None, but they are going to change some so change Dalaran and Silvermoon(they were just simple designs atleast) and leave unique places of Warcraft III alone
2 Likes
I would change pathfinding ![:wink:](https://dou48tnq0ocoa.cloudfront.net/en/warcraft3/images/emoji/twitter/wink.png?v=6" ":wink:")
1 Like
What parts of WC3 campaign define it?
Like it wasnt every mission bub.
Im thinking final missions and a few here and there.
VALSADNALIDNLSIAN
I personally think they should add doodads that look like how Nazjatar looks. More coral and kelp to make it look like it was freshly raised out of the sea.
I don’t like the WoW look of Broken Shore. I never really liked the legion-corrupted look. That they can stay away from and I wouldn’t miss one bit.
3 Likes
Funny. Warcraft 3 is the only game that has it different than others, and it “retconned” a lot about Black Temple. Even though Black Temple was never mentioned in earlier games, the maps still didn’t show any Black Temple-like structures in Hellfire Peninsula, instead there was Shadowmoon Fortress in Shadowmoon Valley (which could now be seen as Black Temple, as the “Shadowmoon Fortress” has never been explained any better). It was in Warcraft 3 where they messed it all up and placed BT in Hellfire.
But I guess with you only WC3 can retcon stuff, because WC3 is holy and almighty, right? 
1 Like
Exactly yes only Warcraft III can retcon because story was not set back then (reason: wc1 and wc2 nearly had no cannon stories and were portraying the side you choose as winner). And it is not the Black Temple, it is Black Citidel. Also again like you said WC II never said anything about Black Citidel
2 Likes
Black Citadel is Black Temple. Hellfire Citadel is a different location.
2 Likes
I know but this is WoW lore, we are talking about Warcraft RTS lore, first 2 games never had Black Citidel and WC 3 had it as the new master of Outlands citidel in Hellfire Peninsula, WoW is not in Warcraft III
1 Like
Well there are other sources than WoW, you know. Like the novels and other books too. And so what if it came from WoW? If you hate so much WoW - and quite frankly, any other lore than WC3 - why do you even care? Why don’t you then just stick with your WC3 lore and let the “wrong” lore live on its own. As stated above, you can even after Reforged play the classic campaign with the new graphics, you don’t have to do anything with the new campaign, if you don’t want to.
If they retcon the game it will be ruined that’s all I care, books that came before WC3 are always welcome and yes I read all the books just did not read the last one because it was so much to my liking. All I want from Blizz is making the game right like they did back in 2003, add referances and easter eggs fine, retcon whole Outland lore and Sunken Ruins? Nope.
2 Likes
So no story can ever been expanded on, when one good one is made? A good story shouldn’t have prequels or new stories told of the same event from a bit different angle? And who determines when the story has reached the “good enough” point, after which it cannot be altered anymore? As you said, WC1 and 2 were not good enough, so WC3 can retcon them, but nothing can retcon WC3? Where’s the logic? Should Blizzard hire you to tell when a game has a story good enough?
Wc3’s retcons about WC2 was just minimal, Wc1 and WC2 are epic games but their story was symethrical to both sides, WoW had the chance to make the lore shine and they failed when TBC arrived. If they do not retcon WC3’s original stuff they can add anything they want as let’s say a new mission or easter egg or hell add a DLC campaign that covers stuff we did not see in WC3 but do not add WoW’s messed up stuff to WC 3’s campaign or designs
2 Likes
I think that “yourarthas” needs to chill.
I mean they are also somehow going to explain how Arthas just magically got his horse from the transition from Human to Undead.
Therefore they have pleased you arthas.
TBH WC3 and WoW lore are very touchy subjects.
I am generally more flexible with lore now than I would have been 10 years ago. I see merit in keeping WC3 as pure as possible because it really had its own pace and tone, and a lot of the story was presented in the subtlety. There is a lot of missing information that we filled in the blanks with our imaginations, and that’s what made the world feel bigger than it actually was.
Who were the Draenei? They are a grotesque and pathetic looking race that had been subjugated by the Orcs. We are left to wonder if that is how they normally look or if they got mutated, and what kind of civilization they would have had if they weren’t bullied. That perspective changes if you suddenly give them shared history to the Eredar, which is what WoW introduced.
Where did Frostmourne come from? It’s an ‘ancient’ artifact that the Lich King placed for Arthas to find. Things change when we later have it explained that Mal’ganis was its creator and that he can’t be killed by Frostmourne, and that all Demons don’t die they just get returned to the Void.
WoW made those changes for the sake of telling its own story and for the sake of expanding/bringing back characters that were only loosely touched upon in Warcraft 3. I think the whole idea of Demons not dying unless killed in the Void is a huge impact to how Warcraft 3 turns out. I mean honestly, is defeating Archimonde as awesome if you knew the worldly effort you put into that last NE mission was just to delay him coming back later?
In regards to Warcraft 3, I really do think it has its own self-contained lore that it abides by. What you see is what you get. If it’s not shown in the campaign or fully explained, it should not be canonical to Warcraft 3. For the sake of story telling, things like the Blue-skinned Draenei/Eredar connection should be left out, and so should Demons being immortal unless killed in the Void.
4 Likes
You are a man of culture.
2 Likes
Interesting. To me it just adds more to the experience when I know the real backstories behind the events and characters. People clearly make too much assumptions and take their own imagination too “seriously”. Stories are written by their makers and to me the interesting thing is to see what they think, not how I project my thoughts on the imagined backstories. As someone who writes as a hobby, I find it very worrying that fans could so over-interpret my thoughts…
Honestly, I never thought anything about draenei back in WC3 (because there was rally nothing told about them. They were just a new set of creeps). I don’t get why people are so upset about the changes made in WoW. I think it creates a cool mystery to the race and increases the depth of the universe.
Why the fact, that Mal’Ganis is not “really” killed, ruins the experience? The event is still the same: from Arthas’ - and frankly, any other mortal’s - eyes the demon is still killed. Imo, that fact doesn’t lessen the impact of the scene, rather it makes it even richer to know that there’s actually something more behind everything (that demons are not just humans with horns). It’s a fantasy story - there should be immortal super beings, mortals are there for just the killing. And that same applies to Archimonde as well: he is still killed from the mortals’ perspective and Azeroth is saved. For the moment, at least.
Also, how exactly would those changes impact Warcraft 3’s story? We are never shown that Mal’Ganis doesn’t die. We are never shown the connection between draenei and eredar - heck there barely are even any draenei to begin with. None of these have any impact of the actual story of Warcraft 3.
A lot of what you bring up can be covered in this video
It’s a bit of an extreme take, but it pretty much covers what I mean. If you treat death as an obstacle that can be overcome, then it diminishes the meaning of death. Warcraft has done this numerous times with its demons and demigods, which in retrospect undermines the meaningful impact that the story in War3 wishes to tell.
Why is it so important that Mal’ganis dies a permanent death? Because if he doesn’t, then we can assume no Dreadlord dies a permanent death, and that information changes how all Dreadlord deaths happen in the future. This has a direct impact on Varimathras’ story. We are given information about Nathrezim law forbidding killing another Nathrezim. This is insight into their culture, and that’s how we should accept that information as an audience. Yet it becomes an unintentional lie if we factor in ‘Demons don’t die’ into the story. I mean, we are fully aware that Dreadlords are deceptive and lie, but if in retrospect they are also lying to the audience about information about their own culture, then really as an audience we have no reason to trust any character development for these guys.
The snowball easily becomes an avalanche. Making demons not die and bringing characters back to life really does diminish the value of death in the world. If they can just bring back Cenarius when it’s convenient, then there’s really no impact to losing him in the first place. As an audience witnessing death with the knowledge that it isn’t permanent, we’re just watching characters be over-dramatic for the sake of their own naivete.
3 Likes
That’s a self-burn if I’ve ever seen one.
That’s interesting. And sad. It would be cool if Dreadlords lied without ruining their presentation. Especially in extreme circumstances. Assuming Tichondrius lying about the origins of Frostmourne would be too much, but Varimathras in his predicament could be not too subtle. But yeah, they were not obviously written as such.
1 Like
As far as Dreadlords go I don’t think it has the issue of diminishing their deaths in the mortal realm and, at least from how I see it, they wouldn’t want to be killing each other, because as demons it’s probably no simple task to be summoned back from the void. I mean if they are as powerful as we are lead to believe, then it only makes sense that to summon one back from the void would take resources and time that could be better spent playing out their nefarious plans. So it’s just in their and their masters interest if they don’t kill each other. Again, just my take on the matter.
2 Likes
I could intetpret it that way, but the wording ‘forbidden to kill (a nathrezim)’ is too clear to be interpretted as inconvenience. It is a special case where this is used, not just in reference to any or all demons, so retroactive logic doesnt really apply.
The way we should intepret this in Warcraft 3 is:
Rule is true, his reaction is genuine and death is permanent
If we introduce knowledge that Death only happens in the Void, then:
A) Rule is true, his reaction is Genuine, and he is unaware of permanent death outside the void. Overall, this is the best scenario, but it makes him look naive or ignorant.
B) Rule is True, but his reaction is a lie because he knows they can’t die. This makes the Rule of being Forbidden to kill each other useless information to the audience, since they know they can never die outside the Void. In this case, there is no need to excuse or hesitate his actions knowing that Sylvanas doesn’t know about permadeath.
C) Rule is False, everything is a lie. This is the worst interpretation since the audience would no longer trust anything from a Dreadlord, and thus no significant character or culture building.
2 Likes