StarCraft III - Story and Storytelling

[FanaticTemplar]

It's called signpost storytelling. Didn't think the town in the campaign 3 scene was Andorhal but I could be wrong. It basically serves as a microcosm for everything else that's going on.

I still don't understand how having the Scourge overrun Lordaeron, Quel'thalas and Dalaran, kill King Terenas, Antonidas and Uther the Lightbringer, and actually have a discussion between Arthas and Kel'thuzad about how the Scourge exists to wipe out opposition to the Burning Legion "like the forces of Lordaeron... or the High Elves" leaves you with a hole in the storyline of Reign of Chaos, which only seeing demons ravage a piece of human countryside while discussing their plans can resolve for you. I'm not trying to mock you here, I really don't understand. Please explain.

I never said it was unreasonable. I pointed out in my contentions post that the campaign can be adapted. It could be adapted to have the exiles arrive in Ashenvale. But your line of argument has been that we can remove the Horde campaign only, leave everything else in place, and get the same story. Which isn't possible. The removal of the Horde campaign doesn't change the fact that Jaina's forces arrive in the Barrens. It does change the fact that Jaina's forces interact with them. Ergo, the chain of cause and effect to prompt them to head north is removed unless you further alter stuff, in which case, wholesale removal = same effect is rendered null.

Why not? If the campaign did not exist, why would the events of the campaign still have to exist?

I didn't say that, I said removing material from that campaign makes things problematic in the next campaign. If the orc campaign no longer exists, then the events in it no longer exist, so the situation in the next campaign must be altered. It seems your line of thought is that if one branch of history is removed, the timeline remains the same anyway. If not for the orcs, Cenarius wouldn't be dead. If Cenarius isn't dead, then the Sentinels have no reason to react the way they do in their own campaign. The Alliance takes no part whatsoever in Cenarius's death, so a different history is necessitated. Ergo, you can't remove the Horde campaign and get the same events.

Why? What I'm saying is that if you removed the Horde from Reign of Chaos entirely and made someone who never played WarCraft III play this version instead, they would get the exact same story that any of us did. I said that the Horde was entirely irrelevant to the storyline of WarCraft III (except for killing Cenarius, which is incredibly minor). I wasn't talking about an Azeroth where the Horde campaign didn't happen, I'm talking about the real world if the Horde campaign didn't exist. I'm talking about the player's experience of the narrative. And the Horde is utterly insignificant to the narrative of Reign of Chaos.

I'm saying that you could remove the Protoss from StarCraft II and the story would be unchanged. It would still be about Raynor and Kerrigan's relationship, and their hatred of Arcturus Mengsk, and so forth. You're arguing that the Protoss are actually really important because without the Protoss, Zeratul wouldn't have been there to guide Kerrigan to Zerus where she wouldn't have been reinfested and therefore Raynor wouldn't have gotten pissed when he saw her in the prison ship. This does not make the Protoss a relevant part of the story. And killing Cenarius, a character with no history for the player and one in-game appearance in Reign of Chaos itself does not make the Horde in any way relevant to the story of WarCraft III.

[Hawki]

I still don't understand how having the Scourge overrun Lordaeron, Quel'thalas and Dalaran, kill King Terenas, Antonidas and Uther the Lightbringer, and actually have a discussion between Arthas and Kel'thuzad about how the Scourge exists to wipe out opposition to the Burning Legion "like the forces of Lordaeron... or the High Elves" leaves you with a hole in the storyline of Reign of Chaos, which only seeing demons ravage a piece of human countryside while discussing their plans can resolve for you. I'm not trying to mock you here, I really don't understand. Please explain.

Because there's otherwise no confirmation that the Legion even bothers with Lordaeron. It also ties in with Archimonde's kingdom comments at Mt Hyjal.

Why not? If the campaign did not exist, why would the events of the campaign still have to exist?

Why? What I'm saying is that if you removed the Horde from Reign of Chaos entirely and made someone who never played WarCraft III play this version instead, they would get the exact same story that any of us did. I said that the Horde was entirely irrelevant to the storyline of WarCraft III (except for killing Cenarius, which is incredibly minor). I wasn't talking about an Azeroth where the Horde campaign didn't happen, I'm talking about the real world if the Horde campaign didn't exist. I'm talking about the player's experience of the narrative. And the Horde is utterly insignificant to the narrative of Reign of Chaos.

I'll try and make this as simple as possible:

-Fact: Changing the events of the present does not change events of the past. The removal of any Horde campaign does not alter the fact that Jaina and her forces travel to Kalimdor.

-Fact: The Horde kills Cenarius. The Alliance has no means or motive to do so.

-Fact: The killing of Cenarius dictates the Sentinel response to the "outlanders" and Burning Legion throughout their entire campaign.

So, if the Horde is removed, it triggers a chain of events that would be different. The Sentinel campaign cannot exist in its real-world form without the events of the previous campaign. If it did, the following problems would arise:

-There is no good reason for the Alliance to be in Ashenvale.

-There is no good reason for Tyrande or Cenarius to attack them, which lasts practically the entire campaign.

-There is no reason the guardians of the Horn of Cenarius would try to stop Tyrande from awakening Malfurion.

You can't have the Sentinel campaign word for word, scene for scene without previous events. Not without making the characters come across as schizophrenic psychopaths. If I skipped the Horde campaign and went straight to the Sentinels one, the narrative would fall apart within seconds if it remained exactly the same. You've already pointed out the greenskins comment being an issue. An identical campaign without a Horde one would have the Sentinel characters talking about stuff that never happened.

I'm saying that you could remove the Protoss from StarCraft II and the story would be unchanged. It would still be about Raynor and Kerrigan's relationship, and their hatred of Arcturus Mengsk, and so forth. You're arguing that the Protoss are actually really important because without the Protoss, Zeratul wouldn't have been there to guide Kerrigan to Zerus where she wouldn't have been reinfested and therefore Raynor wouldn't have gotten pissed when he saw her in the prison ship. This does not make the Protoss a relevant part of the story.

When did I even argue this? When did I even bring this up? And why is this even an issue? Why is it suddenly a requirement for every faction in an RTS to be shoehorned into a single overriding story? Why is the lack of Daelaam protoss appearences an issue when the Dominion is treated the same after the terran campaign in SC1?

[mr. peasant]

I didn't say that, I said removing material from that campaign makes things problematic in the next campaign. If the orc campaign no longer exists, then the events in it no longer exist, so the situation in the next campaign must be altered. It seems your line of thought is that if one branch of history is removed, the timeline remains the same anyway. If not for the orcs, Cenarius wouldn't be dead. If Cenarius isn't dead, then the Sentinels have no reason to react the way they do in their own campaign. The Alliance takes no part whatsoever in Cenarius's death, so a different history is necessitated. Ergo, you can't remove the Horde campaign and get the same events.

I'll try and make this as simple as possible:

-Fact: Changing the events of the present does not change events of the past. The removal of any Horde campaign does not alter the fact that Jaina and her forces travel to Kalimdor.

-Fact: The Horde kills Cenarius. The Alliance has no means or motive to do so.

-Fact: The killing of Cenarius dictates the Sentinel response to the "outlanders" and Burning Legion throughout their entire campaign.

So, if the Horde is removed, it triggers a chain of events that would be different. The Sentinel campaign cannot exist in its real-world form without the events of the previous campaign. If it did, the following problems would arise:

-There is no good reason for the Alliance to be in Ashenvale.

-There is no good reason for Tyrande or Cenarius to attack them, which lasts practically the entire campaign.

-There is no reason the guardians of the Horn of Cenarius would try to stop Tyrande from awakening Malfurion.

Sorry to butt in, but Cenarius was created for the Orc campaign. Without the Orc campaign, Cenarius wouldn't exist. As for why the Night Elves would distrust the Humans, you don't really need a reason for an isolated group to distrust strange, foreign outsiders invading your land other than the fact that they are strange, foreign outsiders invading your land.

[FanaticTemplar]

Because there's otherwise no confirmation that the Legion even bothers with Lordaeron. It also ties in with Archimonde's kingdom comments at Mt Hyjal.

And this is important because?

-Fact: Changing the events of the present does not change events of the past. The removal of any Horde campaign does not alter the fact that Jaina and her forces travel to Kalimdor.

