The BfA pattern

Story
Take a look at this interaction from the Horde side of the Dakshore Warfront, starting at 0:18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3RhdaMOqCk&lc=z23scvv4qxzuulyzz04t1aokg1qlkzdvlkokxkn4pe4zrk0h00410.1541753174470618

Sira: "Show no mercy, for you can expect none from Maiev."
Maiev, a second later: "Sira... No... Turn back now, or I will be forced to strike you down."

This is the pure essence of BfA. Bad writing, logically inconsistent, lack of continuity, a disconnect between what the world is showing us and what the characters say plus the Horde champions telling us how dangerous the Alliance is, followed up by the Alliance doing all they can to avoid conflict.

That, and characters acting in a way that does not fit their previous characterization.

Seriously, the writers cannot even keep a two-sentence dialogue consistent.

This expansion is so damn hilarious.
09/11/2018 15:22Posted by Darvingar
Sira: "Show no mercy, for you can expect none from Maiev."


Blood Elf Demon Hunter, who was spared by Maiev many years ago: "Ok, Sure. No big deal. Death to the living!"
Don't see the problem. This is exactly what I expect of the Lich Queen's mind-contro.., oh I mean, 'mind-altered' characters.
09/11/2018 15:22Posted by Darvingar
Sira: "Show no mercy


Yes, show no mercy to her own race, who came here to save their own home lands. . .

This is most stupidest thing I ever heard in mine entire life !!!!
Sira


btw why did Sira become a leader of Horde Army? She was just a soldier in Alliance. But Horde trust her and make her a leader of Warfront.

This sounds pretty stupid. In all Horde quests we learn that fresh rised undead are crazy. There need a time to get them ready.
But here Horde trust her after 1 second later she rise. And put her on a role as a leader of the Horde...

Maybe Horde have puts a soul of some orc strategy commander in to her body?
11/11/2018 07:12Posted by Призраклеса

Maybe Horde have puts a soul of some orc strategy commander in to her body?


Gul'dan's first generation of Death Knights' style!

It would really fit the Horde's current depiction ;)
Maybe the newly risen Night Elves trust her above other Horde Commanders? Which would put Sira in a position of power, obviously!

I know she and Delaryn are two commanders this newly risen Kaldorei do know from their time among the living...
11/11/2018 09:33Posted by Moridunum
Maybe the newly risen Night Elves trust her above other Horde Commanders? Which would put Sira in a position of power, obviously!

I know she and Delaryn are two commanders this newly risen Kaldorei do know from their time among the living...


As I understood, there only a couple of elves were risen ~ 7.
But Sira will command all Horde forces as a leader of Warfront.

Unead Night Elf Horde Commander . . . (^_^)
I'm just glad we'll be able to stab her to death at the end of the Alliance version Warfront. People will disagree with me, but I can understand why Sira went all baddie. She's clearly broken down and gone a bit crazy. Abandonment, despite being loyal for countless years, can do that to a person.

What? Elyssa here totally didn't betray the Kaldorei either \o/
11/11/2018 07:12Posted by Призраклеса
Sira


btw why did Sira become a leader of Horde Army? She was just a soldier in Alliance. But Horde trust her and make her a leader of Warfront.

This sounds pretty stupid. In all Horde quests we learn that fresh rised undead are crazy. There need a time to get them ready.
But here Horde trust her after 1 second later she rise. And put her on a role as a leader of the Horde...

Maybe Horde have puts a soul of some orc strategy commander in to her body?

Sira was Maiev's second in command. She gave world quests to kill rares during Legion.
09/11/2018 15:22Posted by Darvingar
Sira: "Show no mercy, for you can expect none from Maiev."
Maiev, a second later: "Sira... No... Turn back now, or I will be forced to strike you down."

This is the pure essence of BfA. Bad writing, logically inconsistent, lack of continuity, a disconnect between what the world is showing us and what the characters say plus the Horde champions telling us how dangerous the Alliance is, followed up by the Alliance doing all they can to avoid conflict.


I don't see the inconsistency. IRL leaders constantly tell their soldiers to expect no mercy from an enemy - it helps dehumanise the enemy in the soldiers' minds and makes them less likely to sympathise with them, thus less likely to feel conflicted about killing them. Not to mention Maiev was a paragon of ends justifying the means in TFT. There's no reason to believe Maiev **wouldn't** kill every Horde in Darkshore if given the chance.

If there's any inconsistency in this scene it's in Maiev's characterisation. As I said, she was a paragon of WAAC take no prisoners !@#-kicking in TFT, but now suddenly she's ambivalent about re-killing an undead traitor? I'm not buying it. That said, I missed most of her appearances in Legion so perhaps she's simmered down a bit - if not then it makes no sense for her to be trying to avoid killing Sira, or anyone else for that matter.
11/11/2018 09:33Posted by Moridunum
Maybe the newly risen Night Elves trust her above other Horde Commanders? Which would put Sira in a position of power, obviously!


Or maybe Blizzard just forgot to develop a character for the role and took the first night elf they could think about (because this is a night elf warfront and undead night elves are cool). XD

Honestly the more I think about the story of Dakshore the more it looks to me just an unrefined, fast written escamotage to justify the warfront.

11/11/2018 13:55Posted by Owlsong
I don't see the inconsistency. IRL leaders constantly tell their soldiers to expect no mercy from an enemy


I agree. In this case the line is justified by the contest of a battle and Sira's words don't need to be confirmed by reality, but Darvingar has a point when he says that BfA storytelling is bad.

And you must consider that Blizard promised us a morally gray story and failed. Many players are just annoyed because it looks like the writers have made every possible effort to maximize Horde aggression and malice and minimize Alliance ones.

Even in this warfront we have a Horde character basically shouting "Death to our enemies! No mercy!" and an Alliance character that say "I don't want to fight against you, you are forcing me to this!"
11/11/2018 09:33Posted by Moridunum
Maybe the newly risen Night Elves trust her above other Horde Commanders? Which would put Sira in a position of power, obviously!


Or maybe Blizzard just forgot to develop a character for the role and took the first night elf they could think about (because this is a night elf warfront and undead night elves are cool). XD

Honestly the more I think about the story of Dakshore the more it looks to me just an unrefined, fast written escamotage to justify the warfront.

11/11/2018 13:55Posted by Owlsong
I don't see the inconsistency. IRL leaders constantly tell their soldiers to expect no mercy from an enemy


I agree. In this case the line is justified by the contest of a battle and Sira's words don't need to be confirmed by reality, but Darvingar has a point when he says that BfA storytelling is bad.

And you must consider that Blizard promised us a morally gray story and failed. Many players are just annoyed because it looks like the writers have made every possible effort to maximize Horde aggression and malice and minimize Alliance ones.

Even in this warfront we have a Horde character basically shouting "Death to our enemies! No mercy!" and an Alliance character that say "I don't want to fight against you, you are forcing me to this!"

11/11/2018 13:55Posted by Owlsong
If there's any inconsistency in this scene it's in Maiev's characterisation.


I don't think she's inconsistent here. Sira was Miev's second in command.
That Miev tries to make Sira change her mind and come back to her people is reasonable even if Miev has an aggressive personality.
Just her lines are not needed.
If she had acted outraged by Sira betrayal , she would have been consistent anyway.
11/11/2018 15:17Posted by Eriù
Darvingar has a point when he says that BfA storytelling is bad.


I used to think this, but the more the xpac drags on the less sure I become. I remember reading somewhere that Blizz does most of their story writing for xpacs during the previous one, which means this plot and the cinematics, voice performances, etc., have been laid down since 2016-2017. If you look at it in that context - and bear in mind Blizz is aiming for "young adult fantasy fiction" rather than "seminal world literature" - it seems a little less terrible.

For what it is the story is okay-ish, and becomes more okay-ish as more of it is revealed. The problem seems to be one of pacing rather than quality, at least from where I'm sitting. They started with a bang - War of Thorns, Battle of Lordaeron - but then just kinda left the whole faction war to fester in the background for several months while we helped Jaina redeem herself/ helped Talanji fix her dad's !@#$. That's believable, because Rome wasn't built in a day and IRL wars don't skip from beat to beat in the space of a few days, but if you're trying to hook people into the narrative then leaving them floundering and despondent for months on end is probably not good.

And you must consider that Blizard promised us a morally gray story and failed.


Again, I can't agree here. There's a lot of grey morality in there, although it's not particularly apparent until you think about it for a while.

In response to the Brennadam massacre I went into the Horde base in Stormsong's hills, murdered a load of miners and lumberjacks, then burned to death a few dozen Horde soldiers along with their base. As part of the War Campaign I spewed lava all over some unarmed Goblin builders and very nearly allowed G'huun's pet blood trolls to go buck-wild, with all the attendant consequences that would've had.

Meanwhile, my Orc Monk set fire to Stormwind, helped burn down Teldrassil, killed a Loa (granted, the Loa needed killing, but it's still undue meddling in a native culture), and then faction changed before I had a chance to finish the war campaign, so who knows what other nastiness takes places therein.

Many players are just annoyed because it looks like the writers have made every possible effort to maximize Horde aggression and malice and minimize Alliance ones.


This I can agree with, although I think a lot of it has to do with the story's pacing thus far, and a little to do with people romping through quests without actually looking at what they're doing. That said, there is a legitimate complaint to be made about how the entire Alliance seems to be standing behind Anduin's "war for peace" approach with no dissent whatsoever.

11/11/2018 15:38Posted by Eriù
I don't think she's inconsistent here. Sira was Miev's second in command.
That Miev tries to make Sira change her mind and come back to her people is reasonable even if Miev has an aggressive personality.
Just her lines are not needed.
If she had acted outraged by Sira betrayal , she would have been consistent anyway.


Maiev isn't a total psycho, but her part in TFT demonstrates she's quite single-minded, she doesn't take guff from anyone, and she's got no qualms about killing anyone standing in the way of whatever goal she's set to. The only reason she didn't take a swing at Malfurion and Tyrande whne they allowed Illidan to walk is because she knew she stood no chance of beating them - she didn't think twice about dumping them and the Sentinels to continue her hunt, though.

To hear Maiev trying to reason with a Sira who is essentially whining about the extra work she had to do because Maiev went out to do her job - i.e. capture/ kill Illidan - seems odd to me. If Maiev turned on Sira once she found out why Sira turned, I'd find that easier to swallow, but she doesn't. She just kind of accepts what's being thrown at her. That feels wrong to me.
Hang on though. People are saying this is bad writing, but this is the -essence- of Heroic narrative, this is Achilles at Troy, this is Cu Chullain and Ferdia at 'The Ford', or well, even Cu Chullain and his son, this is Arthur and Mordred at Camlann, heck, you want to go that far, this is Tony Stark and Steve Rogers in Avengers: Civil War, "Sorry Tony, but he's my friend...." "So was I!"

Two opponents on different sides, one is dead set on their purpose, the other still believes there is something retrievable from the other.

I mean this -is- the essence of heroic narrative, everything and everyone is larger than life, there are no small gestures here, and everything is bombastic.

This is epic war, and it is human nature to expect such grandiose behaviour, it stems from our myths, from our histories, from our stories. I mean does anyone seriously think King Henry V gave that speech at Agincourt? As far as most historical accounts state, he just said (I paraphrase) " Fellers, Lets go!" Less 'Pride and Prejudice', more 'Peaky Blinders'.

But our narrative, the part of us that is human and yearns for things to have meaning, insist on a narrative, that there has to be something more than one leader just saying "Lets smash their heads in lads"

That's why we get scenes like this. Part of us wants them, we want it to be grandiose and large of scale, we want the protagonists to make pithy comments, we want the grand design to make sense, that it is not just two bunches of people bludgeoning in heads in the mud and guts and blood to no real purpose. We don't just -want- that, we -need- that, or no one would fight a war ever again.

Its not Bad Writing. Its Human Writing.
11/11/2018 16:40Posted by Brigante
Its not Bad Writing.


It's inconsistent characterisation, which is a species of Bad Writing. It's like if Achillies got to Troy and then refused to duel Hector because he was a bit intimidated by the prince's reputation.
09/11/2018 16:50Posted by Призраклеса
09/11/2018 15:22Posted by Darvingar
Sira: "Show no mercy


Yes, show no mercy to her own race, who came here to save their own home lands. . .

This is most stupidest thing I ever heard in mine entire life !!!!


Just wait till Lightforged Draenei are turned into undead waste and they begin their siege of Stormwind immediately with their Unholy Vindicaar. It could totally happen, I bet lead narrative designer aka. "Nathanos guy" has considered it with dead serious face, in a dark room, with a single candle illuminating the Sylvanas funko-pop figure that he fiddles in his gentle but dark grasp.
11/11/2018 16:40Posted by Brigante
Hang on though. People are saying this is bad writing, but this is the -essence- of Heroic narrative, this is Achilles at Troy, this is Cu Chullain and Ferdia at 'The Ford', or well, even Cu Chullain and his son, this is Arthur and Mordred at Camlann, heck, you want to go that far, this is Tony Stark and Steve Rogers in Avengers: Civil War, "Sorry Tony, but he's my friend...." "So was I!"

Two opponents on different sides, one is dead set on their purpose, the other still believes there is something retrievable from the other.

I mean this -is- the essence of heroic narrative, everything and everyone is larger than life, there are no small gestures here, and everything is bombastic.

This is epic war, and it is human nature to expect such grandiose behaviour, it stems from our myths, from our histories, from our stories. I mean does anyone seriously think King Henry V gave that speech at Agincourt? As far as most historical accounts state, he just said (I paraphrase) " Fellers, Lets go!" Less 'Pride and Prejudice', more 'Peaky Blinders'.

