A View From the Road: Screw Warcraft IV

[Flying-Emu]

Right, but that's specific for the genre hop that WoW made. For other RPGs looking to make the hop (KOTOR, Final Fantasy), that isn't the case.

Also, would the conflict hold as much meaning, or Arthas be as imposing, if we didn't lead him around through his campaign? I haven't played enough WoW to fully know, but these heroes had 100% screen time in the RTS series. Having an MMO have big, pivotal battles is great; but will I hate Arthas as much if I didn't watch him slowly corrupt over the course of 5-8 hours of screen time over the course of the Human campaign, and then lead his corrupted version for another dozen hours during the Undead campaign? I played for about a couple of weeks during the initial WoW launch, and I never hit a single "big story moment" or had any meaningful dialog that could be considered foreshadowing. Just the simple collect quests, kill these ghosts, etc.

The characters in WoW are good, but Are they stronger because we knew them from the instruction manuals and playtime of Warcraft 1-3? Could you build an MMO-only cast from quest givers and the occasional AI support that would be memorable over the course of, let's say, the ever popular RPG trilogy?

Maybe?

Solution: Roleplaying Servers.

I do it, I admit it. Makes the game easily four times better because instead of being number four thousand, I am Lohel The Explorer, High Chieftain of the Stonehoof Clan, Conqueror of the Tempest Keep and Dragonfriend.

Seriously, WoW becomes less about the "overarching" characters such as Jaina, Arthas, and Thrall, and more about the footsoldiers; the men and women, orcs and Tauren whose life and death pushes the war machine forward. That is FAR more interesting to me than a bunch of princes and princesses playing at war.

 

[Silva]

Ah, the MMO writer is here to tell us that an RTS series can't go through the next story because an MMO did it. Forgive me, Mr Funk, but I'm sceptical.

At the very least, if there is a Warcraft IV, it will have some way of looking back over WoW lore in the opening introduction, or explain it on the way. If not those things, then it will have a huge manual. If not that, then it's probably going to play through those stories anyway. Or the final, most predictable option - Blizzard will simply require that either people buy WoW or buy a DVD/device explaining the lore for as much cash as possible.

I, personally, would enjoy the actual game in any of these ways - as long as it's an RTS.

I'm not sure what you think my point is here. I think there WILL be a WC4 eventually, and it WILL continue the story they've been setting up. It's just that for the purposes of relating the tale of this world, it'll be the fifth entrant in the Warcraft series. As far as narrative elements are concerned, WoW IS WC4; being an MMO doesn't disqualify it from advancing the series' story. If the first games were singleplayer RPGs or platformers or whatever, the point would be the same - an MMO can be a valid entrant in a narrative.

Let me explain, then. I'm disagreeing with the idea you've implied, that the new game should be approached as a fifth entrant as opposed to a fourth. Plenty of people who refused to play WoW (on the price basis, for example) will be quite open to playing Warcraft IV, and they will not like it if there is just a hole and the story is continued from whatever "end" WoW's haphazard storyline comes to. However, at the same time, I'm sure many who played WoW will be jumping on the wagon.

I expect that Blizzard will choose to please the majority as usual, but I don't think that will necessarily lead to the best possible installment in the series. In a perfect world, both the main storyline from WoW and new storylines would be available in the new game, but since that's unlikely, I'd prefer the WoW story being covered in RTS form first. That might make me a purist, but I just like having my cake and eating it too. More to the point, I am one of those who point blank refuses to play WoW. Which means either spending hours reading a Wiki/manual because of Blizzard's choice, or living without all the tasty links between storylines.

 

[Brett Alex]

Pretty much all of that is from Warcraft 3, which was a steep step down from WC2 in regards to story and lore, true. Just not an all out embarrassment like WoW.

Alright, but are you honestly gonna tell me the Mind-Controlled-Giant-War-Sea-Turtle-with-Rocket-Launcher-Attachment was serious, dark, gritty and realistic?

 

[Byers]

This "reinterpretation" of the orcs abandoned everything cool about them to begin with. Abandoning demonic powers for nature worship. Ditching the awesome and fearsome (yet flawed and believable) warchiefs for a Disney story about a gentle orc boy raised by humans. Replacing the awesome ogres and ogre mages with bipedal cows. No thanks.

I can't find the article I read about past Blizzard employees, but do know some of them broke off to form the now disbanded Flagship Studios (including the guy who were the voice of the human footman and the mission briefings in Warcraft 2). I Also know Blizzard North was shut down in a dispute with Vivendi, causing talent such as Matt Uelmen to leave, now working on the game Torchlight with other ex-Blizzard employees in Runic Games. Where all of this fits in, I have no idea, I mentioned it more as a theory regarding the different new design choices in their more recent games.

I hate to fall back on the opinion card, but that really is just your preference. You act like the reinterpretation of the orcs completely removed their lust for battle or their ties to demonic magic (which it hasn't. See: Hellscream, Grom; Warlocks; Whatever that one racial ability is called). "Gentle orc boy"? Did you miss the part where Thrall brutally slaughtered Aedalas Blackmoore despite the guy being absolutely no match for him in combat? He's more measured than your average orc, but he's still got a temper.

The whole warchief/badass warrior thing is still there, but there's more to it than just that. But hey, if you want one-dimensional crazy brute barbarians who just live for battle (and seriously, nothing wrong iwth that), then that's your opinion and you are welcome to the Warhammer orcs. That just doesn't appeal to me at all.

I checked, and you were right that Roper was the Human Narrator in WC2. It's eluding me who Metzen voiced, but I know he did a bunch of the voices too.

Yes, some Blizzard North employees broke off to form Flagship, most notably Bill Roper. Blizzard North was then folded into the main campus in Irvine. But the man behind the WC lore and style from the beginning was Chris Metzen, with Samwise and Rob Pardo as other prominent influences. Roper was certainly influential, but less so than Metzen - he's the "core" of Warcraft, so to speak.

Well, opinion though it might be, there's nothing as simple as the one dimensional "me smash, you die" characters you describe in warcraft 2. They had their own identity and motives, most of which gave them an air of humanity and fleshed them out well. You can't really fault WC2 for being released before greater means of storytelling than cutscenes, briefings and backstory in the manual was technologically feasible.

And I still think the whole Thrall nonsense was a piece of Mickey Mouse baloney compared to the orc lore of WC2.

Although talking about personal opinion, it seems to be what you're were presenting as fact in your article to begin with, calling opinions differing from your own ludicrous, unless I'm missing some kind of point you've been hiding from us all along. It just seems obvious from your initial rant that you're an extreme WoW fanboy, blowing off steam about people badmouthing your game. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with fanboyism, but it's just not possible to convince them of anything in an argument that contradicts the holy tenets of their respective fanboy object. So it becomes a waste of time all around.

At any rate, I'm not gonna argue with you what you or I consider to be the "core" of Warcraft and who was the most influential. I doubt either of us really have enough knowledge about the inner workings of Blizzard to answer that, unless you've somehow been working there for the past 20 years. I just know missing the human footman/briefing voice from the third game spurred an impromptu "Noooooooooooooooooo!" moment from me as soon as I realized, and a sense of loss roughly ten times more prominent than the news of losing the original Kerrigan in SC2 arose in me.

 

[Byers]

Pretty much all of that is from Warcraft 3, which was a steep step down from WC2 in regards to story and lore, true. Just not an all out embarrassment like WoW.

Alright, but are you honestly gonna tell me the Mind-Controlled-Giant-War-Sea-Turtle-with-Rocket-Launcher-Attachment was serious, dark, gritty and realistic?

I guess I don't see people riding sea turtles as being radically different from people riding dragons or unicorns or whatever else people commonly ride around on in fantasy tales.

 

[Brett Alex]

Pretty much all of that is from Warcraft 3, which was a steep step down from WC2 in regards to story and lore, true. Just not an all out embarrassment like WoW.

Alright, but are you honestly gonna tell me the Mind-Controlled-Giant-War-Sea-Turtle-with-Rocket-Launcher-Attachment was serious, dark, gritty and realistic?

I guess I don't see people riding sea turtles as being radically different from people riding dragons or unicorns or whatever else people commonly ride around on in fantasy tales.

