the subgenre from other types of fantasy, namely due to Warcraft's inclusion of all things pop-culture and its own lack of specific genre classification. It is NOT being used as a definition to categorize Warcraft as a part of the specific Medieval fantasy subgenre that is specific to fantastic works within a setting of the real life Middle Ages. It's similar to how some people may categorize Game of Thrones as 'Medieval fantasy' even though it should be regarded as '(High) Fantasy within a fictional medieval-inspired setting'. At the end of the day, it don't matter what people classify Game of Thrones as long as we all have a common understanding of the material and topic.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-03 at 11:38 PM.

  6. #166
    Scarab Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    In the same urn as Vol'Jin
    Posts
    4,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    We can analyze both and see that there are cosmic elements and god-like beings and such in both settings, but we also have to be aware that there are differences and Age of Sigmar has grown beyond the classic Sword and Sorcery tropes, and even further from the medieval roots that some of the armies originally were themed around.
    You're really pushing my buttons here mate. The armies in Warhammer never had "medieval roots". None of them. Not even one. I say this as someone who played Warhammer since the 1980s. Not even the Bretonnians. The initial Bretonnians were clearly inspired by 1600s/1700s France. They weren't very well-developed, and they later changed massively to be the only medieval-style army in the entire game. The vast majority of armies are either ancient weirdos (seriously most of them) who have Ancient Greece vibes (High Elves), Celtic vibes (Wood Elves), Melniboneans from Elric by Michael Moorcock vibes, which are in turn an exaggeration of Roman vibes to a massive degree (Dark Elves), Aztec/Inca/Mayan vibes all jammed together with awesome dinosaurs (Lizardmen), Black Death + Steampunk + Nuclear weapons + fuck knows vibes (Skaven), very late Holy Roman Empire 1500s/1600s Europe vibes (Empire)and so on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    This isn't a discussion of whether super heroes or spaceships exist in Warcraft. We already know they do. Interplanetary travel is exactly what the Dark Portal covers. Yet the root of the fantasy setting is still vastly different than say what we got in TBC or Legion. That is the topic at hand.
    The root of the setting is meaningless, because it's only present in WC1, from 1994, which is before half the people on this forum were even born, and game almost none of them have actually played. By the time we get to WoW/Vanilla, which the OP was referring to (not WC1), things had changed massively. Even WC1 the main characters were "superheroes".

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    This means he misses the grounded, overarching atmosphere (sense) of a medieval fantasy setting, within World of Warcraft. That is not saying WoW is medieval fantasy. I think you are overlooking this context because you're too focused on the term 'Medieval fantasy' and are applying it literally to the Warcraft setting. The emphasis should be on 'Sense' because the rest of the OP's argument supports this rationale. He is missing the focus on medieval elements that already exist within Warcraft's fantasy setting.
    There are very few, and they've never been strongly pushed. It's about as "medieval" as Gargoyles or The Gummi Bears, or, for that matter, Frozen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    OP said it clearly. Swords and shields, dragons and magic. That is what Warcraft used to be. Even if Warcraft had god-like beings and cosmic travel, they were incredibly rare and had very limited interaction with the player. When you meet a character like Cenarius, it feels impressive because he was surrounded by mystery and intrigue, and with great reverie. That is the difference with today, where god-like beings are treated as our quest givers.
    They were treated as quest-givers in Vanilla. It's a literally a lie to claim otherwise. This can be very easily seen by, y'know, logging on to Classic.

    You're confusing "mystery and intrigue" and "great reverie" with "taking weeks to level up, and every quest and piece of gear being more meaningful". People suggesting the OP "go play Classic", which he rejected would be right to do so. If he plays Classic, he'll see how wrong he is. You can go and do it right now. It doesn't cost you any money you aren't paying already if you're subbed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Compare this to WC2 where the human expeditions that ventured forth into Draenor ended up being stuck there permanently once the portals closed. Today, interplanetary travel is manageable through portals and hearthstones. It's a very different treatment of the plot and of the lore. Part of this may be due to game mechanics interfering with the overall story, but part of it is also expanding the story well beyond the scope of the original story too, WoD's alternate universe/time travel shenanigans for example.
    This is essentially complete bullshit, and the way you phrase it, you clearly know you're overreaching wildly. Hearthstones etc. are metagame things. The idea that we could ever be "trapped" in an area in that way in an MMO is fucking ridiculous and ruins your entire argument here. You're making the same mistake you're accusing me of having made re: medieval fantasy. You can't see the woods for the trees.

    WoD is worthy of criticism, but the idea that had things stayed "more like Vanilla" that would never have happened is a joke, given the events of WC3 and so on. But it was very poorly handled, for sure. But something totally different? Not really. That was half the problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    In context to the OP's statement, the term 'Medieval fantasy' is being used to differentiate the subgenre from other types of fantasy, namely due to Warcraft's inclusion of all things pop-culture and its own lack of specific genre classification. It is NOT being used as a definition to categorize Warcraft as a part of the specific Medieval fantasy subgenre that is specific to fantastic works within a setting of the real life Middle Ages. It's similar to how some people may categorize Game of Thrones as 'Medieval fantasy' even though it should be regarded as '(High) Fantasy within a fictional medieval-inspired setting'. At the end of the day, it don't matter what people classify Game of Thrones as long as we all have a common understanding of the material and topic.
    That's the problem. It's a shit differentiation. It's a confusing and fake differentiation. It's a differentiation that should NOT be made, as it's utterly false. It links WoW to a bunch of stuff it doesn't resemble, and never has resembled, and succeeds solely in muddying the waters.

    I agree re: a common understanding. Using terms like "medieval fantasy" in this completely vague and meaningless way that doesn't actually differentiate it from anything, and the OP made the waters even muddier by then using the same term to describe a vague vibe. So that actually actively hinders a "common understanding".

    WoW is towards the extreme end of High fantasy with kitchen-sink elements and a ton of steam-age and magitech stuff. That was true in Vanilla. It's true now.

    Basically you seem to want to use "medieval fantasy" as a weird-ass codeword for "less dimension travel, less talking to powerful beings, less magitech, and so on". And yeah Vanilla has less of that. But not a whole lot less. If TBC is like, an 8/10 on that scale (and it is, because it's pretty much 24/7 that stuff), then Vanilla is a 6/10, maybe even 6.5 (because we can't exclude AQ, Naxx, etc.), and then Wrath is like a 6/10, and Cata 9/10, WoD 9/10, MoP hard to rate, but I'd say 7/10, WoD is a 7/10 (apart from the dimension travel/AU aspect, it's pretty fucking grounded), Legion is a 10/10 peak over-the-top-ness, BfA is back down to a 9/10 and would have been like a 7/10 without 8.3/Corruption/N'Zoth, because despite all the HEAL HER WOONS, most of what's going on (i.e. the zones, war campaign, WQs, etc.) is the most grounded shit WoW has seen for a long time, in the actual zones and quests and so on. SL looks like it'll be 11/10 I admit, but I dunno, I like "otherworld"-type expansions in games in my experience.
    Last edited by Eurhetemec; 2020-11-04 at 02:35 AM.
    "A youtuber said so."

    "... some wow experts being interviewed..."

    "According to researchers from Wowhead..."

  7. #167
    Man, I do miss the Medieval fantasy as well. Loved going about gaining Oil, rocking off to Arthas playing a badass ETC song with an Ice Guitar iand studio in WC3, seeing all this stuff regarding Gods, Forgotten Ones, and Intergalactic Armies in WC3, going through TBC and seeing dimensional ships, immortal demon bois, and Void beings capable of destroying worlds, and fighting C'Thun in Classic (Ya know? An Old God that was inspired by the Elder Gods from the C'Thulu Mythos?), and so much more non medieval shit prior to WoTLK. Oh man, I do miss that.

    What are you on about, OP?

    - - - Updated - - -

    "but i miss the grounded sense of medieval fantasy in WoW.
    sword and shields, dragons, magic, and the feel you get from (let's say) classic WoW."

    Even tho C'Thun, Naxxramas, the Burning Legion, and all of those totally not at all grounded things were established factors in Classic WoW...

    - - - Updated - - -

    "what i'm getting at is that, as WoW's story continues do you think it will ever be grounded again?" No. Fuck no. lmao

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurhetemec View Post
    You're really pushing my buttons here mate.
    I can push it even more if you like.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warham...shop%20company.

    "Warhammer (formerly Warhammer Fantasy Battle or just Warhammer Fantasy) is a tabletop miniature wargame with a medieval fantasy theme that simulates battles between armies from different factions. "

    No one gives two fucks about it being anachronistic to a specific time period. To make an argument about the specifics of time period is simply being anal retentive here. I've explained well enough that the term 'Medieval Fantasy' is itself a loose descriptor that is widely used beyond the specific niche of 'Fantasy within a definitive Medieval period of time'. It's a catch-all for anything with knights and kings. I'm surprised you didn't know this, or perhaps you do and you just like being fussy about it. Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings can both be classified as being within the Medieval Fantasy sub-genre, despite not actually being set during the Medieval period on Earth. It all depends on who you ask, since the whole classification is completely and utterly subjective.

    The root of the setting is meaningless, because it's only present in WC1, from 1994, which is before half the people on this forum were even born, and game almost none of them have actually played. By the time we get to WoW/Vanilla, which the OP was referring to (not WC1), things had changed massively. Even WC1 the main characters were "superheroes".
    I disagree.

    There are very few, and they've never been strongly pushed. It's about as "medieval" as Gargoyles or The Gummi Bears, or, for that matter, Frozen.
    Yes and all of that (maybe sans Gargoyles) could colloquially be categorized under 'Medieval fantasy' given how broad the term is accepted. It's like calling something 'Steampunk' or 'Cyberpunk' when it's not really; people generally accept the categorization if it gets the idea across. Just like Wikipedia referring to Warhammer as a Medieval fantasy tabletop game. It's not a big deal honestly.

    They were treated as quest-givers in Vanilla. It's a literally a lie to claim otherwise. This can be very easily seen by, y'know, logging on to Classic.
    Did I lie by saying they weren't? No.
    Did I claim otherwise? No.

    Are you projecting? Yes.

    You're confusing "mystery and intrigue" and "great reverie" with "taking weeks to level up, and every quest and piece of gear being more meaningful". People suggesting the OP "go play Classic", which he rejected would be right to do so. If he plays Classic, he'll see how wrong he is. You can go and do it right now. It doesn't cost you any money you aren't paying already if you're subbed.
    The Warcraft setting having mystery and intrigue isn't mutually exclusive to poorly paced gameplay.

    In fact, I was more making a reference to the RTS games where you quoted me specifically. That is still the Warcraft setting. So no, I would agree with the OP in that the answer isn't 'Go play Classic' since the setting of Warcraft and its story reach well beyond one particular version of the MMO.

    This is essentially complete bullshit, and the way you phrase it, you clearly know you're overreaching wildly. Hearthstones etc. are metagame things. The idea that we could ever be "trapped" in an area in that way in an MMO is fucking ridiculous and ruins your entire argument here. You're making the same mistake you're accusing me of having made re: medieval fantasy. You can't see the woods for the trees.

    WoD is worthy of criticism, but the idea that had things stayed "more like Vanilla" that would never have happened is a joke, given the events of WC3 and so on. But it was very poorly handled, for sure. But something totally different? Not really. That was half the problem.
    Game mechanics can be retooled to fit a better fantasy. Such as having all high level characters be forced in the new zone, and establish new hubs that replace the necessity to 'return to Azeroth'.

    They simply don't do it because they appeal to the lowest common denominator and they don't want to piss anyone off by limiting them access to the old world. But let us be clear here - these game mechanics are by design and intentional. It can be just as intentional to offer content that limits access to certain zones or add an element of permanence (even if temporary) to enhance an experience. My two cents, feel free to disagree.

    That's the problem. It's a shit differentiation. It's a confusing and fake differentiation. It's a differentiation that should NOT be made, as it's utterly false.
    But utterly false to who?

    You are offended because you are choosing to be offended. You choose to not accept it even though it's already well established and well accepted as a subcategory of Fantasy settings. Warhammer is Medieval Fantasy. Warcraft is Medieval Fantasy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TknF4UODXCc

    Basically you seem to want to use "medieval fantasy" as a weird-ass codeword for "less dimension travel, less talking to powerful beings, less magitech, and so on". And yeah Vanilla has less of that. But not a whole lot less. If TBC is like, an 8/10 on that scale (and it is, because it's pretty much 24/7 that stuff), then Vanilla is a 6/10, maybe even 6.5 (because we can't exclude AQ, Naxx, etc.), and then Wrath is like a 6/10, and Cata 9/10, WoD 9/10, MoP hard to rate, but I'd say 7/10, WoD is a 7/10 (apart from the dimension travel/AU aspect, it's pretty fucking grounded), Legion is a 10/10 peak over-the-top-ness, BfA is back down to a 9/10 and would have been like a 7/10 without 8.3/Corruption/N'Zoth, because despite all the HEAL HER WOONS, most of what's going on (i.e. the zones, war campaign, WQs, etc.) is the most grounded shit WoW has seen for a long time, in the actual zones and quests and so on. SL looks like it'll be 11/10 I admit, but I dunno, I like "otherworld"-type expansions in games in my experience.
    Everyone has their own scale. No right snd wrong answer here. I'm personally fine with WoW as it is. I had friends who hated WC3 just because it added guns into the mix with Riflemen, and I think its fine to feel that way.

    Personally, I would like it if WoW had less of that stuff too and kept more grounded, but it is what it is and we can't roll back on it.

    WC2 is my favourite setting, and there is quite a community that share a fondness of this era of Warcraft. It isn't all about making Warcraft be absent of all sci fi elements. Think of it more as voicing out how some of us prefer a more low-key use of sci-fi or superhero themes. Look at the heroes of WC2, they are all mere mortals that were skilled commanders and veteran fighters amongst their kind, and they were still very beloved characters despite their simplicity. Compare that to the same characters today, and they're suped up on supernatural powers. Genn Greymane, Turalyon, Alleria, Magni Bronzebeard... From simple kings and commanders to Werewolf, Light-infused super soldier, Void powered super-Elf and a Diamond-skinned Dwarf. Like, I don't think there isn't wrong with having a few really key characters like an Arthas or Illidan be super-powered badasses, but WoW has since taken that to the next level and made many main AND secondary characters into supernatural badasses. If not in supernatural power, then through sheer superhuman feats. Again, feel free to disagree.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-04 at 07:28 AM.

  9. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by iinverse View Post
    "Medieval fantasy" with dreadnoughts, zeppelins, explosive squads, guns, battle mechs? And this is not even WoW, its Warcraft strategy games.
    "Guns" are medieval weapons. At least muskets are. https://www.history.com/news/medieva...ages#section_5
    Even cannons.

  10. #170
    Scarab Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    In the same urn as Vol'Jin
    Posts
    4,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I can push it even more if you like.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warham...shop%20company.

    "Warhammer (formerly Warhammer Fantasy Battle or just Warhammer Fantasy) is a tabletop miniature wargame with a medieval fantasy theme that simulates battles between armies from different factions. "
    Sadly there's no stopping morons from editing Wikipedia. But I'm less interested in arguing about that aspect than you are at this point. Ironic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I disagree.
    Okay, but do you have any reasoning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    They simply don't do it because they appeal to the lowest common denominator and they don't want to piss anyone off by limiting them access to the old world. But let us be clear here - these game mechanics are by design and intentional. It can be just as intentional to offer content that limits access to certain zones or add an element of permanence (even if temporary) to enhance an experience. My two cents, feel free to disagree.
    Blizzard clearly disagree, and they've got 16 years of successful running a game making billions as supporting evidence.

    Whereas other games have tried to take an approach more like that you're suggesting, and they're all small potatoes. Obvious correlation isn't causation, but all the evidence from games that tried to be more limiting is that it is not a successful model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Everyone has their own scale. No right snd wrong answer here. I'm personally fine with WoW as it is. I had friends who hated WC3 just because it added guns into the mix with Riflemen, and I think its fine to feel that way.

    Personally, I would like it if WoW had less of that stuff too and kept more grounded, but it is what it is and we can't roll back on it.

    WC2 is my favourite setting, and there is quite a community that share a fondness of this era of Warcraft. It isn't all about making Warcraft be absent of all sci fi elements. Think of it more as voicing out how some of us prefer a more low-key use of sci-fi or superhero themes. Look at the heroes of WC2, they are all mere mortals that were skilled commanders and veteran fighters amongst their kind, and they were still very beloved characters despite their simplicity. Compare that to the same characters today, and they're suped up on supernatural powers. Genn Greymane, Turalyon, Alleria, Magni Bronzebeard... From simple kings and commanders to Werewolf, Light-infused super soldier, Void powered super-Elf and a Diamond-skinned Dwarf. Like, I don't think there isn't wrong with having a few really key characters like an Arthas or Illidan be super-powered badasses, but WoW has since taken that to the next level and made many main AND secondary characters into supernatural badasses. If not in supernatural power, then through sheer superhuman feats. Again, feel free to disagree.
    So you're having to reach back to before WoW? Before WC3 even?

    I think what you aren't processing here is the 18+ years of games you're describing. You complain about "superhuman feats". Buddy, any fantasy series that has been continually outputting content for 16 years, and that features "heroic" characters (in the broad sense, not personally virtuous sense) is going to be wall-to-wall "superhuman feats", simply because the longer that goes on, the more that will happen. The same is broadly true re:s supernatural powers, and your examples are terrible.

    I mean, you put a man whose only "power" is that he is of a race cursed to be able to turn into (pretty crappy) werewolves next to Magni Bronzebeard, as if they're the same thing?

    And you named pretty much everyone who has significant supernatural powers which aren't from training/experience (and Genn Greymane, who has no significant supernatural powers - he's not like a super-worgen or something), two of whom will probably be dead/depowered/villains by the end of next expansion (possibly by the end of this). Even the boat-summon people love to complain about with Jaina is literally something that's a battlefield spell in Warhammer Total War 2 (and wouldn't be out-of-place in tabletop Warhammer).

    Everyone else who is a "superhero" is just an exemplar of a particular class, a particularly powerful member of that.

    I think you're actually being pretty unfair and silly here. A lot of games, book series, comics, and so on, the characters really do go like you're saying. Everyone gets wildly more and more powerful, one-upping each other and so on (Malazan is a particularly hilarious example). That hasn't happened with WoW. There are only a few powerful people and they're frequently stymied and duped, rather than being basically gods walking among us, or worse, GMPCs. Blizzard have kept a lid on their power, giving them the odd flashy moment, but never letting them be continuously OP. That didn't happen by accident. Maybe they haven't kept as much of a lid on it as you'd like, but the have clearly intentionally prevented the game being just a matter of "follow these kewl superheroez around" or "whoa just look at all these awesome dudez!" like some stuff devolves into.
    "A youtuber said so."

    "... some wow experts being interviewed..."

    "According to researchers from Wowhead..."

  11. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurhetemec View Post
    ROFL so by your logic a ren-faire is "medieval"?
    That's pretty much why i said medieval fantasy as it is being defined here is a meaningless qualifier. It's pretty much just fantasy with some superficially medieval trappings... which is about 90% of what most people consider fantasy anyhow.

  12. #172
    Scarab Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    In the same urn as Vol'Jin
    Posts
    4,595
    Quote Originally Posted by huth View Post
    That's pretty much why i said medieval fantasy as it is being defined here is a meaningless qualifier. It's pretty much just fantasy with some superficially medieval trappings... which is about 90% of what most people consider fantasy anyhow.
    By that logic WoW is still just as "medieval fantasy" as it was in 2004 in 2020. I mean, fuck, BfA has a ton more "superficially medieval trappings" than Burning Crusade did. So we're actually in one of the more "medieval fantasy" periods of WoW if we go that way.

    Which makes the OP's complaint rather senseless.
    "A youtuber said so."

    "... some wow experts being interviewed..."

    "According to researchers from Wowhead..."

  13. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurhetemec View Post
    By that logic WoW is still just as "medieval fantasy" as it was in 2004 in 2020. I mean, fuck, BfA has a ton more "superficially medieval trappings" than Burning Crusade did. So we're actually in one of the more "medieval fantasy" periods of WoW if we go that way.

    Which makes the OP's complaint rather senseless.
    Well, it's hardly surprising when one tries to compress a good millenium of history and a bunch of concepts that don't even originate from it into a single word. WoW is rather well-entreched somewhere between High, Heroic and Epic fantasy and hasn't really budged from there, as much as some people mistake magic spaceships for SciFi, with magic rather commonplace and mythical creatures as regular mounts being ubiquitious.