But our narrative, the part of us that is human and yearns for things to have meaning, insist on a narrative, that there has to be something more than one leader just saying "Lets smash their heads in lads"

That's why we get scenes like this. Part of us wants them, we want it to be grandiose and large of scale, we want the protagonists to make pithy comments, we want the grand design to make sense, that it is not just two bunches of people bludgeoning in heads in the mud and guts and blood to no real purpose. We don't just -want- that, we -need- that, or no one would fight a war ever again.

Its not Bad Writing. Its Human Writing.


Dude, it is a character telling the player something which is immediatly contradicted. You are reading waaaaaay to deep into this.
Yeh the only real problem with the writing is consistent character inconsistencies. Ironic XD
If you look at it in that context - and bear in mind Blizz is aiming for "young adult fantasy fiction" rather than "seminal world literature" - it seems a little less terrible.


But even young adult fantasy fiction must respect the basic rules of storytelling, and BfA does not, so I can’t agree with you. I’m sorry.
The problem in this “young adult fantasy fiction” is that the narrative technique is poor and superficial in the best case, and the fact that Blizzard has planned the story since 2016 or has good intentions don't change this.
(Honestly this just worsens writers position XD)

You have mention War of Thorns, so I use it to clarify my point.
Consider, for istance, Horde characters lack of reactions to Sylvanas's actions. Warcraft characters have a personality, races have values, but few characters respond to the burning of Teldrassil according to them.
Why? Because Blizzard is lazy and doesn’t like complexity. The writers have just chosen to focus on few characters, turning them into the representatives of all positions and forgetting anyone else is involved in the story, included the player. Subsequently, characters look like mere emanations of the will of who is on the stage at moment and seems inconsistent.
And please don’t use the argument “Blizzard has told us that Sylvanas has good motivations, just we don’t know them” because the story clearly tells us that no-one knows Sylvanas true plan and motivations, so we can not use them to explain the behavior of other characters (who are not bronze dragons XD).

And this narrative solution is no good for a MMORPG in which players have their personal avatars that are supposed to be active part of the events (we are not watching a fiction or reading a book, we are not playng Sylvanas, Saurfang, or Nathanos), but we see it applyes in many occasions during the story (even in the new patch).

This is just one of the most debated narrative problems and I don’t go ahead because this is not the purpose of this discussion (and my post is really too long. I beg your pardon).

My point is that we can find bad storytelling elements in many parts of BfA (including patch 8.1) and even the parts that are decently written (most of the Zandalari campaign is nice for example) are affected by superficiality and plain and predictable solutions. These elements persist despite the new contents/developments of the story because what's done is done, and they are not effected by how long we must wait for new contents.
A game with solid consistent quality storytelling remains a quality game from a narrative point of view no matter how long we play it.

And unfortunately even the new contents seems to be effected by poor narrative choices, so in all conscience for now I can't say that the story is getting better.

If I think at contents I agree that we have many interesting ideas and subjects and that (accepting the premises) the story is good in its concept, but if I look at development I see bad narrative (and this is a shame): a fantasy fiction that includes plot holes, inconsistent characters, incoherent facts, childish situation or dialogues, poor solutions like deus ex machina and superficial developments is not a quality fiction.

And you must consider that Blizard promised us a morally gray story and failed.

Again, I can't agree here. There's a lot of grey morality in there, although it's not particularly apparent until you think about it for a while.


Sorry, I didn’t express clearly there. I don’t assert that both factions have not done aggressive or bad actions in the story, simply they don’t look to me enough to tell that the story is "a morally gray story".

In a morally gray story people feel that neither side is totally good nor completely evil. Both sides have a strong, justifiable reason for fighting, and contain a mixture of people of all kinds, from admirable, upstanding individuals to vicious, slimy scumbags.

Considering the contents I can agree that Blizzard has this kind of story in mind, but because of poor storytelling they failed in building it.
We have motivations for actions, but in many cases they are so bad developed that they look superficial and scarce (or even not believable), not strong and justifiable.
We have many marvelous characters with different personalities and motivations, but Blizzard does not care to show them. They just give us few characters and make everyone else agree with them just because.
We have childish or poor written situations that make one part feels to be the antagonist (in some case stupidly evil) and the other part feels to be the hero (in some case stupidly good).

BfA is a morally gray story in intention, not in its development unfortunately.

11/11/2018 16:01Posted by Owlsong
To hear Maiev trying to reason with a Sira who is essentially whining about the extra work she had to do because Maiev went out to do her job - i.e. capture/ kill Illidan - seems odd to me.


I don’t disagree. Simply Bizzard has not provided us much information about Sira and Miev relationship (how close were they?), so I don’t think the line is so out of character to say that she is inconsistent here.

Ps please forgive me for the long post and grammatical mistakes, I'm not English mother tongue. =_=!

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum