Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
14
LastLast
  1. #221
    Immortal FuxieDK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    København
    Posts
    7,492
    Quote Originally Posted by enderzone View Post
    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.
    Fact (because I say so): TBC > Cata > Legion > MoP > BfA > WoD = WotLK

    My pet collection --> http://www.warcraftpets.com/collection/FuxieDK/

  2. #222
    Warchief Rusken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,051
    To make you feel like an edgy "anti-hero" without actually changing your gameplay at all.

  3. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    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".
    Quote Originally Posted by Nachtigal View Post
    B) Torghast is the coolest thing Blizzard has produced

  4. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by enderzone View Post
    Im just saying the horde is responsible for every war..
    Thats an opinion, not a fact.

  5. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by Queendom View Post
    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.

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by Queendom View Post
    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.

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by Queendom View Post
    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.

  8. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nachtigal View Post
    B) Torghast is the coolest thing Blizzard has produced

  9. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by Queendom View Post
    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.

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by chiddie View Post
    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.

  11. #231
    The Lightbringer Dalheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The Nordics
    Posts
    3,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    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.

  12. #232
    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

  13. #233
    Old God Mirishka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Get off my lawn!
    Posts
    10,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo of Soul View Post
    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.
    My greatest fear is that one day, my MMO-Champion ignore list will run out of space.

  14. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirishka View Post
    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.

  15. #235
    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.

  16. #236
    Being on the right side of history.

  17. #237
    I like to think it was blizzard's way of data-oriented decisionmaking. (via an ingame vote)

  18. #238
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    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?

  19. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by Moonrage View Post
    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?

  20. #240
    Yes, it was an illusion of choice.

    That does not mean it was pointless. First off I know plenty of hordies that complained they had to sit by and watch while Garrosh went on his crusade with no choice in the matter. Likely this was mere fluff content to appease those players, give the illusion you can reject her while still remaining loyal to the Horde.

    It can also be seen as the inevitable result of siding with the Horde in general. The Alliance has always been the "flawed hero" faction, absolutely the "good guys" in this story with nuanced "evil" elements to keep it interesting. The Horde has always been the opposite, the "flawed villain" faction. Absoluetly the Horde are the "bad guys" in this story with nuanced "good" elements to keep it interesting. This is seen in Thralls failure as warchief, no redemption happened, the only time the Horde was relativly "peaceful" was when Thrall forced them to be. BFA has taken it a step further in giving hordies the illusion of choice, see you're not really a bad guy, except at the end of the day no matter your "choice", you are still supporting and siding with the bad guys.

Posting Permissions

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