David Kosak started this mess with Edge of Night, not at all shocked he was also part of the “Cosby Crew” everything we said as Sylvanas fans were true. She was being written by misogynists.
There’s a part of me that wonders if the push back on her book admittedly by Golden due to re-writes, is related to a new direction after Afrasabi left. I’m sure the book was commissioned during his time and now it’s at Danuser’s discretion.
That’s how it usually works.
No I really think that they allowed for lore as bargaining chips in compromising.
If Danuser faction gets x, Afrasiabi gets y.
It’s possible, but that would mean they lied about the “miscommunication.”
The reason I feel WoW devs don’t communicate with each other, even within the same department, is from a Q&A video during Legion, when Ion was answering a question about why there were so many encounters with soak mechanics. He pretty much said the people designing the fights didn’t talk with each other.
That’s gameplay team tho, Golden repeatedly stated all lore decisions are done as a team.
That could be more of a recent change, and I don’t think either Golden or Danuser had much say back in 2009/2010 when all that Cata stuff was being created.
Danuser was only on the team as a lesser writer since WoD, I think and Golden was only recently asked to part of the cinematic writing team as of BfA I think
True but the disjointed nature of the lore really began in earnest in Cata
Thus I think the “lore as bargaining chips for compromise” began in that moment.
Then you have the story team and the encounter designers along with the cinematic team having a bit of a problem when it came to Archimonde in WoD.
He is after all, Schrodinger’s Archimonde.
This statement is right, but not in the way you think. Instead of politics about who the executives have associated with, the politics are about the players and whether or not they’ve unsubscribed. The majority of players want the situation to improve, but people view differently how that can be done, so some people think unsubscribing helps while others think staying subscribed does so. Right now both ways are valid since we don’t know the repercussions of a mass unsubscription, but there are already players treating people negatively for not unsubscribing. There is now a divide where people can argue against the people keeping their subscriptions, and some people will say they’ve unsubscribed when they haven’t with a number of them doing so to virtue signal, so I won’t be surprised when some of them are posting again and act like it’s fine for them to be paying money to the company while simultaneously talking down to people who didn’t leave, without realizing the irony of it.
I’d call this the Blexit (Blizzard exit) issue if the word wasn’t already taken. I also know people will be calling me a bad person for making this post, which is how you know the issue has become politicized. And no, being able to see all sides of a situation doesn’t make me a psychopath. I’m actually an empath and my moods are often affected by those in my environment around me. People disagreeing with you doesn’t make them bad.
If the work environment for women is a toxic as the California suit indicates… to the point that one of their staff actually committed suicide over the treatment they got…Then it’s not surprising that the product was not what it could of… should have been.
What a disingenuous argument. If you honestly do not believe people have been awaiting the villain bat for Jaina and Tyrande, you haven’t been paying attention.
Players should not in-fight over this issue, that is correct. To quote myself from another thread:
“I buy a service in WoW, I expected that was being provided by a lawful company; at no time did I purchase a service, or agree to one, premised on abusive and/or unlawful workplace practices. This is not my problem, it’s theirs.”
Every player will have to decide what their reaction, and action, is to what has or is happening based on their experience, views, and beliefs. Picking on another player over their choice is wrong.
With that said; my caution came from the link Baalsamael shared. The 10th paragraph is a tribal delineation in America, it transitions the conversation to “us vs. them” with an intimation that if people “from the correct political side” were hired things would be better.
That’s simply not realistic.
Baalsamael’s responses focus on certain people and their history. That’s not facially political as it is specific to the persons he is talking about.
You really need to learn the difference between villain and antagonist.
Honestly, I’m worried (and have been worried for a while) about how BfA and Shadows Rising set up a lot of conflict between women. It seems like it’s piting women against each other.
We have the main plot between Tyrande and Sylvanas.
We have the subplot between Sylvanas and Calia and the Forsaken.
We have Talanji vs Jaina over Zul’Dazar
and Shadows Rising introduced a imo a ridiculous distrust between Jaina and Alleria.
And the way this is going with the whole choosing forgiveness angle. It worries me. It’s like they can’t successfully write woman being justifiably angry without some sort of pacifism or dumping it all on one woman and offing her.
They found the woman who asked the question in 2010
So everyone can shut up with the dishonest reading that she was asking for “ugly women” or something
Lol, I know the difference, and Tyrande and Jaina have been speculated to be future villains by the playerbase for years. Jaina and Tyrande were already antagonists BEFORE the trauma they suffered. After that trauma they were villainized.
For the sake of one-place compilations:
I would have gone with “ABK Workers Horde”. More Alliance bias.
lol Point 4 refuses to commit to actually hiring people from protected classes
this is pathetic