You used my answer to that Christian mingle question as fodder for mockery, proving me correct. Now you backtrack and pretend it was just a joke to try and paint me as paranoid.
I do not think it is needed - however, I would not preclude it from a future story. I see why it could be interesting on many fronts. You seem to wish to rule it out for some odd reason… but I see potential for a good story.
We have many cliff hangers with the Light - from Yrel, to Calia, to Lothraxion, the connection to the Naaru and the Tear of Elune, Anduin’s memory magic, Anduin himself…
Your reflexive aversion to a diverse Light story is just horse pucky.
That is very presumptuous, when there has been little of it revealed.
You have displayed nothing but an aversion to an idea. Which is your opinion, and nothing more. Others have explained why a conflict with the Light has decent build up.
6 Likes
You misrepresent me @Cursewords (that’s been a running theme with a few people on this thread). I have explained why this conflict with the Light is bad writing. You supporting this Light conflict is also just an opinion, like me opposing it. My opinion may be the less popular one, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
We’ve already had this story with the Scarlet Crusade. It’s not a reflexive aversion on my part, it’s opposition of contrarianism and a ham-fisted rehash and villain-batting.
There’s potential for a good story there, but Blizzard has almost completely destroyed my trust that they’ll deliver, especially given how poorly handled certain stories have been and how one-eyed the Mag’har recruitment scenario was.
Good. That is just about all you needed to say.
What story… that is not every potential story imaginable. There can be stories involving the Light that are beyond the Scarlet Crusade. I do not think that is the only way to portray the Light.
I think Yrel would have a decidedly less Crimson vibe, and go more for Blues.
To say we had “this story” is to pretend there is only one way to tell a story - as it has been told.
You lack vision.
2 Likes
By claiming that’s all I needed to say, you’re essentially saying to me “agree with me and shut up.”
I don’t lack vision, I’m saying we’ve already had a Light fanaticism story with the Scarlet Crusade. Doing this again with Yrel and the AU Draenei is a rehash, I call it “Scarlet Crusade 2: Electric Boogaloo, starring AU Draenei and Naaru”. And I have repeatedly given reasons for my view.
This type of story you’re endorsing is cliché in current media. In fact, it’s a Blizzard cliché too. This story you want with Yrel and the naaru… Blizzard already did this story with;
- The Arcturus Mengsk-era Dominion and the Protoss in Starcraft
- The Vishkar Corporation in Overwatch
- Some of the High Heavens plus Malthael’s reapers in Diablo.
- The Scarlet Crusade in World of Warcraft.
Blizzard was even setting up the Titans this way before switching gears and doing it to the Naaru. I think you’re only championing it because it appeals to you, not because it’s “visionary”. There’s stories with Naaru and Yrel beyond “fanaticism” and “extreme order is as bad as extreme chaos”.
The Christian Mingle question was the mockery. I’m not backtracking anything. It was a joke. You’re showing yourself to be unsure in your thoughts and are feeling insecure about being convinced you’re wrong. Relax.
First you deny mocking me, then you admit you were mocking me but claim I was wrong about how; you’re still trying to gaslight me.
Let’s all agree to stop the personal attacks and get back to the topic of WoW lore, particularly Sylvanas.
I’m not trying to gaslight you. You think that because you won’t allow yourself to recognize that someone made you change your mind in an honest manner. It’s fine to be wrong sometimes. You were already unsure of yourself but since you won’t accept that how you think of the situation is flawed you’re putting the blame elsewhere.
Your attempts to gaslight me have gotten so over-the-top, it’s become entertaining. I await your next attempt lol
You wouldn’t call it gaslighting if you were confident with yourself.
1 Like
I find that irrelevant to WoW lore. I never played those games, and events in those games should not effect events in Warcraft’s lore.
The bible has evil in its stories… so no other story can have evil? Nonsense.
Well that shows how foolish you are being.
You think I am championing a cause simply because I see potential in a good story? But even you outright stated as much :
You see it. You said it. We agree there.
So that makes you a Champion of Yrel being the villain in an Expansion with the Light as an antagonist.
Because simply acknowledging the potential of a story makes one a Champion of it in your eyes.
I am glad to see you be the Champion of villain batting Yrel. Someone has to be.
3 Likes
Your last attempt was better, but have a pity like on me.
I brought up those stories from other Blizzard franchises as proof that this type of story they want with Yrel is cliché. Plus, as I said and you tried to ignore, Blizzard also set up the Titans for that story arc (Algalon, “Re-origination”, the Mogu) before turning and doing it to the Naaru instead.
Picture the Scarlet Crusade as multiracial, picture Inquisitor Whitemane as a Draenei, replace the undead Scourge with the Iron Horde, and replace Nathrezim corruption with Naaru leadership; that’s the “Lightbound” story in a nutshell.
Blizzard should’ve shown that Yrel and her group have legitimate grievances with the state of AU Draenor and the Mag’har instead of a hackneyed fanaticism arc, that is the potential good story I was referring to; my idea, not the tripe Blizzard slapped us with.
You seem to view stories only in black and white.
Again you are being presumptuous.
You acknowledge that we only see the Maghar side because the Maghar recruitment is our only window to it.
We do not know why Draenor is dying. We dont know what happened. There is no harm in exploring that story. It is incomplete, and likely designed as such, to lay the ground work for the future.
You seem resigned to lamenting about a story that has not occured. Which, I guess is something to do until we actually do see what is going on with Yrel.
2 Likes
You were originally talking about (and trying to troll me about) the depiction of Yrel’s group, the AU Naaru and the Light, @Cursewords. You’ve said several things including, quote " Others have explained why a conflict with the Light has decent build up." and “We have many cliff hangers with the Light - from Yrel, to Calia…”
Don’t try to pretend this is suddenly about you wanting to explore whatever’s killing AU Draenor? (I know the question of what’s killing AU Draenor is literally a he-said, she-said situation).
I gave my reasons for opposing the story arc. Answer me this; why did Blizzard give such a one-eyed portrayal of the AU Draenei and Naaru in that story?
Don’t blame me, blame Blizzard for their one-eyed protrayal of Yrel and the AU Draenei in that scenario.
Dark content, shock value, contrarianism or subverting expectations don’t automatically equal good storytelling. And a lack of those things isn’t automatically bad storytelling. Twists work better when they don’t rely on out-of-character moments and retcons.
I pointed out above, that you are the one being contrarian. The lore and the narrative are not cut and dry or black and white. I can see this arguement being valid if we were only presented with one PoV, and people were contrarian in choosing the wrong PoV, but you treat anyone with a different PoV than you as contrarian. It’s a bit wierd.
How can anyone be contrarian in this forum when the narrative presents us with many conflicting and valid points of view? You are assuming your subjectivity is fact when it’s not. This is why i accuse you of having a puritanical stance, if it’s not shiny and pretty and objectively good, than you see it as dark and edgy and contrarian. No one else thinks like that.
It just seems like you call everyone a contrarian edgelord for liking different things than you. Or liking darker subject matter and that, I think, is more about your own subjective view of media than legitimate criticism of the story.
Other people are not afraid to like and explore darker themes. It doesn’t make them contrarian. In fact having empathy for villians withba tragic backstory, or allowing yourself to experience negativity, dissapointment, anger, grief, etc all those darker sides of humanity, is emotional maturity.
Also BITE:
B- You get triggered by random irrelevant things, you try to police this forum against “edgy” content.
I- you don’t take accountability for doing your own research on any topic you must be presented with information to refute your claims, once presented with infomation that refutes your claims, you dismiss the information as false. You are unwilling to examine any new information that may challenge your held opinions.
E- you take every response against you as an attack, you play the victim. You get others to believe you are being victimized when you are not.
I made the assumption you are evangelical and alt right, maybe incel, because these groups use this method of indoctrination and control. You are possibly in a cult or have been indoctrinated by a cult, if not than I’m sorry for making personal assumptions. But this isn’t normal behaviour which makes me question where you are coming from or what your background is because it’s not just attacking your faith, we fundimentally share the same faith, it’s something else.
You don’t just dislike me because I like Sylvanas. You dislike me because I’m a woman who left the church…lets unpack that. It could explain why you are having such a hard time here.
1 Like
Calling me edgelord and/or contrarian doesn’t bother me. The contrarianism I meant is in the subversion… setting up a group as good then dashing that (remember good ≠ perfect). It’s a common cliché in Blizzard’s stories alone, they already did this with;
- The Protoss in Starcraft
- Some of the angels in Diablo
- The Vishkar Corporation in Overwatch
- The Titans from Wrath to Mists (with Alaglon, “re-origination” and the Mogu).
It just seems like you’re lying about me to try and undermine my points. Just because I’ve called some of the people I’ve disagreed with - including yourself - contrarian and edgelord, doesn’t mean I’ve done it to everyone. I think, it’s more about your own subjective feelings towards the current story than legitimate counterarguments against my reasons and the facts I’ve presented.
Other people are not afraid of clear cut “good vs evil”. It doesn’t make them boring or immature. In fact, simply having dark elements or negative emotions in a for shock value, to offend specific people or just for the sake of having them is immature.
The BITE Model was made to describe the specific methods that authoritarian groups use to recruit and maintain control (each letter referring to a type of behavior the cult controls; B - Behavioral Control. I - Information Control. T - Thought Control. E - Emotional Control). It’s not for assessing people’s reactions, and your “BITE” claims about me are all wrong. Take your own advice and research what Steve’s BITE model actually is. However;
- B - I don’t try to police the story forums against edgy content or threaten anyone… But you encourage pro-Sylvanas group think and try to smack down people who challenge that.
- I - I do my own research, and research what others say (as seen with my refutation explaining how you’ve misapplied Steve’s BITE model), but you deceive by deliberately withholding or distorting information in your arguments, along with misquoting statements or using them out of context.
- T - While I don’t try to control people’s thoughts, you and I have both used buzz words in our arguments, albeit you moreso than me, plus you’ve also used loaded language.
- E - I don’t try to make people feel like it’s always their fault… but I think you’ve tried to do that to me. You’ve definitely tried to foster in me identity guilt and social guilt.
Looking at the methods of control described in the BITE model and comparing how we’ve conducted ourselves in our interactions… you fit the criteria for the abusive controller that the BITE model describes more than me (examples of your past behavior are in bold for emphasis).
I’ve never tried to bring you back to the church or tried to tear you down for leaving it, so that accusation falls flat. My dislike for you comes from your attitude, your hypocrisy and your dishonesty, nothing more.
The subversion of expectations is an important part of story telling, it’s what keeps things fresh and Interesting. I get why you may dislike this writing trope but it’s not edgy or contrarian.
You are just digging yourself a hole at this point with the rest of your response. We don’t have to interact. I’m willing to never engage with you on any topic again. But you don’t have a problem with just me and you are going to keep encountering pushback. In trying to keep this forum a fair place for discussion for everyone, all I’m asking of you is to examine your own behaviour once and a while.
That’s not an unreasonable request.
What you know about me would barely fill a thimble, @Renautus. Subversion of expectations has been overused in media, often in conjunction with contrarian storylines and edgy content, especially in the past decade. It’s becoming stale and boring.
By your logic about subverting expectations, M. Night Shyamalan should be a more high-grossing, more skilled and respected director than Steven Spielberg which, despite Shyamalan’s own achievements, is clearly not the case.
You said you were going to block me, but it looks like you were once again lying. You could choose to ignore me, but it looks like you can’t. I have been examining my own behavior from time to time, try practicing what you preach.
1 Like