World of Warcraft®

The former warchief of the horde is a neutral guest giver right now.

I guess they are supposed to mirror each other.

09/05/2012 19:49Posted by Korae

this is hardly countering what I've said, Talen. Varian declared war. Nothing happened because..um....um....um.

Because there was no war. No declaration. At best, an act of war the Thrall never followed up on.

The war Varian supposedly started was preceeded by sporadic hostilities between the Horde and Alliance, and was followed by sporadic hostilities between the Horde and Alliance. It was never mentioned in game, it was never mentioned in the novels or short stories, there were no battles that can be tied to this declaration, no ceasefire, no Treaty. It forms the backdrop for no questlines, no in game events. It is never used an an excuse or rationale for any attack.

The story would have likely have been far better if the war HAD started here. It would have provided the Alliance with a role other than "something for the Horde to act against".

By the time Garrosh was warchief, peace was in place between the Horde and Alliance.

Until Garrosh staretd this war, this conflict. And even if you assume that Varian did start a war in UC, that he did declare war and that Thrall did take him up on that we do known that the conflicts ended when the LK died. Which still means Garrosh started this war. Not Varian.

EJL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxvQKCJagoI

7.49 onwards.

Varian declares he will disband the horde.
He then says that there will be more strikes other than Putress.
Finally, he says that the world will be better without the horde, then attacks.

That's pretty clear, Talen.

The argument that it was never mentioned is irrelevant, because that's MY argument. It SHOULD HAVE BEEN. The fact that they ignored the proactive alliance is the problem. Arguing "no, it didn't happene because they ignored the proactive alliance" doesn't change the fact that they did.

Maybe Anduin suffers from "Stockholm syndrome" -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome. That would explain he's sudden neutrality.
One other explanation is that were following a story about Anduin and in this phase hes neutral so all players both hord and alli can follow it?
For him being permanently neutral, he would have stepped downed as the successor. Dont think the humans would like to have a neutral king.
Wait with the qqing until weve seen the whole story, there is 3 more zones to quest through before we know whats going on. And this is the beta, alot of thing can still happen.

10/05/2012 14:45Posted by Séetha

Wait with the qqing until weve seen the whole story,

If we wait until the story is over to tell Blizzard what we feel they're doing wrong, then it'll be too late for them to do anything to change it.

10/05/2012 19:42Posted by Blayzereborn

Wait with the qqing until weve seen the whole story,

If we wait until the story is over to tell Blizzard what we feel they're doing wrong, then it'll be too late for them to do anything to change it.

Considering the 6 pages of qq i think the got the picture. All i wanna say is that maybe thers some underlying story that we havent seen the end to yet.

11/05/2012 08:12Posted by Séetha

If we wait until the story is over to tell Blizzard what we feel they're doing wrong, then it'll be too late for them to do anything to change it.

Considering the 6 pages of qq i think the got the picture.

Do you think they will read all of this?

Considering the 6 pages of qq i think the got the picture.

Do you think they will read all of this?

Ever since Nyarloth started posting here I believe that someone from Blizzard reads it. Ever since he was laid off I believe that if the person who reads it starts suggesting things to someone how can make a difference then that person gets replaced.

11/05/2012 08:12Posted by Séetha

If we wait until the story is over to tell Blizzard what we feel they're doing wrong, then it'll be too late for them to do anything to change it.

Considering the 6 pages of qq i think the got the picture. All i wanna say is that maybe thers some underlying story that we havent seen the end to yet.

I'm afraid I can't believe that, as it requires too many assumptions.

ASSUMING there's someone who reads the Story forums and ASSUMING they read non-US Story forums and ASSUMING they read the particular topics where these issues get raised and ASSUMING they understand the issues we raise and ASSUMING they transmit our complaints to the right people and ASSUMING those people don't just dismiss our opinions out of hand and ASSUMING our opinions get discussed at the correct staff meetings and ASSUMING they get treated with the respect they deserve and ASSUMING they get acknowledged as legit and ASSUMING Blizzard decide to actually do anything about them and ASSUMING something actually does get done about them and ASSUMING it happens in current projects instead of getting glossed over with a dismissive "meh, we'll get it right next time" and ASSUMING they don't just make the same damn mistakes yet again.

