Brennadam was a last minute change

Story Forum
Prev 1 6 7 8 12 Next
I have no idea why people still argue about Blizzards bias, it is completely irrelevant.

If they are biased towards the Horde and try to make them enjoy the story they have failed.

If they are biased towards the Alliance and try to make them enjoy the story they have failed.

If they are not bias'd towards anyone and try to make all enjoy the story they have failed.

Blizzard is not biased, they are inept.
08/27/2018 06:25 PMPosted by Erinesong
I have no idea why people still argue about Blizzards bias, it is completely irrelevant.

If they are biased towards the Horde and try to make them enjoy the story they have failed.

If they are biased towards the Alliance and try to make them enjoy the story they have failed.

If they are not bias'd towards anyone and try to make all enjoy the story they have failed.

Blizzard is not biased, they are inept.
QFT

I honestly believe they think they're writing a good story that people will enjoy across both factions.

That's why we're seeing all these interviews defending the story when we used to be lucky if we got them to talk about the story at all.

I think they're genuinely shocked and dismayed that they're getting so much negative feedback. I don't think they understand where they went wrong.
08/27/2018 06:33 PMPosted by Kazala
08/27/2018 06:25 PMPosted by Erinesong
I have no idea why people still argue about Blizzards bias, it is completely irrelevant.

If they are biased towards the Horde and try to make them enjoy the story they have failed.

If they are biased towards the Alliance and try to make them enjoy the story they have failed.

If they are not bias'd towards anyone and try to make all enjoy the story they have failed.

Blizzard is not biased, they are inept.
QFT

I honestly believe they think they're writing a good story that people will enjoy across both factions.

That's why we're seeing all these interviews defending the story when we used to be lucky if we got them to talk about the story at all.

I think they're genuinely shocked and dismayed that they're getting so much negative feedback. I don't think they understand where they went wrong.

I like you guys

Blizzard always has been insanely arrogant in their writing abilites, even when the people who wrote the good stories of the older games left. I once again bring you back to how awfully they reacted to D3 criticism, with the word, Aren't you grateful. Even if i think some of the criticism was overdone, thats not how you respond to critic. The other big reason is the playerbase will NEVER be unified against them as this very forum shows. We blame each other for the bad writing instead of blizzard, allowing them to delude themselves with positive feedback as the negative feedback is directed at the wrong people.
08/27/2018 11:46 AMPosted by Mordahn
No, what we really need is for the Horde writers to sack up and write objective losses for the Horde.

Accepting for the sake of the argument that you're right about the problem, I think it needs to go even further than what you're suggesting. It shouldn't be left up to the individual teams to decide when the other side attacks them and how bad it should be. The faction war needs firm oversight from someone who is on neither side's team. Whoever that person is (Afrasiabi?) should be telling each team where and how often the other side will attack them and what the outcome will be.
08/27/2018 11:48 AMPosted by Eliza
While you may not feel that Suramar is Horde content, as a primarily Alliance player I do get that feeling. I don't even think I will bother with the zone anymore on Alliance toons.
Yes, very meaningful that you don't plan to bother with a zone that's no longer relevant because it doesn't unlock until max level in a previous expansion.

In any case, your intellectual dishonesty is transparent. Suramar never felt like Horde-specific content to anyone. If it had, the forums wouldn't have turned into a firestorm of Alliance mains who felt genuinely betrayed by the decision to make the Nightborne a Horde allied race. Suramar was explicitly presented as neutral content. It did not retroactively become Horde content in the last patch. The content did not change.

If your feeling of identification with the fictional Alliance is so extreme that you're seriously thinking, "this content is ruined because the Nightborne go on to join the Horde!", you might want to get help.

[/quote]

There is not a single moment of intellectual dishonesty in my post. We can disagree on this, in fact we are disagreeing. In fact that was my point to the person I responded to. That just because he felt one way about it doesn't mean anyone else does.

I did the Suramar questline, insurrection, the whole bit to unlock flying. But at the end of that for the them to go to war with us, ruins the entire zone. Aside from unlocking flying what was the point of the zone for the Alliance? When they announced them as a horde race, I quit the zone then not now it is BFA.

And if you want to suggest someone gets help for disagreeing with you, you might want to get that help yourself.
08/27/2018 06:43 PMPosted by Reallyhappy
08/27/2018 06:33 PMPosted by Kazala
...QFT

I honestly believe they think they're writing a good story that people will enjoy across both factions.

That's why we're seeing all these interviews defending the story when we used to be lucky if we got them to talk about the story at all.

I think they're genuinely shocked and dismayed that they're getting so much negative feedback. I don't think they understand where they went wrong.

I like you guys

Blizzard always has been insanely arrogant in their writing abilites, even when the people who wrote the good stories of the older games left. I once again bring you back to how awfully they reacted to D3 criticism, with the word, Aren't you grateful. Even if i think some of the criticism was overdone, thats not how you respond to critic. The other big reason is the playerbase will NEVER be unified against them as this very forum shows. We blame each other for the bad writing instead of blizzard, allowing them to delude themselves with positive feedback as the negative feedback is directed at the wrong people.


And I like you all too.

Blizzard is in the throes of making the classic mistake of believing that claiming a vocal minority, accusing of harassment, justifying their decisions with things we could see plainly, and/or just plain dismissing criticism fixes the flaws of their product.

Even if they have their brilliant conclusion that they so desperately claim is awaiting us behind the next curtain, will that fix much? It won't change the fact that the horde had to put up with being evil yet again and the Alliance had to be the sounding board for said evil. Trying to subvert our expectation won't fix much of the residual bitterness...

And it is just plain sad how, despite the horde and alliance players both having problems with the narrative that stems from similar sources, that, instead of presenting a civilized united front, they must argue that they were wronged more. Even when they link the problem back to Blizzard's writing, they must accuse the opposite side of being in cahoots due to "bias."
...Yes, very meaningful that you don't plan to bother with a zone that's no longer relevant because it doesn't unlock until max level in a previous expansion.

In any case, your intellectual dishonesty is transparent. Suramar never felt like Horde-specific content to anyone. If it had, the forums wouldn't have turned into a firestorm of Alliance mains who felt genuinely betrayed by the decision to make the Nightborne a Horde allied race. Suramar was explicitly presented as neutral content. It did not retroactively become Horde content in the last patch. The content did not change.

If your feeling of identification with the fictional Alliance is so extreme that you're seriously thinking, "this content is ruined because the Nightborne go on to join the Horde!", you might want to get help.



There is not a single moment of intellectual dishonesty in my post. We can disagree on this, in fact we are disagreeing. In fact that was my point to the person I responded to. That just because he felt one way about it doesn't mean anyone else does. [/quote]

No, they're right. You outright admit that you never thought that it was Horde content, until BFA launched and new things happened. That content didn't change at all. You don't get to say "but mah feelings" for reversing your position when talking about intellectual honesty. Intellect: reason and logic, are not post-hoc emotive responses. You aren't even trying to offer rationalization, just emotion.
08/28/2018 11:31 AMPosted by Ronstin
...


There is not a single moment of intellectual dishonesty in my post. We can disagree on this, in fact we are disagreeing. In fact that was my point to the person I responded to. That just because he felt one way about it doesn't mean anyone else does.


No, they're right. You outright admit that you never thought that it was Horde content, until BFA launched and new things happened. That content didn't change at all. You don't get to say "but mah feelings" for reversing your position when talking about intellectual honesty. Intellect: reason and logic, are not post-hoc emotive responses. You aren't even trying to offer rationalization, just emotion.[/quote]

There was no dishonesty cause everything I said was regarding my opinions. And I was very blatant about that cause I pointed out how I felt about Suramar turning out the way it did was in direct opposition to how he felt it turned out. Both my post and the post I was responding to was about how players felt about that zone and how it turned out.

I also never said I cared for the zone to begin with. It was required for flying, which was the sole reason I finished it. Having it go horde after doing it was was not a pleasant experience as a primarily alliance player. Also I said I felt it was horde content because as Alliance everything you did was for nothing and amounted getting a fresh batch of enemies. If you want to claim that it is just a convenient excuse to stop dealing with the zone, feel free. I only finished it on one character anyway.

If you are referring to the post I made (not sure if it is in this thread or another) but what I claimed to have considered horde content from the get go was Highmountain, while considering Val'sharah Alliance content that they simply opened to both factions to double that amount of content (two zones) without actually creating two zones for each faction.

But let me put plainly and clearly. I do consider Suramar horde content. You can agree or disagree, it matters not. And I am not being dishonest about this in any shape or form.
08/27/2018 06:25 PMPosted by Erinesong
I have no idea why people still argue about Blizzards bias, it is completely irrelevant.

If they are biased towards the Horde and try to make them enjoy the story they have failed.

If they are biased towards the Alliance and try to make them enjoy the story they have failed.

If they are not bias'd towards anyone and try to make all enjoy the story they have failed.

Blizzard is not biased, they are inept.


Based post and nice tmog- i would change the color of the sword if I were you tho
08/27/2018 06:25 PMPosted by Erinesong
I have no idea why people still argue about Blizzards bias, it is completely irrelevant.

If they are biased towards the Horde and try to make them enjoy the story they have failed.

If they are biased towards the Alliance and try to make them enjoy the story they have failed.

If they are not bias'd towards anyone and try to make all enjoy the story they have failed.

Blizzard is not biased, they are inept.


YUP. I said this before.

Horde players in general aren't enjoying this, they feel like they're being hit with the villain bat, going through Garrosh 2.0, having any semblance of honor in their faction tossed under the bus so they can YET AGAIN be the baddies.

Alliance players in general aren't enjoying this, they feel like they're just being made out to be constant incompetent victims, like they exist solely for major horde characters to feel conflicted and angsty over. I liked the old soldier cinematic, but it is kind of...off-putting how the night elves were bought to the brink of extinction, and the main focus is on how SAD that makes one of their murderers.

The worst part is that Blizz promoted this war as "morally grey." There's only two options here:

1. They honestly think THIS is morally grey, which I don't even know how to react to. It's not morally grey. It's not going to BECOME morally grey unless the Alliance does a genocide of its own, which it isn't.
2. They just outright lied to us.
08/26/2018 04:16 PMPosted by Kazala
08/26/2018 03:17 PMPosted by Okagha
The Horde's excuse is the same as the Alliance's for invading Zandalar, that they're probably going to join the fight.
That assertion is based on nothing.

The Alliance knows that Talanji was seeking the aid of the Horde. They know that Talanji was escorted back to Zandalar by the Horde. They know that the Zandalari blew a bunch of their ships to smithereens without warning. Zandalar voluntarily dove headfirst into the middle of the faction conflict. The Alliance has every reason to engage with them.

Meanwhile, prior to the actions of the Alliance PC, the Kul Tirans have nothing but scorn for the Alliance, and Jaina is literally their public enemy number one. The Horde is given no reason whatsoever at any point to suggest a need for establishing bases in Kul Tiras. You just sort of go there. And you're late to the party... the nonsensical Warfang Hold, which already exists in a state of quantum flux because of the Brennadam fiasco, would have to have been established before the Horde set foot on Zandalar.

It doesn't actually make any sense. The Horde simply goes to Kul Tiras because it's the new expansion zone. Full stop. It would've been easy to provide an explanation, but an explanation wasn't provided.

It's fun to fill in the blanks with headcanon sometimes, but it's weird to do it without any self-awareness. I don't really understand the inclination to bend over backwards insisting Blizzard wrote in lore where they didn't. In this case, there's simply no 'there' there. The Horde has no reason to believe Kul Tiras will join the Alliance . It's not even clear how the Horde knows the Alliance is even trying to make that happen, and the Horde's actions on the island are enormously counterproductive if their goal is to see Kul Tiras remain neutral.

08/26/2018 03:17 PMPosted by Okagha
The entire reason for the War of Thorns was that Anduin was a weak king that couldn't keep the Alliance from attacking the Horde in the middle of a Legion invasion. War was inevitable so she fought it on her terms instead of the Alliance's.

It's not perfect, but it acknowledges that Genn struck the first blow in Stormheim
Please.

Stormheim is never used as the impetus for the invasion of Ashenvale. Ever. In any media. The factions are explicitly not at war coming out of Legion. It may not make sense to you, or to me. You may feel with every fiber of your being that an assassination attempt on the Warchief constitutes a clear act of war, and that it should be considered the opening salvo in this renewed conflict, but that's not what the writers went with.

Stormheim is mentioned once, in A Good War, and only in Saurfang's head. He recalls the incident when Sylvanas suggests that Anduin may consider starting a war in the future as long as Genn has his ear, and agrees that it's a possibility. That's it.

You're falling into the common trap of grasping for the first explanation that seems even vaguely palatable, and choosing to ignore the fact that it's not Word of God. The "cycle of hatred" garbage Sylvanas cooks up in A Good War isn't actually her reason for going to war. It's simply the rationale she uses to manipulate Saurfang into getting on board. We already know from BtS that what Sylvanas really wants is access to Stormwind's population for the purpose of creating a new generation of Forsaken.


I'm so utterly convinced you're actually an Alliance player at this point. You post a whole lot of anti horde drivel on a lvl 110 horde character. It's an interesting trend. Stormheim doesn't need to be named, it's pretty obviously a very large contributing factor for Sylvanas and the Horde leadership not trusting the Alliance. Whether or not you are willing to admit that is sort of irrelevant.

In fact based on some of the stuff you say I question if you've even played much horde quests.

EDIT: By the way the war is morally gray, Sylvanas being potentially evil (depending on your definition) doesn't really change that. The Alliance massacre Zandalari exiles and literal waiters in their quests. No clue how that could be construed as anything but evil.
The Alliance isn't really incompetent victims past Lordaeron. They're this scary force that's highly efficient and are preparing for a full scale invasion of Zandalar.

Everything Horde does is cloak and dagger in comparison.
08/29/2018 07:31 AMPosted by Tråpstar
EDIT: By the way the war is morally gray, Sylvanas being potentially evil (depending on your definition) doesn't really change that. The Alliance massacre Zandalari exiles and literal waiters in their quests. No clue how that could be construed as anything but evil.
Blizzard is not subtle.

If they intended us to view these actions as morally wrong they'd have Umbric start saying stuff about "quieting the whispers" and then have the Horde player discover the ruins of the party later and have the NPCs react in horror to the evil of the Alliance.

And our headcanons are irrelevant. We can yell about certain actions the Alliance takes until we're blue in the face, if the narrative decides they were no big deal, comedic, etc., it won't matter going forward.
08/29/2018 08:22 AMPosted by Kharinak
08/29/2018 07:31 AMPosted by Tråpstar
EDIT: By the way the war is morally gray, Sylvanas being potentially evil (depending on your definition) doesn't really change that. The Alliance massacre Zandalari exiles and literal waiters in their quests. No clue how that could be construed as anything but evil.
Blizzard is not subtle.

If they intended us to view these actions as morally wrong they'd have Umbric start saying stuff about "quieting the whispers" and then have the Horde player discover the ruins of the party later and have the NPCs react in horror to the evil of the Alliance.

And our headcanons are irrelevant. We can yell about certain actions the Alliance takes until we're blue in the face, if the narrative decides they were no big deal, comedic, etc., it won't matter going forward.


Blizzard has literally said the war is morally gray, it looks morally gray. I don't know why this forum feels the need for blizzard to tell them something obviously wrong is wrong. What else could they possibly be referencing when they say both sides have done things that are morally wrong. I honestly feel like this forum WANTS to be spoon fed despite claiming the opposite.
08/25/2018 10:54 PMPosted by Tewdee
If you looked at early footage, Brennadam was overrun with thorns and Quilboar. The last minute change was Quilboar to Horde.


What difference is there? both are savage mongrels. *wink*
08/29/2018 08:28 AMPosted by Tråpstar
08/29/2018 08:22 AMPosted by Kharinak
...Blizzard is not subtle.

If they intended us to view these actions as morally wrong they'd have Umbric start saying stuff about "quieting the whispers" and then have the Horde player discover the ruins of the party later and have the NPCs react in horror to the evil of the Alliance.

And our headcanons are irrelevant. We can yell about certain actions the Alliance takes until we're blue in the face, if the narrative decides they were no big deal, comedic, etc., it won't matter going forward.


Blizzard has literally said the war is morally gray, it looks morally gray. I don't know why this forum feels the need for blizzard to tell them something obviously wrong is wrong. What else could they possibly be referencing when they say both sides have done things that are morally wrong. I honestly feel like this forum WANTS to be spoon fed despite claiming the opposite.


The thing is, “people on both sides do bad things” doesn’t automatically make a war morally gray. If country A invades country B, and in response country B bombs one of their cities, killing a bunch of country A civilians, it doesn’t make the war morally grey.

The fact is when one side is the AGGRESSOR, the defending side has to do something pretty awful before it becomes morally grey in any meaningful sense. Sylvanas not only started the war, she kicked it off with a genocide. The alliance killing some rich people and some exiles, while wrong, is not enough to make the war morally grey. The Alliance would have to do something pretty spectacularly awful to make the conflict morally grey.
08/29/2018 08:37 AMPosted by Kaloran
08/29/2018 08:28 AMPosted by Tråpstar
...

Blizzard has literally said the war is morally gray, it looks morally gray. I don't know why this forum feels the need for blizzard to tell them something obviously wrong is wrong. What else could they possibly be referencing when they say both sides have done things that are morally wrong. I honestly feel like this forum WANTS to be spoon fed despite claiming the opposite.


The thing is, “people on both sides do bad things” doesn’t automatically make a war morally gray. If country A invades country B, and in response country B bombs one of their cities, killing a bunch of country A civilians, it doesn’t make the war morally grey.

The fact is when one side is the AGGRESSOR, the defending side has to do something pretty awful before it becomes morally grey in any meaningful sense. Sylvanas not only started the war, she kicked it off with a genocide. The alliance killing some rich people and some exiles, while wrong, is not enough to make the war morally grey. The Alliance would have to do something pretty spectacularly awful to make the conflict morally grey.


Most people consider WW1 morally gray because both things did bad things despite

A) The Austrio Hungarians (and by extension the Germans who gave them the go ahead) being the Aggressors.

B) The German declaration of war on Belgium a neutral nation and atrocities committed there.

C) Gas attacks being first employed by the Germans.

D) Extensive submarine warfare on civilian ships by the Germans and the breaking of naval treaties.

Morally gray just means morally gray, one side being darker than the other can still be a thing.
08/29/2018 08:46 AMPosted by Tråpstar
Most people consider WW1 morally gray because both things did bad things despite

A) The Austrio Hungarians (and by extension the Germans who gave them the go ahead) being the Aggressors.

B) The German declaration of war on Belgium a neutral nation and atrocities committed there.

C) Gas attacks being first employed by the Germans.

D) Extensive submarine warfare on civilian ships by the Germans and the breaking of naval treaties.
You seem to really hate the Germans. Plenty of "war crimes" were committed by the Russian/British/US forces, but few were prosecuted since they were the winners. And it's cute that you blame the Germans for WW1, when everyone was an aggressor, especially the US who had no reason to be there other than "it's war adventure time!".
All this talk about world war one is just making me wait for the alliance to send Comrade Umbric back to Silvermoon to start a communist revolution.
08/27/2018 06:00 PMPosted by Mordahn
08/27/2018 05:51 PMPosted by Waygu
No you see the Alliance feel Entitled to having more content than the horde, so by balancing that out you're attacking them or something. Horde Bias!


ok what was andorhol balancing out

what was theramore balancing out

what was silverwing refuge balancing out

if the alliance loses something that's favoring them for some reason. if the horde loses something it's favoring alliance though

it's always this retarded defense "muh zone balance" even though victories do not have to be whether or not a faction controls a zone. horde could just get wiped out at crossroads but still keep the zone for leveling.

ah but you see the horde can't ever lose anything

because muh zone balance


Imagine being this intellectually dishonest.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum