Guild Wars 2

; Harbard.5738

Vayne, The Ubiquitous is a false prophet preying on innocent sheep! Do not fall for his silver tongue! Erasculio, Keeper of the Forgotten Promises (hallowed be thy name) is the one and only interpreter of the Holy Scriptures.

; Harbard.5738

<muttering prayers>
Harbard begins casting Summon Erasculio…
Oh Holy Prophet, we implore you, let the ignorant bask in the light of the Links of Truth! Do not let us falter and permit this deceased equine to go unbattered!

Erasculio.2914:

I know because I have linked them (snip) your interpretation is wrong.

\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/

Harbard.5738:

; Harbard.5738

Vayne, The Ubiquitous is a false prophet preying on innocent sheep! Do not fall for his silver tongue! Erasculio, Keeper of the Forgotten Promises (hallowed be thy name) is the one and only interpreter of the Holy Scriptures.

; Harbard.5738

<muttering prayers>
Harbard begins casting Summon Erasculio…
Oh Holy Prophet, we implore you, let the ignorant bask in the light of the Links of Truth! Do not let us falter and permit this deceased equine to go unbattered!

Erasculio.2914:

I know because I have linked them (snip) your interpretation is wrong.

\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/

We need some kind of big Final Fantasy-like animation for my summon.

But it would require a lot of grind to unlock.

So it would prove the manifesto was wrong, OMG!

Tip: When you find yourself having posted 5 posts in a row in a single thread, it is time to take a break.

Erasculio.2914:

Sigh. Vayne, you are shooting your own foot.

This…

Vayne.8563:

I found something that verified, at least circumstantially that what I said was true. People based on this can accept it or not, but I’m not willing to devote more time to the search.

…Is worthless. It’s very, very easy to find the blog entries from that time. People have already linked those entries for you – I know because I have linked them, too. And when you say you don’t want to devote time about this, well, you probably have a hundred posts about this subject by now. So saying you don’t want to devote time to it isn’t exactly convincing.

Ergo…

Vayne.8563:

Maybe people will stop saying that I’m inventing stuff now.

You are. You have ignored all evidence people directly linked to you from the time of the Manifesto, showing how your interpretation is wrong. Your link, as you mentioned yourself, is circunstancial at best – a bunch of nobodies discussing their interpretation of the information released at the time. We have direct access to ArenaNet’s statement. They show you are wrong. Heh, the Manifesto itself shows you are wrong.

We know exactly what ArenaNet said. We know exactly how they said they didn’t want players to grind, because they knew grind is boring and no one enjoys it. They mentioned how they didn’t want people to grind for rewards. We also know how ArenaNet went back on all those things later on, probably afraid that the players of classic MMORPGs wouldn’t like GW2 if they didn’t have something to grind for.

The Manifesto, effectively, is a lie. We can prove that based on ArenaNet’s words. Linking a bunch of forum posts from GWGuru (famously known as “LOLGuru”) with second hand information is not going to change any of that.

Devoting time to typing in a forum is completely different to devote time to search for old sites. It’s a different activity. I’m retired. I do what’s fun or interesting to me.

Newsflash…I worked in writing. Research was something I had to do. I don’t have to do it any more. Certainly not to satisfy you. Many many people accept what I have to say, at least with regards to the clarification of the manifesto.

I could care less what you accept. You’re not reasonable about it and that’s fine. Others can make up their own mind.

Tachenon.5270:

Manifesto Clarification: a (melo)Dramatic Representation of the Ongoing Manifesto (melo)Drama

Act I

Liber Manifestivalensis: We just don’t want people to be azure in this world!

Forumites: Lies! I see azure people all the time in this world! This world is full of azure!

Manifestopholes: That’s not azure, that’s sky blue! The Holy Manifestivals never said people couldn’t be sky blue! Only someone <insert random personal insult here> would say otherwise!

Forumites: …

Act II

Liber Manifestivalensis: Your actions affect things permanently!

Forumites: Lies! Everything resets! Nothing I do matters!

Manifestopholes: The Holy Manifestivals provided us with the Sacred Writ of Clarification which explains how any confusion perceived in the Liber Manifestivalensis was due to typographical errors! And I, Manifestopholes, know all about typographical errors, because I, Manifestopholes, was once a tygropapher!

Forumites: Source?

Manifestopholes: Ain’t nobody got time for that!

Forumites: …

Act III

Manifestopholes: HAH ha! I, Manifestopholes, seeking far and wide have at last found relevant passages in another repository of sacred texts in which other Forumites testify openly about having read the Sacred Writ of Clarification – which not only proves it existed, but also supports my claim that the Holy Manifestivals were talking about how the only changes an individual can make that make any persistent difference exist only in that individual’s Individual Experience, in which the people that that individual already met, when reintroduced later, don’t seem to remember they already met that individual! Er… I mean, see! It existed! People talked about it! Therefore, I, Manifestopholes, am right and you, the <insert random insult> Forumites, are all wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong! Neener neener!

Forumites: /e golf clap.

-30?-

Funny. In no way accurate but funny.

People will often try to use humor as a tool to ridicule something that’s true. It doesn’t make it less true. 4/10 for the effort though.

ArchonWing.9480:

Vayne.8563:

ArchonWing.9480:

Ah, so all that cool stuff referred to the personal story.

That’s great. Where is this awesome personal story? I saw a pile of trash that was passing itself off as one in game, but I doubt anyone with any appreciation of art or gameplay would consider that more than 25% complete. I thought that was just Trahearne’s story?

This has nothing to do with whether you like or don’t like the personal story. That’s another issue entirely. People are saying the manifesto lied when it said certain things and to avoid misunderstanding at that time, Anet clarified it. Whether you like what they did or not is fine. I don’t care. What I do care about it people deliberately misinterpreting something to prove some sort of non-existent point.

