Skip to Content
3-19-2012 @ 3:30AM
Are we going to get a series of articles on Alliance bias now?Because I'm failing to see how anything is ever going to top 'They get to kill your faction leader'
3-19-2012 @ 3:41AM
If you go to the WoW forums, you already have Alliance players saying that the Alliance attacking Orgimmar and getting to off the Horde's Warchief is a sign of HORDE BIAS.No shit.
3-19-2012 @ 3:53AM
Clearly the Alliance getting to besiege a Horde city and kill a horde faction leader for the /second/ time is a clear sign that they favour the Horde, who get to...er..besiege a Horde city and kill a horde faction leader for the /second/ time.
3-19-2012 @ 4:16AM
You mean where the Alliance is again being used as a plot foil to the Horde-centric storyline? You mean where the focus of this new expansion will be all about the removal of Garrosh so Thrall can return as warchief? An expansion that starts with the destruction of the second largest Alliance settlement and ends with the Alliance "joining" the Horde in the removal of its leader? How exactly is that an Alliance-centric storyline where the faction can't even accomplish the main goal of retribution on its own? Will Orgrimmar be destroyed by the Alliance in retaliation for Theramore? Of course not. It needs to remain as the Horde's capital city for gameplay purposes. And why would the Alliance not completely burn it down? Because Thrall will return to the mantle of warchief and reinstate the peace between the two factions.It's always going to be about Thrall.
3-19-2012 @ 4:30AM
And you guys thought I was kidding.Alliance QQ will never stop. If this event was Alliance only and ended with Orgimmar razed to the ground and the Horde driven out of Durotar...it would prove Horde Bias. You guys are amazing.
3-19-2012 @ 4:43AM
"If you go to the WoW forums, you already have Alliance players saying that the Alliance attacking Orgimmar and getting to off the Horde's Warchief is a sign of HORDE BIAS."I'm starting to think the Alliance have a persecution complex.
3-19-2012 @ 5:41AM
You know, a while back I actually said that the only thing that could make the 'Horde Bias' kids calm down was getting to attack Ogrimmar and kill Garrosh. I said this as though it was an extreme example that would never happen.Turns out I was wrong on both counts
3-19-2012 @ 6:45AM
You can obviously see how someone could *choose* to interpret this as a sign of Horde bias - what, after all, could be more Horde-heavy than besieging Orgrimmar and the Alliance is just a tool to advance the Horde's plot...But what if it was the other way around? What if the expansion culminated in the Horde besieging Stormwind and deposing Wrynn in favour of someone more tractable (and let's say it's not Anduin)?Wouldn't the cries of faction bias be even more pronounced? They wouldn't be from exactly the same people and they wouldn't be for the same reason, but they would be louder. What story decision can be taken that wouldn't be interpreted as bias, by a sufficiently nuanced interpretation?
3-19-2012 @ 7:38AM
I'm not going to defend what goes on in the official forums. There is a reason that I only post here.As an Alliance player, the only basis that I've cited for "Horde bias" is that the Alliance story sucks. If Metzen wants to nuke Southshore and take out Gilneas, fine; just give me some story to go with it that doesn't require me to read a book or roll a Horde toon.And I don't need an epic Wrathgate style quest. Just put a freaking exclamation point over a quest giver's head and call it "Investigate Southshore" or "Meet the Gilean Resistance" and have someone fill in the details. It wouldn't have been epic, but at least I wouldn't be doing arch in Hillsbrad and thinking "WTF happened over there?"And guess what: I'll say the same thing about Theramore and Orgrimmar if the story sucks on the Alliance side.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.