That's an interesting perspective, and certainly not one I would agree with. For example, I always believed that the fact that Biting the Bullet and Operation Silent Scream were removed from Rebel Yell means the events never happened. Does this mean that Psi Emitters were planted on Tarsonis twice? Or, in the Prophecy sequence of Wings of Liberty, Zeratul and Kerrigan are discussing a prophecy that calls for the annihilation of their species, which is clearly the same prophecy that Zeratul gets from the Overmind later on. How do you explain Zeratul being so surprised the second time he learns of it?

How does your perspective account for paradox?

-Fact: The Horde kills Cenarius. The Alliance has no means or motive to do so.

The Horde killed Cenarius because Cenarius attacked them because they were intruding upon Ashenvale. There is indeed to motive unless the Alliance were to intrude upon Ashenvale. But really, what are the odds of that? As for means, Cenarius isn't the first or last unit to have divine armour.

-Fact: The killing of Cenarius dictates the Sentinel response to the "outlanders" and Burning Legion throughout their entire campaign.

Not really. They were hostile to the intruders because they killed Cenarius, but as we've already established, they and Cenarius were already hostile to intruders for being intruders. And again, I've already said multiple times that this was the only way the Horde was relevant to WarCraft III, so I don't know what you're trying to gain here.

-There is no reason the guardians of the Horn of Cenarius would try to stop Tyrande from awakening Malfurion.

Actually, I don't even remember why they did try to stop her.

You can't have the Sentinel campaign word for word, scene for scene without previous events. Not without making the characters come across as schizophrenic psychopaths. If I skipped the Horde campaign and went straight to the Sentinels one, the narrative would fall apart within seconds if it remained exactly the same. You've already pointed out the greenskins comment being an issue. An identical campaign without a Horde one would have the Sentinel characters talking about stuff that never happened.

Oh, I did say that it would leave you with bizarre dialogue. This is why you consider the Horde important to WarCraft III? Because people occasionally talk about or to them?

When did I even argue this? When did I even bring this up? And why is this even an issue? Why is it suddenly a requirement for every faction in an RTS to be shoehorned into a single overriding story? Why is the lack of Daelaam protoss appearences an issue when the Dominion is treated the same after the terran campaign in SC1?

It's not the Daelaam Protoss that's the point, it's any Protoss we have any reason to be interested in that is the point. While the Dominion only shows in a few missions after Rebel Yell (and none during []Rebel Yell[/i], so I don't know why you made the distinction) the events that occurred during that campaign make a difference to the overall story and Kerrigan, a character whose story is the direct consequence of that campaign, is a crucial part of the overall story. That's the difference.

As for 'shoehorning them into a single overriding story', you were asking if retconning a game about Orcs and Humans into a game about Demons and Night Elves would upset me, and the answer is yes because the faction we are invested in have been marginalised in favour of completely unrelated stories that pop out of nowhere. This is why it matters that the Horde is inconsequential and that the Alliance is an accident. People who followed the series did so because they liked those factions. And now the story is just going 'forget about these guys, look at these awesome new dudes we just made up!' If you weren't going to build on the established history of the franchise and instead just throw it aside, then you shouldn't have written your story in this setting, but just created a new one.

[Hawki]

Sorry to butt in, but Cenarius was created for the Orc campaign. Without the Orc campaign, Cenarius wouldn't exist.

You're treading a slippery slope there. I can just as easily argue that Arthas was created for the Scourge campaign, and without that necessity, the Alliance campaign wouldn't exist.

That's an interesting perspective, and certainly not one I would agree with. For example, I always believed that the fact that Biting the Bullet and Operation Silent Scream were removed from Rebel Yell means the events never happened.

Except we know from Liberty's Crusade and Queen of Blades that they did happen. They don't even contradict anything - O: SS occurs simultaniously as The Big Push.

Or, in the Prophecy sequence of Wings of Liberty, Zeratul and Kerrigan are discussing a prophecy that calls for the annihilation of their species, which is clearly the same prophecy that Zeratul gets from the Overmind later on. How do you explain Zeratul being so surprised the second time he learns of it?

I don't really see a contradiction. The prophecy Zeratul gets is very general (look it up at http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Prop...Interpretation). The Overmind just adds to the picture. I admit, it's been awhile since I've played hte missions so I can't really go in-depth with Zeratul's reaction, but since he's already apparently forgotten about Duran, maybe he has short-term memory loss as well.

