Right…it seemed implied, if it didn’t I wouldn’t have replied.
But sure, I guess I ‘missread’, my apologies.
I still don’t like what you said…but I can hardly disagree with it, because it is and has been rather…pitifull.
Who cares if the Grimtotem are the ‘token evil tribe’, if you only deal in that and the “token generic good amalgamation(difference in tribes is hardly discernable even though there should be more than the Bloodhoofs)”, with the later being a hivemind of boring aiss Baine clones.
Yes.
I started pitying the second I realised how unwilling Blizzard writers are to develop them in a meaningful way beyond the token usage as the tearjerkers condemned to follow Baine steps when playing second fiddle for Alliance characters such as Jaina or Anduin.
Defenceless and meek sheep to be killed at war times, comforted and protected during peace times, and taken advantage of when it’s convenient. Tauren should NEVER be portrayed as that.
Baine is shamelessly being used as the tragic victim to be pitied, and is dragging his entire race with him.
Payback for Southshore, for Theramore, for Silverwing, or for Gilneas…but the siege of the Tauren lands is approved by the Tauren leader.
Even Malfurion, Velen, and Anduin have their limit. Why can’t Baine?
It’s worrying how certain people rather have them that way.
It’s jarring how Cairnes legacy has been twisted into this.
Edit: And the above became painfully apparent when I started comparing HM and Mulgore Tauren lore. Unburdened from previous stories, and out of the sight of writers like Golden, whatever few interactions we’ve had with HM portray an approach a thousand times healthier, consistent, and “true” to how Tauren values should be, than the travesty they are pushing for the core race with Baine at the head.
i fled that nest ages ago and have never looked back since. heck, my closest ‘moo’ of recent times was for the racials! and even that one got abandoned!
the moment of worrying has gone and passed long, long, long ago.
I think part of the problem with the Tauren and their lore is that Blizzard have went a bit weird with it. They have went “They’re based on Native Americans” Which is awesome, and brilliant, and a culture often neglected in video games, so good on them for that, but then they get some things really wrong. I think they are over romanticising the whole thing, which is understandable, but it does hamstring them in the writing.
Native Americans were not pacifist hippies with super wisdom powers who only waged war when they were attacked, so…why are the Tauren? I mean what, if you want a warlike Tauren you have to go for the Grimtotem or Bloodtotem (I love the fact the names kind of give it away), What’s wrong with a Warlike Thunderhorn, or Winterhoof?
They’ve taken the ‘noble savage’ pastiche a bit too far, so much so that it doesn’t probably reflect what they were going for. If the Tauren -are- based on the Plains Native Americans, then by now they would be reaching for their scalping knives, as the Alliance scalped theirs (Cutting off the horns of dead Tauren). In fact that would be a neat parallel, as the Native Americans in our world only started scalping people after American colonists scalped them to sell them to museums. Heck, they could go with the whole ‘Counting Coup’ thing, a Native American custom of battle, (Though admittedly a hard one to implement in Warcraft, given that it means a feat of bravery and emerging unscathed and unwounded, but not necessarily killing the enemy, slapping them with a stick, or nicking one of their weapons was enough)
But they managed to do so right with the HM. Nobody doubts that meddling with Mayla or Lasan would have consequences.
That they are honourable and peaceful, but strong and resolved if necessary.
No, I don’t think it’s the theme that’s wrong here.
People don’t need a warmonger Tauren leader.
But they need someone that projects the serene and contained strength that is being held by their peaceful demeanour.
Baine doesn’t do so. When he projects strength, he does so in an either useless fashion or against the wrong people. And the rest of the time is portrayed as the tragic victim to be protected, or saved.
Wouldn’t be so serious if it wasn’t for the fact that when we add this to the Tauren overall lack of exposure, this approach drags down the imagery of the ENTIRE race.
That’s why people turn to the outliers that go against the “rule” presented in the game. That’s when the Grimtotem gain popularity.
He was not. I remember that during Cataclysm they were pretty happy with Garrosh.
They “made” him villain only after the outrage from Alliance players and the millions of lost subs.
No, to be fair, Alex Afrasiabi admitted that he had went “off Message” with Stonetalon Garrosh in Cata, and that he pretty much was always supposed to be a villain, and to be fair, Stonetalon Garrosh does stand out as the unusual bit, everywhere else he is a scenery chewing growly tyrant.
It’s not only Stonetalon. Afrasiabi was just trying to save face with the backpedaling they did with Garrosh character. People fished out several dev declarations that definetly point at them intending to push Garrosh as an heroic character to be developed.
What happened is crystal clear: He didn’t have the welcome they expected, and they ended up deciding to remove him from the story by turning him a villain.
The next declarations were just to save face and project they toootally intended to have this reaction…when previous interviews show that was definitely not the case.
I think it had more to do with how unwilling certain players were to adjust their orc perception after having Thrall for so many years, and how different he was when compared with Garrosh.
More like an outrage from Alliance players, who were rightfully pissed off that they were losing all their iconic quest hubs, and a massive backlash from Horde players who started whining as soon as they announced that they would replace Thrall with Garrosh.
That’s very interesting.
Thanks for the clarification.