Sea turtles, outfitted as submarines (pressurized cabins and all), with rocket launchers, controlled by the thoughts of the pilot, in a fantasy setting. Yep, definitely dark and gritty.

 

[John Funk]

Well, opinion though it might be, there's nothing as simple as the one dimensional "me smash, you die" characters you describe in warcraft 2. They had their own identity and motives, most of which gave them an air of humanity and fleshed them out well. You can't really fault WC2 for being released before greater means of storytelling than cutscenes, briefings and backstory in the manual was technologically feasible.

And I still think the whole Thrall nonsense was a piece of Mickey Mouse baloney compared to the orc lore of WC2.

Although talking about personal opinion, it seems to be what you're were presenting as fact in your article to begin with, calling opinions differing from your own ludicrous, unless I'm missing some kind of point you've been hiding from us all along. It just seems obvious from your initial rant that you're an extreme WoW fanboy, blowing off steam about people badmouthing your game. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with fanboyism, but it's just not possible to convince them of anything in an argument that contradicts the holy tenets of their respective fanboy object. So it becomes a waste of time all around.

At any rate, I'm not gonna argue with you what you or I consider to be the "core" of Warcraft and who was the most influential. I doubt either of us really have enough knowledge about the inner workings of Blizzard to answer that, unless you've somehow been working there for the past 20 years. I just know missing the human footman/briefing voice from the third game spurred an impromptu "Noooooooooooooooooo!" moment from me as soon as I realized, and a sense of loss roughly ten times more prominent than the news of losing the original Kerrigan in SC2 arose in me.

Yes, they weren't as one-dimensional as the exaggeration above, but there wasn't really much ambiguity there, either. The closest that you really got to that was Gul'dan, who was more of a villain by virtue of betraying Doomhammer right when they were about to crush the humans once and for all. Otherwise it was "we're going to slaughter every last one of these guys, who's with me?" (Which, since you seem to like that sort of thing, is totally Garrosh Hellscream's modus operandi these days)

I think you're confusing an opinion with a belief. For instance, you're absolutely correct that it is my opinion in preferring the orcs of WC3/WoW (and finding them infinitely more interesting) to the (admittedly badass) orcs of WC2. You on the other hand feel the opposite way. This is a matter of opinion and personal taste and preference.

On the other hand, it is my belief that WoW does an effective job at moving the storyline along from WC3, and that was what I was arguing in the column. Yes, of course it's based in opinion - you do know what the op in op-ed stands for, right? The point of an op-ed is to establish an idea and argue for or against it.

I won't deny that I'm a Warcraft fanboy, and have been since WC2. As someone who likes MMOs, this was more borne out of frustration with what I feel are misconceptions about the genre from people who have never touched one in their lives. I could write the same sort of thing about SWTOR if, you know, it were out. (And probably will, but that's a ways down the road). When it comes to WoW itself? It's by no means a perfect game, and there are certainly flaws that I will wholeheartedly agree it possesses, but I think it does a great deal of things very, very right to make up for it.

I'm curious, though. What were you trying to convince me of "that contradicts the holy tenets of their respective fanboy object"? That the game is bad because it has a sense of humor and doesn't always take itself 100% seriously? (A matter of personal preference, and if you read our other content you know that it can always be worse [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/6599-Your-MMO-is-a-Joke]) That it was a bad idea for the series to shy away from aping Warhammer and to find its own identity? Again, a matter of personal preference. That MMOs aren't qualified to tell a story? I completely disagree with that on a matter of principle.

But... we do know who the core of Warcraft is. As far as story goes, it's been Chris Metzen since WC2 - remember all the badass art in the WC2 manual like the troll berserker jumping on the elf? That was him. The only real "critical" member of the team (at least as far as big names go) that is no longer with Blizzard is Bill Roper (aka Footman/Human Narrator voice in WC2), and he left the company years after WC3 came out - which means that the "core" was still very much intact when the decisions were made to take a different direction with the story.

Let me explain, then. I'm disagreeing with the idea you've implied, that the new game should be approached as a fifth entrant as opposed to a fourth. Plenty of people who refused to play WoW (on the price basis, for example) will be quite open to playing Warcraft IV, and they will not like it if there is just a hole and the story is continued from whatever "end" WoW's haphazard storyline comes to. However, at the same time, I'm sure many who played WoW will be jumping on the wagon.

