What Can Change The Nature of a Man?

Story Forum
03/26/2015 02:42 AMPosted by Sunfeeder
It would be like if they revealed that, idk, Malfurion was secretly Sargeras the whole time. You could argue it was nonsensical, but you couldn't argue it wasn't true.


That's different though. That is stating a fact that is obvious to the viewer.

Claiming that completely unrestrained Total War is good for a nation is absurd. The entire premise of Total War is to utterly destroy everything about the opponent to the point that they can no longer function, and both factions are doing it to each other.

I know that linking RL events to in-game anything is taboo but look at the what the state of Europe would be at the end of every major war, the Hundred Years War, the Thirty Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, WW1.

At the end of these wars the nations involved were generally bankrupt and rife with conflict as mercenaries who could no longer be paid ransacked the populace, highwaymen were a common thing, and the ruling authority simply lacked the manpower and resources to restore their nation's infrastructure.

Did the "rivalry" between Carthage and Rome make the two stronger? What about the "rivalry" between Rome and the Germanic people's? No? Of course not, the "rivalry" was one of the factors that caused the Dark Ages.

In-game this has translated into the destruction of the nation of Theramore, as well as the majority of the 7th Legion, an ARMY of elite troops who fought the Legion, the Ahn'Quiraj, and the Scourge. In addition to countless experienced Magic-users. All in ONE BATTLE.

Ashenvale is still half-ruined as the Night Elves and Warsong beat each other to death, while indirectly creating the Druids of the Flame, and thus were unable to effectively counter Ragnaros.

The Eastern Kingdoms are an utter wreck, you're welcome.

So I'd love for the Pandaren to tell me that the Rivalry between the two factions is good for Azeroth and be able to just sit down and tell them how everything they said and believe is objectively wrong.

What a rant....I should get back to managing these files.
03/26/2015 05:21 AMPosted by Resìleaf
Does that mean that we are forbidden from wanting to hold WoW to a higher standard? That we are to just accept that it must suck and deal with it? To claim that war is good for Azeroth is an insult to common sense and player intelligence, and its not by going "well, I guess that's what it must be" that we're going to get a story worthy of the game we love.


No, though I would have recommend distinguishing between "wanting a better story" and "wanting a different story". Plenty of people seem to agree with the direction that the writers chose, and feel they provided an adequate explanation, but think the execution fell flat. A question was raised, and an answer given. Demanding a better explanation on why that answer was chosen is perfectly reasonable. But, demanding a different answer...well, there's no "correct" direction for a story to go, so you can't say your answer is somehow inherently better. And at some point, you have to come to terms with the fact that it's ultimately the devs' story, and they get to choose what's true and false. And, of course, insulting the people who did agree with the story doesn't help anything at all.

03/26/2015 05:58 AMPosted by Kenthil
Claiming that completely unrestrained Total War is good for a nation is absurd. The entire premise of Total War is to utterly destroy everything about the opponent to the point that they can no longer function, and both factions are doing it to each other.


Except that wasn't the message at all. Total War, the complete destruction or domination of the other side, that's not what's desired, and that's not what Tong's talking about. He's talking about the continued rivalry between the factions, when neither side was "superior" to the other. Total War is what Wrathion advocated, in opposition to Tong's idea. And Wrathion (and Garrosh, who held similar views) were both treated as incorrect by the story.
He's talking about the continued rivalry between the factions, when neither side was "superior" to the other.


But that's what Tong doesn't get, it won't end there.

The rivalry will lead to violence. When the factions had their rivalry we got Hillsbrad, Arathi Basin, the invasion of Ashenvale, the war in Alterac, and both sides would generally shoot each other on sight.

Then it exploded into Total War.
03/26/2015 06:04 AMPosted by Kenthil
He's talking about the continued rivalry between the factions, when neither side was "superior" to the other.


But that's what Tong doesn't get, it won't end there.

The rivalry will lead to violence. When the factions had their rivalry we got Hillsbrad, Arathi Basin, the invasion of Ashenvale, the war in Alterac, and both sides would generally shoot each other on sight.

Then it exploded into Total War.


And those periods of Total War are relatively brief, and usually interrupted by the arrival of an outside threat. And thanks to that war from before, the two sides are already prepared for a huge fight. That's the cycle. Escalation of hostility leads to mass militarization, which is inevitably redirected instead to a third-party threat, which leaves the two sides exhausted and needing to recover, which ends with increase in hostility, and repeat on and on. It's an incredibly viscous cycle, but it "works", and we know that without it the world would end.

Also, didn't Varien say that the Alliance was stronger then ever, after the Siege of Org? They were more united then before, with better internal stability. The Horde was purged of the elements that made up the "True Horde", and united under a (most likely) better leader. When the Legion shows up, they'll be facing a united Alliance, and more stable Horde.
03/26/2015 05:58 AMPosted by Sunfeeder
No, though I would have recommend distinguishing between "wanting a better story" and "wanting a different story". Plenty of people seem to agree with the direction that the writers chose, and feel they provided an adequate explanation, but think the execution fell flat. A question was raised, and an answer given. Demanding a better explanation on why that answer was chosen is perfectly reasonable. But, demanding a different answer...well, there's no "correct" direction for a story to go, so you can't say your answer is somehow inherently better. And at some point, you have to come to terms with the fact that it's ultimately the devs' story, and they get to choose what's true and false. And, of course, insulting the people who did agree with the story doesn't help anything at all.


There are no correct ways for a story to go, but there are incorrect ways for sure. Like Mass Effect 3's ending. MoP's chinese fortune cookie 'wisdom'. 'Justice is served'. All of that makes for a horrible story.
You'll also notice that I haven't insulted anyone in my posts here. Don't know why you're saying that to me.

03/26/2015 05:58 AMPosted by Sunfeeder
Except that wasn't the message at all. Total War, the complete destruction or domination of the other side, that's not what's desired, and that's not what Tong's talking about. He's talking about the continued rivalry between the factions, when neither side was "superior" to the other. Total War is what Wrathion advocated, in opposition to Tong's idea. And Wrathion (and Garrosh, who held similar views) were both treated as incorrect by the story.


Has the continued 'rivalry' between the Mantids and the Pandaren been beneficial for either of them? Has the continued rivalry between the Horde and the Alliance done anything to make either faction grow in power? From the first war onwards, I have not seen anything that makes them more imposing and powerful. It has bled them dry. It has caused the destruction of entire nations. If Warcraft had any sort of logistics, armies from both sides would currently be completely and entirely decimated and the land full of strife and conflict because of bandits being able to raid without the army being able to do anything about it due to being involved far away. Azeroth has been involved in an unending total war for the past few decades against who-knows how many threats! And the Alliance has had it even worse, because the other 'rivalling' faction has been waging one against THEM!

This rivalry hasn't been good for anyone. Blizzard can have their characters say what they want about it, but nothing in-game indicates that Azeroth is any better for it.

03/26/2015 06:15 AMPosted by Sunfeeder
And those periods of Total War are relatively brief, and usually interrupted by the arrival of an outside threat. And thanks to that war from before, the two sides are already prepared for a huge fight. That's the cycle. Escalation of hostility leads to mass militarization, which is inevitably redirected instead to a third-party threat, which leaves the two sides exhausted and needing to recover, which ends with increase in hostility, and repeat on and on. It's an incredibly viscous cycle, but it "works", and we know that without it the world would end.

Also, didn't Varien say that the Alliance was stronger then ever, after the Siege of Org? They were more united then before, with better internal stability. The Horde was purged of the elements that made up the "True Horde", and united under a (most likely) better leader. When the Legion shows up, they'll be facing a united Alliance, and more stable Horde.


It 'works' in a way that doesn't fit with what the events show.
Theramore is gone. The near-entirety of the Horde's Orcish army was wiped out during the Orgrimmar siege, with the rebellious troops suffering heavy losses as well. The escalation of hostilities has NOT prepared the two factions for outside threats. It has weakened them and allowed those outside threats to take advantage of their conflict to get free, easy wins.
Has Twilight's Hammer not been so successful BECAUSE the two factions were at each other's throats?
Has the Scourge not been successful BECAUSE the Horde and the Alliance stopped cooperating during Wrath?
Do the Old Gods not strive on the conflict by recruiting followers from the disenchanted masses?

The total war we have seen until now has not been brief. It hasn't ended yet. Classic was the only time when there was a hint of peace, and that may have been the only time when the two factions were actually seeing growth. BC was total war against the Legion. Wrath was total war against the Scourge, which started in WC3. Cataclysm was total war against the Old Gods, which started during classic. It also started the total war between the Alliance and the Horde. MoP continued that total war. And now in Warlords, we're at total war with another world.

Varian says the Alliance is stronger than ever, but that's just words. Politically, it may be more stable, but militarily, it would be barely holding together. It's just more powerful than ever against the Horde, nothing else.
03/26/2015 06:18 AMPosted by Resìleaf
There are no correct ways for a story to go, but there are incorrect ways for sure. Like Mass Effect 3's ending.


The problem most people had with ME3 was that of execution. It wasn't the story itself, it was the lack of control as was promised. Those three endings were still internally consistent with the plot that was given, they weren't "incorrect". If they had been included in a long list of possible endings, there'd be no issue.

03/26/2015 06:18 AMPosted by Resìleaf
You'll also notice that I haven't insulted anyone in my posts here. Don't know why you're saying that to me.


You said they story was "an insult to common sense and player intelligence". That's a bit insulting to those who agreed with or enjoyed the story, or found it did make sense.

03/26/2015 06:18 AMPosted by Resìleaf
The total war we have seen until now has not been brief. It hasn't ended yet. Classic was the only time when there was a hint of peace, and that may have been the only time when the two factions were actually seeing growth. BC was total war against the Legion. Wrath was total war against the Scourge, which started in WC3. Cataclysm was total war against the Old Gods, which started during classic. It also started the total war between the Alliance and the Horde. MoP continued that total war. And now in Warlords, we're at total war with another world.


Weren't we only talking about the total war between Alliance and Horde? Also, a few of those examples aren't total war. The total war against the Scourge didn't start until Wrath, before that it was small skirmishes in the Plaguelands. And it wasn't really total war against the Legion in BC, at least on the Alliance/Horde's end. Most of their forces were focused on Outland. Mists was really the only period you could call the Faction War a total war.
03/26/2015 06:32 AMPosted by Sunfeeder
You said they story was "an insult to common sense and player intelligence". That's a bit insulting to those who agreed with or enjoyed the story, or found it did make sense.


No it doesn't. Insulting the story is not insulting the people who like it. I don't care if people like Twilight, even if my opinion of it is that it's a vapid waste of words. If people take offense to my opinion of a story and take it as an insult to them, that's on them.
03/26/2015 06:15 AMPosted by Sunfeeder
And those periods of Total War are relatively brief, and usually interrupted by the arrival of an outside threat. And thanks to that war from before, the two sides are already prepared for a huge fight.


Were the Legion to invade in force at the current state the factions are in we'd be wiped out. Anything less would be a Deus Ex Machina.

The first Legion invasion took the combined efforts of the lower class Kaldorei and some betrayal to stop, and even then it was close and shattered the planet.

The next Legion invasion saw a decade of conflict and nearly destroyed the entire EK.

The third Legion invasion had effectively destroyed every nation within the entire Old Alliance of Lordaeron sans Gilneas who shut themselves out from the world and stagnated, and Kul'Tiras who has been forgotten by the writers. The Dwarves are barely holding on to what they have as it is.

It took a joint effort by a large force to stop the Legion, and even then the Scourge remained behind and caused even MORE destruction.

But now that we have blown up and Blighted maybe half of our territories, killed hundreds of our own, let the nations be overrun by organized crime and wild monsters. Now things are going to improve?

Bearing in mind the first thing that happened after those wonderful technological advances that wars are famous for sparking was for the secrets to be handed over to the Iron Horde and used against us.

03/26/2015 06:15 AMPosted by Sunfeeder
didn't Varien say that the Alliance was stronger then ever, after the Siege of Org?


And Varian also thought it would be a great idea to stand in the middle of a forest and yell at Orcs to come out of their fortified positions to attack an enemy known for ambush tactics in the open.

So yes, if the writers say it's true then it must be true. But it is also garbage writing and should be treated as garbage writing.
03/26/2015 06:36 AMPosted by Kenthil
The next Legion invasion saw a decade of conflict and nearly destroyed the entire EK.


It also led to the formation of the Alliance of Lordaeron. Also we know, for a fact, that if the Horde hadn't invaded, the entire world would have been doomed. The kingdoms of the EK would have gone to war with each other, and the Legion would have had steamrolled over everything. So yes, by the end of that invasion, Azeroth did come out with a net gain.

03/26/2015 06:36 AMPosted by Kenthil
The third Legion invasion had effectively destroyed every nation within the entire Old Alliance of Lordaeron sans Gilneas who shut themselves out from the world and stagnated, and Kul'Tiras who has been forgotten by the writers. The Dwarves are barely holding on to what they have as it is.


One of the reasons the Scourge and Legion gained so much ground was because the Alliance dissolved. The reason it dissolved was because there was no longer an outside threat. Because, that's another big aspect of this cycle thing. Without some threat, the nations of the two factions will inevitably turn on each other. Either that, or they'll stagnate like the Pandaran.

One of the big parts of this cycle is that it uses short-term loses to fuel long-term gains. Like the First War leading to the addition of the Horde as an ally against the Legion. That's the difference between the Bronze and the Infinite. The Infinite focus on correcting short-term events, ignoring the bigger picture. The stopping of theFirst War would have damned Azeroth to the Legion. The Bronze recognize that these events have to happen in order for the planet to survive.
03/26/2015 06:36 AMPosted by Kenthil
Were the Legion to invade in force at the current state the factions are in we'd be wiped out. Anything less would be a Deus Ex Machina.


Its not like we have ever had a chance at defeating the Legion militarily its all been luck and super magic.

Numbers has never defeated a major enemy in Warcraft it has always been the select few most powerful individuals tempered by war that have achieved victory.
In WoW? It will never happen. The amount of players who would be interested in such a thing is extremely small, and outside of bit and blurbs of the occasional character who might tell you about this in flavor text sometime, there's nothing serious that will ever happen.

At this moment, I do not believe Blizzard's writing team has the skill to make such a story anyway.


Is it though? I really think that the playerbase probably have never been expose to philosophical thought experiments. Before I took some classes in college, I was ignorant to the simple brilliance of philosophy. I love it and I think a lot the playerbase would actually like it.

PS - MoP was NOT philosophical. MoP was an attempt to appease WoW's asian playerbase which turned out to a stereotypical Asian theme expansion.
03/26/2015 06:46 AMPosted by Sunfeeder
The reason it dissolved was because there was no longer an outside threat.


Actually it can be attributed to the fact that Terenas was a jackass who tried to run the other nations the way he wanted and so they left. Kind of like what Varian is doing now. And the Elves will just be Elves.

03/26/2015 06:46 AMPosted by Sunfeeder
Either that, or they'll stagnate like the Pandaran.


The Pandaren stagnated because they decided to just ignore their problems until someone else solved it for them (Like the Jade Witch who abducted dozens of children and the parents were content to ignore it and simply tell the young to just not wander outside the city walls), the problem in question didn't want to win (When the Mantid did want to win we had to bail the Pandaren out) or the problem could have been solved by the Pandaren but they were too idiotic to help (Taran Zhu decided it was much more important to sit in the village and yell at the Elder about why Outsiders were bad rather than help the Alliance rescue the captured village children)

Taran Zhu really sucks at what he does doesn't he?

And when I say the Old Alliance did fall apart they failed to understand the Legion like the Kaldorei did. For all they new the Orcs were an isolated thing that could summon the odd monster now and then but with their army broken and their planet shattered they would be an isolated raider threat, not world ending.

By WC3 the world knows of the Legion and what it is capable of. That is the ever-present great threat. And we won't beat it if we spend all our time murdering each other, fun as it is.

03/26/2015 06:48 AMPosted by Nathreim
Its not like we have ever had a chance at defeating the Legion militarily its all been luck and super magic.


True, the portal crutch the Legion has is a good counter-measure to limit the Legion's strength. But given how consistent Blizzard has been with Portal magic in recent lore they might mess it up.

03/26/2015 06:46 AMPosted by Sunfeeder
The Infinite focus on correcting short-term events, ignoring the bigger picture.


I'm pretty sure the Infinite had plans to screw up the timeline badly by changing minute details to avoid Norzdormu's death further down the line, and damn everything else in the process.

So the goal's were both long-term. The Infinite just wanted to screw over everyone to save the Aspect while the Bronze wanted to preserve all time to the exact detail.
03/26/2015 06:32 AMPosted by Sunfeeder
Weren't we only talking about the total war between Alliance and Horde? Also, a few of those examples aren't total war. The total war against the Scourge didn't start until Wrath, before that it was small skirmishes in the Plaguelands. And it wasn't really total war against the Legion in BC, at least on the Alliance/Horde's end. Most of their forces were focused on Outland. Mists was really the only period you could call the Faction War a total war.


The Scourge's purpose has always been to annihilate the living. Any war against them is total by nature. Same thing for the Legion. We went to Outland to ensure the end of the Legion's attack on Azeroth. It may not have been total on Azeroth, but it was one on Outland.
I would also call the Horde's war on the Alliance in Cata a total war, especially on the Night elven front, as it was Garrosh's stated goal to claim the entirety of Kalimdor and the Forsaken's to destroy all of Gilneas.
Times are changing in Azeroth and have since the end of Wrath. Varian putting aside differences to allow Saurfang to collect his son. Stop his soldiers from attacking him. Cata, they were starting to come closer between the two factions til the silly Garrosh character exposure. MoP, was standing still til Siege. They were on the brink of full conflict, Vol'jin and Varian working together with the proof that the conflict was merely Garrosh and the orcs loyal to him. With WoD, we are at a stand still again. There really ins't merged conflicts. We haven't been interacting between the two factions. We haven't seen them working together and Ashran seems like a contrived way to keep the war going. (Remember what Varian said to Vol'jin at the end of SoO?) There was a hatchet, they are working to bury it but those parts of the story seem to be, as mentioned, retconned or forgotten in future plot lines.
03/26/2015 06:53 AMPosted by Perez
PS - MoP was NOT philosophical. MoP was an attempt to appease WoW's asian playerbase which turned out to a stereotypical Asian theme expansion.


Philosophical if only because it dared to raise a question that you didn't like the answer to. If you want to think of things in terms of absolutes philosophy is not what you're interested in.

03/26/2015 06:35 AMPosted by Resìleaf
No it doesn't. Insulting the story is not insulting the people who like it.


Yes, it does. The problem is you don't want to own up to that so you're backtracking instead.

There are no correct ways for a story to go, but there are incorrect ways for sure. Like Mass Effect 3's ending. MoP's chinese fortune cookie 'wisdom'. 'Justice is served'. All of that makes for a horrible story.


That you have to belittle it because have to maintain that your position has to be a good one, therefore you have to make it look as bad as possible instead of owning up to the fact that you didn't understand it, but then, that would first require that you realize what you didn't understand first.

On the other hand, nobody could figure out just what you were having a problem with anything other than your dislike for fortune cookies.

03/26/2015 07:01 AMPosted by Kenthil
Actually it can be attributed to the fact that Terenas was a jackass who tried to run the other nations the way he wanted and so they left. Kind of like what Varian is doing now. And the Elves will just be Elves.


And the reason he felt he could do this was in absence of an exterior force more pressing.
03/26/2015 04:06 PMPosted by Seiryu
Yes, it does. The problem is you don't want to own up to that so you're backtracking instead.


You're rather closeminded if you think someone can not like something but not be bothered by the people who like that same thing. I'm not a religious person, but I don't go to other people to tell them that their religion is wrong.

03/26/2015 04:06 PMPosted by Seiryu
That you have to belittle it because have to maintain that your position has to be a good one, therefore you have to make it look as bad as possible instead of owning up to the fact that you didn't understand it, but then, that would first require that you realize what you didn't understand first.


Then please, enlightened one. Explain to my poor, uneducated mind what this all means so I can glimpse a hint of true genious!

03/26/2015 04:06 PMPosted by Seiryu
On the other hand, nobody could figure out just what you were having a problem with anything other than your dislike for fortune cookies.


Are you kidding? Fortune cookies are amazing. They taste great, and they give you messages to make fun of.
Doesn't mean I want that kind of stuff in something that should be held to a higher standard.
03/26/2015 02:15 AMPosted by Lena
03/26/2015 02:08 AMPosted by Zakktzuk
Really, in the long run pretty much all nations made it out of World War II better than they went into it.


Apparently being invaded, bombed, losing large parts of their young male population, and various other things makes them better off.

I guess the Horde and Alliance can just kill off all their males between the ages of 18 and 25. It'll be good for them!


Well... as a male, we are forced to face a certain reality. Biologically, males are far less important than females when it comes to continuing the species. There could be 10 males for every female and everyone would be perfectly satisfied.

Women have virtually no interest in men whatsoever after they have a child and it is generally the male's interest that continues that on to 2 or 3.

So, yes... while Sylvanas is the obvious exception to the rule, I figure if most of the males in both factions died and both factions were led by females, there would be peace.
03/26/2015 06:46 AMPosted by Sunfeeder
It also led to the formation of the Alliance of Lordaeron. Also we know, for a fact, that if the Horde hadn't invaded, the entire world would have been doomed. The kingdoms of the EK would have gone to war with each other, and the Legion would have had steamrolled over everything. So yes, by the end of that invasion, Azeroth did come out with a net gain.


Did we really need the Horde to do that? If the Council of Tirisfal wasnt so stupid and just TOLD the people that there was a world destroying entity out there that people need to unite against, it would have had the same effect.

And if they wanted proof, all anyone needs to do is a bring a demon or two.

03/26/2015 06:46 AMPosted by Sunfeeder
One of the reasons the Scourge and Legion gained so much ground was because the Alliance dissolved. The reason it dissolved was because there was no longer an outside threat. Because, that's another big aspect of this cycle thing. Without some threat, the nations of the two factions will inevitably turn on each other. Either that, or they'll stagnate like the Pandaran.


The Alliance dissolved more because it decided to keep it moral ground as oppose to because we didnt have anyone else to fight. For YEARS the Alliance races(before it was an Alliance0 and its various races were doing fine, growing their city, trying to be more powerful, and all in all getting better.

In the real world or relatively peaceful moments have lead to a surprising amount of technological innovations. People in general dont need a big bad guy looming at their backs to become better, they just try because its the nature of life itself.



03/28/2015 01:50 PMPosted by Zakktzuk
So, yes... while Sylvanas is the obvious exception to the rule, I figure if most of the males in both factions died and both factions were led by females, there would be peace.


Magatha, Asjhara, Rogers, post Theramore Jaina, Zaela kinda thrown that theory out the window.

03/26/2015 06:46 AMPosted by Sunfeeder
The Bronze recognize that these events have to happen in order for the planet to survive.


I wouldnt be so trusting of the Bronze Dragons. Its not like the Bronze Dragons have all proven to truly be after the good of the world. Not to mention Nozdurmu himself just change time to save the world in Cataclysm. That kinda throws everything they have ever said out the window.
03/25/2015 04:34 PMPosted by Draile
I want everything to mean something, and every action to have a consequence.


Play the Witcher 2.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum