Guild Wars 2

:::::FOR MY WHOLE ARGUMENT, READ MY SECOND POST:::::——-
I would have copied it into this first post, but it would make this far too large to read all at once.

The whole concept behind GW2 is that you are this heroic figure saving the land of Tyria. They have said many times that they want the main character, no matter what choice you make, to be a heroic and ultimately good person.

During the personal storyline this is true. There are some points, especially with the attack on LA, that made me feel truly heroic. But the dynamic events, renown hearts, and the open world in general do the exact opposite. They make me feel like a bully.

One minute I’m trying to help Skritt, then next minute I’m slaughtering them. One minute I’m a human trying to negotiate with the Charr, historic enemies of my race, and the next I’m pillaging a centaur village without any thought of diplomacy. There was one dynamic event in which I had to help two Ogres get water from a nearby watering hole. The challenge of the event was to slaughter every and any thirsty animal that came within a mile. So I was literally killing creatures labeled “Thirsty ____” or “Dehydrated ____”. A few minutes later I found myself killing the Ogres next door neighbors – other Ogres that, for some unexplained reason, were hostile.

I also have a Sylvari. My Sylvari believes that everything has a right to grow… except those Fireflies, because we need their guts to “make the town look beautiful.” Oh, I’m sorry Dredge, are you upset that I burst into your caves, destroyed your air vents and disrupted your excavation of your new home? That’s too bad. And you can forget about religious tolerance: the humans may have their gods, the Charr may be atheists, and the Sylvari might be agnostic, but nobody seems to have an issue with desecrating and demolishing the shrines and altars of the local Grawl. Even though, as my Asura, I just helped them out.

What purpose does it serve to knock over a Skritts shiny thing? What harm does it do? I don’t know what’s wrong with it, but it gives me points towards a renown heart, so I’m going to do it. But would a real hero bully the local inhabitants without reason or knowledge of reason just for reward? No. So while I feel like a hero in the personal story, the world of GW2 is not a world of heroes. It is a world full of bullies romping around the playground pushing down the smaller kids because a quest bar in their HUD told them to.

EDIT: Another example: the Inquest is trying to recruit young students to join them through perfectly legal means. After all, they are just another Krewe even if their methods are questionable. How does the hero respond? They threaten and kill the recruits in front of the children. So who do you think gave the impression of being psychotic, power-hungry murderers? The Inquest legally trying to recruit them with reason? Or the psychotic Asura guardian who just flattened the recruiters head with a hammer?

Indeed I hated when the game pushed us to kill ‘hungry bears’ just because they try to eat some honey. Doesn’t really give a humane feel let alone heroic..

Normally im not fond of this term… but you guys are being carebears.

Hungry bears that impede humans in real life get wrecked, why would it be diffrent in a game?

“My sylvari say all things have a right to grow” ok, enjoy being level 1, because you can not kill ANYTHING. PERIOD. Harvesting onions? eating veggies? thats all against your so called code. So really, what? not all humans are nice, just like not all skritt are nice, not all ogres are nice, and not all Grawl are nice.

Breaking grawl totems? Have you paid attention to the DE in that area? in the norn starting area, you break grawl paintings and totems. Why? Cause the grawl in that area summon a demon, which is dangerous to EVERYONE. So you ARE a hero by shutting down the things which will cause harm to everyone. its an evil forthe greater good.

did you talk to the heart npcs? while you dont need to talk to them to get the quest started, talking to them gives you the background for it, for example, for the skritt ones of knocking their shiny altars, there is also a DE that happens outside where the skritt are stealing the logging axes of the village, which is a woodcutting village, by stealing their axes, they’re stealing the villages income and thus their way of life.

in regards for example the dehydrated animals in that DE, the ogres are carrying the water to their own village, so if they get attacked (and killed) by the dehydrated animals, what happens for the ogres village? theyll also die of thirst if they dont get this water (dont know the background of this DE so double checking the why they go get the water would work well, how you find out? stick around till the DE starts again)

in respects to the hungry bears and the honey, if i remember right that is the bears attacking a honey bee farmer…thingy guy…, which is his way of life, meaning how he gets his income and how he feeds himself and his family (if he has any)

the why’s are there, they simply are not laid out just plainly, have to find them out of your way.

the why we slaughter the centaurs, its because its a long time set battle, in which the centaurs are hellbent in destroying the krytan government/city due to how they think the krytans have taken from them territories/or just plain hatred, i think there was a thread in the lore subforum where it said that they didnt even knew why they where fighting since the war started 250 years ago and they are just “fighting, because”

the “religion” of the grawl, they dont have a religion tbh, there is a norn DE where you destroy a “god” of the grawl, which is a ice elemental, then you gather ice cubes, and then the norn establishes a “norn ice figure” of big size, and when the grawl see it they all go “oooh look, shiny figure, it must be sacred, it must be holy, we must worship it”

so
ya

“…the why we slaughter the centaurs, its because its a long time set battle…”

This is the exact same mentality that the humans and charr had towards each other, and only now because of the threat of the Elder Dragons are they coming together. So why can’t the same be done with Centaur? I don’t mind if, in the lore, the humans try to reason with them and then the Centaur fight back, but diplomacy is never a consideration.

“‘My sylvari say all things have a right to grow’ ok, enjoy being level 1, because you can not kill ANYTHING. PERIOD.”

You ignore the point I made. Of course the Elder Dragons and their minions and anyone or anything threatening the well being of Tyria need to be fought, but the Fireflies that you kill in that dynamic event aren’t threatening anything. They are, in fact, neutral creatures that only fight when you shoot at them. And why is my Sylviar killing them? For the purpose of beautifying the town. Literally, that’s it. There are other quests like this, I’m just using this one as an example.

“the “religion” of the grawl, they dont have a religion tbh”
That’s actually not true. They do have gods, proven by the Vigil storyline in which you help prove that one of their gods, a creature born of the power of the Sons of Svanir, is false. In early norn territory, however, they are not worshiping a false god. They just have small religious paintings and shrines built up that you erase and destroy. You might say that these shrines are in some way harmful (which they aren’t in game…) but then why do we, as heroes, destroy the shrines and slaughter the grawl in this case, but later on we try to reason with them and use diplomacy with them to bring them away from a much more dangerous, and actually harmful, god?

“…so if they get attacked (and killed) by the dehydrated animals, what happens for the ogres village?”
True, the village would suffer. But why does the game make the point of saying that the creatures we are fighting are dying of thirst? I mean, there were gigantic, fire-breathing, carnivorous reptiles just chilling in the water nearby. Why couldn’t it say we’re just defending them from dangerous creatures in the lake? Was it really so important to know that we were beating down already half dead creatures that were also in need of water?

“So really, what? not all humans are nice, just like not all skritt are nice, not all ogres are nice, and not all Grawl are nice.”
True, not all humans are nice and not all Sylvari are nice, but we know why they’re not nice. But at least we know why separatists are bad and we know why the Nightmare Court is bad, but why is one clan of Skritt bad and then next isn’t, aside from the fact that the game just told me so?

“Why? Cause the grawl in that area summon a demon, which is dangerous to EVERYONE.”
…But, if you walk into the area where they are, they aren’t summoning a demon at all. They’re all just standing around chilling in a cave. So no, I didn’t bother to read the renown heart description telling me to believe that the NPCs literally just pacing back and forth in a remote section of the map is somehow a threat to everyone. In the Manifesto video, Anet said they don’t want the player to be told to fight these horrible creatures doing these horrible things and only find them “standing in a field.” So even if it is true that some renown heart description told me that loitering does in fact summon the armies of hell, isn’t that going against a principle that Anet themselves championed? (By the way, the Grawl in that area never summon a demon, even in a DE. The only DE concerning them is that you first steal all of their food, then you kill their chief.)

I am not being a “carebear” (carebear? really?) because my issue isn’t that the game is offending me, or making me feel bad. It’s that the game is being inconsistent. The world of Tyria is an incredibly inconsistent place. So I don’t mind being mean in the context of a game where moral choices are a game mechanic. But to tell me that I am a hero, and then require me to do things that are clearly unheroic, or that just don’t make any sense, is just disappointing.

Can I just say, before I respond in full, that this is an excellent discussion – great first post and first rate response by AW Lore – and I’m sad that it will inevitably plummet from the first page under the weight of a hundred banal threads about endgame, botting and the Halloween update.

Haha, you remind me of some of the farmers in the Sylvari starter area.

“All things have a right to grow, all things have a right to grow, all things have a right to grow”
“Why do you keep saying that?”
“Because these insects just keep crawling all over me and I can’t stand it! …All things have a right to grow, all things have a right to grow…”

Not an exact quote but you got the idea.
The said Sylvari was taking that statement literally and so refused to kill the tiny insects.
Wisdom isn’t always meant to be taken literally.
To me it sounds like you are too kindhearted and innocent.

Kindhearted and innocent? Please read my second post.

ok, enjoy being level 1, because you can not kill ANYTHING. PERIOD.

Of course you can, because otherwise you’re letting people deprive other people of their ‘right to grow’. You intervene to preserve the greatest peace for all, ideally.

Tai Kratos”

The whole concept behind GW2 is that you are this heroic figure saving the land of Tyria.

My biggest problem is actually this. The personal story is overblown in terms of making you out to a hero. There’s a jarring disconnect between all the messages and cutscenes about what a legendary figure you are, and the whole server being full of equally skilled adventurers.

imo, the personal story should always have cast you as a skilled adventurer whose moral outlook isn’t commented on. People ask you for help, are grateful if you help them, that’s it. This is an RPG. Leave it to the player to think about whether they’re a hero or a bully.

Secondly, given the complex web of alliances and factions in Tyria, it would have been much, much more exciting – and given the game added depth – if you had a choice of which people to aid in order to complete heart quests, or at least a choice to complete them using diplomacy and tact. Frankly, I’m never comfortable harming the Skritt, who are loveable and fun, but I would jump at every chance to attack the centaur, who blight the landscape and seem like a bunch of thugs.

I feel like I’m stuck on repeat here, but it almost brings a tear to my eye how much better this already beautiful game could be if they’d imported more of the design philosophy of Planescape: Torment, which let you level by being clever, diplomatic, sneaky and helpful, as well as by killing stuff. ArenaNet do actually promise on this very site that GW2 will be different depending on how you play it, be ‘the kind of game you want to play’.

Well, I’d have loved to resolve a bunch of situations without violence. It’s not that I don’t love the fighting – there’s just so bloody much of it. You have to fight every inch of the way round almost every zone in the world. How is it carebear to want to take a break to accomplish something more constructively?

Even when the renown hearts give you the option of doing something peaceable to complete them, you’re constantly being attacked by enemies while you try to do so. I really wanted to complete, say, the one at the top of Blood Tide Coast just by blowing the cover of the cloaked poachers, but I spent the whole time fighting drakes, because they never left me alone!

I completely agree about the grawl and the dredge as well. I particularly dislike the undertones of these encounters – destroying minor religions and communists respectively.

People whose reponse is to cry ‘carebear’ – the thing is, you’re treating the game like a themepark in which you kill stuff to earn rewards. That’s your prerogative – fine. But I’m thinking of what ANet were trying to accomplish here. Unless I’m mistaken, they put a lot of time and effort into constructing a believable world in which they want players to believe their actions matter, and feel a part of the various events. So this goes out to ANet – please consider massively widening the scope for non-violent conflict resolution and allegiance options if you remotely give a kitten about players role-playing a hero or consistent character, rather than a savage mercenary who’ll do anything for a bit of copper!

This is actually a pretty old discussion and I’ve seen it brought up with every MMO I’ve ever played. (Except EVE- but the backstory there was specifically designed to enable to player to be sociopathic). The core answer is that gameplay demands things to kill. Game design requires a variety of such things to prevent boredom. So there you go.

Because of the limitations of a game format, you really can’t take the story elements of an MMO at face value. You have to accept that what you do as a player on a day to day basis is not how things would play out in a novel, for example. That logging village might rally behind a leader – a roaming adventurer, or a local who just won’t take it anymore- and take the fight to the skritt. There would be a battle, the issue would be resolved and life would move on for both parties. You would not see god-like unstoppable heroes cutting their way through hundreds of thousands of skritt for days on end for ever and ever.

So there has to be a kind of artistic separation between gameplay and storytelling. The game is used to tell a story, and GW2 is doing a great job on this, better then pretty much any other MMO I’ve tried. However, the game itself is not the story. It’s only the medium. How can 100k’s of people all be the hero who killed Zhaitan? They can’t. But you, the player, experience it like that anyway. The limitations of the medium need to be accepted in order to understand the story.

Rhyse.8176:

The limitations of the medium need to be accepted in order to understand the story.

I accept that, but I don’t think the limitations are anywhere near as stringent as you make out. There are some pretty simple steps forward that can be taken.

Again, look at Planescape: Torment, a 10+ year old game. It frequently gave you the chance to talk your way out through dialogue trees, which rewarded you with as much (sometimes more) experience as offending someone and then killing them. It basically gave you the option at all times of being friendly, conniving or thuggish.

“The core answer is that gameplay demands things to kill. Game design requires a variety of such things to prevent boredom. So there you go.”

And yet another one misunderstands my point!

The problem isn’t needing someone to fight – by all means, let’s kill things. In some games you are just sent out to kill things without purpose, like in some arcade style games.

However, Guild Wars 2, because it is a story telling game, also decided to give our combat purpose. The issue is that the purpose is not consistent. The issues that Focksbot has are not the same issue I have, although they are relevant as well. I don’t mind having combative objectives in a combative game. That makes sense. But the narrative behind that combat does not make sense.

“…and take the fight to the skritt.”

Sure, if the Skritt are being bad and we can’t reason with them, then fine. Let’s fight them. But there are many times where you have two identical caves of Skritt: both have stolen metallic objects and gizmos piled in corners stolen from the local landscape. But the game tells me one is bad and that everyone in it needs to be killed and that the other one is helpless and needs my heroes assistance. Why? Heck if I know. And no, those Skritt are not threatening the local town. They are just standing around in their cave with just as much stolen stuff as the next guy over, but I’m told to kill one and not the other…

“This is the exact same mentality that the humans and charr had towards each other”
yes, the difference lies therein, the charr where open to listen to diplomacy, whereas the centaur arent, here you would need someone with a more game lore buff than me, because i am kind of limited in it, but as far as i know, there was an intention to make a peace talks with them but the centaurs wanted none of it, however, they DO have a “peace treaty” with lions arch, where they leave each other in peace, however some lionguards report that some of their caravans have been hit by centaurs, meaning the peace is just superficial with LA, and that they do have a deep hatred towards kryta, if i remember right, the thread about this hinted that the moment kryta falls, the centaurs will then go on war with LA, but that they cannot hold a two front wars and thus, they have “peace” with LA.

“but the Fireflies that you kill in that dynamic event aren’t threatening anything”
while i agree this isnt…heroic or so, one has to take into consideration bio…something here, that a game cant reproduce really, if we look at it as it would be, the fireflies would pretty much be a “pest”, like rats, as they would reproduce very fast, since in game they spawn endlessly, there is no danger on them going extinct, if it where rl however, i think the sylvari would be wise enough to either set a farm like for them if they dont reproduce as fast, or the event would only happen or be needed once every so often (in months time frame) wich should be enough for insect class creatures to mass reproduce (mosquitos anyone?), of course im no biology expert here and some things may be off.

the grawl one may be much more complicated than what it seems, in both sides of the discussion really, specially when religion here has been proved to exist:
humans worship the six gods, which have been seen, which their avatars have been met (gw1) and it was who’ms intervention gave the humans the magic and power that led them to be the the power that they where in GW1, charr however, have decided to rely on their own strenght and powers, whereas the norn worship nature spirits and actually can turn into animals.
so where do the grawl lie? they woship false gods that are actually demons? try “convincing” them that they are false gods, i am pretty sure you had to fight and kill some of the grawls before they would see the “truth”, which is subjective, the grawls that died, died defending their truth and belief, their god was real and htey died for him, same as it is for humanity in rl, trying to convince someone that their god is “false” will lead to…a catastrophe, to say the least.
so its not so easy to deal with this i agree

“But, if you walk into the area where they are, they aren’t summoning a demon at all. They’re all just standing around chilling in a cave”
you need to see the DE start, they open a portal, and then demons come out from it, i’ve not seen the DE in action, but ive seen the grawl shamans and the portal up, so yes they do something dangerous.
—Just because you can’t see the ball when someone takes it from your field of view, doesnt mean the ball just magically stopped existing—
just because you cant see the event starting or them summoning the portal, doesnt mean it doesnt happen,

“True, the village would suffer. But why does the game make the point of saying that the creatures we are fighting are dying of thirst?”
if you are carrying food, the most dangerous animal will be a hungry animal, because a hungry animal wants food, sees you have food (or sees you as food), and thus he will attack you
likewise for thirst, if an animal that is thirsty sees water that is in a relatively easier to reach place (ie walking towards them), they’ll most likely attack or go to this water.
of course here lies a game inconsistency in respects to the real world, the water lake is like 5 feet away in the first two waves, and most animals would avoid that and go to the lake, but that would make a less exciting “adventure” for gamers than what they do now.

“but why is one clan of Skritt bad and then next isn’t”
becuase while they are separated into clans, they dont really have a “clan name”, the skritt city, i dont know if they have a clan name, and if they do, whats it, but simply skritt are in game separated by skritt sectors, you may find a nice one here, and then 10 steps ahead a bad one, but sometimes somethings are hard to keep track of, can also be because remember, the more skritt that are together, the smarter they get, the skritt city that is friendly is the largest skrit city ever, so it could be that if there are, lessay random number, a thousand skritt in the city, they are smart enough to not attack everyhting that moves and trade in diplomacy, but if there is a group of lets say, 300 skritts, they are only smart enough to band together and build a city, but that attacking passersby is “good” (even if they get them killed), and thus to become friendly they’d need to reach over to a thousand skritts, but while reaching that ammount of skritts is also very dangerous because the mroe they are, the more dangerous they become too.

The player’s purpose is to kill the Elder Dragons.
Saving the world makes you a “hero”.

Likewise if you smash those shinies like you were asked to then the guy who asked you to do it is pretty darn pleased and considers you a good guy who answered to a request.

If you’ve ever looked at the Ferocity chat options you can do some pretty barbaric stuff.
In one place you can even threaten to hit Charr cubs if they get in your way.

But y’know.
You are saving Tyria so that evens it out, right?
It reminds me of Mass Effect 2 in a way.

You can be a real monster and still a hero.
All morality is based on point of view and personal opinions.

triple post, weee…

@Tai Kratos
what you want, is something that is limited by the game and technology mechanics, your problem is that, like you said "anet said that the “mobs” wouldnt be just standing there, that they would actually be doign something, alive"

keyword here, alive, meaning you want a world that is responseive, where things happen, which is something like the elder scrolls give, you want to see the skritt stealing, you want to see the centaurs killing someone and then running away to their camp so you have a reason to kill them, and while anet has delivered some of these (for example some of the risen mobs in orr are mining, as are some dredge doing, some thiefs are “operating” giant turrets), it is very hard to do something like this on a huge scale, what you would like (im guessing), is something like an elder scroll game( lessay skyrim) and it being an open, multiplayer world

is it bad that you want it? not really, i would love to have such a game too, i love these kind of games too, but here unfortunately game limitations prevent this, and this is osmething that no mmo can solve currently, but maybe in 20 or 30 years the next gen of mmos can make a nice, believable living world where things make more sense, but currently what we have with gw2 is as close as it can get to the world “being alive” in an mmo setting, or as close to a single player world setting

“yes, the difference lies therein, the charr where open to listen to diplomacy, whereas the centaur arent”

I’ve never actually read that. It would be helpful, if that is the case, to include that as a dynamic event or to have some sort of in game indication of that animosity.

“try “convincing” them that they are false gods, i am pretty sure you had to fight and kill some of the grawls before they would see the ‘truth’”

Actually, you do convince the Grawl that their god is false in the Asura Vigil personal storyline without killing any of them. So why did I have to kill them before? And no. In the place I am referring to, the Grawl don’t summon a demon. As I said, the only DE associate with the area is where you first steal all of their food, then murder their chief.

“…if you are carrying food, the most dangerous animal will be a hungry animal, because a hungry animal wants food, sees you have food (or sees you as food), and thus he will attack you”

You actually make a good point. But it still doesn’t explain why it was important to point out that they’re on the brink of death before I send them over the edge.

“…the fireflies would pretty much be a ‘pest’”

Sure. I can buy that. But it never says that in game. You aren’t killing them because they’re pests. You are killing them just for the sake of some decorations. And even if they aren’t in danger of extinction, is that really the way of the Sylvari? Charr might kill them, but not for beauty. Norn might kill them, but only if they were a worthy trophy… and they really aren’t. Asura probably couldn’t care less about them unless they aided reasearch and / or impeded research. And humans…. heck, humans might just kill them for decorations. Happens in real life all the time.

" …skritt are in game separated by skritt sectors…"

Again, this is never stated in game. GW1 made it very clear that some Tengu were bad and some were good. It did this by separating them into various clans, some of which were hostile and some of which were friendly. So in that case, I could rationalize Talon Silverwing fighting by my side while I killed other Tengu from an aggressive tribe. GW2 never bothers to make this distinction.

Aragnor.4250:

Indeed I hated when the game pushed us to kill ‘hungry bears’ just because they try to eat some honey. Doesn’t really give a humane feel let alone heroic..

Yeah we dont just kill bears because they want our sweet sweet honey in real life, we call in the animal people who come over set up traps, tranq them and relocate them.

“…you want a world that is responseive, where things happen…”

Actually, that’s not what I want. That’s what Anet promised, but that’s not what I want. All I want is a world that makes sense. Keep good and evil distinct and separate. If there is to be gray area in that respect, explain it in a way that is logical. But if there is gray area due to a lack of explanation, then that is Anets fault and is an issue. It’s not like GW2 is a bad game because of this one problem, but I would think that after 5+ years of development they would get the simple things like this right. This isn’t a matter of game mechanics, this is a matter of realistic lore.

@ Tai Kratos
you should really make the question about the centaurs in the lore subforum here, you’ll get a better answer then than here, the situation about the centaurs was i think, either explained in one of the books or somewhere in a wiki, like in rl, if you want to get to the deepest truth of a situation, you need to search it beyond what is simply shown to you (history books), you have to do it yourself (aka ask in the lore forum)

about the animals, they need to state what kind of animals they are so it makes some sense in context, just like you say “why do they need to put they are dehydrated animals?”, if they didnt, one would ask “why is this random bear attacking this water carrier?” in which both questions are valid and fair, but the only one closer to the context is the dehydrated bear (as well as the hungry bear)

and about the fireflies and sylvari, i’ve said all i could think about it, in the end, it may be a “cultural thing” of the sylvari, and something that depends and is about them, so in the end, as they have the “everything has a right to grow”; they also have “act with wisdom, but act”, so if they are doing that, they must have some back up idea, as a nanture creature (plants themselves), i find it very hard to think they would make things that would endanger the forest, and for them killing the fireflies is just like collecting peebles, since the fireflies wouldnt be extinguished. in the end all i can really say is, trust in the sylvari.

and about the skritt,
yes its not stated in game so i am just using either
a) my own common sense
or
b) my own imagination
as i dont have the need for anet to spell out every detail of why things happen, if there is a “plothole” somewhere, i patch it up myself (which may be good/bad, but thats personal opinion) or if it really bothers me, i seek it elsewhere(aka wiki)
but again, every one has their own ways to deal with this.

in regards to the tengu, i may be forgetful, but wherent all the tengu in gw 1 bad and it wasnt until the expansion of factions that the first friendly tengus where shown/explained?

Yes, the first friendly Tengu were in Factions. I have a hunch that Tengu will become a playable race once we return to Cantha… but that’s just a hope of mine.

Just “believing” in the lore doesn’t make sense. I am actually in the process of making my own game with its own lore and storyline, and I find it easy, as one single non-professional individual, to find plot holes and fill them. Anet has an entire team of people working on background lore. Tyria doesn’t actually exists (spoiler) but that does not mean it can’t make sense.

EDIT: I am slowly getting way too tired to debate this…

it may seem easy to notice some plotholes, but once you release your game/story, im pretty sure someone will find plotholes to some pointers, aditionally, when you try to make an expansion or content some may contradict itself, though this may be something someone else finds on the way.
also remember it is YOUR story what you are doing, and thus you can fill easier since you know where you want it to go, at the same time, it is not a released story, anet are working on an established story, which means they cant just change on the fly once its released, i can imagine there’d be an uproar of they went as much as changed talon’s clan name or so.

personally i think im reaching my limit for this discussion, as much interesting as it has been i may be dropping from discussion after this post as i odnt think i can really bring in anything new(er?) to the discussion

Focksbot.6798:

Again, look at Planescape: Torment, a 10+ year old game. It frequently gave you the chance to talk your way out through dialogue trees, which rewarded you with as much (sometimes more) experience as offending someone and then killing them. It basically gave you the option at all times of being friendly, conniving or thuggish.

Well, two points in reference to this specific quote.

Number 1: If ya compare any game against PS:T it will lose; always.

Number 2: Ya gotta admit that, so far as MMOs an’ most games go, this game has about as much diversity an’ interestin’ reasons/ways ah doin’ things as a Planescape style setting. It isn’ PS:T, but it comes mighty close in allota places.

Now for Number 3: There are allota hearts ya can do without killin’ … ya got other options, like gatherin’, breakin’, whatever … so there’s some alternatives. But, yeah, sometimes ya feel like a bully when there’s no other choices, I’ll give ya that. I didn’ much like Skritt meself until doin’ some ah me story missions an’ doin’ more in the Asura lands – now I love the little buggers an’ hate havin’ ta beat em up. For RP I justify this in two ways … 1, I’m not usually killin’ em, but just beatin’ em unconscious … after all, I get knocked out an’ revived alla time … an’ I revive Skritt all the time. 2, not all Skritt – or other group – are on the same page … ya’ve got many ah clan or family, or group what didn’ get the memo that we’re workin’ tagether, or didn’ like the idea, an’ are still hostile … so ya gotta deal with em the hard way. Which leads me ta number 3 of 3: some clans are friends an’ some are not … some are now but change their minds, some aren’ right now but change their minds later. Not many of the monster races have a central government tellin’ em what’s what … in fact, I don’ think any of em do, what we’ve seen; so each tribe is gonna make up its own mind where it stands.

Number Three wasn’ Enough: Seriously, welcome to the middle ages, fantasy or no .. it’s ah Imp eat Imp world out there an’ resources are scarce … monsters an’ animals are always a danger ta settlements an’ vice versa.

But, all that said: Sure I’d like to see more non-combat, non-smack ya down ways to handle quests … preferably dealin’ with the personality types we chose. So, yeah, more of these would be a definite benefit and a good addition to an already great game.

… the heck did I just read?
But seriously, that was really hard to read with all the extra punctuation…

And once again, someone misses my point.

Here is your answer OP.

This is actually clearly explained in the game – almost everything is.
Perhaps, if you want lore reasons when you are requested to do things you should actually read what NPCs say.

For instance, the Skritts killing/helping.
It’s made clear (especially if you read Skritt/Asura lore) that Skritts are split into a group that is focused on getting along with all races and estabilish in Tyria in a peaceful (somewhat, they still steal) manner, and another group who is basically what you in real life would call “looters/rogues/bandits”.
Centaurs are for the most part forced by their new king to fight humans (Tamini and Harathi cents are lesser tribes forced by modnir), but they do not really want to do so – infact some are not hostile.

Just like in real life you’re going to befriend and help an American and punch another American in the face until he eats his teeths for different reasons, so you do in game.
Just because some peopel are your friends in life it doesn’t mean all humans are.

You help those who live by peace and fight those who attack anyone they want.
Would you not, in your life?
Wouldn’t it make you a hero to save a good person’s life and kill an assassin?

Red Falcon… thank you for the first good explanation. I haven’t read those in game, but I will look for them. If it is true that the centaurs do not all wish to fight, then it would make sense for Anet to explore possible negotiations in future expansions…? Just saying.

Tai said: “But seriously, that was really hard to read with all the extra punctuation…
And once again, someone misses my point.”

Once ya get the accent down it’s easy as pie. An’ I didn’ miss yer point, I addressed it pretty spot on … ya feel like a bully ‘cause yer smackin’ people aroun’ and breakin’ things everywhere ya go. Well, there’s justification for that, an’ that’s what I was givin’ ya … as well as some things ta think about RP wise.

More’n that yer choices are: don’ do the missions what make ya feel like a bully. There’s plenty ah stuff ta do in the game, so you’ll probably still hit lvl 80 jus’ fine.

Tai Kratos.3247:

Red Falcon… thank you for the first good explanation.

So the person what said “Those Grawl are summoning demons” and “those Skritt are stealin’ the livelihood of the humans in that village” weren’ offerin’ good explanations? I think yer criteria is set weird.

The problem with those explanations is that (1) the grawl weren’t summon demons and (2) all of the Skritt were stealing, but only some of them were marked “bad” and was thus inconsistent. My “criteria” is just fine. His reply was the only good one because (1) he stated that the evidence was to be found in game, and it was not just someone trying to fabricate their own excuse for lack of evidence and (2) he stated said evidence.

And there is absolutely no need to make your posts difficult to read by typing in an accent. I doubt you’ll stop, but it just makes things hard to read.

EDIT: “ya feel like a bully ‘cause yer smackin’ people aroun’ and breakin’ things everywhere ya go.”

Once again, you missed the point. I’m fine smacking around people. But my in game violence is often not justified and is inconsistent. CONSISTENCY is the key word here. If you mark something as bad, keep it that way. And when it isn’t bad, explain why. And reading your posts has absolutely nothing to do with pie. (That was sarcasm, in case someone misses that point as well…) It has to do with the fact that it is difficult to read in text and is an attempt to force some sort of internet personality. When someone says “Your” with an accent, it doesn’t change the way it’s spell to “yer.” It just changes the way it is said in an auditory sense.

But I digress.

This is why I love the Norns. For them, the mere existence of something that’s a decent fight is a compelling reason to fight it.

From their perspective, “Want to go kill a god?” is extremely persuasive.

" If you mark something as bad, keep it that way. And when it isn’t bad, explain why."

They’re probably figurin’ ya can make some leaps ah logic yerself, too. Like I said, jus’ because one tribe is hostile, or friendly, doesn’ mean their all gonna be – if ya look at the way they interact with the people an’ environment around em it gives ya some clue. An’ like some other people said, sometimes they tell ya outright if ya talk ta people.

As for the typin’ … I really wasn’ askin’ for advice – I ain’ typin’ this way for yer amusemen’, but me own. ;P

Personally, I quite like the fact that most of the races in Tyria have a “bad” faction, that doesnt agree with the “international community” and thus get annihilated by any passing “hero.”

I like that there are “good” skritt" and “bad” skritt, “good” Charr and “bad” Charr, etc.

Rather than some other games, where things are a lot more black-and-white along racist lines. Orcs = evil, humans = good, etc.

Of course, personally I prefer a fully grey world with no heroes at all. But I think GW2 strikes a reasonable middle ground between epic heros and gritty psychos :P

Only MMO forums.

Can you imagine someone complaining to Nintendo about Mario games, because goombas aren’t openly hostile, yet you can still kill them? Did Mario REALLY save the mushroom kingdom if he ate all the good mushrooms and stomped on the bad ones?

“I like that there are “good” skritt” and “bad” skritt, “good” Charr and “bad” Charr, etc."

Once again, you missed the point. Read my posts. It’s not about that at all. It’s about defining why the bad guys are bad and why the good guys are good.

“Only MMO forums.”

Ah ha! It’s about time one of your kind showed up! There is always that person who attempts to show how witty and superior they are by demeaning the debate and throwing in some logical wisdom into the fray.

But again, you miss the point. While you may see games as just entertainment, I am one of those people who sees the potential in the video game medium for artistic merit. To that end, I will critique a video game as I would any other form of art, such as literature, art, or music. This isn’t about the entertainment value of the game – I find it very entertaining regardless of my issues with it – but if the story is weak and the lore is weak, I think it is due some criticism.

With that said, bring something worthwhile to the discussion, or take your “wit and wisdom” somewhere else.

While your post, Corian, might be interpreted as a simplified view of things by some, it actually sums things pretty accurate. You just haven’t elaborated, so I will do some of that:)

MMORPG’s are vastly different from RPG’s in general. There are a couple of key differencies you will find in almost every example for comparison. So, it’s often not fair to compare MMO’s to SPRPG’s in terms of story coverage, world consistency, player-NPC interaction, story arch, quality of scripted events etc. I really don’t think this needs to be elaborated to death and that is pretty self explanatory.

That said, MMORPG’s need to supply massiveness, quantity and diversity and also to cater not to the niche audience, but to the “whole world”. So, they have to be “dumbed down” to the abilities of a “potentially least competent customer”. When I say “competent”, I mean in some or all aspects of competency. Of course, not all content would be dumbed down, but key content elements must be accessible to all. Competitive PVP/PVE, advanced lore etc. are potential bonuses, reachable by players, but that’s it. But, story arch, quests (difficulty AND complexity, both theoretical and practical), character relations, deepness of activities/communication etc. will cater to the “least competent subject”
A smart/interested/thorough/skilled player CAN play the simplified game, while vice versa is impossible. So, you can’t afford to make the game cater that quality player, nor could you afford to make the game take middle ground. It has to go “all the way down”.

So, what do we have so far? The need for sheer quantity and diversity, made so it would cater the “specimen X” That means thousands of quests, hundreds of locations, hundreds of creatures, hundreds of landscapes.
Thus, the said player must be served these things:
-massivenes
-quantity
-diversity
-simplicity
-dumbed down epicness (I kill dragon, I famous)
-short dialogues
-KILLING, KILLING, KILLING
-dozens of stuff really

So, you have a quest/event/whatever where you need to kill some evil orcs, for example, then some neutral fireflies, then sick cows, then wild wolves, then some birds, then some hostile goblins, then some crabs, then…. you get the picture:) Basically, from the MMORPG’s point, if you “challenge inconsistency and stuff”, you are overanalyzing – regardless of whether you are correct or not – just like in the Mario example.

Being in the game industry as an illustrator, I have some insight as to how and why these things are done the way they are done. There are priorities and those priorities may have the game being inconsistent, illogical etc.

For example, the playing field of a MMORPG is relatively small – for what it represents. We have whole continents which are of a size of a modern city and not nearly as detailed. So, when presented with a task of conceptualizing a MMORPG landscape, the artist needs to take this into consideration and make illogical (note that I didn’t say “fantasy” or “imaginative” but simply – illogical – even in terms of a given fantasy setting) landscapes. So, you will often have to design two or three climates that flow into each other in a VERY small area – I am talking about hundreds of meters here. You will have a mountain that’s 100ft tall, covered with eternal snow, next to a grassy field with a spring which is becoming a swamp 200ft to the right. You will have hungry yetis living on a mountain and fat cow-like creatures munching on grass 15ft further. And you would get a quest like “the yetis are dying due to the starvation” or something. So, if you don’t take these things for granted, as a “meme” of MMORPG’s, you will react with “omg stupid yetis, just kittening reach out with your hand and grab dozens of cows”
And you would be absolutely right – but it’s calculated priority flaw, so to speak.

Also, considering the non-aggressive and non threatening units being killed, for the sake of killing – same thing, really. We have two major reasons for that. First one would be enforced diversity and quantity I have talked about (specimen X must be given a chance – and not just a chance as in possibility, but it must be incorporated in a quest – to kill Y number of creatures in Z amount of time). Second one is based on the fact that those quests are commonly associated with starting areas, so we are not just catering to the specimen X, we are catering to the specimen X who has entered the game two minutes ago and is having problems with controls, class, abilities and bunch of other stuff. So we put him in a non-hostile environment, where he performs hostile acts, without having to worry about those little goblin villagers swarming on him, or even one goblin villager attacking him, for that matter. So he goes on a “quest of saving the nearby human village from a goblin pest!” which consists of slaughtering the village of neutral-tagged, flower-sniffing goblins. Why? Because.
Because in the next quest, our specimen X must fight those pesky fireflies so farmer John would make firefly stew. Because fireflies provide different encounter than goblins and different quest-story and reasons. So, there are like twenty species of creatures running around in a circle of 300ft, providing hacking fun for our specimen X and we have a “quest basis” for all of those killings. And of course, that quest basis would be as consistent as bass playing of a manically depressed squirrel on morphine and XTC at the same time:)

Maybe my explanation is somewhat confusing at times, or exaggerated, but I really tried to explain to the best of my abilities. No doubt it would be far better if we were sitting in a pub, but still, I hope it’s constructive for the topic.

Tai Kratos.3247:

But again, you miss the point. While you may see games as just entertainment, I am one of those people who sees the potential in the video game medium for artistic merit. To that end, I will critique a video game as I would any other form of art, such as literature, art, or music. This isn’t about the entertainment value of the game – I find it very entertaining regardless of my issues with it – but if the story is weak and the lore is weak, I think it is due some criticism.

You have posted while I was writing my wall of text:)
But essentially, I hope I have addressed exactly this aspect. And in that aspect, it is necessary to always be aware of the fact that MMORPG is something ENTIRELY different from a single player game, for the various reasons I have tried to point out. You guys mentioned Torment and that’s exactly what I’m talking about. In terms of consistency, flow, bugs, we could say something as – MMORPG<single player game<a movie<a book.

Now, this is all, of course, my 2c, but generally, those things mentioned in the OP are consciously neglected errors, or maybe even enforced, for the sake of “greater good and appeal”. Which, of course, doesn’t take away from validity of your observations, but that’s another point.

From a design aspect, I can appreciate that. The reason that I have such a high standard despite the fact that this is an MMO is the fact that GW1 managed to have this sort of consistency. And I was an avid GW1 fan, so I expected the same from GW2. Now I realize that GW1 was an entirely different beast due to the fact that it was entirely instanced and GW2 is persistent, but I still feel that it could have been approached better. It wouldn’t take much effort to mark separate clans for the “good” and “bad” Skritt. That’s the kind of gimmick they used in GW1 for things such as the previously mentioned Tengu clans.

Tai, are all humans evil? are all Germans evil? are all Muslims evil?
no. You approach each individual group on its own merits. that is how it is with the various races of GW2 if someone has a problem with a specific group of skritt, they are going to send you after them, not all skritt. if some skritt are friendly, you wouldn’t slaughter them just because, would you?

as for animals, it’s no different from Indians hunting say tigers for their skins. there’s no malice towards the animals, they are just hunted for their resources. which isn’t a bad thing if done in moderation.

Tai Kratos.3247:

From a design aspect, I can appreciate that. The reason that I have such a high standard despite the fact that this is an MMO is the fact that GW1 managed to have this sort of consistency. And I was an avid GW1 fan, so I expected the same from GW2. Now I realize that GW1 was an entirely different beast due to the fact that it was entirely instanced and GW2 is persistent, but I still feel that it could have been approached better. It wouldn’t take much effort to mark separate clans for the “good” and “bad” Skritt. That’s the kind of gimmick they used in GW1 for things such as the previously mentioned Tengu clans.

Well, part of that is certainly in the eye of the beholder. For example, I was having huge problems with playing NBA Live games some 10-15 years ago, because of too large scripts for my taste. I wanted a game of physics where your shot would bounce of the rim or enter the basket based on some, at least rudimentary, Newton physics. That was not the case in those games and scripts were blatantly obvious. It bothered the hell out of me, as I would rather play a sports game of green cubes vs red cubes on an awful court, if the simulation part was done decently. Majority of other people had no idea what I was talking about and ended arguments with “but…but… you have licenced Garnett!” or similar. So, the developer clearly focused on one aspect, deliberately completely disregarding some other aspects – core aspects even.

Why am I saying this? Because you mentioned “it wouldn’t take much effort”. Up to NBA Live 2000, there was exactly ONE type of basket – nothing but net. Now, I am not talking about physics here, I am talking about visual representation. You could have the same simple script (basket/no basket), yet more animations, so it would seem like some kind of uncertain outcome. For example, you could have two baskets and two bounces which would be generated randomly. I believe that is something like a day’s work – exaggerated claim, but you get the point. And yet, it was not implemented so the developers could have more time to polish “licenced Garnetts”

And I really think it all comes to that – developer’s focus. GW2 is much bigger than GW1 in every aspect – from the niche it targets to the production value and media coverage.
And we have time as resource. So, if we have one animation for ball going through the hoop, it would take one day to make another. BUT that one day could be spent making additional eyelash on “licenced Garnett”. So, good bye ball animation. Our focus is elsewhere.
Same goes for GW2. If we have inconsistency with case “Skritt”, we could invest three days to separate Skritt tribes. But, we could make two weapon skins and one more heart quest in those three days. Which one do we choose? The latter, of course, which is logical if we go back to the “catering to specimen X in MMORPG”.

While we’re at it, I must say I find said “developer focus” a bit strange in GW2. I sometimes completely fail to define it or pinpoint it. It’s basically a PVP oriented game, with attention to quake-like principle of equality and dynamic fight. But we have four maps, one game mode, lack of GUI/screens/infos/scoreboards, zerg-encouraging reward system and severe balance issues (this is a relative category, but I am taking into account beta testing and game being fully released etc).

Now, I am not trying to seamlessly convert the topic into my PvP rant:) I want to say that I am with you in a sense that some things and devs’ decisions confuse me, all things taken into consideration.

Personally, with the centaurs, peace is either impossible or a long, long way off. So far the only in-game attempt at diplomacy was taking advantage of the fact that Centaurs love attacking human settlements by baiting them into attacking one at the same time as a group of Orrian soldiers during an Order of Whispers-related quest.
Centaurs, to me, seem to have their hatred so ingrained in their being that they can’t see past it to even try to negotiate. Add to that centaurs have a large number of tribes, and it seems to me that because of this hatred, the other tribes would team up to butcher a tribe that tried diplomacy.
And as for the grawl and their religion…demoralizing your foe is very important in warfare. You can win more battles with less bloodshed (on the battlefield at least) by making the enemy question their faith than by slaughtering them one by one. After all, if their gods are fallible at best or false at worse, and their gods are telling them to fight, should they really listen? This is probably why the main races are the way they are: Humans have evidence of their gods acting upon the world. Some Norn (or their ancestors in some cases) have actually MET their gods, which CAN be killed, but are still incredibly strong. Asura and Charr either believe in their own strength or simply see the gods for what they really are (very strong spirits). Sylvari…well, they’re born from their “god”, know who was responsible for their creation, and can even set up an appointment to talk to the Avatar of their god on a daily basis. This kind of conviction is part of the reason they’re still around, but can also lead to arrogance.

I feel sympathy for OP. I did watch the manifest video, but I considered it just marketing talk. The whole premise of the game is to kill stuff. There’s a saying “when you only have hammer, everything look like a nail”. This applies very well to these sorts of games. Unfortunately there’s only so many ways to contextualize the need to kill and only so many in-game models to apply this killing. Thus you’re in one quest aiding the skritt and another you’re killing them. Painting on the wall is “worship icon” in one quest and “graffiti” on another. Objective is to remove them both.

Persistent world with multiple players puts serious constraints to how the story can be presented. There might be players who haven’t completed the event and those who have already done it. It’s not possible to cater immersive experience to both.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if_all_you_have_is_a_hammer,_everything_looks_like_a_nail

Well the bears were unaggressive and had yellow names, they weren’t attacking anyone. They were just after the honey. Sure they get wrecked if they do that in real life and it would hardly surprise anyone.

But by hero of Tyria? What kind of hero would value honey more than lives of innocent but naughty bears.. We have no option to be evil, game pushes us to be a hero so I want to be a ‘hero’ not just some kind of protector of civilized races..

There’s at least some ambiguity when it’s about Skritt or Grawl, but to me Bears are just animals.

The Norn would first kill them and then revere the bear spirit for the hunt.
Most humans would likely be indifferent.
We kill animals all the time and the humans in Tyria probably aren’t that different.
I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with killing wild animals unless they are endangered or something.
Then again I’m from the countryside and I’ve seen animals hanging from the ceiling ever since I was 5 years old or so.
It might be different for somebody from a city.

Most Asura wouldn’t really care one bit about the bears, they are all about efficiency.

And Sylvari?
Now that’s hard to say.
I think that they’d have very differing opinions.
On the overall though, a Sylvari who’s wyld hunt is about killing the dragons must be prepared to do all sorts of things.

Either way being a hero doesn’t mean that you need to be some sort of vegan pacifist paladin.
You just need to get the job done.
Kill the dragons and save the world.

If you want to roleplay as a very cliche good guy I suppose you could state that you want no part in it and then walk away without doing the event.

On that note the dragons aren’t evil, either, technically.
They are more of Forces of Nature rather than beings with morals.

Okay, Op you got awfully wound up about this eh? I can’t tell if you’re a troll or some kind of bleeding heart activist that wants to protest Tyrian behaviors. There’s GOT to be a better cause for you to fight the good fight for than what pixels did what to another pixel in a made up history…right?

Because in reality, we are…THE ANTI-HERO!

Should I tell that child to stop being naughty? No. I’ll throw a snowball in their face over and over until they get the point.

Those innocent skrrit, grawl, centaurs, ogres, etc. attack you. Not only that, they often cause tons of trouble for the local NPCs, up to and including death. Friendly members of the species can’t be attacked, if you can attack them, they’re the ones out for your blood.

Skrrt- Chase you and heave moltove kittentails at you, not to mention the CONSTANT THEFT.

Grawl- Choose something to worship, then go on crusades to kill anyone not-Grawl who wanders by. “HOW DARE YOU COME NEAR THIS SHINY ROCK I FOUND!!!!” That was the gist of one quest I did.

Ogres- I am not going to sit still and become lunch, and expecting anyone else to want to is not a good strategy.

Centaurs- Oh man, these horses cheese me off (I’m human, so I became very familiar with them). Lessee… they saw the weakening of humans in Kryta, and decided it was a great time to push them out of the lands they’ve held. And they accomplish that by murdering civilians as well as soldiers, and setting fire to towns and destroying crops and property.

Now, as for long standing battles, what I’d LIKE is for my character to be able to attack Charr besides Flame Legion. As someone who’s ancestry is based in Ebonhawke, the Iron Legion holds just as low a place in my character’s heart. Alas, it’s not heroic enough to be in-game, so he will have to settle for muttering rude things.

I feel your pain, OP.

Well, except it was in a different game. LotRO was the game I had to quit simply because after slaughtering 100th badger that did nothing to deserve having my sword shoved up its bum except make pretty pelts for a local quest NPC, my consciousness just couldn’t take any more of it.

I actually find that – refreshingly and thankfully – GW2 does a really, really good job with explaining why exactly you’re fighting local wildlife, and why it’s fighting you. However, it’s not often communicated all that well because you have to get the explanation from the lore, from local NPCs and renown descriptions, and often that explanation is completely arbitrary – to the point where there’s no identifiable reason for some Ettins to be timid and chatty and yet others trying to instantly make you into Ettin stew with a side-dish of Exotic Gear.

Communication is the issue. ANet’s writers have already explained much of this, but the designers didn’t bother communicating it. Tsk, tsk.

Also, about killing hungry-hungry animals and making Chinese lamps out of things minding their own business: I don’t think these are the kinds of things that are meant to be perceived as moral and justified by the players. It’s the kind of grey area that makes sense for the people who do it within context of the game, but someone outside their persuasion might find objectionable.

When a villager wanders into a centaur camp, his judgment just might be clouded by the death of his family at their hands. When Sylvari slaughters a fluffy hamster to make a loincloth out of, he’s really treating it no different we treat animals today. When your hero is tasked with going around poor Skritt’s caves knocking over their junk piles, the local NPCs just don’t consider it might be really rude. Possibly because they’re friggin’ racists, just like many Humans and Charr are towards each other (hell, even Rytlock, our resident canonized Big kitten Hero).

Again though, if that’s the case, it’s poorly communicated.

Gurpsmeister”

Okay, Op you got awfully wound up about this eh? I can’t tell if you’re a troll or some kind of bleeding heart activist that wants to protest Tyrian behaviors. There’s GOT to be a better cause for you to fight the good fight for than what pixels did what to another pixel in a made up history…right?

Oh, please just grow up or gtf out of here. He’s clarified several times that his complaint is that the game doesn’t make enough effort to give context to the killing. All he’s asking for is a better set-up. Even if he wasn’t, what’s wrong with asking questions about how to improve the play environment so that it’s more of a convincing, immersive world, less of a shallow, colourful excuse for simpletons to keep pressing numbers on their keyboard in exchange for imaginary victories? Have some freaking soul.

Doolio”

Now, this is all, of course, my 2c, but generally, those things mentioned in the OP are consciously neglected errors, or maybe even enforced, for the sake of “greater good and appeal”. Which, of course, doesn’t take away from validity of your observations, but that’s another point.

Doolio – thank you for you’re posts and the insight they provide. At the end of the day, I guess I feel that developers do have their priorities wrong, or rather, that there’s a lack of creativity when it matters. There are, surely, potential solutions to many of the problems caused by the tension between practicality and believability, and I wish developers would invest more time in them.

One of the triumphs of Portal, for instance, was making the tutorial part of the game a fundamental part of the plot, rather than forcing the player to sit through an insanely unrealistic ‘training’ mission.

Among the many successes of Planescape was making your character immortal, so that the whole ‘dying and reloading’ cycle that breaks immersion is cleverly resolved. You die, and your character wakes up in the mortuary – genius.

Another great idea – basing the plot of Team Fortress 2 around the idea of pointless, endless battles between nutjobs over a silly dispute. Because that’s all a competitive FPS can ever amount to, so why not admit it? Why attempt (and inevitably fail) to convince the player that they’re an honourable, skilful freedom fighter partaking in a meaningful battle, when we can all have just as much fun playing a black comedy of constant undignifying death?

There’s a lot that the player will allow as being somewhat representative or metaphorical. This is why RPGs originated in stats and turn-based combat. The big mistake, as far as I can see, is taking many of the facets of the stats and turn-based approach and carrying it over into a ‘live action’ context. It’s like the uncanny valley – the closer a fake human gets to being like a real human (but not quite) the more freakish it is. So it is with the combat and other elements of this game. In my opinion, a lot more thought should have gone into rethinking things that are jarring in terms of reminding you you’re just some person tapping a keyboard, not an adventurer in a fantasy world. I think it’s entirely possible to do it better without sacrificing the necessary gaming elements.