Well after reading the cataclysm book it makes perfect sense for him to be neutral. Yes, he's the prince of Stormwind but the book made clear that Jaina was a real role-model for him, and she always wanted peace between the alliance and the Horde. It also made it clear that he shared this viewpoint with her. There was also a part where he and Baine talked about the hope for peace in the future, and he might even have outright said that when he was king he would try to resolve the conflict peacefully, I can't quite remember the wording but that was what it sounded like.

So It makes complete sense really. A lot more sense than him suddenly hating the horde for no real reason.

12/05/2012 03:13Posted by Lemm

So It makes complete sense really. A lot more sense than him suddenly hating the horde for no real reason.

So being kidnapped by the horde, Theramore (and other settlements) being destroyed or just simply being at war with the horde aren't real reasons?

I could get behind the idea of him having some kind of Stockholm Syndrom (though I doubt Blizzard could pull that off in a tasteful manner) but Anduin isn't living in a bubble were none of the events that happened since his father returned didn't happen.

09/05/2012 22:40Posted by Korae

That's pretty clear, Talen.

Its a pretty clear ACT of war. Not a declaration. And everything I said about the complete lack of followup in game and novels and stories still holds.

An Act of War does not necessarily lead to a state of war.

Either the Act did not lead into a state of war, or the Act of war committed by Varian was totally and completely ignored by the same writers who built up the rest of the storyline in every single aspect. A state of war would be a MAJOR game changer for the world. And its not mentioned, referenced, alluded to, hinted at...it doesn't occur in the background, it isn't used as the basis for any story at all. We see the usual Horde Alliance conflicts, and we see them before and after the BfUC.

This is a world changing event that is never, ever mentioned by anyone, anywhere in game or lore, akin to people not noticing the Cataclysm or that great big dragon flying over Stormwind.

The idea that the writers would start a war like this and then simply not do anything at all with it, to the point of never mentioning it at all, ever....simply isn't credible. The act did what it was supposed to...increase the tension between the factions at a time when both were concentrating on fighting Arthas. Varian demonstrates hostility towards the Horde and what has been done under UC, and he strikes Thrall.

EJL

12/05/2012 03:13Posted by Lemm

So It makes complete sense really. A lot more sense than him suddenly hating the horde for no real reason.

The destruction of Theramore.
The destruction of Hillsbrad
The destruction of Southshore
The decimation of the Stormpike
The new Scourge as unveiled at Andorhal
The invasion of Gilneas
The invasion of Ashenvale
The Forsakens use of the living as medical labrats
The Forsakens use of the living as living incubators/food for their pets
The bombing of Thaldarah Grove

No reason?

EJL

12/05/2012 06:33Posted by Talen

That's pretty clear, Talen.

Its a pretty clear ACT of war. Not a declaration. And everything I said about the complete lack of followup in game and novels and stories still holds.

An Act of War does not necessarily lead to a state of war.

Either the Act did not lead into a state of war, or the Act of war committed by Varian was totally and completely ignored by the same writers who built up the rest of the storyline in every single aspect. A state of war would be a MAJOR game changer for the world. And its not mentioned, referenced, alluded to, hinted at...it doesn't occur in the background, it isn't used as the basis for any story at all. We see the usual Horde Alliance conflicts, and we see them before and after the BfUC.

This is a world changing event that is never, ever mentioned by anyone, anywhere in game or lore, akin to people not noticing the Cataclysm or that great big dragon flying over Stormwind.

The idea that the writers would start a war like this and then simply not do anything at all with it, to the point of never mentioning it at all, ever....simply isn't credible. The act did what it was supposed to...increase the tension between the factions at a time when both were concentrating on fighting Arthas. Varian demonstrates hostility towards the Horde and what has been done under UC, and he strikes Thrall.

EJL

An act of war is an action.
A declaration of war is a declaration. This is pretty obvious.

The invasion of Undercity was an act of war.

Telling an enemy leader "I will obliterate your nation" is a declaration. Sorry, Talen, you are wrong here.

Not credible that the Story dev team would 'forget' Alliance focused content? Of course it's credible. They changed their minds. They decided Garrosh Smash would be more epic. They literally just forgot. Your are arguing in one post to me that the devs would NEVER forget an event that went against the storyline they suddenly wanted to to, and in the next post, listing events the devs have forgotten that go against the storyline they want to tell.

Make up your mind.

All of these things fit Story Dev's history. So credible? Of course it is.

Anduin is an idealist, he's young, much more open minded than his father and his curiously specific racism and is trying to embody the three virtues of the light. Something that many so called 'Paladins' of the alliance forget or completely ignore.

Even with all the terrible destruction going on, that he's willing to forgive and speak up for the Horde and Orcs in particular, makes him a better man than his father who only sees hate.

12/05/2012 11:12Posted by Attarn

Anduin is an idealist, he's young, much more open minded than his father and his curiously specific racism and is trying to embody the three virtues of the light. Something that many so called 'Paladins' of the alliance forget or completely ignore.

By showing Compassion and Respect to the Horde, Anduin withdraws that same virtue from everyone the Horde has ever killed or maimed to get what they want. It doesn't make him a better man. It makes him an idiot. If he has his way, he'll only leave the Horde alive to harm more good Alliance citizens and soldiers, as well as our allies.

Then again, I always did want the Alliance to get more zealous. Bring on the inquisitors!

Showing compassion and respect to one group does not mean you have to disregard another.

He'll make a better King than our soon to be *shudders*....High King...ever would.

Anduin is an idealist, he's young, much more open minded than his father and his curiously specific racism and is trying to embody the three virtues of the light. Something that many so called 'Paladins' of the alliance forget or completely ignore.

Even with all the terrible destruction going on, that he's willing to forgive and speak up for the Horde and Orcs in particular, makes him a better man than his father who only sees hate.

That's the politically correct view that Blizzard obviously want all of us to embrace. Zealous paladins? That's a big no (they become dungeon fodder). The lore is getting boring because we keep being fed with this same idealistic message. There's no room for 'grey'..

It's all about redemption, forgiveness, Jesus Christ, humanism, and what not. The target audience is of young age.

To be honst we need a bit of idealistic and probably misplaced optimism. We've seen two significant events and one massive war in recent history.

And considering we're going to be dealing with something that sounds like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEXPGq-Jsvs

And fighting a major war to boot, we're still going to have enough grimdark. But this isn't Warhammer 40k.

Anduin is not optimistic or idealistic. He is purposely blind and ignorant to things that happen around him. He like every other main Alliance character before him is so insufferably lethargic that if I didn't know any better would actually believe he is evil.
Evil as Burning legion evil.
I do not like it that some spoiled little prince can act like some selfmade prophet or seer while still demanding political and diplomatic sovereignity. The kid actually has the sickening aroma of a filthy rich kid yelling at victims to stop complaining. Oh well that is kind of the standard story for Alliance since the Burning Crusade, so in that regard Anduin Wrynn is VERY Alliancelike.

What they did since the burning crusade, wrath of the lion king and cataclysm is a story about two or so factions at war, wich you swing it as something that's good and then have a message at the same time saying it is wrong.You can't have it both ways. Blizzard....you tried that plot several times and your most 'succesfull attempt is with Mary Sue..I mean iThrall ...sorry I mean GO'EL, GO'EL THAT WORDLSHAMAN GO'EL...YOU KNOW GO'EL and Mal, I hate my own kind,furion and they blew it.