Guild Wars 2

I never really understood the whole thing with Magic and Bloodstones, but as im doing roleplay and want to use magic on one of my Charakters i have some questions regarding this subject.

The Wiki says:
“The massive stone was sealed with King Doric’s blood and split into five pieces to limit the races’ ability to use magic. The first four segments rule over its respective school of magic: Preservation, Aggression, Denial, and Destruction. (…)
Because the four schools of magic are separated, no individual is capable of utilizing all forms of magic.”

First question: What are the different schools of magic, how do they look like? I mean Preservation should be pretty clear, Destruction as well. But what is the difference between Destruction and Aggression? And what on earth should i imagine under the magic of Denial?
Does anyone could explain this to me or give perhaps examples?

Second Question: " Because the four schools of magic are separated, no individual is capable of utilizing all forms of magic"
How does this influences the magic for roleplayers who want to keep to the lore? Does this really means a mage who can cast one single defensive spell can’t cast any offensive spells at all? This would be quite severe rules and most of the games classes/weaponskill sets/whole skills like Zealots Defense would go against the lore and had to be considered mere engine-stuff.
Or do i misunderstand something there and it is not as severe as i think?

I hope you or maybe even one of the Designers knows more about the subject and could answer my questions.

Think of Destruction magic as straight up things go boom (IE: fire magic). Aggression magic would be like a guardian using a teleport skill or Zealot’s Fire or a thief using a shadow step. Denial magic most likely refers to necromancer’s and mesmer type magics, like glyphs and illusions. Something like water magic would fall under Preservation. Elementalists can use Destruction and Preservation, but not the other two schools. See what I mean?

As for being capable of utilizing all types of magic, that more means that it’s impossible to practice multiple arts of magic. A guardian will have little or no talent for the mesmer arts, a necromancer would never be able to control the elements like an elementalist can, ect. In the first Guild Wars, players could practice a secondary profession but (from a lore standpoint at least) they were never as proficient with that art as someone who used it as their primary class.

If I’m remembering my lore correctly, that is.

1) I don’t think they typically have a “look” to them, but rather a theme. Destruction is the school of magic that Elementalists use (and this is the only case of a profession’s school of magic being confirmed); Necromancers are believed to use Aggression, Monks/Guardians are believed to use Preservation, Mesmers/Thieves to use Denial. What magic the other professions – if any – use is less generally agreed upon though my view is that Ritualists summon spirits to bypass this, though I suspect that they utilize aggression due to similarities to necromancers when spirits aren’t involved; similarly, I suspect Dervishes utilize Destruction, Paragons use Preservation, and GW2 Rangers (as GW1 Rangers showed no signs beyond nature rituals to use magic, and we don’t know _what- those are at all) may use Destruction (similar to the Elementalist in theme) or Preservation (most/all of their magic focuses on the same field as Guardians – lightning and healing/protecting).

2) No no, even Destruction magic can be used defensively! For example: you “destroy” the ground around you, and lift it up creating a barrier. This, I believe, is the fundamentality behind Earth Magic for elementalists. In a similar concept, if you create a forcefield bubble in Preservation magic intended to keep things out, and then give it fast momentum, it effectively acts as a magical wrecking ball – what I believe is the concept behind many guardian skills such as Zealot’s Defense.

What this means is that Mesmers can’t use Necromancer, Monk, and Elementalist skills all at once. In GW1, this was shown through the secondary profession system where you can only access two professions – and thus (at first at least) only two schools of magic. It’s impossible to use all three schools. As such, from a lore standpoint, in GW1 no more than one profession could have 2 schools of magic used – otherwise it’d be possible to use all four schools of magic by combining those two professions which use 2 schools (and 3 skills in a profession outright breaks it). So each profession must use 1 school each in GW1, with a possibly single exception (the biggest candidates being Ritualist and Dervish, with Dervish being the bigger).

GW2, however, seems to have a bit of preservation mixed into each class, what with the heavier focus of healing in each profession (some, such as myself, suspect this is due to a weakening of the Preservation bloodstone, believed to be the one in the Maguuma Jungle – in the area now known as the Maguuma Wastes). It is possible that professions have adapted to use 3 schools, but I think that more or less removes the point of the bloodstones in of itself, since 3 schools can be very devastating in of itself, so I find it unlikely.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

GW2, however, seems to have a bit of preservation mixed into each class, what with the heavier focus of healing in each profession (some, such as myself, suspect this is due to a weakening of the Preservation bloodstone, believed to be the one in the Maguuma Jungle – in the area now known as the Maguuma Wastes). It is possible that professions have adapted to use 3 schools, but I think that more or less removes the point of the bloodstones in of itself, since 3 schools can be very devastating in of itself, so I find it unlikely.

Sorry for not quoting your whole text. I disagree with this point (though you are making a good argument for the rest. Though all classes have healing skills I’m not sure if they come from the school of preservation. Like an ele destroy’s (the essence of) earth so it does its bidding, it does the same thing with water. Beside that, an ele in gw1 had healing skills allready like the glyph of restoration. wich has the same symbol as the signet of restoration and has almost the same effect.

A glyph or a signet is a word. And the precise effect behind the word is unknown, but it might be destructive in an unknown way while being restoring the user. actually. The skill needs to damage a foe to heal the caster. So its healing through damage.

We don’t know how elixer H is being made…
Ether feast is drawn from your illusions that helps you fight

Summon blood fiend is a dead minion,maybe made of the body of a monk??

My point is that all schools can be tight to a specifick effect, but the bottom line is that all can do a good amount of damage and self preservance. Even though gw1 didnt need self healing, every class could solo farm in hardmode and survive. The lack of monks now demands us to heal ourself, but thatdoesnt mean we couldn’t do that before….

It’s possible that such isn’t the case – it’s just my own personal theory given how healing is made much more prominent in GW2 – to an extensively higher degree than GW1. And how even the school of Preservation has a much more combative (and electrical) profession compared to GW1. In other words, I’m not saying self-healing was impossible in GW1 – I’m saying that it’s so great now that it seems like every profession is utilizing Preservation to boost the effect (which would then explain why we’re not using secondary professions anymore from a lore sense).

Also: signets are not words. They’re draw[n] and contain[ed] magic through intense study and the use of certain materials-‘signets’-and also with the blessing of all the Six. They’re materials which contain magic, the process of making such originating from Orr. (See also Signets of Capture quests in GW1).

I think the same theory you used about destruction magic used on a defensive way could be used to justify healing coming from every school. For example Assassins could use Shadow’s Refuge and Way of Perfection to gain a lot of healing, and they’re not the only example.

I think the change is the “concept” of how that happens. A Thief or a Mesmer “supposedly using Denial Magic” might be trained to affect their mind to heal themselves, like placebos so strong and “magical” that actually heal the body, instead of purity and white rays of light healing them.

Some heals also are related to ether (ether feast, ether renewal…), so there is the possibility too that ether is easily accesible through different schools, being a more “abstract” substance (ether is the “no element”, or the substance that forms the void, and in GW2 it’s related to the mists), and that this ether has healing properties and most heals actually use it even if they’re not naming it.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

1) I don’t think they typically have a “look” to them, but rather a theme. Destruction is the school of magic that Elementalists use (and this is the only case of a profession’s school of magic being confirmed); Necromancers are believed to use Aggression, Monks/Guardians are believed to use Preservation, Mesmers/Thieves to use Denial. What magic the other professions – if any – use is less generally agreed upon though my view is that Ritualists summon spirits to bypass this, though I suspect that they utilize aggression due to similarities to necromancers when spirits aren’t involved; similarly, I suspect Dervishes utilize Destruction, Paragons use Preservation, and GW2 Rangers (as GW1 Rangers showed no signs beyond nature rituals to use magic, and we don’t know _what- those are at all) may use Destruction (similar to the Elementalist in theme) or Preservation (most/all of their magic focuses on the same field as Guardians – lightning and healing/protecting).

Ritualists existed before Abaddon gave the gift of Magic to the races or Tyria so they were unaffected by the Bloodstone split and follow their own rules of Magic.

Source:

More than a thousand years ago, it is said, the gods of Tyria left this world behind—but not before granting the power of magic to the humans who lived there. Although Cantha was settled by humans hundreds of years before the northern continent, Canthan humans did not possess magical power as we currently understand it. Indeed, true magic seems to have appeared in Cantha at the same time it emerged in Tyria. Before this time, however, the Ritualist tradition was already long established.
According to historians, these early Ritualists from the pre-magic era relied on a similar power granted by the dead—by ancestors of the great and powerful who maintained a connection to their descendents. The power of Spirit allowed mortal humans to practice what might be seen as a form of magic. These human Ritualists adapted to true magic when the gods introduced it, but still rely on the Spirits of the dead to put these skills into practice. Unfortunately for scholars such as myself, the skills of the true Ritualist are no longer to be seen; but those that evolved from the merging of magic and Spirit certainly are widespread. Master Togo of Shing Jea Monastery, to name just one example, is a Ritualist of uncanny ability.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/An_Empire_Divided

Last part mentions how they adapted to the bloodstones and how their old abilities are no longer to be seen, which probably means their currently used magic like all other magics was contained in the process which put them on par with the others as apparently their adapted magic comes from the same source contained by the bloodstones and the old one apparently can’t be replicated.

maddoctor.2738:

Ritualists existed before Abaddon gave the gift of Magic to the races or Tyria so they were unaffected by the Bloodstone split and follow their own rules of Magic.

Source:
-snip-

I’m very well aware that ritualists predate 1 BE. However, you should read your own source more carefully:

“These human Ritualists adapted to true magic when the gods introduced it, but still rely on the Spirits of the dead to put these skills into practice. Unfortunately for scholars such as myself, the skills of the true Ritualist are no longer to be seen; but those that evolved from the merging of magic and Spirit certainly are widespread.”

Modern ritualists in GW1 use both magic from the Bloodstone and spirit-empowered magic. Meaning that they still use one of the schools of magic, but they can bypass the limitation the bloodstones created of the four schools through the use of spirits.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Modern ritualists in GW1 use both magic from the Bloodstone and spirit-empowered magic. Meaning that they still use one of the schools of magic, but they can bypass the limitation the bloodstones created of the four schools through the use of spirits.

Yes but if magic is to disappear for some reason, if the Elder Dragons consume it all, then the Ritualists could still use “supernatural” powers using their Spirit source.

By the way, on a similar topic, it is said that after spliting the bloodstones no mortal can master all forms of magic, but in Guild Wars 1 mortals could certainly use more than one (dual profession), was the link between the Bloodstones weakened over the last 250 years, to the point that nobody is able to master (at least) 2 schools?

Also, with the dual-profession system in GW1 someone might say that you could actually have access to all 4 schools, but not at the same time, in GW2 it seems like it’s not possible.

Not really – even the ritualists’ pre-Bloodstone division was magic. Magic doesn’t come from the Six Gods – it existed on Tyria long before they arrived, but was sealed in the Bloodstone by the seers (the actual makers of it). So if the Elder Dragons consumed all magic, that’d include Ritualists’ unique magic.

Indeed. What was referred to there as ‘true’ magic is the magic that the seers infused into the proto-Bloodstone, that was then broken into parts by the gods. That’s where most of the world’s magic is (apart from the dragons…) but it seems either the seers didn’t manage to get all of it, or Tyria has generated more since. Ritualists appear to had found a way to use that – if only to punch through the veil to call spirits of the dead that can evoke more powerful effects through their own magic (which is likely sourced from the Mists in general or the Underworld specifically, and is thus a source of magic independent of whatever happens in Tyria.

On the connection between professions and bloodstones:

The common consensus, as Konig says, is that elementalists are Destruction, mesmers Denial, necromancers Aggression and monks/guardians Preservation. Elementalists are the only ones that have been confirmed, true, but Denial and Preservation were fairly intuitive, with the assignment of necromancy and elementalism being the only ones that had been in real doubt.

Other professions are less clear-cut, but here are my thoughts:

Ranger: Destruction. The skills that are definitely magical are elementalist-like – Healing Spring foreshadowed GW2 healing water fields, while Thunderclap is also more elementalist than Preservation lightning (including sharing a name with a GW1 elementalist skill with a related effect). The ranger also has a lot of other elemental effects that may or may not be magic (but I’m inclined to think they are) – fire and frost traps, Winter’s Bite, and possibly other, more subtle effects.

Assassins/Thieves: Denial. In GW1 there was a question between aggression and denial, but GW2 thieves have disposed of most of the necromancer-like stuff and the mesmer and thief have generally come closer together.

Ritualists: Preservation. It’s tempting to connect Ritualists with Aggression due to their connection with the dead, but when you get down to it most of their necromantic effects are evoked through spirits (binding rituals, urns, weapon spells), not directly cast by the ritualist. The spells that are directly cast are healing spells and quasi-lightning effects – the first resembling monks, and the latter not matching anything necromancers have ever done.

Paragon: All but confirmed to be Preservation, due to paragons and monks rolling together to form the guardian.

Dervish: As Konig said, the dervish is the strange one, since it’s roughly evenly split between Preservation and Destruction. Given their close connection to the gods via the avatar skills, this is probably a case of using one directly, and the other coming as gifts from the gods.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Not really – even the ritualists’ pre-Bloodstone division was magic. Magic doesn’t come from the Six Gods – it existed on Tyria long before they arrived, but was sealed in the Bloodstone by the seers (the actual makers of it). So if the Elder Dragons consumed all magic, that’d include Ritualists’ unique magic.

Actually, this particular part of the lore changes depending on who and what you wish to believe. In GW1, magic was bestowed upon the intelligent creatures of Tyria by the 6 gods. In GW2, the Seers are credited with introducing magic.

Blame the writers, and simply choose which one you want to believe. Or even better, make up something yourself.

There’s only one canon – ever. In this case, human history is proven wrong – again. It’s called “retcon” by a writer’s view, but they coated over this by saying that what we were told in the History of Tyria was wrong because human history was altered (as first shown by Abaddon and how knowledge of him was removed – albeit poorly).

The “truth” (or “canon”) of the Bloodstone’s history is what we’re told in the Arah dungeon – the original was made by the Seers, and found, tampered with, and split by the Six Gods.

Also, the Seers are NOT credited with introducing magic. When they made the Bloodstone, they sealed magic in the Bloodstone. The Six Gods still bestowed magic upon the intelligent races of Tyria, specifically it was Abaddon, but they didn’t invent magic – they just took the container that’s the Bloodstone and let it release magic.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

There’s only one canon – ever. In this case, human history is proven wrong – again. It’s called “retcon” by a writer’s view, but they coated over this by saying that what we were told in the History of Tyria was wrong because human history was altered (as first shown by Abaddon and how knowledge of him was removed – albeit poorly).

The “truth” (or “canon”) of the Bloodstone’s history is what we’re told in the Arah dungeon – the original was made by the Seers, and found, tampered with, and split by the Six Gods.

Also, the Seers are NOT credited with introducing magic. When they made the Bloodstone, they sealed magic in the Bloodstone. The Six Gods still bestowed magic upon the intelligent races of Tyria, specifically it was Abaddon, but they didn’t invent magic – they just took the container that’s the Bloodstone and let it release magic.

Not really, no. If they get to choose which things they want to change from the original, then I get to choose which things I want to accept. You can say it’s their right to cut & paste content all you want, but what they(and you apparently) don’t understand is that that original art is already an established truth in and of itself, not to mention in the minds of those early players. It’s truth was beyond the bounds of any future editing a long time ago.

Truth, or “canon” as us nerds like to call it, can’t be redacted 5 years later simply because a new staff wants to take the lore in a new direction. They should have been both more responsible with this, as well as done a better job in keeping pace with the established lore. As it stands now, we might as well be playing two entirely different games.

No, Obsidian, you’re wrong. It’s called retcon. That’s doing exactly what you said: established lore (aka canon) being redacted sometime later (be it 5 years or 5 months or 5 decades) because the makers wanted to take the lore in a new direction. And they bypassed the “it’s a retcon” proclamation by not redacting it, but giving the coating of subjective truths – that people can be wrong in what they say. In this case, the History of Tyria is just a false document in the world.

In canon, it’s a fact that human legends proclaim that the Six Gods made the Bloodstone. It’s just that human legends are wrong, and the truth of the matter in the canon is that the seers made it. It isn’t “pick and choose what you like!” but “this is what we thought was the case, but this is how it really is.”

That’s a fact, if you don’t like it tough. Because despite your apparent beliefs, you cannot dictate what is canon or not – only the makers can. Trying to do so just results in making fanon.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

No, Obsidian, you’re wrong. It’s called retcon. That’s doing exactly what you said: established lore (aka canon) being redacted sometime later (be it 5 years or 5 months or 5 decades) because the makers wanted to take the lore in a new direction. And they bypassed the “it’s a retcon” proclamation by not redacting it, but giving the coating of subjective truths – that people can be wrong in what they say. In this case, the History of Tyria is just a false document in the world.

In canon, it’s a fact that human legends proclaim that the Six Gods made the Bloodstone. It’s just that human legends are wrong, and the truth of the matter in the canon is that the seers made it. It isn’t “pick and choose what you like!” but “this is what we thought was the case, but this is how it really is.”

That’s a fact, if you don’t like it tough. Because despite your apparent beliefs, you cannot dictate what is canon or not – only the makers can. Trying to do so just results in making fanon.

^ You’re right, only the makers can dictate it. The writers we have now are not the makers. If the same authors had "retcon"ed the lore, my argument would be rather weak. That the original lore was vague and incomplete in certain areas was a huge bonus for the current writers, and allowed for a wide change in direction.

And since when is “retcon” a good thing? Every source I’ve come across has a negative connotation attached to it. A quote from the source you gave me:

“Comic book fans will be familiar with the term ‘retcon’, which in layman’s terms means that the writer waves his hand and tells you ‘Remember when we said this? We screwed up, forget about that.’”

And this stuff isn’t even from the same staff as back then lol. It’s hilarious that they can simply label the entire human lore of Tyria as just a “legend” with a wave of the hand and move on. And to say that it was always intended as a legend from the beginning takes a huge leap of faith from the audience. Do you really think they started GW1 lore with the intention of editing large swaths of it and having it end up the way it does now? /facepalm

ArenaNet are the makers – even if the employees change, it’s still ArenaNet’s IP, and those who work at ArenaNet can write as they wish. And there are still employees from Prophecies working on the series, ya know – while there’s been quite a lot of change of hands there’s still a number of the old people around.

I never said a retcon is a good thing. I’m saying that’s what happened – from an internal development position as from an external reader’s position it’s just “new truths revealed the old truth was subjective and wrong” which isn’t so much retcon.

You make it sound like they’re just now showing that human history and, in turn, the manuals are wrong. But it’s been so since Prophecies, actually – in Prophecies, humans are shown to be liars or wrong quite a few times (White Mantle being the obvious, but there’s the Ascalonian view of the charr (easily missed would be how after Fort Ranik there’s side comments of “the charr don’t seem to be primitive mindless beasts as we once thought”), their belief of what happened with the Cataclysm and Khilbron’s relation (reporting it blowing up in a pillar of light with one survivor, when we knew even then that it didn’t blow up and that Khilbron was no survivor), and lets not forget how the manuals and all other tales except one line gives indication or outright states that the White Mantle were formed after the beginning of the Charr Invasion (occurred during 1070 to 1071), but in fact were around since 1067 AE)).

And even if you find those moments debatable, it’s undeniable its been such since Nightfall with Abaddon – but even then, there were hints in Prophecies about Abaddon’s existence (now, whether this was intended or not when making Prophecies…).

So it’s not just a “wave of the hand” since its been like this for years and it’s just that it’s becoming that more of human legends are not objective truth. Besides, this is no different than Thurln the Lost and the jotun legends being wrong, or charr legends being wrong. Guild Wars, unlike most games, has a knack of going against the fantasy game archtype of “all legends are truth,” and this has been around since Prophecies itself.

No, I don’t think they wrote up Prophecies intending to turn most of those human legends to be false. But what we do know is that from the get go Anet intended the games to be released in sets of three – thus up to Nightfall was planned since the get go, even if in minor bits (like how the lore behind Palawa Joko was, prior to Nightfall, literally a single line of dialogue). We also know that there were two plots intended and argued for using during Prophecies development, which is why Prophecies’ plot is so back-and-forth between threats. So it’s not impossible that their little internal lore bible had “this is the truth” written in it which was not available to us, the audience, in which case it wouldn’t have been a retcon when it was revealed.

Either way, all of this is pointless debating as it is a undeniable fact that you can’t just “pick and chose” between a subjective truth and objective truth for what’s really true.

Ofc there are peeps, like Gaile Gray for example, from the original still around, that wasn’t my contention ya know. It’s just not the same staff by a large margin. And “new truths revealed the old truth was subjective and wrong” is a retcon…it’s just their way of doing it without actually admitting to doing it.

And you’re using Prophesies inexact nature and story-telling method to justify your objective/subjective truth. Some humans were liars like anyone else would be, what difference does that make to the legitimacy of their representation? And a guy in Fort Ranik giving the Charr a compliment could just as easily be seen as foreshadowing of the Titan’s influence, and not of Charr intelligence. And how did Khilbron not survive the Cataclysm?? And a couple of years difference in the Searing date? Really?

I’m not sure where you get your information on GW specifically being a game that doesn’t do the “all legends are truth” thing. If you’re basing it purely off of GW2 lore then that’s misleading. Anyone can take an old story, write new material that contradicts certain details of that old story, then make claims on narrative truths because of holes in the previous plotline.

Two things really…

You mention picking and choosing between objective and subjective truths as if you aren’t doing the exact same thing. My contentions are based on a set of lore writings supported by in-game examples…your contentions are based on a set of lore writings supported by in-game examples. It’s sardonically convenient that yours happen to specifically downplay or discredit certain aspects of mine to further bolster its own legitimacy.

Secondly, you have to be pretty naive, or loyal I suppose, to not see how the current game isn’t a giant marketing grab for more players. GW1 sales were decent, and fairly consistent over the years, but they were never stellar. So how do you go about competing for market share with games like WoW? You find out what its strengths and weaknesses are and produce a game that is both original and relatable to a wide audience.

GW2 has a lot of features that are directly attributable to filling the market vacuum that WoW is slowly providing. They either eliminated or curtailed some of the nastier aspects of mmo’s that players have been complaining about for years: open world pvp griefing/ganking, the gear treadmill(this one they show some signs of rescinding on), leveling time, class discrimination(the old “lf healer” diatribe), etc. They also supported or improved upon some of the great things about mmo’s: ease of social interaction, faction choices to identify with, fair and balanced pvp(stealth complaints notwithstanding lol), group and solo content options, character customization, etc.

It’s that last one that should interest us here: character customization. Most other games have a wide variety of races to choose from. I don’t have figures on it, but it’s a pretty safe bet to say players like having that variety…a lot. And there’s only so many ways you can make humans look unique and special, right? GW2 having only humans would be a hindrance to future sales, and ANet knew it.

So…just add more into the mix. Boom, in EotN 4 more races introduced(Sylvari almost) complete with all the unique history and character you would expect from ANet. They are really just slightly different versions of tried and true fantasy archetypes(vikings, gnomes, elves), but they did a decent job of giving them their own place in the minds of players. There’s really only one problem. If players are going to play them, they need to feel like they are just as important to the world of Tyria as humans are. Unfortunately…humans absolutely dominate Tyrian history.

It’s a no-brainer really, if you think about it. ANet had to downplay humans for the sake of the other four races. And they worked hard to try and get players to play them. There’s dev interviews stating they wish more players would try out the other 4 races. There’s stellar voice acting brought in for the DE storyline. There’s amazing detail and artwork done on each races home city. There’s books written to promote them and get players excited for them. There’s tons of new lore that places them at the forefront in the war on the dragons. There’s the Charr Plushie…ugh.

The reason I have a contention with the Charr isn’t because I’m “pro-human” or anything, it’s mainly because they are the only race, of the new playable races, that had a previous history in Tyria. I can’t really find much fault with how the other three are portrayed since they have no antecedent here. But I do take issue with immensely reforging a race by using clever writing techniques and holes in the storyline. It’s disingenuous, which I’ve stated in a previous post.

Look, you can go out of your way to support how things turned out with the lore of GW2, that’s your right. Just like I can go out of my way to support how the lore was back then is my right. And no one here really knows what the original intentions of the game were, all you can do is judge it on what it was and how it was written. You say it was all “legend-speak” that was never meant to be taken factually. I say you’re wrong. Quibbling over little plotline inaccuracies and making rather remarkable leaps of faith on ANets intentions doesn’t cut it for a persuasive argument.

So…in the case of this particular forum post, if you get to state the equivalent of “this is how it is” over things that are obviously not set in stone, then I get to do the same. And until there comes a time when a legitimate authority can definitively decide these issues, it will remain subjective.

After reading this discussion, I don’t see how the lore of GW2 doesn’t fall in line with GW1. The human history part of that is human history. They haven’t been in Tyria (world) as long as some other races. They wouldn’t know the bloodstone was created before the gods used it and broke it. So their history reflects this, and their belief up until new information came out that this is how it was.

A RL example would be dinosaurs. Growing up everyones belief was they had skin like snakes and lizards. But as new information was found, we found some of them had feathers.

In GW2 we have a lot more information then we did in GW1. The new races showing up, Asuran from underground, the Kodan from way up north, and many others have been giving us new information and it changes the ways human look at the world around them.

In my opinion, I think the lore in GW2 falls in line with GW1, we are just learning new things that wasn’t available to us previously.

I would say that using our real-world legends and myths , and how we uncover those mysteries, is incompatible to a work of fiction. The things in Tyria don’t exist in and of themselves, just in the minds of the authors. There is nothing to say all of this existed at the beginning, highly improbable actually. There were most likely a few variations of the way the story might have unfolded in Prophesies, and there were a few inconsistencies, but on the whole it was pretty straight forward.

“They wouldn’t know the bloodstone was created before the gods used it and broke it. So their history reflects this, and their belief up until new information came out that this is how it was.”

^ This really interests me, I keep seeing this crop up in here. Where does it say or imply, without using GW2 sources, that the lore of GW1 was all intended to be mythical? Is there some dev post from back then that I haven’t seen? Is there some legitimate source that shows this to be true?

If there was all of this material available from the get-go, that is one massive pile of knowledge that they sat on for all of these years. It’s hard to believe none of it is ever heard of until EotN and the subsequent books.

When I play, I am my character. I am looking at this from the PC. If I look at it outside, then all the GW1 campaigns don’t make sense, they don’t line up right. Nothing in GW2 makes sense either.

But that isn’t how we are supposed to look at it. When looking at the lore of a game, you are supposed to be looking at it from the point of view of the PC. That is why you make these characters, to play as them. That is the purpose of an RPG. Your point of view is right when you just look at them from the outside looking in, but that isn’t the way they were designed to be looked at.

Retcon is what the writers use to describe a change from the original telling, but in game it is a change based off of new information being presented to the PC, just like how I used my example above. You are trying to make more out of this then there needs to be. All lore should be viewed from the PC perspective not ours here in RL.

Hmm, I disagree. Role-playing is a state of mind, not something you assume when you turn on the game. I’m not saying anyone is wrong for RP’ing, it’s just that it isn’t something that is inherent in how anyone appreciates the game. Seeing as it’s a work of fiction, I look at it from the point of view of the authors and how the game plays out in terms of style and form.

For myself, I’m looking at this as an artform, and not a “real” world necessarily. Just like you would read a poem and try to discern the authors meaning and tone, I played the game immersing myself in the world and feel of Tyria. But I never made the jump to individual sympathy that you seem to make, but rather to general empathy for the whole player experience.

To me, to say GW1 was just a narrow-minded view of Tyria predicated on some mythological hogwash does a disservice to it. It exists on its own merits and is independent of being “edited” by another. You wouldn’t think it ok for someone to fill in the shapes in Picasso’s “Guernica” with bright colors and claim “NOW it’s complete” would you?

I am not a RP’er in the since that you are stateing. I don’t go around acting or talking like I am that character. But I view the world of Tyria through his eyes and learn the lore through them also.

But a game world is a living place, not static, and always has room to grow or change. That is what the writers did here, they grew and changed things to continue the story of Tyria. Most of what changed can be explained in how I was talking earlier about having more information.

But I can tell that my opinion on it and yours won’t match up. But this is how I see the world of Tyria and the information we have on it.

In GW1, we had the information the humans had at the time. In GW2, we have the information all the five races have and then some. Naturally, when new information is gained, some old information will be proven false. And really, humans didn’t know much of the world in GW1. With that, there wasn’t much that could have been done without any retcons.

I would say a game world’s present and future are not static. It’s past is, just like any history. The only thing that would change it is how one interprets that past. And I wouldn’t say new information has to make some old info false, that’s a general assumption on your part.

The real question to ask might be simply whether or not the original authors meant the GW1 story to be something akin to an “origin story” as draxynic stated in another post, with myth and legend a large part of that story. If it was, then I’m wrong. But if it wasn’t, there is merit to what I say.

But asking that question to the modern staff is not the best way to go about it. Granted there are some still employed at ANet since 2005, but how many of those are writers or had a stake in the lore of the game back then? It’s bad research to get your information second-hand.

I never said it “has” to make some old info false. I am just saying in this case it did. Not everything we learned for GW1 has changed. We just learned some things humans thought were wrong and with the new information we know what they are.

Plus you are making an assumption that a lot of ANET people left. I have never really seen that any where before. Plus all the lore that was used in GW1 and the information that wasn’t used would be documented so when time came for new lore or expansions to existing lore they could review it and make decision where to go. The decision was made to add new information obtainable by the PC that proved that some aspects of GW1 human history was wrong and we now know the difference.

Erm…that part of my response was for Tuomir. I was answering both of you in one post, sorry.

It’s not so much an assumption really, you can find out who was on the staff back then. They’ve also grown as a company since then so there’s probably plenty of additions. Ree and Jeff in particular, two who have a lot to do with the lore, were not there in the beginning. I suppose I could find other names, those were just the two that caught my eye since they tend to be a public face for the company at times.

If new information overlaps existing old information, and the new information is true (as one would expect if it has already passed as information in a matter such as this, then the existing information that differs from the new must be false. Simple logic.

@Obsidian: I was actually thinking of John Stumme – a fan of GW1 who became QA during Prophecies and designer before Factions iirc, who went to work on GW2 before being put as lead for GW1’s Live Team.

Anyways, this whole argument is pointless. Deal with the fact: You CANNOT pick and chose which situation you want. The new information is the actual case – both lines are canon, but in canon one line is wrong, and that’s human legends (because in GW, legends are seldom right compared to historical research).

I know Obsidian feels strongly about this and i can see his point. that a works origional intent is it’s purest form. The issue i ahve is that as an artist, i know any piece of work is likely going to change and evolve as it gets worked on. this is especialy true of a piece of art like the still living world that is Tyria. The only time one can reasonably expect that same piece of art to remain static is if it is ‘finished’. but i think every mmo designer hopes to create something that will last more than one iteration, patch and even game. something that continues to live on is going to change in some way shape or form unless you only ever add to something without ever addressing what was already created. in wich case, what was already created might as well be dead becasue it retains the qualities of a pitiful ghost constantly relivivng the same few moments of it’s existance.

I see what you did there Dust, clever analogy. XD

First, what kind of artist are you. I’m just curious really, I don’t run across many living in dullsville USA lol.

Second, I see your point on the “finished” aspect. Yeah, I would think every game designer/writer/etc would like to see his/her works “well-liked” and able to be expanded upon. It makes sense. I just don’t think that they produced GW1 with a mindset like “well I hope it sells, because this is just the intro patch for the real game.” …I’m over-exaggerating but you get my point.

I think they made a complete game. It was very well received so they made a “sequel.” Same results then another “sequel.” By the time a 4th installment was in the works they realized they had a really strong following and had to make a choice: use the same aging game-engine for another expansion, or create an entirely new game platform using the same world as before.

Obviously they chose the second, which was almost assuredly the right thing to do given the rate of technology improvements. My issue is simply that they chose to bend or change certain aspects of GW1 lore to better suit their current needs. I don’t buy the argument that GW1 lore was always supposed to be human “legend-speak” for lack of a better word. We never hear about that from ANet anywhere at all, and please inform me if I am wrong on this, until GW2 information starts being released.

They could have made GW2 without this selective lore reshaping, but they chose not to. Probably for the “multi-race” reasons I stated above, but that is just my theory, I can’t prove it. If GW1 lore was originally meant to exist in a “pseudo-mythical sense” I wish someone with some authority would comment on it. :P

Obsidian.1328:

I just don’t think that they produced GW1 with a mindset like “well I hope it sells, because this is just the intro patch for the real game.”

And here, you’d be wrong. Before Prophecies’ release (or was it Factions’? Drax would know more than me) they talked about how they intended to have the full story shown in steps of three – meaning that from the get go they were planning up to Nightfall, even if not in detail.

The first “full” story would have been Prophecies, Factions, and Nightfall. But they in of themsleves were their own complete game.

Obsidian.1328:

My issue is simply that they chose to bend or change certain aspects of GW1 lore to better suit their current needs. I don’t buy the argument that GW1 lore was always supposed to be human “legend-speak” for lack of a better word.

No, not all of it. But from the very beginning, the History of Tyria – the sole source of the Six Gods having been the creators of the Bloodstone iirc – was by all indication not entirely truthful since Nightfall, not GW2. And other facts of the Prophecies manual was “wrong” since Prophecies as well.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Obsidian.1328:

I just don’t think that they produced GW1 with a mindset like “well I hope it sells, because this is just the intro patch for the real game.”

And here, you’d be wrong. Before Prophecies’ release (or was it Factions’? Drax would know more than me) they talked about how they intended to have the full story shown in steps of three – meaning that from the get go they were planning up to Nightfall, even if not in detail.

The first “full” story would have been Prophecies, Factions, and Nightfall. But they in of themsleves were their own complete game.

Obsidian.1328:

My issue is simply that they chose to bend or change certain aspects of GW1 lore to better suit their current needs. I don’t buy the argument that GW1 lore was always supposed to be human “legend-speak” for lack of a better word.

No, not all of it. But from the very beginning, the History of Tyria – the sole source of the Six Gods having been the creators of the Bloodstone iirc – was by all indication not entirely truthful since Nightfall, not GW2. And other facts of the Prophecies manual was “wrong” since Prophecies as well.

Uhh…what? I said GW1 not Proph. You just argued against the same thing you are supporting. Regardless, they still have to make each game stand on its own two feet, if only for marketing purposes. You make one…hope it sells, then make another, etc. I put “sequel” in quotes up there because it was not an exact fit as a definition. Apparently that wasn’t enough of a disclaimer for you. :/

And then,

Lol, you did it again. I said they changed certain aspects and you reply with “no, not all of it”

dot dot Dot

And what is it about NF that is so convincing in your eyes to dismiss the gods as creators of the bloodstones? I don’t see any valid case for that.

~ Also, what does “iirc” mean?

A mere misinterpretation as thus far you’ve been arguing all about Prophecies’ lore being changed in GW2, and I’ve been trying to show that Prophecies’ lore was shown as “wrong” in GW1 in the same manner as it is in GW2.

As for your last question – I’m saying facts from the History of Tyria (and elsewhere in Prophecies/Prophecies’ manual) not that specific fact have been proven wrong (in part) in all three campaigns of GW1. What’s the most obvious thing NF proves wrong? Abaddon.

Also, iirc means “if I remember correctly”

Nah, I was arguing GW1 lore being changed, and using examples from Proph to support that. It’s not the same thing.

What about Abaddon in NF refutes Proph? That he was behind the Titans, the Searing, the Cataclysm, and Shiro’s fall? None of that refutes Proph, or Factions for that matter. Or if it’s something else, please elaborate a tad more that just “Abaddon.”

The mere existence of Abaddon was removed from history – this was the explanation given for why there’s no mention of him, why there’s always only ever been Five Gods, and why the gods on a whole were attributed with granting magic when it was Abaddon alone who did the task.

Abaddon’s mere existence screams “The History of Tyria isn’t completely correct!” – all Anet did was expand on this.

Your “GW1 lore being changed” has been happening within GW1 itself. I see no reason why it happening in GW2 is any more of a fallacy than it happening in the second or third installment of GW1. Its the same exact situation, just a different installment of the series that it happens in, and different pieces which are being “altered” (though not really).

So, let me get this straight…

Since the gods wanted to wipe Abaddon from the records, peeps just assumed magic came from them. But it actually came from Abaddon as we find out as the game progresses.

What in the world does that have to do with anything?? We’ve already been over how it was specifically Abaddon and not all 6 that did the “bestowing.” I think it was your 2nd response to me like 4 days ago. lol

So…all three games eventually work up to this showdown with Abaddon, which sheds light on some particulars about magic. And you think because of that light veil that was pulled over our eyes early on, that none of it can be really trusted now? Are you cereal??

It was a plot device dude…if they told you how everything ended right from the start there’d be no anticipation, and really bad storytelling I might add. We also thought the Mantle were good guys too…until we got to Maguuma. Does that make the Krytan parts of the lore suspect?

The failure to mention Abaddon by npc’s in the early game can’t be your best evidence here. At least I hope it isn’t because that is a really poor argument.

Actually what he says makes more sense then whay you say Obsidian. Since the three GW1 games are stand alones, the lore from Prophcies gets changed in Nightfall. Same principle here, the lore from GW1 gets changed in GW2. It is all based on having more information, learning more as new things come out. It is the same as what I stated above.

We learned more information in Nightfall that changed the thinking we got from prophcies. How are you having trouble understanding the concept. It is the same thing. How many of us have to explain the concept and give you examples before you either give up trying to force your point or see where we are coming from.

“It was a plot device dude”

A plot device that did the exact same thing you’re saying to dislike now. As Hjorje said, all three games were stand alone. Although they constitute as “Guild Wars 1”, they’re still three separate games, just linked together. Nightfall “overwrites” (by which I mean expands upon through revelations of truth over lies) Prophecies lore just as Guild Wars 2 “overwrites” (by which I mean expands upon through revelations of truth over lies) Prophecies lore.

Ok, here goes my rant…

Do you honestly think that withholding certain details about Abaddon in the “trilogy” equates to the same writing device that is used in the monumental changes that take place in GW2? Do you? Because if you do we have a serious impasse to solve here.

You said each GW1 game can basically stand on it’s own laurels. Agree. You said they are all linked in the end by a common theme. Agree. What is that theme? Well, the writers chose Abaddon as the overriding force behind all of the calamity in those games. The Titans influence on the Charr caused the Searing, and then the Cataclysm(with the help of one of Aba’s agents in Khilbron’s ear). And apparently, Aba also influenced Shiro through the old woman fortune-teller…basically driving him to unleash Afflicted and Shiro’ken throughout Cantha and eventually regain his mortality by killing Togo. And in Nightfall, he’s pretty much center stage throughout the whole campaign.

Were Proph and Factions originally written with Nightfall’s conclusion in mind? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows! My guess is no, but that isn’t important here. What’s important is that the writer(s) found a way to link all three games without changing the essential character and context of each individual game. Oh they failed to mention Aba in Proph? Well let’s find a reason why the gods would do that that makes sense.

It’s called being responsible to the essence of the storyline. What little tweaks they made to the lore in GW1 during its life were done with the thought in mind that it should stay true to the conventions that were laid down with the original game. It’s a fairly simple, not to mention desirable, concept to have. You don’t just start throwing in things that wouldn’t make much sense to established lore conventions at will. You honor, if you will, the colossal amount of time, dedication, and creativity that went into those games by introducing new elements that fit within the framework of the game world…in this case Tyria.

That’s what they did with those first 3 games. Factions and Nightfall were both beautiful additions to Proph, most would say better even by content and visual standards, including me. But they overwhelmingly fit inside the spirit and essence that is(was?) Guild Wars Tyria.

And what do we have in Tyria today…

Humans without gods because apparently they are scared of the dragons. Or are on vacation. Or something. We don’t know yet really. Oh and it wasn’t the gods who gave humans access to all of those skills/spells in GW1, it was the Bloodstones. All those alters strewn across Tyria that gave you magical boons when you prayed to them…you were really praying to 4 rocks. Who knew!

Charr who are not only not savage, but braniacs! Yeah, see, it was their silly belief in false-gods(Titans) keepin them stupid. Once they bailed on those losers, they woke up and started using Pythagorean theorem and calculus and now can build tanks and mobile artillery. Who knew!

Norn who look exactly like humans, just twice as tall, living right under the dwarves noses this whole time. They drink a lot and throw beer kegs at each other for fun. They are basically vikings but can change into animals when they get mad. Oh and they worship nature spirits. No, not Melandru, different ones that are like animals and have always been here…somewhere. Who knew!

Asura who know everything about everything…and make sure you know that they know everything. They’ve been living under the mountains this whole time. Dwarves didn’t know about them either lol, they were probably drunk. Asura are basically gnomes with big ears and sharp teeth. They worship the Eternal Alchemy…it’s some invisible magical matrix that is everywhere. It’s like the Force. It’s been here forever too, apparently part of the magic of the Bloodstones’ the Seers created way back before the human gods arrived. Who knew!

Aaand the Sylvari. Don’t let the name fool you, they aren’t elves. They look like elves, and act like elves, and talk like…well…they talk like British. But they came from a tree! Yup, born right out of it like apples and oranges. They worship dreams, err…The Dream I mean. It’s some nature spirit(again, not Melandru) that guides them subconsciously and sends them on Wyld Hunts just like the Native Americans do. They’ve been around only a little while, but one of them runs the whole multi-national anti-dragon campaign already.

Now before I get infracted for being disrespectful to ANet staff, let me say I was merely being sarcastic for dramatic reasons.

Truthfully, each one of the races in GW2 today are very well-written and you can tell an immense amount of time and effort went into their creation and portrayal in the game. The home cities alone are wonders of human imagination. And I applaud ANet designers for that.

But honestly, how in the heck do they fit into the world of GW1 Tyria in any reasonable way? And it’s not just the races either, they are just a very good way to show my point. The sheer volume of changes, in Tyrian culture, politics, and character, that were implemented for GW2 vastly changed the identity of Tyria as it existed in the first 3 games. If you took away place-names and changed some geography, you would hardly know you were on the same planet.

And yet…you think using a plot device(or lore ommision, or whatever) in GW1 to tie all 3 campaigns together for the sake of continuity…is essentially the same thing as the changes they made with GW2.

I’m dumbfounded.

A world can change a great deal in 200 years, just look what happened to ours from the 19th century to present day. Awesome and absolutely terrifying things happened in that small amount of time. Now add magic to the mix, and the progression of Tyria is entirely possible.

Obsidian.1328:

It was a plot device dude…if they told you how everything ended right from the start there’d be no anticipation, and really bad storytelling I might add. We also thought the Mantle were good guys too…until we got to Maguuma. Does that make the Krytan parts of the lore suspect?

Actually, if you look at the Krytan parts of the Prophecies Manuscripts and read between the lines a bit, it becomes pretty clear that the White Mantle is a religiously oppressive government. The description of the difference in living conditions between the White Mantle and the rest, the line about the WM providing ‘access to books’ to its members implying by extension that the non-Mantle are being effectively denied an education – it paints a clear picture of a society where, at best, non-Mantle are officially second-class citizens.

Most of the rest of what you’re railing against is actually stuff that fits with what we knew in GW1:

First and most importantly, magic was clearly not something that the gods had direct control over. If all magic came as a direct gift of the gods and Abaddon was imprisoned and unable to grant it himself, would they really have granted it to the charr in order to be used for the Searing? Or continued to grant it to members of the White Mantle who were bent on wiping out the faith of the old gods? Most likely not, but we see magic just as widespread among those that the gods would view as enemies as among their friends, including magical forms most directly associated with the gods (such as monk magic). Clearly, magic comes from something the gods had little direct control over – they were able to change the rules of magic, but they couldn’t make one of the rules ‘you must worship us’ or otherwise control what people did with it within the rules.

It does seem as if the blessing of the gods can improve someone’s proficiency with magic – which is what the effect of the statues is – along with granting other benefits. However, they can also enhance someone’s skill with fighting abilities that have nothing to do with magic. Still, at the bottom line, the recently revealed origin of the Bloodstones does not conflict with that part of the Prophecies manuscripts – we always knew that the gads granted (increased) magic to the world, now we simply know how they did it. Maybe knowing that the gods utilised an artifact of an elder race to do so rather than simply granting magic to the world through their own power is reducing the strength of the gods through our eyes – but there are examples of similar stories in real-world mythologies (consider how Odin lost his eye, for instance), and if you ask me, that very reduction in perceived power could be exactly why the gods neglected to mention just how they did it. After all, worshippers that don’t know the truth about where magic comes from are that much more likely to regard it as the gift of the beings that taught them how to use it.

The other things you’ve brought up are also largely explainable:

The rapid turnaround of charr technology is a reflection of a trope that actually commonly comes up in fantasy settings – namely, that magic can serve as an impediment to technological progress. This is because the study of magic and the development of technology are often competing for the same pool of talent – every person of intelligence that chooses to apply themselves to magical studies is that much less likely to work on developing technology, and there’s that much less incentive to develop a machine to do something when there’s a magic-user that can already provide a means of doing it more quickly and efficiently than the machine. When the charr threw down the shamans, they made a conscious decision to seek alternatives to relying on magic, and that lead to the development of technology where humans continued to view magic as default aim of intellectual study until they started seeing the results of technological development.

It’s also worth noting that the charr technological revolution wasn’t entirely through their own efforts – they got a big kick-start through plundering what the dwarves left behind.

Norn and asura, despite your assertion, were actually known to the dwarves… they just didn’t mention them to humans before EOTN. Or maybe they did, and stories of them are among the dozens of things that every Tyrian would know but we players do not.

The main difference between GW1 and GW2 lore is actually not magic or any of the above, but that in GW1 we thought the gods were responsible for creating the world, when it’s now been shown that the (pre)history of the world predates the arrival of the gods by a long time. However, it remains GW2 lore that many races believed that the gods created the world, and there are indications that the gods found Tyria in a ruined state and repaired it, an event that many races came to view as the act of creation. Most of the other differences in the lore of the two games can really be traced to this fundamental shift – however, it remains a part of GW2 lore that at the time of GW1, humans, charr, and possibly other races as well believed that the gods created Tyria.

drax

Look, if you break it down into technicalities, there’s very little that I could rail against. A lot of what they did with GW2 has specific antecedents to details(or lack thereof) in GW1. I mean, they had to make it possible at the very least. Otherwise, a lot more people would be hollering a unified “wth!?”

Yeah, the Mantle start looking kind of shifty after the 1st or 2nd mission in Kryta, but when you first come into contact with them you don’t really suspect anything.

You’re right about magic being something that everyone has access to, regardless of background. I’d have to concede that point.

As for the Charr revolting against the shamans, that wasn’t really mentioned until EotN came about. Same with the known existence of the Norn and Asura. That expansion was a giant lore-patch that starts to take the game into a new direction.

Just about everything new in Tyria can be explained through either vague or absent GW1 lore, the progress of time, or clever writing that expands upon previously unexplored aspects of Tyria. However, that’s not really the core of my argument.

The question that I wish GW2 writers had asked themselves isn’t could we shape the world this way…meaning can we make it work and believable within the current framework of the story. But rather should we do this…meaning are we doing GW1 justice with this new direction. After all, they are borrowing heavily from a previously existing story. Wouldn’t you want to make sure it’s a good fit?

Here’s some questions that should have been asked:

Do we really need to bring in other playable races for this? They already had cultural diversity within the first game, why bring in cliche’d fantasy tropes at all?

..and the obvious follow-up question…

If we do, should we severely diminish the pre-existing human cultural distinctions in Tyria? Was it really the right thing to do to demolish the “Canthan” themed section of DR, or entertain the idea of not bringing back Cantha at all? Or Elona?

Do we really want to introduce more modern technology into the game? Magic already provided ample wonder and intrique, is gunpowder tech really something that we want to expand upon if it’s going to change the social landscape of Tyria?

Should we downplay the significance of the gods because the plot actually allows for it? Why mess with this basic story component at all? What’s the reason behind ANet’s decision to do this when it was working so well for them already?

Should we eliminate inherent conflict themes for the sake of a new one that has no historical context? Does the current “Us vs the Dragons” theme even make sense given Tyrian politics and history?

Should we downplay darker elements of the game to bring in a younger audience? Is it more important to try and bring in new fans, or cater to old fans? Or try to find some middle ground that satisfies both?

Should we subtly push the players into a specific over-arching moral code? Is it even our right to push certain moral stances on the player base? Or should we let them make those decisions on their own?

In my opinion, these are the kinds of questions that should have been investigated more adequately. It’s hard for me to look at this game now without thinking NCSoft, and ANet by default, gave mass appeal such huge import that most everything else had to conform to that decision. It seems obvious to me, however unpopular it seems to be here, that the lore decisions made for GW2 were done in such a way as to make sure they didn’t hinder that push for mass appeal in any way.

Architects have a saying: form follows function. It’s not supposed to be the other way around. :/

Obsidian

Reading your questions above I will give my opinion on them.

_If we do, should we severely diminish the pre-existing human cultural distinctions in Tyria? _ This question right here has been discussed in another thread in the General Discusssion area. This is not ANET intent here. NCSOFT is the reasont he Canthan themed section was taken out of DR at the last minute. There was no time to make changes to it. Also, Cantha and Elona will make an appearance later on down the line. I think ANET team will make the changes required to bring them back.

_Do we really want to introduce more modern technology into the game? _ Charr never liked magic. We have known that. So why would it not make since for a race that doesn’t used magic much, to not move along with tech. They also learned a lot from the drawves as was stated above. Well drawven ruins.

_Should we downplay the significance of the gods because the plot actually allows for it? _ If you look at it, the gods were already on the way out when EotN came out. They seen how things happened when they helped to much. Also the dragons consume magic, and with the gods being as powerful as they are, the dragons would target them if they did come back to the world in some sense and this would put all the races in even more danger then they already are.

_Should we eliminate inherent conflict themes for the sake of a new one that has no historical context? _ Within any history, there are stories where two groups who didn’t get along or had bad politics with each other unite to fight a greater threat. They would have never united if the threat hadn’t presented itself. We this is GW1. Asacalon and Kryta didn’t get along at all, and we know they put those differences aside to help against the Charr.

Should we downplay darker elements of the game to bring in a younger audience? Not sure on this one. It seems to me that GW1 and GW2 each share about the same in dark elements. Don’t know what you are talking about here.

_ Should we subtly push the players into a specific over-arching moral code? _ Now this one makes no sense. All games push players a certain way. It is the hero aspect of the game. Not many games give you the choice to be bad or be good. GW1 did the same thing. This thread has been talking about changes made from GW1 to GW2. Nothing on this changed at all, this is the same as GW1.

Hjorje

Well, you didn’t address my first question, but if you took Charr out of the equation what would your answer to my tech question be?

If NCSoft can get ANet to completely erase a section of DR right before release, how hard is it to believe they will pull the plug on Cantha? Elona might make the cut, we don’t know yet, but Cantha is still suspect in NCSoft’s eyes because of some style qualities(architectural?) that might be offensive to certain real-life cultures. Regardless of which entity did it, they’ve demonstrated they can and will do it if they want.

The gods weren’t on the way out after Nightfall, EotN is more GW2 than 1 as far as I’m concerned. But if anything they had demonstrated that they are still around and very much interested in Tyria. Also, wasn’t the point of that encounter to get humans to try and do it on their own without direct intervention by the gods? That’s the opposite of helping too much.

True about Kryta and Ascalon helpin each other out with the Charr back then. But while those inter-human rivalries definitely existed in Proph, they were hardly touched as a plot device after you leave Ascalon, why not expand on them? Nightfall did a decent job of it, but that conflict was more about Abaddon using humans as chess pieces than it was about actual rivalry. The only campaign that really dealt with this was Factions with the Kurzic and Luxons. From what I’ve heard over the years, this rivalry was a fan-favorite.

The darker elements? This one is obvious to me, but equally not obvious to a lot of others. Somehow half of the players think GW2 is just as serious and dark as 1, while half think it’s Disney World. How ANet achieved this balanced disparity is honestly amazing. But meh, if you don’t see it then you don’t see it.

I have to really disagree with you on this last one. I didn’t say giving me the choice of being good or bad, I meant trying to force me into a moral stance that I don’t agree with. It seems like almost every personal quest I hear this protracted diatribe on ANets version of doing the right thing, in dozens of different ways, over and over and over. It’s oppressing, not to mention arrogant.

GW1 was just the opposite: too simplistic overall, but you never felt like you’re being beaten over the head by a nun. You’re a game hero, not a student in an ethics class. There are already some posts on the differences between 1 & 2 on this subject actually.