Let's talk about outfits and references

Let's talk about outfits and references

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Valento.9852

Valento.9852

Hey, there! Big Guild Wars 1 fan here.

I’m not a veteran, but can’t help loving the original game’s story. Sometimes there’s one thing that gets me that is the reference behind outfits. I’ve come across some guildies or IRL friends asking who Gwen was because her name was in “Gwen’s Attire”, or who was this monk in “Monk’s Outfit”, because we have no access to such class so the concept went amiss. Most of them got to realize what the god outfits were related to, though, because they were presented with the gods in their personal stories.

So, I’d like to suggest one thing here: create a NPC close to Evon Gnashblade who tells about certain outfits with unmentioned lore attached to them! You could get away with “those who are supposed to know the references will know”, but that’s not a cool excuse. This is a simple suggestion, but I’d like to point out that you could use original Guild Wars 1 lore more often.

White Mantle is just a tiny bit from the past, and I really hope you bring back more from GW1 lore. The game’s universe thanks you.

Attempts at ele specs:
Shaman
Conjurer

(edited by Valento.9852)

Let's talk about outfits and references

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: maxwelgm.4315

maxwelgm.4315

As a supplementary post to OP’s, the fractal team has virtually unlimited lore to build on new levels if they wanted to; I see no reason as to why we stay gated at 100 scales, with only 25 being really original (the agony resistance could stop getting higher at 100 and it would be no loss of challenge).

Furthermore, for some reason we even get to revisit content from Living World instead of exploring things like Turai Ossa or the golden years of the Margonites ruling the Crystal Sea. C’mon Anet, you got a gold mine right there! Nothing wrong with things like Thaumanova, but it just doesn’t live up to the Fractals potential, IMHO; they were announced as “anything is possible” yet we are getting literally “the most obviously possible”.