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?

To what does Blizzard owe their loyalty: the player-base, or the lore?

I know I usually post my philosophy posts on Friday, but this edition of WoW.com's Know Your Lore really got me thinking about an issue I am now so eager to write about that it just can't wait, leaving me no time to work on my miscellany post, so my miscellany post will need to go on the back burner until Friday. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Anyways, the post in question talks about the history of Thrall, Garrosh Hellscream, and the politics of the horde in general. What really got me thinking was the final point brought up by Anne Stickney's amazing post: the reason Thrall is losing control of the horde, and the reason Garrosh will gain control in Cataclysm, is that Thrall is an orc with human tendencies, while Garrosh is an orc with orcish tendencies, and to the orcs, his way of going about recent WoW politics is much more akin to their nature, as opposed to Thrall's peaceful diplomacy. Thing is, it was Thrall's human-like ways that made the players so sympathetic with him. Players love him because of his identity as a "noble savage," but that made them forget what the orcs truly are. Players hate Garrosh because he is the exact opposite of Thrall; he is the opposite of everything that made it possible for players to fall in love with a race of savages in the first place. That, however, makes his ideals much more in line with what an orc would actually believe. Put simply, Thrall is everything the players wish the orcs could be, while Garrosh is everything the orcs wish they could be.

This will make things difficult when Cataclysm comes along and Garrosh becomes the new Warchief. While the orcs are struggling with their inevitable civil war between those who believe in Thrall's peaceful ways and those who believe in Garrosh's truly-orcish ways (that's Stickney's prediction, anyways), players will be fighting their own battle, too. It may be an internal conflict, but it will be a conflict nonetheless. While I can't imagine what it must be like to be a loyal Horde player and know that this is going to happen, I'd imagine the hordies (orc-players in particular) would be caught between two options: one, stay loyal to the horde, even if it wasn't exactly what they thought it was or could be; or two, leave the horde (switch races or maybe even factions) and show no support for this not-so-new horde. (I say not-so-new because, according to Stickney, Garrosh personifies what the orcs always were, so while his violent tendencies are new to us players, they are not new in general.) I know that's probably more role-play-ish thinking than most people will apply to this situation, but if my watching the WoW.com comments sections has taught me anything, it's that Horde players love them some Thrall, and I'd imagine they also love the things he stands for.

This brings me to the dilemma I want to look at. By putting Garrosh in power, Blizzard will be advancing the lore of Warcraft in a believable way. Though Thrall's ideals were nice, he was raised by humans, and they are, in the end, human ideals. The Horde couldn't keep up the pretense of following those ideals for very long, so Garrosh going into power is really the only logical conclusion of the events that have lead up to this point in the lore. The one difficult point is that the players, the driving force behind many of the contemporary events of Warcraft, hate Garrosh. Unless they are really willing to suspend their real-world sensibilities and take up the mind-set of an orc, players simply can't identify with Garrosh. One of the things that made the Horde so attractive as a faction was that they were not the typical bad guys; they were really just victims. Under Garrosh's leadership, however, we can expect the Orcs, if not the whole Horde, to become a much more violent, impulsive, and generally villainous group. This would take away much of what made the Horde popular in the first place, and take away almost all of the sympathy players have for the Garrosh-following Orcs. It would make playing an Orc... difficult, to say the least.

However, I am not here to argue Thrall vs. Garrosh vs. Basic Campfire; this debate is simply an example of the real dilemma I want to look at, a dilemma that can best be worded thusly: Should Blizzard be more loyal to their fan-base or their lore? As much as it pains me to say this, I think that, in matters of story, Blizzard owes their loyalty to the lore, not us players. I say that it pains me because it means that I inherently agree with Garrosh being promoted to Warchief, but that's just the way it has to happen if Blizzard is going to stay loyal to the lore.

One might say that, since we pay Blizzard to keep this story going, they should think about what we want when they write the story, but one could just as easily say that it's the story that justifies the game existing in the first place, so we really owe it to the lore to let it evolve naturally. Also, to expect the epic storyline of Warcraft to follow the whims of what we players want just because we supply the money to keep the story going would make us no better than studio executives who stifle an artist's creativity for the purpose of making a work potentially more profitable. (Executive meddling, as it's called.) Now, granted, the contention that Blizzard should tailor their story to what we players like could be differentiated from executive meddling by saying that we players are only looking out for our own enjoyment, while studio executives are trying to maximize their profits, which surely must be a less ethical motivation. Regardless, the outcome is the same--art is watered down to appease the masses--so I see no practical difference between the two.

Of course, disproving a contention doesn't prove its opposite, so why should Blizzard remain loyal to the lore, rather than the players? How about this: video games are art. Though many don't see them that way, video games are a medium, especially when they involve a story as long, involved, and epic as Warcraft's. As an art form, it is the responsibility of a game like WoW to challenge our perceptions, our beliefs, and make us ask questions about ourselves. Promoting Garrosh to Warchief will certainly accomplish all three of these purposes. We already know that our perceptions of the orcs as a race capable of human ideals of peace and diplomacy could be false, and Garrosh's promotion will cement the breaking of that idea. While we may believe that it would be better for the orcs to try to be more like Thrall, we may be deceiving ourselves by thinking that is possible. So what questions will this plot point make Horde players ask themselves? Many, certainly, and interesting ones at that: Do I feel comfortable with this not-so-new Horde? Will the loyalty I've developed to what was largely an illusion carry me through this part of Warcraft's story? Can I follow a leader with few qualities I find redeeming? Is the Horde becoming the villain, and am I ok with that? I'd be surprised if there aren't already players asking these very questions.

But what if Thrall stayed in power and Garrosh remained an underling or was booted out entirely? That really wouldn't do us any good. Considering how fickle the fan-base can be, to base the plot of Warcraft's story on the whims of the masses would result in a largely unbelievable story that would probably not satisfy the player-base anyway. If Blizzard keeps Thrall in power, then all of the previous lore about the orcs is worth nothing. Considering all that has lead to this moment, keeping Thrall in power would be even more of an odd move than putting Garrosh in his place. Blizzard would be betraying their lore, their fans, and themselves if they kowtowed to the desires of the players to not be lead by Garrosh.

As I said, though, this logical conclusion leaves us with many unsettling questions that make the future uncertain. Will the player-base move away from the Horde as an act of rebellion against Garrosh's rule, or will they continue playing as if it isn't happening? Will players be able to ignore the forced revelation of the Orcs' true nature, or will they adapt and adopt Garrosh's philosophy? All we can be sure of is that Cataclysm will surely bring about great changes to this game we all love, and the way we respond to them will likely shape the plot of the game and the entire Warcraft saga. It's going to be an interesting expansion.