I know in-fighting can make for a good story but come on it’s getting pretty tiring it happens all the time in the horde every expansion or two. What about the alliance? they haven’t had any problems like that since the days of Vanilla.
18 Likes
It’s basically a symptom of wow jumping the shark.
13 Likes
Hopefully it will be the Alliance’s turn for some in-house conflict.
15 Likes
Yeah i’m hoping so too with Kul Tirans being the perfect set up with how Ashvane is currently employed in the horde and theres plenty who are probably still not happy about Jaina.
1 Like
How about no in-house conflict for either side, and we get an actual story like with WotLK?
32 Likes
LOL. You used the stupid night warrior crap.
1 Like
I know right? You’d think Alliance would have more scheming/back-stabbing that leads to inner turmoil, but alas, it’s a daycare center where everybody hold hands.
Logically, there would be at least some houses that disagreed on Anduin’s ascend to the throne.
1 Like
1 Like
Even outside of the fact that the position of Warchief is as cursed as Defense Against the Dark Arts, the power structure of the Horde is an inherently flawed one. History has shown that totalitarian dictatorships centered around a single person tend to fall apart once that person is out of the picture. Real life tyrannical states only survive through generations of propaganda designed to beat the populace into submission and completely homogenize them. The Horde has historically been filled to the brim with factions of vastly different viewpoints and morals usually brought together by the need for simple survival. That kind of government is a powder keg no matter how effective the ruler, and any hope for the Horde to survive as a political faction or even civilization in the long term would simply require the position of Warchief be entirely dissolved and replaced by something else.
3 Likes
Well, you’d say that, but the Horde tearing itself apart multiple times now were due do homicidal warchiefs, not the populace.
But I suppose you could say that they didn’t put enough efforts on doing the propaganda.
ecause Blizzard’s precious alliance need a punching bag so they can be the good guy save all heroes
9 Likes
That would be refreshing.
1 Like
What makes story “actual” story?
1 Like
Garrosh was great at using propaganda…on the orcs. His downfall alienating everyone else. Sylvanas, on the other hand, seems to be doing a good job of pissing off everyone in the Horde. Ironic, of course, since propaganda is what got most of the Forsaken to love her in the first place. It was so good in fact, that it likely accounts for why she still has any followers to begin with.
A story with purpose. Benevolent action that becomes warped due to necessity, i.e. hard choices. True morally gray stuff that begets the question of consequentialism: constant questioning of “is what I am doing truly what is best for the world.” Vanilla had minimal story, but it was just WoW starting out. TBC did better when we went to fight the burning legion. WotLK was great as it was the culmination of a great story started by warcraft III. Cataclysm was mediocre, it was just a crazy dragon. Pandaria had decent story. WoD made no sense. Legion was somewhat okay, but had huge plot holes. BfA is completely inconsistent, and Sylvanas is a murderous nutcase who doesn’t once believe that what she’s doing is wrong.
6 Likes
Why should she? Honestly, this makes her a compelling character.
Sylvanas fought against the undead when she was alive because they wanted to destroy everything. Now she’s an undead that also wants to destroy everything. If she was alive, she’d probably be fighting against the forsaken for what they are now. If you like genocide then you probably are okay with Sylvanas doing what she’s doing. But if that’s the case, I want nothing to do with you.
4 Likes
There is no one in the world — of Warcraft or otherwise — who thinks they are the bad person.
Think of the most horrible atrocities in human history, and I guarantee you you will find someone on both sides who believes they’re on “the right side of history”, to use a recent phrase.
1 Like
Sure you want to use history? Fine. Let’s take the classic example of Hitler. Commits genocide, he and his followers think they’re in the right. If you think these monsters make a “good” story, or even worse - support them, you’re sick.
1 Like
Are you just going to ignore what I’m actually saying and instead argue against what you want me to be saying so that it’s easier for you to “win”?
1 Like