No, its the Faction POV. HORDE AND ALLIANCE FACTION POV.
Faction point of view by having characters think and act, yes. We see what Cordressa thinks. We see what Delaryn thinks. We see what Saurfang thinks.
But none of what they think syncs up with what we literally experience. Danuser told us that characters are flawed. This is a book about character POVs.
2 Likes
but we also see things happening on both sides and if everyone sees the same thing…the same thing will have happened, and by the way, POV’s can be wrong but don’t have to be.
What happened ingame is the cheap version of WOT:
Zahirwrite, they used the books to lie to players. Danuser confirmed that you cannot take characters as objectively factual. Sylvanas THINKS she is not behind her ascension to Warchief, but she is. This is but one billet of evidence against you.
We were at the War of Thorns. No civilians fought. Ergo, the flawed characters that Danuser told us were not objectively factual, are wrong.
2 Likes
then…but both can be right, then what a pov says can also be right…it can be right or wrong, so we don’t know anything more, also your statement is just a POV…nothing more, yours and so…I can now go here and say…is just a Pov from you, because you´re a salty hordeplayer…who doesn’t like civilians busting his factions-army
Blizzard: Characters are not objectively factual.
Blizzard: Provides an event where no night elf civilians fight the Horde.
Blizzard: Provides two books where characters say they did.
Zahirwrite: Has heard Blizzard state that Characters are not objectively factual.
Zahiirwrite: The characters know more than the players who were there.
2 Likes
Danuser was obviously referring to hearsay and rumors, not personal accounts of events. Just because an NPCs account may not be 100% accurate, doesn’t make it “wrong” or a lie.
It’s “as accurate as any reasonable person can determine given the narrator’s given point-of-view or available information.”
So no, not being 100% correct in NOT being 100% wrong. Your personal account of an event isn’t 100% accurate either, being of your limited perception of events. Also because game events from the perspective of the player ARE NOT CANNON!
You don’t see everything that NPCs see the same as they don’t see what you see.
And about 50% of that the player dies in game isn’t lore. It’s game mechanics.
1 Like
Danuser was referring to events such as the trolls recounting how Genn murdered Rastakhan.
Which is exactly like the books. Flawed, angry characters with flawed, angry perspectives.
Source?
he thinks that the night elves were portrayed too good in the WOT Novels…and is salty about it…not a serious statement from him.
3 Likes
Which is what I said. Hearsay and rumors.
15 years of killing Sylvannas again and again but yet, here she is, still a Thorne in our sides.
You killing guards in one corner of a city does not mean that that the bulk of the army that was spread throughout the zone wasn’t fighting off defending civilians everywhere you WEREN’T.
According to cannon, there were civilians. Just because YOU PERSONALLY didn’t encounter them from your perspective doesn’t mean they weren’t there.
1 Like
That’s not a player’s narrative quest, Faelia. That’s PVP.
The War of Thorns was a story written for us to interact with. Fighting Sylvanas in the Undercity, is not.
3 Likes
not quite right…bevore archievments…they were quests…pvp quests…^^
In the Year of Our Lord 2,004 this game was not a narrative driven game like it is now. If you can’t tell the difference in quests from vanilla and the War of Thorns, literally no one can help you.
3 Likes
Then Danuser’s statement only applies from now on? Your logic is highly arbitrary.
Before, you’d argued with the past.
like i said before, you´re salty because wot…
1 Like
Danuser’s logic doesn’t really apply to quests. They aren’t character opinions. And no one took the “kill the leader” quests as canon to begin with. We didn’t have achievements, like you said, and it was just a pvp quest to keep PVPers happy.
War of Thorns is a narrative quest where the Horde conquers Ashenvale and Darkshore, only to look on in horror as Sylvanas kills a billionty actual civilians.
1 Like
but it’s more complicated …and more extensive…than you want to show here, because you have a problem with it, because it makes the Horde too weak for you, which the night elves did, and so you’re trying to put it into perspective now, because it suits you better that way.
It actually becomes incredibly less complicated if the books – which are told by unreliable narrators – were correct, because it’d mean the Horde just killed a billionty civilians and shouldn’t be shocked by a billionty more.
That is not the story that Blizzard told. Everyone takes issue with Teldrassil, save for Geyarrah. It is treated like a grievous sin.
Now tell me, Zahirwrite.
Why is it treated like a sin if we just killed an army of civilians?
The books do not match up with the story the expansion tells.
1 Like
That is exactly the story blizzard told and now they want to desperately hand wave it away and pretend it didn’t happen.
5 Likes
It reminds me of when other games put really cool fight scenes in cutscenes. Like, wow that looks awesome - can I play that since this is, ya know, an interactive medium?
Only its lazier than that. They just wrote about it after the fact. It’s in a bit of optional reading the game never even tells you about. Hell if I didn’t post on the forums and listen to WoW news Youtubers - if I just played the game like the vast majority of players do - I’d likely never even know about it.
And that’s what drives me up the wall about Blizz’s storytelling. Not only is so much of the story outside the game but between Edge of Night’s invisible Jailor paragraphs and this quote - those stories are also subject to change on a whim.
It’s just so lazy. As someone who loves story telling in all it’s forms and dreams of doing it professionally it offends me on a creative level. I’ve never seen a franchise that regards it’s own narrative with such contempt.
12 Likes
Ah.
Slept through literally all of the multi thousand dollar cinematics, did we?