07-27-2004, 12:59 PM
(fyi, here's the link of the backstory)
WoW Backstory
Now, I have played Warcraft I,II, and III as well as their expansions; however this doesn't mean I'm totally knowledgeable on this stuff, and may make mistakes in this post. Feel free to correct.
However, when I was reading this backstory a few weeks ago, it struck me as pretty shoddy workmanship to alter the game's world history so profoundly. The first thing that came to mind was that Blackrock spire was originally just the HQ of the Blackrock Clan. Now, it's a volcano created inadvertantly from the dwarven civil war.
Some of these changes have been made necessary by the evolving morality of videogames (or at least Blizzard).
Back in the day, it was just play as the orcs if you want to be evil, or play as the humans if you want to be good. WarII was marketed as allowing you to play as the "savage orcs or noble humans" to determine the fate of Azeroth. But postmodernist influence has WarIII and The Frozen Throne unequivically "amoral"--all factions are equally noble and evil (except for the Burning Legion which is clearly evil; and revealingly, you can't play as them).
So how did Blizzard decide to make the orcs have a "good" side to them? They were just the unwitting puppets of the Burning Legion. Well, fine; but the way they decided to implement this into the backstory goes beyond creativity. The WoW backstory has the corruption of the Horde and the conquest of the Draenei happen over the course of a few months:
But in Gul'dan's history for the second game (from the WarII manual), he claims:
So a campaign which took years suddenly only took months? That's a pretty serious revision of Orcish history!
Geography also is conspicuously alered as well. First off, "Stormwind Keep" was "Stonewind Keep" in the first game (although names can change). But with the introduction of Kalimdor, the Warcraft II geography got all screwed up. The Tomb of Sargeras is moved almost halfway between Azeroth and Kalimdor, and nobody seemed to notice the big freaking storm out to the west. Between WarIII and WoW a giant tree has managed to spring up just north of Kalimdor, or else everybody managed to miss a tree which is big enough to house cities.
I guess the point of all this is that Blizzard either should have used more creativity and subtlity in crafting WoW/WarIII; or else they should not have made the games morally neutral. By comparison, look at Bungie Software's classic Marathon series. The three games of the series promoted a cult fan club which still has an avid base. One website has been around for almost a decade (Marathon's Story) and is still going strong. But what does Blizzard do? Tries to make the game as appealing as possible by adapting it to a cultural facet (which is fine by me); but they do it so badly that it becomes a Frankenstein-like construct with the crude stitching clearly visible.
Just something I wanted to throw out there. Let me know what you all think.
WoW Backstory
Now, I have played Warcraft I,II, and III as well as their expansions; however this doesn't mean I'm totally knowledgeable on this stuff, and may make mistakes in this post. Feel free to correct.
However, when I was reading this backstory a few weeks ago, it struck me as pretty shoddy workmanship to alter the game's world history so profoundly. The first thing that came to mind was that Blackrock spire was originally just the HQ of the Blackrock Clan. Now, it's a volcano created inadvertantly from the dwarven civil war.
Some of these changes have been made necessary by the evolving morality of videogames (or at least Blizzard).
Back in the day, it was just play as the orcs if you want to be evil, or play as the humans if you want to be good. WarII was marketed as allowing you to play as the "savage orcs or noble humans" to determine the fate of Azeroth. But postmodernist influence has WarIII and The Frozen Throne unequivically "amoral"--all factions are equally noble and evil (except for the Burning Legion which is clearly evil; and revealingly, you can't play as them).
So how did Blizzard decide to make the orcs have a "good" side to them? They were just the unwitting puppets of the Burning Legion. Well, fine; but the way they decided to implement this into the backstory goes beyond creativity. The WoW backstory has the corruption of the Horde and the conquest of the Draenei happen over the course of a few months:
Quote:Over the course of a few months, the Horde eradicated nearly every draenei living on Draenor. Only a scattered handful of survivors managed to evade the orcs' awesome wrath. Flushed with victory, Gul'dan reveled in the Horde's power and might.
But in Gul'dan's history for the second game (from the WarII manual), he claims:
Quote:The destruction of the Draenei left nothing upon which the great beast of warâ¦could feed. After centuries of violence and warfare, we had finally conquered the whole of our world.
So a campaign which took years suddenly only took months? That's a pretty serious revision of Orcish history!
Geography also is conspicuously alered as well. First off, "Stormwind Keep" was "Stonewind Keep" in the first game (although names can change). But with the introduction of Kalimdor, the Warcraft II geography got all screwed up. The Tomb of Sargeras is moved almost halfway between Azeroth and Kalimdor, and nobody seemed to notice the big freaking storm out to the west. Between WarIII and WoW a giant tree has managed to spring up just north of Kalimdor, or else everybody managed to miss a tree which is big enough to house cities.
I guess the point of all this is that Blizzard either should have used more creativity and subtlity in crafting WoW/WarIII; or else they should not have made the games morally neutral. By comparison, look at Bungie Software's classic Marathon series. The three games of the series promoted a cult fan club which still has an avid base. One website has been around for almost a decade (Marathon's Story) and is still going strong. But what does Blizzard do? Tries to make the game as appealing as possible by adapting it to a cultural facet (which is fine by me); but they do it so badly that it becomes a Frankenstein-like construct with the crude stitching clearly visible.
Just something I wanted to throw out there. Let me know what you all think.
Out here,
--Ajax
--Ajax