Should game design trump lore?

Reading Anne Stickney's series of articles on Horde politics on WoW.com has made me consider the role of lore in game design before, and when I considered it, I came to the conclusion that remaining faithful to the lore should come before kowtowing to the player-base's desires. However, I forgot about another important influence on game design and how it affects the lore: the design process itself. What Stickney's articles all point to is that the Horde has less reason to stay together than it ever has before. Of course, were the horde to split, we'd have five micro-factions rather than the unified Horde we have now, and for gameplay reasons, that's not a good idea. However, if the lore of WoW should be put on as high a pedestal as I believe it should, then should the concerns of WoW's design really trump the lore considerations?

Essentially, the reason I stated for WoW's story progression to be based on the lore and not the will of the players is that, as an art form, it is WoW's responsibility to "challenge our perceptions, our beliefs, and make us ask questions about ourselves." The continued progression of the lore in a natural way is necessary for WoW to do just that. However, WoW can't accomplish those purposes if it ceases to exist as a game. That is why many people who discuss lore-based changes will say, "But the game design comes first," and that's why we will likely not have micro-factions when Cataclysm hits: for WoW to continue to exist, game design concerns must trump lore concerns.

Still, I don't think it's that inconceivable from a lore-based perspective that the Horde can stay together when Cataclysm hits, in spite of their differences. After all, with a crisis as huge as the cataclysm on their hands, the various races will need support in the fight for resources and space. To have the five races fighting one another would simply result in them squandering the few resources the Horde will have left, and though Garrosh may not be the smartest leader, the leaders of the other races will know well enough that they can't survive on their own. Survival will be reason enough for the Horde to stay together.

Of course, the cataclysm will arguably only happen because Blizzard needs an excuse for another expansion, as well as an excuse to remake the old world. It's quite convenient that it will give the Horde a reason to stay together in spite of the differences between their goals and the less-than-stellar leadership of Garrosh. Too convenient, in fact, and this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Horde needs a pretty race and the world needs a new continent? Burning Crusade gives us Blood Elves and Outland. WoW needs a hero class and another new continent? Wrath of the Lich King gives us Death Knights and Northrend. Horde needs a silly race, Alliance needs a tough race, the old world needs a makeover, and the Horde needs a reason to stay together? Cataclysm will do all of that. As one of the commenters on WoW.com once said, the plot of each expansions tends to hinge on what the game needs.

When you think about it, that's a rather unsettling prospect, that the larger evolution of the game tends to be guided by what Blizzard thinks the game "needs." After all, if we players were perfectly satisfied with the game as it was, Blizzard wouldn't have needed to add a pretty race and a silly race for the Horde, a tough race for the Alliance, and a remake of the old world. When you think about it that, it almost seems as if the larger evolution of the game's lore is guided by player desires.

But I don't think that's a bad thing. After all, how else should Blizzard decide how the lore is to progress? Sure, there are always the existing conflicts to drive the plot of WoW, but considering that we players have a habit of killing any foes Blizzard throws our way, if new foes weren't added, the only plot points left would be the Alliance vs. Horde conflict. Without new foes to fight, all we'd have to drive the game would be that conflict, and that conflict would probably grow pretty stale after a while. That's why Blizzard needs to constantly provide us with new foes that the Horde and the Alliance can oppose, and what better way to pick new foes than to pick foes with a back-story that allows improvements (such as more diverse races, a new class, and a revamp of the old world) to be implemented into the game?

All in all, I think it's acceptable for the larger evolution of the game's story to be driven by the needs of the game, as long as that evolution makes sense. As long as the smaller details (like who will be the Warchief of the Horde*) remain faithful to the lore, I say let the larger plot points be driven by the game design.

*I know that who is chosen as Warchief of the Horde may not seem like a small detail, but when the entire world is torn asunder by an ancient power, then what are petty political squabbles in the grant scheme of things?