What was the point of siding with Sylvanas in BFA?

[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?

[Nubpwn]

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.

[huth]

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.

Accept, you mean. The original plan only had the "traitor" storyline, the loyalist one was the added one.

[Ophenia]

They could have expanded with implementing two paths/questlines in Shadowlands, but it was either too complex to implement (then what was the fcking point of implementing it in BfA in the first place), or maybe they got the numbers and only 0.5% of players were siding with Sylvanas so they didn't feel like it made sense to waste dev time on that.

[Baneto]

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?

I think your passion for a video-game faction has gone a little overboard when you start using terms like that, dont you think?

[Moonrage]

I think your passion for a video-game faction has gone a little overboard when you start using terms like that, dont you think?

Which term? Execution? I know this game isn't realistic in the slightest, but that is what would've happened to the loyalists after Sylvanas was dethroned. Historically speaking, people don't take kindly to traitors.

I know that the player character can't be killed, but all the NPCs that were loyal to Sylvanas? Why not just execute them? We've seen way more disturbing things in WoW.

[Baneto]

Which term? Execution? I know this game isn't realistic in the slightest, but that is what would've happened to the loyalists after Sylvanas was dethroned. Historically speaking, people don't take kindly to traitors.

I know that the player character can't be killed, but all the NPCs that were loyal to Sylvanas? Why not just execute them? We've seen way more disturbing things in WoW.

Sounds too alliance-like to me, we're not that uncivilized in the Horde.

[Soon-TM]

Historically speaking, people don't take kindly to traitors.

Considering that several Nazi figureheads sought refuge in the West after WWII and found it, you might want to rethink that statement.

[Moonrage]

Considering that several Nazi figureheads sought refuge in the West after WWII and found it, you might want to rethink that statement.

The majority of the nazis that managed to escape, fled to South America. Most people do not considere these to be Western countries (unless you literally meant the "western" part of the world).

Aside from that, traitors were still heavily looked down upon after WW2. Men that collaborated with the nazis were generally executed or imprisoned. Women who had relationships with German soldiers were pulically humiliated à la Game of Thrones.

[Soon-TM]

The majority of the nazis that managed to escape, fled to South America. Most people do not considere these to be Western countries (unless you literally meant the "western" part of the world).

South America has always been under the US aegis. The political West isn't limited to US/EU.

[FuxieDK]

Considering that several Nazi figureheads sought refuge in the West after WWII and found it, you might want to rethink that statement.

Have you ever heard of a small thing called the Nürnberg Process?

You might want to rethink that statement.

[Metrox]

I never sided with anyone of any faction. I ignored the storyline from Day 1. I played the content they offered without thought to any RP or Lore. It was a nasty expansion to me and I treated the backstory as unimportant and unengaging. Only WoD and BFA were played this way.

[Soon-TM]

Have you ever heard of a small thing called the Nürnberg Process?

You might want to rethink that statement.

The Nürnberg process only sent to the gallows a handful of Nazi kingpins. Several others who found shelter in South America, the US and even West Germany. But history isn't your strong suit, it seems... Just google "Odessa" (not the Russian city nor the American one of the same name) and see for yourself.