Guild Wars 2

My GW1 Ascalonian Warrior never forgave the Charr for the Searing and he would have gladly challenged Pyre Fierceshot to a fight to the death and run him through as soon as their temporary alliance was over. But at the same time, he recognised that Ascalon was lost, and the proper course of action would be to help Rurik evacuate the survivors and help them start a new life.

My GW2 Human Noble Mesmer, who’s the great-granddaughter of my Warrior, still remembers the stories her grandmother told her about her great-grandfather’s experiences in the Searing. She heard about the atrocities the Flame Legion, and the Charr at large, perpetuated upon the Ascalonians. So she still regards modern Charr with a hint of suspicion and prejudice, but at the same time, they’re just stories to her. She hasn’t experienced it personally, and it doesn’t resonate with her the same way it would have to her grandparents, the same way she knows that her noble House is a legacy of Ascalon, yet her home and homeland is in Kryta. She feels concern about the war against the Centaurs than some distant, insurgent campaign against the Charr.

Then she joined the Vigil, where she got paired up with a fierce, yet honorable, Charr Centurion as her partner. And she learned that whatever the Charr may have did in the past, she can’t blame modern Charr for the actions of their ancestors.

And now she occasionally prays to her great-grandfather to forgive her for loving a Charr.

Now when you say ‘loving a Charr’ do I need a barf bag and a censor bar for my mind’s eye? lol I’m just asking because the Internet has jaded me with certain phrases.

I still find it strange to be working with the charr considering that in GW 1 I was actively hunting down and killing a medium-sized nation’s population worth of the furry kittens.
But soon enough everyone will hate the charr again . When the dragons are killed the charr will inevitably turn on the rest of the world and put it to the flame . It’s all they know , conquest is all they care about , victory by any means necessary .It’s only a matter of time before these bloodthirsty honorless currs erect new flaming cauldrons and march outwards to stomp out any non-charr.

Atlas.9704:

Now when you say ‘loving a Charr’ do I need a barf bag and a censor bar for my mind’s eye? lol I’m just asking because the Internet has jaded me with certain phrases.

No comment… but I’d keep that censor bar and barf bag close at hand.

My GW2 characters certainly don’t hate the charr. Hell even in GW1 I wasn’t as righteous in my hatred of them as some of the posters here seem to be. I loved pre-searing Ascalon to be sure, but by the time you’ve spent several years fighting a stalemate of a war over a tar-covered wasteland it starts to feel kind of stupid. (On that note how did Ascalon even survive when all the water in the kingdom was apparently turned into tar?) The way my characters at the time saw it, if the charr want their tar pits so badly let ‘em have ’em. I was with Rurik 100%, wiping out or driving back the charr wouldn’t make Ascalon livable again, starting over somewhere where the charr couldn’t touch would ensure Ascalon survives even if the land didn’t. Adelbern was a fool, too wrapped up in his hate to do what was best for his people.

As for who was “right” for fighting over Ascalon, it was pretty obvious no one ever really was. The land itself had been fought over since before recorded history, to the point we don’t even know who the original inhabitants actually were. It’s just a long history of atrocities and chains of vengeance.

For those who are convinced the charr will start attacking other races again citing their assaults on Kryta and Orr in GW1, I think it’s important to note that they were urged to do so by their gods, the titans, who were in turn servants of Abbadon and that both the Searing and the Cataclysm were orchestrated to by him to bring about Nightfall. I rather doubt the charr would have attacked Kryta and Orr, or probably even known about them if not for the titans’ intervention, especially not before they’d secured Ascalon. Which was, for hundreds of years, their only goal.

Then there’s the modern events of GW2 that have forced the charr to co-operate with other races. Between Smodur having rough authority of the charr, the Vigil, treaty with Kryta the charr are very much on the track to being a much more amicable race overall. That and with the existence of the Pact and at least five Elder Dragons I’d say the charr will have plenty of time to get used to playing nice with other races before the list of eldritch abominations to fight runs low.

Riot

Oh I don’t think anyone doubts that the GW2 Charr have matured in their civility…at least relative to GW1. It would be pretty hard to make a factionless game with one race still wanting to annihilate everyone lol.

I didn’t hate them back them either, I just think they were intentionally written to be the “big bad guys” of GW1 and that’s what they were. They were really only different from Ogres and Grawl in their numbers and military power, and it wasn’t until EotN that their narrative took a radical shift. At which point certain details of their history were added and changed to make them more both believable and viable as a future playable race.

Zax

Your post is a perfect example of the kind of thing ANet wants to see. A GW1 vet who has reservations at first, but eventually accepts the new narrative with open arms. That’s perfectly fine for your character to do that, and I’m sure ANet loves it. But it’s still important to understand the inherent truths of the game back then. And not gloss-over, downplay, or outright change things for the sake of perpetuating your(ANet’s) own creativity.

It’s disrespectful.

Obsidian.1328:

A GW1 vet who has reservations at first, but eventually accepts the new narrative with open arms. That’s perfectly fine for your character to do that, and I’m sure ANet loves it. But it’s still important to understand the inherent truths of the game back then. And not gloss-over, downplay, or outright change things for the sake of perpetuating your(ANet’s) own creativity.

It’s disrespectful.

Like the grawl example. they are pretty one dimensional but I would have no problems if A-net decided to add to the lore by giving us a point of view that creatures like that might have took since the beginning. Should we have to fight against it and take a point of view that characters from GW2 have if they expand on grawl in GW3?How would one move on without seeming disrespectful? Does a shrine to GW1 charr need to be built everytime GW2 charr are mentioned? (It’s a genuine question )

Well…simply show some humility for the foundational lore with which you base your entire game on.

For example, why is Agony a a fractal boss mechanic? Spectral Agony was an attack particular only to the Mursaat in GW1, not some random ability that bosses have. “Spectral” being removed from the name doesn’t take away from the fact that the name and effect were obviously gleaned from the Mursaat ability. ANet didn’t care for the history of it, they apparently just wanted some cool fractal mechanic that also evoked a bit of nostalgia.

Or take the Ascended items at the Laurel Merchant: The Eye of Janthir, the Royal Signet of Doric, Palawa Joko’s Finger Cuff?? Why are these things being sold as trinkets like bling-bling at the local market? Randomly assigning important historical names to merchandise just cheapens the meaning of the name.

It’s like ANet thought GW1 lore would be cool to use as a giant bag-of-fun with which they could pull out any snippet of information and then use it as anecdotal diatribe of a time when everyone was “doing it wrong,” or as a cheap sticker to put on baubles you wear around your neck, or as anything that can’t be taken seriously or truthfully.

They could have easily done it in a way that wasn’t so condescending…

Zaxares.5419:

Atlas.9704:

Now when you say ‘loving a Charr’ do I need a barf bag and a censor bar for my mind’s eye? lol I’m just asking because the Internet has jaded me with certain phrases.

No comment… but I’d keep that censor bar and barf bag close at hand.

Meh, I’ve seen enough of the Internet not to phase me too much. lol

Obsidian.1328:

Well…simply show some humility for the foundational lore with which you base your entire game on.

For example, why is Agony a a fractal boss mechanic? Spectral Agony was an attack particular only to the Mursaat in GW1, not some random ability that bosses have. “Spectral” being removed from the name doesn’t take away from the fact that the name and effect were obviously gleaned from the Mursaat ability. ANet didn’t care for the history of it, they apparently just wanted some cool fractal mechanic that also evoked a bit of nostalgia.

Or take the Ascended items at the Laurel Merchant: The Eye of Janthir, the Royal Signet of Doric, Palawa Joko’s Finger Cuff?? Why are these things being sold as trinkets like bling-bling at the local market? Randomly assigning important historical names to merchandise just cheapens the meaning of the name.

It’s like ANet thought GW1 lore would be cool to use as a giant bag-of-fun with which they could pull out any snippet of information and then use it as anecdotal diatribe of a time when everyone was “doing it wrong,” or as a cheap sticker to put on baubles you wear around your neck, or as anything that can’t be taken seriously or truthfully.

They could have easily done it in a way that wasn’t so condescending…

I can see how these examples would be irreverent. But these aren’t usually the topics that bring up the issue. The topic is usually GW1 charr vs GW2 charr. How do we talk about GW2 charr without needing to build a shrine to GW1 charr every time? We all know what GW1 charr were origionally intended to be. One dimensioanal big baddies. But one dimensional big baddies are an empty shell that a-net descided to fill. So how do we talk about that filled shell without constantly referring back to the empty shell? the only way I can see is to accept what they are now and move on. just like we moved on with WoW orcs when we clearly know the origins of “orcs” in general.

Dust

I used those examples because the thinking that went into them is the same thinking that went into the Charr, and most everything else for that matter. Like I’ve stated before, ANet isn’t expanding on GW1, they are reinventing it.

Take your shell analogy; I would argue they didn’t just fill in the shell, they changed the shell itself first… then filled it. Or in other words, they didn’t expand on the Charr persona…they reinvented it, then expanded on it. That’s a huge difference. And you can apply that line of thought to much of the GW2 world.

Now…why not accept that anyway and move on? Personally, in a way I have. I’ve accepted the Charr, and actually the humans too for that matter, simply as part of a different game with little to no historical antecedents. But bridging the narrative between the two games has proved too large of a chasm to overcome.

At least for me it has. Therefore, when it comes to “story” at least, I can’t accept GW2 as a legitimate heir to GW1. And therefore I call it out on it when I see it.

Does that make more sense? :/

It does make sense. the only thing I guess I could ask is how would you have expanded on the charr persona without reinventing them? because I don’t see a way around it without some degree of reinvention. Just like expanding on grawl. It would be a reinvention of a one dimensional baddie into a 3 dimensional species.

Oh it’s perfectly possible, it just requires the right writing.

I have loads of ideas on that but I’d rather not go in-depth with them. But in my imaginary scenario, GW2 is the game where us players really get to see the humans shine. And GW3 is the game where the humans fade, much like the Forgotten, and the Charr replace them as the dominant race.

I always got the impression that GW1 introduces us all to a wonderful and diverse human Tyria, and GW2 is the closing chapter on them.

They cut out all the good stuff that’s supposed to be the meaty middle of the epic story of human triumph and fall…a story you would feel emotionally connected to.

That’s what’s missing here.

hmm. That makes sense too. Maybe they could address the lost 250 years in some mists dungeons. But that would require more models and content to be made with the expressed purpose of not being used again. :/

Now the obvious retort to that is that fact that the history of Tyria already had the rise and fall of humanity before Prophesies even took place. Which is true.

But… none of us players ever got to experience that. Much like new GW2 players have little to no connection to GW1, none of us GW1 players have any connection of substance to Tryia in its prime. Like Orr, or the Primeval Kings of Elona, or Cantha in the time of Shiro. They are all whispers of a past long gone.

Yet the little time we, as players, are given to participate in that world (from 1070-1079AE) is fleeting.

That story needs a real life of its own, that we can experience, before you draw the curtains on it.

That’s how I see it anyway. :/

The trouble is that for human civilisation to be at its prime, it would also have to be at its most stable, most secure, and most prosperous. (And in other words… boring.) Such a glorious time of human civilisation would also have meant there would have been little need for adventurers or heroes. There would be no threat to rise up against, no great enemy to challenge and defeat. It just wouldn’t make for a very exciting game where everybody is a baker, shopkeeper or town guardsman, whose most exciting part of his day is arresting unruly drunks at the tavern.

Well, us roleplayers would probably still find it fun, but I’m sure many other GW2 players didn’t buy the game to play Second Life, Guild Wars-edition.

Yes, they burned my home, screw them.

Zaxares.5419:

The trouble is that for human civilisation to be at its prime, it would also have to be at its most stable, most secure, and most prosperous. (And in other words… boring.) Such a glorious time of human civilisation would also have meant there would have been little need for adventurers or heroes. There would be no threat to rise up against, no great enemy to challenge and defeat. It just wouldn’t make for a very exciting game where everybody is a baker, shopkeeper or town guardsman, whose most exciting part of his day is arresting unruly drunks at the tavern.

Well, us roleplayers would probably still find it fun, but I’m sure many other GW2 players didn’t buy the game to play Second Life, Guild Wars-edition.

Well I didn’t mean it that way really, I wouldn’t want an entire game to be like pre-searing Ascalon lol. Conflict and violence tend to bring out the best and worst of us, which is the most enjoyable part of a game to experience really. I didn’t mean to imply “in their prime” meant peace and stability. I think GW1 captures some of this, it’s just short-lived and at the end humanities “golden age” so to speak.

It just seems odd they would introduce us all to this world, and then turn around and produce a sequel with an entirely different cultural theme and style than what we had. The limits of GW1’s antiquated(albeit excellent for its time) game engine is what was holding it back, not the story. The story and writing were some of its best features, why change that?

Dustfinger.9510:

1. Do we know they were nomadic? Or that they didn’t build structures? Nothing in the ecology says that.

Have you not played GW1? Did you see any Charr structures other then those made from sticks and hides?

4. the war really was about taking their land back. And subduing their most threatening foe. before humans came, charr either killed or dominated their foes within their own borders.

Neither Kryta nor Orr had ever been Charr territory, so no, it was not about ‘taking land back’. And if it is about subduing a foe who can stand against them, then that is a very good reason to annihilate them rather then try and make peace with them.

Chrispytoast.3698:

I want to know the Human’s thoughts about if you hate the Charr or not, would you want your race to go to war against the Charr in an event or do you like the peace that is currently going on?

Nah. You can read all about how I feel about it here from Page 2 onward.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/races/human/Do-you-feel-bad-for-the-Ghosts-of-Ascalon/page/2

frans.8092:

Have you not played GW1? Did you see any Charr structures other then those made from sticks and hides?

Feel free to google any number of ancient cultures who weren’t nomadic and were still limited to stoneage technology. Beside which : being nomadic doesn’t mean land isn’t yours. it just means you choose to use it differently.

Neither Kryta nor Orr had ever been Charr territory, so no, it was not about ‘taking land back’. And if it is about subduing a foe who can stand against them, then that is a very good reason to annihilate them rather then try and make peace with them.

1st page, 13th post up.

Well my first character and my only for a long time was a charr and I never played the original so I suppose I’m biased in my statement but even after making a human and playing him more than my charr, I have to say I can’t be too mad at them.

After exploring the Black Citadel it is apparent that the cubs are taught a very skewed history of the events from Guild Wars 1 so it is no surprise they would harbor a hatred for humans at a young age. The environment they grew up in taught them to only hate humans and kill everyone of them and any who disagreed were probably punished severely.

So I guess I’m more upset with their leaders than the race of charr in general, they were the ones continuing to plant the hatred in each generation of charr and blatantly lie to make it seem like what they did during the Searing was heroic. I wanted to kick that one charr next to Storm Caller with my rocket boots after talking to her.

Dustfinger.9510:

frans.8092:

Have you not played GW1? Did you see any Charr structures other then those made from sticks and hides?

Feel free to google any number of ancient cultures who weren’t nomadic and were still limited to stoneage technology. Beside which : being nomadic doesn’t mean land isn’t yours. it just means you choose to use it differently.

Neither Kryta nor Orr had ever been Charr territory, so no, it was not about ‘taking land back’. And if it is about subduing a foe who can stand against them, then that is a very good reason to annihilate them rather then try and make peace with them.

1st page, 13th post up.

You are clearly a charr fanboy who never played Gw1.

This topic is for the opinion of the ones playing human as a main, therefore your view doesn’t matter and you’ve got nothing to do here.

Go to the charr forum.

Gandarel.5091:

You are clearly a charr fanboy who never played Gw1.

This topic is for the opinion of the ones playing human as a main, therefore your view doesn’t matter and you’ve got nothing to do here.

Go to the charr forum.

Oh, I can still separate charr hatred that isn’t actually based in lore from actual lore reasons, here. But I played and I still don’t hate the charr. Amazing how a player can disassociate from their old character in another game, evolve 250 lore years and have an outlook that isn’t as outdated as their old characters are in lore. It must baffle you!

The truth is, I enjoy actual lore more than I enjoy faction kittening. If this topic is supposed to be for human-kittening then so be it. But the title asks a question that wouldn’t be necessary if any answer that is a “no” is counted as “charr fanboy”. Or if any correction of fan-fic doesn’t matter.

Dustfinger.9510:

Gandarel.5091:

You are clearly a charr fanboy who never played Gw1.

This topic is for the opinion of the ones playing human as a main, therefore your view doesn’t matter and you’ve got nothing to do here.

Go to the charr forum.

Oh, I can still separate charr hatred that isn’t actually based in lore from actual lore reasons, here. But I played and I still don’t hate the charr. Amazing how a player can disassociate from their old character in another game, evolve 250 lore years and have an outlook that isn’t as outdated as their old characters are in lore. It must baffle you!

Well I would like the charr now, but… I liked Ascalon better

It’s the same situaton as if in WoW they would decide to make the Horde ultimately nuke the whole Alliance, and then make peace with them, with the Alliance having only one last stand left.

It’s just something that can’t be done to a split playerbase, to make one achieve ultimate victory and then even make the war stop.

And they did it everywhere. ‘Ah, so there’s a gap between GW1 and Gw2 where we will destroy everything what Gw1 players fought for, prove their deeds wrong and their reasons false. Okay, let’s do this, they will love it!’

Prety much what happened :P We lost Ascalon, the whole Elona, battle isles, Luxons/Kurzicks and so on.

Gandarel.5091:

Well I would like the charr now, but… I liked Ascalon better

It’s the same situaton as if in WoW they would decide to make the Horde ultimately nuke the whole Alliance, and then make peace with them, with the Alliance having only one last stand left.

It’s just something that can’t be done to a split playerbase, to make one achieve ultimate victory and then even make the war stop.

I agree except the charr were never playable before so that competition isn’t present in this case. So the playerbase wasn’t split. it only becomes split if we refuse to accept how the world has changed. If Murlock take over the world in WoW2 and then become playable, I’d accept it because it’s not unfair to anybody.

they didn’t make human deeds wrong. they validated them with charr rising against the flame legion. making sure to inform us that charr have always intended to dominate every other race in their sphere of influence and letting us know that even the charr don’t admit how wrong they were 250 years ago because they don’t tell the full story. All they’ve really done is even the playing field a bit by giving us their side of it. Humans were already beaten back. That isn’t new.

^

It is new though if you think about it. The Charr revolution against the Flame Legion, Adelbern and the Foefire, the closing of Cantha, Joko’s regime in Elona…they are all part of the same GW2 narrative designed to allow room for the new player races.

If you look at the end of just the first 3 games of GW, Ascalon was hurt but actually won against the Charr, Kryta was free from the Mantle’s slavery, Cantha was open, and Elona was free as well. Pretty much all of known Tyria was still dominated by humans.

I wouldn’t think many here would say the new races shouldn’t be here(although I personally would disagree), it’s the way in which ANet went about it that irks many GW1 vets. It’s almost as if they wanted humans to be looked at in a shameful or pitying way. As if all that stuff we accomplished as players back then was quaint and charming like a kid’s story…but what really matters is what is going on now.

It’s not insulting to me so much as to the creators of the original game. That’s who I feel bad for actually. :/

Ascalon was a wasteland. But what matters is usually what’s going on in the present. If most of your glory is in the past, that tends to mean you’ve peaked and it’s all down hill from here. Same thing. Either what really mattered was 250 years ago, or even any amount of years ago in the last game. or what your currently doing. I’d rather my present actions matter in the game I’m currently playing, rather than try to live in the past knowing that I’ve already done what anyone cares about. I really don’t get this line of thinking. History happens. Some loses, someone wins. human action was validated and charr have altered their history to hide what their ancestors didn’t even want to admit. It seems the only real complaint is that humans aren’t the masters of the world anymore. But i’m okay with that because if that’s what I want, I can go to any other fantasy universe and get that exact thing. This at least, is new and refreshing.

The problem is that, 30-40% of the playerbase play Gw2 because they’ve played Gw1 and liked that game.

Disappointing them in every way they can is a bad strategy if they want to keep any of their loyal veteran base. 50-60% of them already left.

Ofc they need to expand the player base, but if they decrease it in the other hand it’s not too clever.

Meh, wasteland+win > garden+loss in my book. But where in the wide, wide world of sports did I imply that the past wuz where all the glory should stay? I’m not arguing that whatever we do post-Abaddon shouldn’t be as important. There are a billion ways they could have made additional content matter while still continuing a similar story-arc as the original.

As far as your last point, I reeeeally don’t see it. GW2 is a glitzy theme-park MMO of epic scale. There’s a flavor for every fancy and a scratch for every itch. But all of that mass appeal dilutes substance…it’s a wide, yet shallow river. GW1 on the other hand, was less diverse and narrower in genre, but it certainly had more depth and originality to it. The way they delivered it felt a lot more new and refreshing than the circus act we have now.

Dustfinger.9510:

frans.8092:

Have you not played GW1? Did you see any Charr structures other then those made from sticks and hides?

Feel free to google any number of ancient cultures who weren’t nomadic and were still limited to stoneage technology. Beside which : being nomadic doesn’t mean land isn’t yours. it just means you choose to use it differently.

Why would i google for something completely unrelated?

I said nothing about being nomadic, I made a comment on their (building) structures. I have to ask again, where are the examples of Charr structures made of more then wood and hides? It’s a fairly remarkable and distincive feature of the Charr in GW1 that we don’t see any.

Neither Kryta nor Orr had ever been Charr territory, so no, it was not about ‘taking land back’. And if it is about subduing a foe who can stand against them, then that is a very good reason to annihilate them rather then try and make peace with them.

1st page, 13th post up.

If you can’t be moved to give a link or proper directions you probably don’t have anything to point at. Why bother at all.

So, without counter, neither Kryta nor Orr had ever been Charr territory, so no, it was not about ‘taking land back’. And if it is about subduing a foe who can stand against them, then that is a very good reason to annihilate them rather then try and make peace with them.

Obsidian.1328:

Meh, wasteland+win > garden+loss in my book. But where in the wide, wide world of sports did I imply that the past wuz where all the glory should stay? I’m not arguing that whatever we do post-Abaddon shouldn’t be as important. There are a billion ways they could have made additional content matter while still continuing a similar story-arc as the original.

As far as your last point, I reeeeally don’t see it. GW2 is a glitzy theme-park MMO of epic scale. There’s a flavor for every fancy and a scratch for every itch. But all of that mass appeal dilutes substance…it’s a wide, yet shallow river. GW1 on the other hand, was less diverse and narrower in genre, but it certainly had more depth and originality to it. The way they delivered it felt a lot more new and refreshing than the circus act we have now.

As if all that stuff we accomplished as players back then was quaint and charming like a kid’s story…but what really matters is what is going on now.

This implies that your problem is how it matters now. Notice I said “most” of the glory, since that that what this line seems to take issue with. I never got the impression that what we did in the first game doesn’t matter anymore than I get the impression that what Britain did to be “The empire the sun never sets on”, didn’t matter now that it isn’t anymore. History happens.

GW1 had a lot of depth. I agree. I loved that it had so many different humans with so many different cultures and themes. They definatlly did dilute GW2 by not making the rest of the races as diverse as they made humans in GW1. But I can see why. Expanding on other races means the humans will get a smaller percentage of the pie, since there can only be 100%. Making other races as deep as the humans were in GW1 would have been entirely too time consuming. So they made other races and diluted humans knowing that humans still had a lot of depth and “lore pie” from the first game. Now that humans already have all that, they focus on other races lore and some people take it like “A-net doesn’t care about humans”. The same way the Alliance losing power to even up the Alliance/Horde ratio is perceived as “Blizz hates Alliance”. But in this instance, there was never a split between factions. Only fans who picked a favorite speciies from the first game and expected them to remain holding the majority of the “attention pie”.

frans.8092:

Why would i google for something completely unrelated?

I said nothing about being nomadic, I made a comment on their (building) structures. I have to ask again, where are the examples of Charr structures made of more then wood and hides? It’s a fairly remarkable and distincive feature of the Charr in GW1 that we don’t see any.

I misunderstood you. I assumed you would take posts in the context they were delivered. It seems you are actually saying that stone age structures aren’t considered “real structures”. Why not?

If you can’t be moved to give a link or proper directions you probably don’t have anything to point at. Why bother at all.

So, without counter, neither Kryta nor Orr had ever been Charr territory, so no, it was not about ‘taking land back’. And if it is about subduing a foe who can stand against them, then that is a very good reason to annihilate them rather then try and make peace with them.

if you can’t be bothered to read the posts in the thread you are trying to discuss, why bother? I know I won’t.

Gandarel.5091:

The problem is that, 30-40% of the playerbase play Gw2 because they’ve played Gw1 and liked that game.

Disappointing them in every way they can is a bad strategy if they want to keep any of their loyal veteran base. 50-60% of them already left.

Ofc they need to expand the player base, but if they decrease it in the other hand it’s not too clever.

I can see that. I think they had the option of delivering the same thing and getting a comparable number of players but instead gambled on appealing to a wider base to increase those players. Right or wrong, I can disassociate myself from what the GW1 game is and what the GW2 game is. I definatlly see why fans of GW1 might have an issue but the decision was made. Maybe it had something to do with other games where only humans are playable. maybe it had something to do with discussions with fans about what they would want from GW2. I do agree though, it could have been an awesome game with just humans but I do appreciate what it actually is.

Dustfinger.9510:

Gandarel.5091:

The problem is that, 30-40% of the playerbase play Gw2 because they’ve played Gw1 and liked that game.

Disappointing them in every way they can is a bad strategy if they want to keep any of their loyal veteran base. 50-60% of them already left.

Ofc they need to expand the player base, but if they decrease it in the other hand it’s not too clever.

I can see that. I think they had the option of delivering the same thing and getting a comparable number of players but instead gambled on appealing to a wider base to increase those players. Right or wrong, I can disassociate myself from what the GW1 game is and what the GW2 game is. I definatlly see why fans of GW1 might have an issue but the decision was made. Maybe it had something to do with other games where only humans are playable. maybe it had something to do with discussions with fans about what they would want from GW2. I do agree though, it could have been an awesome game with just humans but I do appreciate what it actually is.

They never asked us and never told us anything while developing the game.

Ah.. Then they probably went straight with numbers based on other games, knowing that the fans they already had would probably just say “We want the same thing, only better”. But the problem there is that you will only get a comparable playerbase. Instead, it seems they did gamble.

Dustfinger.9510:

frans.8092:

Why would i google for something completely unrelated?

I said nothing about being nomadic, I made a comment on their (building) structures. I have to ask again, where are the examples of Charr structures made of more then wood and hides? It’s a fairly remarkable and distincive feature of the Charr in GW1 that we don’t see any.

I misunderstood you. I assumed you would take posts in the context they were delivered. It seems you are actually saying that stone age structures aren’t considered “real structures”. Why not?

That’s cute, now I am taking posts out of context, while the only one actually taking what is said out of context and deliberately misreading posts is you. Spoken like real politician.

Many stone age structures still stand, but I haven’t said a word about ‘stone age’ until now. I commented that the Charr in GW1 didn’t seem to have build any lasting structures. Everything we see from them is made from wood and hides.

This was in response to your “Do we know they were nomadic? Or that they didn’t build structures? Nothing in the ecology says that.”, which was in reply to Gandarel’s “They were nomadic savages with no sturctures built there, just considered that land as theirs, which they took from the Forgotten.”.

Nomadic or not, the ‘ecology’ as presented in GW1 can not lead me to the conclusion that they build (lasting) structures and while the absence of such structures in Ascalon at the time of GW1, and after 1200 years of humans living there, doesn’t support the conclusion that they didn’t build them, there were none in Eye of the North to support the idea that they did build lasting structures.

if you can’t be bothered to read the posts in the thread you are trying to discuss, why bother? I know I won’t.

I dunno, but, eh, from my post, that you obviously didn’t read before mentioning some 13th post up:

" if it is about subduing a foe who can stand against them"

Now, what was it in this 13th post that you felt needed attention?
You still want to say something about reading posts?

frans.8092:

That’s cute, now I am taking posts out of context, while the only one actually taking what is said out of context and deliberately misreading posts is you. Spoken like real politician.

Wow. You really don’t read the posts, do you? The entire post of mine that you quoted was speaking to whether or not the charr were nomadic. Did you just pick my post out of a hat? How did you even get that far without knowing that?

Many stone age structures still stand, but I haven’t said a word about ‘stone age’ until now. I commented that the Charr in GW1 didn’t seem to have build any lasting structures. Everything we see from them is made from wood and hides.

Wood and hide is stone age culture. You described it, I named it.

This was in response to your “Do we know they were nomadic? Or that they didn’t build structures? Nothing in the ecology says that.”, which was in reply to Gandarel’s “They were nomadic savages with no sturctures built there, just considered that land as theirs, which they took from the Forgotten.”.

So you finally read it. Why are you still arguing against the context then?

Nomadic or not, the ‘ecology’ as presented in GW1 can not lead me to the conclusion that they build (lasting) structures and while the absence of such structures in Ascalon at the time of GW1, and after 1200 years of humans living there, doesn’t support the conclusion that they didn’t build them, there were none in Eye of the North to support the idea that they did build lasting structures.

Now it’s “lasting structures”. Got it. You are right that wood and hide doesn’t last and needs to be maintained. what exactly is your point? That they didn’t build stone structures? So what? How does this relate to the post you quoted?

I dunno, but, eh, from my post, that you obviously didn’t read before mentioning some 13th post up:

" if it is about subduing a foe who can stand against them"

Now, what was it in this 13th post that you felt needed attention?
You still want to say something about reading posts?

Absolutlly. Read the entire post. That how it was given so that’s how it was meant to be read. It addressed you posts already. Before you ever quoted it. You argued that the war wasn’t about taking land back while I had already said it was about taking land back AND something else that isn’t disputed. Which is proven by the ecology. But you seem to think that there’s some sort of dispute about subduing humanity. You feel it’s cause to continue the war with charr? Cool story bro. How does that relate to my post?

Dust

I agree with most of what you are saying about the time constraints on race development. Of course they downplayed humans for the sake of the other 4, but that’s not really what I’m arguing. I’m arguing that either do it the right way(aka a believable way that does justice to old and new alike), or don’t do it at all. Look, if the roles were reversed between the Charr and humans I’d be arguing for the Charr with the same enthusiasm. It’s not the race itself that’s important, it’s the context within which they are written.

Furthermore, adding new races to the mix is alright…if you do it right. For instance, using your analogy of WoW’s faction reworking, it was done for a real purpose…pvp balancing. It would have been suicide for the pvp part of the game had they not installed some sort of ratio balancing. In our dilemma, they did it for creativity and market share. Not bad things in and of themselves if done right. But for one it wasn’t needed(GW1 already had good story and a loyal fan base), and two it wasn’t done well(see posts elsewhere in just about every thread in the forums).

Using your Britain example; if someone came along with a new book discounting and downplaying most aspects of Britain’s eventful history, relegating it to something akin of a marginal and lucky nation, you would take issue with that. Even I would and my ancestors are Irish! lol The difference between the game and reality is one can be proved, the other can’t.

All we have to go on for the game is what it tells us about itself at the time it was written. And what it told us, through events, missions, text, and visuals, was not much at all like what GW2 wants us to think it was like.

Dustfinger.9510:

Wow. You really don’t read the posts, do you? The entire post of mine that you quoted was speaking to whether or not the charr were nomadic. Did you just pick my post out of a hat? How did you even get that far without knowing that?

Ah, what a lovely tone. You must make many friends.

I am sooo sorry for not reacting to all of your points, but 2 and 3 simply were not interesting, with 2 akin to saying the sky is blue and 3 is just bs. In 1 at least you tried to make a point against the idea that they were, or could be, a nomadic people by pointing out that the ‘ecology’ doesn’t support the idea that they didn’t build structures. Truth is that, as far as I remember from GW1 we do not see any Charr structures that could not be moved easily. Which is what you’d expect from a nomadic people.

Wood and hide is stone age culture. You described it, I named it.

I see, not an association that was obvious to me, the Stone Age is the name of a period in human history, wood and hides are building materials that are use to this day.

I described what is observable in GW1, Charr use those materials throughout Prophecies and Eye of the North and while non-nomadic cultures may use these materials as well, they tend to use other materials for their structures, like stone.

So you finally read it. Why are you still arguing against the context then?

Wrong, you finally realize I read it before making my post. And where am I arguing against the context?

Nomadic or not, the ‘ecology’ as presented in GW1 can not lead me to the conclusion that they build (lasting) structures and while the absence of such structures in Ascalon at the time of GW1, and after 1200 years of humans living there, doesn’t support the conclusion that they didn’t build them, there were none in Eye of the North to support the idea that they did build lasting structures.

Now it’s “lasting structures”. Got it. You are right that wood and hide doesn’t last and needs to be maintained. what exactly is your point? That they didn’t build stone structures? So what? How does this relate to the post you quoted?

Ás far as I am concerned, it’s always been about lasting structures, that follows from the context. You asked: “How do we know it was unsettled?”, to which Gandarel replies, “They were nomadic savages with no sturctures built there”. He points out, I think, the lack of Charr structures in Ascalon (and beyond) and given the timeframe he would be referring to lasting (really long-lasting) structures.

I dunno, but, eh, from my post, that you obviously didn’t read before mentioning some 13th post up:

" if it is about subduing a foe who can stand against them"

Now, what was it in this 13th post that you felt needed attention?
You still want to say something about reading posts?

Absolutlly. Read the entire post. That how it was given so that’s how it was meant to be read. It addressed you posts already. Before you ever quoted it. You argued that the war wasn’t about taking land back while I had already said it was about taking land back AND something else that isn’t disputed.

Both points were in my post:

“Neither Kryta nor Orr had ever been Charr territory, so no, it was not about ‘taking land back’. And if it is about subduing a foe who can stand against them, then that is a very good reason to annihilate them rather then try and make peace with them.”

I’ll lay it put for you:

“the war really was about taking their land back.”

“Neither Kryta nor Orr had ever been Charr territory, so no, it was not about ‘taking land back’.”

“And subduing their most threatening foe”
“And if it is about subduing a foe who can stand against them, then that is a very good reason to annihilate them rather then try and make peace with them.”

Which is proven by the ecology. But you seem to think that there’s some sort of dispute about subduing humanity.

What gives you that idea?

You feel it’s cause to continue the war with charr? Cool story bro. How does that relate to my post?

Context perhaps? This is a thread about ‘hating Charr’, within a story-setting where this age-old war is pretty big deal.

Chrispytoast.3698:

I want to know the Human’s thoughts about if you hate the Charr or not, would you want your race to go to war against the Charr in an event or do you like the peace that is currently going on?

Personally I just divide things into “Stuff trying to kill me” and “Stuff not trying to kill me”. In they’re on the former I tend to be very stroppy with them, but if they’re the latter I don’t mind them.

Frosch.7809:

How long the Charr had been living in Ascalon before humanity came, if it was longer or shorter than humanity does not matter one bit, as Ascalon was not theirs any more. The humans of Ascalon at the times of Prophecies had been living there for 1000 years, if that is not enough to give them every right to live there then 250 years are by far not enough to make Ascalon Charr land again. Reality is different…i live in Europe and if its nations were still laying claims to old borders from a 1000 years ago then some nations would cease to exist.

One word: Isreal.

Frans: All you’ve done now is describe how you weren’t even addressing the post of mine that you quoted. Are we done? If not, I can dissect that last post and point out how it is irrelevant if you want. But why bother?

Obsidian: I understand where you’re coming from. I can’t even refute any of those last points. They are valid. really, I think it just comes down to executive descisions based on projected player base. It is clear now, that this game isn’t really the spiritual sequal of the first game as you’ve pointed out in other posts. I think the reason I don’t get offended by it isn’t because I didn’t play GW1 or I am not a fan, (I did and am) but because the damage is done.

So acknowleging that this game isn’t the spiritual sequal, the charr have become something new, even in lore. They’ve become industrialized. I think it’s easier to accept for me because a-net really hasn’t done anything too outrageous to humanity. Just took them out of the seat of power in the world. But a-net does list the advantages they have over all the other races just as the other races have advantages over them. their agricultural system is second to none, even though the sylvari have the green thumb. And their record keeping is consistent. Even if fallible to a reasonable level.

Dustfinger.9510:

Frans: All you’ve done now is describe how you weren’t even addressing the post of mine that you quoted. Are we done? If not, I can dissect that last post and point out how it is irrelevant if you want. But why bother?

My god. Explain how you feel I didn’t address your post. Without the personal touch.

Probably useless but we try:

a) the charr left no structures in the area’s they were supposed to have lived in before the humans. Nothing.
b) the charr had no structures, except those mode of wood and hides in the area they occupied during Eye of the North

These observations support the notion that they lived nomadic rather then that they settled. They were hunters, they wouldn’t have found sufficient prey to hunt if they stayed in one place.

What’s your problem with idea the Charr lived nomadic?

Btw, I’ve reported you for the personal touch in your reactions.

frans.8092:

My god. Explain how you feel I didn’t address your post. Without the personal touch.

Probably useless but we try:

a) the charr left no structures in the area’s they were supposed to have lived in before the humans. Nothing.
b) the charr had no structures, except those mode of wood and hides in the area they occupied during Eye of the North

These observations support the notion that they lived nomadic rather then that they settled. They were hunters, they wouldn’t have found sufficient prey to hunt if they stayed in one place.

What’s your problem with idea the Charr lived nomadic?

Btw, I’ve reported you for the personal touch in your reactions.

1st page. 2nd post up. I have no problem with them being nomadic. Reread my posts. I said there was nothing that says they definatlly were. But I acknowledge the possibility by saying that even if they were it wouldn’t matter as far as the conversation goes.

If you’ve reported me for my personal touch, you may want to edit your own posts. I don’t see how I have deviated from your own attitude towards me. If you disagree, that’s fine. The mods will settle it. if you have a problem with me asking if we are done, it is a real question. You seem to keep changing the goalpost so now what you claim was your intent doesn’t even speak to my post that you quoted. if you have a problem with me informing you that I am willing to dissect the post to show you how it is irrelevant, that was a real offer. I saw no need to because it seems pretty apparent what your intent was but I was willing to accommodate you. But like I said, I’m happy to let the mods settle it.

Dustfinger.9510:

1st page. 2nd post up. I have no problem with them being nomadic. Reread my posts. I said there was nothing that says they definatlly were. But I acknowledge the possibility by saying that even if they were it wouldn’t matter as far as the conversation goes.

Oh, now it’s about another post, a while back you complained about me not properly responding to the 13th post up.

If you’ve reported me for my personal touch, you may want to edit your own posts.

Not once have your reactions had any bearing on the content of my posts. Your posts are either about perceived flaws in mine, or my person.

… I don’t see how I have deviated from your own attitude towards me.

I haven’t made a single comment about your person.

You seem to keep changing the goalpost …

I think you just switched from 13th up to 2th up….

so now what you claim was your intent doesn’t even speak to my post that you quoted.

I can’t help you in reading my words.

… if you have a problem with me informing you that I am willing to dissect the post to show you how it is irrelevant, that was a real offer.

I said so, didn’t I?

… I saw no need to because it seems pretty apparent what your intent was but I was willing to accommodate you. But like I said, I’m happy to let the mods settle it.

Really, what is my intend in your view?

frans.8092:

Oh, now it’s about another post, a while back you complained about me not properly responding to the 13th post up.

it’s about the context. You made a wrong assumption about my posts intent so I corrected the intent, validated my intent with another post that confirms what I was actually saying and referred back to the 13th.

Not once have your reactions had any bearing on the content of my posts. Your posts are either about perceived flaws in mine, or my person.

The mods will decide.

I haven’t made a single comment about your person..

You made a comment about how many friends I must have. You called my post “cute”. Like I said, the mods will decide.

I think you just switched from 13th up to 2th up….

No, the second validated the interpretation of the 13th. same goal post.

I can’t help you in reading my words.

No need. I can read just fine. This is I asked why we should even bother.

I said so, didn’t I?

irrelevant. I just defended my post.

.
Really, what is my intend in your view?

Are you asking me to go ahead and bother with the post? I won’t state it without citing multiple examples from your posts.

Dustfinger.9510:

it’s about the context. You made a wrong assumption about my posts intent so I corrected the intent, validated my intent with another post that confirms what I was actually saying and referred back to the 13th.

I read posts, not intentions. You referred to the 13th post up, the post I originally replied to, if another post more clearly stated what you wanted to say you should have pointed there.

I haven’t made a single comment about your person..

You made a comment about how many friends I must have. You called my post “cute”. Like I said, the mods will decide.

Oh yeah, “cute”, that’s so horrible. It’s about posting-style, not your person, btw. Lets remind you of why I made the friends comment:

Dustfinger.9510:

I misunderstood you. I assumed you would take posts in the context they were delivered.

Dustfinger.9510:

So you finally read it. Why are you still arguing against the context then?

Dustfinger.9510:

Wow. You really don’t read the posts, do you? The entire post of mine that you quoted was speaking to whether or not the charr were nomadic. Did you just pick my post out of a hat? How did you even get that far without knowing that?

You hardly post anything but that kind of crap. So, I am not sorry for loosing my patience with you.

frans.8092:

I read posts, not intentions. You referred to the 13th post up, the post I originally replied to, if another post more clearly stated what you wanted to say you should have pointed there.

It was sufficient but further proof doesn’t hurt. The entire conversation validates each post in it. if you are stating that you don’t need to consider intentions or “context” while responding to posts then so be it.

Oh yeah, “cute”, that’s so horrible. It’s about posting-style, not your person, btw. Lets remind you of why I made the friends comment:

It’s “personal touch” that you described as being so horrible and it’s snide personal touch. I matched it. Personal touch is consistently snide will get like response from me.

I misunderstood you. I assumed you would take posts in the context they were delivered.

legitimate post. I actually did misunderstand you because i had assumed you would take my posts in context. But you just now seem to say you wouldn’t in this post.

So you finally read it. Why are you still arguing against the context then?

Honest question. I was baffled about your approach to context.

Wow. You really don’t read the posts, do you? The entire post of mine that you quoted was speaking to whether or not the charr were nomadic. Did you just pick my post out of a hat? How did you even get that far without knowing that?

[/quote]

direct response to your personal touch of ‘cute’. I haven’t deviated from your attitude toward me. “And it’s posting style, not person btw”.

You hardly post anything but that kind of crap. So, I am not sorry for loosing my patience with you.

I’m okay with that. You reported and the mods will decide if your own personal touch is hypocritical, considering your report.

Dustfinger.9510:

… if you are stating that you don’t need to consider intentions or “context” while responding to posts then so be it.

Once more you claim I said something that I didn’t. I have not said I do not consider context, I said: “I read posts, not intentions”

Does intention have another meaning for you?

Free from Cobuild’s English Dictionary:
intention

1. An intention that you have is an idea or plan of what you are going to do.
2. If you say you have no intention of doing something you are emphasizing that you are not going to do it.

It’s “personal touch” that you described as being so horrible and it’s snide personal touch. I matched it. Personal touch is consistently snide will get like response from me.

Incorrect. The ‘cute’ was in reaction to your personal flavouring and directed at your posting style, not your person. You on the other hand were consistently directing remarks at my person.

I misunderstood you. I assumed you would take posts in the context they were delivered.

legitimate post. I actually did misunderstand you because i had assumed you would take my posts in context. But you just now seem to say you wouldn’t in this post.

More snide remarks while and trying to justify your own attacks.
No, your “I assumed you would take posts in the context” was there as a personal touch, and nothing else.

So you finally read it. Why are you still arguing against the context then?

Honest question. I was baffled about your approach to context.

Do you actually know what context means? Or is that another word you like to throw around, like your slightly off use of ‘intention’

It’s not an honest question, with “you finally read it” you imply I disregarded good forum manners. Personal touch.

Wow. You really don’t read the posts, do you? The entire post of mine that you quoted was speaking to whether or not the charr were nomadic. Did you just pick my post out of a hat? How did you even get that far without knowing that?

direct response to your personal touch of ‘cute’. I haven’t deviated from your attitude toward me. “And it’s posting style, not person btw”.

The use of ‘cute’ was, as stated before, directed at your style of posting, and commonly not unfriendly and casual in it’s use, while you go at the person. There is a huge difference in your attitude and mine.

You hardly post anything but that kind of crap. So, I am not sorry for loosing my patience with you.

I’m okay with that. You reported and the mods will decide if your own personal touch is hypocritical, considering your report.

I am not, but I have no need to waste energy on you and will take the short route.

You said you read posts not intentions, while responding to my post equating context and intentions. yet, now you claim you did not say you don’t read context when your response about reading posts not intentions was in direct response. I can only conclude that this is yet another instance of you choosing to read outside of the context. Your “style” of posting is beyond ridiculous. You contradict yourself constantly. Change the goal post. Report me for doing what you had already done. defend yourself doing it when I point out that you did it. So I ask again. Did you pick me out of a hat? Did I just win the Franz lottery today?