If you want to pursue this avenue, as the US did in the Bretton-Woods order that followed World War II, I could probably agree with you, but again, the Allies in such a situation started with disarmament. Japan had to accept a pacifist constitution, and Germany wasn’t even a unified country again until the end of the Cold War - and both countries still play host to massive US military presences, even as in the current geopolitical situation, the Bretton-Woods order is breaking down.
Again, could we do that in Warcraft? No - that would make for a really boring video game, but if we put ourselves in the shoes of people in the postwar situation: the first step in such a situation is disarmament and in getting the old regime mostly out of power. That the Alliance isn’t even attempting to do that because Anduin doesn’t want to is what I would call concerning.
These things all happened. That doesn’t mean they are the ideal or necessary route to reach that goal. And as said, this is a game. We could certainly have storylines involved in each side meaningfully taking steps to break down barriers.
We had the Suramar story highlight Blood Elves and Night Elves taunting each other. Could just as easily keep at it where some named NPC’s grow bonds working together. Maybe in one story some human mages help build a school while Orcs defend the spot from whatever.
I definitely agree the Alliance should be taking proactive steps to prevent another conflict.
I mean, we’re trying to have two separate conversations at once because, yes, this is a video game. My laying out what I think would be reasonable for the Alliance to do is a different conversation from what I think should be depicted in the game.
In the case of the former, we have discussed it. In the case of the latter - I expect that the Horde would never accept it, and that the Night Elves would never accept it. I would expect that tempers from the Alliance in people sans Anduin would be too hot to maintain the peace, and that war would break out again - and from a gameplay point of view, I would like that to be a regionally restricted, stalemate-bound PVP-focused experience taking place in and around battlegrounds - that is wholly disconnected from the PVE story where perhaps despite that, we could see cooperation.
Well in a game anything can happen. And I don’t think it would be too unusual. The Blood Elves managed to work with Undead and Orcs. The Orcs managed to hang with former humans. Some humans were starting to see Undead as people. Some Night Elves seem to be fine with the war ending overall. And that seems fine to me.
You could in-fact have it both ways. The main story to be one of progressing peace. And then regional conflicts still happen be it rogue Worgen or Night Elves. Disaffected Orcs/Trolls/Undead. This was similar to Vanilla where you had official cooperation with the events of Silithis while fighting still took place in the Battlegrounds.
Anything certainly could happen, but that leaves the question of “should it”, and I don’t think it should. This is the second time the Horde has rendered some big catastrophic loss on the Alliance only for the response to be muted and kind of pathetic in the end, without resolving things especially for the people who were hit the hardest. Where a 30 year rivalry is concerned and concerning a faction that already has image and framing issues when it comes to military competence against the rival? I think that’s a horrific state to leave things in.
That being said, I disagree strongly that this requires an ubernarrative focus - it’s just a matter of where the official stances of the respective nations are. Have the rogue elements be the ones who are looking for ways to band together to deal with what they see as the larger threats, while the nations remain at a simmering war.
Well I think it obvious at this point I think it should.
Say what you will about ‘war in Warcraft’, the message at the end of conflicts has still largely been breaking the cycle of violence. Warcraft 3 was trying to move past what the Horde was to a new era of cooperation. Garrosh was removed with Varian deciding not to have a drawn out, bloody conflict to wipe them out. Legion had the Armies of Legionfall stand despite what side the individuals were on. Battle for Azeroth as well was resolved with unity trying to rebuild from what took place. This isn’t touching on other aspects where it comes up, though obviously from the fact it happens a lot, it has been repeated often.
I’d find it very unenjoyable to disregard those messages for the idea of just more conflict.
Sure, which is why I think they should be proactive. In a good way.
I don’t think it needs to be the greater narrative coverage. But I think that’s the best path to resolve it. I think that sort of situation just leaves a lot more awkwardness like in Wrath, parts of Legion, and Warlords of Draenor. A whole lot of animosity over the Horde still looking in the bad for what’s going on. The Alliance still feeling meh about not being able to hurt the Horde in ways they consider meaningful.
If only there never had to be rogue elements to begin with. The Horde should have taken a kick in the teeth after MoP, and without a doubt during BfA. I don’t really even understand the idea of reparations in the context of this game, seriously?