Official WarCraft IV Discussion

Level 24
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
4,657
Seeing AoE Online and Stronghold Online in that list, I am not hyped for any other of those titles.

There are few real rts games, and none really make it to mmo... simply because of that it is technically impossible. Try to design such a game, then come back.
 
Level 4
Joined
May 12, 2016
Messages
73
WoW basically is WCIV, without a storyline, an editor... fun gaming... fun multiplay-

WoW has no storyline, oh other then the Eredar falling from the sky and the blood elves making a massive town overnight.

Wow has a vague story line. After TFT the main heroes e.g Thrall, Jaina, ect. They all obviously go their separate ways and WoW just follows those paths. Once you've played WC and proceed to play Wow, you find many aspects that link back. WC IV may just ultimately tie it all together, or better yet, continue original WC storyline
 
Level 13
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
687
Do people actually want Warcraft 4 from neo-blizzard ?

overwatch-loot-price (1).png
 
Level 13
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
687
Yes I am dead serious. I hope Blizzard never makes Warcraft IV.

This is a company that have a cash shop in a subscription MMO, this is a company that has a skinner box design in all it's top leading games and ultimately this is a company which main concern is not crafting a good games but making as much money as possible.

This particular image sums it up : not only Blizzard, one of the richest and successful video game company in the world, has micro transactions in a fully priced game, those don't offer direct content but randomized items - it's gambling.
 
Last edited:
Level 46
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
8,252
You're ridiculous. Cosmetic items purchasable for real money do absolutely no harm. They're standard in this day and age. Most importantly, no one's forcing you to buy them. You can play Overwatch for as long as you like without ever purchasing a thing for real money. I know I'm not going to. The real problem with micro-transactions is when they let you gain an unfair advantage over those who can't or don't wish to pay, such as offering better guns or characters.

There's absolutely nothing wrong for a company to strive to make money. That's healthy. That's what companies are for, that's what they've ALWAYS been for. If Warcraft 4 will turn out bad, it's not because you can purchase a Warsong Grunt skin or Diablo profile portrait, it's because the art and story direction in Warcraft has gone way off the beaten path and no one can truly know what a new Warcraft game will look like.
 
Level 13
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
687
I can't believe someone involved in modding can be so brainwashed by the capitalistic world. You find nothing wrong that a game company - a creative instance - has made its primary goal to make money, more so you say it's healthy ; and the icing on the cake: "That's what companies are for, that's what they've ALWAYS been for". You can't be more wrong.
Money is and always will be a mean to an end. Companies exist to produce something and not to amass wealth. Capitalism has made you think that a company should primordially seek to make the most money possible. The idea is that the more wealth a company make, the best is the production. And indeed, there are a lot of arguments to support this.
However, as capitalism spread across the world, the mistakes of this theory became more and more apparent. By trying to make the most money possible, companies were ready to compromise their production. Because making the best product isn't the way to make the most money : Planned Obsolescence, Skinner Box economical model, false advertisement and more. This is the major failure of capitalism - the degradation of the product for profit.
This is why, I am not ridiculous, but rational. Blizzard has made it clear that money is their main focus and thus are ready to hurt their products for it (well they already have)

Actually having cosmetic items purchasable for real money is the same as having any other game elements purchasable for real money. A game is more than gameplay, art is also part of it. And please, don't say nobody is forcing you to buy it. Don't be so gullible. Blizzard make sure that you will want to use the cash shop via its game design - locking the content behind huge grinds, making the purchasable content better looking, and more.

Also, next time, try to answer my points. I will make it more clear for you by putting them into direct questions. How is having a cash shop make a (fully priced) game better ? Why is there even a cash shop in a subscription game ? Why the last wow expansion costed more than any other expansion but provided the least amount of content ? How designing the game around addiction mechanics is good design ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vyr
Level 46
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
8,252
Whatever. Enjoy living in your delusional world. Nobody works for free and games aren't cheap. Sustainable and steadily growing income is important to maintain a modern standard of quality, e.g to pay for all of the talented people working for Blizzard, as well as any other expenses the company has. And if you're so sad as to feel an 'urge' to purchase skins just because you're getting them a bit too slowly for your tastes through natural levelling and progression, that's all the more reason to feel sorry for you. Most people don't think like you, and I'm very grateful for that.

And since you keep pushing that in my face let me just state that I couldn't care less about World of Warcraft. In my opinion it's a bad product, I'm not interested in it or in whatever Blizzard does with it. On occasion I'd read up on whatever they've done with the lore in the newest expansion and usually recoil in disgust. the cinematics are cool, though
...Luckily there are plenty of actually good games that they've made, such as Warcraft 3, Starcraft 2, Hearthstone and Overwatch, enough to make me curious and excited about the possibility of a 4th Warcraft real-time strategy.
 
Level 13
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
687
@Deolrin I will be short this time as you still haven't answered the points I made. Instead you provided an emotional response, typical from someone who begin their answer with "Whatever". I never said games should be free. I never talked about my urge or desire to get skins, in fact my response had nothing to do with my feelings. Keep accepting an economical model which only purpose it to get more money out of you for less content.

@Shar Dundred Cool. Next time, try adding some arguments.
 
Level 13
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,314
Hey guys, dont you think there can be WoW and Wc IV next to each other? Like there is a myriad of Zelda games out there and they all seem to fit somehow. And in the same time they dont. Just do not take it that serious :)
I guess Blizzard just needs time travels, then they can do whatever they want and it is still believable.

While real capitalism being a bad influence on most things of quality, as all extremist life styles do - of course it is influencing Blizzard, but, we should not forget that blizzard still spends time patching a 10 years + old game from time to time. It may be bad patches, but they still work on it. I would say Blizzard may have changed in most parts from "nerds that want to make cool stuff" to "people that want to make a lot of money", but it is not the whole story ... Additionally, It is also completely different people today. And as times change, so do people. The 60s/70s were completely different in the understanding of wealth and money than the 90s/2000s, and as younger people were most of the times not as lucky to experience these "golden times", you have to understand that most younger people may not understand, that there are a lot more meanings to the word "value" as only making money (funny enough money is a very paradox thing in this context). It is the same for all cultural sectors by the way ...

Actually this reads as if I was 50+ but I am only 28. So I grew up in the 90s/2000s myself.


I think it should be possible to have different types of games next to each other in the same universe. Why do they always be consistent? Why do a lot of us think, it is a bad thing to have more than one official story in a universe? Why not have some Pluralism ...
 
Level 18
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,206
Hey guys, dont you think there can be WoW and Wc IV next to each other?
I don't think Blizzard wants to repeat stories or confuse people by having two games with 2 different versions of the story. That's why I think W4 as a continuation of W3 is very unlikely. And I can totally understand that.

What they can do, though, is have W4 take place somewhere in the past. Or in the future. That way they could tell a story within the universe without any continuity issues with WoW.

If it was up to me, I'd go with Warcraft: Chronicles, i.e. a regular Warcraft RTS (at least when it comes to multiplayer), but with a series of mini-campaigns focusing on different stories within the Warcraft universe. It'd be a lot of work, no doubt, but I think it'd be cool.

What I'm talking about is - campaigns like:
1. Alliance - Troll Wars (basically the humans & high elves vs Amani Empire), War of the Three Hammers (dwarf civil war), Gnoll Wars (rising kingdom of Stormwind vs gnolls), etc.
2. Horde - Gorian Wars (warsong clan vs gorian empire), Foundation of the Horde (orcs vs Draenai), Lord of the Clans (Thrall rising the Horde from ashes), etc.
3. Night Elves - War of the Satyr (night elves vs the satyr), War of the Shifting Sands (night elves and dragons vs silithids), War of the Ancients (night elves vs first time ever Legion invasion), etc.
4. Undead - War of the Spider (undead vs nerubians), the war between the scourge and Gundrak trolls, something completely new (the undead don't really have many stories that haven't been covered in the games), etc.

There's plenty of other fun stories that they could explore too - after all, Warcraft has a veeery rich universe in terms of lore :)
Of course, I know that adapting these stories would be hard because there's a wide variety of races they'd have to create, but heck... I'd sooo love to play that :)
 

Rui

Rui

Level 40
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
7,496
a company which main concern is not crafting a good games but making as much money as possible.
That's the way things go nowadays, unfortunately. Investors and others who profit from the company want their return for the sake of living a good life. I do not defend it should be this way, but, granted, if you can come up with merchant tricks that people will accept, why not? If you disagree with this, just don't buy their sellables.

You find nothing wrong that a game company - a creative instance - has made its primary goal to make money
So long as it doesn't neglect the feedback of its customers and quality of its products, which I believe has happened. I am unsatisfied with the money I gave away for StarCraft II and its expansions, as I never planned to mod it or play it online. In this case, I'd appreciate the availability of the option to pay only for the content of the campaigns and ditch Battle.Net.

Despite all of that, most people, me included, would pay to have Warcraft 4. I disagree with the (Activision) Blizzard's ways as of late, but, fortunately for them, there are many people who, like me, grew up playing and modding this game. That gives them quite the leverage to increasingly demand more for less.

Nobody works for free
I'd beg to differ, though the context is hardly akin.

we should not forget that blizzard still spends time patching a 10 years + old game from time to time. It may be bad patches, but they still work on it
I am uncertain whether that's really positive. Though they did promise a patch, as far as I know it was never meant to be something big. I waver at the decision of patching a game that, rumor has it, fixes as much as it breaks it, with no promise of additional features for the Editor, but that apparently is going to take them a year to pull out. It almost looks like an artifice to con people's hype up.


What I'm talking about is - campaigns like:
1. Alliance - Troll Wars (basically the humans & high elves vs Amani Empire), War of the Three Hammers (dwarf civil war), Gnoll Wars (rising kingdom of Stormwind vs gnolls), etc.
2. Horde - Gorian Wars (warsong clan vs gorian empire), Foundation of the Horde (orcs vs Draenai), Lord of the Clans (Thrall rising the Horde from ashes), etc.
3. Night Elves - War of the Satyr (night elves vs the satyr), War of the Shifting Sands (night elves and dragons vs silithids), War of the Ancients (night elves vs first time ever Legion invasion), etc.
4. Undead - War of the Spider (undead vs nerubians), the war between the scourge and Gundrak trolls, something completely new (the undead don't really have many stories that haven't been covered in the games), etc.

There's plenty of other fun stories that they could explore too - after all, Warcraft has a veeery rich universe in terms of lore :)
This is a very good idea to appease to most who did not appreciate a race's campaigns being partitioned in expansions. Have a main plot that is the main campaign, and then 2 or 3 mini-campaigns each expansion telling one of the stories you mentioned.
 
Level 18
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,206
@Rui - I'd be fine if they only did those "smaller" stories, without a big over-arching plot. Heck, I'd even be cool with having something like a SC II model. But - if they came up with a bigger, general story that would be awesome too :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rui

deepstrasz

Map Reviewer
Level 55
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
16,087
OK, so, after reading all of the posts in this thread I've come to the conclusion that Warcraft IV would best be suited as a game between The Frozen Throne and World of Warcraft because:

-continuing TFT and erasing WoW is a fan killer (and would probably ensure world war; oh, imagine the anarchy-I mean, we already have terrorism, resource control strategies and unemployment)
-setting the story after WoW would not be a good idea since what happened in Warlords of Draenor (in terms of time travel storyline; too much weird stuff that can create plotholes, fantasies and unanswered questions; alternate universes don't make good stories when suddenly introduced or forced into a story lacking time travel and alternate universe idea for three games and so many expansions) and how so much changed in WoW overall
-making it go many years after WoW is still a bad idea since it could still create plot holes and raise unanswered questions (honestly, better a new BlizzEnt RTS than that idea; sure, so much new content could be added)
-having a Warcraft IV happening between the first and the third games or before the first installment would not make it a Warcraft IV (a continuation) but a Warcraft: <insert specifics here> (would be fun to actually play the stories from the manuals and other stories with developed races like demons, elementals and whatnot)
-turning it into a side story to WoW does not make it Warcraft IV
-modding Warcraft III or StarCraft II or fans creating a game on another engine does not fit as Warcraft IV
-a reboot of the older games certainly is no Warcraft IV!

Now, spinoffs are nice but they tend to go into weird directions. That, however, is another story.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gameplay:

-it could just be an advanced version of Warcraft III with more enhancements to hero customization, maybe even unit customization to some extent. Heroes could have spells that could be modified depending on traits and talents chosen by the player either on level up and/or by using some items. A proper inventory for heroes
-they could also make optional quests for multiplayer maps, creep camps with neutral heroes and/or strong creatures that would require a team to defeat them (somewhat early in the game)
-control points would be interesting on some maps, places that need to be held by a team/player in order for them to gain bonuses
-mercenary camps should contain somewhat unique units with different abilities than what the racial/faction units would have. Also, items should not enable abilities a race/faction has
-the reintroduction of oil or a third resource, maybe more?
-ships, at least on/for some ladder maps, you know like in Warcraft II (not all maps were water ready)
-night-day, ground-underground (like in most Heroes of Might & Magic games and adapted to Armies of Exigo); line of sight blockers, natural events
-more than four races would be nice; sure, mixing like they did in Warcraft III is fine; we could have beside the four known factions/races: demon/Burning Legion, naga, can't have too many pandas sorry (MoP came so much later), draenei also came later (WoW:BC), elemental etc. However, some of the factions would need a somewhat sided story (not necessarily flashbacks but things happening nearer to their realm) since for instance naga had a more important role in Cataclysm although being present in most if not all WoW installments (especially in the first one)

-of course, it would be amazing to have a TFT-like editor or at least a version if they decide to overcomplicate it like with SCII's
-LAN would be a luxury
-a custom campaign section like that of the Frozen Throne

Some wrote mixing WoW, WcIII with the MOBA genre. I hope not. It would just lose much to all RTS archetype. This, however, would be more of a spinoff than an actual Warcraft game.
Others implied turning it into a MMORTS. If they'd do that at least let them for a Warcraft game but not Warcraft IV. This would be a more interesting idea than the direction they went with that turned into WoW/MMORGP. Imagine battling armies of players, maps, quests... well, honestly, it's a very difficult task to properly do.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story (addressing):

-ingeniously connecting the events of the Frozen Throne with those of the World of Warcraft
-how/why did the factions fuse into two bigger ones; the strife between the factions, why did they make their choices to either join the Alliance or the Horde; why did the Forsaken see their place fir more amongst the Horde (not just because of WoW gameplay geography); why did the belves join the Horde and how did they rebuild Quel'thalas; why did the orcs become enemies with Theramore; how did they rebuild Stormwind?
-why were Gilneas, Kul Tiras, the dragons and other factions absent during RoC
-the strife between the eredar and draenei (this is where a draenei and/or a demon/Burning Legion race/faction could be added to the game) on Argus and the departure of the Exodar
-Arthas' long meditation and why didn't he and the Scourge set out of Northrend to follow an agenda
-Draenor, Illidan and the naga; why was Maiev imprisoned and how she escapes and how "everyone" turns against Illidan
-Sargeras' absence during RoC and TFT
-Pandaria and why/how was it hidden that not even the nelves (maybe from the dragons) knew about it
-introduction of the Val'kyr, Vrykul, nerubians
-why were there people like Thrall's grandmother, Grom's son still living on Draenor and how did orcs and creatures like Rexxar get to Azeroth (when, who opened up portals?)

It would be awesome if Christopher Vincent Metzen would write the story for this game, if it'll ever be created. I would recommend him doing something like for the first three Warcraft games not like for WoW.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About modding/using Warcraft III to create something considering Warcraft IV, I can mostly point out some custom made campaigns. But these are more story driven and do not improve/change the gamplay that much. Chronological appearance:

Rise of the Lich King
Rise of the Blood Elves v2.2
Curse of the Forsaken v2.1
The Frozen Tides
Shadows of Hatred v.1.2.4

Others are either alternate stories, do not include RTS, are set before Warcraft III, are spinoffs or are based on an original or different universe.
 
Last edited:
Level 24
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
4,094
OK, so, after reading all of the posts in this thread I've come to the conclusion that Warcraft IV would best be suited as a game between The Frozen Throne and World of Warcraft because:

-continuing TFT and erasing WoW is a fan killer (and would probably ensure world war; oh, imagine the anarchy-I mean, we already have terrorism, resource control strategies and unemployment)
-setting the story after WoW would not be a good idea since what happened in Warlords of Draenor (in terms of time travel storyline; too much weird stuff that can create plotholes, fantasies and unanswered questions; alternate universes don't make good stories when suddenly introduced or forced into a story lacking time travel and alternate universe idea for three games and so many expansions) and how so much changed in WoW overall
-making it go many years after WoW is still a bad idea since it could still create plot holes and raise unanswered questions (honestly, better a new BlizzEnt RTS than that idea; sure, so much new content could be added)
-having a Warcraft IV happening between the first and the third games or before the first installment would not make it a Warcraft IV (a continuation) but a Warcraft: <insert specifics here> (would be fun to actually play the stories from the manuals and other stories with developed races like demons, elementals and whatnot)
-turning it into a side story to WoW does not make it Warcraft IV
-a reboot of the older games certainly is no Warcraft IV!

Now, spinoffs are nice but they tend to go into weird directions. That, however, is another story.


I disagree, I think the far more important question is what did all of these guys do during world of warcraft, I think the game should take place during TBC and WotLK where none of their storylines were explored, I mean what did Jaina, Tyrande, Sylvanas, Varok, Rexxar, Varian, Shandris and so many other characters do during this time? I'd like them to explore that. In a perfect universe we'd get to see both, don't misunderstand me what you want is important I just think that what I want is even more important.
 
Level 11
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
849
Writers can jam whatever they want into that period of time. It's what, 4 years? Easy to shove a dozen storylines there. And blizz is no stranger to retcons to make things flow the way they want.


Wc4 will probably be set after WoW, if its ever made, unfortunately.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
4,094
Writers can jam whatever they want into that period of time. It's what, 4 years? Easy to shove a dozen storylines there. And blizz is no stranger to retcons to make things flow the way they want.

I have the feeling that then we'll just get a rushed and unsatisfying story.

Wc4 will probably be set after WoW, if its ever made, unfortunately.

Sadly true.
 
Level 24
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
4,094
Yup, Metzen is enjoying an early retirement, in certain ways I do like him but man has his writing regarding Thrall gone completely overboard. That bastard has to be forced into EVERY! SINGLE! PATCH!
 
Level 6
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
243
Yup, Metzen is enjoying an early retirement, in certain ways I do like him but man has his writing regarding Thrall gone completely overboard. That bastard has to be forced into EVERY! SINGLE! PATCH!

How do we know that's Metzen's writing and not Afrasiabi's or Kosak's?

Anyway, on-topic, instead of an RTS Warcraft 4 I'd like a Skyrim-style RPG set in the Warcraft movie universe; largely since a movie sequel is HIGHLY unlikely at this point, and because I'd rather explore the world seen in the film than the world in the MMO. The armor and weapons looked better, too.
 
Level 14
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
1,296
Most of the proposed ideas - Humans vs. gnolls, Night Elves vs. Satyr - will, and I am confident, NEVER happen as main campaigns. Why? It's simple: (Activision) Blizzard have now created a world with the key intent to catch the attention of as many consumers as possible. This is, as far as I am concerned, the reason why suddenly the gimmicky Panda became a lore integrated thing and why almost everyone of importance in WoW has been killed/killable in a raid instance - just to name a few things.

People don't care about some ancient stuff about Night elves and satyrs. Sure, if you ask a negligible percentage of consumers (+20 years old, have played Blizzard games for +10-20 years) then those players would probably be interested, but the majority wants action, cool cutscenes, cool "Oh these X, Y, Z are my favourite characters". The only way for Blizzard to make Warcraft 4 with their current design philosophy is to focus on as much of the hyped stuff as possible.
Since 2007, when TBC came out, I have been mad at Blizzard for destroying the charm of their games and the lore. However, these days I don't care much anymore. We just have to accept that Blizzard is not the same Blizzard that made Warcraft 3, Diablo 2, Starcraft 1, Warcraft 2, etc.

My conclusion is that we will get a Warcraft 4 that is more like HoTS or Starcraft II in terms of tone. Any serious complexity or attention to detail (story-wise) will be scrapped for the sake of "epicness". It will be an epic story where all the races come together to fight against a greater evil. No, I am not talking about the interesting way it was done with Archimonde, but the way that every CGI/Hollywood movie is doing it and have done it literally 1.000000 times before. Starcraft 2 had good gameplay, yes, but the charm of the game was scrapped for pleasing the little kids whose hysterical parents wouldn't allow them to watch "scary monsters" (seriously I can't stand this censorship thing with kids: I played WC2 and SC1 when they were released and I was 4-7 years old). I assume we will get something pretty similar in a possible Warcraft 4 release; that is, unless Blizzard somehow change their design philosophy: a game that will get an IGN score of 9.5 and appraised for its "incredible" achievement of "bringing Warcraft forward" (which, of course, is newspeak and really means making the game more shallow).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pyf

Pub

Pub

Level 2
Joined
Dec 24, 2012
Messages
12
Most of the proposed ideas - Humans vs. gnolls, Night Elves vs. Satyr - will, and I am confident, NEVER happen as main campaigns. Why? It's simple: (Activision) Blizzard have now created a world with the key intent to catch the attention of as many consumers as possible. This is, as far as I am concerned, the reason why suddenly the gimmicky Panda became a lore integrated thing and why almost everyone of importance in WoW has been killed/killable in a raid instance - just to name a few things.

People don't care about some ancient stuff about Night elves and satyrs. Sure, if you ask a negligible percentage of consumers (+20 years old, have played Blizzard games for +10-20 years) then those players would probably be interested, but the majority wants action, cool cutscenes, cool "Oh these X, Y, Z are my favourite characters". The only way for Blizzard to make Warcraft 4 with their current design philosophy is to focus on as much of the hyped stuff as possible.
Since 2007, when TBC came out, I have been mad at Blizzard for destroying the charm of their games and the lore. However, these days I don't care much anymore. We just have to accept that Blizzard is not the same Blizzard that made Warcraft 3, Diablo 2, Starcraft 1, Warcraft 2, etc.

My conclusion is that we will get a Warcraft 4 that is more like HoTS or Starcraft II in terms of tone. Any serious complexity or attention to detail (story-wise) will be scrapped for the sake of "epicness". It will be an epic story where all the races come together to fight against a greater evil. No, I am not talking about the interesting way it was done with Archimonde, but the way that every CGI/Hollywood movie is doing it and have done it literally 1.000000 times before. Starcraft 2 had good gameplay, yes, but the charm of the game was scrapped for pleasing the little kids whose hysterical parents wouldn't allow them to watch "scary monsters" (seriously I can't stand this censorship thing with kids: I played WC2 and SC1 when they were released and I was 4-7 years old). I assume we will get something pretty similar in a possible Warcraft 4 release; that is, unless Blizzard somehow change their design philosophy: a game that will get an IGN score of 9.5 and appraised for its "incredible" achievement of "bringing Warcraft forward" (which, of course, is newspeak and really means making the game more shallow).

After seeing the shitshow that took place in Diablo 3 and then trying to get some fun out of WoW (I started during mists and hated the casual appeal, i wanted to experience TBC brutality), I'm super afraid of how Blizzard would handle Wc4. Both Diablo 3 and WoW just have this "gotta login daily" to do chores that requires way more time than skill, and it's not even fun or even the least be rewarding in terms of experiencing joy through character progression. While RPGs are very different from RTS, I feel pretty confident Blizzard is more than capable of messing it up.

I dabbled a tiny bit in Stacraft 2 (never played sc1 growing up). And seeing how bnet 2.0 was integrated, I've never felt a larger disconnect from a community while playing a multiplayer game. I was extremely paranoid blizzard would treat SC:R like a quick money cash grab and for them to get out. With the pros reactions based on the multiplayer experience (/watch?v=V6E66aANKzw), I wouldn't be surprised and honestly highly expect Blizzard to treat a WarCraft 3 remaster the exact same way.
 
Level 1
Joined
May 1, 2018
Messages
2
I agree that WoW ruined Warcraft story with killing all cool characters as raid bosses among other things... But if Warcraft IV skips wow story I suppose it means there should be no human in Warcraft IV since the humanity was extincted in Warcraft. If I'm not mistaken, Stormwind fell to Orcs in Warcraft II and Lordaeron and Dalaran fell to scourge in Warcraft III. So basically there is nothing much left of the good guys
 

deepstrasz

Map Reviewer
Level 55
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
16,087
I agree that WoW ruined Warcraft story with killing all cool characters as raid bosses among other things... But if Warcraft IV skips wow story I suppose it means there should be no human in Warcraft IV since the humanity was extincted in Warcraft. If I'm not mistaken, Stormwind fell to Orcs in Warcraft II and Lordaeron and Dalaran fell to scourge in Warcraft III. So basically there is nothing much left of the good guys
Humans would still be there man, look at the map: Gilneas, Theramore, Kul'Tiras to name some...
 
Level 22
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
1,194
They can create new cool characters in WC4. They did so in WC3. After all it depends on the challenges they are going through; not their past experiences. We could have Thrall, but if he just sits on his ass like he did in Frozen Throne I wouldn't be interested.
 
Level 3
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
33
As if there's any confirmation. Besides, this can be used for a Warcraft spinoff game too.
there is plenty of hints, and many facts showing that the possibility of Warcraft 4 is extremely low and with the recent activates of blizzard and their history and the information we have, the possibility of Warcraft 3 Remastered is extremely high

which is why I'm suggesting making a topic for remastered too
 
Level 3
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
33
That's another thing which doesn't have to kill this thread's pinning.
i know your hope and desire for Warcraft 4 still burning, but sometimes we have to accept the cruel reality and blizzard decisions



Care to provide said facts and hints?
here some videos you can watch
and don't forget the remastered of StarCraft and why and how it was done, the steps blizzard did
 
Top