Guild Wars 2

jheryn.8390:

What people are trying to say is not that all lore has been thrown out the window, but that it can be.

If this is all they’re saying then they are right. This is how it works. Lore continually gets created. Since fallible humanity won’t be able to check every angle of every aspect there is inevitable inconsistencies. In order to deal with those inconsistancies, creators can go different routes. They can try to come up with a way for both things to be true. They can create a lore information higher archy. Or they can just leave it as an inconsistency.

But raging about the inevitable is childish and useless.

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

I think many are missing a key point. It isn’t just that some minor date has been changed, it is the fact that things are being changed at all.

In any large world lore, inconcistancies are inevitable. Because they are created as we go. They aren’t based on actual event that we can just look back on. planning can help minimize it but there will always be things that need changing.

Again, it isn’t inconsistencies that people are complaining about, it is the fact that the lead writer for ANet said lore is malleable. Meaning they can change it at a whim.

Large world lore or not, saying that continuity is meaningless is just pure disregard for the content that came before it. Many people play this game for the story solely. Many people play it for the story as well as the skills. That is why lore and consistency is important to people.

They have one of two choices.

- leave it inconsistent so that lore fans have no direction

-provide a direction so that there is actually lore to discuss.

In the inevitable inconsistency, lore is always malleable.

Maybe this is a good reason why they should never do any more lore interviews, or even talk about anything in the game outside of previews of content?

Dustfinger.9510:

RedStar.4218:

JMadFour.9730:

again, le sigh.

And again you can’t explain their reasoning aside from “It’s Anet, they can do whatever they want”.

So JMad not working for anet is somehow proof of something?

It’s proof that his missing the point. Why bother outright telling us “don’t believe our interviews” when everything was fine if she had been born in 1308.

This isn’t a change in order to tell a greater story. This isn’t a change to make things consistent.
It’s a change because ? Well aside from not keeping tabs on dates, I can’t figure out how making Secondborns 6 years younger is any important.

Maybe there’s going to be a major plot showing this change to be extremely important. Or not.

RedStar.4218:

Dustfinger.9510:

RedStar.4218:

JMadFour.9730:

again, le sigh.

And again you can’t explain their reasoning aside from “It’s Anet, they can do whatever they want”.

So JMad not working for anet is somehow proof of something?

It’s proof that his missing the point. Why bother outright telling us “don’t believe our interviews” when it everything was fine if she had be born in 1308.

This isn’t a change in order to tell a greater story. This isn’t a change to make things consistent.
It’s a change because ? Well aside from not keeping tabs on dates, I can’t figure out how making Secondborns 6 years younger is any important.

Maybe there’s going to be major plot showing this change to be extremely important. Or not.

Unless you actually work for anet you can’t say what the reason is or isn’t. Maybe it really is important to future content.

lordkrall.7241:

Maybe this is a good reason why they should never do any more lore interviews, or even talk about anything in the game outside of previews of content?

This. Takes care of the rage and makes sure there is never any interest generated in the lore to begin with.

JMadFour.9730:

RedStar.4218:

JMadFour.9730:

again, le sigh.

And again you can’t explain their reasoning aside from “It’s Anet, they can do whatever they want”.

I don’t know Anets reasoning, because I don’t work for Anet.

However, I do know that this isn’t a new development. The hierarchy of Lore is pretty constant in every video game. what happens in the Game supercedes all. Doesnt mean that nothing else matters, only that the Game matters more.

And no one is arguing that. But when we are given something as canon (from an outside source) and then it gets changed because the devs felt like it and not because it serves a greater purpose is stupid and wrong. Like I said in a previous post, what purpose does it make to change when Scarlet was born, which changes the established time Secondbournes we born.

This also means anything that is canon from outside sources can’t be taken seriously since it doesn’t really matter if it doesn’t fit with a story they are doing. Then why give us outside sources if they don’t matter.

Hey this is the lore section, share you theories on how it could be important. It’s what people around here do.

If you aren’t here to share theories and tell us we are childish, you are completely free to leave this forum.

Unless you are right now telling us, since no one works for Anet, the lore section is useless. Which with the recent news, I completely agree with you.

jheryn.8390:

Yet you continue to argue. And continue to miss the point.

Apparently you cannot focus on the bigger picture and continue to fixate on the singular instance of the date of Scarlet’s birth instead of what such changes represent.

the change represents what is a standard procedure in Video Games as a whole. What happens in The Game supercedes what was said in an Interview years ago. What happens in the Game supercedes what happened in a Book or a Short Story. If the Dev sees fit to change an Interview detail through an In-Game event, then that is their prerogative. This does not mean that everything should automatically be thrown out just because they changed something.

Things change, what matters is WHAT changed, how OFTEN things change, and how much of an effect on the Game Lore it has. and in this, it is you all who cannot see the bigger picture.

I don’t understand the overreactions here. Out Of Game Lore being able to be contradicted by InGame Lore was ALWAYS a possibility. This isn’t new. and it doesn’t mean that ALL the lore is going to be changed. Just that it COULD be.

but you are correct. I continue to argue. and I shouldn’t.

You all have fun with your tantrums about out of game Lore being able to be changed, even though ingame Lore has and will always supercede out-of-game Lore. Because that is how Lore in Video Games works.

lordkrall.7241:

Maybe this is a good reason why they should never do any more lore interviews, or even talk about anything in the game outside of previews of content?

Agreed.

and I’m not being sarcastic this time.

if anything said in an interview is set in stone and can never, ever, ever, ever, be changed ever…then it is honestly better to never say anything at all.

Another thing to keep in mind (whilst it is sad) is that I seem to recall that Konig have rage-quitted at least once before, so I wouldn’t take this as a permanent quit either.

And the whole situation is quite silly.
Should they really be hold accountable to things that they said MONTHS before the game was even released, when said things was never presented in-game? A few months can change loads of stuff in development.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

I have loved this game and its lore for 7 strong years. I didn’t even take a break from playing GW1 until GW2 came out since I started playing at the beginning of July 2006. It wasn’t until last winter that I took a break from GW2. You managed to undo 7 years of strong followship in a single year. I suppose it is only fair that just after my 8th anniversary of playing this game, you go and put in what seems to be the final nail in the coffin for GW’s lore. I loved the game, Bobby, I loved the story. I joined the Test Krewe the moment I could because of such, and defended Anet and did other things that I cannot speak about due to NDA because of my love for the game and its story. But now? That love has all but gone, Bobby, destroyed by the utter clusterkitten to the lore that Scarlet Briar was (and what the kitten is with that over propagandizing of Scarlet? She’s not a good character, stop trying to pretend she is – Abaddon and Shiro were far better villains, and they never got an ounce of the attention Scarlet’s getting), and now by further contradictions and now outright making old lore “malleable”.

Old, established lore are the pillars of a continuing story. A poor writer does retroactive continuities. A good writer works in a way to explain why old ‘facts’ became ‘lies’ and uses that to boost the story. A great writer puts in what they want while not destroying the established pillars of the story. GW1 throughout its lifespan did the last; GW2 at release did the middle; and the Living Story is the first.

I don’t think I even want to play the game anymore, Bobby. I truly don’t. I think this will end up being my last post on the forums. For now, though, I’ll continue log in to unlock the future stories, and I’ll stalk the forums – only in hopes that you (ArenaNet’s writers) and Guild Wars returns to being a great story made by great writers.

First off, I have a lot of respect for you from when we were two of the most contributing users of the GW1 wiki (I’m Kirbman).

Seriously though, someone messing up a single number (Scarlet’s age) is enough to tear down eight years of devotion? That seems like a huge overreaction. This is something that can be easily remedied by Anet.

Yes, being told that only in-game lore is written in stone is bad, but I can definitely understand not wanting what individual Anet employees say during interviews and what appears on T-shirts to force the direction of the lore. If they can keep the lore from the games, books, and lore articles consistent, I’ll be happy.

Also, Shiro and Abaddon definitely received a significant amount of attention, considering that each got their own game. Abaddon is certainly cool, being an evil god and all, but Shiro was a very flat and even boring villain. Most of his actions didn’t even make sense, and chunks of his story went unexplained.

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

What people are trying to say is not that all lore has been thrown out the window, but that it can be.

If this is all they’re saying then they are right. This is how it works. Lore continually gets created. Since fallible humanity won’t be able to check every angle of every aspect there is inevitable inconsistencies. In order to deal with those inconsistancies, creators can go different routes. They can try to come up with a way for both things to be true. They can create a lore information higher archy. Or they can just leave it as an inconsistency.

But raging about the inevitable is childish and useless.

Did you actually read what I posted before you replied? Again, this isn’t about inconsistencies or new lore being created. This is about retconning existing lore where it does not need to be changed.

It is not how it works. It is lazy and sloppy. If lore can just be thrown out the window at will, then why have any? Why have a forum for it by the same people who now say it is changeable at will?

People aren’t “raging”, they are expressing their concern and disappointment. Saying such things just inflames the argument. It certainly doesn’t add anything constructive to it.

This whole thing is starting to be funny. “Because everywhere else it works this way, of course it’s going to be the same thing with GW”.

But hey, for the kitten of it, let’s delve deeper.

Take Harry Potter. Does the game’s lore supercedes the Books ?

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

What people are trying to say is not that all lore has been thrown out the window, but that it can be.

If this is all they’re saying then they are right. This is how it works. Lore continually gets created. Since fallible humanity won’t be able to check every angle of every aspect there is inevitable inconsistencies. In order to deal with those inconsistancies, creators can go different routes. They can try to come up with a way for both things to be true. They can create a lore information higher archy. Or they can just leave it as an inconsistency.

But raging about the inevitable is childish and useless.

Did you actually read what I posted before you replied? Again, this isn’t about inconsistencies or new lore being created. This is about retconning existing lore where it does not need to be changed.

It is not how it works. It is lazy and sloppy. If lore can just be thrown out the window at will, then why have any? Why have a forum for it by the same people who now say it is changeable at will?

People aren’t “raging”, they are expressing their concern and disappointment. Saying such things just inflames the argument. It certainly doesn’t add anything constructive to it.

Unless you work for anet you can’t say wether it doesn’t need to be changed or not.

however, read what I actually posted. They can ignore an inconcisency or they can address it. They chose to address it so that it isn’t an inconsistency. I’d rather have inconsistancies address that way there is actual lore to discuss.

Let me ask, how would you have dealt with the inconsistency?

Dustfinger.9510:

Let me ask, how would you have dealt with the inconsistency?

I don’t know, if I worked on the lore team, maybe by saying she was born in 1308 since that way everything is fine.

RedStar.4218:

This whole thing is starting to be funny. “Because everywhere else it works this way, of course it’s going to be the same thing with GW”.

But hey, for the kitten of it, let’s delve deeper.

Take Harry Potter. Does the game’s lore supercedes the Books ?

In HP he game is based on the books. So the higherarchy is still established.

Same with StarWars. ‘L canon’ superceeds the games and the books and the comics and the movies.

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

What people are trying to say is not that all lore has been thrown out the window, but that it can be.

If this is all they’re saying then they are right. This is how it works. Lore continually gets created. Since fallible humanity won’t be able to check every angle of every aspect there is inevitable inconsistencies. In order to deal with those inconsistancies, creators can go different routes. They can try to come up with a way for both things to be true. They can create a lore information higher archy. Or they can just leave it as an inconsistency.

But raging about the inevitable is childish and useless.

Did you actually read what I posted before you replied? Again, this isn’t about inconsistencies or new lore being created. This is about retconning existing lore where it does not need to be changed.

It is not how it works. It is lazy and sloppy. If lore can just be thrown out the window at will, then why have any? Why have a forum for it by the same people who now say it is changeable at will?

People aren’t “raging”, they are expressing their concern and disappointment. Saying such things just inflames the argument. It certainly doesn’t add anything constructive to it.

Unless you work for anet you can’t say wether it doesn’t need to be changed or not.

however, read what I actually posted. They can ignore an inconcisency or they can address it. They chose to address it so that it isn’t an inconsistency. I’d rather have inconsistancies address that way there is actual lore to discuss.

Let me ask, how would you have dealt with the inconsistency?

Let me ask you, why was there an inconsistency? There wasn’t one before this episode of LS2 came out. So why did a change have to be made?

JMadFour.9730:

the change represents what is a standard procedure in Video Games as a whole. What happens in The Game supercedes what was said in an Interview years ago. What happens in the Game supercedes what happened in a Book or a Short Story. If the Dev sees fit to change an Interview detail through an In-Game event, then that is their prerogative. This does not mean that everything should automatically be thrown out just because they changed something.

Things change, what matters is WHAT changed, how OFTEN things change, and how much of an effect on the Game Lore it has. and in this, it is you all who cannot see the bigger picture.

Did I ever say that what is in game does not supersede anything outside the game? No. I am not arguing that at all. Again, ad nauseum, I am saying there is no reason to change existing lore when you can just as easily work with it.

JMadFour.9730:

I don’t understand the overreactions here. Out Of Game Lore being able to be contradicted by InGame Lore was ALWAYS a possibility. This isn’t new. and it doesn’t mean that ALL the lore is going to be changed. Just that it COULD be.

but you are correct. I continue to argue. and I shouldn’t.

You all have fun with your tantrums about out of game Lore being able to be changed, even though ingame Lore has and will always supercede out-of-game Lore. Because that is how Lore in Video Games works.

Thank you for resorting to an over-inflated, inflammatory statement about people’s reactions to this. A tactic most people resort to when their arguments are thin.

RedStar.4218:

Dustfinger.9510:

Let me ask, how would you have dealt with the inconsistency?

I don’t know, if I worked on the lore team, maybe by saying she was born in 1308 since that way everything is fine.

Unless you knew something about future plans that would have ensured everything wasn’t fine.

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

What people are trying to say is not that all lore has been thrown out the window, but that it can be.

If this is all they’re saying then they are right. This is how it works. Lore continually gets created. Since fallible humanity won’t be able to check every angle of every aspect there is inevitable inconsistencies. In order to deal with those inconsistancies, creators can go different routes. They can try to come up with a way for both things to be true. They can create a lore information higher archy. Or they can just leave it as an inconsistency.

But raging about the inevitable is childish and useless.

Did you actually read what I posted before you replied? Again, this isn’t about inconsistencies or new lore being created. This is about retconning existing lore where it does not need to be changed.

It is not how it works. It is lazy and sloppy. If lore can just be thrown out the window at will, then why have any? Why have a forum for it by the same people who now say it is changeable at will?

People aren’t “raging”, they are expressing their concern and disappointment. Saying such things just inflames the argument. It certainly doesn’t add anything constructive to it.

Unless you work for anet you can’t say wether it doesn’t need to be changed or not.

however, read what I actually posted. They can ignore an inconcisency or they can address it. They chose to address it so that it isn’t an inconsistency. I’d rather have inconsistancies address that way there is actual lore to discuss.

Let me ask, how would you have dealt with the inconsistency?

Let me answer your question with another question, if you actually read what I posted then why do continue to bring up inconsistencies?

Hjorje.9453:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

What people are trying to say is not that all lore has been thrown out the window, but that it can be.

If this is all they’re saying then they are right. This is how it works. Lore continually gets created. Since fallible humanity won’t be able to check every angle of every aspect there is inevitable inconsistencies. In order to deal with those inconsistancies, creators can go different routes. They can try to come up with a way for both things to be true. They can create a lore information higher archy. Or they can just leave it as an inconsistency.

But raging about the inevitable is childish and useless.

Did you actually read what I posted before you replied? Again, this isn’t about inconsistencies or new lore being created. This is about retconning existing lore where it does not need to be changed.

It is not how it works. It is lazy and sloppy. If lore can just be thrown out the window at will, then why have any? Why have a forum for it by the same people who now say it is changeable at will?

People aren’t “raging”, they are expressing their concern and disappointment. Saying such things just inflames the argument. It certainly doesn’t add anything constructive to it.

Unless you work for anet you can’t say wether it doesn’t need to be changed or not.

however, read what I actually posted. They can ignore an inconcisency or they can address it. They chose to address it so that it isn’t an inconsistency. I’d rather have inconsistancies address that way there is actual lore to discuss.

Let me ask, how would you have dealt with the inconsistency?

Let me ask you, why was there an inconsistency? There wasn’t one before this episode of LS2 came out. So why did a change have to be made?

Because inconsistancies are inevitable. No one person can predict all questions and concerns and because the more people you have to help create lore to address more possibilities, the greater chance there is that incinsistancies will arise. They are inevitable.

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

What people are trying to say is not that all lore has been thrown out the window, but that it can be.

If this is all they’re saying then they are right. This is how it works. Lore continually gets created. Since fallible humanity won’t be able to check every angle of every aspect there is inevitable inconsistencies. In order to deal with those inconsistancies, creators can go different routes. They can try to come up with a way for both things to be true. They can create a lore information higher archy. Or they can just leave it as an inconsistency.

But raging about the inevitable is childish and useless.

Did you actually read what I posted before you replied? Again, this isn’t about inconsistencies or new lore being created. This is about retconning existing lore where it does not need to be changed.

It is not how it works. It is lazy and sloppy. If lore can just be thrown out the window at will, then why have any? Why have a forum for it by the same people who now say it is changeable at will?

People aren’t “raging”, they are expressing their concern and disappointment. Saying such things just inflames the argument. It certainly doesn’t add anything constructive to it.

Unless you work for anet you can’t say wether it doesn’t need to be changed or not.

however, read what I actually posted. They can ignore an inconcisency or they can address it. They chose to address it so that it isn’t an inconsistency. I’d rather have inconsistancies address that way there is actual lore to discuss.

Let me ask, how would you have dealt with the inconsistency?

Let me answer your question with another question, if you actually read what I posted then why do continue to bring up inconsistencies?

because addressing the inevitability of inconsistancies actually addresses you concerns.
So, how would you have dealt with it?

Dustfinger.9510:

In HP he game is based on the books. So the higherarchy is still established.

Same with StarWars. ‘L canon’ superceeds the games and the books and the comics and the movies.

And in GW2, the lore is based on…the game ? Weird, GW1 and the interviews were there before GW2 was released.

And again, in HP or SW, the people who worked on the book/movies aren’t the same who worked on the games and animes and other things.
In GW2, those who work on the lore are the same persons who did the interviews and released the short stories and not the same who worked on GW1.

So saying GW1 lore is susceptible is change, while annoying, is more or less accepted. Saying the GW2 lore team don’t know their kitten during interviews isn’t.

Dustfinger.9510:

Unless you knew something about future plans that would have ensured everything wasn’t fine.

Which brings me back to the point : bring something. Unless you want to keep on arguing for the sake of arguing.

Make up crazy theories, anything. Of course, backed up by some in-game sources because once again this is the lore section and not the “make up bullkitten on the spot” section.

RedStar.4218:

Dustfinger.9510:

In HP he game is based on the books. So the higherarchy is still established.

Same with StarWars. ‘L canon’ superceeds the games and the books and the comics and the movies.

And in GW2, the lore is based on…the game ? Weird, GW1 and the interviews were there before GW2 was released.

And again, in HP or SW, the people who worked on the book/movies aren’t the same who worked on the games and animes and other things.
In GW2, those who work on the lore are the same persons who did the interviews and released the short stories and not the same who worked on GW1.

So saying GW1 lore is susceptible is change, while annoying, is more or less accepted. Saying the GW2 lore team don’t know their kitten during interviews isn’t.

No one person can predict all questions and concerns and because the more people you have to help create lore to address more possibilities, the greater chance there is that incinsistancies will arise. They are inevitable

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

What people are trying to say is not that all lore has been thrown out the window, but that it can be.

If this is all they’re saying then they are right. This is how it works. Lore continually gets created. Since fallible humanity won’t be able to check every angle of every aspect there is inevitable inconsistencies. In order to deal with those inconsistancies, creators can go different routes. They can try to come up with a way for both things to be true. They can create a lore information higher archy. Or they can just leave it as an inconsistency.

But raging about the inevitable is childish and useless.

Did you actually read what I posted before you replied? Again, this isn’t about inconsistencies or new lore being created. This is about retconning existing lore where it does not need to be changed.

It is not how it works. It is lazy and sloppy. If lore can just be thrown out the window at will, then why have any? Why have a forum for it by the same people who now say it is changeable at will?

People aren’t “raging”, they are expressing their concern and disappointment. Saying such things just inflames the argument. It certainly doesn’t add anything constructive to it.

Unless you work for anet you can’t say wether it doesn’t need to be changed or not.

however, read what I actually posted. They can ignore an inconcisency or they can address it. They chose to address it so that it isn’t an inconsistency. I’d rather have inconsistancies address that way there is actual lore to discuss.

Let me ask, how would you have dealt with the inconsistency?

Let me answer your question with another question, if you actually read what I posted then why do continue to bring up inconsistencies?

because addressing the inevitability of inconsistancies actually addresses you concerns.
So, how would you have dealt with it?

No it doesn’t address my concerns. Again for the xth time, my concerns have nothing to do with inconsistencies.

For me it is very disappointing.

Whenever an npc or in game book (like the new priory books) informs us about something it can be changed because it is from that particular npc / book authors point of view or to their knowledge at that time. So in game lore is somewhat malleable.

Out of game lore isn’t presented in the game and is therefore malleable.

So all lore is malleable. It can and will change to suit the needs / desires of the moment regardless of what has come before.

It would have been easier to make Scarlet the 13th firstborn than to change the date of the secondborn. Especially since this effects Cadeyrn, his relationship with Faolain and the entire Nightmare court history timeline.

RedStar.4218:

Hey look at the bright side ! You can always theorize on which one of Kass or Marjory is going to propose to the other or which body part will Braham injure next !

I’m still theorizing when they’re going to include Braham’s love of ham in the game.

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

What people are trying to say is not that all lore has been thrown out the window, but that it can be.

If this is all they’re saying then they are right. This is how it works. Lore continually gets created. Since fallible humanity won’t be able to check every angle of every aspect there is inevitable inconsistencies. In order to deal with those inconsistancies, creators can go different routes. They can try to come up with a way for both things to be true. They can create a lore information higher archy. Or they can just leave it as an inconsistency.

But raging about the inevitable is childish and useless.

Did you actually read what I posted before you replied? Again, this isn’t about inconsistencies or new lore being created. This is about retconning existing lore where it does not need to be changed.

It is not how it works. It is lazy and sloppy. If lore can just be thrown out the window at will, then why have any? Why have a forum for it by the same people who now say it is changeable at will?

People aren’t “raging”, they are expressing their concern and disappointment. Saying such things just inflames the argument. It certainly doesn’t add anything constructive to it.

Unless you work for anet you can’t say wether it doesn’t need to be changed or not.

however, read what I actually posted. They can ignore an inconcisency or they can address it. They chose to address it so that it isn’t an inconsistency. I’d rather have inconsistancies address that way there is actual lore to discuss.

Let me ask, how would you have dealt with the inconsistency?

Let me answer your question with another question, if you actually read what I posted then why do continue to bring up inconsistencies?

because addressing the inevitability of inconsistancies actually addresses you concerns.
So, how would you have dealt with it?

No it doesn’t address my concerns. Again for the xth time, my concerns have nothing to do with inconsistencies.

They are based in lore malleability which is made necessary by inevitable inconsistancies. Lore has always been malleable. It’s the reason we have rational charr and inaccurate human records.

Dustfinger.9510:

No one person can predict all questions and concerns and because the more people you have to help create lore to address more possibilities, the greater chance there is that incinsistancies will arise. They are inevitable

Once again, we are talking about a 4 year difference. Not someone being brought back from the dead or Faolain becoming a man or Jennah suddenly becoming a terrible mesmer.
This is a 4 year difference that can only be seen on a plaque in a spot few people bother to go to. Oh and that has been printed on shirts.

That’s my story for this change being needed : they had already printed the shirts.

I doubt they would make the change if it was not required due to future releases.
And the fact that we seems to have a Sylvari focus in S2 it makes sense in my eyes.

RedStar.4218:

Dustfinger.9510:

No one person can predict all questions and concerns and because the more people you have to help create lore to address more possibilities, the greater chance there is that incinsistancies will arise. They are inevitable

Once again, we are talking about a 4 year difference. Not someone being brought back from the dead or Faolain becoming a man or Jennah suddenly becoming a terrible mesmer.
This is a 4 year difference that can only be seen on a plaque in a spot few people bother to go to. Oh and that has been printed on shirts.

That’s my story for this change being needed : they had already printed the shirts.

dicrepencies are inevitable.

If this was another race, maybe such a change would be important. But Sylvari are already born adults. You don’t need to add years to make them more mature.

And whoever is in charge of the wiki article on the timeline, Ceara isn’t the first secondborn. She was welcomed by Serimon, so Serimon must have been born before her.
Of course, as that story isn’t in the game, maybe that’s also false.
So to be on the safe side, remove the mention “first secondborn”.

RedStar.4218:

…And whoever is in charge of the wiki article on the timeline, Ceara isn’t the first secondborn. She was welcomed by Serimon, so Serimon must have been born before her.
Of course, as that story isn’t in the game, maybe that’s also false.
So to be on the safe side, remove the mention “first secondborn”.

I thought Cadeyrn was the first secondborn. That is part of his whole angsty nature, and what causes Caithe to tell him “You are either firstborn…or you are simply sylvari”, as he thought being the first secondborn made him special.

Although none of that is presented in game so take it with a grain of salt I guess….

Edit:
After looking around a bit the wiki is all messed up now. There are direct references to Scarlet as the first secondborn but all of Cadeyrns pages still call him the first secondborn. The dates for all of the remaining secondborn still mention the 6-7 years after the firstborn which we now know is not true.
It is as if someone who doesn’t realize all of the connections just updated scarlets info and left the rest…

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

Dustfinger.9510:

jheryn.8390:

What people are trying to say is not that all lore has been thrown out the window, but that it can be.

If this is all they’re saying then they are right. This is how it works. Lore continually gets created. Since fallible humanity won’t be able to check every angle of every aspect there is inevitable inconsistencies. In order to deal with those inconsistancies, creators can go different routes. They can try to come up with a way for both things to be true. They can create a lore information higher archy. Or they can just leave it as an inconsistency.

But raging about the inevitable is childish and useless.

Did you actually read what I posted before you replied? Again, this isn’t about inconsistencies or new lore being created. This is about retconning existing lore where it does not need to be changed.

It is not how it works. It is lazy and sloppy. If lore can just be thrown out the window at will, then why have any? Why have a forum for it by the same people who now say it is changeable at will?

People aren’t “raging”, they are expressing their concern and disappointment. Saying such things just inflames the argument. It certainly doesn’t add anything constructive to it.

Unless you work for anet you can’t say wether it doesn’t need to be changed or not.

however, read what I actually posted. They can ignore an inconcisency or they can address it. They chose to address it so that it isn’t an inconsistency. I’d rather have inconsistancies address that way there is actual lore to discuss.

Let me ask, how would you have dealt with the inconsistency?

Let me answer your question with another question, if you actually read what I posted then why do continue to bring up inconsistencies?

because addressing the inevitability of inconsistancies actually addresses you concerns.
So, how would you have dealt with it?

No it doesn’t address my concerns. Again for the xth time, my concerns have nothing to do with inconsistencies.

They are based in lore malleability which is made necessary by inevitable inconsistancies. Lore has always been malleable. It’s the reason we have rational charr and inaccurate human records.

It is no use. You obviously are fixated on the word, “inconsistancies”. Even though I keep telling you repeatedly that inconsistencies have nothing to do with what I am saying, you keep bringing them up. Reply if you want, but it is obvious you are not comprehending my point in the least.

Xar.6185:

I thought Cadeyrn was the first secondborn. That is part of his whole angsty nature, and what causes Caithe to tell him “You are either firstborn…or you are simply sylvari”, as he thought being the first secondborn made him special.

Although none of that is presented in game so take it with a grain of salt I guess….

Edit:
After looking around a bit the wiki is all messed up now. There are direct references to Scarlet as the first secondborn but all of Cadeyrns pages still call him the first secondborn. The dates for all of the remaining secondborn still mention the 6-7 years after the firstborn which we now know is not true.
It is as if someone who doesn’t realize all of the connections just updated scarlets info and left the rest…

Well we are now completely lost regarding the Sylvari timeline. As far as I know, them being born in 1302 is from the novel. So maybe that’s also wrong.

The only thing that has been made perfectly clear in the game is who are the firstborns and that Ceara was born in 1304. That’s it.
We have no proofs in game when the secondborns were born. Do we even have something regarding Cadeyrn being the first secondborn ?

RedStar.4218

The only thing that has been made perfectly clear in the game is who are the firstborns and that Ceara was born in 1304. That’s it.
We have no proofs in game when the secondborns were born. Do we even have something regarding Cadeyrn being the first secondborn ?

I don’t remember offhand about Cadeyrn being the first secondborn being presented in game. But that is kind of a big deal. He founded the nightmare court in part because of his I’ll prove I’m special / I’ll make the pale tree listen to me attitude that came from being the first secondborn… at least that’s how it used to be…

/confused

This does not ‘just’ affect one sylvari’s age, it affects the entire history of the Sylvari. The Firstborn are looked up to because of the experience and wisdom they gathered in the years after they were born and before the Secondborn came, which they shared with the Pale Tree and the Dream. According to the original blogpost, from which most of this information comes, the first of the Secondborn is Cadeyrn, so he has to be born before Scarlet. Since Mender Serimon tended to Scarlet when she emerged, he had to be around for a while as well. And what about the master artisans among the sylvari that she is supposed to have learned skills from?

Putting Scarlet’s birth a mere two years after the Firstborn’s doesn’t give them much time to build up their knowledge. It lessens the importance the Firstborn have for the sylvari, like the human Gods after their lore changes, which is one of the main problems I have with it.

Another problem is that it seems like the lore is being adapted around Scarlet again, instead of fitting Scarlet into the world and the lore. Maybe the writers realized that they had her do too many things so it wouldn’t fit in the span of her life, but I don’t think adapting the history of her race is the way to deal with that. The inconsistency was with Scarlet, after all, not with the history of the sylvari.

I know that the ingame lore is the most important and that all lore can be subject to change, but the way it was handled here is appalling. If there are reasons to change it, I want them to say so, even if they can’t specify because reasons. Even if they say they made a mistake it’s still fine, they’re only human after all. Working within the existing lore would still be the better way of doing it, since retconning can be a very crude method.

Draxynnic said it pretty well:

draxynnic.3719:

I’ve seen a few posts supporting the ‘game is the primary source’ line, and to tell the truth… that’s exactly the way it should be. What we see in-game will naturally be the highest-ranking source for information. However, if you look back to Konig’s post – the issue is not so much that out-of-game lore got retconned, but that it got retconned casually. If we’d received a ‘we thought carefully about it, but we decided it was better in the long run to make a retcon because of reason A, reason B, and/or a reason C that we cannot disclose at that time’, that would be one thing. What we’ve been getting is messages to the effect that ArenaNet’s writing team considers anything from an out-of-game source to be something to be thrown out on a whim. It’s not that retcons are happening that’s the real problem, it’s that they’re being treated so casually: “Oh, it’s not in the game then? Don’t worry about it, it doesn’t count!”

A last note, I am not throwing a tantrum or leaving the game. I still enjoy the playing and I like some of the improvements the story part had (maybe a bit less hand holding in the future?). I’m just worried about what this does for the overall lore and the precedent this sets for the future handling of inconsistencies.

Xar.6185:

So all lore is malleable. It can and will change to suit the needs / desires of the moment regardless of what has come before.

Welcome to all fiction ever.

I’m utterly flabbergasted that people are reacting as though this wasn’t already an assumption. Frankly, I’m surprised Bobby Stein was willing to imply that in-game lore isn’t malleable. Lore will change to suit the needs of the story in pretty much any piece of fiction out there, but especially with something as broad as game worlds.

Hopefully, any lore that’s revealed in the official content (games, books, etc.) that has to change will be handled in-universe in a way that makes sense and isn’t simply a retcon (e.g. humans’ perspective in GW1 was incorrect). If it’s something you get in an interview, you’re pretty much getting a peak at the lore’s basic outline, the rough draft. I’m honestly impressed that the lore from interviews appears to have changed so little thus far.

Is this the first time some of you have engaged with fictional lore? Because from tabletop wargames to pen’n’paper RPGs to fiction novel series, Bobby Stein’s comment is exactly what I’d expect to see.

Just a thought; I haven’t looked deeply into this theory, so there are probably some flaws.

What if Scarlet was born before the secondborn, as kind of an anomaly, and simply wasn’t acknowledged as part of the first/secondborn because 1) she was born separately from another “group” (ie first/secondborn) or 2) she immediately decided she wanted to cut herself off from the Pale Tree. This way, she could still be born in 1304, and timeline issues aren’t a thing. Just a thought?

Unfortunately, according to a short story, Ceara was greeted by Mender Serimon right as her birth.

So she was born from the pale tree and she wasn’t the first secondborn.

Anyway Bobby pretty much insinuated that the “seconborns were born 6-7 years after the firstborns” is now false.

Wondering where the lore now stands, since lore in game can also be malleable lore outside of game is also malleable.

Would be nice to get Bobby and crew to answer this since Bobby dropped the nuke that wiped it all out in a sense. Who do we believe now npc’s can be influenced by the writing team and this can open all sorts of problems.
Luckily for me I’ve now gone back to playing Guild Wars and only logging in to gw2 now and then as the writing team has destroyed the most fun thing there was for me the rich lore that was developed inside and outside of the game which was untainted.

Since we know Guild Wars wont be getting hit by any of this nonsense I can go hide in my protective bubble and ignore what Guild Wars 2 has done

So as my final word on this and before it gets locked by the mods would the team of writers/lore writers like to comment on the cluster-kitten that Bobby dropped on us.

Just a thought that popped into my head while reading some of this from Konig’s final posts to the start of this last page:

1.) We know that Sylvari were first born in 1302. There were twelve of them, and they are known as the Firstborn by just about anyone who meets them or has heard of them. You can’t talk to any Sylvari about Trahearne without them telling you he’s one of the Firstborn.

2.) 6-7 years later (1308-1309), the Secondborn awaken. Caderyn is the first of the Secondborn, who eventually founds the Nightmare Court (and becomes Faolain’s minion later on).

3.) We discover that Scarlet was born in 1304, a couple years before the Secondborn woke up, and a couple years after the Firstborn did.

4.) Rather than Anet correct this tiny, tiny mistake in the lore, they have instead opted to tell the part of the community to deal with their own inconsistency.

Might as well have told the Lore community to suck it.

Anet should have just released a very short blog post marking a correction to the date of Scarlet’s birth, a one-sentence apology for confusing the playerbase with a clearly incorrect date, and a promise to fact-check better in the future. Players might grumble about it but at least they’d be able to get over it more easily.

Also, weren’t the Bloodstones responsible for the four schools of magic (Aggression, Denial, Destruction, Preservation) in Tyria, and that no one could master more than one at all?…

And then comes GW2, which told us that the Bloodstones not only did not split magic, but that everyone could have mastered every school at the same time, if they so chose.

I mean, really.

Elementalists alone (GW2) have three schools of magic from the original Guild Wars: Destruction (technically all four attunements but primarily fire/air), Preservation (water/earth), and Denial (water/air/earth). For some strange, strange reason every human in all of GW1 didn’t think to try to dual- triple- or quadra-specialize. GW2 lore has now told us that all humans back in GW1 were completely incompetent – even the heroes you all (might) know and love (or hate).

There was no reason beyond superstition that they should not or could not have tried to train in more than one school of magic. And we all know that magic users (across all platforms, time, and space) have a knack for being curious about everything related to their craft. So why didn’t at least one of them try to master two schools of magic? Or three? Or all four?

Not every human in GW1 could have been dropped on his or her head as a baby – unless it was a cultural thing that game, but you’d think Anet would have told the community about it somewhere or continued on with it into GW2.

All the lore fans of this game are asking for is a little consistency in the lore, and the ability for the writers to man (or woman) up and admit to making a mistake, instead of telling them to deal with an error that throws a major chunk of racial lore into disarray.

Sylvari are an entirely unique race of sentient plant beings that have only been alive for 25 years or so. Their history is so short right now that anything and everything they do up until now and into the near future is important. When they’ve reached the age of the other races, then we can afford to skip on some of the details.

To copypastaish from a post on my personal blog trying to think this thing out:

It could be: 1) The Soesbee secondborn awakening dates are correct. This makes Ceara either the first second born (and the Dream and Nightmare entry referencing Cadeyrn incorrect) OR she is some weird 1.5 generation (also seemingly contradicting Cadeyrn’s “wow, I’m first after the firstborn!” sentiments), OR she is some weird 1.0 generation straggler and is one of the three unrevealed firstborn. The latter two make no sense to me since she supposedly learned from Sylvari masters, the timing of the awakening of the firstborn, and that would also mean Mender Serimon would be firstborn, as he greeted her upon awakening according to a blog post which I guess could just be thrown out the window now so who really knows. Cadeyrn is never stated as the first secondborn in game (just Nightmare Court founder), so they could potentially retcon that to make things copacetic.

It seems more likely that: 2) The Soesbee secondborn awakening dates are now incorrect. Cadeyrn stays first of the secondborn, meaning there is much less time between generations than thought, much less knowledge the firstborns could have acquired for the following generations to learn from (supposedly why the firstborn are like royalty). The firstborn awoke in 1302, Ceara was born 1304 and the sylvari timeline is squished beyond recognition. It also leaves the question of when the secondborn actually wake yet to be answered, which I am curious about.

I’m willing to bet they’re just gonna go with the second, but who knows

Honestly, I don’t see the big deal here. Sure, it’s an inconsistency, but it’s hardly the first retcon we’ve seen, and it’s definitely far from the biggest. And I don’t see how it’s saying that novels and blog posts are no longer valid sources of lore either; in this particular case the source was an interview in which a question was put to Ree, and an answer was given. What would the alternative be? Refusal to answer the question, on the off-chance the dating might need to be tweaked later on? Because that’s what I’m worried might happen in future—no more lore in interviews—given the reaction here.

All this tells us is that there is a hierarchy of sources, which is something that should have really been common sense to begin with. Things like interviews in which answers have to be given on the spot, and where, as Bobby said, no content was actually built around the lore in question, are perfectly mutable. It would have been nice to have been told so at the time, sure, but other than that I don’t get the fuss. For some reason we’ve developed quite an idiosyncratic view of what ‘canon’ should constitute, and I don’t see the need to take it so personally when that is upset.

kimeekat, you forgot that from Scarlet’s Short Story, we are told she was greeted by Mender Serimon right as she was born.

So it cannot be your first idea.

But I’m extremely eager to see the plot reasons for such a tweak. I have a feeling it’s going to be funny.

Well I just looked it up and the details given about the dates of the secondborns’ awakenings were released like a year before the game actually came out. Soooo if they had decided to tweak that little detail before release, and just failed to mention it, it would clear up a lot of this.

I mean why is there really this much discussion about such a small detail

Leallax.1482:

Well I just looked it up and the details given about the dates of the secondborns’ awakenings were released like a year before the game actually came out. Soooo if they had decided to tweak that little detail before release, and just failed to mention it, it would clear up a lot of this.

I mean why is there really this much discussion about such a small detail

it is not just about the dates/time line it is the context that Bobby said it in

lakdav.3694:

lakdav.3694:

Well they did move away from most of the things they said during development (see the manifesto), it only figures that interview-lore isnt sacred either.

Unless we’ve built content around something, it’s usually considered malleable from a design and lore standpoint. Occasionally we decide to go in a different direction months or years after the first ideas are documented or even talked about externally. In some cases that means what one member of staff says in an interview can change when it comes time to building a release. It’s part of our iterative process.

In short, go by what’s in the game.

It is that context which was said that has most of us annoyed since nearly most of the important lore is outside of the game. Today its a small slip up but that slip is on a hill and once it gathers momentum where’s it going to end up….. PS we can’t go with whats in game as its not in game as in the details of second born and others things like that.

I’ve been monitoring this thread, and I felt the need to say something regarding how the discussion has progressed. Those whom are saying they don’t see what the big deal is seem to be misunderstanding (or lacking knowledge of) something or seeing the problems at face value. I see generally three main points being raised for why the reaction is an overreaction:

1. “Scarlet’s birthdate is a minor piece of lore.”
2. “The game is still primary source (and always was).”
3. “ArenaNet has retconned before, and so have many other stories that are very well known. This is not new.”

Allow me to extrapolate upon these in reverse order:

“Continuity Errors are Common”
This is true. Continuity errors, plotholes, and the like are very common amongst most stories, especially longer ones and those shared amongst more and more people such as Star Wars. The difference between Guild Wars and the rest however lies in two factors:

Firstly, ArenaNet has five people who’s primary job is to ensure continuity and the Guild Wars universe is not large enough for such to make constant slip ups especially around things that are highlighted and documented by the community.

Secondly, Jeff Grubb and Ree Soesbee had, in the past, presented extensive dislike of blatant retcons. Whenever they’ve retcon’d something it was done via presenting an story explanation for why this was done. For example: When Abaddon revealed as the Sixth God, the story was that the Five Gods removed all knowledge of him (or rather, tried to). Before we learned the truth of Glint Jeff Grubb said this:

Much of what we know about Glint comes from Glint herself. The truth of the matter may be very different, and she has her own reasons for saying what she has said.

It was about a year later that we had Edge of Destiny’s release and the truth of Glint revealed. ArenaNet has been very adamant about giving proper story explanations for any retcon.

However, this has lately changed when Season 1 went into high gear. Most such changes revolve around either interviews with Angel McCoy or Scarlet Briar’s in-game story.

(Side note: I have nothing against Angel, Bobby, or others as people; I do, however, have issues with what they do – I separate the two and mean no offense ever to the individuals as people)

Furthermore, in the past when the story is claimed for retcon but it isn’t, Jeff Grubb and others have gone out of their way to explain why it isn’t on occasion. For example, at one point before release it was believed that the creature beneath Drakkar Lake was Jormag, and this misconception came from abstract descriptions in Edge of Destiny as well as the concept art for Drakkar Lake. Jeff Grubb went to extensive lengths to prove that the concept art was talking about the original idea that got changed well before it or Eye of the North’s release. Unlike Malafide, I don’t mind the change to the Bloodstone itself per se, because they gave a story explanation (however poor it was).

ArenaNet has proven that they dislike retroactive continuity without giving proper and well thought out explanation. Until now.