I wouldn’t bother with that one, I recognize him now. He pops up every now and then to rant about there not being enough muscle-bound psycopathic morons in the plot anymore.
Just as a preview of what you’re dealing with lol
8 Likes
Mentioning is easy, I want to see a refutation of the argument that mischaracterizing each of the races by making them humanized is not a bad situation that needs to be corrected immediately.
Okay, it’s not a bad situation and it doesn’t need to be corrected immediately.
I’m glad we had this talk.
“I want to see a refutation to my false premise, bad faith argument and cherry picked list”
1 Like
Cairne as a mid character? Man I would bring the dislike button back just to bombard this nonsense.
1 Like
It’s intentional, the people hired don’t care about your story. There’s other stuff being pushed to cancel out what used to be beloved.
2 Likes
Isn’t completely removing the fundamental characteristics of each race, making them all behave alike, not a bad situation?
You genuinely believe this?
Which of Cairne’s achievements impressed you the most that made you like this character so much?
They didn’t say they must die, but the possibility of an iconic character dying makes is more engaging than knowing that despite all the conflict, that character won’t die because lmao iconic character. The story would aslo be pretty unengaging if every expansion we knew a major character is going to die. Are big bads gonna die? Of course, but I think you would agree there’s a difference between killing Illidan and Arthas and killing the Jailor and Fyrakk. The former 2 were big figures in the lore, they had lots of build up that someone only playing WoW and reading no other canon material would’ve missed. The latter 2 didn’t have that, they were basically introduced into the lore and quickly killed off all in their respective expansions.
It may be World of Warcraft, but not every moment needs to be war and not every major figure needs to die for someone else to take their place in the story. Tess and Shandris’s stories may not have just begun, but there’s certainly time for them to develop as characters. It may be poor development, but that’s not on the characters, that’s on the writers.
1 Like
I don’t agree that individuals in a race should all have the same fundamental characteristics.
That’s bad writing.
1 Like
No one advocated that no one should ever die.
My position on the subject is that instead of creating 10 characters and killing 8 of them, make 2 of them neutral and create 2 new good characters.
Blizzard should create 10 characters, kill 5, create 5 more good characters.
We could have 3 garrosh, one of each clan, if blizz kills shattered hand leader it wouldn’t be a problem.
We could have 2 bolvars, 2 garithos… kill a lot of alliance characters. We could have a evil night elf… a right hand man of Genn… We could kill a lot of characters while story is still engaging and still has memorable characters.
His wisdom and peaceful nature; virtues you don’t find in many characters these day. Granted, the latter may seem overwhelming in recent events, hence it may feel a tad too forced; and obviously his incredible strength as a warrior…
Sure he was old but he was super strong. A boon even Garrosh recognized as a fellow warrior.
I have always praised the Tauren and Pandaren for the chill vibes they transmit.
1 Like
I don’t agree that there needs to be a specific number of these types of characters, or that when one of them dies, they immediately get replaced with a character that’s meant to essentially fulfill the same roll as the person they’re replacing. And by that I mean I don’t think if a good character dies another good character should take their place, and if a bad character dies a bad character should take their place. If that’s what you’re wanting, I could be misinterpreting what you mean, that would be painfully formulaic. If that’s not what you meant, you’ll need to elaborate further.
1 Like
It was just an example, like a “percentage”, a message, don’t kill most of your characters if you are not replacing them.
It has to happen.
Theres a reason why most series does not maintain the same quality after the protagonist dies.
Do you know the result of this equation?
So you like his personality, even if he has no deeds…i guess its ok… but he is not remotely comparable to Grommash for example…
Grom was a moron who almost got his species wiped out - twice.
edit: three times if you count his alternate universe self
Yeah, she was parked at Feathermoon Stronghold as a “General” since pre-BC.
They could do so much with her. Lead an army. Kick some butt.
1 Like
Grommash has feats that practically no character in the story had…
He ripped off Cenarius’ head within his own territory.
Only with the warsong clan without external assistance.
He killed Mannoroth he redeemed himself by beating Mannoroth 1v1 making the cliffhanger with the emblematic thralls quote “you didn’t save yourself, you saved us all”
Theres no more than 5 characters at this quality in whole franchise.
That’s fair.
Yes and no, some things end up dying off, like they eventually let the Lich King die as some big bad evil who’s always a threat.
Personally I don’t think the replacement needs to be immediate or have the same goals. Like Sylvannas becoming Warchief after Vol’jin and it ended up that she was working for a big bad (that took all agency from her actions, it was arguably way more interesting before).
I realize that Sylvannas wasn’t meant to be a Vol’jin replacement in the story as she was already a developed character with her own agenda, but that made things more interesting than “oh, the warchief died, well here’s… some new guy with all the same ideals.”
I don’t think any answer I can give would be your answer, so no. Please tell me.
It’s like mathematics.
If you have 5 characters equivalent in quality and you kill one of them without replacing another with the same quality, the equation can only be subtraction.
The whole post is about subtraction.
To this day we have not reached a moment in history that could surpass Arthas, Illidan, Kael, Kel’thuzad, Maiev, Grom… since this time there has only been subtraction.
Yeah, they aren’t replacing them at the same rate they’re dropping them. With TWW it seems they want to make Alleria a bigger character within the story, there’s also Xal’atath and Iridikron as antagonists. So while we may be losing memorable charcters, it’s not like they aren’t trying to make others more memorable. They’re just not doing “subtract 1, add 1, subtract 1, add 1.” Hopefully they don’t fumble these characters, but that might be too big of an ask.
Just because Grom had more cinematics and screen than Cairne doesn’t make it more… “Iconic”
Sure, he slain Mannoroth but you see, deeds of War are not always what makes a Hero, a Hero…
Here’s a few deeds of Cairne that did not turned his people into Fel minions:
- Founder of Thunder Bluff (founded an entire city, but I guess it’s not as cool as slaying a demon right?)
- United most of the Tauren (didn’t make them sip fel juice and turn them red, ahem…)
You see? You people miss your old zug zug WoW so much, you think that everything that comes afterwards is trash, and anything that revolves around the exact same narrative is good and healthy for the game.
In my opinion, the narrative will never be well received by everyone; it will be a constant battle of those who dislike it and those who appreciate it. It is really a lost cause to try to appease one side without trying to trigger the other, so I guess they should just go with whatever they have in mind.
1 Like