Well, ultimately Boralus was designed as an Alliance hub, just as Dazar Alor was designed as a Horde hub.
in this term, it should matter to you 
3 Likes
You’re in a Night Elf thread, evidently trying to tell Night Elf players why they should be satisfied with the state of things.
So if Boralus is your answer, then defend it.
1 Like
I think the problem is you claim you got nothing.
There were certain things that were clearly positives that were meant to grow the Horde.
Alliance at best ended up where they started minus a lot of dead elves and country.
With a lame vengeance plot that is now ending with a “vengeance bad, just let it go”
7 Likes
Making threads - why? That literally goes against the idea of discussing things.
Not commenting? Well, nobody forces people to hop into threads they do not like to tell how people should feel, or focus on them personally. So, there are those who turned the thread into the thing. Very specific people who started that “derailing”. Would be nice of you to address them specifically.
gl hf
4 Likes
No, I was in a story thread trying to tell a hearthstone player that I sympathize that they can’t escape teldrassil in other media.
Then for some reason I thought it was important to tell delusional people that blizzard does not, in fact, have it out for them.
Neither Sylvanas nor Saurfang counted it as a win for the horde, as per AGW. The burning was a consolation and the moment the fire hit the tree, UC was forfeit. The campaign was a failure the moment Saurfang gave Tyrande and Malfurion their miracle (again, according to AGW).
I think maybe my perspective is different from yours in part because, despite being dissatisfied with the writing and creative direction, I do try to consume as much supplemental media as possible.
No. The Horde still got to enjoy commuting the burning. Your weighting of it as a consolation is ridiculous. The consolation the Alliance got was UC, and it is viewed as no tragedy to commit by the Alliance, because everyone knew it would go nowhere, fully involving Sylvanas taking flight.
Well, that’s partially the case I guess, because the last thing I want to do is read ‘supplemental media’ about how the Alliance ‘totally won’ or whatever BS you’re pushing. Especially when there is a plethora of much better books, and media out there to enjoy instead.
Yeah, we have different perspectives, because you’re claiming not to be biased, while whining about the Horde in a Night Wlf thread, trying to tell other people they’re actually biased, while also refusing to acknowledge quick, snappy responses to your questions, because you don’t like the truth of the answers.
2 Likes
Sometimes I wait to respond because I am trying to be level headed, and the conversation moves on (until you bring it back to your obsession with my all important response). Other times, I’m not really sure how to respond because either the argument is so irrelevant, or not even an argument against my actual points. I lost track of how many times Ive cited the lore, for you to come back saying those facts are false because Teldrassil made you feel bad, or claiming that I am just biased in favor of my side (of which, I dont have one).
And repeatedly you’ve claimed to not having anything. Yet I can point out the Saurfang arc, and Sylvanas’ ‘arc’. But you won’t claim those. I don’t even go into detail over the other stories you enjoyed, like Talanji, which begins with trouncing the Alliance, who’re made to look like bad guys again, which is something I’ve watched you try and deduct points for.
All so you can point to the fine print of, follower table missions? At this point you’re trying to cite that you are reading the Wow books, less as a statement of lore, and more so to act as if you have some kind of ‘authority’ over who can have what.
One of the consistent complaints I have with the story in recent expansions is that a Good vs. Evil narrative hamstrings the “good guys” painting them as either weak, or uncharacteristically evil. You can’t defeat the evil faction, you can’t move against them unless it is reactionary, and you can’t reciprocate in any significant way.
Even in a blatantly good vs evil narrative (which wow shouldnt be, but the novices on cdev seem to think it is) choosing to play the good guys is going to feel more like crap than if one chose to play the evil guys. I will grant that, from an Alliance perspective, this is likely a larger concern because there are few attractive options for the player who wishes to see themselves as evil (meaning that there are likely more horde only players happy to play the villain). But likewise, not every horde player signed up to be the bad guy.
So yes, I am sorry that the savage warrior night elves are stuck being the good guy (on which I have been consistent). I am also sorry for the WC3 fan who chose to play in Thrall’s horde, a very unique (at the time) kind of protagonist.
The real losers are all of us, we fans of the morally grey world of Azeroth.
7 Likes
And emboldens the “bad guys” since we can’t just outright say which factions are clearly holding these titles.
Yet you claim the “bad guys” got nothing because of the outcome, how peculiar that you appear to be contradicting your previous statements, and lack of ‘anything’ you were standing up against.
Not evil, but even remotely unrobotically made so that every character isn’t one that will pass over the Horde’s various murders of their very own spouses/children/parents. Something that is entirely absent on the Horde side, because clearly that would be to sharp, or deep a cut for someone fantasizing being an Orc.
Yeah, but…
So they are getting precisely what they’ve asked for, you can acknowledge it beyond an aside going forward.
At this point, the Night Elves aren’t remotely stuck being the good guy. They’re stuck being apologetic, because of course they are, the Horde needed an out. Why give the NE anything at all if it won’t give the Horde something.
No, it’s the Alliance. Because, Alliance grey is met with morally black from the Horde. The Alliance are forced to perceive black as grey, when in observance of the Horde. We’re also expected to view grey agaisnst ourselves as white at this point, considering Tyrande won’t succumb to a fulfilling plot, and instead returns to a state of vapid acceptance.
2 Likes
This wasn’t naturally something I thought of, and these threads have benefited me from being able to read the perspectives of other people. I had this opinion influenced to reach this observation.
I think there’s something funny about how Tyrande would have done better becoming the martyr, that the Night Warrior could have been. I don’t care if the Night Warrior is defeated, resulting in Tyrande’s death as long as she has some significant impact. Instead, she gets wiped clean of the influence of the Night Warrior, and the motivations that let her choose this path. Which seems like something out of character, and our of left field.
While, on the flip side, I can mention how Saurfang was a fantastic martyr for the Horde, and acted totally in character. To be met with revulsion, decries that I don’t know the character, and that my opinion of viewing his martyrdom in a good light, are somehow proof of a bias. Despite being able to cite plenty of dialogue which places this as something entirely in character for Saurfang. So it’s kind of interesting to see how when people want Tyrande to forgive, and be a martyr for something that should matter to her, in lieu of a grave atrocity committed against her, it’s something I’m supposed to relish. While the exact same thing happened to Saurfang(sans ateocity. He actually participated in it) first, and apparently I’m unable to understand his character due to bias, and am apparently in the minority of people who want him to act in character, as opposed to him be a character he never was, some bloodthirsty single driven aspect.
2 Likes
Minor objection. In order to even start the events [BfA pre-patch] it required placing characters in positions where they would be on the edge of out of character. (behavior of night elves supposedly “do not want to fight” in the pre-patch, or draenei who somehow were missing even though they are close and some are rather zealous when it comes to their duties).
When it comes to Saurfang his story arc throughout WotLK and the War Crimes got him to what he said to Garrosh, even though Garrosh became the warchief: it’s better to kill him than to start another dishonorable mess. But by the end of the pre-patch quest lines Tyrande confronts Varok on topic of honor, saying there is no honor in their actions even prior to burning.
And you know what? He did not even bother discussing it. To make him do what he did it was necessary to undermine what his character is, and then try to redo, however, not because he got to it himself, like what happened originally, but because the case of “human potential” got him to those thoughts.
gl hf
9 Likes
I think you should review the conversation between Garrosh and Saurfang in Borean Tundra, as well as at Saurfang Jr’s funeral and then retread this line of thinking.
Saurfang is a character defined by his mistakes, but he eventually becomes a martyr for a life devoted to righting then. Anduin is a character who cannot remotely be defined by any blemish, or mistake he makes, and removes the martyrdom from characters within his own faction, when they are glaringly so laying a top his feet.
Maybe this last bit is a tangent and not in line with your thinking, but I feel it’s a true statement.
His conversation with Garrosh is exactly what I mean.
High Overlord Saurfang says: And while Grom died a glorious death - freeing us all from the blood curse - he could not wipe away the terrible memory of our past.
High Overlord Saurfang says: His act could not erase the horrors we committed.
Which he knew even before he started.
High Overlord Saurfang says: I won’t let you take us down that dark path again, young Hellscream. I’ll kill you myself before that day comes…
Which was reiterated in War Crimes. So if then killing the warchief is better, and he did not even consider talking about honor even before the burning, to me it’s one step from regression and contradicting his former position.
I do not mean that he did not try to be a martyr. I am saying that from “better kill you chef than follow that path”, and that he knew he is doing dishonorable things which IMO breaks the former character of Varok.
He followed this path. He did it himself. But then it was twisted and re-installed via Anduin, because that is a better story apparently than what Varok knew and stated he would be doing (should the devs not move him away from who he was) a decade earlier.
gl hf
8 Likes
I think Blizzard didn’t intend the Horde do seem as bad as its ended up seeming, given how much they still wanted us to proudly shout “For the Horde!”.
It was a messy plotline among many poorly done ones in the current writing.
I don’t think Blizzard realizes how having the faction wars boil down to an evil warchief fundamentally puts the Horde into the wrong, especially when the Alliance role in helping stoke the flames isn’t really consequential as they become vindicated by said evil warchief.
8 Likes
I think it’s really peculiar, that during mak’gora Saurfang screamed “for Azeroth”. Like… it’s almost the same as “the horde is nothing” but related to how the devs seemingly view the factions. As something they do not want, yet keep as a cheap source of filler content and to praise yet another heroic hero for overcoming the faction boundaries.
I am not sure if such demonisation of the faction concept (a source of problems, with heroes being those who act despite the factions) actually does much good or improves the overall gameplay experience for the players.
gl hf
6 Likes
I get what the scene was trying to say. It just rings hollow and disingenuous. Trying to heal a burned city with a “Unite to fight the real evil!” when the social wound runs deep.
Sure some players really took the whole thing to an insane level and thus why they receive mockery from some players and Blizz in general. That being said even those who aren’t NE super-fans feel/felt that where we are can’t really heal.
This goes beyond Sylvanas and Tyrande. It goes right to the core of trust. The Devs promised all kinds of things with BfA and every single one of them was a lie. You have a gigantic story obstacle that could be summarized as:
“Imagine you are driving down a one-way road and suddenly you have a pothole 10’ / 30m deep and 40’ / 120m wide smack dab in the middle of the road. You can’t drive around it and you can’t just drive back the way you came.”
That is what Teldrassil gave us. Now we have this *****y Kerrigan 2.0 redemption story that also feels disingenuous to add salt to the fire.
In all seriousness, Kerrigan and Tyrande both need to die. Kill them off and leave them dead. It clears up some space on the shelf for new and unique characters and gets us away from the trash tier DBZ power level nonsense that WoW has become.
Honestly they need to kill most of the classic characters that way there is space for new stories. Sylvanas, Tyrande, Jaina, Malf… These characters are so massive they eat the entire scene themselves. Horde BfA experience is supposed to be about Talanji except you can’t hear her over the Sylvanas arch.
8 Likes
I didn’t get that. I figured the Zuldazar experience was about Talanji and Rastakhan, but the BfA experience was supposed to be about the faction war. That’s how they sold the expansion.
1 Like