Zereth Mortis

[Feanoro]

@Aucald
Wow. Defending Danuser not only blatantly ripping off ideas from earlier in the franchise, but claiming his version inspired the original. Next, will you explain to us peasants that Sylvie's arc has been good writing?

@Houle
I said that SL was "X but X-ier!" when all this was announced, took SO much crap for it, and yet here we are.

[Aucald]

Wow. Defending Danuser not only blatantly ripping off ideas from earlier in the franchise, but claiming his version inspired the original. Next, will you explain to us peasants that Sylvie's arc has been good writing?

If you think a basic explanation of something is tantamount to either "defending Danuser" or "explaining X to us peasants" it's pretty easy to see why you're pretty much perpetually outraged. "You're either with us or against us" style rhetoric is always self-limiting and doesn't really state your case very well.

I've put forth a lot of criticisms of shit that Danuser has claimed or done, so if you think I'm a defender of either him or Shadowlands as a whole then you're mistaken and/or not paying attention. Ditto for Sylvanas' story-arc being good writing.

What Houle put forth was still a bare-bones reductive argument. If you want to be critical then be critical, but at least put some basic effort into it is all I'm saying. For example, the fact that the whole "based on Maldraxxus" thing is a pretty blatant retcon of the Scourge's aesthetic being based on the Nerubians, who to our knowledge had fuck-all to do with Maldraxxus or Necromancy when they were alive. That's a valid criticism of Shadowlands' writing without softball-style reductiveness.

[Khaza-R]

That's a reductive argument on multiple levels. The Scourge being inspired at some level by the aesthetics of Maldraxxus neither makes them a "copy," nor changes the fact that both the Scourge and Maldraxxus are aesthetically unique. You wouldn't really mistake Naxxramas for Zerekriss. The same is true of the Jailer and the Lich King, even more so really, especially since the successive Lich Kings pointedly defied the Jailer and did their own thing - so they're different both aesthetically and narratively. The Titans are also distinct from the First Ones in that we know little to nothing about the latter and pretty much everything about the former. They *might* be proved similar later on, if we ever find out more about the First Ones. Their roles are completely different as well, given that the First Ones are the progenitors of everything that exists, whereas the Titans just took to traveling throughout the physical universe and changing pre-existing stuff to better fit their own notions of what "ordered" was supposed to be like (and based on what Algalon maintained destroying a fair portion of creation to do so in the process).

The only way you can really posit the whole "cheap knock-offs of newer stuff" line is if you strip away every ounce of nuance and detail for the sake of a jaded half-argument.

I don't think you're wrong here but I kind of disagree about Maldraxxus. They made it clear they only added it because they thought the Scourge was a cool aesthetic and they wanted a "metal" zone. My issue comes they didn't really explain why they are similar at all. So I would agree with the other poster that it sort of just feels cheap. The Scourge already had a backstory that their architecture was influenced by the Nerubians, who were influenced by the Aqir and ultimately the Black Empire and the Old Gods.

That's not to say there whole thing couldn't of worked but they should of given it a better explanation. Like it would of worked much better if they had some more back story with Ner'zhul and how he could peer into the Shadowlands and decided to make the Scourge his own twisted version of that.

[Aucald]

I don't think you're wrong here but I kind of disagree about Maldraxxus. They made it clear they only added it because they thought the Scourge was a cool aesthetic and they wanted a "metal" zone. My issue comes they didn't really explain why they are similar at all. So I would agree with the other poster that it sort of just feels cheap. The Scourge already had a backstory that their architecture was influenced by the Nerubians, who were influenced by the Aqir and ultimately the Black Empire and the Old Gods.

That's not to say there whole thing couldn't of worked but they should of given it a better explanation. Like it would of worked much better if they had some more back story with Ner'zhul and how he could peer into the Shadowlands and decided to make the Scourge his own twisted version of that.

How it feels and what it is are two entirely different things, though. I would agree that Maldraxxus kind of feels cheap, and would've better been served with its own unique aesthetic similar to Bastion or Revendreth, who are at least unique in look and feel comparatively. But on the same token Maldraxxus also doesn't look like Icecrown or even the Plaguelands - you can tell the two are related, sure; but they're still distinct. What Maldraxxus could've done without is the whole Scourge comparison in the first place, though; and rather have had its own aesthetic and design. In an old post of mine, I put forth that Maldraxxus should've been a haphazard collection of cultures that had died in violent warfare and overthrow. You could have Nerubian stuff in there since they were largely put to death by the Scourge, and also some Aldrachi stuff (having been made extinct by the Legion). You could have a lot of Legion-destroyed stuff in there. Perhaps portions of Zin-Azshari that were destroyed in the Sundering, or chunks of Fanlin'Deskor. The Necrolords would be a faction that was eternally conducting war games amidst the ruins of dozens of different fallen civilizations, a fitting tribute to both the war and death aesthetics without borrowing from the Scourge wholesale.

And again, that would be a more cogent criticism of the zone rather than just saying "Scourge knock-off, haha."

[Feanoro]

If you think a basic explanation of something

Who says anyone needs you to explain to them? And you wonder why I said "explain to us peasants".

"defending Danuser"

Yes, when you dismiss the idea that multiple SL settings, concepts, or characters are blatant copies with a sloppy coat of paint, that does sound like defending the rip off artist.

What Houle put forth was still a bare-bones reductive argument. If you want to be critical then be critical, but at least put some basic effort into it is all I'm saying.

Except that people have been doing so for the entirety of SL and shouldn't have to repeat things at length. His "X but X-ier" has been discussed multiple times, with some posters even writing informal essays on the argument. You come in sneering at him for not taking the time to write yet another essay that would simply repeat a concept that's already been firmly established here, then wonder why anyone would react poorly to your wet fart in the elevator? If you haven't been paying attention yourself, that's not anyone else's problem.

[Aucald]

Who says anyone needs you to explain to them? And you wonder why I said "explain to us peasants".

You realize any explanation is going to have an audience, right? I mean we're on a forum - the context is one of discussion. If you can't tolerate the idea of discussion then I'm not really sure what to say. I'm explaining why the argument was reductive to the audience of the forum, not to anyone specific, including you.

Yes, when you dismiss the idea that multiple SL settings, concepts, or characters are blatant copies with a sloppy coat of paint, that does sound like defending the rip off artist.

Fortunately, I didn't dismiss anything, nor even say Houle's argument was wrong. I said the manner in which it was made was reductive - it was a shoddy argument, not an incorrect one. But you do have a point in that I don't really consider Danuser a "rip-off artist" or anything like that. I don't think he's a skilled writer, but neither do I consider him actively malicious or to blame for everything wrong with WoW. That, too, is both reductive and wrongheaded in my view when it comes to diagnosing the greater issues with WoW's narrative.

Except that people have been doing so for the entirety of SL and shouldn't have to repeat things at length. His "X but X-ier" has been discussed multiple times, with some posters even writing informal essays on the argument. You come in sneering at him for not taking the time to write yet another essay that would simply repeat a concept that's already been firmly established here, then wonder why anyone would react poorly to your wet fart in the elevator? If you haven't been paying attention yourself, that's not anyone else's problem.

Do you mean like the trite and seeming eternal repetition of the faction conflict arguments here? I agree you shouldn't have to repeat things at length - and furthermore, if the arguments were convincing and made well you likely wouldn't have to. But I'm also not one to let a badly-made argument stand, especially when I feel it misrepresents a crucial element or is outright wrong. It's unfortunate if that bothers you, and I would say it probably shouldn't - you do it all the time, a lot more forcefully (and frequently) than I do as well. Or maybe it's more a personal thing, I don't know - and honestly, don't really care either.

[Feanoro]

I'm explaining why the argument was reductive to the audience of the forum, not to anyone specific, including you.

Usually on a forum, since now you want to explain how they work, when you reply to someone, you're speaking to him, not attempting to orate to an audience. Doing so smacks of trying to sway others to join you. Inciting dogpiles, however subtly done, is a pretty low tactic. By your own words, you're not even addressing him with the criticism of reductive argument, but aiming for everyone else. That's not discussion. That's grandstanding oration.

Fortunately, I didn't dismiss anything, nor even say Houle's argument was wrong.

The only way you can really posit the whole "cheap knock-offs of newer stuff" line is if you strip away every ounce of nuance and detail for the sake of a jaded half-argument.

Yeah, that's not dismissive at all. You can play word salad games all day, you effectively said he was wrong and making a statement in bad faith.

But you do have a point in that I don't really consider Danuser a "rip-off artist" or anything like that.

Which means that you disagree with the original argument that SL is full of copies. QED.

Do you mean like the trite and seeming eternal repetition of the faction conflict arguments here? I agree you shouldn't have to repeat things at length - and furthermore, if the arguments were convincing and made well you likely wouldn't have to.

First day on the internet (or hell, being alive)? This forum has demonstrated repeatedly that you can quote sources, provide citations, and use logic and related subject matter (e.g. demonstrating why the Horde's lack of agriculture is absurdity), and yet people will still argue.

But I'm also not one to let a badly-made argument stand, especially when I feel it misrepresents a crucial element or is outright wrong.

Funny, you just said you weren't claiming Houle's argument was wrong. Fascinating word choice then.

It's unfortunate if that bothers you, and I would say it probably shouldn't - you do it all the time, a lot more forcefully (and frequently) than I do as well.

I contend the content of an argument, not how it's presented. You know, since the forum specifically has rules about attacking presentation. You ought to know, you've claimed in your omniscience that was my intent and awarded me vacations on it before.

[TheFirstOnes]

None of this is Titan...

[username993720]

Low polygon is not an in-universe issue. That's not a valid lore argument.

It's called humor.

Their roles are completely different as well, given that the First Ones are the progenitors of everything that exists, whereas the Titans just took to traveling throughout the physical universe and changing pre-existing stuff to better fit their own notions of what "ordered" was supposed to be like (and based on what Algalon maintained destroying a fair portion of creation to do so in the process).

Pretty much what the titans were before.

[huth]

Usually on a forum, since now you want to explain how they work, when you reply to someone, you're speaking to him, not attempting to orate to an audience.

Other way around. You're thinking of private messages. If you post on a forum, you're always publically speaking.

[Aucald]

Pretty much what the titans were before.

Not really. The Titans' lore was always that they ordered a creation they were born into, they were never literal gods or creator deities insofar as that goes. The difference may be academic as concerns the beings they did create to enact their goals (e.g. the Titanforged) or those they altered, but it's been that way since they were first introduced into the lore. The First Ones are more in the mold of true gods, creators of the entire metacosm, progenitors who set everything that is into motion originally.

[Progenitor Aquarius]

And low polygon.
It might mean the Titans are copying the First Ones.

Nah, they are just their family. Which is why most of their stuff is similar. First Ones are beings of Order.

[Khaza-R]

How it feels and what it is are two entirely different things, though. I would agree that Maldraxxus kind of feels cheap, and would've better been served with its own unique aesthetic similar to Bastion or Revendreth, who are at least unique in look and feel comparatively. But on the same token Maldraxxus also doesn't look like Icecrown or even the Plaguelands - you can tell the two are related, sure; but they're still distinct. What Maldraxxus could've done without is the whole Scourge comparison in the first place, though; and rather have had its own aesthetic and design. In an old post of mine, I put forth that Maldraxxus should've been a haphazard collection of cultures that had died in violent warfare and overthrow. You could have Nerubian stuff in there since they were largely put to death by the Scourge, and also some Aldrachi stuff (having been made extinct by the Legion). You could have a lot of Legion-destroyed stuff in there. Perhaps portions of Zin-Azshari that were destroyed in the Sundering, or chunks of Fanlin'Deskor. The Necrolords would be a faction that was eternally conducting war games amidst the ruins of dozens of different fallen civilizations, a fitting tribute to both the war and death aesthetics without borrowing from the Scourge wholesale.

And again, that would be a more cogent criticism of the zone rather than just saying "Scourge knock-off, haha."

That would have been an amazing concept for the zone. Something that actually tied in to old lore. Shame that's not what we got.

[Feanoro]

Other way around. You're thinking of private messages. If you post on a forum, you're always publically speaking.

Please be so good as to show me where to find the "Reply to all" function. I'll wait.

You're speaking in public, true. Anyone can read what you write and is free to reply to you. If you're replying to someone, you're engaging specifically him/her in conversation that others are able to see. Since you're replying to a specific person, you write in a manner addressing what he/she said. Others are free to reply if they see fit, as you have done. You can then choose whether to engage with those others as well as your original respondent. In all cases, the conversations are one on one, yet publicly visible.

Turning a reply to a specific person into oration addressing everyone is not remotely typical on this or any other forum I've ever seen, and I remember the days before forums. That's all I intend to say about it.

[username993720]

Not really. The Titans' lore was always that they ordered a creation they were born into, they were never literal gods or creator deities insofar as that goes. The difference may be academic as concerns the beings they did create to enact their goals (e.g. the Titanforged) or those they altered, but it's been that way since they were first introduced into the lore. The First Ones are more in the mold of true gods, creators of the entire metacosm, progenitors who set everything that is into motion originally.

My bad.
Got confused with the Dwarves calling them makers and creators.