Exactly what I thought.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now my question to Cimp, Daelinna, Brigante and Zarao:
Do you think that a chaotic Horde can ever exist ?
From what I gathered from your sources this type of Horde could never exist, in Azeroth:
If Garrosh was meant to be a hero and got all that backlash, from players that like Thrall, including the Alliance player base, than there is no place for Sylvanas Horde as well.
There cannot be a chaotic Horde because that would mean that the Alliance is wiped out, and forgive us Alliance players if we demand and deserve the same rights that Horde players have.
This is why I belive WoW should had started in Warcraft 1 as the movie did.
Horde players complain they want a siege of Stormwind.
That already happened in the First War.
Players often complain the narrative never let their faction win.
That happened during the First and Second war.
It’s in the lore, already happened, all they had to do is bring it to WoW.
If by “chaotic” you mean like the faction was during Cataclysm, yes.
There are stages beyond passiveness.
Horde Cataclysm experience mirrored the Alliance one in Vanilla.
People were more reticent regarding Garrosh because after so long, it felt weird to have someone so different to Thrall. That doesn’t mean his ambition and drive weren’t positive or engaging for the story.
Even if we are to decide that the bulk of said sub loss came because of the game story (kind of far fetched, as few consider the story as that kind of relevant issue), the alternative is what exactly?
Have the opposite?
Back to unbalanced zones and unfinished quest lines for the Horde side like it happened in Vanilla?
And people are deluding themselves if they think the sub loss in Cataclysm came because of the story. Let alone the fact that the data of 3-4 million Alliance players seems like something pulled out of thin air.
Edit: Also I don’t like meta reasoning to give validity to story decisions. It’s the equivalent of fan service dictating the narrative.
And I’m afraid you do that quite a lot.
Edit 2: And if we are to draw parallels with a Warlord, rather use the story of Kilrogg:
Why did they unsub though?
Is it because their side of the storyline / questing sucked? A valid complaint however it contradicts people here saying most WoW players don’t give a hoot about the lore / story.
Is it because “they lost” zones in the revamp?
In that case I’d get the sentimental part of the complaint but I find it an awfully petty reason. Horde had far less zones to quest in before Cataclysm and Blizzard took the revamp as an uppertunity to correct that.
Or perhaps it’s because gameplay sucked? wich has nothing to do with this anyway.
What other reasoning is there I forgot about? Genuine question.
Also, Aster, I find your argumentation or reasoning to be rather black and white regarding the factions, especially in regards to the Horde or what you think the Horde player base wants, regardless of pro or against Sylvanas as Warchief.
Have you played Alliance in Cata? Everywhere you go, game tells you “You and your faction suck”.
I remember that the first response of Blizzard for angry Alliance players was: “You chose the wrong faction”.
This is enough for a reason, don’t you think?
Than my questions:
Why Garrosh was removed, when he was perfect for BfA ?
Why didn’t he stayed ?
Why aren’t we under his leadership ?
My answer, after reading everyone’s posts, is: because he wasn’t popular enough.
Fair enough.
I picked Grommash Hellscream and the Warsong clan because they represent the true: Lok’Tar Ogar in my opinion.
Well think like this Zarao, we are players, we speak from what we think it’s the best course for the story, but Activision Blizzard is a game company.
If their product doesn’t please the majority of the community who are they pleasing ?
And so you can understand how far i am whiling to concede, if the majority of the Horde player base wanted the old Horde back (Gul’Dan, Blackhand, Orgrim Doomhamer) I would accept it.
I agree.
But in the end I am ready to accept this:
Can you say the same Zarao ?
Yes I protested with how Teldrassil went, I don’t like Sylvanas and Nathanos, but do you think Activision Blizzard cares about it ?
No.
The story will end the way it was written and I am ready to accept that.
Rather have something than nothing.
Fair enough.
All I can say is, the Horde is as much united as a community regarding the story and his Warchief as the Americans during the American civil war.
Players may want to ignore this and often see the community as united as the Alliance, but nothing could be further from the truth.
The Horde is divided and that was already acknowledged from the developers, they did it on purpose.
Because Blizzard wanted to have a civil war story and turned him into a villain in MoP.
And now they are doing the same with Sylvanas because they felt the first time they didn’t address all the issues they wanted to.
Their own words.
If popularity amongst Horde players were a thing, and that served to dictate who was to stay as Warchief, I could reaffirm without needing that much information or delving into any kind of data…that Baine would never be used as a valid Warchief alternative. And Sylvanas would probably reign for a long time.
But I hate populism. If that’s the best someone can argue to give validity to anyone’s claim, they might just delete the game.
Garrosh was villainised because people weren’t willing to adjust to what at that time was some radical change of pace. The first new Warchief after Thrall.
Now? Those changes are simply more usual and people have grown used to them.
Sure I am. In the sense that I’m readily willing to accept an unicorn parting the skies and having a Metzen NPC riding it towards the Warchief seat.
That doesn’t mean that it’s a good, organic, or even sensible story.
And I’m not even bothering with whether it’s popular or not.
Edit: Also, kind of mixed signals here. A chaotic Horde shouldn’t happen because it would be an unpopular route for Alliance players, but at the same time we should accept an unpopular route for the overall story (cinematic above), because Blizzard decides what to write?