Kisirani on the world post-Icecrown
by Mike Schramm 
Oct 2nd 2009 at 1:00PM
And what better place to do that, she continues, than in the run up to Cataclysm. We already know there's going to be a world event, but Kisirani hints yet again that it's going to be quite sizable -- considering that she mentions it between Icecrown and the expansion release itself, we could just be talking about a whole content patch on its own. However it all plays out, it's quite clear that Icecrown is definitely not the end of this round of content, and the world we'll be playing in when Cataclysm actually releases will be very different than the one we know today.
Filed under: Horde, Patches, Analysis / Opinion, Blizzard, Raiding, NPCs
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Ezlo Oct 2nd 2009 1:04PM
Good, I'm glad. If Garrosh doesn't get some character development very very soon he might pass Varian in sheer number of critics.
Preston Oct 2nd 2009 1:18PM
How can people not like Garrosh? Especially Horde players. Have they never played any other Warcraft game?
kabshiel Oct 2nd 2009 1:23PM
I think Garrosh is a nutcase and probably won't make a great leader for the Horde, but I like that he actually adds some drama.
jam Oct 2nd 2009 1:38PM
Preston, certain Horde fanatics tend to look at their faction through rose-colored glasses. They're quick to forget all the bad, horrible things it has committed, and the bad things they're STILL doing.
This is because with WarCraft 3 Blizz had to make Horde likeable for their upcoming MMO, so they introduced some charismatic, "good" characters like Thrall and Cairne. Thrall is genuinely a good guy and all around awesome person, but he's also the reason why these Horde fanatics are now glossing over the atrocities their faction has done. Unfortunately Horde has loads of members who don't hold up to the ideals of their leader.
Garrosh shows the uglier, more realistic face of the Horde... and people don't like it.
Khremloc Oct 2nd 2009 1:44PM
I hope to god Saurfang cleaves Garrosh before Cataclysm arrives.
Quiz Oct 2nd 2009 1:51PM
Garrosh critics surpassed the Varian critics some time ago, mate.
mtsadowski Oct 2nd 2009 1:59PM
Just because we (a majority it seems) don't like him doesn't mean that it's not character development. He's a dick right now... that's his story. It's not like Blizzard doesn't KNOW this.
I just hope they play out his development in a manner that's fitting. For example. I hope he doesn't just do a complete 180 from dick to saint.
I really hope there is a quest line that drives him to be even MORE stubborn and brash, only for him to see the results of his action.
To see a good guy turn villain makes for a great story. To see a villain to see the errors of his/her way and reach enlightenment is a great hero's tale!
Just my 2 cents
tim Oct 2nd 2009 5:59PM
@jam
It's interesting you dismiss the "new, noble, non-evil" Horde since Warcraft III as just something Blizard "had to do." Yet Garrosh as a new leader is fine in your book... even though Garrosh is precisely just something Blizzard "had to do" to hype up the war aspect in Warcraft.
thebitterfig Oct 2nd 2009 3:31PM
@ Jam: Let's not forget that the horde has been the victims of horrible acts from time to time. They set out across the sea to try to start a new life in a barren wilderness and are attacked by immortal blue eco-terrorists who object to the orcs building anything. The night elves didn't say "hey, these trees are important to us so dont' cut them, but how about show you some other place where you can establish your new life in peace?" but rather "it has an axe! shoot it full of arrows before it can speak!"
If anyone objects saying that Grom killed Cenarius, he did it in defense of his people. The demigod would have wiped out the orcs in those forests, likely to the man, woman, and child.
I'm not saying there is a moral equivalency between Horde and Alliance. There is a lot of blood on the Horde's hands, but that doesn't mean that the Alliance's hands are clean and that they don't have dark parts to their past they have to answer for.
qoa Oct 2nd 2009 3:57PM
I'll tell you why horde hates Garrosh. When you first get to Nagrand. No matter where you go to quest, you end up with a messenger quest to go talk to him. No matter what chain you do for horde npcs in Nagrand they all same the same thing. Garrosh is too emo about the Earth Mother dying to do anything. So he's letting orc clans get slaughtered by Orgres. You do tons of quests out there, and he keeps cutting himself listening to Linkin Park, bitching that it's hopeless. Nothing but whining from him nonstop.
Eventually you do the entire Earth Mother chain, Thrall and Drek talk to him and show him the WCIII cutscene. He gives the same buff as you get for the UBRS turn in to everyone in Garadar. Seems fine. Two levels later in Northrend, he's talking shit to you like you're worthless, and shitting all over Saurfang in conversation. Bragging how badass he is. It's horrible story telling that he goes from one extreme to the other. It seems trite. That's not even taking into account that he's annoying.
There are no "Rose Colored Glasses" involved there. If you level a character right this second through outlands. You'll most likely go from Hellfire to Zangarmarsh/Terokkar to Nagrand then Northrend. My last 4 have went this route. So you literally go from him whining to him being billy badass in the time it takes to train level 68 abilities and take a zep.
Peacebone Oct 2nd 2009 4:09PM
@Jam
ugh.
Dah Oct 2nd 2009 4:39PM
@Qoa: You bring up a good point by comparing those two portrayals of Garrosh, but maybe this will help what comes up with him make more sense.
After all, before people find their balance, they generally have to make some mistakes in the wrong directions.
Killchrono Oct 2nd 2009 5:44PM
@Jam
"Garrosh shows the uglier, more realistic face of the Horde... and people don't like it."
Umm hate to burst your bubble, but the Horde isn't all evil. Not anymore at least. Garrosh might be leading the Horde back down that path, but that's why a lot of Horde players are pissy at him. It's not because he's showing the 'real' face of the Horde, as a lot of players (mostly Alliance extremists) have been trying to justify. It's because there are a lot of Horde characters who genuinely AREN'T evil and a lot of Horde players who don't associate with being evil.
The Horde has always been the moral gray of WoW since it's beginning. The Horde came out of Warcraft 3 renewed, with the prospect of settling down and trying to atone for the mistakes of their past. However, for every good Horde character like Thrall, Saurfang, Vol'jin and Cairne, there are others who have always risked upsetting the peace. They're caught between humans who are still unable to forgive the orcs for the first two great wars, orcs like Garrosh and his generals who seek to revive the war-mongering juggernaught of old, and new allies like the Forsaken and the Blood Elves who use questionable methods to survive and fight (though the Blood Elves have admittedly started walking down a more redeemable path since the Sunwell was reborn).
To me, that's where the interest in the Horde of WoW has always been: the good they've atoned too mixed with the more questionable actions, and how justified or redeemable they are. Thrall is obviously a good orc, and many people agree with his more notable triumphs. But is he right to tolerate forces like Garrosh and his supporters, despite the fact they're going to undo everything he's worked for? Was it right for him to trust the Forsaken? Did the orcs even deserve a chance for redemption in the first place, after everything they did to the Alliance?
I'm not saying everything the Horde has done is justified or redeemable, but the fact such questions can be debated leads to more interesting and dynamic story-telling than if the Horde was just outright evil.
jam Oct 2nd 2009 6:30PM
"Umm hate to burst your bubble, but the Horde isn't all evil."
And nowhere did I claim it was.
I didn't even call Garrosh evil, but he probably represents the average Horde mindset better than Thrall.
Killchrono Oct 2nd 2009 7:02PM
@Jam
Average Orc mindset more like it, and that's only the characters, not actual players. There's a reason players worship characters like Thrall and Saurfang rather than Garrosh: they're cool guys with good intentions, who are also incredibly badass. Saurfang in particular epitomizes everything the new Horde has tried to work towards, as he's a veteran warrior who feels deep shame for his actions during the first and second wars. But rather than moping about it or justifying what he did, he accepts the shame and instead looks at the present moment and handles things in the most honourable, logical way. And he's incredibly badass when he does it.
I think that's a much more developed, interesting character than some emo-turned-roid rager whose motive is fighting for the sake of fighting.
Kai Monture Oct 2nd 2009 8:12PM
http://www.wow.com/2009/09/21/a-critical-examination-of-garrosh-hellscream/
Chukie Oct 2nd 2009 1:06PM
Meh to paraphrase her though he's still not going to be thrall. So we're still going back to warmongering horde.
Not that i have a problem that just so long as we're smart about it. GARROSH SMASH is not my idea of sound battle tactics.
Graham Oct 2nd 2009 2:16PM
Maybe the horde could boycot Orgrimmar in protest. Thunder Bluff is nice this time of year. :)
Atsuko Oct 2nd 2009 2:55PM
This. A more warlike Horde could turn out to be a good thing, especially if we get to properly slay that idiot Varian. Provided that GARROSH SMASH isn't the tactic we choose, I'd say we could do it. We could always leave the Dwarves about though, they know how to have a good time.
Andrew R. Oct 2nd 2009 1:07PM
With all the changes they are talking about I can see a whole new WoW that will attract even more players. They are more or less giving the game a make over and making it more appealing.
We've been looking at the same Azeroth for nearly five years. I think the timing is perfect to change everything. This also makes me curious as to how close Cataclysm really is. With 3.3 on the ptr and more talk about Cataclysm I wouldn't doubt if it we see it shortly after new years.