No, I expressed myself badly. I don't complain there's the resurrection game mechanics. I don't like that the game requires the player to immerse in a world where resurrection is in fact a common thing but only for players. In an rpg if you die (or at least if the main character dies or the active party is with zero hp) you usually reload the game from the last save, it's true, but that means that whatever you did between the save and the moment of death has never happened. You don't actually revive. You just never died. Games such as Dark Souls have a different mechanic for this, but I'm not familiar enough with them to discuss them, though they most likely have an in-game explanation for it.
What I meant with my comment, is that Blizzard delivered a product in which the mechanics of the playing mode advancing the story are not coherent with the roots of said story nor its developments. People are immersed in a world where they can revive, whatever their level, but in the story of which no main character ever revives. That ruins immersion for me. There are healers who can resurrect people (There are, right? I'm not truly familiar with the game because I never liked it), but the important characters, if dead, remain dead.
It's... contradictory.
In Dark Souls your character is in fact Undead And because of their curse they cant die (although there are still consequences).
What you are talking about is what The Alexandrian termed "Dissociative Mechanics. Take Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition. Both the Wizard and Fighter in party have special abilities, but both of them use the same per day/per encounter/at-will free use mechanics. This breaks from "game reality" because even if you as a player accept that the purely fictional dev/author "laws of magic" explain how often the wizard can use his abilities....why in the world is the mundane fighter limited in how often he can try his super-duper-special-move? A Paladin. Monk, or Ninja which have supernormal/natural abilities alongside martial prowess can make sense in such a system, but a normal mercenary doesnt.
*"Sorry Fandalf, I already used my Mountain Breaking Blow fighting that last pack of ghouls. But I've saved an Unyielding Avalanche. I think we should prepare by-" *
*"Wait. You can only use that technique once per day Coromir? Why in the hell is that?" *
Mind you for many people 4th edition was too much like an MMORPG (period), rather than like an MMORPG which was bad because it broke with the ideal of full, flawless immersion. There were other issues with 4th ed as well, and it it did split the community considering there were people that liked it and it did in fact improve game mechanics in terms of functionality in some key areas. Thankfully 5th edition out as of a month ago looks pretty good (albeit it will likely never satisfy those 1E and 2E diehards even if more 5E rules content comes out and supports them comes).
Basically, many games have SOME dissociative mechanics, somewhere and it doesnt cause a problem for most people. For me, it's pretty easy to handwave such things. But is a very personal issue, and there's no definitive or right answer on it.
In WoW's case people who take Engineering can use items like "Goblin Jumper Cables" or a "Gnomish Army knife" and use defibrilate on a "dead" character. It only has a % chance of working, but by it's nature implies that the character was not in fact dead, but only incapacitated and very near death. In that sense Revive/Rez/etc can be seen as a more reliable magical effect that revives someone VERY near death. Running back to your body as a ghost could be your characters spirit fighting for survival, in a body from which it's slipping away. Only catch is that you can revive away from your body, and have your old body turn to bones.
Folks who are hardcore RPers work around this with things like, whoever survives the encounter dragging your body out of the dungeon and treating you, to even having their RP characters retire from RP after dying and rolling a new one.
