Why the Garrosh story never actually worked.

Story Forum
05/10/2013 01:18 PMPosted by Seebach

Some of us have been a part of these factions for years. Its understandable that people feel loyalty and emotional attachment to them. :P


Is it understandable then, that I feel no loyal or emotional attachment to the alliance?

Mhm.
05/10/2013 01:06 PMPosted by Cártian
Does anyone else get really weirded out when people talking on the forums start identifying as if they were their faction OOC?

Some of us have been a part of these factions for years. Its understandable that people feel loyalty and emotional attachment to them. :P


I've played both sides from Classic. Meh. Mystifies me. :P
05/10/2013 01:04 PMPosted by Arterius
things-that-never-happened.txt


It's always funny to watch people be sarcastic when they're totally incorrect and/or misinformed with regards to the subject they're speaking about.

There was actually a conference where the Alliance and Horde were discussing peace and trade, and Garrosh was on record taking the stance of "Why should we trade when we can take it by force?"


I won't say that your statement is entirely false because it's absolute true that there was a "Peace Summit" in Theramore, before the Northrend Campaign, wherein it was openly stated by Garrosh Hellscream that they should simply take what they need. It's also true, however, that following the Shattering he attempted to open some trade lanes between Ashenvale and Barrens/Durotar and was swiftly rebuked by the Night Elves who cited the "Wrathgate fiasco" as their primary cause for disassociation.

TLDR -- He did ask the NE's to engage in trade. The NE's did tell him absolutely not. Those are facts.
05/10/2013 01:26 PMPosted by Fifira

Some of us have been a part of these factions for years. Its understandable that people feel loyalty and emotional attachment to them. :P


I've played both sides from Classic. Meh. Mystifies me. :P

Some people dont get into it as much as others. You seem to be on that end of the spectrum I guess. :P
Maybe it's because I grew up playing JRPGs, but I actually prefer having a linear story that the player can't affect.
But that's what makes experiencing WoW so much more appealing. One can be a professional crafter, one can be a veteran gladiator, one can be an explorer or a historian, even a pokemon master! All of these are provided for you in WoW, and what makes the world of WoW so cool, is that you can be anything you want. Just like how things are happening in the real world, we can do a lot of things but that doesn't stop disasters from happening. If you put it in perspective, we're just a grain in a vast ocean, and we got no control of how strong the current will be or where it will take us.


Okay, but none of the profession stuff has any impact on the story what so ever.

More to the point that we aren't even a "grain in a vast ocean". We are nothing. The story is not personal to us, and the characters involved don't even treat us like an actual person. They'll forget us after we've done their quests.



05/10/2013 12:10 PMPosted by Laeys
Have you played SWtoR? It has a similar idea of choice, but like every BioWare game, that choice is limited to a few dialogue changes.


I have, though I'll admit I didn't like the gameplay. The unimportant, grindy quests had way too much dialogue, too.



However, it would be interesting how the collective choice of the players shape the entire world at large. Similar to how GW2 is handling things! You fight off a group of centaurs invading a village with a bunch of other players, or you don't. Depending on the outcome, ie whether the village survives, the NPC characters provide quests about retaliating against the centaur or rebuild the village. It's an awesome concept! I think that's the type of choice that would benefit WoW a lot more than BioWare-esque choice.


GW2 does indeed do some rather interesting things. However, those events tend to reset after awhile(which is a good thing, but nothing huge on story).
It's also true, however, that following the Shattering he attempted to open some trade lanes between Ashenvale and Barrens/Durotar and was swiftly rebuked by the Night Elves who cited the "Wrathgate fiasco" as their primary cause for disassociation.

TLDR -- He did ask the NE's to engage in trade. The NE's did tell him absolutely not. Those are facts.


Absolutely irrelevant to this thread.

Though to be fair, Garrosh still maintained his stance on wanting to aggressively deal with the Alliance in The Shattering. That's why Cairne was quick to blame him for the massacre in Ashenvale.
05/10/2013 09:36 PMPosted by Draile
Absolutely irrelevant to this thread.


It's never really irrelevant to ameliorate a false characterization.

Though to be fair, Garrosh still maintained his stance on wanting to aggressively deal with the Alliance in The Shattering. That's why Cairne was quick to blame him for the massacre in Ashenvale.


Also, the fact that Garrosh Hellscream tends towards aggressive politics doesn't in any way prohibit him from engaging in patently non-aggressive diplomacy -- which is exactly what he was begrudgingly willing to do in the Shattering before he was rebuked unconditionally by Darnassus.
Garrosh clearly went to far in carrying us back to our warlike ways but I believe if he were to survive he would be able to balance that against Thralls vision, and it would make him the ideal leader for our Horde.


I'm still hoping for something like this.
The unfortunate reality is that yes we have no control over where the story goes but we never did in WC3 we couldn't say no I don't want to go slaughter people in stratholme we didn't have a choice and we still don't WOW is a game where we can do quests and kill monsters and fight one another but in the story of warcaft we make no difference we may not want to blow up the school of druids but weather we do or don't doesn't matter it still happens in the story we can go and kill varian and every leader but they don't actually die because the story says so with wow we simply get a different way of watching the story unfold and in the game we can pretend to be a part of it. treat it for what it is a story we cant change the story because if you do then the warcraft universe would be different for every person and in an MMO that's simply impossible I say just enjoy the story Blizzard has been telling us for the last 20 years (BTW WC1 came out in 94)
I don't really feel the need to have a choice when playing Warcraft, same as reading a Warcraft book. When questing, I accept my character as a lens for the rest of the story.

Edit: Mind you, I still hope that Blizzard is pliant to our feedback when writing this story.
The problem with Garrosh is that he wants to take the Horde back to its old roots--not the "old" of Thrall, where they tried to live in peace with their neighbors, but the "old" of Gul'dan and Doomhammer, where they killed their neighbors.

Garrosh did not kill Krom'gar for massacring civilians. He killed Krom'gar for misinterpreting orders. Krom'gar killed civilians without direct orders to do so, and thus was a poor leader in Garrosh's eyes.

Garrosh never saw the Horde as the family that Thrall and Vol'jin saw it as. He never got the chance to know that side--not long after returning from Outland he was thrust into Northrend, and then appointed Warchief. To him, everyone but the Tauren and the Orcs are freeloaders or Scourge lookalikes. It's really easy to understand why Garrosh is acting the way he is. You just have to look at his history.

So yes, the Garrosh story did work. He's using the same methods he wanted to use against the Scourge--total war--but without Saurfang the pork-free to reign him in, and he's using them against living people this time.

There's been no great change in character. He was mad at Krom'gar for wiping out a druid school that was no threat, but any time he saw alliance forces that could be a threat, they had to go. That hasn't changed. With the other horde races becoming increasingly alienated, Garrosh is forced to turn to increasingly desperate measures to preserve the horde.

The reasoning is there. You just have to look.
05/11/2013 08:33 AMPosted by Vyrin
The problem with Garrosh is that he wants to take the Horde back to its old roots--not the "old" of Thrall, where they tried to live in peace with their neighbors, but the "old" of Gul'dan and Doomhammer, where they killed their neighbors.


I feel that he tends towards a healthy mix of both worldviews. There's a subtle difference between wanting to do something and being willing to do something, and Garrosh seems to tend towards the latter.

The primary goal for him is, and always has been, the prosperity of the Horde -- which in his mind has always been an organization intended to be governed by and for his race, specifically. If the Horde being able to grow requires some unaffiliated groups to take a beating, he's absolutely willing to provide it, but that doesn't require that he want to hurt them as a goal in itself.
I don't really feel the need to have a choice when playing Warcraft, same as reading a Warcraft book. When questing, I accept my character as a lens for the rest of the story.

Edit: Mind you, I still hope that Blizzard is pliant to our feedback when writing this story.


Then how do you feel when NPCs are needlessly calling you a hero, or in the case of MoP's Alliance Jade Forest quests, the chosen one?

I sure as hell don't feel like the chosen one if my character is a hollow shell that can't make even the most rudimentary of decisions.



Garrosh did not kill Krom'gar for massacring civilians. He killed Krom'gar for misinterpreting orders. Krom'gar killed civilians without direct orders to do so, and thus was a poor leader in Garrosh's eyes.


