Today's Story Thread: RIGHT & WRONG CHOICES

Wyrmrest Accord

Sorry, I disagree there. Like I said, they've been the villains for three expansions and gone through a larger batch of their major NPC contigent (Heck, one of the major characters of WarCraft III got fridged "off screen" in secondary media).


I guess I don't see the loss of characters as that big because WoW doesn't really have "characters." It has functions. The Horde remains functional while the Alliance does not, despite having more characters.

End of the day, WoW is a video game and I'm not comfortable with forcing one side to "give up" content so the other side can have something to do. I'd rather just see equal attention and consideration being given to both sides.


That's ideal. But it's probably not going to happen. And, for the moment, a large amount of Horde players seem very happy to let their fellow players languish. We show up for them, but they don't show up for us.


Are they, though? Sure, they get to pick a side, but that's not really affecting the overall narrative they get. Indeed, as I understood it by refusing to play ball with Saurfang, you effectively skip a portion of content and miss out on a few rewards.


That's how it started, but Blizzard said they want to make it into more branching content. So it's no longer just skipping a quest, it's more content.


The Horde is being given agency (in a Mass Effect choose the color of the beam ending sort of way) in its narrative. The Alliance remains without that illusion, and we remain a largely agency-less narrative.


Do you not consider receiving that agency to be getting more?
11/14/2018 01:17 PMPosted by Enekie
Do you not consider receiving that agency to be getting more?


Not really, no.

It's the Mass Effect Color of the Beam Ending, as I said. You're given the illusion of a choice, but it's ultimately going to end with the same cut scene at the end no matter what.

I mean, it's not even a binary choice like Fallout New Vegas or Fallout 4. They give the impression of more than two options, but they're still two options. In New Vegas, either House ends up dead or alive. In Fallout 4, either the Institute ends up dead or alive. All other choices are window dressing to those two outcomes.

There's not a instance in BfA where upon going forward Sylvanas both is and is not Warchief of the Horde. She either will continue to be (unlikely) or won't be (likely). Erego, any choice the Horde gets - while welcome from a Roleplay stand point - is ultimately a meaningless exercise. It's not as though those who choose to stay loyal to Sylvanas will suffer any lasting consequences for their choices within the game.

Thus why Horde getting an option to choose doesn't really bother me. I'd love for the Alliance to get a similar feature - but it'd ultimately serve the same purpose.

In 8.1, Tyrande and Anduin have a spat and Tyrande storms out, leading to the player being ordered by Anduin to follow Tyrande.

Now what if they gave the Alliance the "choice"?

Either you can tell off Anduin and go with Tyrande...or you can express your loyalty to your liege and Anduin has you follow Tyrande. Both options end up at the same result. It's the same thing in the Fallout games, the majority of conversations you have will, regardless of player choice, lead to the exact same outcome.

It's "more content" in the loosest sense of the word.
11/14/2018 01:32 PMPosted by Vanndrel

It's "more content" in the loosest sense of the word.


See, if it were just this one quest, I'd agree. But given the fact that Blizzard says they have plans for branching storylines, I don't think this is a defensible position.

If they're designing quests for Saurfang Rebels as well as quests for Sylvanas Loyalists, that's objectively twice the content that the Alliance is receiving. And given that Blizzard isn't great at resource management, that content is more than likely going to come at the expense of Alliance content.

(Which is why I don't feel bad asking the Horde to give up their content, since they're likely benefiting at the Alliance's expense, but that's unrelated.)

You're basically asking me to gamble on Blizzard's apathy over their love of Horde content. A losing bet, regardless of the outcome.
Then the only recourse left is to simply cease supporting the game until such time as Blizzard grants such content for both sides (Though I really can't imagine a scenario by which we side with Ashmane). That or accept the fact the bias exists and reward Blizzard's current behavior by swapping flags.

Again, it all boils back to how the Alliance narrative is hampered by its present focus. Alliance can't really do much in the way of branching paths as is. Take the focus off Stormwind for once and we could very well get our multiple paths angle.
I disagree with that recourse, as well. Constant criticism has changed things before. We merely need to expand that criticism.
11/13/2018 07:24 PMPosted by Enrik
Alliance leadership has disagreements, yes, but they are handled much more realistically than the Horde's.


The only real disagreement has been one leader disobeying a direct order, then becoming advisor to the same king he just disobeyed a year ago. The Horde actually feels like separate peoples with their own distinct values, working together as allies, rather than a single people with a variety of appearances.

Tyrande is doing something new and different at the behest of a goddess who seems to be able to bring new stars into being, and created the Naaru. She and Kul Tiras give plenty of room for major differences within the Alliance for similar choices, and they don't seem to be happening.
11/14/2018 01:49 PMPosted by Vanndrel
Alliance can't really do much in the way of branching paths as is. Take the focus off Stormwind for once and we could very well get our multiple paths angle.


Stormwind's down to its farmers for its next group of soldiers, as of 8.1. That gives me hope.
When Tyrande sends Maiev to assassinate Anduin for not helping her at the Darkshore I hope the Alliance players also get to chose to report his location to her or to help him escape and make an enemy of her.
I guess for RPers you have more than just the inevitable conclusion to the narrative, where both "branches" reunite.

Sure, as a player you have no control over the outcome of the game's story. But... as an RPer, you have control over your own character's story, reactions, choices etc.

In that way, perhaps, the "depth" of either faction's story is uneven. At least in terms of how that depth is supported by official, in-game mechanics and sentiments (e.g. NPCs agreeing with you as a rebel, which a Nelf RPer who is pissed at Anduin for neglecting Darkshore won't have?).

The devs favouring one side, having self-inserts on one side, etc. is ludicrous. It's not good for the game.
I hate how we have to choose. I hate it.

We either side with a leader who is increasingly evident to be "evil," or we side with a traitor who chose to hide in a cell pouting that the Horde isn't his Horde anymore. And like the text said, it is a risk to take as an RPer because one of those choices is going to blow up in our face depending on how the narrative goes.

I used to love Saurfang. He was who I modeled Borgg after initially. He represented everything about the Orcs I thought an Orc should be. He is no longer that Orc. He abandoned his people to sulk and if he had any honor at all when questioning his leadership, there is an Orcish tradition for that- mak'gora. That is literally what it's for. Instead he -ran away-. He gave up and is only coming back because the enemy ALLOWED him to.

I am so sick of having our leadership handed off like it is a gdamn baton. And I am also mad that I have to choose which story path to take- especially because I have no way of knowing if it is the "right" choice. Some people say that it means more content. I only play one character so for me, it means I only get half of it. I don't feel like rolling alts to make sure my main is going to be on the right side. I want the writers to figure their !@#$ out so I don't have to guess at which path makes me feel stupid for having chosen it. And especially because as RPers, these choices are going to follow our characters around. People are going to remember what side we were on and regardless of our logic and our emotional reasoning- the writers could pull anything out of their asses at the end to completely screw us for having done so. We could totally be justified for choosing one side based on our characters and in the end, there will be -obvious wrong side- and we just have to eat it. I HATE that.

I get the Alli feel there is a bias. I am not going to argue that. But I am saying it isn't much fun on this side either. I want consistency and I am tired of being pushed into either being a villain or being a traitor. I want my old Horde back and I don't want to have to survive just because the Alli decide to let us after they inevitably come from behind to kick our %^- in the last patch and once again show their "moral superiority."
11/14/2018 04:55 PMPosted by Borgg
Some people say that it means more content. I only play one character so for me, it means I only get half of it. I don't


While I found your entire post compelling, this really stands out to me. As an altoholic, I never considered this. It's interesting (and it sucks) that people who choose to play a single character are put in that position.
there's still that third option where you side with no one and go on vacation
11/14/2018 08:28 PMPosted by Marsoor
there's still that third option where you side with no one and go on vacation


If that one gets turned into a branching storyline where you get to go do stuff like go to a petting zoo or feed some ducks, then all is forgiven.
11/14/2018 08:28 PMPosted by Marsoor
there's still that third option where you side with no one and go on vacation


You can have a pretty fulfilling real life and still be invested in this game. And no, it isn't like these are things keeping me up at night but I figured that in a thread made specifically to discuss our thoughts about the story would be a reasonable place to say how we feel about it.
11/14/2018 09:42 PMPosted by Borgg
You can have a pretty fulfilling real life and still be invested in this game. And no, it isn't like these are things keeping me up at night but I figured that in a thread made specifically to discuss our thoughts about the story would be a reasonable place to say how we feel about it.


that wasn't telling you to go on vacation

there is literally a third option where you side with no one and go on an actual ingame vacation
also: i just found out that the Proudmoore Admiralty vendor was going to sell a Kul Tiran colored Gryphon but that got scrapped for the Horse

are you kidding me
Every day is a vacation when you look as good as I do.
11/14/2018 09:50 PMPosted by Marsoor
also: i just found out that the Proudmoore Admiralty vendor was going to sell a Kul Tiran colored Gryphon but that got scrapped for the Horse

are you kidding me


Makes sense to me. When you look at the lack of actual flying mounts for BfA, it's obvious that while we're getting Pathfinder for it, the next expansion they'll likely try to phase out Flying entirely.
I don't understand all this "Horde gets more stuff it's not fair" nonsense.

Alliance has a different story than the Horde. Why do they need the same exact thing? They don't. If anything, my major complaint about the base BFA story is it appears to parallel each other a little too well. Go unite Zandalar/Kul Tiras, deal with the drama/politics of Zandalar/Kul Tiras, fight the big bads of Zandalar/Kul Tiras, then join the war effort and lead into sieging the capitol of Zandalar/Kul Tiras.

I'd rather them have different stories altogether that ultimately cross over.

Also a little history lesson. Warcraft 1 and 2 was about Orcs and Humans. Warcraft 3 might have introduced us to Arthas, given us the Scourge, the Lich King, the Night Elves, the Tauren etc. but at the end of the day Warcraft is and always will be about HORDE vs. ALLIANCE. At the end of the day no matter how many new races there are it will always be boiled down to ORCS vs. HUMANS.

For me, that's the central conflict and always will be. It's about Stormwind, Anduin, and humanity - the core race of the Alliance. It's about Orgrimmar, the likes of Thrall, Garrosh, and now Saurfang, and the orcs - the core race of the Horde. So to me, the idea that an ORC is going to team with a HUMAN to possibly deal with the Banshee Queen is a natural next step in this tale.

For roleplayers, this is a beautiful thing.

If you're an Alliance player you can deal with the conflicting feelings. Nobody says you have to automatically love what Anduin decides to do. You can feel like Anduin is betraying you as surely as you can feel like it's the best possible option to defeat Sylvanas.

If you're a Horde player you can also deal with it in a number of ways. Are you a Forsaken who is extremely loyal to the Banshee Queen? Are you a Tauren or an Orc who feels like the Horde is losing its honor? There's so many ways to approach it.

But at the end of the day, the Horde has always been and probably (and should) always will be the driving force of the story. Why? Without the Horde, what is the Alliance going to fight? As others have said - the Alliance is stable. They don't have the faction drama, and that's okay - they don't need to run opposite but the same as the Horde. The Horde's drama is what drives them - and has driven them their entire history.

From Blackhand to Orgrim Doomhammer, to the internment, to Thrall, to Garrosh, Vol'jin, and now Sylvanas... the Horde's turnover has always been far more frequent and may always be that way.

Besides, if you're really jealous that the Horde has a cool new story choice, roll a Horde character - you might find that red is far better anyway.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum