About the Alliance "Fist pump" moment...

General Discussion
Prev 1 2 3 7 Next
09/08/2013 12:30 AMPosted by Bomdanil
Cataclysm was undeniably Horde story.

I love how the story about stopping Deathwing, Ragnaros and the Twilight cults is "undeniably Horde story". Blatantly dismissing Malfurion's involvement and Cenarius's involvement.
09/08/2013 12:33 AMPosted by Bomdanil
Outland focus was on the Burning Legion, Illidan, Draenei, and Blood Elves, pretty much in that order. It wasn't "biased" toward either side.


The Draenei could have been completely removed from BC and nothing would change. How on earth could you possibly support the conclusion that the Draenei superceded the Sin'dorei in lore importance in BC when the entire driving point behind the bloody expansion was the revivification and redemption of the bloody Elves?

I dunno, maybe because when I was playing my Alliance character from launch night of TBC until 3.0 went live I learned more about the Draenei than I've seen in any of the quest text and interactions from all the Horde characters I've leveled combined through Outland. That might be part of it.

I guess I better edit this to point out that I didn't learn even a fraction of the same info about Blood Elves in that expansion, from either side.
Blatantly dismissing Malfurion's involvement and Cenarius's involvement.


You mean the neutral guys in charge of the Cenarion Circle? The ones who, by all reasonable accounts, should have been wanting to skin the Orcs and use them for blankets due to murdering Cenarius and the on going desecration of Ashenvale (which is supposed to be one of their more sacred forests), but are BFFs with them instead?

Oh yes. That's totally Alliance story.
09/08/2013 12:37 AMPosted by Bomdanil
Blatantly dismissing Malfurion's involvement and Cenarius's involvement.


You mean the neutral guys in charge of the Cenarion Circle? The ones who, by all reasonable accounts, should have been wanting to skin the Orcs and use them for blankets due to murdering Cenarius and the on going desecration of Ashenvale (which is supposed to be one of their more sacred forests), but are BFFs with them instead?

Oh yes. That's totally Alliance story.

Oh, I see. So they're only "neutral" when it's convenient for the "Horde Bias". Gotcha.

Couldn't possibly be because they were dealing with a bigger threat than the Orcs. Kinda like the Horde put their aggression on hold during Wrath in favor of dealing with the Scourge and Arthas. But let's ignore that since it doesn't support the "Horde Bias Theory".
09/08/2013 12:37 AMPosted by Bomdanil
Blatantly dismissing Malfurion's involvement and Cenarius's involvement.


You mean the neutral guys in charge of the Cenarion Circle? The ones who, by all reasonable accounts, should have been wanting to skin the Orcs and use them for blankets due to murdering Cenarius and the on going desecration of Ashenvale (which is supposed to be one of their more sacred forests), but are BFFs with them instead?

Oh yes. That's totally Alliance story.


People previously aligned with the Alliance clearly represent an Alliance story telling perspective. Like those derpy hooves that claim that Wrath was Alliance bias cause Arthas and Tirion...
09/08/2013 12:36 AMPosted by Sintestra
I dunno, maybe because when I was playing my Alliance character from launch night of TBC until 3.0 went live I learned more about the Draenei than I've seen in any of the quest text and interactions from all the Horde characters I've leveled combined through Outland.


Sure you did. There's a problem with that though. See, the only lore quests that are associated with the story of the Draenei? They're Horde-only quests located in Nagrand.
09/08/2013 12:38 AMPosted by Ellemaynne


You mean the neutral guys in charge of the Cenarion Circle? The ones who, by all reasonable accounts, should have been wanting to skin the Orcs and use them for blankets due to murdering Cenarius and the on going desecration of Ashenvale (which is supposed to be one of their more sacred forests), but are BFFs with them instead?

Oh yes. That's totally Alliance story.


People previously aligned with the Alliance clearly represent an Alliance story telling perspective. Like those derpy hooves that claim that Wrath was Alliance bias cause Arthas and Tirion...

Well if Thrall can be used as evidence that Cata was Horde Bias, then so can Malfurion and Cenarius. You can't say they are or aren't only when it's convenient.

I dunno if you were supporting or opposing the bias, Elle, I was just using your comment to make a point. :)
09/08/2013 12:40 AMPosted by Bomdanil
I dunno, maybe because when I was playing my Alliance character from launch night of TBC until 3.0 went live I learned more about the Draenei than I've seen in any of the quest text and interactions from all the Horde characters I've leveled combined through Outland.


Sure you did. There's a problem with that though. See, the only lore quests that are associated with the story of the Draenei? They're Horde-only quests located in Nagrand.

I guess all those quests I did that related to the Draenei on my Alliance character just don't exist, then... Even though I clearly remember doing them and enjoying the lore they presented. But obviously you're the expert here and you know more about my play experience than I do.


People previously aligned with the Alliance clearly represent an Alliance story telling perspective. Like those derpy hooves that claim that Wrath was Alliance bias cause Arthas and Tirion...

Well if Thrall can be used as evidence that Cata was Horde Bias, then so can Malfurion and Cenarius. You can't say they are or aren't only when it's convenient.

I dunno if you were supporting or opposing the bias, Elle, I was just using your comment to make a point. :)


Didn't need Thrall to prove that point. Just the 1-60 zones and TH.
Oh, I see. So they're only "neutral" when it's convenient for the "Horde Bias". Gotcha.

Couldn't possibly be because they were dealing with a bigger threat than the Orcs. Kinda like the Horde put their aggression on hold during Wrath in favor of dealing with the Scourge and Arthas. But let's ignore that since it doesn't support the "Horde Bias Theory".

Here's the problem with that. "Less evil" doesn't translate to "Not evil". Yeah, maybe Deathwing wants to blow up the world and Garrosh just wants to wipe you out or enslave you, but neither of those are good outcomes for the Alliance.

Even if you consider Malfurion to be an Alliance character -which is a pretty big if, since his actions are far more beneficial to the Horde than to the Alliance- then it merely moves us from no story to bad story.

Well if Thrall can be used as evidence that Cata was Horde Bias, then so can Malfurion and Cenarius. You can't say they are or aren't only when it's convenient.


Thrall is only neutral in the sense that Alliance players now have to quest for him. His actions still show a clear bias for the Horde. He recruits them a new race, rants about Varian in Elemental Bonds (who's only "crime" is that he hadn't turned a blind eye to the Horde's actions like other Alliance leaders) and even outright says in Twilight of the Aspects that he only cares about the Horde. Malfurion has never done anything like that.

It's not the same situation, and even if it were, two wrongs don't make a right.
Oh, I see. So they're only "neutral" when it's convenient for the "Horde Bias". Gotcha.


...you ARE aware that the Cenarion Circle has always been a neutral faction, right?

I suppose a smarter question would be to ask if you're familiar with any of the story from WC3 and TFT, since that's usually where this disconnect lies. Specifically, things like this:

Kinda like the Horde put their aggression on hold during Wrath in favor of dealing with the Scourge and Arthas. But let's ignore that since it doesn't support the "Horde Bias Theory".


Don't make sense to people who know the background story because Thrall witnessed the devastation that the Scourge can inflict when used as a weapon first hand at the battle of Mount Hyjal (as did the Tauren and Trolls who were with him), Sylvanas wants Arthas dead because he killed her and turned her into a banshee, the Forsaken want him killed because he betrayed them all and turned them into walking corpses, and the Sin'dorei want him dead because he drove them nearly to extinction while on his campaign to revive Kel'thuzad at the Sunwell.

So that leaves... not really much of anyone, Horde Side, that wouldn't want to put a stop to Arthas for numerous reasons.

Well if Thrall can be used as evidence that Cata was Horde Bias, then so can Malfurion and Cenarius. You can't say they are or aren't only when it's convenient.

I dunno if you were supporting or opposing the bias, Elle, I was just using your comment to make a point. :)


Didn't need Thrall to prove that point. Just the 1-60 zones and TH.

When you say "1-60 zones", you're referring the ones that favored the Alliance up until the Azeroth revamp, right? Which has been proven over and over and over again and even stated clearly by Blizzard. Oh wait... Blizzard said it, it's clearly Horde Bias.

And TH? Twilight Highlands? I must have missed the Horde taking over the whole zone. I remember the faction of Orcs that has been fighting the Horde and Alliance since launch joining Garrosh, who now are part of his war machine that are trying to enact a war of genocide on anything that's not an Orc. But I suppose with Bias Goggles on it would appear to be "Horde favoritism". Those goggles are amazing for keeping anything that doesn't support your horde bias from registering.
Hey, just because the paradigm switched completely..... and instantly, well...you know.

I am talking about a story gap. Perhaps the Alliance has been very spread thin, but how did the Horde suddenly take so much land? Was it the confusion of the Cataclysm? So much territory so fast...
Jesus christ will you babies quit crying over spilled milk? WHO CARES? Its a game! Really? who cares if its alliance or horde bias? I get you like the story and all that jazz but having a full blown argument over it is stupid and won't solve anything.
I'd consider this more of a debate over the course of the story, not an argument.
09/08/2013 12:48 AMPosted by Sintestra
And TH? Twilight Highlands?


A significant amount of Alliance content was scrapped during development because it wasn't going to be complete in time for launch due to the length of time spent polishing Horde content. This included the cinematic introduction to the Highlands, and the questing/lore exploration that was intended to reveal that Benedictus was the high ranking Alliance traitor that was constantly being hinted at in Deepholm (this was later re-revealed by Thrall in HoT).

09/08/2013 12:53 AMPosted by Gigacrush
Its a game!


An RPG, specifically. People that play RPGs tend to be more interested in game story than most.

I get you like the story and all that jazz but having a full blown argument over it is stupid and won't solve anything.


You must be a blast on the debate team.
Hey, just because the paradigm switched completely..... and instantly, well...you know.

I am talking about a story gap. Perhaps the Alliance has been very spread thin, but how did the Horde suddenly take so much land? Was it the confusion of the Cataclysm? So much territory so fast...

Wrathion handwaves it in MoP by saying the Alliance didn't take advantage of the Cataclysm to expand their dominion like the Horde did.

And the Alliance was hit much harder by the Cataclysm than the Horde was. No major Horde zones were drastically affected, except the Barrens, and that still ended up being a good thing for the Horde because it halted the Alliance's advance in the Southern Barrens. The Alliance, meanwhile, was hit in Stormwind, Darkshore, Gilneas, Loch Modan, and the Wetlands.

But the real reason is because Blizz, for whatever reason, wanted the Horde to win. You could argue it's favoritism or just balance, but either way the end result was the same.
09/08/2013 12:57 AMPosted by Tyrathius
Wrathion handwaves it in MoP by saying the Alliance didn't take advantage of the Cataclysm to expand their dominion like the Horde did.

As I recall, wasn't a good bit of the reasoning behind having the Horde expand during Cata to balance out the number of zones that each faction had? I'm not trying to stir up more fire... I'm just making sure I remember things correctly.
Oh, I see. So they're only "neutral" when it's convenient for the "Horde Bias". Gotcha.

Couldn't possibly be because they were dealing with a bigger threat than the Orcs. Kinda like the Horde put their aggression on hold during Wrath in favor of dealing with the Scourge and Arthas. But let's ignore that since it doesn't support the "Horde Bias Theory".

Here's the problem with that. "Less evil" doesn't translate to "Not evil". Yeah, maybe Deathwing wants to blow up the world and Garrosh just wants to wipe you out or enslave you, but neither of those are good outcomes for the Alliance.

Even if you consider Malfurion to be an Alliance character -which is a pretty big if, since his actions are far more beneficial to the Horde than to the Alliance- then it merely moves us from no story to bad story.

um... what? LOL Less evil? Who are you talking about with that, the Horde? I guess that means in Wrath the Alliance were "less evil" than Arthas since the Horde turned their attention to taking care of him instead of fighting the Alliance as their priority. Less evil....

Other than insuring life on Azeroth continues to exist, how are Malfurion's actions more beneficial to the Horde than the Alliance? Because Org is closer to Raggy's portal?

Well if Thrall can be used as evidence that Cata was Horde Bias, then so can Malfurion and Cenarius. You can't say they are or aren't only when it's convenient.


Thrall is only neutral in the sense that Alliance players now have to quest for him. His actions still show a clear bias for the Horde. He recruits them a new race, rants about Varian in Elemental Bonds (who's only "crime" is that he hadn't turned a blind eye to the Horde's actions like other Alliance leaders) and even outright says in Twilight of the Aspects that he only cares about the Horde. Malfurion has never done anything like that.

It's not the same situation, and even if it were, two wrongs don't make a right.

Thrall was the Warchief of the Horde. Vol'jin is still part of the Horde. Of course his actions are going to be in favor of them. But Horde have to do quests for Malfurion that don't benefit the Horde just like Alliance do quests for Thrall that don't benefit Alliance.

You're dismissing Malfurion and Cenarius because it doesn't support your bias.

09/08/2013 12:47 AMPosted by Bomdanil
Oh, I see. So they're only "neutral" when it's convenient for the "Horde Bias". Gotcha.


...you ARE aware that the Cenarion Circle has always been a neutral faction, right?

I suppose a smarter question would be to ask if you're familiar with any of the story from WC3 and TFT, since that's usually where this disconnect lies. Specifically, things like this:

Having just finished WC3 and TFT a couple weeks ago, yes, I'm quite familiar. And Malfurion works with the Orcs there against Archimonde. OMG HORDE BIAS ALL THE WAY BACK INTO WARCRAFT 3!!! Sound absurd? It should, because it's the same thing he's doing in Cata. Cenarius knows there are bigger issues than a bunch of Orcs running around. And his beef with the Orcs was because of the demon blood from Mannoroth in their veins and they were choppin down his trees, but more specifically, the demon blood. It was Grom Hellscream he was trying to run out of his forest, Grom that was quickly succumbing to his demon blood. Again. I suppose that's somehow Horde Bias, too, though how I can't think of right now.

Kinda like the Horde put their aggression on hold during Wrath in favor of dealing with the Scourge and Arthas. But let's ignore that since it doesn't support the "Horde Bias Theory".


Don't make sense to people who know the background story because Thrall witnessed the devastation that the Scourge can inflict when used as a weapon first hand at the battle of Mount Hyjal (as did the Tauren and Trolls who were with him), Sylvanas wants Arthas dead because he killed her and turned her into a banshee, the Forsaken want him killed because he betrayed them all and turned them into walking corpses, and the Sin'dorei want him dead because he drove them nearly to extinction while on his campaign to revive Kel'thuzad at the Sunwell.

So that leaves... not really much of anyone, Horde Side, that wouldn't want to put a stop to Arthas for numerous reasons.

But of course no Alliance want Arthas dead because he betrayed his father and king, murdered him in cold blood in his own throne room. Stomped all over Dalaran both before and after becoming a Death Knight. Betrayed his own men by burning the boats they were supposed to use after being recalled, as a direct order from the King. Was thought to have killed Muradin until he was found in Northrend among the dwarves there (but lets forget that fistpump moment, amirite?) after he warned Arthas that Frostmourne was cursed and he took the sword anyway. And numerous other things that Arthas did to Humans, Night Elves and Dwarves. But clearly only the Horde have any reason for wanting him dead because that's what the Horde Bias Theory states.

09/08/2013 12:56 AMPosted by Bomdanil
A significant amount of Alliance content was scrapped during development because it wasn't going to be complete in time for launch due to the length of time spent polishing Horde content.

OK, fair enough. So basically what happened to the Horde content prior to WoW launching in 2004. But clearly it's still Horde Bias.
As I recall, wasn't a good bit of the reasoning behind having the Horde expand during Cata to balance out the number of zones that each faction had? I'm not trying to stir up more fire... I'm just making sure I remember things correctly.


Yep. It was. That was the main reason for the revamp. They did it in a war storyline because how it makes sense for the zones to change hands during war. Unfortunately it stirred up all this rubbish.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum