Dave Kosak talks quest design in Cataclysm

Of note is that Blizzard felt spread too thin with the ambitious revamping of the entire old world. That lead to less-than-ideal elements in the current endgame experience, which in turn is a key component of many player's dislike of Cataclysm.
Say what you will about people's complaints, but it's a good thing that Blizzard is able to look at itself with such a critical eye and fine tune its future processes to make things even better.
Some of the key points:
- The primary goal of Cataclysm was to remake the 1-to-60 experience, keep it relevant to new players.
- Blizzard is happy with the old world revamp.
- Blizzard felt spread too thin, which resulted from the total revamp of the old world.
- The 80-to-85 zones don't feel as connected to each other as Blizzard would have liked.
- "Phasing is like a story sledgehammer."
- They want future phasing to not split players up but to provide visual changes only you can see (like in the 4.2 dailies).
- "Cataclysm was in many ways Thrall's story."
- Future legendary quest lines will be a lot like the Fangs of the Father quests that rogues are experiencing right now.
- Blizzard is refocusing on core gameplay mechanics.
You can also take a look at our own post-mortem of Cataclysm's zones we did in late 2011.
To kick-off our World of Warcraft: Cataclysm post mortem series, we sat down with World of Warcraft Lead Quest Designer Dave "Fargo" Kosak to discuss his thoughts on questing in Cataclysm.
Q: What were your main goals going into Cataclysm?
Certainly from a quest design standpoint our primary goal with Cataclysm was to remake the old world, specifically the 1-60 questing experience. World of Warcraft was released in 2004, and we've learned so much in the years since about what constitutes good MMO gameplay. We wanted to make sure that the game was relevant to new players coming in, and walking up and down the length of the Barrens on foot over and over just didn't do it for us anymore.
Remaking the entire old world -- 46 zones! -- was ambitious. Actually, it was ludicrous. It was like re-releasing a whole game in the course of an expansion cycle. Then we added a couple new races and their starting zones on top of that. I'm not sure how we convinced ourselves we could make it happen, but somehow we pulled it together.
Q: Are you happy with how the old world re-vamp turned out?
I am. Leveling up a new character to 60 nowadays is a great deal of fun. Every zone has stories to play out, with interesting nooks and crannies and plenty of hidden gems or references for players who remember the pre-Cataclysm world. Zones like Ashenvale now live up to their premise (intense Horde-vs.-Alliance combat), and previously empty zones now have a lot of character (see: Azshara). The content just flows. It's still World of Warcraft, but the quests have a modern feel, with lots of action and storytelling.
Q: But what didn't work out so well?
We really spread ourselves thin and taxed the team. The original plan was to totally re-do a handful of high-priority zones, but to leave a lot of the zones that worked mostly alone. We categorized them into "red," "yellow," and "green" zones. The idea behind the green zones (for example, Loch Modan) was just to tweak the quest flow to be a little smoother, but not to make any major changes.
The reality is that even the green zones really needed a lot of love. Once we got in there, it was all or nothing: we ended up completely re-doing a lot of green zones so that they met our new quest design standards. We came up with a nickname: "watermelon" zones. They were green on the outside, until you got in there and started poking around. . . .
Where that hurt us was when it came time to do the max-level content, the 80-85 zones. The content there turned out well, but the experience is inconsistent across the board -- Uldum feels totally different from Hyjal, which in turn feels different from Vashj'ir. The design decisions and efforts we made didn't always yield the desired results.
Q: Tell us more about the level 80-85 zones -- what worked and didn't?
We were aiming for a really global feel with Cataclysm, so we set the max-level zones in varied environments all over the world (underwater, across deserts, in the elemental plane of earth, etc). However, as a result, they ended up not feeling as connected as we'd like. You get widely different experiences in zones that aren't geographically related to one another. That's something important that we're keeping in mind moving forward – World of Warcraft works best when there's a sense of place. A connected world to explore.
We feel the storytelling in Cataclysm was strong. Whether assembling the ancients in Hyjal, rescuing your drowned crew in Vashj'ir, or reassembling the world pillar in Deepholm, there's a strong sense of plot in every zone. Players participated in stirring stories, like bringing the Dragonmaw into the Horde via a violent coup or reuniting the Wildhammer Dwarves with a crazy wedding. These were memorable moments and shared experiences.
The downside to creating these stories is that the zones on the whole ended up being way too linear. For example, because we wanted to show your character re-growing the burning devastation of Mount Hyjal, there was really only one way to play that zone: you started at point A, and you worked your way through to point Z. Pretty glorious the first time, but frustrating on your second or third character because there's only one way to do it, and no way to skip around. That's a lesson we're going to carry forward for sure. We want big sweeping stories, but we want to give players the freedom to explore those stories on their own terms.
Q: Places like Hyjal also used a lot of phasing to show the world changing.
We have a massive phase shift halfway through the story that changes the terrain for nearly a third of the zone. It's epic, right? But it can be a real pain for players when so much of the world changes like that. Phasing is like a story sledgehammer: it gets the job done, but at best it splits up players and at worst it totally confuses them.
We're going to be a lot more careful going forward. The Firelands dailies in patch 4.2 gives you a much better idea of our future direction. There were sweeping visual changes to the world as you progressed, but there's very little actual phasing. For the most part, everyone is playing together on the same map. That's important to us. Looking ahead, we're going to be a lot smarter about how we show changes to the world, and we're going to do everything we can to avoid splitting players up.
Q: Talk more about the 4.2 patch. Were the Firelands dailies a hint of what's to come?
Definitely. With those dailies we were able to engage a lot of players, myself included. (I was the first quest designer on the team to get the mount and all the achievements on the live servers -- suck it up, slackers!) Previously, "doing dailies" meant hitting the same quest givers for the same three quests, usually in a static place. Here we were able to deliver a sense of progression and a story that unfurled over the course of a few weeks, all as you did a constantly changing set of quest objectives in a dynamic environment. We think that worked out well.
Moving forward, we're going to look for more opportunities like this -- ways to keep people engaged and cool things to do solo with your max-level character. We've got ambitious plans.
Q: Patch 4.2 also had the Aggra and Thrall questline, "Elemental Bonds." Did that meet your expectations? How do you feel about Thrall's character development?
That's a tricky one -- we've got mixed feelings. The essential story is a good one, and we really wanted to portray all the inner struggles Thrall is going through. Here's a guy that stepped down as Warchief and had to rediscover himself as a shaman in order to save the world. And he's haunted by his decisions: he's afraid of what's to come, paralyzed by doubt, angry at what Garrosh did to Cairne . . . the guy's a mess. We figured out a way to show all that internal tension, and we wrapped it up in a story that demonstrates how his mate, Aggra, will literally go to the ends of the world to pull him through this. It's a powerful love story, and a story about finding one's inner focus.
But we had to do a lot of things to make it work in the game. We needed to make a quest that 500 people could do simultaneously without getting in each other's way. We wanted a quest that players could do solo, no matter what their skill level. We didn't know if the player was decked out in raid gear or level 85 greens, so we had to keep it simple. We somehow made all of it work under those restrictions, and we filled the screen with some killer imagery (I love the vision of Thrall immersed in the Abyssal Maw). But ultimately the quests themselves ended up not being as compelling from a gameplay perspective as we would have liked. Many players blew through them once and never looked back.
I really think we can do better. Cataclysm was in many ways Thrall's story, but it was hard for players to follow his development over the course of the expansion. Going forward we want to convey a clearer narrative, delivered in the context of solid gameplay. We have some ideas on how to do that, and we're also going to keep experimenting. This is important to us -- we talk about ways to tackle this problem all the time.
Q: The Cataclysm patches also saw the debut of some legendary weapons: Dragonwrath and the Fangs of the Father. Will future legendaries be this, uh, legendary?
Good question. We love class-specific content, but quest lines like those are very resource-intensive. Each sequence involves weeks of development focus that takes content away from dungeons, dailies, or outdoor zones.
The feedback from players (and from our own team) has been overwhelmingly positive. Dragonwrath proved to be extremely popular, and allowed caster classes to get a front-row seat for major lore moments otherwise reserved only for dragons. Meanwhile, Fangs of the Father was pure rogue, from the theme to the mechanics. It was super-targeted and extremely fun -- it proved to us the value of focusing in on a specific class and tailoring the content to their abilities. Given that the audience for these weapons consists of badass raiders, we didn't hold back on the difficulty either, so these quests were great for people who wanted a real challenge.
The short answer is yes, we'll definitely continue doing these moving forward. Most likely future legendary quest lines will be built similar to the rogue experience: a couple key story moments, a lot of flavor, and some very specific challenges. But I wouldn't expect very many quest lines like these. Like legendary weapons themselves, they're going to be rare and special.
Q: We haven't even talked about goblins and worgen yet. What lessons did you take away from the new racial starting zones?
In both cases, the starting areas really sold the character and tone of the new races. The worgen area is so marvelously gothic, and Kezan is unmistakably unique and gobliny. The art and the quests all work together to establish a racial character. So that's a big win.
As for the mechanics themselves, I'm glad we were so experimental, but our general feeling now that all is said and done is that we went a little too 'gimmicky' with the player's initial experiences. Everyone can agree that the goblin experience gets pretty wild in places.
That's a big lesson we're carrying away from the expansion as a whole.
Q: Can you elaborate?
Overwhelmingly, players have told us that they want more quests where you have to flap a giant bird around a cave while targeting creatures in a 3D space.
Q: Seriously?
Maybe not . . . But moving forward, we're re-focusing on core gameplay mechanics. World of Warcraft works best when you've got your boots on the ground and you get to play your class. To that end, we're concentrating on giving players lots of fun combat challenges in continually changing environments, wrapped up in a terrific story that's propelled forward by the quests. Whenever we do special mechanics, we want them to feel special, and they'll never tear you away from combat for very long. Our goal is to load up the world with lots of interactive spaces, cool encounters, great characters, and neat spaces to explore. That's part of the reason we're keeping you grounded (literally) in Pandaria, and why we're focusing on a single continent. But I'm getting ahead of myself. We'll talk more about Pandaria soon enough.
Q: Looking forward to it. Thanks for your time!
Not a problem!
Q: What were your main goals going into Cataclysm?
Certainly from a quest design standpoint our primary goal with Cataclysm was to remake the old world, specifically the 1-60 questing experience. World of Warcraft was released in 2004, and we've learned so much in the years since about what constitutes good MMO gameplay. We wanted to make sure that the game was relevant to new players coming in, and walking up and down the length of the Barrens on foot over and over just didn't do it for us anymore.
Remaking the entire old world -- 46 zones! -- was ambitious. Actually, it was ludicrous. It was like re-releasing a whole game in the course of an expansion cycle. Then we added a couple new races and their starting zones on top of that. I'm not sure how we convinced ourselves we could make it happen, but somehow we pulled it together.
Q: Are you happy with how the old world re-vamp turned out?
I am. Leveling up a new character to 60 nowadays is a great deal of fun. Every zone has stories to play out, with interesting nooks and crannies and plenty of hidden gems or references for players who remember the pre-Cataclysm world. Zones like Ashenvale now live up to their premise (intense Horde-vs.-Alliance combat), and previously empty zones now have a lot of character (see: Azshara). The content just flows. It's still World of Warcraft, but the quests have a modern feel, with lots of action and storytelling.
Q: But what didn't work out so well?
We really spread ourselves thin and taxed the team. The original plan was to totally re-do a handful of high-priority zones, but to leave a lot of the zones that worked mostly alone. We categorized them into "red," "yellow," and "green" zones. The idea behind the green zones (for example, Loch Modan) was just to tweak the quest flow to be a little smoother, but not to make any major changes.
The reality is that even the green zones really needed a lot of love. Once we got in there, it was all or nothing: we ended up completely re-doing a lot of green zones so that they met our new quest design standards. We came up with a nickname: "watermelon" zones. They were green on the outside, until you got in there and started poking around. . . .
Where that hurt us was when it came time to do the max-level content, the 80-85 zones. The content there turned out well, but the experience is inconsistent across the board -- Uldum feels totally different from Hyjal, which in turn feels different from Vashj'ir. The design decisions and efforts we made didn't always yield the desired results.
Q: Tell us more about the level 80-85 zones -- what worked and didn't?
We were aiming for a really global feel with Cataclysm, so we set the max-level zones in varied environments all over the world (underwater, across deserts, in the elemental plane of earth, etc). However, as a result, they ended up not feeling as connected as we'd like. You get widely different experiences in zones that aren't geographically related to one another. That's something important that we're keeping in mind moving forward – World of Warcraft works best when there's a sense of place. A connected world to explore.
We feel the storytelling in Cataclysm was strong. Whether assembling the ancients in Hyjal, rescuing your drowned crew in Vashj'ir, or reassembling the world pillar in Deepholm, there's a strong sense of plot in every zone. Players participated in stirring stories, like bringing the Dragonmaw into the Horde via a violent coup or reuniting the Wildhammer Dwarves with a crazy wedding. These were memorable moments and shared experiences.
The downside to creating these stories is that the zones on the whole ended up being way too linear. For example, because we wanted to show your character re-growing the burning devastation of Mount Hyjal, there was really only one way to play that zone: you started at point A, and you worked your way through to point Z. Pretty glorious the first time, but frustrating on your second or third character because there's only one way to do it, and no way to skip around. That's a lesson we're going to carry forward for sure. We want big sweeping stories, but we want to give players the freedom to explore those stories on their own terms.
Q: Places like Hyjal also used a lot of phasing to show the world changing.
We have a massive phase shift halfway through the story that changes the terrain for nearly a third of the zone. It's epic, right? But it can be a real pain for players when so much of the world changes like that. Phasing is like a story sledgehammer: it gets the job done, but at best it splits up players and at worst it totally confuses them.
We're going to be a lot more careful going forward. The Firelands dailies in patch 4.2 gives you a much better idea of our future direction. There were sweeping visual changes to the world as you progressed, but there's very little actual phasing. For the most part, everyone is playing together on the same map. That's important to us. Looking ahead, we're going to be a lot smarter about how we show changes to the world, and we're going to do everything we can to avoid splitting players up.
Q: Talk more about the 4.2 patch. Were the Firelands dailies a hint of what's to come?
Definitely. With those dailies we were able to engage a lot of players, myself included. (I was the first quest designer on the team to get the mount and all the achievements on the live servers -- suck it up, slackers!) Previously, "doing dailies" meant hitting the same quest givers for the same three quests, usually in a static place. Here we were able to deliver a sense of progression and a story that unfurled over the course of a few weeks, all as you did a constantly changing set of quest objectives in a dynamic environment. We think that worked out well.
Moving forward, we're going to look for more opportunities like this -- ways to keep people engaged and cool things to do solo with your max-level character. We've got ambitious plans.
Q: Patch 4.2 also had the Aggra and Thrall questline, "Elemental Bonds." Did that meet your expectations? How do you feel about Thrall's character development?
That's a tricky one -- we've got mixed feelings. The essential story is a good one, and we really wanted to portray all the inner struggles Thrall is going through. Here's a guy that stepped down as Warchief and had to rediscover himself as a shaman in order to save the world. And he's haunted by his decisions: he's afraid of what's to come, paralyzed by doubt, angry at what Garrosh did to Cairne . . . the guy's a mess. We figured out a way to show all that internal tension, and we wrapped it up in a story that demonstrates how his mate, Aggra, will literally go to the ends of the world to pull him through this. It's a powerful love story, and a story about finding one's inner focus.
But we had to do a lot of things to make it work in the game. We needed to make a quest that 500 people could do simultaneously without getting in each other's way. We wanted a quest that players could do solo, no matter what their skill level. We didn't know if the player was decked out in raid gear or level 85 greens, so we had to keep it simple. We somehow made all of it work under those restrictions, and we filled the screen with some killer imagery (I love the vision of Thrall immersed in the Abyssal Maw). But ultimately the quests themselves ended up not being as compelling from a gameplay perspective as we would have liked. Many players blew through them once and never looked back.
I really think we can do better. Cataclysm was in many ways Thrall's story, but it was hard for players to follow his development over the course of the expansion. Going forward we want to convey a clearer narrative, delivered in the context of solid gameplay. We have some ideas on how to do that, and we're also going to keep experimenting. This is important to us -- we talk about ways to tackle this problem all the time.
Q: The Cataclysm patches also saw the debut of some legendary weapons: Dragonwrath and the Fangs of the Father. Will future legendaries be this, uh, legendary?
Good question. We love class-specific content, but quest lines like those are very resource-intensive. Each sequence involves weeks of development focus that takes content away from dungeons, dailies, or outdoor zones.
The feedback from players (and from our own team) has been overwhelmingly positive. Dragonwrath proved to be extremely popular, and allowed caster classes to get a front-row seat for major lore moments otherwise reserved only for dragons. Meanwhile, Fangs of the Father was pure rogue, from the theme to the mechanics. It was super-targeted and extremely fun -- it proved to us the value of focusing in on a specific class and tailoring the content to their abilities. Given that the audience for these weapons consists of badass raiders, we didn't hold back on the difficulty either, so these quests were great for people who wanted a real challenge.
The short answer is yes, we'll definitely continue doing these moving forward. Most likely future legendary quest lines will be built similar to the rogue experience: a couple key story moments, a lot of flavor, and some very specific challenges. But I wouldn't expect very many quest lines like these. Like legendary weapons themselves, they're going to be rare and special.
Q: We haven't even talked about goblins and worgen yet. What lessons did you take away from the new racial starting zones?
In both cases, the starting areas really sold the character and tone of the new races. The worgen area is so marvelously gothic, and Kezan is unmistakably unique and gobliny. The art and the quests all work together to establish a racial character. So that's a big win.
As for the mechanics themselves, I'm glad we were so experimental, but our general feeling now that all is said and done is that we went a little too 'gimmicky' with the player's initial experiences. Everyone can agree that the goblin experience gets pretty wild in places.
That's a big lesson we're carrying away from the expansion as a whole.
Q: Can you elaborate?
Overwhelmingly, players have told us that they want more quests where you have to flap a giant bird around a cave while targeting creatures in a 3D space.
Q: Seriously?
Maybe not . . . But moving forward, we're re-focusing on core gameplay mechanics. World of Warcraft works best when you've got your boots on the ground and you get to play your class. To that end, we're concentrating on giving players lots of fun combat challenges in continually changing environments, wrapped up in a terrific story that's propelled forward by the quests. Whenever we do special mechanics, we want them to feel special, and they'll never tear you away from combat for very long. Our goal is to load up the world with lots of interactive spaces, cool encounters, great characters, and neat spaces to explore. That's part of the reason we're keeping you grounded (literally) in Pandaria, and why we're focusing on a single continent. But I'm getting ahead of myself. We'll talk more about Pandaria soon enough.
Q: Looking forward to it. Thanks for your time!
Not a problem!
Filed under: News items, Cataclysm






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
viciouspen Feb 28th 2012 12:37PM
I both agree with a lot and disagree with a lot said, but such is your own personal taste and opinion.
As a mainly Alliance player my biggest damning pet peeve of them quest wise was finding out how much we missed out on/was cut to finish out the horde side.
Severe let down on their part.
The 1-60 stuff, I liked.
Phasing, I mostly like. I don't have a problem with it splitting people up as I do my questing solo (hero of azeroth that I am and all that :P).
The legendary rogue quest, fun, entertaining, looking forward to more like that.
Thrall...well I'm voting for Peacebloom-Abasic campfire in the coming election.
gewalt Feb 28th 2012 4:04PM
As a mainly Alliance player my biggest damning pet peeve of them quest wise was finding out how much we missed out on/was cut to finish out the horde side.
Severe let down on their part.
what?
Edymnion Feb 28th 2012 4:51PM
If you start a Worgen the entire starting zone for them is a big ramp up in the fight between them and the Foresaken. The ending doesn't have any kind of resolution though. You just survive long enough to get rescued by a boat.
You have to roll Horde and quest through Silverpine alongside Sylvanus to see where the Worgen/Foresaken story actually ends. To my knowledge, the Alliance has absolutely no explanation as to why Godfrey & Company are undead and in charge of Shadowfang Keep now. If you roll an undead and quest through Silverpine though, you get the entire story picked up from the end of the worgen starting zone and finishing up with... well lets just say the foresaken characters have a VERY good reason to storm Shadowfang Keep and mow down anything that moves in it.
Sarah Bee Feb 28th 2012 4:53PM
@gewalt on cut content: Minimal draenei input, Alliance leaders not appearing in quests, Worgen essentially being dropped past LV12, completely scrapped Alliance Highlands introduction event while the Horde equivalent remained, an Arathi Highlands revamp for the Horde yet none for the Alliance and no explanation delivered for Deathwing appearing in Stormwind (which was likely Onyxia's head but was still never mentioned) amongst other complaints.
Which is not even mentioning all of the OTHER areas in which Alliance fans can criticize Blizzard.
SamLowry Feb 28th 2012 5:26PM
How about the abrupt ending of the worgen storyline, which continues only for Horde players.
SamLowry Feb 28th 2012 5:28PM
Whoops, guess I should have reloaded the story at some point in the last hour.
But really, this storyline was just howlingly bad in its execution.
Blayze Feb 28th 2012 12:47PM
I must have missed the version of the Wildhammer wedding that wasn't pointless and dropped instantly in favour of neutral quests.
fudge Feb 28th 2012 12:58PM
What I don't understand is that they don't seem to address this issue at all. I mean, either Blizzard knows something we don't know and Alliance questing was secretly loved by the overwhelming majority of players or -and this is much worse- they themselves do not see a problem with it.
I mean, a simple "we feel Alliance questing got the short end of the stick in Cataclysm and we're sure to have a better developed story in Mists of Pandaria" would go a long, long way instead of ignoring those complaints in favour of pretending that everything's fine and dandy.
vocenoctum Feb 28th 2012 1:17PM
No way to know who the Average Player is.
I personally loved the wedding plotline, but it should never have been a CENTRAL plotline, by far. Uniting the Wildhammer survivors is fine, but then they don't really DO anything.
Grovinofdarkhour Feb 28th 2012 1:27PM
The story of the zone, for each faction, was the story of bringing these new people into the fold, and that's the parameters they had to deal with; and they couldn't just give them both the same story. Orcs are badass, so they got a badass story. Dwarves are silly, so they got a silly story. One was inevitably going to be preferred by more of the audience. They may be a big all-powerful software company with unlimited resources, but even they can't make everybody happy, all of the time.
Philster043 Feb 28th 2012 1:47PM
I do feel like the allies got the short stick of the 80-85 zone quest storylines by far. But note that Blizzard did confess to saying that they really spread their team thin and taxed them. I have to believe that most of the Blizzard quest designers are at their heart Horde players (nothing wrong with that!), and I think that might have had an influence on the overall quality of storytelling as far as the Alliance are concerned in the later zones. It wasn't just the Wildhammer wedding, but the way the Horde came to the Twilight Highlands, which was epic with Garrosh fiercely leading the way on a fleet of goblin-crafted airships, and coming under attack by dragons, right after ousting the traitor in their midst back in Orgrimmar. Now compare that to how the Allies arrived - by a seaplane, without much fuss. Not much of a contest!
But as they've confessed, they put more focus on the 1-60 starter zones than they did 80-85 zones. I'm willing to forgive them for it as this expansion has given me as many good memories as any other expansion so far (surprisingly enough, after a while, I have to admit I'm still enjoying the game as much as ever.)
fudge Feb 28th 2012 1:52PM
Sorry, Grovin, but I think you're wrong.
Of course they couldn't give the same story to both factions, that'd be silly. But it's still one game and what Blizzard did is that they gave one side an endearing, serious story that makes you feel powerful and involved with the overarching plot and the other a frankly quite silly story about a wedding that had almost no impact on whatever else was going on in the zone and the expansion at large.
They don't have to give each side the same story, but they have to provide equal quality for both factions.
fudge Feb 28th 2012 1:58PM
Also, if dwarves are silly, so are Trolls (even more so, arguably) and they seem to be getting all kinds of interesting story.
Noyou Feb 28th 2012 2:04PM
The Wildhammer wedding might have been pointless, but I thought it worked, and it was fun.
Blayze Feb 28th 2012 2:14PM
Cast your mind back to Wrath--ask someone who started in that era who Ner'zhul is. Chances are they won't know.
Back in Vanilla, let's be honest here, both sides had terrible storytelling. The neutral factions stole everyone's lore. TBC was Horde-focused, but only for the orcs and Blood Elves. The Draenei were sidelined in their own expansion.
Then Wrath hit. People claim it was an Alliance expansion. It wasn't--it was a neutral expansion, same as Vanilla, it's just that the neutral factions stole our lore. And do you know what that ended up doing? It ended up meaning that both sides experienced the same quests as handed out by the same questgivers, instead of two concurrent stories to promote replayability.
Did the Forsaken ever get their revenge on Arthas? No. Did Sylvanas? No. She wasn't even there at the Citadel. It was Tirion Fordring and the Spotlight Stealing Squad that is the Argent Dawn.
It could all have been avoided so easily, though. Both sides could have had their specific factions, their specific stories--we could have had Dalaran and the Kirin Tor, saving all the uproar about losing even *more* lore to neutrality.
But what would the Horde get? Well, imagine how cool it would have been if the Forsaken had raided Naxxramas and repaired it, bringing it under their control. Then again, both sides need not be functionally identical (In this case, with one flying base apiece)--the Forsaken could plague Azjol-Nerub, and use the resulting army of undead nerubians against both Arthas and the Alliance.
Instead, when Blizzard writes a single story for both sides, we end up with a collectively broken suspension of disbelief. And when they write different stories for each side, they sacrifice one to get the other done.
We're the side that (a) has its lore stolen for neutral purposes instead of the Horde receiving their own stories, and (b) has its lore half-assed to get the Horde stories done. That ain't fair.
mason.jdouglas Feb 28th 2012 3:39PM
That is some refreshingly intelligent opinion there, Blayze.
I think Bliz missed out on nearly every opportunity for good storytelling in wrath. Jaina, Sylvanas, The Scarlet Crusade, Muradin... All people who should have been there for Arthas's fall... Let's not forget some reprasentative from the blood elves. Their current state is all thanks to the Lich King too. Tirion had arguably the least business with Arthas, his feud was with the Scarlets!
For that matter, WHY were we even attacking the Scarlets at any point in Northrend? The continent is big enough to let them fight our enemies for us. I recall hearing that they wanted Northrend to seem like a bleak victory. Tirion saving the day does not accomplish that. The scarlets busting in to help us, and saving our asses would have been EPIC.
"Wasted potential", the two-word summary of lore and story in WoW. And you're right, all to preserve "Balance" by making it Neutral factions who ever do anything.
I don't actually blame Blizzard for the bad writing though. They're no George R.R. Martin or anything, but they've proved that they can crank out better stories than this before.
Personally, I blame us, the players.
Consider Theramore's imminent destruction. How often have I heard players complain about this? Or that "The horde has more mounts!", "The alliance has more zones!", "Thrall gets all the spotlight!" "Where's all the Pandas?!"
Blizzard, stupidly, caters to our idiotic complaints. They hear what we want and see as unfair in the game and try to even things out. The problem? It's a game about war people! The sides aren't supposed to be eternally equal! If the alliance has more zones, deal with it! They're germany in europe at the height of WW2, and they have nothing more to gain and everything to lose! If Theramore gets blown up, good! I don't understand why it took this long, it's an easy and obvious target! If the Ogres and Pandas both join the Horde only, deal with it! 8 races to 6 does not ruin the game. Maybe the alliance will get two more a couple expansions later, but for now enjoy that things are looknig grim for the alliance!
Speaking of which, why are we going to Pandaria? Both of us invading a neutral country for....? If I were Varian or Garrosh, I'd take advantage of the other's idiocy and grab some territory in the important areas of the world while the bulk of his forces are off getting smacked around by pandas.
Sure, the alliance really got shafted lately. Draenei getting shafted in TBC, Worgen getting Shafted in Cata. Southshore...? Arathi? Twilight Highlands being a one side war where the Horde fights dwarves, and the Dwarves hide their booze and marry each other? Worgen losing Gilneas completely, yet the Goblins build an entire ZONE from scratch? How come the Gnomes haven't built a half dozen new Gnomregans yet? Hell Cata's story was largely about the Horde Warchief.
SamLowry Feb 28th 2012 5:37PM
"If the alliance has more zones, deal with it! They're germany in europe at the height of WW2"
Uh, really? I think I detect a Horde bias here.
RetPallyJil Feb 28th 2012 5:46PM
I thought the wedding chain was charming and fun, but it shouldn't have been the focal point of the entire zone.
Blayze Feb 28th 2012 6:39PM
I suppose the simplest way to explain everything is that I'm Alliance *despite* Blizzard's best efforts, not *because* of them.
SamLowry Feb 28th 2012 8:12PM
"Cataclysm was in many ways Thrall's story"
gag, choke...
You'd almost think the devs are trying to drive Alliance players away from the game.