"Only I can save this world!"

I’m sure it’s been said as much but I only skimmed through so I’m saying it like this anyways.

Blizzard just kinda doesn’t with the writing.

The stuff they do poorly, they double down on. They stuff they do well, they throw away. From villains to cultures to flavour text. My assumption is that they have to balance appealing to a broad (other times, a specific) demographic against whatever the not money folk are trying to do to cobble it all together in any sort of satisfying way. When they aren’t just making bad decisions wholesale.

I’m sure it’s not easy but they sure do seem to like making it harder for everyone.

2 Likes

After playing the Warcraft Series from Warcraft 2 all the way up to the modern times (Battle for Azeroth) I think it’s safe to say - in my judgement - that Warcraft has certainly changed, and not for the better. Warcraft at its start had a continuous storyline but throughout the introduction of World of Warcraft its become incredibly hazy and mismanaged that frequently and effectively participates in self-cannibalization to ensure its own longevity. It’s come to the point that this itself has made expansions themselves so different that they’re not effectively a continuation of the storyline anymore but feel like a constant retelling done by different authors.

“No, ‘X’ didn’t happen like that; It happened like this!”

“No, ‘Y’ was always the good guy, despite what they’ve done.”

"Actually ‘Z’ had a situation of it happening instead.’

And throughout the entirety of World of Warcraft, the constant reiterations of Warcraft’s Story has efficiently cut any and all ties and endearment to the franchise because most characters, places, and the timeline itself - barring few and monumental incidents - are so liable to change in such drastic movements that it feels tiring to attach ourselves to them.

Warcraft’s focus, from a meta look on it, seems to have changed. At the start during Vanilla up to Mists of Pandaria it began and felt like you were a character taking place in the world. Where, despite how powerful and ‘renowned’ you became. Each character, storyline, place made it feel incredible. Characters didn’t require or need to have the ‘benighted, misguided hero’ telling which has become synonymous with the current zeitgeist of Warcraft, they held their own grievances, did their own things, and their attributes both positive and negative allowed them to navigate the world like characters in a play with no ‘writer’.

However, moving onward with World of Warcraft into Warlords of Draenor it felt like there was some pullback to how the story was treated. And eventually there was an exchange for the game and how it was written to focus more on the characters themselves with the world taking a backseat to it. Instead of characters supplementing the word and adding their own charm, at Warlords of Draenor it was now the world adding the background and medium to give the scenes which the characters take place.

I believe the problem with World of Warcraft is that its writers and development (not the art team, to be specific) are either too inexperienced or have their own views on how the story should play out. And the problem with their inexperience is that they cannot write a convincingly good story so that people can nod their heads and agree. And because of it there’s no inherent acceptance of a character’s morality, but instead Blizzard’ own view of the character’s morality is mantled upon them and any deviance or differentiating outlook is decried as wrong. “Sylvanas isn’t bad – Just wait and see! Nevermind the, uh… Teldrassil.” Ectera.

And its starting to show its cracks. Characters feel more of a placebo nowadays than what they once were, and there’s ultimately a stymieing of growth or introduction of various characters that may hold alternative views, maniacally antagonistic or otherwise. A lot of the characters in both the Horde or the Alliance - at its forefront - are coming to be more and more similar despite their backgrounds. And those that still do hold grievances are shown to be in a bad light. This is also affecting races as, due to the focus shifting from the world to set characters, most development for them is shelved so that the characters get more screen time. World building has become attached to character development. As almost every main quest you’re now accompanied by a character that will be affected or effect things down the line. Personally it feels a bit like handholding a child.

Villains are introduced to be misguided because it gives them a more viable reason to bring them back and go through “Redemption Arcs”. So instead of having antagonists who are wholly magnanimous, like Gul’dan, burn brightly and die out suitably. Villains are then ran into the ground by trying to showcase things from their point of view and having it explained thoroughly through exposition or heavy-handed “Watch and See” instead of having it found out. Arthas from WotLK is an excellent indicator of what WoW’s storytelling once was.

World of Warcraft is suffering a personality crisis. It wants to have its cake and eat it too. In comparison and contrast another MMORPG does this and has it in spades with its most recent expansion, eclipsing WoW’s ability on making villains sympathetic and having an engaging storyline: FFXIV. Wherein WoW tries to live up to a self-set standard, it feels constantly like they’re losing their own grip. Through character stumblings, rewriting things, rushing through scenes, and not allowing things to ferment and feel natural, it’s become quite bad for the setting and its shelf life in general.

1 Like

It’s easy to create a sympathetic villain tbh, just have him be played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan.

I think pretty much every one loves Negan, despite Negan straight up murdering two heroes in his series in cold blood that were beloved by fans long before he ever came on the show.

Which brings up my main point, you have to make the villain charming, likeable, someone who in a different circumstance you would definitely hang out an dshare a beer with. The fact that Negan beat the skulls out of Glenn and Abraham are what makes him a terrible person, not who he was before the apocalypse.

What makes Thanos so sympathetic is you can see the genuineness in his tone and manner despite what he’s doing being clearly horrible. That’s an extremely delicate and hard thing to master, and it’s something I still haven’t been able to master in my own novel (one of my big bads is still unlikeable about seventeen drafts later, drat).

The enemy who just wants to watch the world burn is easy to hate, the king who mistreats his lady and gets poisoned on his wedding day is easy to hate, but a villain isn’t always evil, their goals just don’t align with ours.

The opposing team in a Hockey movie is the villain, even though they aren’t inherently evil, they are standing in the way of our hero’s goals. Two different towns at war for resources in a book are not necessarily fighting good or evil, they are just standing in each other’s path to their own goals. The vikings weren’t really bad guys, they were trying to get resources to survive in their own time.

Being able to see the villains point of view is important for a villain you want to understand, and that is something we don’t really need for a black and white this is the enemy boss fight.

Link CAN just beat up Ganon because he is the clear cut villain of the series, Sonic can zip around making Dr. Eggman dizzy until he crashes, since Dr. Eggman is designed to be the final pinata of the game. You just have to know what you want to acheive with your villain, do you want to make someone we can feel happy about finally crushing their face in? Or do you want to be able to look back and say “huh, maybe he was right after all”, and that is a tricky thing to acheive in a game where we all want to get loot, becaus the villain has to die either way.

Though I do think Blizzard’s verison of literal Darth Vader was their best attempt at it; Arthas achieved it more than any other villain they created imo, I saw his side of it at Stratholme, I saw Muradin’s side of it in Northrend, I saw Illidan fail despite trying everything when Arthas finished his fall into darkness. Arthas is the tragic hero turned villain we all want, and he hasn’t been replicated since.

I think it started way before Warlords of Draenor. I’d say the seeds of it were in Burning Crusade and REALLY started in Wrath of the Lich King.

If you look at the trailer for Vanilla, it’s all about the world. The game was about exploration. The only overarcing threat was really the Horde/Alliance, as you don’t learn about the threat posed by the likes of Hakkar, Onyxia, or the Quiraji until end game.

BC changed it up a bit. The trailer showed us some cool stuff happening in the world, but it also made Illidan the narrator and a big selling point, letting us know that the expansion was going to center around him. And indeed, all throughout the game, it was clear that the conflict of every zone circled back around to Illidan and his machinations.

Wrath of the Lich King took this to the next level. The announcement trailer featured Arthas and the Scourge exclusively. Didn’t even bother to feature anything else. The pre-patch saw his armies attacking us. The guy was on the cover. The entire expansion was just us fighting our way to him. Arthas gets the kind of sad death scene you’d think would be reserved for a faction leader.

And people loved WotLK.

I think that really emboldened Blizzard to start doing expansions where the bulk of the focus is on some big central antagonist. It’s also easier to just write and market a single antagonist and put them at the center of a big bombastic story, as opposed to creating a “not story” of exploration and adventure, where the antagonists are unknown or slowly revealed over the course of the expansion through in game events.

1 Like

I think the biggest thing about it is that it’s okay to have a certain theme. Illidan and Arthas were the prime selling points, but what effectively made those expansions were not just the lead up to fighting Illidan/Arthas, but also that they themselves ingratiated themselves into the world.

The Burning Crusade wasn’t just about the Illidari, though they were a prominent force, it was also about Shattrath, The Ogri’la, Quel’danas/Sunwell, Aldor & Scryers, The Broken, The Arrakoa, the Ogres, Gruul, ectera.

Some didn’t even need to tie into the storylines of bigger stuff. But they felt like actors in their own world that reacted and acted with their own volition.

Similar to Wrath of the Lich King. Sure, you had Arthas, but what did you also have? Malygos waging his war. The Oracles & Wolvar going at it in Sholazar Basin. Dalaran being a forward base of operations for people. The Silver Convenant and the Sunreavers being spiteful to one another. Yogg-Saron getting amped up. The Ulduar Pantheon. The Vrykul in both Icecrown and Howling Fjord. Even the Trolls.

Where everything was a multitude of pillars helping support the overarching storyline there’s, nowadays, just one singular pillar. Everything exists in Battle for Azeroth to be focusing on the war – then the Old Gods.

1 Like

A lot of the various WC3 campaigns is corny, but it’s got some good moments too.
Arthas betraying Uther still hits pretty hard, and characters like Cairne are genuinely likable.

BC was not about the Illidari. But it was largely about ILLIDAN and his machinations. There were indeed some side quests involving other things, but for example, the whole Quel’thas/Sunwell/Keael’thas thing, the problems faced by the Naga, the Broken, the Arrakoa, etc all came back to Illidan.

Illidan was an intrinsic element of the vast majority of the expansion’s central storylines. Vanillas was chock full of conflicts that had absolutely nothing to do with the end game raid bosses the way Illidan was relevant throughout BC.

But like I said, BC was just the beginning.

Again, these are largely smaller stories confined entirely to a single quest line or zone. The greater expansion story is all about the Lich King, whose presence impacts each of these other zone’s stories whether directly or indirectly. Arthas had a central presence in the expansion’s narrative that not even Illidan had.

BfA continues in the same vein as the above. Sylvanas shows up as the central antagonist and kicks off the central conflict. We go and explore some other places- dealing with the Zandalari coup, Ashvane conspiracies, Vulpera/Sethrak issues, Drust and Tidespeakers, Mechagnomes, Unshackled, etc. But just like everything kept coming back around to Illidan, Arthas. Deathwing, etc, it all kept coming back around to Sylvanas and the campaign for/against her.

And they’re doing the same thing with Shadowlands. We already know Sylvanas/Jailer are going to be the big overarching story. Sure, we’re going to see some stuff with the covenants and some other stories, but the main story is going to be, “Where are they, what’re they doing, and how do we get to them and stop them?” with everything else being tangentially related to that.

1 Like

There’s actually a lot of classical questlines and factions that feed into bigger entities both raids and dungeons. The Defias were connected and kidnapped Varian for Onyxia, the Dark Irons were effectively adjoined to Molten Core, and the Silithid were engendered the Opening of Ahn Quiraj, amongst other things more numerous factions that had bigger and darker ties.

The argument i’m making isn’t that the representation of things feed back into the major antagonist of the expansion, but rather to delineate and propose that there is a suspension of disbelief within each and every notable individual and organization. That, within themselves, they are written to act with autonomy and have believable parameters that set them to be not only a distinct but also enjoyable faction to interact with - on unfriendly or unfriendly terms. Because naturally the writing is about cause and effect so too can each and everything be traced to the nominal antagonist and their faction at the current or preceding expansion(s).

The notion that i’m giving is that with the shift of narrative focus the lens has dropped and thus the storytelling of World of Warcraft has been hampered because of it. Wherein morality could be intuitive and, in some cases, was ambiguous on their intentions and goals beyond the actualization of what they wanted at the time, has now been eschewed for the divine hand of the writers asserting that such ambiguity is only good when it serves to mask their own inadequacies as giving their characters a believable tale.

With the narrative focus on select characters it has been exchanged towards many scenes within Battle for Azeroth that has been ultimately detrimental to the storyline as in best comparative terms they’re a new take on the Siege of Orgrimmar. Due to the inability to weave a good overarching storyline most of the narrative has gotten into an eccentric, erratic pacing where most things are brushed over or feel handwaved, at worst any actual accomplishments within the war felt less of an interest facet that could be explored and instead more of something that just felt filler and disheartening, and the civil war between the Horde decidedly left the Alliance with nothing exceptional other than baseline reactionaries who’ve only had their hand played at the ending which felt incredibly rushed. The overarching story is ragged as it is now, and the only real highlight it felt like was Mechagon. There could be many things that could’ve been included to help understand what was happening and why certain factions acted the way they did instead of being hit with the villain bat, and those that were already villainous factions could have been given more of a brush to understand. What happened to cause most of the Sethrak to align towards becoming a despotic slaving empire? What caused the Blood Trolls to incidentally move towards Ghuun worshipping? What -is- the Vulpera culture and how do they interact as a society, beyond the nominal terms of simply being an expy of caravansaries and Berber nomads. And so on.

The nature of my argument isn’t that its inherently dichotomous in nature with what i’m extolling and what you’re representing; our arguments are one in the same but two sides of the same coin. Within an MMORPG when the world itself fails to spill why they themselves turned out to be the way they are, or what encompasses them as a people/society, then it becomes grasping for some to understand and the world itself feels a little less than what it could be.

When we fought the Defias, we didn’t do so with the understanding that we were working our way up to Onyxia. When we counter the Dark irons, the narrative wasn’t that we were on our way to defeat Ragnaros. When we fought the Sillithid, the story wasn’t about how we had to get through them to get to the renewed Quiraji empire. Those were natural progressions born out exploration and discovery.

What has happened is that WoW has stopped making the conflicts and stories natural escalations. Instead it’s started focusing more on a central antagonist as the catalyst, and making more stories about how we chew through their forces and foil their plans up until we get to them. It means the whole story of the expansion/continent is shaped by a single villain from beginning to end. As we have more stories, there is no “discovering” what the true threat is. They’re in the trailer. They’re all over the advertising. The story ID’s them as the big bad from beginning to end.

This is why later world building/exploration elements feel more tacked on. Because they’re derived less from the inherent conflict and more from the idea that these are just parts of the story we go through on our way to the final boss.

I think Pandaria had potential to be something different. For much of the expansion, the Horde civil war was a Horde only storyline. It progressed rather naturally. But then they decided to make Garrosh the big bad and now the Horde/Alliance stories and characters have to start bending themselves towards that final boss fight. If MoP had given the Alliance its own separate story with its own conflicts instead of forcing Garrosh into the role “grand enemy of all endboss” in the same vein as Illidan/Arthas/Deathwing/Sargeras/Sylvanas, I think the story would have been all the better for it.

If Sylvanas hadn’t been billed as our enemy of everyone from darn the beginning, indeed, BfA would have been freer to explore the stories of the Vulpera, Sethrak, Drust, and Tidespeakers.

I think there is a dichotomy at work. WoW tends to be at its best when the stories are about the Horde/Alliance independently dealing with local/regional threats that culminate into a boss fight that gets rid of them before they can even become a global threat.

It’s at its weakest when the world-threatening villain bursts onto the scene at the outset, and the story is about the Horde/Alliance having to team up to fight through their armies and take them down.

3 Likes

I’m going to disagree slightly and say this isn’t so much a problem of always using the transparent villain model and more a problem of using the transparent villain model when it isn’t appropriate.

Having faction leaders, for example, like Garrosh and Sylvanas, as transparent villains creates two problems, problems that should sound incredibly familiar–the faction with the villain (the Horde) feels like their agency is stripped because they’re being forced to go along with someone they know is a villain that they’ll have to kill, and the faction without the villain (the Alliance) feels left out and pushed to the side because the primary conflict surrounds the other faction.

This makes the story not fun, hides details from half the playerbase, and has the added logistical issue of trying to make a villain out of a character that, for some reason, wasn’t a villain for all of these years. That presents a lot of areas for disconnect, confusion, and frustration.

I think lots and lots and lots of stories, including video games and including WotLK, are very successful, fun, and functional with a transparent villain model. They don’t function the way they do in Vanilla/Classic exactly, but I don’t think it’s a problem that the story works differently now than it did in Vanilla/Classic. WoW doesn’t have to always be a sandbox.

If someone wants one, then obviously that’ll be a personal preference problem, and they might have to go somewhere else or to Classic, but that’s not a normative indictment of the state of WoW’s storytelling. WoW being good is not “Be like Classic or bust.”

I think a transparent villain model, where we know what we’re going to do at the end of the expansion, can be successful. But you need to know what kind of villain you’re working with and what relationship they have to the existing world–perhaps most importantly, whether or not we all already know they’re a villain that needs to be stopped, and also, whether or not there are any detriments or inconsistencies with billing them at the outset as a villain.

EDIT: I was lazy and didn’t read the thread up to this point. I may have made an error here, though I don’t know what it is yet.

3 Likes

I… like this assessment quite a bit because it neatly and clearly encapsulates one of WoW’s biggest ongoing problems. Regardless of your faction, you can’t do -anything- if you’re not on board with where it’s already going. It’s so monumentally frustrating.

2 Likes

That was a thing, wasn’t it? Honestly, that’s an example of firing off an idea before it was fully formed. You’d think a war against the use of magic would be a bigger deal than contained to a handful of sidequests and a raid.

1 Like

Oh I don’t mean to say be like Classic or bust. It’s not about being about Classic. I think transparent villain in big save the world plots can’t work. But I don’t think Blizzard is particularly good at them when compared to smaller scale threats encountered during leveling or at the end of zones or facing more localized threats.

The zone stories tend to give development and depth to characters outside of the faction leaders. The smaller stakes also mean people can take up a wider variety of positions without seeming extremist. When the story becomes about stopping the final battle to defeat the big bad, Blizzard laser targets on the faction leaders and their focus becomes defeating the world threat. And they all eventually have to be more or less on the same page because the story demands they do or else the world gets destroyed.

For instance, in, Cataclysm, I enjoyed the storylines in the revamped zones and the war itself were more interesting than the fight to save the world from Deathwing.

In Legion, I enjoyed the story of the Nightborne deal with their addiction, or the unification the Highmuntain tribes under Mayla more than I enjoyed directly fighting to stop the Legion.

In BfA, exploring Pandaria, fighting the Mogu, dealing with the Klaxxi, the Isle of Thunder, and even the battle for control of the Horde was more interesting when Garrosh wasn’t eating the heart of an old god and deciding all non-orcs should indeed die.

Or in BfA, I think the stories behind the Zandalari coup, fighting rogue Sethrak, or fighting the Blood trolls to revive Torga were better done than the greater fight against Sylvanas.

I think I might enjoy Shadowlands more if I didn’t go into it knowing that the final boss is going to be the Sylvanas/Jailer and that everything I’m doing is kind of a side quest, or ultimately secondary, or just one in several steps towards that greater goal in patch 9.3.

If that makes sense.

3 Likes

Blizzard’s always been good at the zone level storytelling. It’s just tying everything together falls incredibly flat.

The Drust just kind of…exist.

2 Likes

Who is actually rationally empathizing with Megatron, Skeletor, Cobra Commander and The Joker. Horus is kind of pushing it too.

1 Like

People… rationally… empathize with Skeletor?

2 Likes

All this list is missing is “Caesar’s Legion in New Vegas was justified because I have Plot Armor and one guy said they have safe roads” for a high score.

1 Like

horus is a mass-murdering genocidal nightmare-worshipping fascist monster i think that empathising with him may be the wrong choice

1 Like

The onnnnnnnnnnnly reason I even consider him getting less than a third of a thimble full of “I guess” is - at least when I was last reading the books which was oh god like 15 years ago now I hate getting old - there was a great, great deal of sorcery and manipulation from cosmic forces involved in making him become a nightmare-worshipping fascist monster but I give him that third of a thimble in the same headspace as I don’t really “get” the redemption arc/worship of Illidank Whinepants and other villains-but-they-had-a-good-reason-to-be-scum-I-swear but say sure I guess.

1 Like

Who is rationally empathizing with Skeletor???

W̶̧̨͙̬͙͉̓͒́̅͝H̷̙̜̹͉̻̠̆̂̋̋́͠O̶̻̐̊

1 Like