Poor Execution versus Bad Idea

In the recent developer Q&A we find this exchange:

Fojar: Following the fall of Garrosh, will the Alliance be turning its attention to reclaiming its lost territory in the Northern Eastern Kingdoms? I speak primarily of Lordaeron, Gilneas, and Stromgarde.

Fargo: This is something we struggle with, because after Cataclysm we seriously question the time-investment of re-doing old zones. Presumably, from a lore standpoint, the Horde is going to have to back down from areas on the edge of conquest (particularly Ashenvale.) But we don’t want to re-do that zone – it’s an important Horde level-up area. And even if we DID re-do it, we’d still have to have quests – it couldn’t just be night elves /dancing. On a related note, would you guys be willing to sacrifice a new zone in the next expansion for us to re-do Gilneas? As an Alliance only zone? What gameplay would we get out of it?

So it’s an open question for us, how we show the impact of the war without re-doing zones that we just re-did for Cataclysm.


Kamrian Green: A fear many Alliance players have is that everything that the Horde has done to the faction up until this point will be laid on Garrosh and all will be forgiven. Can we safely assume that this will not be the case? To the Alliance, the Horde has a lot to answer for without Hellscream.

Fargo: I address this somewhat in an above answer ((The one I just quoted, in fact.))- how SHOULD we depict Alliance justice without deleting a bunch of old zone content? Also, we still need to make sure a Horde EXISTS after Garrosh falls, because, you know, they’re half our players. But certainly going forward into the next expansion we can carry forward the themes of Horde trying to rebuild itself from an absolutely terrible war and the Alliance – a unified victorious juggernaut – taking the initiative in the challenges that lie ahead.

Orgrimmar is going to be a bloodbath.

There seems to be the perception ((A perception I share.)) that the zone revamps of Cataclysm were, by and large, a failure. There are many reasons given, but by and large, the finger usually points to execution – it was in general done poorly. 

One example would be the added real estate that remained, by and large, dead.  Go to EPL and have a look at the highlands in between the northwestern and southwestern halves of the zone. Lake, devoid of life. Hills, devoid of life.

There are other examples to draw upon, of course. How questing was "on rails". How you ran out of XP headroom before you ran out of quests. How the lore was treated disrepectfully in some cases. The retcons. And so forth.

But there were some good points, too.  The whole Wrathion storyline issues forth from one of those revamped zones. Oversized zones ((I’m looking at you, Barrens.)) were cut into manageable sizes. Things moved forward as time passed (WPL, to some extent).

In general, if you ask someone how they feel about revamped, updated, or modernized zones, as a thing, they’ll be positive.  But if you ask them how they feel about how Blizz executed the revamped zones, the response will be overall negative.

Now, let’s look at the above quotes again.  Fargo gives the impression that, yeah, they want to modernize zones, but, because they didn’t work out, they don’t feel that putting resources into it is a worthwhile thing.

The thing is, I think that the response to the bad execution is being taken as a response to the whole idea of zone revamps, and I have to disagree with that perception.  I think that if they had done a better job of it, the response would be far, far more positive, and Blizz would probably see this as a thing worth pursuing.

Right now, moving the lore on Old Azeroth forward seems to be held up by their unwillingness to try to revamp a zone again. Look at the comments above; yeah, would be nice of Alliance took back Gilneas, but that would require a zone revamp.  Yeah, Alliance justice would be interesting to depict, but we’d have to revamp a bunch of old content.  Yeah, Alliance would probably assert itself in Ashenvale again, but that would require a zone revamp. 

Eventually it stops sounding convincing. Eventually it sounds like a bunch of weak excuses.

The lore should move forward. If that means revamping old zones, you do it, or things start to fall apart.  Eventually you’re not going to be able to staple all the old lore to new expansions’ lore without some change.

On a lighter note:

Guest: Turalyon and Alleria are still absent after all these years. Did they find a portal to a tropical island planet and are sitting on the beach drinking cocktails with the little umbrellas in them right now or something?

Fargo: I LIKE that answer! But I suspect they opted to do something heroic instead. We’ll come back to them when the time is right.

Keep in mind where it is that we lost track of these two, and we see some foreshadowing that points towards Outland once again. Goody!


Posted on April 26, 2013, in Game mechanics, Lore. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. Agreed that sounds like a bunch of weak excuses. They should’ve thought about that back when they were redoing all the zones. If they’ve backed themselves into a corner they’ve got nobody but themselves to blame. Stop punishing the players.


    • I’m getting that they thought things were fine and dandy when the originally implemented. But I think they’re confusing our dislike with the execution with the actual revamp, and that’s a bad thing. Our task is to get them to look at it right. 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: