Think about it. The story of BfA is about an (Euro-coded) Alliance supporting an uprising against a foreign government because the leader “kills their own people” and did “genocide”, similar story beats we hear repeated time and again during any regime change operation over the past 40 years or so. Meanie dictator (who does not bow down to western…ahem alliance… interests) who has to be “overthrown”, so dissenting elements in the society in question are covertly funded and armed while war efforts are prepared and ramped up. After the “dictator” is slain of course a groomed puppet regime, whom represents the “old, true” traditional castes the disposed leader had cracked down on, friendly to western (alliance) business interests is put into power and all the supporters of the disposed government tortured/killed. Those are the basic story beats but it’s not all.
In real life these countries being sabotaged are usually from places not in the west, places western corporations have their eyes on such as Africa, places in the middle east, Asia, and latin america. Which faction has cultures meant to be inspired by cultures from these places? and which faction thematically represents the “west”? Of course because it’s fiction, it’s a story where all the main propaganda points are “true”, like Sylvanas “killing her own people”, where as in real life this sort of thing is usually wholly fabricated or blown out of proportion to ramp up hatred of said leader/country targeted.
Startin’ to view BfA different since thinking bout this.
10 Likes
Honestly I think it’s just a meh at best story. I think you are reading into things too much.
1 Like
You make a point homie. Really opened my eyes up.
2 Likes
I mean it is a meh story but I can’t help but pick up on certain themes going on.
3 Likes
I doubt it was done deliberately, but it is kind of scary how well it matches up.
1 Like
Why would Blizzard push this story if they support the communists that oppose human rights irl
5 Likes
got some tin foil on the cheap did ya, op?
I assure you Blizzard does not support “the communists” lmao
They stuck to their ToS. Also, reality is much more nuanced then “support/don’t support.” or “communist/not communist.” The world is not black and white like the story of BfA.
5 Likes
Definitely an interesting reading that does indeed seem to have a lot going for it.
Not one I think the creators intended, but one that I’m nor surprised exists. It’s baked into the bones of fantasy.
You always have- as your default- The unified Kingdoms of Humans, Elves, and Dwarves, whose attitudes tend to reflect Western attitudes at the time of writing. The “others”, the Barbarian hordes, Orc/Goblin armies, exotic legions of swarthy foriegners, and mercenary mounted cavalry are very very thinly veiled expies for Colonized/Indigenous peoples- denied any characterization outside of a token foreign/evil sidekick. Usually of mixed ancestry or raised among “civilized” Humans/Elves/Dwarves so that they understand them.
And the narratives that play out between the two larger factions tend to not just be restricted to “Regime Change”.
5 Likes
Because as a for-profit corporation Blizzard’s bottom line is profit, and they’ve calculated (mistakenly it’s now apparent) that their actions would make them money. Don’t ever let them convince you otherwise. As for why this story got written, is likely just subtly reflecting the overall worldview of the game developers and their audience.
3 Likes
I think you’re stretching things a bit and misrepresenting a fair bit of the story. I’m not saying it’s a good story. I’m just saying it’s not what you’re representing it as. For one thing, war efforts weren’t being ‘ramped up’. The Alliance was in the middle of an all-or-nothing military conflict that was going to end with either the Horde’s destruction, the Alliance’s destruction, or a transfer of government on one end or the other that would allow for peace. Sylvanas is a genocidal monster that kills her own citizens, that’s admittedly true. But when it comes to genocide, she’s always leveled that at Alliance powers, not Horde. The Alliance isn’t exactly acting the part of moralizing usurpers using rights issues to interfere with internal affairs.
As well, besides wanting peace with the Alliance, outside of Calia joining the Forsaken, there’s not much ‘friendly’ about the new Horde leadership. Thrall has always been Horde first above else. There was nothing compromising about him when he thought that the perpetrators of Ashenvale attacks were Horde, but even if he knew who they were he’d still not hand them over. The Alliance traded Sylvanas for a regime that’s neutral towards them at best. Not much in the way of kowtowing going on.
If you’re looking to compare to the history of western powers, this is little more than one of those hollow truces that have no real backing behind them other than wishful thinking. There’s nothing preventing a future war. And there’s certainly nothing diminishing the Horde beyond the fracture of Sylvanas and her loyalists from it.
I’d take more the line that Blizzard’s writing reflect currently popular tropes, and tropes are popular in part because they reflect current concerns, and those in power have a big say in what are the “current concerns” (and what narrative should surround those conflicts).
So, Blizzard’s writing reflects to some extent the interests of the powerful because the powerful influence culture.
Well, it’s kind of inevitable.
The factions are EXTREMELY heavily-coded, which is something people have been pointing out since release.
So when Blizzard writes its faction wars, it gets a little squidgy.
And then we look at the fact that the Alliance always triumphs and the Horde must always be 'disciplined"? Well boy howdy.
Is it intentionally this way? Probably not, although I get the vibe from some ardent lore nerds that they really wish it were. No, it’s just lazy trope-chasing on Blizzard’s part.
2 Likes
I’d argue that it’s closer to a superhero argument than anything closer to real-world politics. If the Horde wins, there’s no more Alliance. If the Alliance wins… well, the Alliance doesn’t really ‘win’. It’s more like they survive and the war ends. The concept of victory usually includes actually beating the enemy. Still, the Alliance is the faction that Blizzard has designated as the one that will take the hits, and then forgive the Horde so that we can return to the status quo for an expansion cycle before the war inevitably starts anew.
of course Blizzard has also decided that it’s only the horde that is ever in constant need of 'forgiveness" because, of course, we can’t have the white-coded generic European-themed paladin guys ever be in the wrong.
3 Likes
I agree it’s pretty much baked into the game, I just got to thinking how some of it plays out specifically during BfA, and its mimicking to even some somewhat recent events (though I won’t get into specifics) and how the media covered them.
Something I’d add to my original post too is how even the genocide of the night elves, the crime which cements Sylvanas as the bad guy, is something which the Alliance eerily lets happen (with a load of excuses baked in ofc “bad intel” etc) before they act.
NATO/America has a history of themselves staging, provoking, or even covertly supporting a massacre or riot which they then turn around and use as an excuse for further funding from their governments for wars and bombings.
It was making me a little more sympathetic towards Sylvanas, not as she is in-universe (obviously a villain), but with the figures she may happen to be representative of. Her speech from Hallows End someone posted, and one of her speeches from Silverpine, got me thinking about it.
2 Likes
I see it.
The Alliance is the obvious “civilized” party. The Horde are the misled savages needing their culture to be changed.
The Alliance assists disaffected savages overthrow the disagreeable leadership to supplant it with one that will suit them.
Its more prevalent in recent times, because in the olden days, conquest was more brutal and thorough.
2 Likes
I don’t know about all that. Not even Saurfang, the Horde Champion or even the Horde soldiers manning the catapults knew her intent was to just light the whole thing on fire. Her stated plan was to siege and occupy Teldrassil. Then she went off the rails and drug others behind her.
But having given the Alliance some more gray/black elements going forward would definitely inject some energy into the stale and reductionist dynamic.
But now it seems like now they’re moving Horde/Alliance as a whole more into white (or light gray) territory.
I know all that, I am speaking more from the outside, not from in game. In game of course we know its all just Sylvanas being bad and leading the Horde astray etc, I am just taking the events themselves and matching them up… like not just Teldrassil but the road to Teldrassil, the war… the Alliance essentially lets it happen, they leave everything completely undefended, but again, in-game this is all excused as “they were tricked!”
I also agree with this and think it would be more healthy for the game overall for the factions to finally be merged at least mechanically, so that faction war stories largely leave the table, because they clearly are never going to write it where the Alliance is actually portrayed as bad. Ofc there are still gonna probably be huge problems with the story telling but w/e at this point.
1 Like
From the outside I think it was Blizzard’s intent to have the burning of Teldrassil be something that the Alliance saw coming. Afterall, they went through so much trouble in story to make it a thing that even other Horde higher ups weren’t aware of- clearly an attempt to try and make them a little less culpable. Much the same reason they had Sylvanas withhold her true plans from the Horde and treat them as pawns.