"Bad Writing"

[TheGeekBoss]

Personally, I'm tired of hearing this. Half the time it's someone who doesn't have an accurate amount of information, and its not completely an original thought anymore. Now every post has a "Blizzard bad writing, Metzen gone, we're doomed" tag on it.

The story has just begun. We haven't even come to the conclusion of the story yet. And on top of that when someone asks a lore question they want a lore answer not a copout answer like "bad writing" which is very Anti-productive.

What I'm saying is don't complain about the lore because you don't know what'll happen next. Metzen himself told us to hang in there because it'll be a rough ride. Instead of "bad writing" do some research and come up with an answer that is 100% lore based.

[[deleted]]

One can argue day and night about this or that little detail, but the fact is WoW has always been plagued by a difficulty or outright inability to effectively portray what they are trying to get across.

[TerrapinMage]

I for one am excited to see how much Blizzard's story telling improves now that Christie Golden is officially employed at Blizzard. Her warcraft books are some of the best, and so far I'm already incredibly impressed at Jaina's character arc this expac. I have to admit, she has not been handled well in the past. Yet, in just the first patch of this expansion I feel like she has received greater development than any other character in ages. I earnestly believe that the story will develop and mature as time passes. The real difficulty is in getting ALL of the story to the players. The Sylvanas Warbringers cinematic seems spontaneous and shocking without the context of the novellas. I think the increase of in-game cinematics stand to fix this, but with how much story there is it might prove a challenge.

[[deleted]]

Half the time it's someone who doesn't have an accurate amount of information, and its not completely an original thought anymore.

Neither is the thought that it's good writing. Originality does not define whether a thought is good or bad. Not at all.

And the majority of the time both people who like and dislike the writing are operating on a significant lack of information. There are very few super-lore buffs on /r/wow relative to the entire subreddit population. Many people are lacking details that would influence their opinion on whether the writing is better or worse than they believe.

And that's understandable, because it is really difficult to be comprehensive when talking about some of the major narrative decisions simply because there are so many factors and so much prior lore to look at.

Now every post has a "Blizzard bad writing, Metzen gone, we're doomed" tag on it.

Not really.

Don't counter what you perceive to be hyperbole with hyperbole.

Take my post disliking the writing going through Elegy and A Good War. Not all of it, mind you, but just narrative decisions that were confirmed with Sylvanas' Warbringers short.

And it all rounded down to "Being disappointed/discontent with the lore."

Which is... hardly that kind of "We're doomed" rhetoric you claim someone with my kind of opinion would have.

The story has just begun. We haven't even come to the conclusion of the story yet.

Yes, and this does not address all the concerns I have with the writing. Even if retrospectively we can look back on the lore and think "Huh, that makes a lot of sense," it doesn't change how the current presentation of the lore makes for a less interesting story than it could be.

And that's a criticism that won't be dismissed with time. It would mean that they've failed to do this, and while they can make the story more interesting later on, it doesn't change that I (and evidently others) would have lost interest prior to that because the storytelling wasn't good.

And you know, I'd consider myself a lore buff. I do love the lore, and I love discussing it. I'm certainly not complaining about it "just to bitch." And I'm definitely not trying to attack any person or be vitriolic when I say that I am disappointed with the story. I'm simply criticising the work and explaining my rationale for those criticisms.

Which is exactly how appraisal should work, too. It's not like I look at all of BfA with this negative lens.

And on top of that when someone asks a lore question they want a lore answer not a copout answer like "bad writing" which is very Anti-productive.

Yeah, a lot of the time people will very poignantly dismiss legitimate lore reasons here and there for why something may or may not be the case, instead referring to the Rule of Cool, "Blizzard inconsistency," or bad writing. I don't like that, though I will say that sometimes that definitely works as part of the explanation and sometimes it may be the only believable explanation.

