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)
11-20-2011 @ 8:42PM
DeathPaladin said...
To be fair, I'd normally be fine with something like Theramore being razed. Storywise, it's interesting because something that big raises the stakes. However, it's a problem when taken with the rest of the Alliance storyline.
It's not even that the Alliance loses so often. That could even be excused if done well. The problem is that the Alliance is reactive, even passive. If (not when, if) they do anything, it is always reacting to something.
And this is not just a problem from WoW. It's existed from the very beginning. Warcraft 1 has the humans defending against the orcs. Warcraft 2 has the humans defending, then pushing back, the orcs.
Warcraft 3, when the Horde starts to become the non-evil faction, has the humans flee to Kalimdor because the Scourge wiped out Lordaeron, while the orcs set sail for Kalimdor in order to build a new life. Notice how even here, the Horde was proactive while the Alliance was reactive.
So that's my problem with Theramore. It just compounds the problem that the only way the writers seem to be able to include the Alliance in the story is by having them reacting to an outside force.
That is why they cannot come up with a good war cry for the Alliance. It's because the Alliance feels so insubstantial. It only exists as a reflection of something else.