Chose sides in 8.1 will destroy the Horde

Story Forum
11/12/2018 07:20 PMPosted by Grandblade
I'd be game. I don't trust us.

Fair point.

But do you trust Blizzard either?
11/12/2018 07:22 PMPosted by Mustakraken
11/12/2018 07:20 PMPosted by Grandblade
I'd be game. I don't trust us.

Fair point.

But do you trust Blizzard either?
More than the playerbase, yes. It's the lesser of two evils.
11/12/2018 07:31 AMPosted by Dalfurane
Alliance plays a MMO.

Horde plays a MMORPG. Be thankful for those story choices.


Story choices barely work in singular player games, just look at Mass Effect 3. Even Telltale Games were linear to a point, always beginning at one point and ending at the same point with a few characters swapped in and out.

Story choices in WoW are an illusion. The predetermined end is coming regardless of what quest chain you do or don't do, and whatever dialogue options they give you when interacting with NPCs.
11/12/2018 12:18 PMPosted by Tannaril
To be fair, I reckon the Alliance could potentially get a cool choice between siding with the Night elves (Tyrande) on how they should rebel the Horde vs the Humans (Anduin) way of doing it.[quote]

I wouldn't mind being given a real choice like that, rather than between and "evil" Horde and a "subservient" Horde. I would even prefer the Alliance got such choice and we just weren't made evil.

[quote] Only difference is, it would be way more interesting than this rehash MOP exp the horde is getting at the moment. That being said, it's still kinda obvious Sylvanas will be replaced from being a warchief by the end of BFA regardless of the choice.


Yeah, it is Garrosh 2.0. You know, the plot we kept saying we didn't want?


Not like I wanted it either. But since we got another crap warchief. Just boot her by the end of BFA and you know MAYBE keep a warchief with a level head for the future? /shrug
11/12/2018 12:18 PMPosted by Tannaril
...

Yeah, it is Garrosh 2.0. You know, the plot we kept saying we didn't want?


Not like I wanted it either. But since we got another crap warchief. Just boot her by the end of BFA and you know MAYBE keep a warchief with a level head for the future? /shrug


The problem is that any Horde leader is only level headed until the story needs an antagonist. Sylvanas was always dupicitous and cruel, but she was deemed ripe for a raid and so we get BfA. No character is safe in that environment, the villain ball makes loot of us all.
11/12/2018 05:39 PMPosted by Provengreil
11/12/2018 11:24 AMPosted by Tannaril
...

You know, if this expansion had been about making Jaina an evil villain, having a choice to oppose her would not have done much to stem the outrage.


That stems from around 6 years of Blizzard writing themselves into a corner by carefully sanding down anything seen as a sharp edge in our faction leadership. At this point, anything other than goody goodness or, at worst, righteous vengeance after being harmed coming from our established names is just out of character.

I'd love for Matthias Shaw to do the "rogue secret agency" thing and become a major villain.

Imagine reversing the order of the capital cities by having Shaw severely overreact to some skirmishing over azerite: He ahs the players detonate plague reserves and drown undercity. And he strikes first.

BAM! Justified War of Thorns, sylvanas angry and the horde happy about it, Alliance get to have an action man, the villain isn't just a genocidal maniac, and the new need for reinforcements and action can still drive us to Kul Tiras/Zandalar.


I mostly agree with you. If I were Alliance, wouldn't find the story demoralizing, but I would at least find it boring. And the Alliance could have a character go "evil" without having it seen as painting the players characters as evil. But iI have to say that most of the people I see posting here wouldn't stand for getting the same treatment the Horde just got.

But I shake my head at Blizzard's lack of imagination in just going Garrosh 2.0. For example, Genn go ballistic over and Alliance with Saurfang and stop following Anduin would make things more interesting and could even be a lead-in to something like two "kill everyone" factions (Sylvanas vs. Genn) and a uneasy middle ground (Saufang and Anduin). But in the end, the Horde clearly exists, in Blizzard's mind, to be the bad guys to the Alliance noble heroes.
At least you get the choice if you remain loyal or become a traitor this time around.

I'd kill for the Alliance to get the same treatment or love the Horde has been getting. With 8.1's Prison Break, Saurfang or Sylvanas choice, and the constant development of the Horde. The alliance waits and sits on its thumbs for the Horde to punch itself before we do anything remotely interesting.
11/14/2018 11:11 AMPosted by Kinria
At least you get the choice if you remain loyal or become a traitor this time around.

I'd kill for the Alliance to get the same treatment or love the Horde has been getting. With 8.1's Prison Break, Saurfang or Sylvanas choice, and the constant development of the Horde. The alliance waits and sits on its thumbs for the Horde to punch itself before we do anything remotely interesting.


Although I believe this choice is important because of the "remediation" context in which it was put, it is simply too important and concerns the main - and repetitive - Horde's plot, it is not like a choice in, for example, elder scrolls online between "saying it sarcastically","saying it honestly" or choosing to save or not some character in side quests and part of the mainquest. That specific choice of choosing between Sylvanas and Saurfang ... I mean, there has to be something miraculous or forced to make both sides happy on a plot as this one, that choice in the end will further divide the horde's playerbase in teams and we will have only one end for both, that is, only one side may be right in the end.

The Horde gains more questionable attitudes in 8.1, and many absent leaders or leaders who look away from unworthy actions(LITERALLY Baine) so that the plot follows what the devs planned: Sylvanas free of obstacles to do her lovely deeds.

If it is to have such repetitive and tiresome development, you can have it, thanks... or as some say: "The Horde is waiting for you"
11/11/2018 07:34 PMPosted by Akhinos
This is the oath that every member of the Horde makes upon entering the faction. From the point of view of honor and loyalty Blizzard is exposing me to an impossible choice.
One quest in Northrend does not a precedent set.

"Within this scroll you will find the blood oath of the Horde. Tradition dictates that our new taunka brothers and sisters utter the sacred words herein."

In nowhere in the lore is it indicated that this is standard fare or that every member of the Horde makes it. We don't see this oath taken ever again, even with Allied Races joining the faction.

I could certainly see it being the case for someone joining the Horde military (i.e. Nazgrim), but free agents and civilians probably wouldn't.

Bottom line: Your character having taken the Blood Oath is headcanon.
But will you betray Sylvanas? Stay tuned to find out if you were right or wrong!
11/12/2018 08:05 PMPosted by Dayon
11/12/2018 07:31 AMPosted by Dalfurane
Alliance plays a MMO.

Horde plays a MMORPG. Be thankful for those story choices.


Story choices barely work in singular player games, just look at Mass Effect 3. Even Telltale Games were linear to a point, always beginning at one point and ending at the same point with a few characters swapped in and out.

Story choices in WoW are an illusion. The predetermined end is coming regardless of what quest chain you do or don't do, and whatever dialogue options they give you when interacting with NPCs.
You can have massively branching stories in single player games, but those games need to be self-contained and it's a huge amount of work by modern standards. The alternative is doing something like Elder Scrolls did to reconcile the 7 different endings TES II had: all of them and none of them are canon. https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Warp_in_the_West

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum