Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-06-2011 @ 11:34AM
Gaurisk said...
The idea of a third faction sounds interesting on paper, but the sheer volume of tears we'd see from Alliance players if zones underwent another reallocation to even out the quest areas are reason enough to scrap the plan.
Reply
11-06-2011 @ 3:06PM
Artificial said...
Yes, of course. When the Alliance loses anything, it's evidence for Horde-bias because the Alliance is losing things, and when the Horde loses anything, it's evidence for Horde-bias because the Horde is getting lore attention/story time. No matter who bad things happen to, it's obviously Horde-bias. Nifty how that works, no?
11-06-2011 @ 11:20PM
SamLowry said...
Aside from turning one of the Horde leaders into someone more important to the game than Jesus and Superman combined while simultaneously treating all of the Alliance leaders like dipsticks or do-nothings, what gives you the impression that the devs might be biased?
Doesn't help that we had someone post here recently who said that when he interviewed to work at Blizzard he was told to keep the fact that he plays Alliance a secret because almost everyone else in the building plays Horde and they would harass him mercilessly if they found out.