  14. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurhetemec View Post
    Blizzard clearly disagree, and they've got 16 years of successful running a game making billions as supporting evidence.
    Look at how this philosphy has bit them in the ass when approaching MOBAs. Sometimes it is very successful, sometimes you just need to add in the systems that let players enjoy what they want to experience. Blizzard didn't want a game with items or individual EXP gain so that individuals can't snowball and carry the game, yet that is one of the driving features of DotA and the more successful MOBAs. Mind you, I LOVE Heroes of the Storm, I love the way the game plays, and I am one of the few who play it still today. But I absolutely recognize that the majority of MOBA players gravitate towards DOTA2 and League because of its experience, something that I also fondly remember being an avid DOTA Allstars custom map player.

    Let's take a look again at how they approached D3 with a much more flexible game system that appeals to the wider masses, compared to the rigid permanence that existed in Diablo 2. While D3 is very good game even though it does very little to carry over the design philosophies from Diablo 2. And when we look at a true Diablo 2 spiritual successor like Path of Exile, the content and the community has grown vastly beyond what Diablo 3 has fostered. Success is not exclusive to appealing to the lowest common denominator - we just don't have the successful hardcore alternative MMO to compare WoW to. I think there is a case to make that (niche)hardcore, tailored experience-oriented games can be just as successful as Blizzard's approach of appealing to the masses, and still consider that these philosophies are not an immediate guarantee of success. We don't know what WoW would look like if they managed to take the Classic formula and stuck with it all the way to today. We have no WoW Classic modern day spiritual successor to compare to, the way we have MOBAs or ARPG to compare to Blizzard's own feats.

    WoW is certainly successful and I absolutely regard this in full. I'm not openly criticizing the game for having hearthstones and portals, I am simply offering an opinion that I think the game could be more immersive if taken in a more 'hardcore' direction. There are some lessons of Classic that were taken away, and convenience has muddled some aspects of the game that people wanted to see brought back in moderation. I think this all adds value to the moderated and paced feeling of game, and Classic offers an experience that even Shadowlands' improved leveling system does not. You can criticize Classic for being stupidly slow and backwards, but ultimately that is also opinion.

    Personally, I don't care much for Classic only because of the content itself. I've been there done that. Now if we are talking about a theoretic Classic Plus where it is Classic gameplay and new content, I'm all for that. Sadly, this would be more effort than its worth, and Blizzard will not likely pour developer resources into doing something like this. It's simply more likely they would work on retooling existing content since it's way more cost effective - completely understandable from a game development perspective.

    So you're having to reach back to before WoW? Before WC3 even?

    I think what you aren't processing here is the 18+ years of games you're describing. You complain about "superhuman feats
    I frame it clearly as an opinion, not as a statement that needs to be applied universally.

    This is funny you consider this complaining, coming from the guy who is being fussy over "medieval fantasy". I am illustrating a difference between Warcraft's setting in the 90's-early 2000's and Warcraft's setting circa 2020, and explaining my preference. I never said current WoW was bad or terrible for having super powered characters, this is where you are projecting.

    I enjoy current WoW story just as much as I enjoy a Disney live action remake. The remakes are good and fun but one can have the opinion that the originals were better without inferring the remakes are terrible. Understand?

    I think you're actually being pretty unfair and silly here. A lot of games, book series, comics, and so on, the characters really do go like you're saying. - That hasn't happened with WoW.
    Happy to disagree with you.

    Comic book character style power scaling is subjective. I am not 'reaching back 18 years' to say my preference for the Warcraft setting is in the original RTS, I am literally explaining this is what Warcraft setting I prefer. The Warcraft movie, despite its flaws, did a pretty good job of focusing on a setting that focused on the sword and sorcery aspects of the world. Yes, there were definitely superhuman feats done, and supernatural elements, and that is okay, but the setting of the movie is very different in tone from say a Warlords of Draenor which featured many of the same reocurring characters but portrayed in a much more archetypical 'comic book superhero' way. One example is Blackhand's design in the movie, and his design in the game. Very different approaches we are talking about here.

    Blizzard have kept a lid on their power, giving them the odd flashy moment, but never letting them be continuously OP. That didn't happen by accident. Maybe they haven't kept as much of a lid on it as you'd like, but the have clearly intentionally prevented the game being just a matter of "follow these kewl superheroez around" or "whoa just look at all these awesome dudez!" like some stuff devolves into.
    This is where you are absolutely projecting.

    Please read my statements again. You will see that at no point did I say they devolved into anything. I said their portrayal of characters today is a far cry from the simple 'kings and commanders' of the original, where they gone far and beyond that today.

    Calia, for example, could easily have remained a human sympathizer of the Forsaken. Did we need her to die and be uniquely ressurected by a Naaru as a unique type of Forsaken? In my honest opinion it was unnecessary for plot and for the character, and it did nothing to make me think her more interesting than she already was. I don't think it adds much to her 'better understanding the Forsaken' any more than if they just give her some more screen time to develop her story in a more sympathetic way without literally dying and becoming Forsaken.

    Or like I made an example above with Blackhand in WoD. Is there any reason this dude is encased in armor that's a literal furnace with glowing fiery bits and stuff? In the main universe he wasn't even that great of a leader, he was a thug who Gul'dan manipulated and used to lead the Horde. The character was a ruthless puppet. In WoD they glorify him being an indominable leader of the Iron Horde that is threatening all of Azeroth. I like his WoD design, but it screams 'obvious villain', which matches the overly cartoonish portrayal. I think they over-reach in making him an archetypical villain with very little nuance to him.

    Deathwing was just a strong powerful black dragon. His most unique aspect was having metal plates affixed to him to protect him further. In WoW lore, he was made into the 'Aspect of the Earth' who created an artifact of great power, who posed as a human and tried to take command of the Human Kingdoms through deception, who was manipulated by the old gods, and was 'reborn' after his defeat with power that can shake the very core of the earth! That is a far cry from his origins as a Black Dragon with metal plates. In the WC2 campaign he's just a cool powerful unit to use and that's that, no need to overglorify or extend his purpose beyond being in that campaign. The callbacks in Cataclysm were cool, but I think making him into a godly-being of incredible power that threatens to destroy the entire world was somewhat unnecessary. In the context of WoW, I think the scale of fighting dragons like Onyxia or Nefarian was more than adequate as end-game content. I like the nuance of having done many vanilla quests that lead up to finding out Onyxia was actually Lady Prestor, and it leads to the Raid, and done. Kill Onyxia and that's her arc and story and we moved on.

    And there's nothing wrong with liking the simpler times. This isn't a case to say superheroes all suck, but a case to say sometimes a superhero movie is better when the focus is on one super hero instead of a dozen. The big Avengers movies are cool and all, but you can't just make them a yearly thing, they're best when given some breathing room. WoW hasn't really done that, it's been on Avengers mode all the time since TBC.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-05 at 06:10 AM.

  15. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Except no one is saying it doesn't feature it. People are saying there's *too much* of it dominating the landscape. And for the most part that is true.

    Look at Age of Sigmar. That is a VERY DIFFERENT tone and landscape from the more general High Fantasy elements of classic Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

    We can analyze both and see that there are cosmic elements and god-like beings and such in both settings, but we also have to be aware that there are differences and Age of Sigmar has grown beyond the classic Sword and Sorcery tropes, and even further from the medieval roots that some of the armies originally were themed around.

    This isn't a discussion of whether super heroes or spaceships exist in Warcraft. We already know they do. Interplanetary travel is exactly what the Dark Portal covers. Yet the root of the fantasy setting is still vastly different than say what we got in TBC or Legion. That is the topic at hand.

    No one is arguing that Warcraft should completely be ABSENT of these themes. This is where you are taking the 'Medieval' part too seriously, and like I said time and time again you are arguing semantics.

    The OP said "but i miss the grounded sense of medieval fantasy in WoW."

    This means he misses the grounded, overarching atmosphere (sense) of a medieval fantasy setting, within World of Warcraft. That is not saying WoW is medieval fantasy. I think you are overlooking this context because you're too focused on the term 'Medieval fantasy' and are applying it literally to the Warcraft setting. The emphasis should be on 'Sense' because the rest of the OP's argument supports this rationale. He is missing the focus on medieval elements that already exist within Warcraft's fantasy setting.

    OP said it clearly. Swords and shields, dragons and magic. That is what Warcraft used to be. Even if Warcraft had god-like beings and cosmic travel, they were incredibly rare and had very limited interaction with the player. When you meet a character like Cenarius, it feels impressive because he was surrounded by mystery and intrigue, and with great reverie. That is the difference with today, where god-like beings are treated as our quest givers.

    Compare this to WC2 where the human expeditions that ventured forth into Draenor ended up being stuck there permanently once the portals closed. Today, interplanetary travel is manageable through portals and hearthstones. It's a very different treatment of the plot and of the lore. Part of this may be due to game mechanics interfering with the overall story, but part of it is also expanding the story well beyond the scope of the original story too, WoD's alternate universe/time travel shenanigans for example.




    As for what you and Nerovar are bickering over - it's still a case of semantics. Nerovar is using a more general and broad application of 'Medieval fantasy' while you are using a much more narrow, specific definition. You both are neither right or wrong, because you are both arguing over apples and oranges when it comes to what Warcraft's setting ultimately is. It is both a medieval fantasy setting and not a medieval fantasy setting, namely because the entire meaning of 'Medieval fantasy' isn't a tangible thing. It's ultimately a subjective definition that applies to a range of themes and settings that include fantasy elements. If you bring up a more specific definition to argue 'No, that is wrong because Medieval Fantasy means this instead' then that is what I mean by arguing semantics. The term is acceptable here because Warcraft is a still understood as a fantasy setting that has medieval themes within it. No one really gives two fucks that it's not specifically 'Medieval fantasy', which is a niche definition to begin with.

    In context to the OP's statement, the term 'Medieval fantasy' is being used to differentiate the subgenre from other types of fantasy, namely due to Warcraft's inclusion of all things pop-culture and its own lack of specific genre classification. It is NOT being used as a definition to categorize Warcraft as a part of the specific Medieval fantasy subgenre that is specific to fantastic works within a setting of the real life Middle Ages. It's similar to how some people may categorize Game of Thrones as 'Medieval fantasy' even though it should be regarded as '(High) Fantasy within a fictional medieval-inspired setting'. At the end of the day, it don't matter what people classify Game of Thrones as long as we all have a common understanding of the material and topic.
    I have issues with portraying Warhammer fantasy as "medieval". Even if we extend that term to the Renaissance, there's only a handful of factions that fit the term; Empire, Bretonnia (who admittedly fit it to a T and then some), High Elves, Dark Elves and Vampire Counts. Everyone else is either too low tech, too high tech, or just too different to seriously qualify; and considering that Renaissance is the lowest tech level of the Empire and they go all the way to rocket batteries and tanks, I'm being quite generous with their inclusion.

    Age of Sigmar is also way farther than Warcraft in its heroic scale. Everything in that setting is about planar conflicts and gods settling scores and the setting doesn't even start to attempt to ground itself. Warcraft has variants of that happening sometimes, but hardly all the time; Legion and potentially Shadowlands are the only expansions where things got that grand, and we just had an xpack that was mostly about a war between two factions over lands, fleets and resources until things veered into Lovecraft lite. Warcraft is far, far more similar to Warhammer Fantasy, a setting which it has shamelessly copied all the way back to WC1, than it is to Age of Sigmar.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  16. #176
    TBC was the best expansion and netherstorm a space like zone was amazing, also tempest keep which looked like some alien ship was a great raid/dungeon hub

  17. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    I have issues with portraying Warhammer fantasy as "medieval". Even if we extend that term to the Renaissance, there's only a handful of factions that fit the term; Empire, Bretonnia (who admittedly fit it to a T and then some), High Elves, Dark Elves and Vampire Counts. Everyone else is either too low tech, too high tech, or just too different to seriously qualify; and considering that Renaissance is the lowest tech level of the Empire and they go all the way to rocket batteries and tanks, I'm being quite generous with their inclusion.

    Age of Sigmar is also way farther than Warcraft in its heroic scale. Everything in that setting is about planar conflicts and gods settling scores and the setting doesn't even start to attempt to ground itself. Warcraft has variants of that happening sometimes, but hardly all the time; Legion and potentially Shadowlands are the only expansions where things got that grand, and we just had an xpack that was mostly about a war between two factions over lands, fleets and resources until things veered into Lovecraft lite. Warcraft is far, far more similar to Warhammer Fantasy, a setting which it has shamelessly copied all the way back to WC1, than it is to Age of Sigmar.
    I think you are right, and a more apt description would be simply using a broader 'High Fantasy' categorization for Warhammer. However, my argument is simply to show how broad the 'Medieval Fantasy' description applies.

    I also don't consider Warcraft a Medieval Fantasy in the truest sense of the word, but I'll regard the colloquial use of the term to describe the series if it's a matter of non-specific categorization. Kinda like how someone might refer to a Chimpanzee as a 'monkey', I don't think it's worth making a huge fuss over.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-05 at 12:20 AM.

  18. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I think you are right, and a more apt description would be simply using a broader 'High Fantasy' categorization for Warhammer. However, my argument is simply to show how broad the 'Medieval Fantasy' description applies.

    I also don't consider Warcraft a Medieval Fantasy in the truest sense of the word, but I'll regard the colloquial use of the term to describe the series if it's a matter of non-specific categorization. Kinda like how someone might refer to a Chimpanzee as a 'monkey', I don't think it's worth making a huge fuss over.
    When I think of a fantasy with a medieval and fairly grounded feel, The Witcher or Game of Thrones/ASoIaF are more what I have in mind. Sure, there's some crazy magic shit happening in the former, but for the post part it visually and thematically tries to not overdo things. Same got GoT which, while it has magic and dragons, is still tons less fantastical than Warcraft. At the most I'd put Dragon Age there which is definitely higher than these two on the fantasy totem pole with its omnipresent magic and regional threats but it's still resolutely medieval.

    Warcraft... isn't like these at all. It had alien invaders from game 1 and 19th, even 20th century technology from game 2. Game 3 added stuff we can't even do such as autonomous robots and mech suits, on top of a global scale of threat that only partially descalated since, and mostly escalated really. It kinda grounds itself one minute and the next it has dinosaur demigods fighting building-sized tanks. Its armies from hell have giant mechas alongside their shirtless dudes with axes. Even back in Classic one of the villains was a dragon who did chemical and genetic experiments on his own kind. It never fit the resolutely grounded medieval fantasy angle some claim it had IMO.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  19. #179
    Scarab Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    In the same urn as Vol'Jin
    Posts
    4,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    WoW is certainly successful and I absolutely regard this in full. I'm not openly criticizing the game for having hearthstones and portals, I am simply offering an opinion that I think the game could be more immersive if taken in a more 'hardcore' direction. There are some lessons of Classic that were taken away, and convenience has muddled some aspects of the game that people wanted to see brought back in moderation. I think this all adds value to the moderated and paced feeling of game, and Classic offers an experience that even Shadowlands' improved leveling system does not. You can criticize Classic for being stupidly slow and backwards, but ultimately that is also opinion.
    I don't disagree that it could be more immersive if it was more "hardcore", but I think the issue that's rarely acknowledged (not saying you do, absolutely saying 99% of people discussing similar points to you don't) is that this would inevitably have a negative impact on WoW's population and financial success. Every MMO that has gone that way has failed dismally, even the ones which were relatively well-designed (WildStar, for example). They've failed notably harder than MMOs which merely "weren't WoW". Most of the "Not WoW" MMOs are still running. Every single "BACK 2 THA HARDCORE LYFE!" MMO, even the more moderate ones like WildStar is actually shut down, not even running in some maintenance mode.

    You could also make WoW more immersive without making it much more hardcore, frankly. I also don't think whether WoW is "low level" as per this meaning of "medieval fantasy" has much bearing on how immersive it is. Maybe not at all. I think internal consistency and so on has more impact, and as much as people love to shit on WoW's writing, the internal consistency and atmosphere of the writing in Legion and BfA is vastly better than it was in most previous expansions and SL looks to be the same way (noting that there is a stark difference between people having messageboard hissy fits about whether Sylvanas has been "ruined" or not doesn't have much bearing on whether the writing is actually any good).

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Personally, I don't care much for Classic only because of the content itself. I've been there done that. Now if we are talking about a theoretic Classic Plus where it is Classic gameplay and new content, I'm all for that. Sadly, this would be more effort than its worth, and Blizzard will not likely pour developer resources into doing something like this. It's simply more likely they would work on retooling existing content since it's way more cost effective - completely understandable from a game development perspective.
    Not just that but it creates a confusing situation for consumers and potentially creates a "between two stools" situation, where customers who were playing retail, go play "Classic Plus", then retail has an expansion or content update, so they go back, now Classic Plus has one, now retail has one, and eventually a lot of people may feel like they're behind on both and just throw their hands in the air.

    Personally I don't think the Classic gameplay is particularly wonderful, having played WoW since open beta of Vanilla. There's a lot of stuff I like, but it was already being minimized by the end of Vanilla, and in some ways, 9.0 gameplay actually feels more like WoW is "WoW" than it has for a long time (countless people will disagree of course).


    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I frame it clearly as an opinion, not as a statement that needs to be applied universally.

    This is funny you consider this complaining, coming from the guy who is being fussy over "medieval fantasy". I am illustrating a difference between Warcraft's setting in the 90's-early 2000's and Warcraft's setting circa 2020, and explaining my preference. I never said current WoW was bad or terrible for having super powered characters, this is where you are projecting.

    I enjoy current WoW story just as much as I enjoy a Disney live action remake. The remakes are good and fun but one can have the opinion that the originals were better without inferring the remakes are terrible. Understand?
    Sure, but you don't seem to get that what I'm saying is that there's more difference between WC1, and Vanilla WoW, in terms of themes/settings and particularly "medieval fantasy"-ness than there is between Vanilla WoW and BfA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Happy to disagree with you.

    Comic book character style power scaling is subjective. I am not 'reaching back 18 years' to say my preference for the Warcraft setting is in the original RTS, I am literally explaining this is what Warcraft setting I prefer. The Warcraft movie, despite its flaws, did a pretty good job of focusing on a setting that focused on the sword and sorcery aspects of the world. Yes, there were definitely superhuman feats done, and supernatural elements, and that is okay, but the setting of the movie is very different in tone from say a Warlords of Draenor which featured many of the same reocurring characters but portrayed in a much more archetypical 'comic book superhero' way. One example is Blackhand's design in the movie, and his design in the game. Very different approaches we are talking about here.
    WoD is an interesting aberration in terms of "comic-book-ness". It's easily the most "comic-book" of WoW's expansions, right down to the way the titular Warlords are introduced. It's not fair to suggest that Legion/BfA "went further" here. Particularly not BfA, which turns down (for what) the cosmic woo-woo factor despite "HER WOONS". Cataclysm is the worst-written expansion, on every level (from the worst dialogue, worst overall plot, worst zone subplots, worst-written quest chains, even the clumsiest in-dungeon dialogue), but that's neither here nor there. Legion is the most cosmic-ly OTT with all the wild things happening, but is still less "comic-book" and "superhero"-ish than WoD, I feel.

    I don't think the movie is different in tone/style to BfA, particularly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    This is where you are absolutely projecting.
    From what you say after that point it seems like you don't know what "projecting" in the psychological sense means (attributing MY opinions to you, you seem instead to be misusing to attributing someone else's opinions to you, or misunderstanding your opinions). So that's a curious one.

    The problem with "simpler times" is that WoW has never really been set in simpler times. If you're claiming BfA is "Avengers mode", then every expansion has been, which means WoW has been in "Avengers mode" longer than Marvel has been making the modern Marvel movies, which is quite a claim. This is why I question it so much, especially when people claim they "preferred" it. It's like, all available evidence says that's maybe nostalgia talking, given you played the game for 14+ years when that was over, and weren't keen on Classic (talking about you and the OP here). I'm not psychic. I'm not saying you're lying, either. I'm sure you honestly believe you prefer that. I'm just saying that the evidence that you prefer that is pretty weak. I think making the game be about lower-powered stuff is not something that would make it broadly more popular or enjoyed (I know you're not claiming the latter, but I think it's worth mentioning).

    I notice most of your criticisms focus on stuff from WoD and Cataclysm. Maybe that's an accident, but I don't think so. WoD was when WoW as most comic-book-y and try-hard on certain elements of the drama, and Cataclysm was when WoW was just most shitty-ly written (which, to be fair to the writers, was in large part because it was hugely rushed).
    "A youtuber said so."

    "... some wow experts being interviewed..."

    "According to researchers from Wowhead..."

  20. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurhetemec View Post
    I don't disagree that it could be more immersive if it was more "hardcore", but I think the issue that's rarely acknowledged (not saying you do, absolutely saying 99% of people discussing similar points to you don't) is that this would inevitably have a negative impact on WoW's population and financial success. Every MMO that has gone that way has failed dismally, even the ones which were relatively well-designed (WildStar, for example). They've failed notably harder than MMOs which merely "weren't WoW". Most of the "Not WoW" MMOs are still running. Every single "BACK 2 THA HARDCORE LYFE!" MMO, even the more moderate ones like WildStar is actually shut down, not even running in some maintenance mode.
    I disagree on the basis of a few factors.

    1- WoW is Warcraft. As a Warcraft fan, I would play WoW because of my attachment to this universe.
    2- Investment. I knew of MANY casual players who played WoW, who continued to play WoW because they had already invested so much into the game. For some of these people WoW was their first venture into any Warcraft universe.
    3- Classic WoW is stupidly popular. Let's be honest about this one. I'm not even all that pro-Classic coming back, but I can recognize how large a community there is that *simply prefers* the original content over what we have today.
    4- There is no example of a modern 'Classic WoW' MMO that has the same formula and progressed itself in its own right. WoW is very unique for being what it is, and competitors 'trying to beat WoW' did so in their own way with their own designs with their own mechanics. I've tried many MMO's in my time and I can't put my finger on any one of the perceived 'WoW killers' as actually playing like classic WoW.

    This is why I brought up D3, Diablo 2 and Path of Exile. General Diablo forums would group all Diablo fans together, and if someone voices how they liked Diablo 2 mechanics more and wished D3 incorporated more of its systems, the general response is 'Go play Diablo 2 then'. And I think it's unfair to say because it's ignoring the suggestion to add systems by telling someone to play old content. That is why I think Path of Exile is an ideal example here because it is (generally speaking) Diablo 2 systems in a modern ARPG, and it's an example of how those systems are not old or outdated but simply underutilized by Blizzard in their own sequel. This doesn't make Diablo 3 a bad game, it makes it a *different* game. And we can see that both D3 and Path of Exile have are own successes in their own right. D3 banked on the franchise power and being a mainstay Diablo title; despite having terrible launch and reception for Vanilla D3. Path of Exile has garnered a community through their dedication to providing content and progressing the ARPG experience. Neither is wrong here. And often times, I wonder, what would Diablo 3 be like if it was Path of Exile today? Or if Path of Exile was made an official Diablo franchise? Perhaps it's the optimist in me talking, but I don't think it would be *worse* than what we already have.

    We simply don't have a 'Classic WoW' with modern content to show if it would actually be relevant today. All we have is Classic WoW for historic purposes, and it's already proved itself successful despite all the doomsaying that it's not worth pursuing by the detractors (which I once was).

    You could also make WoW more immersive without making it much more hardcore, frankly. I also don't think whether WoW is "low level" as per this meaning of "medieval fantasy" has much bearing on how immersive it is. Maybe not at all. I think internal consistency and so on has more impact, and as much as people love to shit on WoW's writing, the internal consistency and atmosphere of the writing in Legion and BfA is vastly better than it was in most previous expansions and SL looks to be the same way (noting that there is a stark difference between people having messageboard hissy fits about whether Sylvanas has been "ruined" or not doesn't have much bearing on whether the writing is actually any good).
    I agree with your assessment.

    I mean, it's difficult to properly discuss here because I'm trying to stay on topic for the sake of consistency, yet my problems with modern WoW extend far beyond 'they strayed too far from medieval themes'. The problems I have with their superhero approach comes from their writing, their focus on cartoony 'super villains', their decision to up the power scale each expansion, etc. Some of this stuff is simply necessary for a 16+yr franchise, some of these things I think is a matter of choice.

    One non-Blizzard franchise which I think approaches story and power scaling well is One Piece, which I'm a very big fan of. It's a typical shonen manga, like Dragonball. Yes there are super powerful characters, yes there is obvious power scaling each arc and progressively gets more and more ridiculous, but it's all managed by having very good internal consistency of gauging power. Early on, it establishes what the strongest powers in the world are, and throughout the series it does not reach beyond that. There is a self-imposed limit that lets us know what we're dealing with, and if a character is introduced that is seemingly *godlike*, then we still know that the cap hadn't been reached.

    WoW has already surpassed their cap with Legion, and they have been forced to create even more powerful entities as a response. Now, I understand that WoW's story is written in an episodic basis, and it's not like they have some end-goal plan in mind to finalize the series; but that is sort of the problem with trying to tell a 'shonen' type story. My argument here is that the story could have been more like (the first half of) BFA where the focus is on shifting powers rather than scaling it up. My problems with BFA though is that at the end of the day, it still focuses on a 3rd party 'big bad comic villain' as the source of all the problems, that being either Aszhara, Sylvanas or N'zoth. I don't see these as being problems with the format, it's the power scaling that is an issue.

    I guess my example for this could be Legend of Korra, where the villains introduced are all big threats to the main character, but are not exactly god-like beings with the power to destroy cities. They aren't even more powerful than the Avatar. They're just extremely effective at what they do and are so goal-driven to get it done. And we have those kind of villainous characters in WoW, but they tend to be overshadowed by the comic-book 'big bosses' that appear in the same light. Do we even think twice about Prophet Zul after going through Azshara and N'zoth and Sylvanas? Not really. I think more Rastakhan-like stories is great, where we are incorporating more allies into the mix and treating it like an empire that needs to be addressed. But again, these are loose examples I'm making using existing material. All of this is an example of the type of setting I think most prefer more of, and it gets very messy when it's being mixed in with elements that could be toned back.

    My overall point is Warcraft used to be about warcraft. Epic battles between factions. When leaders die, new ones take their place, the fight goes on. Allies are gained, betrayals split the factions, some get conquered and some get exiled. The factions are ever-changing, and sides can absolutely end on a defeat. That's what I prefer out of Warcraft. Whether or not WoW can properly express this is another discussion; as I'm absolutely NOT saying WoW needs to adhere to my preferences. I am merely expressing my humble opinion.

    Not just that but it creates a confusing situation for consumers and potentially creates a "between two stools" situation, where customers who were playing retail, go play "Classic Plus", then retail has an expansion or content update, so they go back, now Classic Plus has one, now retail has one, and eventually a lot of people may feel like they're behind on both and just throw their hands in the air.
    To be fair, Classic WoW existing today is already what you describe. It is already a 'between two stools' situation if you regard a player's time and dedication is being divided between two separate games. This was the argument I had against Classic WoW in the first place, and frankly I was proven wrong.

    Sure, but you don't seem to get that what I'm saying is that there's more difference between WC1, and Vanilla WoW, in terms of themes/settings and particularly "medieval fantasy"-ness than there is between Vanilla WoW and BfA.
    "Vanilla WoW" has 'Super hero' tropes near the end, so I agree with you that WoW has a lot more difference to WC1.

    I think everything up to Blackwing Lair is the right amount of Sword and Sorcery (of course, there will be specific exceptions, but bear with this generalization). AQ and Naxxramas IMO start a trend towards the typical episodic 'Villain of the week' tropes that have gone far up the ladder. I find this more bittersweet, since I do love it when we fight some big bad bosses but at the same time it strays away from what I consider a sense of adventure. We're straying into 'Guardian of the World' territory, when I think the best approach was keeping us as simple adventurers in an ongoing effort to serve our factions.

    Even if Ragnaros was a worldy threat, it came as somewhat of a surprise to those who didn't really know what they were getting into when they raid 'Molten core'. The tone was still very much rooted in an adventure and going into a dungeon to beat whatever evil lurked at the end. It wasn't something seeded from the beginning that all your progress is geared towards taking this one big bad that everyone knows is the global threat. Of course, this doesn't exactly apply to what you are saying about Medieval Fantasy, but I think my point is that something like Molten Core is low-key enough that it could be comparable to 'an adventurer goes into the Dragon's lair' type of story, whereas what we have today is grown well beyond that.

    WoD is an interesting aberration in terms of "comic-book-ness". It's easily the most "comic-book" of WoW's expansions, right down to the way the titular Warlords are introduced. It's not fair to suggest that Legion/BfA "went further" here. Particularly not BfA, which turns down (for what) the cosmic woo-woo factor despite "HER WOONS". Cataclysm is the worst-written expansion, on every level (from the worst dialogue, worst overall plot, worst zone subplots, worst-written quest chains, even the clumsiest in-dungeon dialogue), but that's neither here nor there. Legion is the most cosmic-ly OTT with all the wild things happening, but is still less "comic-book" and "superhero"-ish than WoD, I feel.

    I don't think the movie is different in tone/style to BfA, particularly.
    I found the movie to be more grounded in its setting. I will admit that both have their fair share of comic-book cartoonyness, so perhaps the Warcraft movie is not the best example. I picked it because it happened to be the most relevant example of any Warcraft setting circa 90's-2000's lore that still had a fairly grounded tone.

    From what you say after that point it seems like you don't know what "projecting" in the psychological sense means (attributing MY opinions to you, you seem instead to be misusing to attributing someone else's opinions to you, or misunderstanding your opinions). So that's a curious one.

    The problem with "simpler times" is that WoW has never really been set in simpler times. If you're claiming BfA is "Avengers mode", then every expansion has been, which means WoW has been in "Avengers mode" longer than Marvel has been making the modern Marvel movies, which is quite a claim. This is why I question it so much, especially when people claim they "preferred" it. It's like, all available evidence says that's maybe nostalgia talking, given you played the game for 14+ years when that was over, and weren't keen on Classic (talking about you and the OP here). I'm not psychic. I'm not saying you're lying, either. I'm sure you honestly believe you prefer that. I'm just saying that the evidence that you prefer that is pretty weak. I think making the game be about lower-powered stuff is not something that would make it broadly more popular or enjoyed (I know you're not claiming the latter, but I think it's worth mentioning).

    I notice most of your criticisms focus on stuff from WoD and Cataclysm. Maybe that's an accident, but I don't think so. WoD was when WoW as most comic-book-y and try-hard on certain elements of the drama, and Cataclysm was when WoW was just most shitty-ly written (which, to be fair to the writers, was in large part because it was hugely rushed).
    It's a very difficult thing to discuss without absolutely straying off topic to hit the core issues that have nothing to do with the actual 'fantasy' of Warcraft.

    But hey, the ball is already rolling so why not.

    I'd say Classic WoW up to Blackwing Lair is the best example of the path I think the game should have taken. There are elements of the expansions that contain this sense of adventure too, and I regard most of that from the questing content more than the application of raids.

    You are correct in assessing every expansion is 'Avengers mode', that is partially what I was getting at. However I will explain that this pertains more towards the approach of raid content, and the decision to build entire expansion plots around big bads that is my criticism. I feel like expansions should simply be new places we explore, and the plots and stories within can be presented in parallel the same way Classic WoW leveling was approached. No need to pintpoint everything down to some nefarious end-plot involving the end of the world 'if we don't stop X'. I feel like a lot of the story becomes contrived because of these kind of threat-driven plots.

    BFA again was bittersweet for me. I loved that we explored Kul Tiras and Zandalar finally. I loved the exploration of the zones and exploring the Drust and learning about the various races of Zandalar; all of that was exactly what I am talking about as being great. However peppered amongst it is the whole macguffin of Azerite and a looming faction war. On top of all that it's working towards Azshara and Old God manipulation being seeded in the zones. To me it's all a bit too convenient, a bit too contrived. I wouldn't mind if it Old God influences within Kul Tiras and Zandalar was something that was hinted at and left to the players to explore and discover, but it's not. It's all put in there to support the whole big bad end-patch fight with N'zoth. Compare this to Classic WoW where you could run into some quest that might hint at Old Gods existing and influencing the world, but it's just one part that doesn't really seed into an obvious 'Old God Worldboss' by the end of the patch. Stories were more smaller scale, more self-contained, and open to player interpretation. There is a sense of mystery and intrigue. I'm not sure if I am explaining this as properly as I see this in my head when I write it, since I'm sure Classic's questing has a very different impression on you than it does to me. I think I would have been happier exploring Alternate Universe Draenor if it wasn't all focused on the Iron Horde having its fingers in everything. The excitement of exploring a new zone, new culture is exciting enough on its own without the need to insert a connection to some greater (cosmic) evil manipulating world.

    I think the questing content in general is still very good, but I think the focus on the big plot points and usually the content surrounding the mid-and-end raid tiers usually scale up the story to absurd levels where questing zone lore doesn't even feel relevant any more. Like, by the time you fight Nyalotha, do you even care about what you learned about the Drust? Not really. The scope of the story has grown well beyond that, and I don't think it necessarily needed to.

    Classic WoW was more about the journey than the end goal. It wasn't all focused down to killing Ragnaros and the Black Dragons and the Old God in Tanaris. Those just happen to be big threats that exist in the world. I think current WoW is a much different vibe where those big threats create a much bigger gap between the questing content and the early raids which have a better connection to the new zones than any of the end-expansion bosses.

    I mean, one example of very popular fantasy series was Game of Thrones. Sure, it had dragons and zombies and magic, but the core part of the series is the war and politics between various kingdoms and royal houses. WC2's setting was the pinnacle of that, with various kingdoms and clans all with their own distinct goals and pursuits.

    Bear with me for this brain fart - I think Warcraft lore could have elevated the kingdoms into proper autonomous nations and the story could have been an epic that shows us the rise and fall of various factions. One expansion could focus on the rise and fall of Stromgarde, one major patch tier could show us how Gilneas betrays the kingdoms and decides to ally itself with the Horde, all the while we have side plots showing the Dragonmaw clan rose back into power by allying with the Black Dragonflight, etc etc. Each expansion could be treated like Game of Thrones books/seasons, progressing more and more and altering the landscape as it goes along. It would be a much slower ramp up towards the more fantastic elements of WoW, and the international politics of the various kingdoms can be our story gateway into worldly threats. We'd see how each nation deals with the Lich King differently. We'd see how the Clans react to a cataclysm in the world, and the content focuses on 'War efforts' to rebuild certain cities or capture new territory. When a new landscape is explored, we see how multiple kingdoms and clans all vie for power on this new landscape. It's not just a simple Red vs Blue vs Black. It would be a much different Warcraft than what we've seen in WoW today, but it is not much different than the themes already present in BFA changing the landscape and focusing on certain inter-faction politics. What I am presenting here is a potential alternative to the 'Big bad Villain' type of expansions we are used to seeing today.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2020-11-06 at 01:04 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •