Some people are saying that one of the main issues was that the scope was getting too big.
I cannot disagree more, that has nothing to do with the real problem. And this line of logic it’s contradicted by the story itself, wow has NEVER been low in scope, we had powerful character since basically wow inception, characters capable of destroying a city on their own, or even a planet.
The real issue was that the antagonist was barely explained, and what was explained simply wasn’t convincing enough, we knew almost nothing of his motives, we know he used to be the arbiter, but know nothing about why he was dethroned.
The only reason i can think of is because “he was evil” But that’s frankly amazingly boring if that’s the case.
In short the problems in shadowlands narrative had everything to do with the characterization, and nothing with the scope of the story.
It’s a shame, because everytime i look at the worst expansions in wow, i could see a lot of potential, usually the reason they fail is a mix of gameplay and story, for shadowlands, the decisions they made with gameplay, and the direction of the story were not great, the gameplay was good at the end when they finally lifted many of the artificial restrictions they created that NOBODY liked since the start.
And here’s the issue, they could ret con the story and change it significantly, but it’s too late, they write a book retconning the story? Barely anyone will read it, and honestly, the story should be in game, you shouldn’t have to read so many external sources in order to have a good grasp of the story.