Dragonflight and TWW

[Aucald]

Oh? You will pretend that this total degradation of a world and a story thirty-two years in the making, taken over by inferior authors and subjected to repeated retcons that disrespect the original material and humiliate and sideline the original authors, to instead tell some simpering flavor of the month 'story' which systematically destroys every character and every piece of lore of the legacy that it is built upon?

"It's just an opinion", is it? Maybe if you're a spineless coward, unwilling to stand up for anything.

Yes, it's just your opinion. If someone actually enjoys the story and appreciates the game as it currently is, they're obviously not going to think the authors are inferior, or that the current stories disrespects the original material, humiliates the original authors, or tells a bad or destructive story. These are not objective facts - they're your view of the game story you're attempting to railroad into fact.

And the very fact that you imply anyone who disagrees with your view is a lunatic, a "simpering coward," or any of the other insults you've casually thrown arouind further illustrates that none of your arguments are made in anything approaching good faith, much less grounded in rational criticism.

Nuance? Is that what you're getting out of this junk? You are delirious. It is precisely the destruction of nuance that is the problem. How many two-bit characters have been nothing but mindless cultists paying lip-service to the latest cosmic flavor? How many characters fail to actually be a character, when they're too busy being a mouthpiece? What goddamn nuance? You've only empty buzzwords to show, and no point to make. For all your pretended affectation of rationality, you have no actual argument, save your own willingness to roll over for these incompetent writers who have so defaced a world that was once good and pure, now reduced to a laughing stock.

Case in point. Adding latitude and expanding a foundation beyond a simple dualistic framework is pretty much the definition of "nuance," as it represents the addition of difference, variation, and adds complexity to any given concept. Now, you may not like the substance of said nuance, but that's a value judgment on the content, not "the destruction of nuance." The only thing you present as evidence for when a character becomes a "mouthpiece" is whether or not you like them or what they're saying, which, similarly, isn't how either definitions or characters work. Which is why, of course, you fall back on invective and insulting rhetoric. I don't need to insult others to make my point; it actually stands on its own as a grounded and evidence-based opinion supported by the facts at hand. Also, if I had no argument, what exactly are you so vehemently and violently disagreeing with here? A lack of argument shouldn't prompt emotional outbursts from you; it should prompt confusion. Your own argument here has no internal consistency, in addition to being pure emotional bluster. It's a tantrum wearing discourse as a bad wig.

[Velshin]

Yes, it's just your opinion. If someone actually enjoys the story and appreciates the game as it currently is, they're obviously not going to think the authors are inferior, or that the current stories disrespects the original material, humiliates the original authors, or tells a bad or destructive story. These are not objective facts - they're your view of the game story you're attempting to railroad into fact.

And the very fact that you imply anyone who disagrees with your view is a lunatic, a "simpering coward," or any of the other insults you've casually thrown arouind further illustrates that none of your arguments are made in anything approaching good faith, much less grounded in rational criticism.



Case in point. Adding latitude and expanding a foundation beyond a simple dualistic framework is pretty much the definition of "nuance," as it represents the addition of difference, variation, and adds complexity to any given concept. Now, you may not like the substance of said nuance, but that's a value judgment on the content, not "the destruction of nuance." The only thing you present as evidence for when a character becomes a "mouthpiece" is whether or not you like them or what they're saying, which, similarly, isn't how either definitions or characters work. Which is why, of course, you fall back on invective and insulting rhetoric. I don't need to insult others to make my point; it actually stands on its own as a grounded and evidence-based opinion supported by the facts at hand. Also, if I had no argument, what exactly are you so vehemently and violently disagreeing with here? A lack of argument shouldn't prompt emotional outbursts from you; it should prompt confusion. Your own argument here has no internal consistency, in addition to being pure emotional bluster. It's a tantrum wearing discourse as a bad wig.

If everything is about "it is an opinion" then at what point someone like you or me say "oh this is not good they ruined certain arc or characters in that franchise? I am genuinely asking you here.

The beledar giant crystal in Hallowfall had the potential to be something so epic in the story like some kind of the origin of the Naaru or something like that to integrated into the main story overall but yet it felt underwhelming and missed opportunity tbh.

[Aucald]

If everything is about "it is an opinion" then at what point someone like you or me say "oh this is not good they ruined certain arc or characters in that franchise? I am genuinely asking you here.

The beledar giant crystal in Hallowfall had the potential to be something so epic in the story like some kind of the origin of the Naaru or something like that to integrated into the main story overall but yet it felt underwhelming and missed opportunity tbh.

Since there's confusion, let me try to clear up the underlying point of the discussion in as basic of a matter as I think is possible:

Fact: Beledar is a giant chunk of Azerite that is currently signaling the overall health of Azeroth by cycling between Light and Void states due to the damage done to Azeroth's worldsoul by Sargeras.

Opinion: Beledar had the potential to be something so epic in the story, and was instead an underwhelming and missed opportunity.

This first statement is an in-game fact about what Beledar fundamentally is; the second is an opinion of what Beledar could've been or should've been to be a better story element. My original post said absolutely nothing about whether or not Beledar was good storytelling; it merely answered the person I was responding to's question about what Beledar was or what significance it had.

Now, if you were to ask me my opinion about whether I thought Beledar being Azeroth's "check engine" light was good storytelling, we'd be having a different conversation. This is something I was ironically never asked; I just got insulted for daring to explain what Beledar was in the story. Before the nature of Beledar was explained in the story, I, like most people, I believe, also thought Beledar was going to be either the prison of or an actual part of a naaru, given that its whole "jumping between Light and Void states" was very reminiscent of what naaru do when they're damaged or failing somehow. That, and based on the early key art for Beledar, also seemed to strongly imply it was related to naaru due to aesthetic elements of its design. I was surprised to find out this wasn't the case, and I also agree that it being a naaru of some kind probably would've made for a more interesting story (and thus, also a missed opportunity of sorts).

Referring to Beledar as Azeroth's "check engine" light was also my tongue-in-cheek way of expressing my opinion of it, without necessarily going on an unnecessary rant about storytelling quality or my own personal preferences.

[Itisamuh]

I wish I could forget Dragonflight, as it was easily my least favorite expansion of all time. Unlike most people though I was a fan of Shadowlands, so I would rather not forget it.

[Arikara]

Yes, it's just your opinion.

No. Wrong. It is a fact that they have performed numerous, repeated retcons which have gradually chipped away at the legitimacy of the setting and the story. Deny it all you like, there can be no doubt; place the nonsense that we have today next to the brilliance of Wc3, and it is night and day.

Of course, if your tolerance for poor writing is so low that you do not care to distinguish, then that is on you. But to pretend that there have not been countless retcons done is lunacy. Of course, it is possible to have retcons that are not awful. Some things can be accepted. But when every step is but another process in a boiling frog situation of retcons and character mischaracterizations—after years of bad writing decisions by authors who do not understand these characters, we can only call the end-product a miserable failure.

Or... what, are you really gutless enough to look me in the eye and tell me that Thrall, Jaina, Sylvanas, Tyrande, Malfurion, Illidan, Kael'thas, Vashj, and any number of other characters that we may point to... that they've all been true to themselves, that all of the humiliation that they have gone through has all made sense, and has been wrought in the pursuit of a fulfilling story? No. Time and again, it is the drama of the week; it is a poisonous erosure on these characters and so many others.

And the very fact that you imply anyone who disagrees with your view is a lunatic, a "simpering coward," or any of the other insults you've casually thrown arouind further illustrates that none of your arguments are made in anything approaching good faith, much less grounded in rational criticism.

If you wish me to speak in good faith, then they should have treated this setting with the reverence it deserved. That cowards like you are willing to suck it up and cheer as it is brought to ruin is precisely the problem.

Adding latitude and expanding a foundation beyond a simple dualistic framework is pretty much the definition of "nuance," as it represents the addition of difference, variation, and adds complexity to any given concept.

Meaningless buzzwords. Again: what bloody nuance? Where is this nuance that you pretend towards? They have offered plenty of inferior over-explanations, but nuance is certainly nowhere to be found. Characters have never been less nuanced, every plotpoint is hidden behind a cosmically-flavored mystery box that holds no actual meaning, every interaction between characters is cheap drama and 'cool' oneliners, every supposed addition to the worldbuilding is only another torch by which to burn itself down with yet another retcon. What nuance?

The only thing you present as evidence for when a character becomes a "mouthpiece" is whether or not you like them or what they're saying, which, similarly, isn't how either definitions or characters work.

