Guild Wars 2

Vayne.8563:

Csele.1647:

no need to make long analogys … gw2 is just like watching the same movie every day…..

atleast for the people who dont like living story wich is every single one i know…… people just do it because there is literally nothing else to do or farm achievements… who honestly prefers 1 day or 3 day worth content instead of a permanent dungeon.. or areas.. ,armor, weapons ,skills classes ?

More people than you’d believe want achievements instead of dungeons. I’m pretty sure people who enjoy running dungeons aren’t the majority in any MMO. They’re the loudest portion of the population, but I’m not thinking they’re the biggest.

In fact, a huge percentage of players never set foot in a dungeon at all. So I’m sure those people wouldn’t prefer a dungeon. Many of those people don’t PvP at all by the way.

In fact the number of players who solo MMOs can no longer be ignored even by devs. Scott Hartsman of Rift said as much, and even the GW2 FAQ answers a question about soloing. It’s not there because no one does it.

Of course, if people solo, they’re also not doing dungeons. Plenty of people just want to bang around in the open world, kill stuff and have a good time. Achievements simply give them something to focus on.

I don’t know why anyone would argue for an achievement based game. It’s like those parents that give everyone in a little league football conference a trophy so no one feels bad if they didn’t win. Achievement-heavy games are literally ruining online gaming.

The players in GW2 who would rather do achievements than dungeons, pvp, etc. are the ones helping to make this game so watered-down and trite. Those are the ones the devs seem to be listening and catering to anyway. Please don’t advocate for something that literally sucks the life out of anything meaningful in a gaming experience.

fenre

I didn’t know there were Separatists in Kryta, is this a new thing? 0.o

GoTiTaLL.9018:

here is something to watch about GW1 Nightfall, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk5Pok7P2ic

Thank you for that, it was very enlightening and I’m glad you linked it.

I don’t know if it was your intention, but putting human faces to the names has a way of humbling the critics. It did for me anyway, I’m bowing out of this discussion. Thanks again.

*note: Kristen Perry is hot

Sirendor.1394:

Vayne.8563:

Obsidian.1328:

Vayne.8563:

Obsidian.1328:

Vayne

Then why not go for some middle ground that still favors customization, just to a lesser degree? Instead they went waaaay the other direction. No one’s doubting the complexity of GW1 and how hard it was to balance, but simply scrapping it in favor of a system that is its polar opposite isn’t exactly innovation. It’s destruction. They almost completely dismantled and rebuilt it.

Why?

Anet has always over-reacted to problems. It’s their modus operadi.

Remember how people said that Prophecies was too long and slow. So they came out with Factions which was too short and fast. They got the balance a bit more right with Nightfall came out.

MMOs aren’t born as they later become…they grow. Anet started with less options and will add more as time goes on. That means that as they add more, they have a better chance of keeping some control. Starting out with 200 skills per profession would have killed it out of the gate.

Get the central game to where you want it, then start adding skills. It’s better for the game in the long term.

…

That’s your answer? Because overreacting is just their thing? You’re being an apologist.

I’m not being an apologist at all, because I’m not saying Anet is right for doing this. I’m saying this is what they do and I’d come to expect it. I’m more resigned to it than excusing it.

But it’s a penduluum thing. They got it wrong with Prophecies (too long and slow for most people), got it wrong with Factions (too fast, not enough content for a full game) and more or less got it right (or at least righter) with Nightfall.

I’m stating what I perceived, and saying that Guild Wars 2 will continue to by altered until there are more builds available and more skills and more ways to make builds.

But it’s never going to be Guild Wars 1 by intentional design.

Vayne has a solid point here. It’s extremely hard to cater to all the different kinds of players at the same time. It’s like trying to climb 3 horses the same time (only good ol’ Chuck is able to do this > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-D1KVIuvjA).

You’re right, he does have a point in that a successful MMO is an evolutionary process and not a polished dream right out of the box. I was also trying to bait him into a more drawn out argument because that’s not exactly the essence of the argument here is it?

You’re also right in saying that it’s hard to cater to all the different kinds of players at the same time, which has a lot to do with what everyone is talking about here. A key point of the issue is GW2 isn’t catering to the same crowd as GW1. They are catering to the casual masses. That’s fine if that’s what a company wants to do. There’s certainly money to be had in that, especially since the casual crowd is the fastest growing demographic in a decidedly cutthroat market.

What a lot of us take issue with is the contention that ANet gave every indication of making it a game for the GW1 type of player. A game for players who thrived on challenging content, strategic build diversity, meaningful storyline elements, and especially highly competitive, team-oriented PvP. They didn’t exactly do that, did they? If you’re going cater to a different crowd, have the decency to say so instead of pulling the proverbial wool over our eyes.

I don’t mean to be harsh, but I don’t know how to put it another way.

Sytherek.7689:

Deli.1302:

The reason why people don’t play gw1 despite the obvious fact that it’s superior to gw2, is because the can’t. The population isn’t there.

Gosh, if all the chronic naysayer’s actually played GW1, wouldn’t that solve the population problem?

I mean, you keep saying GW1 is better; prove it ANET by playing it! Vote by filling the GW1 servers! Buy GW1 stuff! Show them how much better GW1 is, if that’s what you really think.

Lol, I’ll tell you why they/we won’t. There’s quite a few reasons, but imo the most important is the fluid combat. ANet knows they got a real gem with the action-oriented gameplay, boon sharing, CC-mechanics, and cross-profession combo’s. Even with all the other detractors people talk about, when you go back to GW1 it feels incredibly sluggish and tame and antiquated. You’re constantly reminded with every step you take how outdated the engine is, even with all of its superior elements like customization, teamwork, pvp, guild mechanics, storyline, community, etc, etc, etc.

The freedom that GW2 combat gives you is extremely hard to pass on. It’s the crowning achievement of this game. No one doubts that, no one. What a lot of players would have liked, I’m guessing, was that very combat freedom along with all of those superior elements I mentioned. But, obviously, that doesn’t exist. ANet knows this and knows they can simply rest on their laurels until naysayers like myself fall to the wayside. I mean, we can’t keep this up forever right?

So, sorry to bother you Sytherek, but let us vent just a little longer. We’re already tired. And jaded. It won’t last too much longer.

islarose.7356:

-snip-

You think all the past years’ LS content would only equate to 1 new zone? I’m pretty sure we’re talking about a continent’s worth of zones. And yeah, I’d go there a lot if it was set up well. On the other hand, I might avoid it entirely if it’s tied to the LS.

Vayne.8563:

Obsidian.1328:

Vayne

Then why not go for some middle ground that still favors customization, just to a lesser degree? Instead they went waaaay the other direction. No one’s doubting the complexity of GW1 and how hard it was to balance, but simply scrapping it in favor of a system that is its polar opposite isn’t exactly innovation. It’s destruction. They almost completely dismantled and rebuilt it.

Why?

Anet has always over-reacted to problems. It’s their modus operadi.

Remember how people said that Prophecies was too long and slow. So they came out with Factions which was too short and fast. They got the balance a bit more right with Nightfall came out.

MMOs aren’t born as they later become…they grow. Anet started with less options and will add more as time goes on. That means that as they add more, they have a better chance of keeping some control. Starting out with 200 skills per profession would have killed it out of the gate.

Get the central game to where you want it, then start adding skills. It’s better for the game in the long term.

…

That’s your answer? Because overreacting is just their thing? You’re being an apologist.

Vayne

Then why not go for some middle ground that still favors customization, just to a lesser degree? Instead they went waaaay the other direction. No one’s doubting the complexity of GW1 and how hard it was to balance, but simply scrapping it in favor of a system that is its polar opposite isn’t exactly innovation. It’s destruction. They almost completely dismantled and rebuilt it.

Why?

Here’s a very interesting take on MMO viability in the current market. The author cites 5 top reasons why SWTOR didn’t pan out like it was supposed to:

• A beloved brand can only carry you so far
• The development costs are too darn high
• To beat the best, you have to do more than copy
• Don’t rely on an aging model
• What fans want is not necessarily what you think they need

Personally, I’d say GW2 is a mixed bag if you judge it by the above criteria. Comments?

PSX.9250:

SonicTHI.3217:

Because ANET abandoned the development of GW1 to make a better game based on the same principles – no grind for stats, cosmetic endgame, good and engaging pvp.

Instead why dont the people that want vertical progression and all that go back to WoW?

Thread should of ended at this.

It didn’t because it’s a weak argument. This game is hand-over-fist closer to WoW-type gameplay than GW1 was. Can anyone say it isn’t with a straight face?

Shanna.4762:

-snip-

You don’t have to be royalty to be eligible for the crown in Ascalon. Adelbern himself was just a common war hero that the people elevated to king over Barradin. Apparently all you have to be is Ascalonian. And a descendant of Doric probably, which Wade is.

Isn’t Samuelsson a war hero?…

smekras.8203:

not a Fringe fan obviously…

No…although I did find out finally where I saw that face before. Let’s just say I was more than a little ashamed that I could remember the commercials for Dawson’s Creek.

Oh god…that Paula Cole song is now stuck in my head.

Help me…

Also, the major staff changes came with Nightfall/EotN. I would challenge anyone to find one or two current staff members(besides the prez) that have been here since Proph or Factions.

Edit: found one at least, Bobby Stein arrived during Factions. :P

Sytherek.7689:

Judge GW2 against GW1 at the same age.

Are you sure you want to do that?

In February, GW2 will have been out the same amount of time as the 3rd GW1 campaign release time. And with a staff not nearly as big as GW2. Yet, there is arguably more content, although GW1 gameplay is slower so maybe that accounts for some of it.

As for the topic at hand, I would argue the following point:

It’s actually just a few things that GW2 has which GW1 players really wanted/needed: The mobile combat(dodging, jumping, attack-while-moving, perhaps swimming), the ease-of-use features(TP, bank accessibility, etc), the modern graphics, and the open-world aspect of it(although I’d argue for an option for instanced “hard-mode” zones).

That’s pretty much it. That’s what I’d bet they were expecting when they thought of GW2. Most of everything else they’d rather not have changed at all…which just so happens to be the very things GW2 gets negative feedback on. Coincidence?

Bambi Is Strong.6083:

Arikyali.5804:

How about this? Asuran are good at dodging, because their lab equipment and experiments have a tendency to….achieve explosive results.

Rolling on the floor would be a bad choice if it was covered in a volatile liquid. Better to do a somersault over the work table and land on top of the golem.

Yeah this reply wins.

But to the people who say “It’s about game mechanics” I wasn’t really asking about the distance of the dodge roll but more about why must they jump like that? Can’t they do some lousy human roll? or something else fitting a lab geek?

Because Asura are kinda the “silliest” playable race in Tyria? /shrug

The flips, wobbly stops, and arm-swinging jumps are inherent to that Asuran schtick. Silly isn’t the right word, but surely you get my meaning. So I guess you could call that lore, or race personality or something. :/

Konig Des Todes.2086:

…sans their over-use of rl references).

Thank god, I thought I was the only one who thought that…

Solandri.9640:

Here’s the problem with how I see Anet handling this.

• A) They made a bunch of classes who operate under the same combat mechanics.
• B) Then they gave each a unique F1-F4 class mechanic.
• C) They gave each class unique 6-9 utility skills. These are effectively multipliers, which improve the efficacy of (A)

The easiest way to balance this is at step (A) you make all the classes equal (e.g. their unique weapon skills do about the same DPS). At step (B) you make each F1-F4 skillset equal (they add a similar amount of DPS or utility). And at step © you make the 6-9 utility skills equal (add a similar amount of DPS or utility). The net result is then:

A*C + B

(Simplified, since not all skills fall into the categories I’ve outlined.) For variety you could make A bigger and C smaller, or vice versa (e.g. the engineer). So long as the product A*C remains about the same.

For most of the classes, this is how it works. Then you get to ranger. For some (misguided?) reason, they decided to make a whole bunch of the utility skills improve the pet instead of the ranger. The net result is then:

Ar + Br*Cr.

So you end up with a class whose capability without Br (the pet) is worse than the other classes, because the utility skills don’t synergize well with regular gameplay (A*C > Ar). Then they looked at the pet independently and saw it was getting improved by the utility skills making ranger F1-F4 significantly better than other classes’ F1-F4 (Br*Cr > B ). To fix this, instead of nerfing the pet or reworking the utility skills so they affected the ranger instead of the pet, they nerfed the ranger weapon skills instead (reduced Ar so Ar + Br*Cr = A*C + B ). This makes Br more important since it’s a larger fraction of overall damage. And is why so many here complain about the ineffective pet AI in PvP (the AI doesn’t matter as much in PvE).

The reduction to Ar means you end up with a class who when specced offensively does more DPS with a warrior banner than its native weapons (which replaces Ar with A). And when specced defensively doesn’t lose much from the weapon nerf, and thus does more DPS (via Br/the pet) than a defensive build for other classes (0.5Ar + Br*Cr > 0.5A*C +.

That IMHO is what’s causing all the problems we’re seeing in terms of damage, utility, and balance with certain builds, as well as the disparity between PvE (where you get nearly 100% of Br*Cr) and PvP (where you only get a fraction of Br*Cr because the pets can’t hit). They’ve painted ranger into a design corner. They cannot improve the offensive ranger without making the defensive ranger too powerful. They cannot decrease the pet’s effectiveness to tone down the defensive ranger without nerfing the offensive ranger into oblivion.

Your proposed solution (reduce ranger condition damage) is just another reduction to Ar, which while it may have the desired effect in specific cases, would make Br (the pet and its broken AI) even more important to overall ranger damage, as well as screw over people like me who like to run hybrid DD + condition builds.

Ultimately the easiest solution is to rework the class to de-emphasize the pet. Make it only as useful as the other classes’ F1-F4 skills. This means switching ranger from the Ar + Br*Cr formula to the A*C + B formula the other classes use. A whole bunch of skills and traits have to be reworked to affect the ranger fist, the pet second.

Excellent excellent post. Your significant other should cook you your favorite dinner, buy you a liter of your favorite alcohol, and be your slave in bed tonight…if only for the sheer thoughtfulness and formulaic breakdown of the pet problem that you gave to us. I salute you.

My two cents would be to use Durzlla’s idea(old idea now lol) and give us at least the option to replace the pet with Preps, or some similar mechanic. How the insanely obvious pet issue made it through development like it is now is beyond reasoning.

Morinmeth.9823:

But I agree with you generally and that’s what I’m saying; you’re not playing a game to express yourself or anything, you’re playing the game for training your mind, reflexes and decision quality

I would say that’s a hard-core state-of-mind. Not saying constantly challenging yourself is good or bad, just that it’s one of many reasons people play MMO’s: escapism, social interaction, exploration, comradarie, immersion(rpg), self-expression…

And then there’s just plain ole fun.

The Norn have Celtic images in their tattoos and styles, but their names tend to be more Scandinavian. So I don’t think it matters really, especially since the humans now are kind of a “mutt” species.

Just use whatever name you want and come up with an interesting backstory to explain it. Maybe your Guardian was raised by, or lived near, a Norn or Sylvari settlement and his family was influenced by that. :P

The choices you make with either player creation or the personal story don’t really have a meaningful effect. I won’t ruin anything with specifics, but you wanted to know before going further. You’ll have to use your imagination somewhat if you want to have your character feel like a unique and personal character. GW2 is an mmo first and foremost, an rpg a distant second.

You could start over, but I can’t tell you that you won’t get frustrated with it again. You’re not given much choice that veers even a little outside the main story arc, it’s a linear campaign. But I think that was intentional, it’s not a sandbox game after all.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

@Obsidian: On tht last bit, simply stating that Ascalon is recovering from the charr conflict does not state that Ascalon is actually doing well – the act of recovering is not “doing better” but “working to survive.” It’d be different if it was recovered, rather than recovering. Semantics in tense, I know, but important in interpretation nonetheless. Besides, I think it’s pretty clear that the new treaties with Krytans was in reference to Prince Rurik’s actions – and no such treaties ever came about with either nation beyond a settlement for those who fled Ascalon. Even with Nightfall there was a total lack of such treaties being mentioned.

Doesn’t help that Ermenred wasn’t exactly in Ascalon at the time of An Empire Divided’s writing from an in-universe perspective (as he was retouring Cantha and then remained in Lion’s Arch after). :P

I disagree, Ermenred is most likely writing this after the the Prophecies events took place, I don’t see how this is referring to Rurik’s dealings with the Krytans. He even mentioned that Togo is expecting help to come from a hero “who was instrumental in dealing with the Flameseeker Prophecies.”…meaning, those Prophecies(or the events thereof) are over.

Your “recovering/recovered” thing is a bit weak. I mean, if the player character and Adelbern had defeated the Charr Titans, and then you get this emissary in Cantha talking about his recovering kingdom and new trade routes opening up, why would he not mention the war with the Charr is still going on? Or why would Ascalon even send an emissary to Cantha for historical research if the kingdom was on the brink of destruction? If he somehow didn’t know what was going on back home, yet Togo did and doesn’t mention it in passing to Ermenred? It doesn’t make sense.

Also, his location in LA was a game mechanic thing. LA was the disembark point for Proph characters to go to Cantha…he’s supposed to be there as a bridging npc if you’d read Empire Divided before moving your Proph character to Factions.

Anyway, tired topic, I’ll drop it if you will. :P

On the origin of humans, do you personally think they were birthed in Tyria, or brought here from somewhere else?

I would use the phrase “inspired by” rather than “based on.” For instance, the Kurziks seem to heavily impart a gothic theme, which is odd given that they are within an “asian” themed area. Rurik is an important Russian name, the original real-life Rurik is loosely considered the father of ancient Russia, or at least the Kievan Rus. To me, the authors seem to have used bits and pieces of real-world cultures to flesh out a GW culture, but there is plenty of original thought involved in it too.

The Krytans of GW1 are not as clean cut a reference to real-world cultures as others are. You can see elements of Mediterranean, South American, or even SE Asian in there, but it’s hard to pin it down. Old Krytan architecture certainly has tropical or coastal elements imbued in it though. The White Mantle style is pretty original, but it’s not “technically” Krytan.

Thanks for the reiteration, it helps a lot. I wasn’t trying to twist your words, I’m sorry if it came off that way.

Hmm, your last paragraph is excellent. I agree that with a lack of forthright knowledge of the author it’s up to the interpretation of the game material itself. The “clues” come from the presentation and style I would say. I came to a different conclusion than you though(obviously lol). Although there definitely is some creation myth ideas involved in the History, there’s also quite a bit of supportive material interlaced throughout the game in the form and approach to writing it.

Both the History of Tyria and Empire Divided were written in 1st-person narrative, with the player character as the intended audience. And yes, it was human-centric, but that’s a given. History of Tyria is more of a broad summary of events leading up to the player’s birth unto the world itself. It’s background information intended to bring the player up to speed on the current situation in Tyria. The game itself fleshes out the nuances of that background somewhat.

Empire Divided is much more in-depth as a prelude, and offers more insight into the writer’s modus operandi. Its detailed 1st-person account of a visit to Cantha by an Ascalonian historian is a bridging mechanic designed to link the two games in terms of narrative. One thing I found particularly interesting is the opening credits:

This text is not a work of fiction, but is based on historical fact as interpreted by the author. Historical facts have been revised based upon new information acquired by the author between 1022 AE and 1072 AE.

The author almost outright implies that the following text should be taken as the facts of the matter as gathered by Ermenred the historian, correct? Or why else even bother with such an opening statement? Obviously, the author wanted to provide us, the players, with an authentic rendering of what he considered the facts of the time. Now if you scroll down farther you get this passage at 1582 CC(1072 AE):

And so we reach the present day. At the time of this writing, the kingdom of Ascalon is recovering from the conflict with the Charr and is establishing new treaties with the Krytans and Elonians.

Now I’m not trying to steer the topic away, I know I’ve done that before. I’m merely using this as an example of author intention. But reading that passage, it’s fairly clear that the author(Jess Lebow in this case, with help from others) is making a general intention that Ascalon itself is assumed to weather the storm of the Charr invasion and is on the road to recovery. Let’s not even broach this subject, I’m just using it as an example. But if that’s the case, wouldn’t it be fair to say that the authors of GW2 took the direction of Guild Wars 2 into a direction unintended by the original author? And wouldn’t that also mean we have supportive evidence here that the original Guild Wars narrative was altered?

I have read it, it’s one of my favorite documents.

You seem to think it’s ok to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” so to speak. So, Ermenred there saying we can’t remember exactly where we come from equates to a lot of things we’ve been led to believe about it is wrong? Everyone agrees there are discrepancies in the old lore, and yeah Proph had a good amount too, but saying those discrepancies gives someone a relative free hand with the narrative is something else entirely. A lack of evidence in one area doesn’t equate to proof of evidence in another.

None of what you just said or posted answers my question though. Was GW1 historical lore meant to viewed as myth or legend by the real-life author?

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Like I said in response to KeyLimPi, I was responding as I went through the thread. :P

But to the response to your response:

That line from the History of Tyria is akin to the Before History sonnets – poetical interpretation of historical events. It is no more believable – even during Prophecies, let alone during Factions – as the story of Adam and Eve. You are true that the entire document is not discredited, but your original statement of taking it as more truthful than Thruln is downright foolhardy if serious – which I doubt it was, given you.

How do you know that Konig? Where does it say, from a GW1 source(and I mean at least pre-EotN here), that much of the recorded history of Tyria was meant to be taken as myth or legend?

I honestly don’t know, I haven’t researched it. I just don’t remember seeing that line of thinking anywhere. It seems more likely to me GW2 used GW1 lore discrepencies as a case for simply discrediting the parts they wanted to. I could be wrong on that too, but it certainly feels more plausible an option than, say, specifically intending the majority of GW1 historical lore as the imaginated meanderings of an in-game race. You’ve got to prove that was ANet’s intention all along. Otherwise, it is a case of them altering the narrative.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Obsidian.1328:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

(. . . Ascalon is next.)

…not gonna happen, Tobi. :-/

You say that now . . .

But we all know it’s going to happen. How else do you think we get authentic charr plushies, made from real charr hide?

Lucrative furball trade prolly. :P

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

(. . . Ascalon is next.)

…not gonna happen, Tobi. :-/

Getefix.9150:

they wanted to know lore-wise hence why its in this section and not general talk, when people ask about the elder dragons and what their motive/history is i could easily say ‘thats what the devs wanted it to be when they designed it’ but its not quite what they wanted to know

There isn’t a lore reason, which is why I answered it as such. I think the devs even stated before launch they were adamant about a level playing field for all races regardless of size. I’m sure anyone of us, or even ANet could make something up to explain it, but that’s like trying to make up a reason why our toons never age, or require sleep, or use the bathroom, etc.

I like Shannonhouse’s explanation though.

Uhh…it’s because every race has to has the same movement distance. It’s the same reason why Norn look like they run so slow. Just a simple game mechanic.

Ha! Who is that dude?? Hmm, former famous actor…decade ago…emo teen drama… kitten ! Am I close? Tell me I’m close.

Vexander

Totally agree with you. That’s not really the point though. As Dust’s link has shown, ANet can write in whatever they want to suite their purposes. And they do, constantly. So it doesn’t really matter what happened in the past lore, or what kind of narrative was laid down early on, ANet isn’t really interested in that. The truth isn’t so much “might makes right,” the truth is the pen(cil) is mightier than the sword.

Your last line is so true. It’s not coming back for humanity. Trying to do so would fly in the face of everything they are trying to do with GW2. In GW2 ANet’s eyes, it never was human’s to begin with, so trying to argue GW1 semantics in a GW2 world is like spinning your wheels in the mud. It doesn’t matter in the least.

All

This Ascalon thing will be forgotten in a year or two. It was a microcosm battlefield for the overall change in story direction for GW2, and it’s painfully obvious ANet won’t renege on this. They simply have too much invested in the current narrative. To even try to do so would be akin to admitting they were wrong. And that’s political suicide for them.

The human’s, and their gods, were just a passing phase of antiquity that we can read about in the Durmond Priory. I’d even go so far as to say ANet sees GW1 as a quaint fairy tale. Something to gut for ideas on what to name your next Ascended item, but certainly not something to take seriously. We can either get used to it and accept it, or be relegated to antiquity along with it.

Hey, there’s always fanfiction.

Props to you too Dust, I walked right into it. Rofl.

Hey, faction fighting would breath new life into this game. Think about it, Tyria divided up into 5 kingdoms, each of em tryin’ to kill the other. Using DE’s as battles with famous NPC’s on the front lines. Boundaries constantly being redrawn.

/sigh

Dustfinger.9510:

Obsidian.1328:

Dustfinger.9510:

Obsidian.1328:

Oh I don’t know, perhaps because it’s the Ascalonian’s home? The Charr never claimed Ascalon as their home, nor is there any mention of them even settling it.

They did claim it as their ancestral land.

Where does it say that?

“Although the charr once again control their ancestral homeland of Ascalon, their grip is not as tight as they would like.” https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/races/charr/

LOL!! Oh that was a priceless link, I nearly fell out of my seat.

Well played ANet, well played. You beautiful basterds know how to backdoor in a lore hole I’ll give ya’ll that. My hats off to ya. GG

Dustfinger.9510:

Obsidian.1328:

Hey I’ll be the first to admit GW humans are violent. War is a pretty “inherent” to their nature. =D

I’d say that’s a great inference for humans as such, but how does that beget land rights?

Also, if ANet wants to make war an in-game eventuality I’m all for it lol. It would be a welcome break from all this contrived unity. I’d even get onboard for a scenario that wipes humans off the map.

That’s the beauty. It doesn’t beget land rights. It negates them by making them arbitrary. So the only people with any “rights” are those that have it. And those rights are only from a personal perspective and due to the duty to defend the land you live on in order to continue to live.

Alright, sounds good to me. Let the wars begin! It’s like that ownership is 90% of the law thing, love it.

Dustfinger.9510:

Obsidian.1328:

Dust

Yes Dust, since it is directly related to just about every discussion on GW1vsGW2 lore concerning Ascalon.

This is news to me. I’ve never heard anyone but you bring it up.

From the history of Tyria in the GW1 manual: “But then a new race of creatures was birthed upon the world. They were neither serpent nor beast. They were neither plant nor stone. These creatures had no chitinous hide to protect themselves. They had no claws to tear flesh. They arrived naked and defenseless, except for one thing: their desire for control.

This new race of creatures was none other than us humans, and in no time we began to take over.

So if we are going to infer into what the writers intended and accept that inference as lore that the writers didn’t need to outright state because they had enough confidence in us "getting it’, then this is a pretty good indication that the charr may have always been planned for owning the land before humanity.

And since they were conquerors from the beginning, they really have no more right to land than anyone else. because others also shed blood for that land as well.

Hey I’ll be the first to admit GW humans are violent. War is a pretty “inherent” to their nature. =D

I’d say that’s a great inference for humans as such, but how does that beget land rights?

Also, if ANet wants to make war an in-game eventuality I’m all for it lol. It would be a welcome break from all this contrived unity. I’d even get onboard for a scenario that wipes humans off the map.

Foxx

I’ll help one of your arguments out by quoting this from the GW manuscripts:

“The sudden destruction of most of the kingdom during the Searing has taken much of the fight out of the man now known as King Adelbern. He has become stubborn and set in his ways, afraid of losing what little he has left. But in his son Rurik, the people see a leader with the courage to perhaps help them reclaim their fallen kingdom.

The survivors of Ascalon live in a state of constant warfare, using hit-and-run tactics and the remnants of the Great Wall to prevent any significant advances by the Charr into their territory. King Adelbern has circled the wagons, so to speak, content to simply defend what Ascalon has left and live to fight another day. Prince Rurik, on the other hand, is far more daring than his father thinks is wise, and has even suggested that the time may be coming to launch an offensive against the Charr.

Already the rumbling of the winds of change can be heard in the streets. People are frightened. They wonder what will become of them. Some even wonder aloud if Adelbern has lost what it takes to steer Ascalon back from the brink. They wish to see the prince step up and take command of the kingdom. Perhaps under his guidance, the people of Ascalon will live on to see another golden age."

It certainly throws doubt onto Adelbern as to his effectiveness as a ruler. Of course, it also paints Rurik as the Ascalon kingdom’s saviour. He didn’t exactly do that though. :/

FlamingFoxx.1305:

Obsidian, it was established as fact in GW1 that Ascalon was originally Charr land – Humanity

“Ascalon is a beleaguered human nation in Tyria. Originally belonging to the Charr, Ascalon lies between the large Shiverpeak Mountains to the west and the Blazeridge Mountains to the east. Humans conquered a large portion of the land and established Ascalon in 100 BE and holds King’s Watch, where King Doric was crowned. There has been a constant war with the Charr since that time, which had been in Ascalon’s favor due to the Charr’s disorganization until the Searing. With the Searing, the Charr gained the upper hand and even managed to get multiple warbands through Ascalon to head towards Orr. Since then, the battle with the Charr became a true struggle.”

Consider also that BEFORE Humanity came to Tyria the Charr battled with the Forgotten in the Blazeridge Mountains, SOUTH of Ascalon…
“Long after the Forgotten stopped threatening the Charr, the humans appeared and, with the help of their Gods, pushed the Charr from their southern borders, conquering the land that became known as Ascalon in 100 BE.”

I’m sorry Obsidian, but please stop insisting things that have no basis >.>

I never said it wasn’t Charr land, it certainly was. I said they never called it their home. There’s a huge difference there.

Dustfinger.9510:

Obsidian.1328:

Oh I don’t know, perhaps because it’s the Ascalonian’s home? The Charr never claimed Ascalon as their home, nor is there any mention of them even settling it.

They did claim it as their ancestral land.

Where does it say that?

Foxx

The destruction of the entire Ascalon basin, the wall, and countless citizens in a single stroke is not as bad as a handful of Titans? dot dot dot

It’s not delusional to reject help from a shady offer. Kryta did that very thing. They were saved from the Charr, but enslaved by the Mantle right after…

It’s rational to villify deserters yes. Rurik should have known better than to publicly disagree with your king during a war.

You can’t say either way how many Ascalons supported Adelbern post-Searing. Did the Ascalonian Census include a public opinion poll on the king?

How do you know Devona would not have joined her father’s guild??

The Charr weren’t fighting humans for land, they had plenty of it. They were fighting humans because they wanted to exterminate humanity. Why invade Kryta and Orr if they just wanted Ascalon? Oh right, Abaddon told them to. When was that written into the lore again? Oh right, sometime around Nightfall. /rollseyes

Ascalon was Charr land yes. It was also someone else’s before that. And someone else’s before that. Did anyone else ever call it home besides the humans? Or build cities on it? Or bother to even name it?

Rednik

Patton was a hell of a general, one of my faves actually. He certainly had his flaws though. Nice quote, here’s one of his that might be at odds with it:
“If you can’t get them to salute when they should salute and wear the clothes you tell them to wear, how are you going to get them to die for their country?”

Dust

Yes Dust, since it is directly related to just about every discussion on GW1vsGW2 lore concerning Ascalon.

Foxx

• Rurik was a minority to seek Krytan help, most Ascalonians didn’t trust them. Why would they, they had been fighting each other for hundreds of years? Did you miss that part?

• It’s delusional to want to die for your country? Eat yer heart out Marines.

• I have no idea what worse things they faced. Oh right…that Searing thing.

For the record, at the time ANet didn’t even have all the information. It was elaborated on later. Also, it was the Prophecies’ authors point of view, not the humans. Other than the Thadeus Lamount bit, is the lore written in 1st-person? Is the gameplay controlled by some human narrator somewhere?

Does that make any sense to you? It’s ludicrous. Yet it’s still entirely possible because of the simple fact that any current developer can make it so. They essentially did the same thing with the Charr.

I’ve never said that it’s wrong to try and reinvent a game race, especially a former antagonist. What I’ve always said is that there are legitimate ways to do that. Primarily, doing it in such a way as to make it plausible not just with the facts of the lore, but with the style and theme of the composition. Using the Flame Legion is a complete cop-out because it erases the responsibility of the Charr of their former actions in Tyria. Using the Charr aversion to divine authority as the basis for surpassing every other race in Tyria in terms of technology is rediculous because it almost completely nullifies the importance the the gods in the first place…and tech has no place in Guild Wars. Using GW1’s own story-telling limitations as an excuse for granting the Charr, and any other race for that matter, a free hand with the lore because it was all “human-skewed” is about the most hilarious use of a bias fallacy I’ve ever seen. Using Roman nomenclature, instead of the historic Mongolian, for Charr societal and military framework changes the symbolic essence of the Charr from marauding savages to one more civilized and efficient. Using a lack of narrative about details of Charr society to extrapolate a story that is at odds with how they were written in the first place is the wrong way to do it. And additionally, although this is a separate issue, reshaping Adelbern into a crazy man who refuses to let go, legitimizes Charr claim to the land, while at the same time painting the Ascalonians as the real aggressor in the conflict.

If they wanted to make it more believable, or at least more accepting(because it’s not very much so, the volume of posts on this subject attest to it), they should have done it in a way that was more plausible. I realize we are vaguely arguing about different things here, but I don’t see how you can talk about inherent vs. situational Charr and not discuss their foundational portrayal in GW1. Again, I realize you think otherwise with that portrayal, but that’s just not how it was in the game. An illusionary war in my head? If it makes you feel better, go on ahead and think that.

Dust

You’re an artist and you don’t mind ANet trying paint Tyria a different color?

I have plenty of problems with other possibilities in the game, this one just seems to get called out the most. Which brings me to my next point. Do you really think I’m over-thinking this? Honestly, it’s hard to find other issues so hotly debated. The very fact that it is such a hot topic should give pause to you saying I’m imagining something that isn’t there. It’s not just sentimentality(although that’s definitely part of it for some), it’s yer “zeitgeist” I guess.

It’s not how I feel about it so much as it is how the authors of the story felt about it. Not all hostile npc’s were intended to be inherently evil, no. You have to use your mind to figure it out. Look, the story gave us tons of preconceived notions. The Charr were just one of them. It was a preconceived notion that you(the hero) would ultimately have to save Tyria from destruction. It was a preconceived notion that we would probably have to face off with Shiro. It was a preconceived notion that there was something much bigger behind Varesh. There’s also things that aren’t pre-conceived, wow! The author isn’t going to hold your hand through it, lest he risk derision by people with brains. Use everything he or she gives you to perceive and see and hear and read, then come up with a conclusion based on that. If it jives with the game, it’s probably a good conclusion.

I’ll try to give you a GW2 counterpart scenario. Let’s say for GW3, the writers decide to tweak the Quaggans for the purpose of introducing another story arc. They claim the Quaggans we see are really spies sent to infiltrate Tyria by their evil Quaggan masters. The ones we see are actually sinister chameleons who are following the orders of their evil queen: the Prophetess Mellaggan and her evil enclave of Quaggan Acolytes! Egads! They then present us with an airtight case of why this is plausible making sure every little lore snippet is carefully bridged and fluid. Eventually we learn through gameplay cinematics that the Quaggan are building up strength in the seas around Tyria with the goal of enslaving the sentient races. They are a deceitful race, and particularly enjoy Asuran brains as a delicious delicacy to feast on in their underwater fortresses. Mellaggan, for her part, is being carefully controlled by the Elder Sea Dragon. During a game mission, we find a rebel group of Quaggan who are in hiding from Mellaggan and unite with the player character to help overthrow Mellaggan and cast off the yoke of the Sea Dragon’s influence. Brilliant!!! -_-

Dilige Vitam.1956:

In this thread: People forgetting that Ascalon was originally the Charr’s land and Humans kicked them out of it. I don’t understand why any of you seem to think it’s the Human’s right to take it back?

Oh I don’t know, perhaps because it’s the Ascalonian’s home? The Charr never claimed Ascalon as their home, nor is there any mention of them even settling it.

Dust

Eh, you’re using the absence of solid evidence as proof of the possibility of evidence to the contrary. My argument isn’t about the bare facts of the case, if it was I’d be wrong. My argument is about how they were portrayed in the GW1 story through by the authors and how they meant the Charr to be seen as a group. You could certainly point out(as you have and are) that there isn’t any legitimate proof that the Charr were inherently evil. There isn’t any if you’re just looking at raw data. But that’s not exactly my argument.

I’d said many times in my rants that the authors did a good job of connecting all the dots and making sure, as best they could, that there weren’t any loose ends or knotted lore threads. All that really takes is merely plodding through old texts and using any available generality or omission to take advantage of and extrapolate your own new thread from there. Think of it as an alternate reality where the timeline slants off at an angle before moving parallel to the old line. The new line is technically plausible because the old line stops at a specific point in time instead of continuing on, so no one can really say “I call BS” since there’s nothing to currently compare it to. The 250 years was used as a story technique to lessen whatever doubts(however tiny) this new thread would entail. kittenty analogy, but it’s the first thing that popped into my head.

Look, in reality, the new devs can do whatever they want with the lore. Of course they aren’t going to stray too much from it, or they risk the uproar from thousands of nerdy players like you and me. So they tweak the lore in little bits here and there in order to get exactly the kind of setting they want for the game. Is that legal? Of course it is. Does everything still add up? For the most part yes. Does it accurately reflect the story, style, and setting of GW1. Hell no.

The reason they didn’t elaborate on the Charr is because they were simply written as the enemy. A species to be seen as a mob that you kill, just like the dozens of other mobs out there like skales, ogres, or whatever other critters were out there. If you call to question their inherent “evilness”, then you have to call to question every single other species on the planet that isn’t specifically labeled “inherently evil”. That’s extremely silly. The writers didn’t call it out back then because they assumed the players would…well…get it, for lack of a better phrase.

I would say Markis’ evilness and the Charr’ evilness were not the same at all. Markis’ betrayal was not only intrinsic to the storyline, he was actually called out by the writers as someone who broke bad. The same is true of the Mantle, when we first meet them we think “oh…these guys are pretty cool…but there’s something fishy about them.” They left us tiny little breadcrumbs of doubt about which side they are on. Same with the Vizier.

They don’t do that with the Charr. They intentionally left no doubt as to which side they were on because that’s how they wanted them to be. I see what you’re saying about elaborating a race’s motives based on no technical evidence to the contrary, and you’re right on that account. But I’m arguing on stylistic and thematic evidence. And that’s where it doesn’t make sense. I’m sorry if you think that’s not as important as technical evidence, but it’s actually more important in a fantasy and fictional setting like Guild Wars’ Tyria.

Here, the lore doesn’t make sense if you look at it in this way. If you look at it from a composition point of view. Think of GW1 as a very long and beautiful song in which the notes are pieces of lore. It was put together in such a way that the music runs smooth and melodically. The notes interact and reinforce each other to produce a sound that we interpret as beautiful. Now…you can take a few notes out and put a few notes in at different places on the page, and still make it play music. It’s still a song. You can even put a “2” on the page and call it simply the next verse in the song. But if it sounds too different from the earlier music, you can’t consider it a legitimate addition to the same song. Essentially, it’s a new song.

For me, lore isn’t just about facts and figures. It’s also about mood, style, and theme. And no, the GW2 Charr do not make sense to the GW1 story when you look at it this way. Many things don’t at this point, even the humans. I can see how you would think it does based on a scientific approach, but 1+1=/=2 with writing. The story and lore of Guild Wars is greater than the sum of its parts. It’s art, not some equation we have to balance for Christ’s sake. If you can’t see that, then unfortunately we can’t meet on common ground. :/

Dustfinger.9510:

It was unneeded because the events, dialogue, situations, visuals. etc. that are in the game all lead you to that conclusion.

So they all lead to that conclusion even though you also admit there is a lack of clarity with no explanation. You contradict yourself. So what then would lead us to that conclusion?

You’re confusing inherent evil with just being evil for any reason at all and falsely assuming situational evil isn’t also evil. Evil actions don’t point to inherent evil or situational evil. As I already stated, it all boils down to evil in the end. There is no evidence either way at all. It is left compleltly undefined as you yourself admit. The wishful thinking is on your part because you really want this to be true. But it’s built on an imaginary foundion here that only existed in personal assumption. It wasn’t actually part of the lore as you say it was.

Sorry Dust, busy weekend.

I never said your two types weren’t evil or whatever, I just said the game makes it obvious that the Charr are the bad guys. In a game like GW2 where good & evil are black and white, it’s silly to question the motives behind both evil and good. The narrative wasn’t built that way, you’re projecting GW2’s moral ambiguity onto the GW1 stage. You’re right, it wasn’t clarified. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.

It wasn’t clarified that the player character was a good person either, just that he saved Tyria from a bunch o’ calamities. It’s an assumed role you take on as the hero, they don’t have to outright state it. If they had felt they had to, the writers would have done a very poor job.

Take Markis of the Shining Blade for instance. He’s depicted simply as a traitor. Is he inherently or situationally evil? Who cares, it doesn’t matter. Maybe his wife was dying of an incurable disease and the Mursaat promised to help. It doesn’t say, he’s just a kitten for sellin’ out.

The Charr on the other hand, are entirely depicted as one of the apex antagonists. Everything from the few bits of lore we get on them, the in-game depictions, their dialogue content, their animations, their names, to even their armor style…depicts them in a way that leaves zero doubt as to their intentions. There’s no debate on this, they were made by the designers to be killers.

And giving them some inventive “out” like Flame Legion made ’em do it!! because there’s no “proof” of their inherent evilness is apologistic and irresponsible. It lets them completely write off the original intentions of the Charr, and blames the disconnect as ignorance on the Ascalonians part. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen or grander or more implausible 180 with a game race before.

GW2 is a different game with a different style. And no amount of reinventing, recreating, or outright retconning, will erase the old game for what it was meant to be…that is, until the day they pull the plug on it.

They can still be inherently evil without knowing why. Inherent simply means it’s a defined characteristic of something, it doesn’t ask for an explanation. And yes, they do imply the Charr are inherently evil. You don’t need a black & white statement to believe that, it’s evident throughout the game. You’re right, they don’t tell you why they are evil, that doesn’t mean they aren’t supposed to be viewed as such. You’re taking an unneeded lack of clarity on the author’s part for the basis of your entire viewpoint. It was unneeded because the events, dialogue, situations, visuals. etc. that are in the game all lead you to that conclusion. If you didn’t get that conclusion, that’s wishful thinking on your part.

ANet never told me why the Mursaat were so evil, therefore they can’t really be considered evil since I can’t prove it. <— nonsense

Lol, don’t be so literal.

I can try to gather information through wiki and youtube I suppose, but I can’t play either game right now. GW2 fried my motherboard last month. :/

Actually, not really. They give you the picture of not just what it is they created, but also oodles of clues as to what they want you to think it is. It’s not player bias I’m arguing for, it’s designer bias. The perspective and point-of-view comes from the authors of the material. They are the narrators, not the player or anything else. They establish a relationship with you based on gameplay experience. They are essentially inviting you to participate in the shared product of their imagination. But it’s still their imagination we are witnessing, not ours.

Now, if they had to spell out every single nuance and subtlety in the game for us, that would be one seriously boring, not to mention insulting, game. There’s plenty for us to examine and interpret in the game. The shape of the trees, the architecture style of a roof, the way the sun shines through the clouds, even the music clues us in as to what the authors are trying to say at a given moment. If we don’t figure out what something is supposed to mean, or we interpret it in a way different than what was intended, then it’s either our fault for not being smart enough, or their fault for not being forthright enough.

It’s a lot like a man and a woman dancing. The man is the game authors and we are the woman. He leads us step by step through the song(the story). If we don’t follow his lead, or he doesn’t lead us well enough, then that part of the dance is lost to us in the song. Now you could just dance however the hell you want and claim that’s how you thought the song was leading you. But you would only be right unto yourself, not to him or anything else.

In the end it’s his song your dancing to, not yours.

It doesn’t have to specify it, the game assumes it. Does the game specify that grass is green and water is clear? Does it specify which end of the sword I’m supposed to point at a scale? Do you truly think they need to hand-hold us through every inch of storyline experience in order to validate something? I don’t know about you, but I’m certainly grateful the writers didn’t feel the need to insult my intelligence by giving me zero room to judge the sights and sounds they created on my screen.

You can think that if you want to, but I can’t think of anything, besides GW2 development, that would put any doubt as to the distinct portrayal of the Charr being one of the “inherently evil bad guys” of Guild Wars. There wasn’t a lack of evidence for it, they just didn’t feel the need to implicitly state it. Why would they have to? A 4th grader could figure that out.

Again with the real life history? This isn’t real. Whatever the writer of the story conjures up in his mind and lays down in the game is the game reality, not what we think it is based on things that happen on Earth. The creator determines reality. If he/she decides that rocks are made of hard candy, then they are made of hard candy. It’s extremely arrogant to think someone else’s art has to adhere to our reality. The perception of Germans and Germany throughout the 20th century doesn’t have jack squat to do with perceptions of a fictional fantasy race.

And yes, the Charr were absolutely portrayed as inherently evil in Proph. Everything about that story screams it. Just because someone doesn’t come along and slap you in the face and say, “They are to be labeled evil, end of discussion,” doesn’t mean it isn’t so. That was the point of having them there in the first place. They weren’t like the Centaurs for instance, who we saw in the game as merely savages, and not necessarily evil. I have no idea how you don’t see that, you don’t need to be spawned from the bosom of an evil deity to be inherently evil.

As for FlamingFoxx, there is objective evil if the authors say there is. It’s their creation and their world. Whatever real-life constructs we carry with us about morality, truth, choice, freedom, w/e, should be checked at the door when engaging in a fictional fantasy world such as Guild Wars. You either accept the world for what it is, for what it is meant to be, or you don’t accept it at all. And once you do that, you can become a part of it.

The Mursaat, Margonites, etc. aren’t evil from our perspective, their evil from the game’s perspective. That’s an incredibly important difference. You’re right that in EotN they finally provide that different perspective with the Charr. But that didn’t come from the makers of the Guild Wars 1 world, that came from the makers of the Guild Wars 2 world. That expansion was specifically meant to bridge the two games, the devs even said that.

If you take nothing else away from my earnest and pathetic diatribe, take this. The GW2 crew (meaning the staff, the writers, the devs, etc) are not the creators of this world we know as Tyria, they are the inheritors of it. And whatever decisions and/or changes they make to the original narrative should be judged on how accurately or honestly those decisions and changes reflect on the original narrative.

That may seem arrogant of me to think that, but really I’m just trying to hold someone accountable for borrowing someone else’s hard work and reshaping it to fit your own needs. Ebonhawke’s mere existence in the game is almost entirely as a mournful nod to the Ascalonian culture that existed in GW1, and, I suppose, to the players that identified with it. There won’t ever be any Ascalonian revival or renaissance. Not because it’s not logistically possible within the game-world, but because it’s not in ANet’s best interest to do so. Period.

The sooner people who care about this issue realize that, the better off they will be. And I’ll eat my words if I’m wrong.