That can actually be easily contested. Because Garrosh quoted Saurfang and said something like "Never forsake your honor".

Though it still goes back to the stupid idea that as a player in that situation he was completely willing and ready to kill you in ignorance of your role in the situation.

And you, of course, never had a say in the choices you made that lead to Garrosh wanting to kill you.



So yes, the Garrosh story did work. He's using the same methods he wanted to use against the Scourge--total war--but without Saurfang the pork-free to reign him in, and he's using them against living people this time.


I think you completely misunderstand the point of the thread.

I'm claiming the story doesn't work because players have no personal investment. This thread is about the "illusion of choice", not how you interpret Garrosh as a character.

Please, read at least the original post of the thread next time.

I think you completely misunderstand the point of the thread.

I'm claiming the story doesn't work because players have no personal investment. This thread is about the "illusion of choice", not how you interpret Garrosh as a character.

Please, read at least the original post of the thread next time.


I think you totally misunderstand the entire point of this genre of game. You, as an individual, cannot choose and have some great impact on the story because there are millions of other people playing through the exact same story. They're not all going to choose the same path, and that would cause an unholy clustermess as far as storyline continuity.

Additionally, have you ever read a book and gotten invested in it? Generally speaking, you don't have any choice in reading a book. Period. Frankly, when have we ever had any choice in the matter in this game? We haven't, and the story hasn't suffered yet.

Additionally, have you ever read a book and gotten invested in it? Generally speaking, you don't have any choice in reading a book. Period. Frankly, when have we ever had any choice in the matter in this game? We haven't, and the story hasn't suffered yet.


Initially, I scoffed and thought, "Yeah, too late for that." However, thinking about it, I can only imagine all the horrific ways this could get worse... so, yeah, turns out I agree with you, only because it's a bulwark against horrible ideas that would make the story even worse.
This thread is about the "illusion of choice", not how you interpret Garrosh as a character.


If it was really about 'illusion of choice' that would be the topic title, which happens to be 'Why the Garrosh story never actually worked'.
If we're going to nitpick, then it should be pointed out that the title of the topic was a declarative statement, not a question. It was then clarified in the very first sentence of the OP - a very clear apposition.

so hah!
The Garrosh story never worked because it made some (many?) Alliance players feel like, winning or not, they were just part of the Horde campaign, and made some (many?) Horde players feel like lackeys to a derpy villain.

It's pretty simple.


Some of us have been a part of these factions for years. Its understandable that people feel loyalty and emotional attachment to them. :P


Is it understandable then, that I feel no loyal or emotional attachment to the alliance?
yeah. but that doesnt mean it's right to say it's weird for others to have an attachment. personally, i have an attachment to the forsaken and the blood elves. i played tauren for a year too (shaman and druid). while i liked the gameplay, i never truly appreciated being a tauren. i always preferred forsaken or BE, more along the "seize power despite the cost" train. samething when i got scroll of rez'd and played a bit on a night elf rogue that went from lvl 50 --> 80 and i levelled to 84. just never got into being a nightelf.

anyways, pertaining to the topic @ hand. i agree completely. when garrosh was first appointed warchief i disliked it, however, i find myself enjoying the war from my warlock's standpoint. because i identify my warlock as someone who doesnt care about sylvanas anyways (let me tell you, had i been giving the choice you wouldve been fighting against me during wrathgate :PPP) while i was annoyed at what he did to sylvanas and cairne, it wouldnt make me wanna kill garrosh. even from my holy priest's point of view, i wouldnt care that much about what garrosh did to the BE's. i guess this is just from my personality in that i see myself not neccessarily separate from society, but that i find myself rarely subscribing to views "just becuase"
What im getting at is that my characters, like me (so it may be some self insertion but it IS a RPG), dont neccessarily do what the leaders tell me to do. i hate vol'jin. i do NOT want to be helping him this campaign. if it was up to me, i would've let the poison kill the old troll. and certainly, i wouldve made sure to finish the job on anduin after he was crushed. while i dislike garrosh that doesnt mean that i want to outright kill him. in fact, i wanna kill VJ. however, im forced to help VJ kill garrosh.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum