What was the point of siding with Sylvanas in BFA?

[enderzone]

Waving an admonishing finger wherever and whenever you feel fit, with a whole holier-than-thou attitude is a core element of Alliance RPing. You should know by now

Im just saying the horde is responsible for every war..

[FuxieDK]

Im just saying the horde is responsible for every war..

Alliance started the Battle for Azeroth.

They attacked the Goblins in Silithus out of the blue.. It's in the quest text.

[Rusken]

To make you feel like an edgy "anti-hero" without actually changing your gameplay at all.

[Queendom]

She was never "bad out of the blue", she was bad since WC3. Varimathras even said that she was starting to resemble more and more the Nathrezim who, by the way, are bad people.

Evil does not equal bad. Maybe she was evil, but she was not "bad" as in "bad guy" or "your enemy".

[Baneto]

Im just saying the horde is responsible for every war..

Thats an opinion, not a fact.

[huth]

Evil does not equal bad. Maybe she was evil, but she was not "bad" as in "bad guy" or "your enemy".

Evil and bad are synonymous in this sense. Enemy is not. Your enemy isn't necessarily evil, and there are situations where you aren't fighting somebody who is nonetheless evil. But somebody being bad or evil is the same thing.

[Varodoc]

Evil does not equal bad. Maybe she was evil, but she was not "bad" as in "bad guy" or "your enemy".

You can remove the "maybe", and since she was evil, there was always the possibility that she'd turn on you. Your fault for ignoring it.

The writing was literally on the wall.

[chiddie]

What was the point of introducing branching in BFA war campaign questline if the choices don't have any impact and all we got in the end is Garrosh 2.0?
Did I miss something here? Was something scrapped out of the game or just not completed at all?
I don't see any suitable conslusion for those who chose to side with Sylvanas, and now with Nathanos' death there surely be none coming.

There was no point in the long term but this was obvious already, did you think they would have created two horde quest lines for SL, one for the loyalists and one for the “traitors”?

Way too much work.

[Queendom]

You can remove the "maybe", and since she was evil, there was always the possibility that she'd turn on you. Your fault for ignoring it.

The writing was literally on the wall.

Easy to say that after everything had already happened.

[Varodoc]

Easy to say that after everything had already happened.

Not really. I predicted that Sylvanas would turn on the Horde since the BfA pre-patch. The story was very predictable.

[huth]

There was no point in the long term but this was obvious already, did you think they would have created two horde quest lines for SL, one for the loyalists and one for the “traitors”?

Way too much work.

They probably did. And then expected even more subdivisions. Which should make it clear why this was never a feasible path to begin with; you'd end up with hundreds of different paths in short order.

[Dalheim]

Not really. I predicted that Sylvanas would turn on the Horde since the BfA pre-patch. The story was very predictable.

Took ya that long huh? Was obvious the moment she was chosen as Warchief in Legion, even moreso after meeting her in Helheim.

[Echo of Soul]

Because players were complaining so god damed much that they didn't support what she was doing. The developers had to implement systems where you had to choose where normally you would just be an observer. You didn't get to choose to side with Garrosh for example but those were different times, before outrage became the default emotion for people

[Mirishka]

Because players were complaining so god damed much that they didn't support what she was doing. The developers had to implement systems where you had to choose where normally you would just be an observer. You didn't get to choose to side with Garrosh for example but those were different times, before outrage became the default emotion for people

Ahaha. Hahahahahaha.

If you think that gamers didn't start going into whiny-baby-outrage mode en masse until after Cata/Mists, I have a bridge to sell you.

[huth]

Ahaha. Hahahahahaha.

If you think that gamers didn't go into whiny-baby-outrage mode en masse until after Cata/Mists, I have a bridge to sell you.

Is it red? Not interested in stone bridges.

I'm pretty sure i've seen that behaviour well before WoW even released.

[Itisamuh]

For me? It let me play the bad guy for once, which was why I chose Horde in the first place; I assumed they would be the darker faction. It was poorly done compared to games like Star Wars where choices affect the story, and where there is no blatant "you were right, you were wrong" at the end, but at least it was something.

[Thelxi]

Being on the right side of history.

[Zmagoslav]

I like to think it was blizzard's way of data-oriented decisionmaking. (via an ingame vote)

[Moonrage]

Wrong. Many Banshee loyalists are being paraded around Orgrimmar. The new government does not accept people who do not forsake their former loyalties to Sylvanas. So you either renounce your loyalty to Sylvanas, or you are thrown into jail.

The PC chose option 1. Wise choice.

They should've gone the WW1 and 2 route and executed the banshee loyalists. Everyone can "renounce" Sylvanas and still be loyal to her. Why take the risk?

[Difuid]

They should've gone the WW1 and 2 route and executed the banshee loyalists. Everyone can "renounce" Sylvanas and still be loyal to her. Why take the risk?

How would you implement that? Delete the PCs that choose to be a loyalist?