Oh? Will you pretend then that we do not have one Windrunner which is nothing but an over-emotional mouthpiece for void degeneracy, facing another elf that is an overly smug mouthpiece for void degeneracy, aided by an entire group of traitor elves who are the mouthpieces of void degeneracy, assisted by an edgelord with the unexplained mystery-box magical secret to totally not fall unto the temptations of void degeneracy even though they totally did, pretending like they're oh so benevolent when they pursue the means by which to spread yet more void degeneracy, on account of how they're all mouthpieces for the same bloody agenda that ultimately has nothing to it but smug mystery-box writing? What, is that totally foreign to you?

And that's just the latest nonsense. They did the exact same thing in SL and the expansions leading up to it, and ruined each character who had the misfortune to be cursed with the spotlight of being a mouthpiece for that brand of cosmic flavor.

Which is why, of course, you fall back on invective and insulting rhetoric. I don't need to insult others to make my point; it actually stands on its own as a grounded and evidence-based opinion supported by the facts at hand.

Yes, you're just so bloody terrified of rude words that you've logically gone and... failed to make a point. Where is this evidence of which you speak? Ah... is it to point to the official retcons? Do you not see the irony when that is the very thing I condemn?

Also, if I had no argument, what exactly are you so vehemently and violently disagreeing with here? A lack of argument shouldn't prompt emotional outbursts from you; it should prompt confusion. Your own argument here has no internal consistency, in addition to being pure emotional bluster. It's a tantrum wearing discourse as a bad wig.

Hah! Oh, you poor thing.

My anger is not directed at you, remotely; you I pity.

Indeed, how dare I be bothered to voice my passion when these incompetent writers have ruined a world which I loved? How tragically illogical of me.

We cannot have nice things if we will only roll over for them when these fools come to ruin them.

[Aucald]

No. Wrong. It is a fact that they have performed numerous, repeated retcons which have gradually chipped away at the legitimacy of the setting and the story. Deny it all you like, there can be no doubt; place the nonsense that we have today next to the brilliance of Wc3, and it is night and day.

The notion that retcons chip away at the legitimacy of a setting or story is itself an opinion. Ditto for WC3 being "brilliant."

Of course, if your tolerance for poor writing is so low that you do not care to distinguish, then that is on you. But to pretend that there have not been countless retcons done is lunacy. Of course, it is possible to have retcons that are not awful. Some things can be accepted. But when every step is but another process in a boiling frog situation of retcons and character mischaracterizations—after years of bad writing decisions by authors who do not understand these characters, we can only call the end-product a miserable failure.

"Poor writing" is also your opinion. I also never argued that retcons have occurred, so this is a complete confabulation on your part. You acknowledge the impact of retcons is also variable, undercutting your own argument into relative incoherence. "Bad writing decisions," similarly, is your own opinion, as it the end-product being a "miserable failure."

Or... what, are you really gutless enough to look me in the eye and tell me that Thrall, Jaina, Sylvanas, Tyrande, Malfurion, Illidan, Kael'thas, Vashj, and any number of other characters that we may point to... that they've all been true to themselves, that all of the humiliation that they have gone through has all made sense, and has been wrought in the pursuit of a fulfilling story? No. Time and again, it is the drama of the week; it is a poisonous erosure on these characters and so many others.

In what universe would my disagreement with your opinions be construed as "gutless?" Is something only brave when it's in complete agreement with your positions? Even if I did agree with you, that's not a statement of any emotional fortitude I may or may not have. Even as an insult, this entire exchange devolves into nonsense.

If you wish me to speak in good faith, then they should have treated this setting with the reverence it deserved. That cowards like you are willing to suck it up and cheer as it is brought to ruin is precisely the problem.

Again, how does my relative enjoyment of something you don't like make me a "coward?" Either you don't understand the very basics of what bravery or cowardice are, or you're engaging in the most reductive playground discourse possible. I've actually put forward criticism in this very thread, too, though I'm guessing you missed it because you were too busy trying to think of more "imaginative" insults to throw.

Meaningless buzzwords. Again: what bloody nuance? Where is this nuance that you pretend towards? They have offered plenty of inferior over-explanations, but nuance is certainly nowhere to be found. Characters have never been less nuanced, every plotpoint is hidden behind a cosmically-flavored mystery box that holds no actual meaning, every interaction between characters is cheap drama and 'cool' oneliners, every supposed addition to the worldbuilding is only another torch by which to burn itself down with yet another retcon. What nuance?

I already explained this as simplistically as I could; your unwillingness or inability to understand it is not a failure on my part. I also never claimed that WoW's writing was the epitome of complexity or density - in the general sense, it's pretty basic stock fantasy. They added more nuance than was originally there, sure, but it's most definitely not complex or multilayered narrative even on its best days.

Oh? Will you pretend then that we do not have one Windrunner which is nothing but an over-emotional mouthpiece for void degeneracy, facing another elf that is an overly smug mouthpiece for void degeneracy, aided by an entire group of traitor elves who are the mouthpieces of void degeneracy, assisted by an edgelord with the unexplained mystery-box magical secret to totally not fall unto the temptations of void degeneracy even though they totally did, pretending like they're oh so benevolent when they pursue the means by which to spread yet more void degeneracy, on account of how they're all mouthpieces for the same bloody agenda that ultimately has nothing to it but smug mystery-box writing? What, is that totally foreign to you?

Sorry, you accuse me of using buzzwords, but then you trot out "void degeneracy?" What exactly is "void degeneracy?" I can't explain a concept that makes no sense on its face, so you're going to have to explain what you mean here (assuming there is any meaning to be had). What agenda are you accusing of being at play here? What are you even talking about?

Yes, you're just so bloody terrified of rude words that you've logically gone and... failed to make a point. Where is this evidence of which you speak? Ah... is it to point to the official retcons? Do you not see the irony when that is the very thing I condemn?

Terrified? No, I just think that overuse of rudeness is indicative of... well, let's call it a "lack of creativity." You're still stuck in a quagmire of not really being able to differentiate between arguments grounded in fact and those grounded in opinion, so I'm not really sure how to approach any of this. It is increasingly a waste of time for the both of us.

Hah! Oh, you poor thing.

My anger is not directed at you, remotely; you I pity.

Indeed, how dare I be bothered to voice my passion when these incompetent writers have ruined a world which I loved? How tragically illogical of me.

We cannot have nice things if we will only roll over for them when these fools come to ruin them.

Fair enough, I guess? You're welcome to pity me if it makes you feel better - far be it from me to deny someone the most basic of comforts.

[Velshin]

Since there's confusion, let me try to clear up the underlying point of the discussion in as basic of a matter as I think is possible:

Fact: Beledar is a giant chunk of Azerite that is currently signaling the overall health of Azeroth by cycling between Light and Void states due to the damage done to Azeroth's worldsoul by Sargeras.

Opinion: Beledar had the potential to be something so epic in the story, and was instead an underwhelming and missed opportunity.

This first statement is an in-game fact about what Beledar fundamentally is; the second is an opinion of what Beledar could've been or should've been to be a better story element. My original post said absolutely nothing about whether or not Beledar was good storytelling; it merely answered the person I was responding to's question about what Beledar was or what significance it had.

Now, if you were to ask me my opinion about whether I thought Beledar being Azeroth's "check engine" light was good storytelling, we'd be having a different conversation. This is something I was ironically never asked; I just got insulted for daring to explain what Beledar was in the story. Before the nature of Beledar was explained in the story, I, like most people, I believe, also thought Beledar was going to be either the prison of or an actual part of a naaru, given that its whole "jumping between Light and Void states" was very reminiscent of what naaru do when they're damaged or failing somehow. That, and based on the early key art for Beledar, also seemed to strongly imply it was related to naaru due to aesthetic elements of its design. I was surprised to find out this wasn't the case, and I also agree that it being a naaru of some kind probably would've made for a more interesting story (and thus, also a missed opportunity of sorts).

Referring to Beledar as Azeroth's "check engine" light was also my tongue-in-cheek way of expressing my opinion of it, without necessarily going on an unnecessary rant about storytelling quality or my own personal preferences.

There is no confusion here because I agree with you here. However, you still didnt answer my question? At what point we go from "this is just your opinion" into indeed seeing how awful or how inferior the writing of WoW storytelling compare to Warcraft 3 or expansions like MoP or Legion?

[Aucald]

There is no confusion here because I agree with you here. However, you still didnt answer my question? At what point we go from "this is just your opinion" into indeed seeing how awful or how inferior the writing of WoW storytelling compare to Warcraft 3 or expansions like MoP or Legion?

I don't have an answer for you on that point. It wasn't what I was originally discussing, and some random other person just decided to grab the proverbial microphone and go on a rant about how they don't like the modern story of WoW. Which, as I said to them, is absolutely fine if that's how you feel about it - I really couldn't care either way. I was just explaining what Beledar is and does in terms of said story, without any real value judgments on the quality of the story or its writing.

[Velshin]

I don't have an answer for you on that point. It wasn't what I was originally discussing, and some random other person just decided to grab the proverbial microphone and go on a rant about how they don't like the modern story of WoW. Which, as I said to them, is absolutely fine if that's how you feel about it - I really couldn't care either way. I was just explaining what Beledar is and does in terms of said story, without any real value judgments on the quality of the story or its writing.

I see so you are in neutral stande and dont actually care if the story and writing of the game degraded and got worse overtime? Is that it? Or I am misunderstanding you?

[Aucald]

I see so you are in neutral stande and dont actually care if the story and writing of the game degraded and got worse overtime? Is that it? Or I am misunderstanding you?

Pretty much. While I wouldn't say that the story has degraded in an overall sense, it has most certainly changed - in some ways for the better (based on my own personal preferences), and in some ways for the worse. I try to find a middle ground in everything that offers one, as a matter of course, taking the good with the bad and doing the best I can with it, assuming there's enough good to make it worth the effort. Casting insults or aspersions at people because they don't agree with you is always bad form, though.

Get on a topic where I can offer criticism, and I'll offer it freely and, sometimes, volubly. Examples include the aforementioned forgetability of Dragonflight's story arc, the Jailer being perhaps the worst antagonist in WoW's history, and the faction conflict being a narrative black hole that we're lucky WoW was able to escape after 15 or so years of meandering.

[Velshin]

Pretty much. While I wouldn't say that the story has degraded in an overall sense, it has most certainly changed - in some ways for the better (based on my own personal preferences), and in some ways for the worse. I try to find a middle ground in everything that offers one, as a matter of course, taking the good with the bad and doing the best I can with it, assuming there's enough good to make it worth the effort. Casting insults or aspersions at people because they don't agree with you is always bad form, though.

Get on a topic where I can offer criticism, and I'll offer it freely and, sometimes, volubly. Examples include the aforementioned forgetability of Dragonflight's story arc, the Jailer being perhaps the worst antagonist in WoW's history, and the faction conflict being a narrative black hole that we're lucky WoW was able to escape after 15 or so years of meandering.

Ok fair enough, but what if the good is not enough and not worth it? Will you make a stand for it or you will stay neutral?

I agree about Zovaal being the worst villain in WoW history but tbh Fyrakk is not better either. The only difference between them that the Jailer damaged the franchise while Fyrakk is just unsignificat worthless forgettable.

[Aucald]

Ok fair enough, but what if the good is not enough and not worth it? Will you make a stand for it or you will stay neutral?

I mean, personally speaking, you probably won't catch me raging pointlessly about it - I'd stop playing WoW and invest my energies elsewhere. I don't really get the notion of "taking a stand" unless I actually thought it would matter or somehow change something, which I don't. Obviously, I'd provide my reasons if requested, but I've long disabused myself of the idea that my subjective opinion matters in the greater sense of WoW. I don't have a direct line to Blizzard, and nothing I really say or do is likely to have any effect whatsoever on their future course.

I agree about Zovaal being the worst villain in WoW history but tbh Fyrakk is not better either. The only difference between them that the Jailer damaged the franchise while Fyrakk is just unsignificat worthless forgettable.

No, Fyrakk is also not an especially captivating example of a villain, but I guess you could say he was kind of fitting for what is thus far a bottle story that doesn't have much impact on the story as a whole. The Jailer, on the other hand, is an example of a badly made and managed character occupying what is otherwise a key role with untold ramifications radiating outward from his every action - from his memetic insertion into previous events, to just the massive position he once occupied as a god-like figure. Fyrakk alone is just a "meh" antagonist who's come and gone without much fanfare; the Jailer left several gaping holes in the narrative where both his backstory and conclusion were hamfistedly executed.

[Velshin]

I mean, personally speaking, you probably won't catch me raging pointlessly about it - I'd stop playing WoW and invest my energies elsewhere. I don't really get the notion of "taking a stand" unless I actually thought it would matter or somehow change something, which I don't. Obviously, I'd provide my reasons if requested, but I've long disabused myself of the idea that my subjective opinion matters in the greater sense of WoW. I don't have a direct line to Blizzard, and nothing I really say or do is likely to have any effect whatsoever on their future course.



No, Fyrakk is also not an especially captivating example of a villain, but I guess you could say he was kind of fitting for what is thus far a bottle story that doesn't have much impact on the story as a whole. The Jailer, on the other hand, is an example of a badly made and managed character occupying what is otherwise a key role with untold ramifications radiating outward from his every action - from his memetic insertion into previous events, to just the massive position he once occupied as a god-like figure. Fyrakk alone is just a "meh" antagonist who's come and gone without much fanfare; the Jailer left several gaping holes in the narrative where both his backstory and conclusion were hamfistedly executed.

What pissed me off about the Jailer the most? That the version we have the books is so good giving you the vibe of this mysterious cunning old ancient creature that has forsight, wise and patient. Yet ingame? We have him as Thanos but worse...


About making a stand tbh it does make difference if many players does it.

[Aucald]

What pissed me off about the Jailer the most? That the version we have the books is so good giving you the vibe of this mysterious cunning old ancient creature that has forsight, wise and patient. Yet ingame? We have him as Thanos but worse...

And that's probably one of the worst things about the Jailer as a concept - it's actually not a bad idea on its face, and with a few important story and aesthetic tweaks, I think the general idea could've worked. But the execution of it in Shadowlands, from the Jailer's overall aesthetic to the storyline he featured in, it was just... oof.

[Unlimited Power]

DF was very much a stand-alone interim expansion until Blizzard could get started on some actual long term world building.

TWW, on the other hand, suffered from major rewrites after the expansion had already begun development, due to the return of Chris Metzen and the shift to a trilogy narrative.

A lot of factors point to Harandar being cut content from TWW. The Undermine seemed particularly out of left field in the whole Xal'atath narrative, and going from Undermine to K'aresh was also a major whiplash.

Blizzard then character assassinating Locus-Walker just to build upon the characters of Alleria and Xal'atath felt completely unnecessary to me.

K'aresh generally felt rather barebones to me, especially after Undermine. It wasn't a particularly memorable ending to an expansion overall.

[Arikara]

I don't really get the notion of "taking a stand" unless I actually thought it would matter or somehow change something, which I don't.

And therein lies your cowardice. You freely admit to careless apathy and a failure to pass apt judgement where so richly deserved. When you hold no values, there can be no meaning to be found anywhere; the cultural and personal values fought for and in turn betrayed by the factions of Wc3 were what shaped this setting. These values are all of them brought to ruin by the degeneracy of the failing story, now; if you care so little that you fail to grasp this, it is no wonder that you dismiss even noble values as "personal opinion".

[Aucald]

And therein lies your cowardice. You freely admit to careless apathy and a failure to pass apt judgement where so richly deserved. When you hold no values, there can be no meaning to be found anywhere; the cultural and personal values fought for and in turn betrayed by the factions of Wc3 were what shaped this setting. These values are all of them brought to ruin by the degeneracy of the failing story, now; if you care so little that you fail to grasp this, it is no wonder that you dismiss even noble values as "personal opinion".

It is neither careless nor apathy, it's simply the well-reasoned understanding that my voice alone isn't going to change the direction of an established franchise. Nor do I want that, as I much prefer to let authors and storytellers tell the story they want to tell without inserting myself or my opinions into it - I'll judge it for myself, after it's been told, and decide for myself whether I like it or not. That process seldom requires an audience. Also, the mere idea of assuming my opinions or lack thereof as concerns a video game's story constitutes some aspect of my personal values is, well, laughable. Do you judge everyone by their critical assessments of popular fiction or video games? Is someone a base coward because they don't like "The Legend of Zelda" in your strange echo chamber of a world?

Sorry, I can't take anything you say in good faith, so this exchange is increasingly pointless. You're either putting on some kind of bizarre show of effective override as performance art, or you're being completely and bizarrely irrational.

[Teriz]

Frankly Dragonflight has been the best expansion Blizzard has released in quite a while. I thought it was vastly superior to Shadowlands, and I found myself missing it during TWW. Too early for my final judgement on Midnight, but so far I still rather be playing Dragonflight.

[Narwhalosh Whalescream]

DF was alright. The overall story, forgettable, but it was reasonably cozy at certain places. It also had good cosmetics for us that like more down to earth stuff.

[MrLachyG]

Simple answer - these xpacks are indeed just lame.

how would you know, you've never played them as they are intended. you miss out on all the group content because by the time you get to it, 99.9% of the playerbase has moved on.