After reading the replies on my other topic, about if Sylvanas was right in “Good War”, it seems many players replied it has inconsistencies.
This was stated by Ion.
For future lore discussions, my question is what to do ?
In lore discussions is already hard to get a true interpretations, example the Broken Shore incident.
On Alliance side the Horde is portrayed as leaving the Battle and the Alliance alone against the legion.
On Horde side Vol’Jin is killed and Sylvanas has to retreat.
We were told Sylvanas had nothing to do with the Wrathgate incident, now it has been retconned as being responsible.
(Correct me if I am wrong).
In the BfA cinematic Sylvanas states:
“Alliances forged and broken.
We have paid the price for sharing this world and we have forgotten what makes us strong.”
That makes sense since the Alliance is showned as the attacker on the cinematic.
But on “Good War” she is said to be the one who initiated hostilities out of fear of the Alliance attacking first and she burned Teldrassil as well …
What should we interpretate from this ?
We already have two factions thus two interpretations, what will happen when someone quote old lore that doesn’t make sense in the new lore ?
It was actually stated by Sean Copeland aka Lorelogy aka the guy’s who’s job is to keep whole lore consistent as the Head of Lore… so it’s way worse than just Ion stating that.
“My team believes that continuity exists to enhance a story, not to tie the hands of creators,” says Copeland. “That really keeps me going, the simple fact that there might be someone each day that’s struggling with a piece of history that I can help with, and my support can help them overcome their challenge and inspire them to create something amazing.” https://www.gameinformer.com/2018/08/14/a-look-inside-how-blizzard-maintains-world-of-warcrafts-lore
Basically the newest stuff is always the most canon so you need to basically throw the old lore out of the window as it gets retconned… which isn’t good.
Honestly the original lore was way more interesting.
Yeah. It’s annoying. For example old Turalyon from Tides of Darkness and Beyond the Dark Portal novels was amazing character and the paladin I used to look up for inspiration for my own paladin… The current, Chronicles Vol. 2, Turalyon is a travesty.
Original Tyralyon was somebody who questioned his own faith and was generally unsure of himself but Anduin Lothar saw potential in the boy and Turalyon grew into the Supreme Commander of the Alliance of Lordaeron through many trials and tribulations.
Chronicles Turalyon is a priest that was so famous that he was allowed to attend meeting of the seven human kingdoms and inspired them to create the Alliance of Lordaeron through his charismatic speech then was chosen to be one of the first paladins because he was just so awesome.
Essentially they changed a good character into pure Mary Sue who had no flaws to work through.
WoWwiki article on Turalyon (good site if you’re interested looking into the old lore): https://wowwiki.fandom.com/wiki/Turalyon
WoWpedia article on the New Turalyon (good site to read if you’re interested in the latest lore): https://wow.gamepedia.com/Turalyon
I have no clue so I stopped playing this crappile.
We raise questions like that exactly because of the words you quoted.
Nothing makes any sense and it won’t. So what that someone said Sylvanas is responsible for the Wrathgate? Tomorrow they might just decide that Anduin was responsible for that and all of our discussions about that (we beat that topic hard) will be turned into a waste of time.
No continuity = no story.
Just reading this frustrates me.
“Woah! This is so cool! We have just made all the time people invested in the story and all of their discussions absolutely pointless because we retconned everything into oblivion! This is so amazing!”
It is.
But then you learn that what you learned is changed because it’s so “cool” and nothing you learned make any sesne anymore.
I don’t think the “quality” of the story and the lack of continuity is solely Blizzard’s fault.
In my experience, the quality of a story is directly tied to the amount of time it has been going on. Lore like the one of Warcraft has started years ago and has accumulated a massive fanbase.
One problem certainly is the fact that such a story has been and will be written by a lot of people, with a very different array of ideas on how the story should be. Or by people who most definitively have changed over the years and their interests differ vastly from what they did in the past, when they started writing the story. This is where all the continuity problems come from. The writers change what they no longer like, to deliver something else instead.
Another problem lies with the fanbase itself; 2 people might have started playing Warcraft games with WC3. Both of them enjoyed the lore and started to theorize about the future of wow lore, but in a completely different direction and both of them would be heavily disappointed if the story would derive too much from their expectations.
No matter what Blizzard does, they will not be able to satisfy everyone and in their endless quest to do so regardless, they alienate their more passionate player base.
Tl;Dr:
Too many cooks spoil the broth
Blizzard cannot satisfy everyone no matter what they do.
History itself is a wishy-washy affair at the best of times.
A lot of meaning is up for grabs and I’m fine with that, in fact that’s what makes a lot of what you read so interesting.
Lore is even more complicated because it’s storytelling. A good story has a few adjectives thrown in to make it interesting.
So, simple facts like; ‘the adventurers crossed the border’, can easily become twisted; ‘The Heroic adventurers crossed the border looking to liberate the tribes’, or ‘the band of looters crossed the border looking to swipe everything that wasn’t battened down’.
Embrace the ‘misstellings’ because they are integral to the storytelling process.
I think there is a generation that has grown up being internet ‘fed’. They are used to being able to find answers to their questions and quick to quote said answers to an ever increasingly argumentative audience.
That’s all fair and good for something like a scientific debate, or a theological standpoint that relies on winning arguments through a bombardment of scripture.
But, this is storytelling… it has a soul to it and a ‘flexibility’ and fluidity to it. We should be able to appreciate and embrace this.
How the Heroes cross the border and what we can make of it is far more interesting than pinning down facts. Pour paint stripper on a canvas at your own risk. You know it’s just canvas, some shoddy nails and old wood underneath. If you strip something back to places, names, time stamps and sequence of events you’ve killed the story.
Perhaps both tellings of Turalyon can be valid if they add to the Lore. How would the Horde portray him? It’s all relevant. You can appreciate your favourite retelling in better contrast to narratives that you like less.
Blizzard would actualy now have a great opportunity to revamp the lore to make sence in all expansions, I am talking about the Classic servers, start from there, rewamp outland to work whit the new lore, and then do the same things whit every expansion all the way up to atleast Mop, and you have total rewamped wow to go on instead of making things odd as it is now.
I would agree with this. IF it was really true. The first point more than the second because, really, indeed you cannot satisfy everyone.
But that’s just it. They’re trying to satisfy everyone and sacrificing a lot of elements, leaving loose tethers of story and opening new ones which criss cross over the existent ones.
What hurts a lot too is that they apparently have a dedicated team of ‘historians’ that look at previous lore to help them establish the story further. To which I say has either been completely ignored, or just a farce to make the story-hungry player sympathise with them.
Because they are better writers now? Nah, thank you. About the only thing I like about classic is that it is focused on world-building and there isn’t really that much of a story. Things just happen, and nameless heroes stop them, before they can actually change much.
What are you getting at? Is this a strawmanning attempt? I would certainly prefer if Tolkien wouldn’t touch LOTR at all. But who am I to tell them what to do? If Tolkien wants to scrap half of LOTR for chronicle-level , I can’t do about it…
I certainly wouldn’t buy any more LOTR stuff, that was tainted with stuff I don’t like, which is all I can do about it (and it works pretty good when we look at star wars).
All I am saying, is that my opinion / your opinion doesn’t necessarily represent the one of Blizzard’s desired target audience.
I would assume so, since warcraft doesn’t really have a person attached to it’s story.
Next time, Gallywix takes over, all members of the Horde, obviously, automatically turn into goblins mentally and the Horde start selling its own members into slavery because they’ve got the best deals anywhere.
Is he a female elf ?
Is he connected to the Sin’dorei lore ?
Does he hates the Alliance ?
To be honest assuming that: one part of the Horde loves Sylvanas, another part is with her because they hate Saurfang and Anduin, how many remain to support a new Warchief ?
I think the writers wrote themselves in to corner, with Sylvanas.
Same thing with the Night Elves and Teldrassil, how will this be ever corrected ?
I guess this requires more lore to be rewritten.
Like the part where Horde is described as a bunch of refugees seeking to survive in the land that came to hate them.
, I can’t do 
about it…