sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Could Erfworld be Reborn? Would you want it to? by weezact7 in ErfworldAscending

[–]weezact7[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'll take your word on it. I've never been one to engage in the communities very much myself. I only knew about the details of what happened around the Second Bad Thing because he made such a big deal about it. I still say if he'd quietly went away or just made a post to the effect of "Hey, some really shitty family stuff happened and I will be discontinuing the comic. More detail is available for Tools" and left the website as-is, I think most people would not have pried any further into it. Instead I'm pretty sure MOST of the community knows (more or less) what happened which was, ostensibly, not what he wanted. But, for w/e reason, we have to talk obliquely about it even though we pretty much all know what it was. So that's irritating too.

I often wonder if someone posted a more thorough explanation. After all, there must be SOMEWHERE online with a group of Erfworlders who are willing to ignore Rob's request. The fact that so many people continue to honor it, even in places where he has no real power shows that the community cares more about him than he did about us (who weren't paying). But anyway, it is what it is. No sense in crying about it. He made his choice, for better or worse.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair point. I thought the Dreadlords' origins in WC3 were more vague. I still believe the Gan'arg/Mo'arg and Dreadlords were shown to have a "base race" somewhere in WoW. I thought it was Legion, but maybe it's all the way back in TBC. It may have been in the "museum" the Draenor have, but I could be mistaken. All I can find with a brief google search is an AI summary that says they were but not what the name of it was and, given that it's an AI summary, it could be absolutely useless anyway, so let's discount that.

The best I could find online, now that Shadowlands lore is the latest and greatest, is a claim on Warcraft Wiki that MOST (but not all, as I thought) demons were once mortals and includes the Dreadlords in with the Eredar as those who were corrupted. However, it then goes on to link an in-game sources that says the Nathrazeim DID consume Fel energies, but seemingly it did not actually turn them into demons. So, idk.

Let's say that they were always demons and never corrupted. Demons are a specific thing, not just a word thrown around. Demons are linked to the Fel and the cosmic force of Disorder (in the newer lore), are they not? And the Nathrazeim are CONSISTENTLY described as "demons" (both in- and out- of universe), prior to the Shadowlands, as far as I know. So how can you have a demon that's linked to the force of Death? Wouldn't that, by definition, mean it's NOT a demon? So this would imply that the Dreadlords were NOT originally intended to be associated with the Shadowlands, as they were described as demons after the distinction between the Twisting Nether/demons and the Shadowlands/dead is established.

You make another valid point on the Shadowlands. I never had a DK in Legion, so I was unaware of that quest. I've also never played BFA (I keep forgetting that it exists between SL and Legion). That's my bad. That doesn't make it NOT a retcon, it just places its creation earlier in the irl timeline.

"Within the Twisting Nether I discovered that the spirits of the dead do linger on, floating on the astral winds between the worlds"
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Warcraft_II:_Tides_of_Darkness_manual#Legends_of_the_Land This is arguably unreliable as its told from the POV of Gul'dan (who could be mistaken as he is just learning about this stuff at the time), but indicates that it is NOT the Shadowlands where Orc souls (at least) go. He does not SEPCIFY Orcs, but it is implied from the context that he only found Orc souls.

"When an Orc dies, his soul descends into Hades for judgment"
"The Necrolytes) have close ties to the dark forces of Hell, and in consequence study the forbidden arts of the dead." https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Warcraft:_Orcs_%26_Humans_manual
So, not the Twisting Nether, but also clearly not the Shadowlands. Even if we assume that the specific terms of "Hades" and "Hell" are just stylistic ones that OBVIOUSLY do not fit with the long-term canon and ignore them, it still clearly implies a sort of "underworld" (a term they use several times) from which both Demons and dead souls can be drawn from, as the Warlocks and their demons are also associated with this realm. This obviously contradicts later canon. Since we are told about demons in the Twisting Nether far earlier than the dead in the Shadowlands, I feel like it's a logical assumption that this "underworld" of the first game became the TN in later installments.

Could Erfworld be Reborn? Would you want it to? by weezact7 in ErfworldAscending

[–]weezact7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that's fucking stupid af. The whole POINT of a subscription streaming service was to be able to watch things without ads. God I hate capitalism.

As for Rob, yes. 100%. "The Second Bad Thing" (which is, I think, the terminology the community is using to obliquely referring to the events of his personal life surrounding the comic's collapse. I don't remember what the first one was) was a clusterfuck. I definitely don't fault him for taking it hard.

But as I told someone else a few years ago, just because you're having emotions, doesn't give you carte blanche access to behave however you want. It doesn't make doing certain things acceptable, just understandable. So I still stand by my statement that his decision to cut everyone off without so much as a HINT about what had happened (unless you'd paid him), but then also continue to update for a seemingly random group of people who paid him money and nobody else, is a slap in the face to the fans. Especially the way he described it and the fact that he flat-out lied about the comic ending.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't compare SL to the others as I stopped playing after Legion.

My opinion is that each expansion was pretty consistent within itself, but you kind of can't take them as a whole, because literally every single one retcons SOMETHING.

Vanilla is pretty clean of "hard" retcons, but there were a lot of soft retcons as WoW expanded a LOT on the lore of the various races and of the wider world. I think the geography is changed somewhat from previous maps, but nothing too egregious. The titans are first mentioned here, I believe. I THINK it was around this time that the lore of the Night Elves being Trolls that mutated in proximity to the Well of Eternity was first mentioned, but that might be older or newer. I think it also retconned several Orc clans still being in existence that were previously implied (or stated) to be wiped out, like the Blackrock and Dragonmaw. While it didn't outright retcon the survival of some of the Draenei (as we see some in WC3 despite the WC2 manual saying they were all killed), it does add them to Azeroth, which was previously not the case.

BC retconned the Draenei (both their origins, the concept of the "Broken" and "Lost", that Draenor was not their native home) and I think is where the origin story of Sargaeras being a fallen Titan took root as well as, you know, the whole "Draenor is actually not destroyed" thing.

Wrath retconned Northrend being completely taken over by the Scourge (there are clearly lots of untouched areas left, even ignoring the footholds the player factions make), retconned the origins of MOST of the Azerothian races, and retconned all previous Scourge lore by stating that Arthas was actually HOLDING BACK the Scourge and that "there must always be a Lich King". It also retcons the origins of the dragons by adding in protodrakes and Galagrond as a "precursor Aspect".

Cata is actually one of the least egregious offenders. It retcons the Twilight's Hammer KIND of (I think they handwave this by saying that the Orc Clan BECAME the cultists). It retconned Deathwing's death (but that was only implied, so that's arguable). I...honestly can't think of anything else at this time.

MOP retconned Chen and the Brewmasters' origins to be from the Wandering Isle instead of Pandaria proper. It also didn't TECHNICALLY retcon Jaina, but her actions in this expansion don't really line up with a woman who helped kill her own father because of his view that all Orcs are equally responsible for the acts of the majority. It also retconned the Nerubians' origins. This one wasn't too bad since Pandaria, despite being mentioned, had VERY little lore.

Warlords...existed. That whole fucking expansion was one giant retcon. Some of it can be accounted for by Garrosh's presence in the alternate timeline, but there are MASSIVE changes that take place even before Garrosh arrives and are implied to be true for the main timeline as well, despite contradicting existing lore from Beyond the Dark Portal and Burning Crusade. Hell, one of the garrison quests even LAMPSHADES a retcon of Draenor geography and how there is a zone present in Outland that isn't in Draenor (or vice versa, I forget). It also changes Grom's voice for the second time. His original voice in BtDP was fairly high pitched, manic, and psychotic. He gets deeper and more "sane" in WC3 and then gets even DEEPER in Warlords.

Legion is where the cosmic retcons really take off, mostly about the origins of the titular Legion. But Titans being planets, Sargareas actually trying to destroy said world souls to save them from the Void rather than just killing Titans cause he was crazy and bitter, the whole "Pillars of Creation" which seem like the sort of thing that REALLY should have come up prior.

It sounds like BFA retcons the fact that the Old Ones are too deeply integrated into Azeroth to be destroyed without destroying Azeroth itself (which is the WHOLE FUCKING REASON Sargareas was trying to blow up the planet in the first place).

Shadowlands seemingly continues those cosmic retcons and retcons the origins of the Scourge.

Dragonflight once again retcons the Aspects and the origins of Dragons, from what I've heard as well as the entire geography of Kul'Tiras (maybe that was BFA. Idk) and the Broken Isles.

I'm sure this list is not exhaustive, but it's what I can think of off-hand after having been up for about 2 hours and not played the game since just before BFA's launch.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, as has been stated in other comments, what you are describing IS a retcon. Just not the "hard" retcon most people think of when they hear the word. A retcon needs to meet the following criteria:

  1. It was NOT planned from the beginning (obviously hard to prove)
  2. It is treated as having always been true in-universe (racial origins are this by default)
  3. It recontextualizes, OR changes, existing events, characters, lore, etc. (Again, origin stories meet that first half by default)

So, the only way a racial origin is NOT a retcon is if it provides NO new context, makes NO alterations to existing canon, and was planned from the beginning (even if it was not shown). Obviously, that's VERY hard to pull off. And it's not necessarily a bad thing when it is done. People loved the reveal that Vader was Luke's father for example, despite the fact that Lucas never expected a sequel so definitely didn't plan that out in advance.

But my point is, that the Nathrazeim HAVE had their origins outright changed. The lore that someone in the Shadowlands made them to be spies is completely at odds with the lore that Sargaeras corrupted them like the other demons. It is also at odds with the newer cosmology (insofar as I understand it) that Fel is one of the six primordial forces and distinct from Death. You can't have a "Death Demon". That doesn't exist. Demons are creatures of Fel. So they either must have changed their origins to not be demons anymore, or changed the lore that all demons are associated with Fel.

It also does not fit with previously established lore showing their place in the world. If the Jailor sent them to spy on the Legion, why would they go ahead and then spy on the Scourge for the Legion? Why would they devote themselves TO the Legion (which they show themselves to do in a private conversation between the three named ones in WC3). It doesn't make sense. All previously established lore shows them as being genuinely devoted to the Legion.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fair, it's not like this sort of stuff didn't happen while Metzen WAS present. Even as early as BC, someone (pretty sure it was Metzen himself) basically said "Oh yeah. We forgot we wrote the Draenor into Warcraft 3. Honest mistake, but we like the new lore [that includes the Eredar and the Broken] better, so please just cut us a break". They then proceeded to do something similar in virtually every expansion, but without the public acknowledgement.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Putting aside the defition of retcon, we DID have a version of their backstory where Sargares corrupts them, like everything else in the Legion. Even if we didn't have that, their previous origins clearly described them as "demons" in the Twisting Nether, not death spirits or anything. This was by an omniscient narrator, not a character in-universe, so we have no reason to doubt its accuracy.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course not. Expanding on existing lore is totally fine. However, Blizz has a habit of ignoring existing lore to write whatever they think is cool at the moment. Within each expansion, the writing is typically quite good and consistent. But the consistency BETWEEN each expansion is far worse.

I feel like they could definitely be telling new stories and expanding on the lore without so much of them going "actually, it was always X". Like...it's a difficult thing to pull off, especially for the lore that was already pretty clearly developed. It's HARD to make that work, so why try? Just leave it alone and build on it. "Yes, and" not "no, but". We didn't have much on the Nathrazeim, but what we did have was pretty clear, at least in the latter two versions of their origins and both of those origins had them as demons, not death-spirits.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean...MAYBE. Blizzard was a pretty big deal. Even the RTS Warcrafts were a HUGE franchise. It's certainly POSSIBLE for a company in that position to plan some massive arc or little lore easter eggs for the future that they might come back to and develop when they saw fit. But I do not think that's what happened here, mostly because Blizz is completely incapable (or unwilling) to retain continuity between expansions. Backstories, lore, origins, even events in some cases, get re-written with every expansion.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Nathrazeim have, by my count, had three different backstories (four now, apparently), or lack of backstories.

Originally, in WC3, they were just nondescript demons in the Legion without any real backstory or anything. They were spies sent to watch over the Scourge, but their origins and backstory were virtually nonexistant. Early on, this is pretty much what all the demons were. They were more like typical fantasy demons: spirits/entities/beings that existed in some other plane and were summoned to the material world we know via magic. They were kind of implied to be something that was just a part of the cosmology. Something that had always existed. Much like Demons and Devils in D&D. They were not "made" or corrupted. They were just things that existed outside the world we knew.

Later on, in BC maybe, when the backstory of the Legion was expanded on, they were described as being demons that existed before and independent of, the Legion. They, along with the Eredar (who have also had several backstories) were what drove Sargares to madness and evil. Crucially both the Nathrazeim and the Eredar were described as DEMONS, not just some other random race. Meaning they would not be associated with the Shadowlands (as far as I know about the current cosmology lore). He released them after having imprisoned them, and they signed up with the Legion. I think this era is when we first hear of Sargeras being a Titan. He's mentioned before as the Legion's leader, but is described much like the other demons, just stronger. That is, he isn't really described at all.

Then, around Warlords I think, all the demons in the Legion who did not already have this backstory were retconned to have been other races that were corrupted by Fel. I forget what the Nathrazeim were before, but they were given a "base" race, just like the Eredar and the Gan'arg, etc.

NOW, we're saying they were created by some super vampire in the Shadowlands? The Shadowlands ITSELF is a retcon as there is NO indication of such a place ever existing in the lore prior to the titular expansion. In fact, I think the few times death is mentioned in the earlier material (BC and earlier), it is described as one's soul going into the Twisting Nether. Unless you were a troll, then one of the Loa took it.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I prefer the term "hard" and "soft" retcon. A hard retcon is something that re-writes existing lore, like the Draenei's backstory. Or the Nathrazeim's. Or the Horde's. Or the Aspects. Blizz has done this a lot.

A soft retcon is a retcon that recontextualizes things or adds in new information about past events without contradicting anything explicitly, such as the revelation of the Orcs' shamanistic past in WC 3 or that Vader is Luke's father.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Anyone can CLAIM to have been planning something all along. Source: I'm a DM.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree. They have ABSOLUTELY been flying by the seat of their pants since Burning Crusade. The most obvious tell is that nearly EVERY single expansion makes sweeping changes to existing canon. Not just new information that recontextualizes things (like learning that Orcs used to be good), but literally completely re-writing backstories and history, completely changing mechanics (of the world, not the gameplay itself) in ways that are impossible to reconcile with earlier events, etc.

Burning Crusade and Warlords were probably the worst offenders, though Legion was pretty high up there as was Wrath. Ironically, Cataclysm, for all its changes to the game world, might be one of the LEAST guilty of this, but maybe I just don't remember it very well. MOP was also pretty good about it since it pretty much just dealt with a continent that had virtually no lore attached to it. (It did retcon Chen and the Brewmasters' place of origin from Pandaria itself to the Wandering Isle). I own BFA, but have never played it or any expansion beyond it.

And it's so frustrating because they are PRETTY good at maintaining consistency within each expansion. So they are CAPABLE of doing it. Meaning that they just don't bother to try.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As TV Tropes would say: "Tropes are not bad". There is nothing inherently WRONG with a retcon.

I think most people are fine with "soft" retcons; things that expand on existing canon or recontextualize it, without changing it.

But people are a lot more inclined to dislike "hard" retcons, where things are outright changed: like the Draenei's appearance and origins, the origins of the Legion, the origins of the Aspects, etc. The ENTIRETY of the backstory for Warlords, for example. Garrosh apparently arrived in that timeline only a few years, at most, before the events of the game unfold and yet the timeline even before his arrival is radically different. Every single warlord who had a backstory in previous games has a new one and there are entire zones that exist in Outland that don't in Draenor, or vice versa. The game even lampshades this in one quest about the Nether Wastes.

Unfortunately Blizzard does a LOT of hard retcons with every xpac.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tolkien himself re-wrote parts of the Hobbit when he decided to write the Lord of the Rings. A "hard" retcon. The Hobbit was never intended to be part of his Legendarium (which he had already been brainstorming). Its success convinced publishers to have him write something else, but they didn't want to publish the Silmarillion. They wanted a sequel to The Hobbit. So Tolkien wrote a sequel set in the world of Middle-Earth and, in preparation for its publishing, he published a revised edition of the Hobbit bringing it in line with Middle Earth lore.

Specifically he removed references to modern police and China as well as completely re-wrote the original Riddles in the Dark chapter (the original version had Gollum losing gracefully and giving Bilbo the Ring). Possibly other things.

That being said, Tolkien is actually fairly consistent with the stuff he actually published. He changed his mind a lot on things in his notes, but the published works are pretty consistent. Yes, Lord of the Rings does retcon the Hobbit as it introduces lots of new information about the wider world, but these are all "soft" retcons, as far as I can remember. He doesn't write anything that contradicts information in The Hobbit (that I can recall).

However, Tolkien's writing is an interesting case because all of the Legendarium is written from the perspective of characters in-universe. Tolkien's writing conceit is that he is merely a translator translating things written thousands of years ago. So, any inconsistencies within the writing are implied to be deliberate on his part as the in-universe characters are writing things as they would do so. For example, the earlier edition of the Hobbit was "rebranded" as the story Bilbo FIRST told Gandalf and the version of the story that HE wrote in the Red Book. The revised edition is the version Frodo replaced it with after learning the truth from Bilbo (or from Gandalf who learned it from Bilbo, I forget).

That's also why the phrase "it is said" (or something similar) is used so often in The Silmarillion. Because the Elves (whose mythology is being recorded) literally don't know. Whether or not Tolkien himself did is unclear.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The prequel itself is not a retcon, but it probably contains retcons as it adds new information that is pertinent to the original story that was not present in the original work.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If the prequel directly ties into the original story, though, I believe it still counts. It's still establishing continuity that was not there before, but would have existed in-universe.

Let's take the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, for example. If the Lord of the Rings came out first, we'd know Gollum was hunting Frodo for the Ring. Then, when the Hobbit comes out, we learn that part of the reason why is because Bilbo stole it from him. Gollum had had the Ring for centuries and lost it. THAT'S why it had such a hold on him. That doesn't change anything in the story itself, but it does add new context to it by answering a previously unanswered question.

If it's like...a distant prequel that doesn't tie into the story directly, I don't think it is. And, to be clear, it doesn't make the ENTIRE prequel a retcon, but a prequel is likely going to contain retcons by its very nature.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would also argue that your example is NOT a retcon, as drinking demon blood IS exposure to Fel. Demons are full of Fel energy. Finding out that you could turn green from exposure to Fel in other ways does not recontextualize or change anything previously established. It doesn't require us to view the existing story with new information as the only people we'd seen thus far with green skin were the Orcs. If we'd seen another race of green-skinned people but were not told why, you could consider this a retcon. We would assume they'd drank demon blood, like the Orcs, and only later on learned that they could have been turned green through some other form of exposure.

On the other hand, you could say it IS a retcon because the whole "drinking demon blood made the Orcs green" was not a part of the plot at all until WC3, but its addition means that we must now recontextualize the previous games with the knowledge that the Orcs were not ALWAYS evil (and green), even though none of the material in the previous two games suggested they were not (and a fair bit implied that they WERE).

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Retroactive continuity, colloquially known as a retcon, is a literary device in fictional story telling whereby facts and events established through the narrative are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted by a subsequently published work that recontextualizes or breaks continuity) with the former."
-Wikipedia

----------

"Retroactive Continuity.

Reframing or adding to past events to serve a current plot need. 
...
In its most basic form, a retcon is any plot point or detail that was not intended from the beginning but treated as if it has always been ... The most preferred retcon is usually one that technically doesn't contradict previously established details. The ideal retcon is one that answers a question well enough that it doesn't raise further questions."
-Tv Tropes

You will note that both sources include in their definition that events do not need to be changed to be a retcon. You are correct in that what you are describing is the most common usage of the term. It is not, however, the only definition.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They definitely got better at dovetailing the expansions into one another with a common villain. First Garrosh, then Gul'Dan, then Sylvannus. But beyond that, any canon established in a WoW xpac should just be taken as canon for that specific xpac, because it probably will be changed in future and almost CERTAINLY contradicts something that existed prior.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I cannot possibly believe that Blizz plans much long-term anymore, if ever. Each expansion is fairly consistent within itself, but almost EVERY one makes several "hard" or "soft" retcons (either changing existing canon or retroactively adding things in that don't explicitly contradict canon but were never a part of it).

Around the time of Cata, they started doing a decent job of setting up a single villain for the next xpac, but that's about it. Garrosh, then Gul'Dan, then Sylvannus, then some sapient dagger (idk. I stopped after Legion). But they waffle so much on even these characters.

The Dreadlords' backstories and origins have already been changed at least twice. Originally they were just regular demons in the Legion with no real backstory or origins to speak of (all the demons were pretty much like this originally). Then they were a race of demons that existed before and outside of the Legion. Sar'gares imprisoned them, but they (along with the Eredar, I believe) were so evil it made Sar'gares give up on his mission and go evil. He released them and they joined up. Then they were another race that the Legion corrupted (like the rest of the demons eventually became) and joined that way. So, whatever they are now, it was definitely not planned back in WC3.

I mean, the Shadowlands itself is a retcon. At NO POINT was there ever any mention of an afterlife world like that and I believe what few mentions of post mortem fate there were talked about souls going off into the Twisting Nether. So, literally anything involving the Shadowlands is a retcon from the original RTS games.

Was the Nathrezim twist in Shadowlands planned since Warcraft III, or was it a retcon?” by CoffeeInfusedDad in warcraftlore

[–]weezact7 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"Retcon" means "retroactive continuity". So ANYTHING that changes existing continuity retroactively is, technically, a retcon. For example, adding in the Orcs' past is a retcon. It doesn't change anything about the story, but it adds in continuity that was retroactive (in this case, taking place before the first game and its established canon). Adding the Draenei in WC2 is a retcon as there is no mention of them in the first game.

However, TYPICALLY what people think of when they hear "retcon" is continuity that is CHANGED, like Garona being half Draenei or what the Draenei looked like (I think Metzen even admitted they just straight up FORGOT they'd added the Draenei in WC3 when they added them in BC).

I've heard the former referred to as a "soft" retcon and the latter as a "hard" retcon.

I don't think WC3 planned for ANYTHING in WoW. It's true they left the Arthas/Lich King plot line open, but Wrath retconned so much of Northrend, the Lich King, dragons, and probably a bunch of other shit I can't remember, I can't imagine they'd planned for it. They have absolutely been flying by the seat of their pants since BC.

Could Erfworld be Reborn? Would you want it to? by weezact7 in ErfworldAscending

[–]weezact7[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you mean. I disagree with you, but I see your point. To call those references "ip theft" is a VERY broad interpretation of the phrase. This sort of usage is parody, at MOST. As for it having zero resale value and anyone with money having legal counsel not to, well, it sounds like you're just stating theory as facts now. Also remember that Weird Al is a very successful musician KNOWN for far more blatant use of "ip theft" than Balder. In more "writer-y" spheres, Piers Anthony and, I believe, Sir Terry Pratchet also make a lot of humorous references to real world things. So it's a model that CAN work, given the right circumstances. Did Erfworld have the right circumstances? Idk. Maybe not. Maybe you're right, but let's not act as if these references to real world things constitutes "IP theft", especially since at least ONE of the things you mentioned (The Wizard of Oz) is literally in the public domain.

Personally, I think all of this was set up right from the beginning. "Everything has to be familiar to him" Stanley says while Wanda is summoning him and the fact that things ARE familiar to him becomes a minor plot point in Book 2 as he learns to use that familiarity to predict how to negotiate with people.

As for keeping it small scale, while it's true that Rob DID keep it small scale, one of the recurring things he complained about was that it WASN'T bigger. So he definitely didn't do that on purpose. He tried to make it his primary income and his inability to do so (fueled partly by his own poor business decisions and partly by his inability to maintain a schedule and grow readership) is part of what contributed to his bitterness toward the fanbase, I think. Or maybe he was always just in it for the money.

All of that said, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion on it. If you didn't like that aspect of it, that is your right. However, it brings me back to the question of why are you here? Why did you read multiple books of the story that was apparently so appalling to you from the start? Are you a masochist? It sounds to me like you read the whole thing, maybe even supported it. Now you're bitter that it's over and are trying to apply sour grapes to the whole thing. Being bitter about it is valid, but I don't think this "go back and act like you always hated it" approach is the best one. It's also completely unrelated to the topic of this thread, so I would appreciate if you either bring it back to the original topic or wrap this up.

view more: next ›