I think many of these might be just an oversight. The Chronicles might be just giving a general idea of the events, instead of giving details about it. Like, Jaina being around or the events after Malfurion ruined Illidan's plan to destroy the Frozen Throne and rescuing Tyrande.Still, it's quite possible Blizzard is trying to retcon some stuff. Specially after Suramar and the way Nightborne went Horde, it is quite likely they'd try to erase certain aspects of Tyrande's character to fit their most recent creations.
I like that Chronicle re-contextualized Kael'thas as more of a tragic character with a genuine desire to help his people, but is tricked into becoming a puppet (not just to Kil'jaeden) and is ultimately manipulated into losing all hope. It does his story a lot more justice than his portrayal in the Burning Crusade did.But now I'm really bummed out that he's dead...
Many of these changes were ridiculous, ignoring books and in-game quests that had brought so much more complexity to the lore.The duel between Garrosh and Cairne was more tragic because Garrosh was indeed innocent of attacking the druids, and it was all a misunderstanding driven by two different personalities and the manipulation of Twilight Hammer. The "retcon" or intended void of details is a disgrace towards that set up, making Garrosh a more simple-minded villain instead.And wth was Blizz thinking, removing Med'an from the lore. As I noted in my previous post, deleting your own creation is like a FB user deleting his controversial post fearing for his popularity, why can't Blizz just OWN their mistake and acknowledge Med'an as a bad character, his story dull, and takes full responsibility of it? And how are they going to explain Aegwynn's death now?
These retcons are New 52 tier garbage. I'm sorry, but whoever wrote these clearly didn't understand their original intents and needs to be put on an extended vacation, away from pen and paper.
A Lot of these don't really feel like "retcons" as much as they feel like things that Chronicle didn't explicity address; which makes sense since Chronicle is very much an "overarching background" and doesn't really handle a lot of the minutiae. An omission from Chronicle does not a "retcon" make.That being said, there are still plenty of true retcons in there, but most of them don't really leave me dissatisfied, with the notable exception of the ones that shift responsibilities (i.e. Arthas becoming LK).
I agree with the title that this article is about REVEALS and RETCONS. You are going to have lore fans jumping up and down about some of your wording though...
Okay usually I don't mind retcons, I defend Blizzard a lot for some. Retcons happen, almost every story and author has done it. Nothing is inherently wrong with it. Heck a number of the retcons clears things up and are better and make more sense than the original lore. But now its getting out of hand...we're retconning things from the first 2 chronicles now, already? And many retcons are so small and trivial I don't see the point of them. And some are so major, it completely changes everything established and that led up to it and raises more questions than answers. Like someone mentioned above with the Garrosh and Cairne situation. Some things we actually experienced and played through ingame seem to be retconned. All that being said, I'll need to read the whole Chronicle myself to make a final judgment. As someone said before hopefully many of these are just an overview of certain events or a summary and things not mentioned don't necessarily mean they are retconned. An omission does not mean a retcon. And the section about Sargeras enslaving the demons is not a retcon at all. But...yeah we'll see I guess. Some of the changes are welcome and I agree 100% with the removal of Medan.
When one person writes a series by themselves, there's usually very little change in the history of the world (check Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, or Chronicles of Narnia), but when an author dies and someone takes up the story to keep it going (Dune saga), or a company sells its property to a different corporation (Star Wars), there's going to be a few changes made.But when you start with several authors all working together, who then hand off the reigns to another group of writers, who eventually pass it down to YET ANOTHER batch of writers...
So much of this is just simplifications of the story, not retcons. There is nothing saying both views can't work. Very poor article guys.
From all those changes, I think the only ones I don't really like are the change of roles between Rexxar and Thrall (Because Rexxar had done all the rallying and the attack he had been named the Champion of the Horde), Balnazzar's involvement with the Ashbringer (The previous lore was way cooler) and Illidan and the Frozen Throne (just how in the hell did they know he was at IC glacier? And weren't the blood elves his ALLIES at the time?).The other ones? I don't really mind them or like them.
there is no mention on how aegwynn died?
“Growing more and more desperate, she sent ambassadors to both the Alliance and the Horde. Her emissaries to the Alliance never returned.”The Alliance, racist as always.
The enslave and pact thing are pretty much the same thing. They were strong armed and kept under his thumb by a threat that they would be exterminated if they did otherwise.