I expect that Blizzard will choose to please the majority as usual, but I don't think that will necessarily lead to the best possible installment in the series. In a perfect world, both the main storyline from WoW and new storylines would be available in the new game, but since that's unlikely, I'd prefer the WoW story being covered in RTS form first. That might make me a purist, but I just like having my cake and eating it too. More to the point, I am one of those who point blank refuses to play WoW. Which means either spending hours reading a Wiki/manual because of Blizzard's choice, or living without all the tasty links between storylines.

You're perfectly free to disagree with me; it is after all a matter of personal choice. So, assuming I'm reading what you've wrote as you intended - we both agree that WoW is the fourth installment in the Warcraft storyline as intended by the series creators. You think that WC4 should also serve as a playable "recap" of sorts, covering the major events in the WoW plot before moving on to continue the story itself?

It's an interesting idea, and in an ideal world the best possible future. I'm not entirely sure it's feasible, given that in-game, three years have passed storyline-wise since WoW's launch, and by the time WC4 comes out that number will only be larger. How do you fairly represent five years' worth of story in a singleplayer game while still having room to advance the plotline?

Secondly, I don't actually know how much it matters. There was a ten-year gap in between WC2 and WC3, no? Granted, those ten years were RELATIVELY uneventful compared to the three years of WoW's story, so it's not an exact comparison here. But what if WC4 were, say, set twenty years into the future from WoW? The more I think about it, the more that kind of makes sense to me; it'd give them a lot more leeway to work with.

 

[Kiutu]

I can understand them though. I'd love a TES MMO (done right, however that may be) but I would hate it to be TESV. Maybe it could happen along the real game series, but not being directly invovled. I wouldnt want a party of 6 to defeat Dagoth Ur, just my own incarnaton of Saint Nerevar reborn (Nerevarine).

 

[Peace Frog]

The upcoming Warcraft movie may well serve as the "previously on Warcraft" recap that the RTS fans need (me included) but that's simply speculation since I haven't heard any news on the actual plot of it. I really hope Blizzard does a better job on it than most game/movie cross-overs...

 

[Geamo]

I do agree with the point Funk is trying to get across here. Having personally played WoW 'Vanilla' and 'The Burning Crusade' as well as the starting segments of 'Wrath of the Lich King', I do agree that there is a strong sense of storytelling being given through the game; if people actually take the time to read the quest text, you can see that there are strong plotlines.

Although I disagree with quite a few areas they have seem to have neglected lore-wise in favour of playability, there is a strong sense of progression but only if you've started from release. New players, I fear, miss great storytelling experiances such as instances because of the lack of players. But to my point, if you started playing at the beginning, 1.0, you awaited the next patch with eagerness; the next patch usually assumed you were the champions of the previous enemy, and then continued progression from then. Example in point ; patch 1.6 introduced Blackwing Lair, which assumed players had defeated Ragnaros in the Molten Core - clear progression from what they actually accomplished.

Anyone before then missed the opportunity, as there are nigh-impossible to find groups of players that run the content in chronological order, to get the full impact of the story.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Byers]

[...]

I'm curious, though. What were you trying to convince me of "that contradicts the holy tenets of their respective fanboy object"? That the game is bad because it has a sense of humor and doesn't always take itself 100% seriously? (A matter of personal preference, and if you read our other content you know that it can always be worse [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/6599-Your-MMO-is-a-Joke]) That it was a bad idea for the series to shy away from aping Warhammer and to find its own identity? Again, a matter of personal preference. That MMOs aren't qualified to tell a story? I completely disagree with that on a matter of principle.

Apart from the difference in between the two games, I guess a bigger mistake in the assumption that WoW absolutely must be taken seriously as the continuation of the storylines is that in many ways Blizzard betrayed their own lore when adapting the game world to a MMO format. You know the kind of things I'm talking about. Take for instance the Night Elves. They were portrayed all throughout WC3 and its surrounding lore as being a society of female warriors, with their male counterparts being hibernating druids, only to be awoken when needed. Then in WoW, that's suddenly not the case at all, they suddenly are comprised of just about every type of fantasy archetype in the game (except a few), with no restriction or difference regarding gender or class.
They also share their very race specific classes with other races, like the Tauren druids, who turn out to have the exact same skillset as their Night Elf counterparts. They furthermore run around with the exact same suits of armor as every other race in the game, regardless of what race they are.
They then decide to team up with the Alliance, a faction initially comprised of three wholly industrial races, that they spent most of their time in Warcraft 3 slaughtering at every turn for their violation of nature, to fight against the Horde, an equally unlikely faction whose three out of five races are mostly dedicated to living harmoniously with nature.

I mean, it's just so blatantly obvious that these, and many many other adjustments made to the game world and lore were purely undergone for the purpose of gameplay and making the world work in the MMO format, and simplifying things to fit neatly together, at the expense of things actually making any sliver of sense when seen in the context of the past lore.

Then they may later come up with half-assed backstories to explain their outlandish design choices, involving everything from spaceships to demigods. And while I haven't bothered reading it all, I expect they put some time travel in there for good measure. If they didn't, I bet it's right around the corner.

But... we do know who the core of Warcraft is. As far as story goes, it's been Chris Metzen since WC2 - remember all the badass art in the WC2 manual like the troll berserker jumping on the elf? That was him. The only real "critical" member of the team (at least as far as big names go) that is no longer with Blizzard is Bill Roper (aka Footman/Human Narrator voice in WC2), and he left the company years after WC3 came out - which means that the "core" was still very much intact when the decisions were made to take a different direction with the story.

Well, I very much doubt that a game franchise that's gotten as big as Warcraft has only one central player that makes all the real story decisions. Obviously it's a whole department, as has been said in the official Blizzard podcasts on more than one occasion. Even if all these other voices somehow, against all reason, turned out to be mere lackeys for the great God-man that is Chris Metzen, it would still influence His decisions and ultimately might take things in directions He wouldn't have gone on His own.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Cuz it makes too much money so they aren't going to let go of it, duh.

 

[Silva]

You're perfectly free to disagree with me; it is after all a matter of personal choice. So, assuming I'm reading what you've wrote as you intended - we both agree that WoW is the fourth installment in the Warcraft storyline as intended by the series creators. You think that WC4 should also serve as a playable "recap" of sorts, covering the major events in the WoW plot before moving on to continue the story itself?

Indeed, that's what I was getting at.

It's an interesting idea, and in an ideal world the best possible future. I'm not entirely sure it's feasible, given that in-game, three years have passed storyline-wise since WoW's launch, and by the time WC4 comes out that number will only be larger. How do you fairly represent five years' worth of story in a singleplayer game while still having room to advance the plotline?

A fair point. I'm well aware that WoW lore is immensely complex. I've done some casual reading of it myself, and it was quite interesting. But this is not the perfect world in which this could happen.

Secondly, I don't actually know how much it matters. There was a ten-year gap in between WC2 and WC3, no? Granted, those ten years were RELATIVELY uneventful compared to the three years of WoW's story, so it's not an exact comparison here. But what if WC4 were, say, set twenty years into the future from WoW? The more I think about it, the more that kind of makes sense to me; it'd give them a lot more leeway to work with.

I actually really like your idea here. It would be very cool to see the next RTS set far enough ahead that what happened in WoW was less relevant, allowing for new story without most of the misgivings of an immediate, five-minutes-later sequel. It's a neutral position for the story that would allow everyone to enjoy it.

 

[Falru]

The main issue with Storylines in an MMO is presentation. You simply don't have to the right tools to present a truly interesting story within an MMO. I really don't let the "clone trooper" affect bother me seeing as that's true for offline games too people! Thousands of other people are the sole survivors aboard the Ishimura in Dead Space.

No, the real problem I have with storylines and MMOs is that they always fall flat and aren't ever dramatic enough. Seeing Arthas finally shatter the Frozen Throne, and put on the helm of the lich king for the first time was so epic for me I had to go tell my friends about it.

MMOs will always be dragged down by lack of character individuality. Not to mention the time-consumption it takes to actually reach the "good bits". You fail a mission in an RTS, you try again with a new strategy in mind. You fail in an MMO and it's "oh well go grind some more levels then come back, we'll just sit here waiting for you"

Also, in an RPG world-changing events can occur, a city can be hit by a meteor and blasted off the map for the rest of the playthrough. In an MMO you know that can't happen or all the noobies would be dead. (Although I personally believe that would be rather entertaining) I'm fine with that however, I'd hate to be in an MMO and not be able to help out my newbie friends simply because I played the game!

It doesn't help either that WoW's art direction is almost impossible to take seriously. Warcraft III looked like that cuz it was 2002 and it was the best we could do folks. You don't need to steal it and multiply the unit size by about 5x.

 

[Megawizard]

How funny would it be if Warcraft 4 was the contents of the entirely of WoW in RTS form doing all the 'main' quests?

 

[Falru]

It'd be funny for about, 15 seconds I think.

 

[samsonguy920]

What I find cool about WoW, is that it does put you in the world as opposed to observing from above. Also it brings in so many more stories besides the ones brought up in the rts Warcrafts. There's the dwarven quest for their history, the story of Deathwing's children (which will be continuing with ol Deathwing himself returning), conspiracy and intrigue with the Stormwind royal family, Gnomeregan, the list goes on. There is even stories yet to be told, like what happened to Malfurion Stormrage and the elder Druids in the Emerald Dream? There have been hints and clues, but there has yet to be a real push to rescue or avenge them. Warcraft began with just orcs vs humans. We are now at 8 main races (soon to be 10), with countless others that have their own impact on the world. I'd say WoW makes a big difference in itself in the Warcraft mythos, and if there is a Warcraft 4, I would hope that it ties in with WoW, perhaps producing even more stories for players in WoW to experience.
I enjoy WoW, and accept it as part of the storyline, but Warcraft got its fame by being an RTS. I think it's time it delved back into that, and it doesn't have to ignore what's happened in WoW already. If anything, with Arthas' eventual demise and the established victory over the Scourge (though not necessarily its eradication) Warcraft 4 can establish a new nemesis. For an example, who is to say Sargeras, who started this whole mess in the beginning, is gone? Medivh made it back to the physical world, and even Deathwing is coming back, so why not the rogue, insane Titan?

 

[far_wanderer]

Here's my issue: If I want to play Warcraft 3 just for the story, I flip on god mode and enjoy the story. I couldn't do that with WOW, even if I had the desire and internet connection required to play. I'd still have to grind my way through the entire game. It's not that an MMO is worse at story-telling, it's that it's far less accessible.

 

[SilentScope001]

Another argument prods at the idea of the genre's persistence (and hundreds of thousands of players). If a small tribe asks you to save them from rampaging war bands of orcs, and you do so and are heralded as their Eternal Savior... can you really internalize that even while knowing that the orcs will respawn ten minutes later, and that every other level 75 character is their Eternal Savior as well? While this argument is made slightly less relevant by WoW's phasing system letting players actually perceive the world changing thanks to their actions, it still comes down to a matter of suspension of disbelief. It's the same reason that Nathan Drake can gun down hundreds of goons while searching for lost treasure and still be a loveable roguish good guy rather than a horrible mass murderer.

Guess what? Sometimes, the game prevents us from suspending our ability to disbelieve. We may try hard and hard to immerse, but we can't. We're used to immersing ourselves with an RTS and suspending our disbelief, but there comes a point when we can't even bother to suspend our sense of disbelief anymore. I know that people, within that very same game, is going to be hailed as their ETERNAL SAVIOR, and I know that, quite frankly, what I do doesn't really matter for the plotline. The game won't even pretend to try and help us suspend our disbelief, so why bother anymore?

And besides, I always see all FPS characters, including Nathan Drake as psychopaths. It actually helps the storyline along, in its own twisted sense.

 

[Hege]

If they're ever gonna make wc4, all I would need to know would be the new heroes, factions and a brief description on what's happened to the world and the old heroes.

I have liked the warcraft series so far and I don't think wow has ruined it. It possibly has made the future of the series more potential than ever.

I'm not sure how all the WoW things would fit into a RTS if they should, but I think they have continued the story on WoW's wings enough and could do warcraft 4. If not for the sake of the lore, then for the sake of gameplay.