Well, if you tell me that you plan your pedicures years in advance, either you lied about how far you plan your pedicures or you lied about changing your mind. Either way, you had to lie about something.
1 Like
It is hard to know without prior knowledge of possible retcons.
If :
5 years later we find out you had a split personality that lied to your usually dominant personalityâŚleading it to lie to get a manicure ⌠When really your split personality was going to take over and get a pedicure!
âŚ
Yes - you could have lied, depending on prior information and future retcons.
1 Like
I donât think weâre seeing the larger picture here. The lore that we knew, we loved is being purposely rewritten into a reboot of a completely new story, where the former lore has no place.
I think mislead, at the very least, would be a perfect term no matter the intent. The fans were not lead true.
Then if something is easily up for change, then presenting a plan as if it is a thing that is stuck to is a lie by omission.
-We made a deal!
-Changed my mind⌠Shrug
Anybody would reasonably call that dishonest when money is involved.
3 Likes
The argument for those against this post in a nutshell.
We can sit here all day and work out every little facial expression as truthful or deceitful but at the end of the day they knew the story and in a terrible attempt to keep the mystery, made comments intended to persuade if not outright alter the players perception of the story they had already guessed.
3 Likes
Didnât Skeletor save children at some point?
Exactly, we shouldnât need to bend over backwards to understand whatâs going on.
We certainly shouldnât be given statements implying one thing, only to have what we were worried about all along turn out to be the case (ex: Garrosh being evil, Sylvanas being stupid-evil)
2 Likes
Because you know that synonyms seldom have exactly the same meaning as the original word. Thatâs why they exist, rather than just having one word. For example, âwalk,â âstroll,â âmarch,â and âambleâ are synonyms, but they donât mean exactly the same thing.
Connotations matter, a lot. Lying implies a particular intent to deceive. I donât think itâs fair to accuse someone of lying without really great evidence, and itâs such a loaded term that it instantly shuts down conversation. Once you accuse someone of lying, youâre in a hostile situation and nothing productive is going to happen. If you canât prove it, why go thereâŚand even if you can prove it, why go there? What is the value added to the situation?
3 Likes
I think many here will go straight to accusing Blizzard of lying because to them, Blizzard already created a hostile situation and this is their way of venting.
4 Likes
Again, technical semantics that detracts from the main point of this thread: Blizzard is intentionally misleading their playerbase.
5 Likes
So the lying/ misleading thing has been a thing in this thread and I want to get this out of the way.
Lying is the willful misrepresentation of information. For example, I understand I should be working on a motion right now. However, Iâm typing this out. If my boss asks what Iâm doing, I will willfully misrepresent I am working.
Jazia is saying that Blizzard is just misrepresenting fact. Albeit, not willfully. However, this was addressed by Cannibal:
One of these absolves Actiblizz, however it also is just as ridiculous. I think Actiblizz is lying simply because I donât think these representatives would give these quotes being that misinformed. Thatâs just me.
1 Like
Iâm as upset as anyone about the direction of the story, but I just donât think itâs that simple. I actually think that the story details evolve a lot more than we think they do, and I also think that the story team sometimes sees things a lot differently than most of the players do. For example, I think they were genuinely shocked at how upset Alliance fans were when the destruction of Therefore was announced.
2 Likes
The thread on the old board was titled âI feel lied to,â which I think is fair. Whatever Blizzardâs intention was, we feel like they fed us lies.
7 Likes
I canât believe people are here trying to rationalize this. I canât believe people are trying to make excuses for Blizzard with, âwell maybe the story was changed last minute?â We have a quote of them saving Garrosh was built up to be a villain. We have never heard them say anything about Garroshâs story was changed and even if it was changed, had to be before the other quotes were given.
Here is another quote from the same blue who 5 days later on the same thread as the first quote
At the end of the day, we know more about Garrosh as a character and where heâs going than you do, and trust in where weâre taking this will have to come into play at some point. We know all about your concerns. Weâre not ignoring them when we say weâre not changing the direction of where weâre heading. Thatâs all Iâm going to say on the matter.
The first quote and last quote were given 3 months before Cata was dropped. When Garrosh was first introduced in TBC, could the writers have had a different idea on what to do with his character? Yes, however to me it clearly shows that sometime during WotLK, the team decided he was going to be a villain.
3 Likes
There is that quote from Afrasiabi about how he wrote the Stonetalon chain because he thought Garrosh was going to grow into the warchief position. Let me dig up the exact quote âŚ
Sigh, theyâre not letting me include a link in my post. I donât know why; I was able to do it a few days ago. But this is from an interview on Engadget from November 2014, titled âAlex Afrasiabi on Warlords, Garrosh, and Alternate Azeroth.â Maybe someone who can post links can put the exact link in a message for reference.
(ETA: Link is here. https://www.engadget.com/2014-11-11-alex-afrasiabi-on-warlords-garrosh-and-alternate-azeroth.html )
Anyway, the relevant portion is below:
So Garrosh was yours, huh? From beginning to end?
Not quite from beginning to end.
Cataclysm seemed like he was going in a different direction for a while there ⌠.
He was.
He was? Tell us about that â why he had that shift.
Miscommunication.
So Stonetalon âŚ
Me.
You did Stonetalon?
I did Stonetalon.
I didnât stick to that path with Garrosh. I didnât â not everyone was on board. Not everyone got the memo as it were, as we were designing â and that was my fault. Because when youâre doing, when youâre trying â because I was actually trying to bring Garrosh around, and Stonetalon was going to be the first of that. Cataclysm was pretty crazy time for us.
You had so much to do.
We did quite a lot of work. So I feel like there was a little bit of miscommunication on my part that kind of led to Garrosh going down another, darker path. So thereâs an interesting tidbit for you.
It was interesting though, in the aspect of seeing that glimmer of what he could have been.
Well he was good at the other way. He did well at that. He was a good killer and plunderer and murderer.
3 Likes
Yes I know about the quote, but can you highlight were it says things changed? Cause the only thing I see is
So clearly to me the plan was for Garrosh to be the villain and nothing changed about that.
For me, the significant part was this:
3 Likes
Which was followed up with miscommunication on his part and not sticking to the plan?
Right. In other words, a change.
How? The plan was for him to be a villain. Just because a single writer misunderstood this plan and wrote something different and then said whoops my bad. How does this imply a change was made?
Alex says he wanted to bring him around, but that wasnât part of the plan. How do you take this as a change occurred in the narrative?