You didn’t like the personal story. Okay. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s a personal story. And some people did like it.

My own experience is that personal stories were uneven. An no, I didn’t have the problems with Trahearne that most people did.

Oh, but it does matter.

In practice, story or not, much of what was stated in the Manifesto did not materialize in the game in an adequate shape or form.

Point is, they expressed certain ideas that appealed to some people because they were good gameplay concepts. Now you can argue the developers never intended this for the main game itself, but that just doesn’t reflect on it very well, I’d say. I’d rather not believe that they confined these ideas to the PS, because if they did, well that’s really kitten disappointing.

Honestly, this is just a bad way to defend the game by shifting the argument over there especially with such spotty evidence. Regardless of what Anet “lied” or whatever is actually not too relevant to me. It’s better to talk about how those useful concepts can be applied to the game itself in its current context. Because a lot of those concepts went against what people consider shallow and repetitive gameplay, and we wouldn’t want that in here, would be?

There’s no spotty evidence here, and if someone on this forum hadn’t all but accused me of lying there would be no post like this.

I don’t need to excuse the manifesto. Each person can make up their own mind. But those who have claimed the clarification didn’t exist (or didn’t say the things I said it said) have lost points, that’s all.

Because frankly, I know I’m not going to convince people that interpreted wrong. You are not my target audience.

But there’s a whole bunch of lurkers out there that are seeing something new that they can add into their own debate.

Craptrain.7203:

Tip: When you find yourself having posted 5 posts in a row in a single thread, it is time to take a break.

I like when he posts. Each time he does, I look more reasonable.

Vayne.8563:

Oh, I’m well aware people are “winding me up” as we say downunder. And I don’t have a problem with it.

But when my integrity gets called into question, I defend that, because those who aren’t winding me up are still reading. This post was sort of to put the whole thing to bed.

Now, when someone says this information didn’t exist, I can show that it did.

It doesn’t bother me that some people target me, not even a little. I find it entertaining that they feel compelled to do so.

Fear not, we know it’s not you that is the lairs here, that would be Anet.

Vayne.8563:

But those who have claimed the clarification didn’t exist (or didn’t say the things I said it said) have lost points, that’s all.

I don’t think anyone has claimed that clarifications didn’t exist, rather that the clarification that does exist goes against your arguments. Which is pretty much the truth – the blog posts you don’t want to link to show how you are wrong, meanwhile your “evidence” are second hand posts by common players.

Vayne.8563:

Craptrain.7203:

Tip: When you find yourself having posted 5 posts in a row in a single thread, it is time to take a break.

I like when he posts. Each time he does, I look more reasonable.

I have the feeling you didn’t understand exactly who Captrain was talking about… It’s ok though, you don’t have to make a new topic claiming you have a link to one of his posts talking about dyes.

Erasculio.2914:

Vayne.8563:

But those who have claimed the clarification didn’t exist (or didn’t say the things I said it said) have lost points, that’s all.

I don’t think anyone has claimed that clarifications didn’t exist, rather that the clarification that does exist goes against your arguments. Which is pretty much the truth – the blog posts you don’t want to link to show how you are wrong, meanwhile your “evidence” are second hand posts by common players.

Vayne.8563:

Craptrain.7203:

Tip: When you find yourself having posted 5 posts in a row in a single thread, it is time to take a break.

I like when he posts. Each time he does, I look more reasonable.

I have the feeling you didn’t understand exactly who Captrain was talking about… It’s ok though, you don’t have to make a new topic claiming you have a link to one of his posts talking about dyes.

Oh I understand. What you guys don’t understand is that you’re not my target audience. I get my message out to others talking to you.

It’s all good.

Vayne and the rest can say and twist the manifesto to mean anything..

I take it on face value, and that value is meaningless to the game they made, yes its maybe three years old but it doesn’t change everything in the manifesto was lies (all but the art direction) and if Anet was honest about all the spin and PR in that video it was very poorly explained.

I’m still in Guildwars 2 swinging a sword, hey guess what i swung it again, the grind is there and that boss spawns 10 mins later.

For pete’s sake, did no one read what I linked? It says exactly what they meant, and how some people misinterpreted.

Dante.1508:

Vayne and the rest can say and twist the manifesto to mean anything..

I take it on face value, and that value is meaningless to the game they made, yes its maybe three years old but it doesn’t change everything in the manifesto was lies (all but the art direction) and if Anet was honest about all the spin and PR in that video it was very poorly explained.

I’m still in Guildwars 2 swinging a sword, hey guess what i swung it again, the grind is there and that boss spawns 10 mins later.

I only saw this manifesto about a month ago and also took it on face value. To me, the game seems to be what they intended. Or close to.

Twisting is one thing, interpreting is another. I can’t see much twisting going on but a fair amount of discussion on interpretations.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

For pete’s sake, did no one read what I linked? It says exactly what they meant, and how some people misinterpreted.

I read it, i just don’t believe it, if they meant that it should have been in the Manifesto from the start.

Erasculio.2914:

I have the feeling you didn’t understand exactly who Captrain was talking about… It’s ok though, you don’t have to make a new topic claiming you have a link to one of his posts talking about dyes.

Oh, I’ll clear it up right here. I see Vayne posting lengthy post after lengthy post trying to justify his position. When a person has to struggle so hard to convince people they’re in the right, rarely is it true.

Grabs Popcorn

Erasculio.2914:

Vayne.8563:

Oh I understand. What you guys don’t understand is that you’re not my target audience. I get my message out to others talking to you.

So you’re using the invisible clarifications to convince the invisible forum posters, while ignoring the existing clarification (which says you are wrong) mentioned by the existing posters (who say you are wrong). Of course, perfectly logical.

