Even then, it has been nonexistent in the story (which everyone predicted, fyi). I know more about where Thalyssra wants to honeymoon than I do about any substantial developments with the council. The only surprise I’ve seen is Geya’rah receiving some characterization somewhere instead of just occasionally showing up to go “me like fighty fight, rawr.”
4 Likes
I did like the story with Geya’rah (despite issues I have with how Blizzard views timelines) and this is why I am okay with the story focusing less on factions and more on single characters. I feel like its more personal than “this team does this, while this team does that” but its a personal preference. By all means, if people dont like it they should give feedback but its going to be a very hard shift at this point.
For me, the high points of the story are always the B Plots. All of the main characters end up being cheesy and grating (which I will now officially coin as Warcraft Parmesan). I would take a Runas the Shamed arc over every Windrunner Quip Factory I’ve heard for the past decade. At the end of the day, the story should support the playerbase who bought into a particular fantasy, one way or another. I don’t think it serves anyone well in the long run when those particular fantasies are watered down or shelved.
Put another way: Klingons ain’t Klingons if they don’t like a good fight.
3 Likes
It’s fiction. We don’t actually have to live in this setting, no matter how much time we spend there while playing games. For narrative purposes, it’s nice to have a leader who can be the face of the faction.
5 Likes
Uh, what do you mean? Getting rid of Sylvanas for the Forsaken was a great idea, despite how important she was to their lore and how she formed them all the way in WC3.
If its simple personal preference then i cant argue against it.
I hardly get to play these days but I enjoy the direction the story has gone and the focus. I couldn’t even spell the Alliances main leader without looking it up.
Can’t say I agree, but as the post above me says, there’s no arguing personal preferences.
2 Likes
True, there is not arguing against personal preferences ultimately, though I was being sarcastic in it being a great idea.
2 Likes
I don’t give a crap about what is “realistically” more stable. It’s Warcraft. It’s the Horde. Orcs live like Conan expy’s despite being surrounded by near modern technology. Why? Because it’s cooler that way. You know what’s also cool? Having a warchief and not a lame council that nobody on the horde asked for.
The alliance should have had a council rather than a High King, the Horde needs a warchief. Simple as.
7 Likes
shrugs
Honesty, when it comes to its traditional themes I agree. But TBH I thought most players didnt like the villian vibes Horde had.
Most players don’t like their misunderstood, savage but noble, good guy faction(outside of undead) carrying out multiple genocides for no reason.
That has nothing to do with the Horde having a Warchief and everything to do with Blizzard’s writers not knowing how to tell faction drama storylines without the Horde being flanderized into blood thirsty monsters.
6 Likes
Was it every as noble as it intended to be? You literally had to remove 1/4 of the original Horde races to try to say it was a “good guy” faction. Then there was the fact Grom effectively did the same thing and had to have both Alliance and Horde work together to stop/reform him. (So Sylvanas whole redemption have parallels to Warcraft 3)
Lastly, the Horde was attacking someone else’s backyard and it all came to a head in BfA. And lets not kid ourselves that a part of the player base didnt like the Horde doing evil things. Heck, they liked it precisely because there wasnt any consequences until it finally hit and boom.(they probably didnt expect there would actually be a story consequence) We end up with BfA finally purging the worse portions of the Horde.
Well as I mentioned, I dont think we can really accurately say what most players want without any kind of data like polls. You also have a lot of story progression and eras to consider, WC1 Horde being pretty different from WC3 Horde.
Lastly, I mean…we have a title WARchief, I would think its kinda awkward to have one without the war part.
1 Like
War against N’zoth and Nyalotha.
War against Zovaal and the Mawsworn.
War against the Incarnates and the Primalists.
War against Xal’atath’s forces.
We were still fighting a war with an Old God when Baine, oblivious waste of space that he is, declared we shouldn’t have a Warchief in a time of peace.
5 Likes
I mean, like I asked before, has the Horde lost a war without the Warchief?
Considering the Horde doesnt seem to be less effective of a fighting force without said warchief while fighting these wars then that puts to question the need for a warchief at all.
1 Like
Big oooof… I mean, you’re right, but still…
Side note, I had to check and it was Thrall, not Baine who put forth the notion that the warchief might not be need at all. Baine basically just agreed with him.
Shift that goal, buddy.
The Horde did end up losing The Fourth War due to Sylvanas bailing. Granted, The Horde winning under her banner was not an outcome anyone would have liked.
Given that they seem to be incapable of fielding an adequate force or entourage to represent The Horde for about three expansions now, they are absolutely a less effective fighting force.
None of which really matters on the meta level for the discussion, which Shredow pretty effectively summed up:
3 Likes
I mean, this was a question…you were bringing up warmode in a story discussion-
Wait, what’s the goal here? 