oathblade said:
I?m not fond of PvP...or events that force it. The game is tending more towards that so even on the non pvp servers it has that feel. I wish they would take the chance to strengthen some of the neutral groups like the CC and give some sort of alternative to panting with bloodlust.
Agreed.
Kavonde said:
I hope so. I've been hating the Horde's new direction since the info was leaked, particularly with Garrosh being even more violent, racist, and idiotic than Anduin Wrynn.
I think you mean Varian. Anduin is the son, and (despite being a teenager) he's got more sense than his dad.
The Horde have always been, in my mind, the real Good Guys (except for the Forsaken and the Blood Elves, I guess). Turning Orgrimmar into Spike City and putting Garrosh in charge seemed like Bliz was removing the moral ambiguity that makes the Warcraft setting interesting.
I wouldn't say that the Horde were ever "the real good guys." They were downright evil in the first RTS, and arguably evil in WCII. The "gray and grey" angle wasn't really in play until WCIII.
However, while the Alliance was more-or-less uniformly "gray" before BC, the Horde had both the most "evil" race (Forsaken) and the most "good" (tauren). Then, along came BC and imbalances it; the Horde got the "gray" and desperate blood elves, the Alliance got an equivalent to the tauren.
Meanwhile, the Forsaken have been gradually losing what "sympathetic antihero" cred that they had. And now, Cataclysm gives
both sides seemingly "gray" races. (They could have done the antihero angle with the worgen, but I haven't seen any evidence of it yet.)
So yeah; in terms of moral ambiguity, the Horde isn't coming out on the good side. And yes, that kind of bugs me.