The same thing they do with every game in the past few years. Nothing.
Their business model is based on vague misleading advertisement and good looks to grab the preorder money and bail out. Everything after the release isnt important for them, because now they got paid for 2+ expansions developement and can brag before investors with cool sales numbers. Repeat this every 2 years.
1 Like
Hi. I play a character that can shoot magic arrows. Makes sense?
There’s flying ships. There’s demons and angels and undead. Makes sense?
There’s elves and gnomes and orcs and trolls. Makes sense?
You have a bias against something and so you don’t want to see it in ‘your’ game.
Well, tough. Suck it up.
1 Like
Nobody is “ganging up onto reason” in this conversation, I’ve provided excerpts from studies about the subject, but you just said “do not want”.
It’s not reason, it’s a very unreasonable stance to take.
2 Likes
Not concerning the representation segment of this whole thread but -
There is a difference between whether or not a character makes sense and whether or not a concept or idea within a universe makes sense.
If Gandalf suddenly decided that he didn’t really feel like continuing his job as an Istari and decided that all of a sudden, he wanted to break dance for coins on the streets of Minas Tirith as it’s being bombarded by Sauron’s forces, that wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense.
But hey, Lord of the Rings has magic, orcs and fantasy elephants so I guess writing or narrative structure doesn’t matter.
What I’ve just said above isn’t referencing Pelagos or whatever he’s called but rather this uh “the game is fantasy so everything makes sense!” or the “a wizard did it so it’s okay!” rebuttal that I see being used a lot.
–
As per the blue angel guy whose relevance seems utterly trivial, I don’t think I went with that covenant or either way he was just pretty forgettable compared to nearly every other character. Since people seem to think he’s such a big deal, I decided to spoil myself and google the character to see what I could find;
Pelagos is a [kyrian] located in the [Vestibule of Eternity] in [Bastion]. He is [Soulbound] to [Kleia] and refers to her as his sky-sister.
Kyrian Aspirants are able to choose a physical form that represents their true self. Pelagos presented as a woman in his mortal life but chose to be a man in the [Shadowlands]
Yeah. Not really much there. Honestly seems incredibly shallow. Can’t understand why this is miffing people off overly. If anything it’s a little eye roll.
1 Like
How about ‘It’s a fact that souls can change their appearance in the afterlife down to humanoid creatures appearing as animals so changing their appearance to the opposite gender isn’t really that far out’?
2 Likes
People that bought a game called “Warcraft” didn’t expect much relationship bagger or tokenism to be put into it, does that make sense aswell?
The game has had lots of storylines over the years, with a vast array of topics.
So why are these a problem?
Because of bias. Again; suck it up.
The game is literally about Warcraft and relationship garbage was always a stupid topic. From Thrall’s wedding to Jaina’s relationship with Kalecgos ingame.
Most of the time relationships were vaguely hinted at, often times just a secret or an easter egg even. Never so full blown like this over the last years. Even Sylvanas interacting with Nathanos would’ve been fine, but even there they pushed onto the topic too much.
So yes it’s a problem?
And people are telling fans who just want to see Warcraft playing out to “deal with it, we are in your game too”. No you just joined and wish to see the system and foundation of the game’s storytelling change.
Reminds me of how I felt during Cataclysm when I had to endure that cringe-worthy Firelands wedding.
Also be careful about debating with particular users. It often leads to actions being taken by somewhat odd instruments of interactive justice via the form of a metaphysical hammer. There are some agents of the legion that prefer to use subterfuge and stealth to accomplish their objectives of purging users from their respective community boards of interest.
1 Like
Oh?
Sounds like you missed the stories about: loss, friendship, love, racism, betrayal etc etc.
Subjective.
I think it makes the world feel more believable. More real. More immersive.
No.
Wut?
I just joined? I’ve been playing WoW since launch. 
Exactly my point. Some people want topics like relationships but into the game while the game is not around that. They can play other games where there’s that topic, like the Sims for example. It even has a transmog system for that.
I never once considered to force “topics” onto a game that wasn’t about that at all. What a silly thing to do. Next I’m going to call Seinfield and demand that they put more nuance topics like economics and the history of Constantinople.
Did I ever say these topics weren’t in the game? No, but they were in the background. Because you know what this game is about? Warcraft.
Sadly Blizzard seems to only care about the feelings of characters, instead of the latter part.
Then you’ve been playing the wrong game for a long time haha.
Can you point to any overt LGBTQ relationship being a core component of the plot?
I feel like I should say something here but odds are I’ll get flagged for harassment.
Be careful.
Specific users on these forums still have the ability to post gifs even after making horrible, horrible comments that compare temporary pre-patch events to horrific war crimes.
_
If you do want a reasonable discussion about this issue though, I’m here to chat also. I must say I am curious about this ‘tokenism’ you describe. Does a character not have to be somewhat relevant or add something to the plot to be counted as a ‘token representative’ character? Like ‘Token’ from South Park who is literally a joke surrounding that particular term.
Do you have other examples?
No. It’s not.
That’s what the RTS games were about. Because those were simple and easy to categorize. WoW has moved lightyears on from that simple ‘orcs vs humans’ setting.
Clearly not. ‘haha’.
2 Likes
I only played Warcraft 3 prior to WoW, but even then, the gameplay was mainly the reason for warcraft/war, since it was a strategy game.
The story itself, while about conflict, still wasn’t just this complete focus on war.
Rightfully so. Because you keep bringing up nonsense that clearly is not true, that I’ve stated many times to not be true and yet you keep saying it. That. Is. Harrassment.
I’d say that WC3 had a lot of relationship-related components. Not just romance, but just how characters align with one another overall.
If you wanted a very simple “just war, strategy and logistics” kinda plot, WC2 was kinda like that.
1 Like
A story would be entirely uninteresting if it didn’t include other components. WoW is an MMORPG - so the core of that, imo, should be world building, attention to the setting and the development of characters within that setting.
That being said - the game’s roots are very much firmly grounded in Warcraft. It is still called ‘World of Warcraft’, the core themes should somewhat adhere to that - and honestly, it still does that reasonably well.
I don’t understand the limits of “we can’t have romances or etc in this because it’s about war” argument, but we also similarly can’t ignore that war is still and should always be a core component of the story. Other RPGs include such themes - so why would WoW be exempt from that?
Hi there. I’ve asked you before not to speak with me or address me. I don’t wish to be addressed by you, and as I have not spoken to you at all, I would prefer it if you didn’t quote me. Respect my boundaries, please. I don’t like being harassed.
1 Like
True, but I meant that those conflicts (wars) were the big center piece.
That hasn’t been the case in the majority of WoW’s existence (I’m not saying those moments haven’t existed, but overal it’s not the center piece it was in the RTS games).
1 Like
Then stop talking ABOUT me.