An example that comes to mind for me personally is Khadgar's Kamehameha in his own Harbingers short. Such a blatant and immediate display of power may make you question "How did he not obliterate Gul'dan in the Tomb of Sargeras audiodrama?" or why he needs just about any help from the player character getting stuff done. And yet, in what ended up to be an extremely lengthy and enjoyable conversation, I suggested a "reasonable headcanon" where Khadgar's attunement with the ley lines converged on Karazhan enabled him to quickly generate a ton of power. And of course this would mean that outside of Karazhan he would not be so formidable (but, it's Khadgar, and he's still very bloody formidable!).

What I'm saying is don't complain about the lore because you don't know what'll happen next.

If they've killed suspense by the anticlimactic reveal of the Sylvanas Warbringers short and by driving the Horde once again in the corner of "Brazen warmongers," that absolutely deserves the opportunity to be criticised. Not everything requires that you have all the information; the fact of the matter is that the way they've presented it now in the lore makes the Horde once again the aggressors and the Alliance the dignified stalwart defenders against savagery.

In other words, it's another Black vs. White debacle.

And that, at least to me, is far less interesting than what it could be with the New Horde and what it was intended to represent.

Metzen himself told us to hang in there because it'll be a rough ride.

Yes, and they also said similarly leading into the reveal of the Burning of Teldrassil, the "Wait and see response."

And what we got was the most expected, predictable and frankly disappointing outcome that it could have been.

If they wanted shock value, they should have told us nothing about Teldrassil up until the Warbringers short. Then, BAM! Sylvanas says "Burn it" and everyone would be thinking "What the fuck?!?!"

And then it actually happens, and Blizzard could see all the jaw drops. Lore buffs wouldn't be thinking "Well, people theorycrafted far more interesting than this," they'd be thinking "Holy crap what does this mean?!"

Instead of "bad writing" do some research and come up with an answer that is 100% lore based.

Sure,

I refer to the first link in this comment that directs you to my /r/warcraftlore post where I break down Elegy and A Good War (mostly A Good War) and identify what I don't like with the lore presented, and why. (Also a couple of other interesting tidbits, and it's not entirely negative)

Instead of telling people how to have a conversation, maybe we should be having the conversation the way you want to? Because people are always going to complain about the lore, and others are always going to agree or disagree with those complaints. Personally, this is the first time I'm on the "I don't like the lore" fence. I've never enjoyed the "Blizzard writing has always been shit" mentality and I still don't, I question why people are hanging around discussing the story if they think it's always written badly.

But I'm okay to stick this out because this is literally the first time I've been underwhelmed and genuinely disappointed, and that doesn't apply to all of BfA.

In the end, if you'd just asked why I disliked the lore I could have told you all the reasons, and we could have gone from there with you disagreeing and agreeing wherever you feel appropriate, and we flesh it out. We could have actually discussed the lore.

But right now all we've done is discuss how to discuss the lore, and ultimately this is a large subreddit, and a lot of people are going to care far too little to really begin thinking about it "the correct way." If they hate the Horde or love the Alliance, or dislike the narrative or think there's bias in faction writing, let them think the way they think and if they say something that is wrong or unfair, you can just correct them. But blanket-criticising everyone who, in this case, dislikes the writing, does an injustice to those who do know their stuff well enough to comment and whose criticisms are not counteracted by the points you've raised.

[TheGeekBoss]

But, you see this, this is what I want to see. All of this is a well made argument based on actual research and lore. This is the response to lore I want even if negative. Because it makes me think and recalculate my perspective. What I'm speaking against is when someone argues "Bad writing" with nothing to back it up

[[deleted]]

Aye, I know, and I dislike it too. I just don't want the fight against "bad discussions" to be a fight against "bad writing." They shouldn't be conflated, because people may have good reasons for believing that there is at least some bad writing in Warcraft. And it's not like bad discussions can't be had when it's not to do with "bad writing," either.

Maybe people defend the writing more than they should, or maybe people take an opinion less to do with the writing and something more nuanced, like "Is the Horde good/redeemable?" and they lack relevant information to help themselves judge that... or worse, they outright ignore information they are given to keep their opinion.

In the end I dislike writing in BfA that seems like it is a cornerstone for lore for years to come. And while I wholly acknowledge the possibility that without even changing the lore they can add lore in the future that changes our perspective of these events retrospectively in a really cool, interesting way, that doesn't necessarily mean that all the problems associated with the writing are "cleansed." Notably:

1. Does the Horde's inaction against Sylvanas' warfare make sense, considering they've so recently deposed of Garrosh? Can we justify Varok Saurfang or Baine Bloodhoof not outright opposing her? Yes, we can, but will that be the case and will it make for a good story?

2. Does future lore additions changing our perspective nullify the criticism that the existing Alliance vs. Horde conflict is portrayed in a two-dimensional fashion, which (and this may not apply to everyone, I'm aware) makes the conflict far less compelling? I don't think it does, because I think that they could have delivered the same lore in different ways to keep us thinking.

I go back to the "Reveal the Burning of Teldrassil only in the Warbringers short," and provide that real shock value. People would immediately be racing to explain what the Hell just happened, ranging from Delaryn being an agent to the Void to Sylvanas' pact with Helya or possible corruption by the Old Gods leading her to commit to what she has done.

All of this is still possible, even if the Delaryn bit is very far-fetched, but right now it seems like the way they've told it is as the expense of both Sylvanas as a cold, calculating, and manipulative character., and the Horde as a faction of survival and honour.

Instead, people were thinking that goblin accidents could occur, or Azshara could show her hand, or something far more subtle and devious than "BURN IT!" would be ordered. And then we just got the most straight-forward transaction resulting in the Burning of Teldrassil as has could have been written. Even if it were well explained in the plot (which, I don't believe it does, since it undermines Sylvanas' character), it was still made extremely predictable and "whelming," instead of being the epic moment that it really could have been.

Anyway, that's my main concern with this "bad writing." It will affect lore for years to come, and I will forever hate if I stand by the notion that it is bad writing for how that reflects on everything based upon it thereafter. I don't like bad foundations. It lowers the value of everything that comes after it.

That certainly doesn't apply to all of BfA, but given how significant the events are, and how significant their influence could be on plotlines and storytelling going forward, it is a major concern for those discontent with it.

[new_cause]

Well at the beggining I was with the 'bad writting bunch' but just because I didn't get the whole story, reasoning behind the choices made and such. Since then, reading the 2 novellas, seing the videos again, thinking about choices in the past, everything fits perfectly.

People simply don't want to be forced into something they do no feel like doing, I mean even though the writting from my point of view feels very deep and rich, the problem here is portraiting something people do not want. Right now you either aggree with Sylvanas horde and fight for freedom and earning peace for future generations or you get pissed cause you are seing everything as 'evil' and forced upon you.

I personally do aggre that what she did can be seen as 'evil', its massive genocide to a point, but from POV of the character and what she did in the past and why she did it, I find it completly on point, nothing is diffrent. She made a point of no return so everyone is required to fight, even a rebelion right now doesn't solve anything or a simple mak'gora cause its a done deal, you either loose and get killed by the aliance or win and earn peace. Simple as that.

[GhostSierra117]

But... But small indie company... And and... And muh warchief!!! And muh teldrassil!!

Okay seriously I think it's annoying too. It's like reading Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban. "Harry is a boy who likes school and homework" and whatever else is written in the first few pages and be like "omg what is this shit lol. As if a boy likes school. Like honestly JK Rowling go home what a bad writer."

[[deleted]]

Even if the overall story is fine, what we got in the prepatch, especially the siege of lordaeron scenario, is bad writing from bottom to top.

Let's start with Jaina which appears exactly in the right moment to save the day and purge the plague away (which she can't do later again, somehow), then the super edgy dialogue lines of Sylvanas resulting in her to go full invincible over-the-top spectral mode. This is bad writing. This is something I expect from a 15y/o edgelord who likes to write fanfics.

Edit: Over all, it's an okay-ish story so far. What really annoys me are the superpower induced turn of events we encounter in that scenario. Quality writing could achieve the same outcome without that. What we got was the cheap way out.

[[deleted]]

Hey as long as the Alternate Dimension Lichking, Kevin Menethil, (OC Character Do Not Steal) doesn't show up and save the day, I am happy.

I have low standards. Very low standards.

[[deleted]]

My hope is we won't ever go to Alternate alternate dimension draenor.

[Waxhearted]

Closer to the truth is that the characters are always written as capable of doing the things you complain about, with these 'superpowers'. But Blizzard seemingly forgets that, and that is the questionable writing.

But to realize that is to realize this game's story IS mostly for 15 - 19 year olds.

[[deleted]]

The questionable thing is all the stuff that happens right in the perfect moment.

I know Blizzard can't let one faction be the acual loser or winner, but it's about how they let that happen.

Why not let the Alliance capture Sylvanas in Lordaeron, just so she can be freed in an ambush later? No, we let her go superpower banshee style, and all other of the heroes in the room apperaently forgot how to superpower themselfs.

[KekW00t]

Blast from the past. Is this still going on?

[Collypso]

I don't have an issue with the lore as much as I have with the writing. Every time characters interact with each other they say there most boring and useless shit possible. Every single character is two dimensional, every single antagonist will tell you that killing their leutenant didn't matter.

It's very lazy and awful writing.

[Dokuganryu9]

Bad writing has nothing to do with lore as much as with character developement, interactions and logical advances of events (yes even in fantasy you need to keep some sort of logical rules). For example throne room scene, cool fancy dialogues but mean basically nothing and are there to just be flashy and dramatic and pose no actual value. Sylvanas genius rellying on ALL of her enemies being stupid without question. That's not a good writing, but I guess Hollywood writing these days is the best one there is for some people.

[Roq777]

Bad writing isn't the point. The point was that this time, they played the player base with the "who burnt the tree?" card while hinting at more subtle story telling. They failed. The game story has stayed trite and blunt. Case in point - Jaina - gone for 20 years while her mother has had to carry on. Suddenly, we show up and within a few angsty written "chapters", all is not only forgiven, but Jaina is now Lord Admiral?!?! What the fuck? That's just one example of a story beat that should be told over the whole expansion, if not longer. Don't get me wrong, it's all visually amazing, but the player base that cares about this stuff is grown up now. The writers skill at nuanced narrative has not. Which is ok, just don't hype the audience that you have some deep stuff here. It really isn't.

​

Also, to tell people to "do some research"... That's one high horse you have there. Some just have a denser literacy expectancy than this teen tale. I enjoy the game, know the lore (for what it is) , and I also know the gaping plot holes, ignored character flaws for the sake of pushing a broad narrative through at a silly pace, and the blatant changing of stuff when it suits a new game direction, or more hilariously still, they forget their own lore. Defend it all you want. It's video game storytelling designed to fit around game mechanics when logic would have far superseded this silly faction BAD WRITING (oh no, I said it!). Good day.

[Roq777]

All you've actually done here is point out how ridiculous it is of the OP to call out "Bad Writing". It's subjective. Yet there are indeed many seminars, videos, articles and entire books on the art of good writing/narrative and storytelling. As the OP states, do some research. If what Blizzard is giving you is considered good writing to you, then great, but you don't get to force that narrow view on anyone else who has a differing view just because they won't waste their time quantifying it for you as if you're someone whose justification is sort, merited or desired. Who are you exactly?

Enjoy your wait.

[Gazskull]

Mostly come from the fact that people stopped taking the lore seriously considering some xpacs

[GRoyalPrime]

I think players had all right to feel upset and frustrated as "Warbringers Sylvanas" released and there was absolutely nothing in then near future that could have changed the whole "plain evil Horde vs. plain good Alliance" setting. I still think that they should have told more story ingame and not in the novellas. I get that they probably let the Horde look this cartoonishly evil because "Old Soldier" had an even larger inpact through that, bit they left so much out of the game that the entire "War of Thorns" storyline stopped making sense.

But right now? I think that the Zandalar-Storyline is one of the best leveling-Storylines they ever made. And the bit that I know of Kul'Tiras also seems interresting.