The Horde killed Cenarius because Cenarius attacked them because they were intruding upon Ashenvale. There is indeed to motive unless the Alliance were to intrude upon Ashenvale. But really, what are the odds of that? As for means, Cenarius isn't the first or last unit to have divine armour.

You need to work on your grammar because I don't know what you're saying. What I assume you're saying is that the campaign can remain exactly intact without the Horde. Only the Horde gets the Alliance into Ashenvale. You're either talking effect without cause, or going down the path of "what if?" which is just plain speculation. As for means, like I said, the entire burning blood thing is based on the orcs being orcs. There's no reason to assume it would work on non-orcs, that Jaina would allow it, or that the Alliance would even detect it when orc/troll shamans do, and the Alliance doesn't have any of those. Maybe they could, but maybe isn't hard fact.

Not really. They were hostile to the intruders because they killed Cenarius, but as we've already established, they and Cenarius were already hostile to intruders for being intruders. And again, I've already said multiple times that this was the only way the Horde was relevant to WarCraft III, so I don't know what you're trying to gain here.

They were hostile to the orcs for cutting down their trees, and, depending on how you play the mission, striking first.

I've said ages ago that you could adapt the story to remove the Horde. But you're still going by the notion that the Sentinel campaign can play out verbatim and get the same result, and you still haven't pointed out those idiosyncracies, nor established a chain of cause and effect for the Alliance to be in Ashenvale.

Oh, I did say that it would leave you with bizarre dialogue. This is why you consider the Horde important to WarCraft III? Because people occasionally talk about or to them?

So you do agree with me. Why are you still arguing?

It's not the Daelaam Protoss that's the point, it's any Protoss we have any reason to be interested in that is the point.

Who's "we?" I'm interested in the Tal'darim because of their backstory. I'm interested in Zeratul's journey because of the revelations. I'm interested in the flash-forward because holy crap, that was an awesome mission both in gameplay and tone.

While the Dominion only shows in a few missions after Rebel Yell (and none during []Rebel Yell[/i], so I don't know why you made the distinction) the events that occurred during that campaign make a difference to the overall story and Kerrigan, a character whose story is the direct consequence of that campaign, is a crucial part of the overall story. That's the difference.

So you cite Kerrigan as being important to the terrans as a whole, but not Zeratul as being important to the protoss as a whole, even when in both cases, their major interactions have been outside their own race.

There's also the fact that the terran campaign comes first in SC1, while we haven't had a bona fide protoss campaign in SC2.

As for 'shoehorning them into a single overriding story', you were asking if retconning a game about Orcs and Humans into a game about Demons and Night Elves would upset me, and the answer is yes because the faction we are invested in have been marginalised in favour of completely unrelated stories that pop out of nowhere. This is why it matters that the Horde is inconsequential and that the Alliance is an accident.

Okay...

-Demons/Burning Legion don't "pop out of nowhere." Demons made their first appearence in WC1. The groundwork for the Burning Legion first appeared in WC2, both in the manual, and the Tomb of Sargeras dictates the flow of the Horde campaign in a major way.

-Night elves you can have more leeway with, but even they were first foreshadowed in Dawn of the Dragon

-We seem to have different perspectives of "inconsequential." Even if you argue that the Horde is irrelevant to the overall plot of Reign of Chaos, you can't argue that its overall actions are inconsequential.

-The Alliance is an accident by definition. Horde invades, Alliance is formed. You'd get the same result with any invading force.

People who followed the series did so because they liked those factions. And now the story is just going 'forget about these guys, look at these awesome new dudes we just made up!'

Again, demons/Burning Legion were part of the setting ages ago.

If you weren't going to build on the established history of the franchise

...the hell? How can you possibly argue that WC3 can exist in any shape or form without the events of the previous games? Heck, the entire Scourge and Alliance factions wouldn't exist if not for those previous games. The entire Horde campaign in The Frozen Throne is based on the mere fact that Tides of Darkness actually happened.

If you weren't going to build on the established history of the franchise and instead just throw it aside, then you shouldn't have written your story in this setting, but just created a new one.

I'm sorry, this is just rediculous. It seems that your line of thought is the notion that if faction x is irrelevant to story y, then faction x becomes irrelevant to the entire setting by default. I could argue that the scrin invalidate GDI, the Forgotten, and Nod due to their overshadowing appearence in Tiberium Wars, casting past games in their light. I could argue that Lord of the Rings invalidates The Hobbit and The Silmarrilion invalidates Lord of the Rings because each installment dealt with a larger picture where it was revealed the previous installment was a smaller part of. I could argue that the Illidari and Scourge factions are "forgotten" in World of Warcraft because I never get to play as them. Heck, World of Warcraft invalidates the argument completely because the Alliance and Horde are the two main, and only playable factions bar a bit of early pandaren questing. You'd have an easier time arguing the Sentinels and Forsaken are marginalized by being merged into the Alliance and Horde rather than being factions of their own.

I'm sorry, but the more I think about this, the more absurd this line of argument feels. If the line of argument is that if past events are revealed as part of a larger picture then that invalidates them, then that's a hell of a lot of invalidation going on in fiction. The examples I mentioned above are just the tip of the iceberg.

We all have our notions I guess. But I'm through discussing them. The line of discussion has gone so off-topic that I can't even see the rails anymore.

[FanaticTemplar]

Except we know from Liberty's Crusade and Queen of Blades that they did happen. They don't even contradict anything - O: SS occurs simultaniously as The Big Push.

Really? How unfortunate. Having the Terrans and Protoss fight side by side at this point of the story is such an unfortunate choice. Blizzard made the correct call to remove them, I am saddened to learn they decided to reinstate it. Of course, I'll continue to ignore it until it gets a mention in the games.

I don't really see a contradiction. The prophecy Zeratul gets is very general (look it up at http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Prop...Interpretation). The Overmind just adds to the picture. I admit, it's been awhile since I've played hte missions so I can't really go in-depth with Zeratul's reaction, but since he's already apparently forgotten about Duran, maybe he has short-term memory loss as well.

Not that prophecy. Zeratul was specifically trying to keep that prophecy out of the hands of Kerrigan. However, they were discussing another prophecy throughout the mission, and the previous cinematic.

Kerrigan
Please. Our petty conflicts mean nothing now. A storm is coming that CANNOT be stopped. Fitting - that we should face oblivion together.

Zeratul
Never!

Kerrigan
FATE cannot be changed. The END comes. And when it finds me... I shall embrace it at last.

Zeratul
The prophecy is uncertain. There is always hope.

and

Kerrigan (telepathic - in his head)
Why not surrender yourself to oblivion, Zeratul? Wouldn't it be better to end your struggle now than witness the final agonizing moments of your species?

Zeratul
The foreboding prophecy weighs heavily on my heart. I'd best reach the remaining shrines before she reconsiders letting me live.

Again, this mysterious prophecy foretells the extinction of the Protoss species. I wonder what it could be?

Kerrigan
You might peel away the prophecy's layers, Zeratul - but you cannot outrun the doom that awaits us all!

And to remind you, this is not the prophecy you linked to:

Zeratul
Kerrigan and I were both drawn here to uncover an ancient prophecy. With your aid, I pray we can discover it before her.

and

Karass
Most ominous. But if the Queen of Blades seeks this prophecy, we must keep it from her.

Then consider that both the cinematic and the mission end up with Zeratul escaping from Kerrigan after retrieving a prophecy. And that he gets wounded here, and collapses from said wound inside the Hyperion when contacting Raynor... it is obvious that the scenes were intended to be in immediate succession (and I do believe they were revealed at a similar time back in 2008, I think it was?) after he learned of the Overmind's vision.

You need to work on your grammar because I don't know what you're saying. What I assume you're saying is that the campaign can remain exactly intact without the Horde. Only the Horde gets the Alliance into Ashenvale. You're either talking effect without cause, or going down the path of "what if?" which is just plain speculation. As for means, like I said, the entire burning blood thing is based on the orcs being orcs. There's no reason to assume it would work on non-orcs, that Jaina would allow it, or that the Alliance would even detect it when orc/troll shamans do, and the Alliance doesn't have any of those. Maybe they could, but maybe isn't hard fact.

You're having a lot of trouble with this "remove the Horde campaign from the game" concept. You keep saying it wouldn't work because it conflicts with information from the campaign that has been removed. It doesn't matter. If the removal of the campaign conflicts with information that has been removed, then the conflict has also been removed.

They were hostile to the orcs for cutting down their trees, and, depending on how you play the mission, striking first.

I've said ages ago that you could adapt the story to remove the Horde. But you're still going by the notion that the Sentinel campaign can play out verbatim and get the same result, and you still haven't pointed out those idiosyncracies, nor established a chain of cause and effect for the Alliance to be in Ashenvale.

I'd be pleased to.
1- Medivh tells Jaina to bring her people across the ocean because he has cryptic warnings.
2- Jaina thinks this is a wise course of action.
3- Jaina brings her people west across the ocean.
4- Ashenvale is west of Lordaeron, and on the other side of that very ocean.
5- Jaina's forces are in Ashenvale.

So you do agree with me. Why are you still arguing?

I don't agree with you. Just because you think that it makes a faction important that you could remove them from the story entirely and only know they were gone by a few quirky phrases does not mean that I agree with you. I had simply not realised until now that you believed such a thing.

Who's "we?" I'm interested in the Tal'darim because of their backstory. I'm interested in Zeratul's journey because of the revelations. I'm interested in the flash-forward because holy crap, that was an awesome mission both in gameplay and tone.

"We" is anybody who didn't know of (or care about) the Tal'darim until they showed up, but had played StarCraft before.

So you cite Kerrigan as being important to the terrans as a whole, but not Zeratul as being important to the protoss as a whole, even when in both cases, their major interactions have been outside their own race.

Who said Zeratul wasn't important? If he'd played as much of a role in StarCraft II as Kerrigan did in the original, I wouldn't be complaining.

-Demons/Burning Legion don't "pop out of nowhere." Demons made their first appearence in WC1. The groundwork for the Burning Legion first appeared in WC2, both in the manual, and the Tomb of Sargeras dictates the flow of the Horde campaign in a major way.

I said "unrelated stories that pop out of nowhere". "Demons exist" isn't "this game only exists because we weren't able to find a portal on the continent we were actually aiming for."

-The Alliance is an accident by definition. Horde invades, Alliance is formed. You'd get the same result with any invading force.

The invasion itself is accidental.

I could argue that Lord of the Rings invalidates The Hobbit and The Silmarrilion invalidates Lord of the Rings because each installment dealt with a larger picture where it was revealed the previous installment was a smaller part of.

Which is the opposite of what WarCraft III did. The Lord of the Rings takes an element of The Hobbit and builds upon it. Same with the Silmarillion. It increased the scope of the world. It's the opposite of what I'm complaining about. By making all of history part of one story, you're reducing all of history to one story. What we're talking about here is if it had been revealed in The Lord of the Rings that Gandalf had tricked Bilbo into going on his adventure because he was planning for Bilbo to come upon the Ring so he could afterward send him or his heir to Orodruin. The Lord of the Rings expanded the world beyond the scope any Hobbit had ever conceived or would ever have gotten involved in, except that because of the events of The Hobbit, they now had to. It took Bilbo's adventure from the story of a hobbit and some exiled dwarves going on an adventure and turned it into the first step into an epic that would shape the fate of the world. WarCraft III does the opposite. It takes all the stories that came before and says "these were inconsequential because this is what was really going on and these are the real players." It takes one of the settings' central players and says "these guys shouldn't even be involved". This is not a new story built upon the previous ones, as The Lord of the Rings was. It is a rewriting of the same story. It doesn't take the Horde invasion of Azeroth and use it to start something new, it takes something new and tells us "this is why the Horde actually invaded Azeroth". It's backward.

[Turalyon]

Is it time to vote for who won the argument now?

[FanaticTemplar]

Is it time to vote for who won the argument now?

I don't think it is wise to encourage the idea that anybody won here :P.

[Hawki]

Not that prophecy. Zeratul was specifically trying to keep that prophecy out of the hands of Kerrigan. However, they were discussing another prophecy throughout the mission, and the previous cinematic.

No, it's the same prophecy. Zeratul retrieves the prophecy fragments from Ulaan, takes them to Zhakul, has it interpreted by the preservers, who give him the link I gave you.

You're having a lot of trouble with this "remove the Horde campaign from the game" concept. You keep saying it wouldn't work because it conflicts with information from the campaign that has been removed. It doesn't matter. If the removal of the campaign conflicts with information that has been removed, then the conflict has also been removed.

No, I keep saying it contradicts information from the next campaign.

I'd be pleased to.
1- Medivh tells Jaina to bring her people across the ocean because he has cryptic warnings.
2- Jaina thinks this is a wise course of action.
3- Jaina brings her people west across the ocean.
4- Ashenvale is west of Lordaeron, and on the other side of that very ocean.
5- Jaina's forces are in Ashenvale.

So basically you're not going down the path of cause and effect, and are going down the path of "what if?" You have to alter events in the past (Alliance campaign) to have events of the present (Horde campaign) lead to a different set of events in the future (Sentinel campaign). Not only is your verbatim point still null, but you're adapting the campaign, not leaving it otherwise intact from selective extraction.

The invasion itself is accidental.

I think you're using a very liberal interpretation of "accidental." The Horde invaded Azeroth because Medivh could open the portal from the other side. Medivh was possessed by Sargeras who tricked Aegwynn. Sargeras possessed Aegwynn because he needed another portal to Azeroth (the world), and the night elves aren't going to fall for the same trick twice.

And before you go "but this is all new," the only thing that WC3 revealed in that was that he'd tried it before via the night elves. Sargeras, Aegwynn, Medivh, this was all introduced in WC2. Come to think of it, the Horde was already moving away from corruption by that stage due to Doomhammer's slaughtering of the Shadow Council and bringing Gul'dan to heal, wiping out the necrolytes. And again, this is from WC2.

Which is the opposite of what WarCraft III did. The Lord of the Rings takes an element of The Hobbit and builds upon it. Same with the Silmarillion. It increased the scope of the world. It's the opposite of what I'm complaining about.

Not sure how "scope of the world" is in opposite of anything since WC3 effectively doubled the size of the world as well, but whatever.

By making all of history part of one story, you're reducing all of history to one story. What we're talking about here is if it had been revealed in The Lord of the Rings that Gandalf had tricked Bilbo into going on his adventure because he was planning for Bilbo to come upon the Ring so he could afterward send him or his heir to Orodruin. The Lord of the Rings expanded the world beyond the scope any Hobbit had ever conceived or would ever have gotten involved in, except that because of the events of The Hobbit, they now had to. It took Bilbo's adventure from the story of a hobbit and some exiled dwarves going on an adventure and turned it into the first step into an epic that would shape the fate of the world. WarCraft III does the opposite. It takes all the stories that came before and says "these were inconsequential because this is what was really going on and these are the real players." It takes one of the settings' central players and says "these guys shouldn't even be involved". This is not a new story built upon the previous ones, as The Lord of the Rings was. It is a rewriting of the same story. It doesn't take the Horde invasion of Azeroth and use it to start something new, it takes something new and tells us "this is why the Horde actually invaded Azeroth". It's backward.

I can only assume we had very different reading experiences because what you're saying doesn't jell with LOTR at all. Consider the differences of what we knew:

-Hobbit: Dwarves go on an adventure with Bilbo, Bilbo finds the One Ring, Battle of the Five Armies is heralded as a turning point for the fortunes of the north (along with the death of Smaug), Gandalf also defeats the Necromancer but he's otherwise irrelevant to the story.

-LOTR: One Ring is an end, not a means. Battle of the Five Armies outright stated to be just a blip, otherwise irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. Necromancer turns out to be Sauron, driving him out of Dol Guldur is just as important, if not moreso, than battle. Revealed that the only reason Gandalf went after Smaug was because he was afraid of what would happen if Sauron used him.

This is spelled out explicitly in both the introduction to The Fellowship of the Ring and the appendecies of Return of the King. It takes The Hobbit and diminishes its importance in the greater scheme of things, casting it in an entirely new light. However, I don't resent it for this. I like the world created in LOTR, even if I'm not too fond of the writing. And The Hobbit, while it's made smaller in the greater scheme of things, is still an enjoyable story.

[FanaticTemplar]

Wait, so we are continuing this after all? Fine.

No, it's the same prophecy. Zeratul retrieves the prophecy fragments from Ulaan, takes them to Zhakul, has it interpreted by the preservers, who give him the link I gave you.

That is impossible.

1- Zeratul is discussing this prophecy with Kerrigan before he has even learned of it, either by gathering the three fragments from Ulaan or by having them deciphered by the preservers.
2- Kerrigan is discussing this prophecy with Zeratul even though Zeratul constantly tells us that this prophecy cannot be allowed to fall into Kerrigan's hands, therefore she cannot know this prophecy.

The only reasonable option is that they are discussing another prophecy. One that makes mention of the annihilation of the Protoss. Can you guess what this is?

So basically you're not going down the path of cause and effect, and are going down the path of "what if?" You have to alter events in the past (Alliance campaign) to have events of the present (Horde campaign) lead to a different set of events in the future (Sentinel campaign). Not only is your verbatim point still null, but you're adapting the campaign, not leaving it otherwise intact from selective extraction.

Wait, what? What have I altered?

1- Medivh tells Jaina to bring her people across the ocean because he has cryptic warnings.
2- Jaina thinks this is a wise course of action.
3- Jaina brings her people west across the ocean.
4- Ashenvale is west of Lordaeron, and on the other side of that very ocean.
5- Jaina's forces are in Ashenvale.

I'm pretty sure this all happened. Care to be specific about which of these points you disagree with?

I think you're using a very liberal interpretation of "accidental." The Horde invaded Azeroth because Medivh could open the portal from the other side. Medivh was possessed by Sargeras who tricked Aegwynn. Sargeras possessed Aegwynn because he needed another portal to Azeroth (the world), and the night elves aren't going to fall for the same trick twice.

Accident. An event that happens by chance, without intent or deliberate cause. The Orcs were intended to invade Kalimdor. It was not the Legion's intent that they waste their time fighting Humans on the wrong side of the planet. It was not the Humans' intent to be invaded by extradimensional monsters. It happened only because, by chance, the Burning Legion were unable to find someone capable of opening the Dark Portal on the desired continent. Therefore, accidental.

I can only assume we had very different reading experiences because what you're saying doesn't jell with LOTR at all.

This seems true. For example, your reading provides:

Battle of the Five Armies outright stated to be just a blip, otherwise irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.

Whereas mine provides:

Among many cares [Gandalf] was troubled in mind by the perilous state of the North; because he knew then already that Sauron was plotting war, and intended, as soon as he felt strong enough, to attack Rivendell. But to resist any attempt from the East to regain the lands of Angmar and the northern passes in the mountains there were now only the Dwarves of the Iron Hills. And beyond them lay the desolation of the Dragon. The Dragon Sauron might use with terrible effect. How then could the end of Smaug be achieved?
[...]
'Think of what might have been. Dragon-fire and savage swords in Eriador, night in Rivendell. There might be no Queen in Gondor. We might now hope to return from the victory here only to ruin and ash. But that has been averted - because I met Thorin Oakenshield one evening on the edge of spring in Bree. A chance-meeting, as we say in Middle-earth.'

That sounds to me like it's stating The Hobbit to be far more important than originally believed, not less. Same with the Ring.

Necromancer turns out to be Sauron, driving him out of Dol Guldur is just as important, if not moreso, than battle.

Not as much text, but: 2941 - The White Council meets, Saruman agrees to an attack on Dol Guldur, since he now wishes to prevent Sauron from searching the River. Sauron having made his plans abandons Dol Guldur.

Doesn't sound like this was much of a blow to Sauron, especially since Dol Guldur remained powerful enough to launch three attacks on Lórien. But even if this were the case, how would this change anything to the value of the story of The Hobbit?

Revealed that the only reason Gandalf went after Smaug was because he was afraid of what would happen if Sauron used him.

Here we draw to something actually relevant. In The Lord of the Rings Gandalf's motivation gets retconned in service of the new story. You are correct that this would upset me, however Gandalf wasn't the one who went after Smaug. And keep in mind that even after this retcon, Thorin was the one who came to Gandalf. Thorin's motivations remain unchanged, as do Bilbo's. And while Gandalf's motives get changed, he is still a minor character in that story. The new information doesn't cast the old story as being meaningless in the scope of the new story, but instead makes the old story even more significant in how it contributes to the new one.