Explain your reasoning.

Wyrmrest Accord
1 2 3 7 Next
I see quite a few folks who are clearly unhappy with how the story writing is going, but I never see them actually give a proper explanation as to why they're unhappy, or an example of what they consider to be "better material" to their "higher standards."

Edit: It seems people are misunderstanding me. When I say, 'I never see them actually give a reason' I mean that I, me, myself, have not seen it. I am sure that they've made it known somewhere, but I am not a frequent occupant of the forums.

So I'm curious, what exactly is the problem for you? How do you think it can be improved? Which direction would you prefer the story go in? Etc, etc.

I'm personally quite content with how the story is, there are certainly some bumps and potholes in the road but it's nonetheless enjoyable.
These are actually two separate questions, both of which are a little dishonest.

Are you asking what's wrong with the story or are you asking how the story should go?
I'm asking why folks are unhappy with the current story and how they believe it should be told.

It's not that hard.
I kinda agree I am pretty happy with the story myself.
I say it's dishonest because tons of people have stated their issues with the story before, a few of which are thus:

1. Forcing the Alliance's story progression to be reliant on Horde aggression.

2. Horde aggression being irrational, unprovoked and for no real reason other than to establish themselves as the Big Bad.

3. Characterization of several major figures being thrown out the window for the sake of plot. See: Baine being a willing servant of evil, despite having done this before and knowing how it turns out.

4. Vast and numerous plot holes created in an attempt to design a railroad plot.

The solution, of course, is to simply rely on the characters to tell the story instead of having the characters respond to the plot, but that takes effort and a small indie studio doesn't have those resources.
09/10/2018 01:39 PMPosted by Enekie
I say it's dishonest because tons of people have stated their issues with the story before, a few of which are thus:

1. Forcing the Alliance's story progression to be reliant on Horde aggression.

2. Horde aggression being irrational, unprovoked and for no real reason other than to establish themselves as the Big Bad.

3. Characterization of several major figures being thrown out the window for the sake of plot. See: Baine being a willing servant of evil, despite having done this before and knowing how it turns out.

4. Vast and numerous plot holes created in an attempt to design a railroad plot.

The solution, of course, is to simply rely on the characters to tell the story instead of having the characters respond to the plot, but that takes effort and a small indie studio doesn't have those resources.


1. I can agree that this is an issue, so I have no qualms on it.

2. The Horde's aggression is not irrational and it is for a real reason - though it is mostly unprovoked, I'll give you that. Sylvanas told Saurfang in the short-story 'A Good War' why they were going to war with the Alliance, and they were pretty good reasons. I highly suggest reading it as it is free right here on Blizzard's site.

3. The characterization of major figures is in line with what is happening. Baine can't go against Sylvanas on his own - for starters she has dirt on him, and he has to think of his people's safety. If he deserts the Horde with no allies to back him, what's there to protect the tauren people?

4. Saying there is plotholes without telling exactly what they are and where does not make for a fun debate.
09/10/2018 01:28 PMPosted by Sulthorne
there are certainly some bumps and potholes in the road

Why don't we start with you elaborating on this?
As a void elf, being a void elf on Alliance-side makes absolutely no sense and I'm still not keen on it (though I'm willing to roll with it).

Horde aggression is... it's bad writing. The meaningful interactions and reasonings that make it better but not good are in companion texts rather than in the game proper.

Someone in another thread talked about how most of the war campaign in BfA is taking place in the mission table quests and that's got me reeling.
I don’t like being forced to be a participant in the genocide of a recent ally which is what caused my divorce from the Horde.

Only way I can think of wanting to play the Horde story is if it’s about executing Sylvanas and then actively working to help rebuild the Night Elf homeland.
09/10/2018 01:45 PMPosted by Sulthorne

2. The Horde's aggression is not irrational and it is for a real reason - though it is mostly unprovoked, I'll give you that. Sylvanas told Saurfang in the short-story 'A Good War' why they were going to war with the Alliance, and they were pretty good reasons. I highly suggest reading it as it is free right here on Blizzard's site.


Horde aggression relies on the idea that the Alliance, who have proven over and over that they won't fight the Horde, is secretly plotting the downfall of the Horde, hence irrational.

And no. For ethical reasons, I don't support Blizzard's hasty retcons.

3. The characterization of major figures is in line with what is happening. Baine can't go against Sylvanas on his own - for starters she has dirt on him, and he has to think of his people's safety. If he deserts the Horde with no allies to back him, what's there to protect the tauren people?


That was his rationale for the last time he was the servant of an evil villain and his people still got slaughtered. Knowing how this one ends (and, indeed, he's already watched his own people get Blighted), he's going to do it again?

4. Saying there is plotholes without telling exactly what they are and where does not make for a fun debate.


Neither does starting from the dishonest pretext that no one has stated their reasoning.
09/10/2018 01:48 PMPosted by Conjurus
09/10/2018 01:28 PMPosted by Sulthorne
there are certainly some bumps and potholes in the road

Why don't we start with you elaborating on this?


The main stories on Zandalar/Kul Tiras are awesome and I'm loving them, but the bumps I mentioned is in the Alliance/Horde war campaigns.

As Vashta mentioned, there's background info in mission table summaries which is just.. awful, cause since we've had those tables for two expansions have no real story-interest I've been ignoring them and just slap some followers into whatever rewards I want.

Then there's the story our player-character attends to with Nathanos/7th Legion Commander respectively, both feel like they're starved for content.

(SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT ON)

The Horde-side one makes a little sense as to why it's starved because Nathanos is our leader for it, and he has a reputation for withholding information on a need-to-know bias - which means we lack context for why we're doing anything till the final mission.

As for the Alliance-side it feels much better, as we establish the San'yln target in the first mission and encounter him quite a few times across the board but he gets killed off rather unceremoniously and we learn knowing as to his purpose in the Horde, or how Sylvanas convinced him to work for her.

Maybe these problems will be resolved when the war campaigns develop further in the expansion, but context is lacking at the time being.
I am loving the Story as it is now. It feels like a good Faction War but with both sides having their issues. Both sides feels they are doing good but really they are both doing a lot of bad. Burning Villages, killing Countless Soldiers and workers. Even as an Alliance Player one quest had me control a goblin mining machine and use it's blades to kill off the Goblins and Horde Soldiers. One direction or change I would like to see is having the Forsaken as a complete separate faction. Forsaken players could then choose to stay with the Horde or split off and become their own thing. Sylvanas and her Forsaken have already attacked Horde and Alliance at the Wrathgate and even now the Horde is questioning her ways. I feel the Forsaken could survive and even become a powerful force as their own faction as well as opening up for a new Necromancer Class and possibly some Undead playable races similar to the Scourge.
09/10/2018 01:45 PMPosted by Sulthorne

2. The Horde's aggression is not irrational and it is for a real reason - though it is mostly unprovoked, I'll give you that. Sylvanas told Saurfang in the short-story 'A Good War' why they were going to war with the Alliance, and they were pretty good reasons. I highly suggest reading it as it is free right here on Blizzard's site.


Horde aggression relies on the idea that the Alliance, who have proven over and over that they won't fight the Horde, is secretly plotting the downfall of the Horde, hence irrational.

And no. For ethical reasons, I don't support Blizzard's hasty retcons.

3. The characterization of major figures is in line with what is happening. Baine can't go against Sylvanas on his own - for starters she has dirt on him, and he has to think of his people's safety. If he deserts the Horde with no allies to back him, what's there to protect the tauren people?


That was his rationale for the last time he was the servant of an evil villain and his people still got slaughtered. Knowing how this one ends (and, indeed, he's already watched his own people get Blighted), he's going to do it again?

4. Saying there is plotholes without telling exactly what they are and where does not make for a fun debate.


Neither does starting from the dishonest pretext that no one has stated their reasoning.


You sure do love throwing around the word 'dishonest', don't you? I said that -I-, as in me personally, have not seen folk's reasoning. I'm sure they've put it somewhere, but I don't frequent the forums very often.

Moving on. The Alliance -have- shown that they will fight the Horde, as we saw with Greymane's unprovoked attack against Forsaken forces in Stormheim - yes, yes I know what Sylvanas was doing but we didn't know that right away, which still makes the attack unprovoked.

We also have the events of Before The Storm, where Anduin saw just how many of his people refuse to see the Forsaken as people rather than as monsters. The Forsaken also learned this when the time for the meet-up came to be, as they saw either no one came or those show up that did turned their backs on them.

I'm assuming what you mean by serving evil for Baine is when he served under Garrosh. Garrosh was a decent, if naive and unprepared, leader who lost his way in Mists. He only wanted what was best for the Horde, and at the time the Horde was desperate for basic resources - food, lumber, etc.

Even when Garrosh kicked the other Horde races out, he still stuck by what he believed in even if it was misguided.
09/10/2018 02:04 PMPosted by Darnor
I am loving the Story as it is now. It feels like a good Faction War but with both sides having their issues. Both sides feels they are doing good but really they are both doing a lot of bad. Burning Villages, killing Countless Soldiers and workers. Even as an Alliance Player one quest had me control a goblin mining machine and use it's blades to kill off the Goblins and Horde Soldiers. One direction or change I would like to see is having the Forsaken as a complete separate faction. Forsaken players could then choose to stay with the Horde or split off and become their own thing. Sylvanas and her Forsaken have already attacked Horde and Alliance at the Wrathgate and even now the Horde is questioning her ways. I feel the Forsaken could survive and even become a powerful force as their own faction as well as opening up for a new Necromancer Class and possibly some Undead playable races similar to the Scourge.


I like your idea, but the Wrathgate was not Sylvanas' doing. The Forsaken who plague bombed the Alliance, Horde, and Scourge forces at the gate were rebels who served under the traitor Putress.
09/10/2018 02:08 PMPosted by Sulthorne


I like your idea, but the Wrathgate was not Sylvanas' doing. The Forsaken who plague bombed the Alliance, Horde, and Scourge forces at the gate were rebels who served under the traitor Putress.


They insinuate in Chronicles that Sylvanas knew about Wrathgate and let it happen to cultivate more of a cult of personality around herself.

I get angry just thinking about it
09/10/2018 02:15 PMPosted by Vashta
09/10/2018 02:08 PMPosted by Sulthorne


I like your idea, but the Wrathgate was not Sylvanas' doing. The Forsaken who plague bombed the Alliance, Horde, and Scourge forces at the gate were rebels who served under the traitor Putress.


They insinuate in Chronicles that Sylvanas knew about Wrathgate and let it happen to cultivate more of a cult of personality around herself.

I get angry just thinking about it


Shoot, for real? I need to get those chronicle books. Well now I'm a little sad.
Complaining is very cathartic.
09/10/2018 02:17 PMPosted by Sulthorne
09/10/2018 02:15 PMPosted by Vashta
...

They insinuate in Chronicles that Sylvanas knew about Wrathgate and let it happen to cultivate more of a cult of personality around herself.

I get angry just thinking about it


Shoot, for real? I need to get those chronicle books. Well now I'm a little sad.


"Like most good lies, Sylvanas Windrunner's account of the rebellion in the Undercity contained some truth. Grand Apothecary Putress had truly attempted to overthrow her, and Varimatharas truly was trying to claim the Forsaken in the name of the Burning Legion.

"But the plague had been created at her direction. Sylvanas was willing to take vengeance against the Lich King at almost any cost, even by making a weapon as deadly as the plague. Whether she was aware that Putress and Varimathras were planning to use the concoction remained a mystery. Rumors persisted that she knew about the attack at the Wrath Gate beforehand, and her denials did not assuage the doubts of her detractors."
09/10/2018 01:49 PMPosted by Typheous
I don’t like being forced to be a participant in the genocide of a recent ally which is what caused my divorce from the Horde.

Only way I can think of wanting to play the Horde story is if it’s about executing Sylvanas and then actively working to help rebuild the Night Elf homeland.


I can agree with you on that. I still love the Horde and actively play it's story, but the burning of the world tree shook me. There was no honor in that.
I like the story tbh. So do a good deal of people. You'll find that those who scream about it on here are just very, very vocal about their personal beliefs and rather dismissive of others, in a few select cases.
Not sure how the guy's questions are dishonest. Sure, people have made their viewpoints rather clear in other threads. He's using this one to ask them to specifically state them.
4duhHorde

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum