Theramore in flames: Horde favoritism. pt. 2

General Discussion
Prev 1 242 243 244 251 Next
11/03/2011 07:28 PMPosted by Iferil
t that isn't relevant to the debate that the Alliance story lines are only being advanced when the Horde storylines need them to be.


So without reading 200+ pages, is the main reason why Alliance players upset that Theramore being destroyed because it was done to progress the Horde storyline?


edit: I see some posts discussing how the dispute is over Horde's continual role as the aggressor and Alliance not being able to "fight back" and "mop up" after the Horde. Is there reason to believe that this the destruction of Theramore is going to be the last major conflict in Alliance v. Horde, or would it be reasonable to believe that it's the light that sparks the powder keg, igniting all out warfare between the two factions that eventually leads to the discovery, and fighting over, Pandaria?
You are so full of crap it's unbelievable. Barrens Questing was awesome. You also sound like you never played in Westfall with its elementals or Loch Modan with its crocs and trogs. We're talking elementals who would aggro from half the zone away and track you down. They ran faster than you could run, and were the max level for the zone.


Two words:

Defias. Pillager.
Why are you hung up on this idea that Blizzard's EQ style quest design in immediate post launch vanilla Wow is relevant to the primary complaint of Alliance players that there's very been relatively meager story development within the Alliance faction as compared to the Horde.

How is the distribution and allotment of each sides requisite array of bear !@# collection quests relative to that debate? Yes, there was some poor design in vanilla, Blizzard's adherence to the MMO quest design of the time and its reliance on having players depart from a central quest hub kill a target and return to the hub resulted in PITA amounts of travel in the larger Horde zones in Kalimdor but that isn't relevant to the debate that the Alliance story lines are only being advanced when the Horde storylines need them to be.


It is only mainly relevant because people keep bringing up Hilsbrad going full horde. The zone was given to the horde exactly because of the issues from vanilla. I will repeat that isn't to say the Alliance doesn't deserve some better story telling.

People on this thread for some reason keep forgetting Darkshore when they talk about Alliance in cata but whatever I guess.
11/03/2011 07:32 PMPosted by Takamura
So without reading 200+ pages, is the main reason why Alliance players upset that Theramore being destroyed because it was done to progress the Horde storyline?

Probably because we fear it will play out exactly like Andorhol played out. Sheer, ignominious defeat.

"Well, you tried you best. (Not that it was enough!)

Better go tell Wrynn we failed hardcore. Again.

Think he'll be pissed?"
11/03/2011 07:22 PMPosted by Takamura
If the answer is yes, can you actually attribute that to Blizzard purposefully directing more creative efforts towards benefiting one faction versus the other?


Goblins reshape Azshara into a Horde symbol. Worgen get a tree in Darnassus.
Worgen lore told in Forsaken questline.
Horde victories over the Alliance end with cool cinematics.
Alliance victories over the Horde end, or are ended prematurely, with no in-game changes.
Twilight Highlands intro? Here, get into ANOTHER plane crash. (Fun fact: Blizzard made not one, but TWO quests that involve Alliance players getting blown out of the sky during a Horde battle.)


It is completely undeniable that more creative effort has been put into the Horde side of Cataclysm.
11/03/2011 07:32 PMPosted by Takamura
So without reading 200+ pages, is the main reason why Alliance players upset that Theramore being destroyed because it was done to progress the Horde storyline?


One of the reasons.

But a lot of it is that most of this expansion has been done to progress the story line for the Horde at the Alliances' expense, without any real story line of our own.
11/03/2011 07:37 PMPosted by Arkturas
So without reading 200+ pages, is the main reason why Alliance players upset that Theramore being destroyed because it was done to progress the Horde storyline?

Probably because we fear it will play out exactly like Andorhol played out. Sheer, ignominious defeat.

"Well, you tried you best. (Not that it was enough!)

Better go tell Wrynn we failed hardcore. Again.

Think he'll be pissed?"


I don't know. It's somewhat amusing because it seems like Blizzard was attempting to get Alliance players rallied ("What!? They destroyed Theramore!? Let's git 'em!") and motivate Horde players ("Lok'tar ogar!!") at the same time, but it seems like players are taking it personally.
11/03/2011 07:32 PMPosted by Takamura
s there reason to believe that this the destruction of Theramore is going to be the last major conflict in Alliance v. Horde, or would it be reasonable to believe that it's the light that sparks the powder keg, igniting all out warfare between the two factions that eventually leads to the discovery, and fighting over, Pandaria?


It's pretty awful storytelling if torturing and killing the human civilians in Hillsbrad with a banned biological weapon and gruesome experiments, and slaughtering any who tried to leave for Alliance lands, didn't anger the Alliance enough for them to fight back. And yet it's basically not even mentioned anywhere, in any Alliance quests or storylines. There are no outraged NPCs anywhere in game with the exception of one NPC in Arathi Highlands who has a couple of lines about it in a quest (who doesn't even know her friend is alive as a worgen, since the Alliance never gets to see what happened to the Southshore residents who joined the worgen). It's like the rest of the Alliance world thinks Southshore was still destroyed by a tidal wave, like was originally planned.

It shouldn't require Theramore's destruction for the Alliance to fight back, when such an atrocity already happened.

It is only mainly relevant because people keep bringing up Hilsbrad going full horde. The zone was given to the horde exactly because of the issues from vanilla. I will repeat that isn't to say the Alliance doesn't deserve some better story telling.


It would have been fine if they had either stuck to the original plan (destroying Southshore in a natural disaster, so we could go blame Deathwing) or gone with the current storyline but let us strike back at the Forsaken in Arathi Highlands (which barely got any updating and definitely could have had a cool storyline for the Alliance who could get Stromgarde back). But no, I'm not okay with having Southshore and Hillsbrad destroyed in such a gruesome way with no in game retaliation. They tortured and killed civilians in the worst way and we can do nothing. Meanwhile, the Horde get to slaughter the general who attacked Taurajo (a valid military target) and who let the children and civilians leave alive. The civilians who tried to leave Hillsbrad were slaughtered as they fled...

You will see that most Alliance who complained about the loss of Hillsbrad in this thread complained about the way it was done, and not the fact we no longer have quests there.
11/03/2011 07:40 PMPosted by Paladinchaz
So without reading 200+ pages, is the main reason why Alliance players upset that Theramore being destroyed because it was done to progress the Horde storyline?


One of the reasons.

But a lot of it is that most of this expansion has been done to progress the story line for the Horde at the Alliances' expense, without any real story line of our own.


I think you could say that of every warcraft game. Alliance have always been reactionary in nature not exactly proactive. Most of the Alliance story in past warcraft games have been reactions to what others have done. In WC1 and WC2 it was reaction to the Horde. In WC3 it was reaction the the Scourge. The alliance don't really get off their !@# until something major happens. Orc going through the portal for WC1 or Orc sacking of Stormwind for WC2. The Alliance in WC3 basically doesn't really go all out until it is too late.
11/03/2011 07:42 PMPosted by Takamura

Probably because we fear it will play out exactly like Andorhol played out. Sheer, ignominious defeat.

"Well, you tried you best. (Not that it was enough!)

Better go tell Wrynn we failed hardcore. Again.

Think he'll be pissed?"


I don't know. It's somewhat amusing because it seems like Blizzard was attempting to get Alliance players rallied ("What!? They destroyed Theramore!? Let's git 'em!") and motivate Horde players ("Lok'tar ogar!!") at the same time, but it seems like players are taking it personally.


They've 'been' motivated. For a year. Since the leak about Cata's losses became widely known. They wanted revenge, they wanted to retaliate.

Instead, the Dev said "Wait, wait. You'll get your turn, wait and see."

So they did.

And they got nothing. For an entire expansion. And then the first bit of info out of the next expansion is....More Losses. In fact, the loss of an entire city this time.

Can you blame them for getting irate when the only reply from the Dev is "Wait, wait. You'll get your turn, wait and see. WE'RE SERIOUS THIS TIME. LOL."
11/03/2011 07:45 PMPosted by Dragomaxxor


One of the reasons.

But a lot of it is that most of this expansion has been done to progress the story line for the Horde at the Alliances' expense, without any real story line of our own.


I think you could say that of every warcraft game. Alliance have always been reactionary in nature not exactly proactive. Most of the Alliance story in past warcraft games have been reactions to what others have done. In WC1 and WC2 it was reaction to the Horde. In WC3 it was reaction the the Scourge. The alliance don't really get off their !@# until something major happens. Orc going through the portal for WC1 or Orc sacking of Stormwind for WC2. The Alliance in WC3 basically doesn't really go all out until it is too late.


It worked in the RTS though, since we got to play all sides and see the big picture

But for an MMO where they encourage you to invest in one side or the other (yes I know people play both factions) you dont get the whole picture anymore.

And sometimes its a shock when you eventually look up what the other side is doing and go "Huh? What?"
Sigh... maybe the reason you have !@#$ty lore is the fact you have %^-*ty leaders. Hippie Nelfs who want to plant flowers and hug trees, humans whose egos are so bloated it blonds them to their weaknesses (and therefore leads to their defeat), gnomes that do nothing, dwarven leadership that does nothing (sad that some screwball treasure hunter is the most well known dwarf in the game), and lets not forget Velen who sees running away and hiding as a viable battle strategy. Maybe its the alliance leadership that needs killed. Then maybe some decent people can take the reins and can inspire some lore for the alliance that doesnt revolve around the horde.
11/03/2011 07:50 PMPosted by Atermon
Sigh... maybe the reason you have !@#$ty lore is the fact you have %^-*ty leaders. Hippie Nelfs who want to plant flowers and hug trees, humans whose egos are so bloated it blonds them to their weaknesses (and therefore leads to their defeat), gnomes that do nothing, dwarven leadership that does nothing (sad that some screwball treasure hunter is the most well known dwarf in the game), and lets not forget Velen who sees running away and hiding as a viable battle strategy. Maybe its the alliance leadership that needs killed. Then maybe some decent people can take the reins and can inspire some lore for the alliance that doesnt revolve around the horde.


Nooooooo, the reason why they get crappy lore is because the Dev can't seem to stop shouting 'For the Horde' long enough to focus on the other side of the story for a lil while.

Keep in mind that blaming 'crappy leaders' for 'crappy lore' is like getting mad at the Joker for constantly getting beaten by Batman. They're not real. The Developers? They're real and they're responsible.

Just sayin'.
11/03/2011 07:50 PMPosted by Atermon
Sigh... maybe the reason you have !@#$ty lore is the fact you have %^-*ty leaders. Hippie Nelfs who want to plant flowers and hug trees, humans whose egos are so bloated it blonds them to their weaknesses (and therefore leads to their defeat), gnomes that do nothing, dwarven leadership that does nothing (sad that some screwball treasure hunter is the most well known dwarf in the game), and lets not forget Velen who sees running away and hiding as a viable battle strategy. Maybe its the alliance leadership that needs killed. Then maybe some decent people can take the reins and can inspire some lore for the alliance that doesnt revolve around the horde.


Changing the Alliance leaders wouldn't change anything. Blizzard would just write in the new ones then ignore them again when they're not playing foil to the Horde.
If the answer is yes, can you actually attribute that to Blizzard purposefully directing more creative efforts towards benefiting one faction versus the other?

What motive would Blizzard have in purposefully alienating half their playerbase?


Funny you should ask that, the same question has come to the mind of some Alliance players. Some of them just happen to approach it from the feeling that they are purposefully alienating half their playerbase.

I am of the opinion that it isn't intentional, and it's only a matter of creative effort in that effort follows inspiration. I think story ideas come to them for the Horde, and that's what they work on. No, I'm not saying that the creative team has so little time that they can only create good stories for one faction at a time. I'm saying that Alliance comes second because ideas do not flow as easily. I'm saying that when time comes to work on Alliance stories, the only inspirations they get are for things like CSI:Westfall, Redridge Rambo, and how cool it would look to just wreck the crap out of Darkshore. These ideas probably seem alright to stand on their own because the writers felt some inspiration behind them.

Unfortunately, things like those can't stand on their own because they aren't part of something bigger. That's what is ultimately at issue here, the quality of the stories being told. We were brought here (to this thread) by news that Theramore was getting razed. As interesting a plot spectacle as that could be, it comes on the heels of multitudes of quests where you are losing, and losing especially against the Horde. From a story stand point, if you cap off a long string of stories where you lose to the Horde with an event where you lose one of the biggest cities you have to the Horde, it's just repetitive and boring and frustrating.
Odd, and I thought this was all about the Good guys 'alliance' beating down the bad guys 'horde', I suppose there was a change in script. :D

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum