Friday, August 23, 2013

The Siege on the Horde

   So this next expansion will be all about removing Garrosh from the Warchief position. He has shown himself to be a racist focused on world domination by any means necessary. The Horde is splintered and suffering from a civil war. The Alliance is trying to help the rebel forces.
    We know that Garrosh will be removed from office. But who will be next? Will another unknown Orc take the reins, or will one of the other races take the lead? And what of the Alliance? What are they to gain from this?
     So what we know is going to happen with the Horde? Well, they are not going away. They get to keep Ogrimmar and everything else that was taken by Garrosh. Everybody will get along again after Garrosh is dealt with.
    So what do we know that the Alliance will gain from this? The satisfaction of helping o put down Garrosh.
   Alliance Leaders suck. The Horde is in a weaken state. The Horde took previously held Alliance lands. And the Alliance leaders do nothing about taking back our lands. They don't get to take Ogrimmar. They don't even get to claim they took Garrosh out. So yes, King Varian and Lady Jaina suck as leaders. I play Alliance. You could say I live and breathe Alliance, and yet I feel no love for it's leaders. The Dwarven king is the only leader with an excuse in this turn of events. When your a diamond statue, you can't make any claims of inluence on the Darkspear Rebellion. But the Dwarven Council, King Varian, Lady Jaina, Tyrande, Malfurion, Prophet Velen. Gelbin and Aysa all have the ability to make decisions and deals over the use of Alliance troops in the Horde Civil War. And not a one of them apparently do. There does not appear to be any gain for the Alliance at all. The only thing the Alliance is getting out of this is the death of some troops and the satisfaction of ending Garrosh's reign.
   So why do it? Why would we care to help the Horde if there is no reward? Unfortunately the only logical answer here is ...gameplay. That's right, the story doesn't count here because the gameplay needs to be consistent between the two factions. And so the Alliance get to look like fools so that the developers have an easier time of bringing a fully fleshed out content that will be fun to play. and remains consistent in it's end results no matter the faction played. The dev's have also stated that they don't think it's a good use of people and resources to revamp the zones just to keep them consistent with the current content or to support story-only elements of WoW.
   I think they do the gaming community an injustice in saying that. I think that if they really want players to be immersed in their world they set before, that Gameplay and Story must be on equal footing. That they need to revamp zones every so often to so show the ebb and flow if the conflict between the Horde and Alliance. And to make player activity dictate this ebb and flow so that those battlefields in pvp have a real purpose. If they can show that, say Alterac Valley, is won more often by the Alliance than the Horde, then give the zone that the Battlefield is in to the Alliance. Just means that before the next patch comes out, the Horde will just have to step up their efforts to win it back. And by doing this simple idea, which is more complicated on the programming side (but not as bad as doing a whole new region) they can immerse us in the Horde/Alliance conflict. They also will make PVP more relevant for players as a means to influence their world and drive more lore related people to do PVP, widening the pool of battleground players, and added more interest into playing PVP than ever before.
  SO what do you guys think? Am I just griping for no reason people care about or am I pointing out an issue that could be fixed? Let me know.

Tune in next time to see what I may write about next.

No comments:

Post a Comment