I’m using visible clarification responses to show there was a clarification. We never saw a dinosaur but we know they were there. This is what remains of the clarification. If you think I went back in time to make a thread that I didn’t know I’d need, well, I guess you can believe that. It goes perfectly with most of the rest of what you believe.

And the audience to which I’m talking isn’t the guys who have already made up their mind. Why? Because they have already made up their mind. Truth doesn’t matter to you. Only the silly games you play with it.

Everyone who’s been on forums for any length of time knows that the bulk of all forum dwellers are lurkers. The estimated amount of people that post on forums is between 10 and 15 % of a community. It’s true on most forums and it will be true on this forum.

I have specific stats from the forums I used to moderate. The invisible people you quaintly write off are the majority…talking to them make sense.

Talking to you…not so much.

DeathMetal.8264:

I hope forum have “block” capability too, I would have block Erasculio completely. A recent thread he created proved his limited understanding of TP, much less of the deeper aspect of the game:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/The-Trading-Post-goes-against-GW2-philosophy/first

Gehena, is also a player who seeks a game that could make him/her feel heroic. I have given the definition of being a hero in one of the thread, and I guess s/he failed to read it:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/I-am-NOT-a-Hero/page/3#post2536444

As I do not want to derail the topic, I would have to agree with others as the proof posted by Vayne is circumstantial at best. But that doesn’t mean it’s false, unfortunately, that doesn’t mean it’s true as well. So jury is still out on that one, unless, a solid, undeniable, and beyond-doubt documentation is produced.

However, Vayne, is innocent until proven guilty as proofs to claims about his/her “wrong doings” (i.e s/he lies, and/or has wrong interpretation, and/or blind fanboy/girl, etc) are also not solid enough…

Be that as it may, as it stands right now, I am one of those who really likes to know what Anet means when they posted the Manifesto. I won’t lose sleep over it, as I can accept that sometimes, a game’s direction has to change, in order to be successful. I won’t push Vayne (or anyone else) to do it, but it would be awesome to know those stuff, at least, from my PoV.

But how do you explain an entire two year old thread, about something that dozens of people posted on. Did I go back in time and make it up, based on the fact that one day I might need such a thread.

It’s only logical to assume the thread is real, even if the comments in it aren’t perfect. Still if someone said something blatantly untrue SOMEONE would have challenged it.

And this is only backing up what I’ve remembered personally and have been saying all along. So now we have an eye witness, on top of that circumstantial evidence.

And I do agree…they’re not listening because they don’t want to hear. The truth is mighty inconvenient to those attached to their own version of events.

Of course Vayne has the most posts, everyone else is debating him.

It’s good to see the wayback machine post showing the clarification. Of course facts rarely matter to ideologues.

I don’t know, guys. Anet does seem to have this thing about story not being repeatable. You can’t repeat much of your personal story (although you can repeat killing Zhaitan because that takes place in a dungeon). The Living Story (some of it, anyway)? When she goes she’s gone. Colin was pretty clear in the recent twitch session that while more content will be permanent, story elements will be one-time and done.

This was a change from GW, where one could kill Shiro, the Lich, Abaddon and the Great Destroyer as many times as one wanted.

Did people really think that GW2 would have content in the persistent open world or in dungeons that would never repeat? We already have people complaining about the Living Story not being available on demand. Can you imagine the outcry over, “Shadow Behemoth is dead, hope you were here. It will never return.”

Edited because a friend pointed out you can repeat the Zhatain dungeon, although why you would want to is another story.

IndigoSundown.5419:

I don’t know, guys. Anet does seem to have this thing about story not being repeatable. Once you’ve killed Zhaitan, you have to roll another character to experience it again. The Living Story (some of it, anyway)? When she goes she’s gone. Colin was pretty clear in the recent twitch session that while more content will be permanent, story elements will be one-time and done.

This was a change from GW, where one could kill Shiro, the Lich, Abaddon and the Great Destroyer as many times as one wanted.

Did people really think that GW2 would have content in the persistent open world or in dungeons what would never repeat? We already have people complaining about the Living Story not being available on demand. Can you imagine the outcry over, “Shadow Behemoth is dead, hope you were here. It will never return.”

To be fair, you only had 25 missions in Prophecies, 20 in Nightfall and 13 in Factions. Yes, they were repeatable but most of the quests weren’t repeatable. And those missions were pretty much it.

Compare to Guild Wars 2, where you have like 50 personal story instances for each race…and different variations on race.

I can’t imagine wanting to repeat most of the personal story on the same character, because I’d want to see different parts of the story I never saw before. This is something that you couldn’t do in GW 1 at all.

Behellagh.1468:

Of course Vayne has the most posts, everyone else is debating him.

It’s good to see the wayback machine post showing the clarification. Of course facts rarely matter to ideologues.

I have the most posts because I thought there was a achievement for it. lol

I can’t enter the blog, seems down to me.

Zoid.2568:

I can’t enter the blog, seems down to me.

You can only see the thread, the blog is down. When Anet migrated the blog to the new site, the kept current documents, but didn’t transfer the older ones…partly because older information in the blog would be inaccurate. The game has obviously evolved.

The dye system is the best example of this. The earliest post about the dye system is completely different than the dye system that exists now.

It was changed due to fan complaint.

Zoid.2568:

I can’t enter the blog, seems down to me.

This should work for you: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/external?l=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20130201031636%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.arena.net%2Fblog%2Fmmo-manifesto-reactions

Dev reponse about the blog gone missing:

The new Anet site looks nifty, I’ll give you that. But you don’t seem to have your blog up right now. Which means I can’t read all those awesome articles you shared with us over the years.

It also means that I can’t fact check the wiki!

Will you be putting it back up?

March 13th, 23:02

Quote
Report
Permalink

Pat Cavit

Lead Web Developer

A:

The blog will be coming back, it was an unfortunate schedule casualty.

June 6th, 22:40

What’s that thing where people tell other people something that is grossly exaggerated, misleading, or outright false in order to maximize revenue?

It starts with an M and ends with a G… kitten I can’t remember what it’s called.

Vayne.8563:%

Really? LMAO.

Okay so if someone said the clarification said X and it didn’t, you wouldn’t find someone disagreeing with it in a thread? REALLY? I see.

You would find someone disagreeing. I don’t know why you bring this up since I didn’t say that.

Vayne.8563:%

Actually this thread is about the clarification, not the manifesto itself. And if some people don’t want to read about it, they’re free not to be in this thread. It’s not like they have to come here.

But some people might be interested in that clarification and if the original isn’t around, I provided the next best thing.

What a load of crap. Either there is a clarifcation or there isn’t. The next best thing has to be taken on faith as it’s people replying with their interpretations in mind. Nothing more. The clarification is missing but the subject is still the manifesto. I wouldn’t see a missing clarification as a real topic. Nonetheless, you are the one who is naive enough to think this topic will make an actual difference. I tell you it only adds more oil to the fire and therefore is counterproductive to your own goals.

Vayne.8563:%

It seems that if someone wants to say bad things about the manifesto, 800 threads can be made, but the second someone wants to point out something different about the manifesto, well that’s just a duplicate thread, right?

Incorrect. I am also against people making 20 threads about the same subject, but it happens. I don’t have the power to stop it. The mods do. All I am pointing out is that your behaviour is the same. You have a different opinion on the matter, but for the rest you are just like them. I don’t see how you can justify that just because you think you are on the right side of the matter, that it’s ok to have the same behaviour. That’s why I speak of double standards. If you think they shouldn’t do it, then neither should you or just shut up and deal with it.

Vayne.8563:%

Biased much?

About what and why? Is it because I have a different opinion than you do that I am biased…because if that’s the reason, you’re the one that’s actually biased.

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:%

Really? LMAO.

Okay so if someone said the clarification said X and it didn’t, you wouldn’t find someone disagreeing with it in a thread? REALLY? I see.

You would find someone disagreeing. I don’t know why you bring this up since I didn’t say that.

Vayne.8563:%

Actually this thread is about the clarification, not the manifesto itself. And if some people don’t want to read about it, they’re free not to be in this thread. It’s not like they have to come here.

But some people might be interested in that clarification and if the original isn’t around, I provided the next best thing.

What a load of crap. Either there is a clarifcation or there isn’t. The next best thing has to be taken on faith as it’s people replying with their interpretations in mind. Nothing more. The clarification is missing but the subject is still the manifesto. I wouldn’t see a missing clarification as a real topic. Nonetheless, you are the one who is naive enough to think this topic will make an actual difference. I tell you it only adds more oil to the fire and therefore is counterproductive to your own goals.

Vayne.8563:%

It seems that if someone wants to say bad things about the manifesto, 800 threads can be made, but the second someone wants to point out something different about the manifesto, well that’s just a duplicate thread, right?

Incorrect. I am also against people making 20 threads about the same subject, but it happens. I don’t have the power to stop it. The mods do. All I am pointing out is that your behaviour is the same. You have a different opinion on the matter, but for the rest you are just like them. I don’t see how you can justify that just because you think you are on the right side of the matter, that it’s ok to have the same behaviour. That’s why I speak of double standards. If you think they shouldn’t do it, then neither should you or just shut up and deal with it.

Vayne.8563:%

Biased much?

About what and why? Is it because I have a different opinion than you do that I am biased…because if that’s the reason, you’re the one that’s actually biased.

It’s quite obvious that someone in that thread mentioned directly that Ree was talking about the boss you just killed comes back ten minutes later in the PERSONAL story. There was another link with in interview about it in this very thread, from a dev.

If someone said that, and it wasn’t true, someone would have jumped down their throat. It didn’t happen, so logically it’s likely true.

Any other conclusion would be a biased one, because the logic is relatively simple.

Why are you guys still fighting about whether there was clarification or not? We’ve posted the link to the blog, so everyone can read what ArenaNet said. I’m baffled about this argument, truly.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Why are you guys still fighting about whether there was clarification or not? We’ve posted the link to the blog, so everyone can read what ArenaNet said. I’m baffled about this argument, truly.

You know…I don’t need to be convinced…because I remember it from when it was first posted.

I can’t answer for the other guys. lol

I think this whole manifesto fiasco is really much more to do with today’s culture of the “pre-order”. Generally, I like pre-ordering because I’m impatient, but can’t always get to a store on release day etc. Other people pre-order because of marketing or promises of exclusive rewards etc. This is a problem, actually, because it can both promote lazy developing, and also leads to companies being in trouble precisely because what they thought, two years before release, that they can do, they can’t. The game changes, but it’s already been sold to people, and those people aren’t happy – doesn’t really matter about the clarification … many people stopped reading/listening once they decided to purchase.

TotalBiscuit made a video in which he shares his thoughts about pre-ordering games:

It’s worth watching. I’m not saying it solves the whole “argument” people like to have on this forum about whether or not ANet lied, but it’s an interesting thing to think about. A little “buyer beware” message.

Edit:
I should clarify that I am in no way comparing GW2 with the unmitigated disaster that was Aliens: Colonial Marines! I am simply saying that there is usually a gap in what people think they’re buying and what they actually do end up with. A little research usually goes a long way to help this, as does delaying the purchasing decision until more reliable information is available to help your decision. I’m not saying ANet are guilty of lying, and I’m not saying they delivered a perfect product. Simply stating that the issue isn’t only with the manifesto and ANet. Our culture in general tends to allow for this sort of mistake more often than not, and that’s the source of the problem, in my opinion.

This is due to many number of things, but mostly exacerbated by today’s trend for pre-purchasing games before any real, solid information is available. That’s not all on the buyer – why, after all, should we feel we can’t trust a manifesto? But, as Vayne has constantly pointed out, something released several years before the product itself can’t be the be all and end all.

I personally am not all that bothered about what was said and what ended up happening. This sort of thing happens with any product all the time – I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying that it’s difficult to really hold up the manifesto as the check list for the final product. In my personal experience, anything I’ve ever bought based off marketing only (ie, without waiting for reviews and a good few months post-release), has never been exactly what I thought it would be based on marketing alone.

Vayne.8563:

It’s quite obvious that someone in that thread mentioned directly that Ree was talking about the boss you just killed comes back ten minutes later in the PERSONAL story. There was another link with in interview about it in this very thread, from a dev.

If someone said that, and it wasn’t true, someone would have jumped down their throat. It didn’t happen, so logically it’s likely true.

Any other conclusion would be a biased one, because the logic is relatively simple.

Obvious is not proof. But if you actually had reading skills you would’ve known that I conceded that particular point. See, you are just going in circles. We discussed that point but then said yourself it was about the whole manifesto and not this small part. So now I discuss the whole thing and you bring it back to this one small point again. Circular reasoning….not helpful.

Also logic is not the same as truth. Someone can be logical about something and still be wrong. Logic is wholly dependent on the information you have. Since we normally don’t have all the information, we cannot assume then that using logic equates to speaking the truth.

Logic also doesn’t exclude bias. Because if two people who had the same bias were discussing they would find each other’s reasoning logical.

Logic just means you follow certain set of rules or a system in your reasoning. Doesn’t mean the rules or the system are right. So please stop confusing logic with truth.

Really, without empirical evidence there is nothing to prove. And the underlying problem is that Anet could’ve lied and made the clarification just as a means to soothe everyone. Your assumption is that it was an explanation of what they originaly intended, but that is also taken on faith. It’s not evidence even if we had the clarification.

You could be right, but you could be wrong.

So learn this: You cannot prove what they meant or intended, you can only prove what they said, not why. You are not in their heads. So you are trying to prove something that you cannot prove: intent. This is why this manifesto discussion will never end, because no matter how much you think you’re right, you can’t prove it and neither can anyone else, whether they are for or against.

So you can give your opinion. That’s fair. But to think you can prove anything is delusion.

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:

It’s quite obvious that someone in that thread mentioned directly that Ree was talking about the boss you just killed comes back ten minutes later in the PERSONAL story. There was another link with in interview about it in this very thread, from a dev.

If someone said that, and it wasn’t true, someone would have jumped down their throat. It didn’t happen, so logically it’s likely true.

Any other conclusion would be a biased one, because the logic is relatively simple.

Obvious is not proof. But if you actually had reading skills you would’ve known that I conceded that particular point. See, you are just going in circles. We discussed that point but then said yourself it was about the whole manifesto and not this small part. So now I discuss the whole thing and you bring it back to this one small point again. Circular reasoning….not helpful.

Also logic is not the same as truth. Someone can be logical about something and still be wrong. Logic is wholly dependent on the information you have. Since we normally don’t have all the information, we cannot assume then that using logic equates to speaking the truth.

Logic also doesn’t exclude bias. Because if two people who had the same bias were discussing they would find each other’s reasoning logical.

Logic just means you follow certain set of rules or a system in your reasoning. Doesn’t mean the rules or the system are right. So please stop confusing logic with truth.

Really, without empirical evidence there is nothing to prove. And the underlying problem is that Anet could’ve lied and made the clarification just as a means to soothe everyone. Your assumption is that it was an explanation of what they originaly intended, but that is also taken on faith. It’s not evidence even if we had the clarification.

You could be right, but you could be wrong.

So learn this: You cannot prove what they meant or intended, you can only prove what they said, not why. You are not in their heads. So you are trying to prove something that you cannot prove: intent. This is why this manifesto discussion will never end, because no matter how much you think you’re right, you can’t prove it and neither can anyone else, whether they are for or against.

So you can give your opinion. That’s fair. But to think you can prove anything is delusion.

Okay, but the posted clarification actually does say what they said. It says clearly what I’ve said on thread after thread.

Ree is talking about the personal story and Colin is talking about dynamic events. Bottom line, I’ve said it time and time again and people have called me on it again and again. It’s one less thing to discuss when the manifesto is discussed.

And since the actual clarification has been posted now, hopefully some of the people repeating that you kill a boss and it respawns ten minutes later is a lie, will change their tune.

Vayne.8563:

Okay, but the posted clarification actually does say what they said. It says clearly what I’ve said on thread after thread.

Ree is talking about the personal story and Colin is talking about dynamic events. Bottom line, I’ve said it time and time again and people have called me on it again and again. It’s one less thing to discuss when the manifesto is discussed.

And since the actual clarification has been posted now, hopefully some of the people repeating that you kill a boss and it respawns ten minutes later is a lie, will change their tune.

Yep I saw it too. So it talks about two points of the manifesto, not the whole manifesto by the way. Two points in fact that are not the things people generally are upset about though.

It doesn’t clarify the “we don’t want people to grind” issue
It doesn’t clarify the “we took everything you liked from GW1” issue
It doesn’t clarify the “we want people to feel heroic” issue

So yeh they made a clarification about two smaller points but not the ones that really matter to the more heated discussion about the manifesto. So my guess is this won’t really change much about the discussions even when people see this clarification and take on faith that Anet didn’t do a 180 but actually were being honest in their clarification.

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:

Okay, but the posted clarification actually does say what they said. It says clearly what I’ve said on thread after thread.

Ree is talking about the personal story and Colin is talking about dynamic events. Bottom line, I’ve said it time and time again and people have called me on it again and again. It’s one less thing to discuss when the manifesto is discussed.

And since the actual clarification has been posted now, hopefully some of the people repeating that you kill a boss and it respawns ten minutes later is a lie, will change their tune.

Yep I saw it too. So it talks about two points of the manifesto, not the whole manifesto by the way. Two points in fact that are not the things people generally are upset about though.

It doesn’t clarify the “we don’t want people to grind” issue
It doesn’t clarify the “we took everything you liked from GW1” issue
It doesn’t clarify the “we want people to feel heroic” issue

So yeh they made a clarification about two smaller points but not the ones that really matter to the more heated discussion about the manifesto. So my guess is this won’t really change much about the discussions even when people see this clarification and take on faith that Anet didn’t do a 180 but actually were being honest in their clarification.

Sure…it doesn’t clarify everything but it is a point I’ve had to repeat a half a dozen times easily, because people either don’t believe it or don’t care.

The other points can be debated separately. Of course the line “everything you love about Guild Wars 1” can’t be taken literally, because Mike O’Brien isn’t a mind reader. Eveything WHO loves about Guild Wars 1.

And that’s the only line of the manifesto video that’s really questionable.

Those who question the grind comment, and try to point to a single word (down from a single line) in another document have a whole lot less proof to go on than I do. So much so that it’s almost silly, and everyone sees it but them.

Vayne.8563:

Sure…it doesn’t clarify everything but it is a point I’ve had to repeat a half a dozen times easily, because people either don’t believe it or don’t care.

The other points can be debated separately. Of course the line “everything you love about Guild Wars 1” can’t be taken literally, because Mike O’Brien isn’t a mind reader. Eveything WHO loves about Guild Wars 1.

And that’s the only line of the manifesto video that’s really questionable.

Those who question the grind comment, and try to point to a single word (down from a single line) in another document have a whole lot less proof to go on than I do. So much so that it’s almost silly, and everyone sees it but them.

Well that point is considered clarified to me. I do not share your view on what’s questionable in that video because to me pretty much all of it is (which is normal in marketing, it’s not special in that sense), but here’s a thought for you to consider:

People mostly don’t care about proof. When people feel a certain way it’s because of what they experience and you can never disprove that. Even if you could prove that Anet’s intentions were good and it was an honest misunderstanding, it still doesn’t change most people’s feelings, because feelings don’t care about proof.

Trying to prove that people are wrong only angers them more and only makes people entrench, it doesn’t resolve anything nor bring people closer together.

If someone is angry and you want to convince them of something, you won’t until you can first get emotions out of the way and that means taking an interesting in their feelings. Showing empathy (remember understanding someone doesn’t equate to agreeing) and finding out why they feel that way. People don’t do that in forums, that’s why nothing ever gets resolved on a game forum.

I’ll give a simplified example:

Critic: This game is crap and it’s totally grindy!!! Anet are horrible!!
Defender: You are wrong because this game isn’t grindy at all, you are just lazy.

So, you think this will help?

So what about this:

Critic: This game is crap and it’s totally grindy!!! Anet are horrible!!
Defender: Sorry to hear that you hate this game. So, what exactly makes you feel this game is grindy?

Now, most people aren’t interested in the other person’s feelings or reasons, they just want to fight an be right. I call it forum pvp and I am not here to tell people how to act. But if you want to diffuse discussions and actually bring people together closer, my view is that the second example is more constructive than the first.

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:

Sure…it doesn’t clarify everything but it is a point I’ve had to repeat a half a dozen times easily, because people either don’t believe it or don’t care.

The other points can be debated separately. Of course the line “everything you love about Guild Wars 1” can’t be taken literally, because Mike O’Brien isn’t a mind reader. Eveything WHO loves about Guild Wars 1.

And that’s the only line of the manifesto video that’s really questionable.

Those who question the grind comment, and try to point to a single word (down from a single line) in another document have a whole lot less proof to go on than I do. So much so that it’s almost silly, and everyone sees it but them.

Well that point is considered clarified to me. I do not share your view on what’s questionable in that video because to me pretty much all of it is (which is normal in marketing, it’s not special in that sense), but here’s a thought for you to consider:

People mostly don’t care about proof. When people feel a certain way it’s because of what they experience and you can never disprove that. Even if you could prove that Anet’s intentions were good and it was an honest misunderstanding, it still doesn’t change most people’s feelings, because feelings don’t care about proof.

Trying to prove that people are wrong only angers them more and only makes people entrench, it doesn’t resolve anything nor bring people closer together.

If someone is angry and you want to convince them of something, you won’t until you can first get emotions out of the way and that means taking an interesting in their feelings. Showing empathy (remember understanding someone doesn’t equate to agreeing) and finding out why they feel that way. People don’t do that in forums, that’s why nothing ever gets resolved on a game forum.

I’ll give a simplified example:

Critic: This game is crap and it’s totally grindy!!! Anet are horrible!!
Defender: You are wrong because this game isn’t grindy at all, you are just lazy.

So, you think this will help?

So what about this:

Critic: This game is crap and it’s totally grindy!!! Anet are horrible!!
Defender: Sorry to hear that you hate this game. So, what exactly makes you feel this game is grindy?

Now, most people aren’t interested in the other person’s feelings or reasons, they just want to fight an be right. I call it forum pvp and I am not here to tell people how to act. But if you want to diffuse discussions and actually bring people together closer, my view is that the second example is more constructive than the first.

As I’ve said, more than once, I don’t believe those who made up their minds will change their minds. There are people on this forum who don’t like the game…not because the game isn’t good, but because their expectations of the game or the genre are different. It’s an incompatibility. And that’s okay.

But I don’t have to convince or talk to them and I don’t try to. I respond to them, to reach people who are reading but not posting…which is most people.

The angrier and the more off base they get, the more reasonable I see to OTHER people. And it works.

I can’t tell you how many have contacted me over the months to thank me for being a voice of reason here.

Changing the mind of someone who doesn’t like the game? There’s no percentage in that at all.

People, once again dont loose sight of what a manifesto is… its a statement of intent. That intent is then translated into fact through an design decision. Like everything in life not everyone will see the exact same thing the same way.

Example Acquiring Ascended gear Through dailies….

Some feel spending 30 minutes a day, every day for 180 days to get a full set of ascended gear is an example of how this game is grinder then any other out there. Fair enough.

Other look at exactly the same thing and think, what? I can just play the game anyway I want and after 180 days of playing the content I choose every day I will get a full set of ascended gear? Awesome thats like no grind at all, definitely much better then MMO X where I had to repeat this raid for 6 months before I finish off my set or MMO X where I had to gather and craft rubbish for months before I could finally build my set. Or in some MMOs where I had to farm for months before I had enough mats to build my BiS gear. etc….

What does this tell us? Did ArenaNet lie about grinding when it comes to dailies? No, its undeniable that dailies remove some repetitions like running the same dungeons / gathering tons of mats. They definitely attempted to implement the vision in the manifesto.

For group A they didnt manage, they still find dialies grindy but are group A lieing? Nope if they feel that way they feel that way.

For group B this really solved the grinding issue, are they lieing? No like group A if they feel that way the feel that way.

What I am trying to say is these things are subjective… just cause something isnt true for you, it doesnt mean whoever said they were trying to avoid that particular thing didnt really try to avoid that particular thing.

Vayne.8563:

I’m using visible clarification responses to show there was a clarification. We never saw a dinosaur but we know they were there. This is what remains of the clarification.

Vayne.8563:

You can only see the thread, the blog is down.

Uh… Twice in this topic people have linked the old blog. You are ignoring that evidence because it shows you are wrong.

Vayne.8563:

Craptrain.7203:

Tip: When you find yourself having posted 5 posts in a row in a single thread, it is time to take a break.

I like when he posts. Each time he does, I look more reasonable.

Craptrain was talking about you, which was very easy to see considering how you are the only person in this topic with multiple posts in a row. Your interpretation of his statement is wrong.

Vayne.8563:

I have specific stats from the forums I used to moderate.

Vayne, posting your so-called qualifications doesn’t really work. It doesn’t matter if you were an editor – in this topic alone, you have proved how you ignore evidence that you don’t want to see, and how your interpretation of a given statement is often wrong. It’s exactly what you are doing with the Manifesto – you are ignoring all the things that prove you wrong, and your interpretation of what remains is also wrong.

I’m sure we have some lurkers. If they had believed you, this topic has just given them reason to not do so anymore, by your own hand. The Manifesto, in the entirety of its anti-grind speech and with its auxiliary clarifications also anti-grind, is a lie.

Vayne.8563:

I can’t tell you how many have contacted me over the months to thank me for being a voice of reason here.

Uh huh…somehow that doesn’t surprise me.

But let me tell you. I don’t find you the voice of reason at all and your posts clearly indicate by your style that you are trying to convince people, because that’s what proving a point is: showing other people you’re right and they’re wrong. But without empirical evidence it’s just a battle of opinions.

Someone else here just said he manifesto shouldn’t be taken literally but seen as their intent. But then you can’t prove intent, it’s just words and beyond that, if you can’t take it literally then what exactly is it they intended? That’s the beauty of it.

Marketing at it’s best. My view is that they failed their intentions, based on my interpretation of it. And since that’s all I can go by that’s a fair opinion to have.

I feel endgame is just grind
I don’t feel heroic
Everything I loved about GW1 is not in GW2

You can’t disprove that because they are how I feel.

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:

I can’t tell you how many have contacted me over the months to thank me for being a voice of reason here.

Uh huh…somehow that doesn’t surprise me.

But let me tell you. I don’t find you the voice of reason at all and your posts clearly indicate by your style that you are trying to convince people, because that’s what proving a point is: showing other people you’re right and they’re wrong. But without empirical evidence it’s just a battle of opinions.

Someone else here just said he manifesto shouldn’t be taken literally but seen as their intent. But then you can’t prove intent, it’s just words and beyond that, if you can’t take it literally then what exactly is it they intended? That’s the beauty of it.

Marketing at it’s best. My view is that they failed their intentions, based on my interpretation of it. And since that’s all I can go by that’s a fair opinion to have.

I feel endgame is just grind
I don’t feel heroic
Everything I loved about GW1 is not in GW2

You can’t disprove that because they are how I feel.

There is no end game in the traditional sense of the word. That you feel the need to create one shows you don’t get what the devs have tried to do here.

I understand that you don’t feel heroic. I even understand why. I have no problem with you saying that.

I have said all along that the only line of the manifesto I take issue with is the “everything you loved about Guild Wars 1 line”. It’s the rest of the manifesto that I’m talking about.

And I don’t care whether you think they failed or succeeded. All I did was say that they didn’t LIE. People use the word…people are wrong. It really is that simple (unless those people can prove intent to decieve).

And yes, I am trying to convince people…but I’m not trying to convince the people I’m talking to.

I’d say I’ve been pretty successful.

Erasculio.2914:

Vayne.8563:

I’m using visible clarification responses to show there was a clarification. We never saw a dinosaur but we know they were there. This is what remains of the clarification.

Vayne.8563:

You can only see the thread, the blog is down.

Uh… Twice in this topic people have linked the old blog. You are ignoring that evidence because it shows you are wrong.

Vayne.8563:

Craptrain.7203:

Tip: When you find yourself having posted 5 posts in a row in a single thread, it is time to take a break.

I like when he posts. Each time he does, I look more reasonable.

Craptrain was talking about you, which was very easy to see considering how you are the only person in this topic with multiple posts in a row. Your interpretation of his statement is wrong.

Vayne.8563:

I have specific stats from the forums I used to moderate.

Vayne, posting your so-called qualifications doesn’t really work. It doesn’t matter if you were an editor – in this topic alone, you have proved how you ignore evidence that you don’t want to see, and how your interpretation of a given statement is often wrong. It’s exactly what you are doing with the Manifesto – you are ignoring all the things that prove you wrong, and your interpretation of what remains is also wrong.

I’m sure we have some lurkers. If they had believed you, this topic has just given them reason to not do so anymore, by your own hand. The Manifesto, in the entirety of its anti-grind speech and with its auxiliary clarifications also anti-grind, is a lie.

There are as many people supporting me in this topic as supporting you. I think maybe you think you’ve made more of a point than you have. In fact, I know this to be true.

And the longer it goes on, the more people see your posts for what they are.

I am pretty sure the linked blog post showed that there was a clarification, and that was what the topic of this thread is about….at least, originally. So, it doesn’t prove anyone was wrong or lying, except -maybe- those that stated it never existed. /shrug

I’d be much happier if people just discussed opinions instead of trying to discredit other people by calling them fan boys or white knights. It’s not constructive.

kossman.8206:

Grabs Popcorn

it’s been an interesting little soap opera, hasn’t it? especially when you take all of the acts in the other threads about it into consideration? i started keeping up with it a week or two ago, how about you?

/munches popcorn

Phantom.8130:

kossman.8206:

Grabs Popcorn

it’s been an interesting little soap opera, hasn’t it? especially when you take all of the acts in the other threads about it into consideration? i started keeping up with it a week or two ago, how about you?

/munches popcorn

Munch quietly, I’m working here. lol

Vayne.8563:

I’d be much happier if people just discussed opinions instead of trying to discredit other people by calling them fan boys or white knights. It’s not constructive.

I totally agree with this. If we like the game we like the game, its only natural we’re going to support most of those design decision because well we agree with them and like them. It has nothing to do with white spray painted heavy armor.

That doesnt make us right and those who disagree with us wrong.

Thats the whole point of having discussions. maybe we miss something maybe others miss something or we just like different things who knows. Who we are doesnt get into it though.

Galen Grey.4709:

Vayne.8563:

I’d be much happier if people just discussed opinions instead of trying to discredit other people by calling them fan boys or white knights. It’s not constructive.

I totally agree with this. If we like the game we like the game, its only natural we’re going to support most of those design decision because well we agree with them and like them. It has nothing to do with white spray painted heavy armor.

That doesnt make us right and those who disagree with us wrong.

Thats the whole point of having discussions. maybe we miss something maybe others miss something or we just like different things who knows. Who we are doesnt get into it though.

If your arguments are strong, you shouldn’t need to try to cast aspersions to try to make yourself look right. Doing so actually weakens your argument, rather than strengthening it.

DeathMetal.8264:

Hi Vayne,

Thanks for info, I agree that you didn’t invent those threads and went back in time. However, Indigo’s and the DaiBish’s links worked for me now, it wasn’t before and found the explanation about the perma changes which applies to Personal Story.

Also, there was a post I read, but now lost it and forum search wont help me, about the grind. The poster quoted what Colin was saying about the “grind”.

Again, for me it, is important as I am:
a) New to MMO, this is my first solid MMO. The other one I tried are just unknown F2P MMO, and I also only did try WoW when it launch but not really played for long.
b) I was a solid Diablo fan prior to D3 but got let down and left D3 for GW2, and I would like make sure Anet has no track record of butchering their game
c) And bought GW2 because Manifesto was enticing, and I have no prior experience with GW1

I always wanted to learn more about Gw2, and I did get more info about the lore by buying all 3 books (have just started reading Ghost of Ascalon) and now, wanted to learn stuff about what Anet really meant with the Manifesto.

Tnx to all who provided clarifications…

I think the biggest thing that I can say about what Anet was trying to do, is that they’re now trying to do it with the Living Story. They really do want to make a living/breathing world. It’s been what they said and what they’re attempting to do all along.

Dynamic events aren’t the way forward, because they end up repeating endlessly. People complained about this, so Anet is trying events that repeat endlessly for a month and then go away. That happened, now this is happening.

You can also see from some of the random snatches of conversation and small details in the game what Anet is trying to do…sometimes with mixed success.

But Anet has multiple barriers to deal with. One of them is that people come to an MMO with the expectation that it’s going to be like every other MMO. They expect vertical progression. They expect better gear. They expect shinies.

Guild Wars 1 didn’t have the same sort of gear progression as other games, and so Guild Wars 1 players want NO vertical progression at all…not one whit. They want the top level gear they can get easily to be the BIS gear in the game.

It’s two completely different audiences requiring two completely different solutions. I believe Anet has offered ascended gear as sort of a compromise. Something that doesn’t lock you out of content (except high level fractals), and yet it’s something grinders can grind for if they want.

Anet has also said there would be things to grind for in the game, they just wouldn’t be required grind. They had this sort of set up in Guild Wars 1 as well. There was plenty to grind for, it just wasn’t required.

I hope this gives you a bit of insight, from my perspective at least, of some of the challenges Anet has had to appeal to two completely different sets of players.