Nah, they are just their family. Which is why most of their stuff is similar. First Ones are beings of Order.

Who said that?

[Progenitor Aquarius]

I think when i post this i will make you angry, but today I looked at the titan and broker cosmic chart; In the Titan one, in the middle there is a star, and in the Broker one, in the middle there is a black hole. Black hole is nothing but a collapsting star. It looks like my beloved constellars are void lords and they have 2 life cycles (light and shadow). “My own heart devoids of emotion”, Algalon meant it literally. Holy crap.

Then when I checked this, it’s a proof that Azeroth’s Sun is a star: https://ptr.wowhead.com/news/explori...-of-the-325812

(I’m just theorizing. Not 100% sure what blizzard will come up with)

[username993720]

I was wondering....
If Zereth Mortis looks like this:

How would Zereth Vitae look like?

Another thing... could Argus be Zereth Tumult? We were told that demons regenerated at an increased rate due to Argus being used as a "battery". But, if we look at Zereth Mortis, we can see that the First ones are creating, and re-creating, creatures like a factory:



Could this mean that Demons didn't regenerate in the Twisting Nether because of their nature, or in Argus because of the Titan Argus, but due to Antorus being Zereth Tumult, creating new demons constantly and re-creating those who perished? This would mean that every incarnation of a notable Demon we met was a copy and not the original one.

[Progenitor Aquarius]

I noticed a few exciting things. The waystone in Zereth Mortis is gold and in Shadowlands blue. We know that Shadowlands are the realm of death. What is Zereth, then? First Ones must be dead and alive at the same time. There are Jailer's chains in that zone too. Did he try to pull this realm to Sanctum of Domination because it looks the same as this one where we fought the Guardian? An enlightened Brooker Firim says that First Ones perhaps lie within Sepulcher or went somewhere else. Where? To Torghast?! I don't believe that when Jailer pulled into this realm, they would not react; they must have fought him back. Where are they now? None knows anything, of course! How is this possible? There is also this damn tomb of the Eternals where you cannot enter because the darkness overwhelms you, and you die. So I died, and the whole zone was dark when I resurrected. I wonder why I cannot enter as a living being, only in death.

[ohwell]

I noticed a few exciting things. The waystone in Zereth Mortis is gold and in Shadowlands blue. We know that Shadowlands are the realm of death. What is Zereth, then? First Ones must be dead and alive at the same time. There are Jailer's chains in that zone too. Did he try to pull this realm to Sanctum of Domination because it looks the same as this one where we fought the Guardian? An enlightened Brooker Firim says that First Ones perhaps lie within Sepulcher or went somewhere else. Where? To Torghast?! I don't believe that when Jailer pulled into this realm, they would not react; they must have fought him back. Where are they now? None knows anything, of course! How is this possible? There is also this damn tomb of the Eternals where you cannot enter because the darkness overwhelms you, and you die. So I died, and the whole zone was dark when I resurrected. I wonder why I cannot enter as a living being, only in death.

I think the Guardian was needed as an information source and he could somehow reach it with the 4 sigils maybe and only was able to snap a piece off or the Guardian snapped the chains and came to investigate.

- - - Updated - - -

If you think a basic explanation of something is tantamount to either "defending Danuser" or "explaining X to us peasants" it's pretty easy to see why you're pretty much perpetually outraged. "You're either with us or against us" style rhetoric is always self-limiting and doesn't really state your case very well.

I've put forth a lot of criticisms of shit that Danuser has claimed or done, so if you think I'm a defender of either him or Shadowlands as a whole then you're mistaken and/or not paying attention. Ditto for Sylvanas' story-arc being good writing.

What Houle put forth was still a bare-bones reductive argument. If you want to be critical then be critical, but at least put some basic effort into it is all I'm saying. For example, the fact that the whole "based on Maldraxxus" thing is a pretty blatant retcon of the Scourge's aesthetic being based on the Nerubians, who to our knowledge had fuck-all to do with Maldraxxus or Necromancy when they were alive. That's a valid criticism of Shadowlands' writing without softball-style reductiveness.

Why bother? The people that have spent the whole expansion bad mouthing the team can't even back up their own ideas half the time because they aren't even their own ideas, but rather what they've been rewarded by the crowd for believing simply because some big name said it. They've gotten to the point where anyone who isn't a part of the herd is a Danuser lover and then they just stammer the same statements in insult to you while their herd applauds.

[Progenitor Aquarius]

Yeah, there was also this mysterious artifact speaking with voice sounding rather familiar.