While I'm mostly talking about lore, this might go for art, too. ![]() Should we be featuring these titles in the infoboxes for the canon Old Gods? In fact, even within Hearthstone these Old Gods aren't meant to be the same ones known to Azeroth, but their counterparts from an alternate (possible imaginary) reality, where all four Old Gods are alive, well and dominating Azeroth. Personally, I suspect they made up these titles without having a long, serious consultation with the main lore universe people about which Old God represented Rage, which represented Corruption, which represented Madness and Chaos, etc., and without intention of canonicity. These titles were invented for Hearthstone, but are now in the main infoboxes on their Wowpedia pages: Y'Shaarj, N'Zoth, C'Thun, Yogg-Saron. The titles for the new Old God cards are some: Y'Shaarj, Rage Unbound, N'Zoth, the Corruptor and C'Thun (fleetingly described as "the Old God of madness and chaos"). But when it comes to established characters which feature in Hearthstone, there doesn't seem to be any consistent approach to how we consider that information. With entirely new characters, the current behaviour seems to be to tag the page as coming from Hearthstone, much as would be done with characters from novels this seems fine to me. However, I am concerned about how that information is handled and presented, specifically regarding canonicity, and its co-mingling with lore from canon sources. The new information from Hearthstone has been slowly creeping onto Wowpedia, but with the explosion in new lore over the last year (due to Hearthstone increasingly straying from established lore into original storylines and characters) the creep is turning into a steady current of new content.Īs lead admin on the Gamepedia Hearthstone Wiki, and someone who spends far too much time writing about Hearthstone lore and its differences from that of the main universe, I'm happy to see Wowpedia documenting the new characters introduced by the game, and, even more interesting, the playful twists in the lore the game is innovating. In fact, "not serious" is pretty much its mission statement. Even at the best of times, Hearthstone takes lore way less seriously than WoW. ![]() This stuff basically makes no sense lore-wise and the designers are perfectly happy, and open, about this. They also happily "mix and match" timelines and even invent alternate realities in order to play with hypothetical ideas, like the recent uproar-inspiring Ragnaros, Lightlord. They mix characters who are living, dead, and dead thousands of years ago (like Y'Shaarj), in the same present tense (like King Magni walking into the tavern itself). The short version is that Hearthstone is regularly inventing new lore, some of which is intended to be non-canon, some of which is probably intended to be canon within that game, but without expectation of being considered canon in World of Warcraft or the main universe, and some of which is entirely intentionally non-canon, or as lead designer Ben Brode puts it, "a 'What If?' take on Warcraft lore."įor those who don't know, the designers are quite open about Hearthstone not trying too hard to be canon, or serious. The topic of the canonicity of Hearthstone lore has already come up on Talk:Lore#Hearthstone - for fuller background, see that discussion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |