Guild Wars 2

MrWagner.8964:

draxynnic.3719:

In international diplomacy, making claims on territory on the basis that it used to be yours and you lost it in some past historical event is called ‘revanchism’. It’s not considered good behaviour, and certainly isn’t regarded as justification for anything, let alone employing weapons of mass destruction indiscriminately against a civilian population, which is what the Searing was.

And most cases of revanchism represent territories that were lost a lot more recently than twelve hundred years ago. Anybody who laid a claim on a territory on the basis that it was part of their nation over a thousand years ago would be laughed out of the UN. Unless perhaps if they happened to be a permanent member of the Security Council.

You do realize you are trying to force real life definitions and norms on a fantasy world? And you bring in the UN as well?
Revanchism isn’t considered a good behaviour in OUR world, because the majority of the world says so. So if we wan’t to know if the charr (re)conquest was justified or not we need to play by GW rules.
Personally I think the asuras don’t give a kitten about it, the norns want to retake their homeland as well, so they can relate, maybe the sylvari will agree with the humans, but because they have such a unique world view it’s a 50-50 chance for them to take side with the charr in the matter.
Of course these are just speculations, but until the majority of Tyria will say that it is bad to take back your home, the charr will have rightful claim for Ascalon.

If drax is guilty of forcing real-life norms on a fantasy world, then you’re guilty of forcing one fantasy world onto a different one. It was already established that the Charr homeland was north of Ascalon back in GW1, they literally changed that last year.

It’s easy to change history when you have the editing pen. Especially when that history is neither yours, nor what you want it to be.

Qiraa.4130:

i wanted the inquest to kill her, hate Taimi

She just makes me uncomfortable. She’s supposed to be this child prodigy and she’s wearing lipstick and mascara??

Creepy, ANet…creepy.

Nilkemia.8507:

…That’s because it is the same creature, only now in the flesh (well..planty dragon flesh) and not bound by being a tutorial boss.

Oh.

It kind of looked like the Dragon thingy you fight in The Dream from the Sylvari starting instance.

/shrug

Behellagh.1468:

The “fix” to the trait system was in response to the contingent of players wanting something that was found in GW1, acquiring traits from completing specific content rather than handing them to you for free. Except, to my understanding these were more unique traits in GW1 and not the “basic” ones every became use to here in GW2 for 3g and change. But hey, we can now retrait for free. You know swapping between all those individual traits you unlocked by doing content that might not be available when you had the trait points to select it or by spending a lot more in the long run than 3g and change.

You are a very keen observer.

You make a lot of good points, but I can’t get on board for this one. This trait acquisition change came hand in hand with the China release, and the way it unnecessarily elongates rounding out your traits is an obvious nod to an Asian player market that generally readily accepts grinding as standard MMO faire. I think they didn’t want to make it too fast or easy for that crowd, looked for ways to do that, and simply used the “skill capping” concept of GW1 as a rudimentary blueprint for this. I mean, it’s not like there’s much rhyme or reason as to which event unlocks which trait. It’s mostly a “go to random event X to unlock trait Y” kind of thing, there’s little reasoning, and zero immersion, behind it.

I really don’t think this was in response to players wanting this, but rather a clever way to extend the 1-80 grind a tad by transforming a popular GW1 concept into a vaguely familiar GW2 progression mechanic.

FrostSpectre.4198:

After bringing humanity to Tyria, the human gods drove the humans to war with other races, only Melandru didn’t like it and drove her followers to communicate with them.

Quite unjustified move by the Six gods in general…

Also you should take into account, that most of the manuscripts and written lore in GW1 were based on Humanity’s view. They took no views from other races…
Alot of the information were over time told by other races, showing the true origins of many of the human “victorious stories”.

Ascalon was very likely Charr lands before.

Example: Bloodstones weren’t created by six human gods either, it was created by the Seers to combat the dragons hunger for the ancient races…
Humans just wrote it off as theirs…

Who knows, many powerful artifacts created by the ancient races had fallen to human hands, during their god driven genocidal wars, which then were then written off as their own artifacts, regardless of the true origin.

Similarily, as humans had massive army under their command, united by the six gods who drove them to war against anything else on Tyria, the Shamans very likely use their massive army of united Charr into other places, as the Shamans were quite the liars and deceivers. There’s no difference on humanity, they weren’t very virtuous themselves, easily broken into other cults over time…

So Humans and their gods can all rot for eternity in Realm of Torment…

It’s probably easier to understand the disconnect if you understand the evolution of the Guild Wars narrative over the years.

For starters, GW1 wasn’t specifically written in a “human” point of view. Meaning, they didn’t write the supplementary lore thinking “This is what we’ll say about Tyria according to humanity” but rather “This is what we’ll say about Tyria.” In other words, it was just the writers explaining stuff for us. That humans were the only playable race at the time is irrelevant, most of it wasn’t written in a 1st-person point-of-view. The lack of directly specifying that is something GW2 has largely taken advantage of…for obvious reasons.

Everyone here knows that GW2 lore is meant to expand upon the lore of GW1, and they generally did a good job with that overall if you’re mainly concerned with connecting dots. But when two separate narratives, written by two separate people(s), don’t exactly add up, it’s a disservice to simply assume the most recent takes precedence…that’s not how plot sequels are supposed to work.

So, the only part you wrote up above that was true is the part about Ascalon used to be Charr territory. I say “was” because pretty much everything you wrote is true now (except for the genocidal god stuff, no idea where that comes from). Meaning, it’s true for GW2, but not for GW1.

Make sense?

Neb.4170:

She’d probably complain and whine about everything like she did in the first game.

^ That.

But really, after walking around GW2 Tyria for an hour, she’d say, in a sad, little Dorothy-esque tone:
" <pc name>, I’ve got a feeling we’re not in Tyria anymore."

agrante.2810:

On a side note, we’re collecting an essence of foxfire, which is produced by fungi that live from decaying wood, from saplings, young growing trees. I guess Earth biology only partially applies in Tyria (or someone should get their biology facts straight). On the other hand we’re choping down ancient saplings, I guess those froze in time and never actually had a chance to grow… they do re-spawn though. Oh the idiosyncrasies of MMOs…

For starters it’s not real, it’s make-believe.

Secondly, even if it were real, Earth biology wouldn’t apply at all on Tyria. Because it’s…you know…not Earth.

Jarvis.9540:

- Can I solo through all of the content in this game?

Yes, you can solo through most of the game. Henchman are kind of vanilla npc’s you can pick up in any town to fill out your ranks. Heroes, on the other hand, are customizable npc’s that stay available to you wherever you go. Nightfall and Eye of the North are the two campaigns that give you access to these. It’s a lot different than GW2, so take your time learning your class and pick up skills as you go.

Note that the combat is not nearly as mobile as GW2, it’s more about using the right skill at the right time, synergizing your skillbar, and synergizing your party. Your pc, however, is way more customizable than your GW2 counterpart.

Wait a minute, they are charging gems to play past storylines??

BrunoBRS.5178:

Obsidian.1328:

BrunoBRS.5178:

…and nothing rytlock said contradicts previous lore of the swords

Yet: Rytlock: “They were given to the Ascalonians as protection against invasion.”

That’s new. Technically it doesn’t contradict anything because it never really states what the swords functions are besides a peace token. But it still adds to it.

i thought he said given to the humans, though as you pointed out, nothing about it contradicts estabilished information. nothing says a peace token can’t come with a letter and the words “for safekeeping”.

Absence is the mother of Invention.

BrunoBRS.5178:

…and nothing rytlock said contradicts previous lore of the swords

Yet: Rytlock: “They were given to the Ascalonians as protection against invasion.”

That’s new. Technically it doesn’t contradict anything because it never really states what the swords functions are besides a peace token. But it still adds to it.

Thalador.4218:

Rytlock: “It all hinges on Sohothin, my sword. There were originally two of them — Sohothin and another called Magdaer. They were given to the Ascalonians as protection against invasion.”

“Magdaer is a legendary sword of Orrian origin, dating back to a time when the Gods of Tyria walked among the humans and lived in the City of Arah. At some point, Magdaer and its sister, Sohothin, were given as gifts to the Ascalonian royal line to ensure continued peace.”

— http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Magdaer

“Like its “sister”, Magdaer, it is a powerful holy artifact of Orrian origin, given to Ascalonian royalty as a gift of peace."

— http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Sohothin

They were a gift of peace from the Orrian royalty to the Ascalonian, not from the gods to Ascalonians right off the bat to protect them against a supposed invasion.

I’m not sure, but I think GW2 ANet thinks Orr = Arah. At the time the twin swords were made, Orr, Ascalon, and Lion’s Arch were all basically considered continental Tyrians…meaning they were all part of the same human nation(most of Kryta was colonized by Elona later). Arah, the City of the Gods, was a separate place of divine making, not human. Granted it was right next to the humans living on the Orrian peninsula, but they weren’t the same thing. Orr didn’t even become its own distinct nation until 2AE. The twin blades were likely gifts to the humans living in Orr from the gods living in Arah well before the exodus. Later, after the Guild Wars, the Orrians gave them to Ascalon as a peace offering, like Thalador states here.

TheRyftLord.5820:

Out of character, in the current state of events it wouldn’t really make sense to start something like that.

In character wise, both of the human characters I have fleshed out believe that there are greater concerns in the world than a piece of land. Concerns that could lose them everything. Ascalon ain’t worth the rest of Kryta.

“…the rest of…”?

Ascalon isn’t Kryta, it is its own people and place.

Arghore.8340:

Why they did this is beyond me, they could have just used ‘rivers of magic’ or ‘magical circuitry’, ‘magical network’ or even ’ Magical Concentrate Relay Connections’ and describe the same thing without opening a whole can of wurms.

…or not used a “ley line”-like explanation at all? Teofa wasn’t appalled that they called it Ley Lines, but rather that they felt the need at all to include such a thing. The game had already established basic explanations for magic. No, they weren’t very specific or descriptive, but that’s a good thing in a fantasy world like Tyria. Mystery used to be a lovely writing device, why abandon it?

And yes, the choice to use these rivers of magic as a trivial explanation for everything, replacing ‘magic did it’ with ‘ley lines provided the magic that did it’ can be called ‘superficial’ and dumbed down. But apparently the game is supposed to appeal to a wide western young audience, so what do you expect? high level magical physics?

We already have that, it’s called Magitech.

DraconicDak.9340:

Obsidian.1328:

Never played the Star Wars stuff, how bad was it?

Of particular note is probably Karen Traviss, who wrote a whole series of novels ignoring previous canon to make the Mandalorians into a perfect Mary Sue race. She was disliked by other SW authors at the time, and eventually the TV series The Clone Wars introduced a radically different version, essentially overwriting hers, and she threw a fit and quit SW writing entirely. I believe she’s doing Halo stories now.

She’s the most extreme example, but the entire SW Expanded Universe is constantly shifting like that.

They should totally bring back Tarkin as a clone, inject him with Midichlorians(cuz that Lucas idea was so awesome right?), give him a super duper SSD, and unleash him on Coruscant.

Lovestory with Jar Jar included cuz same-species relationships are sooooo last millennium.

Perhaps the phrase “How can I make this mine?” should be a fitting brand for writers like her in any ’verse that deals with continuity…

Avariz.8241:

During King Doric’s time there were only the kingdom of Orr. At the time there were no kingdom of Kryta. It did not exist at the time. There were no kingdom of Ascalon. It did not exist at the time. Later after King Doric died the Kingdom of Kryta was founded. Some time after the Kingdom of Ascalon was founded.

Kryta didn’t fully exist yet, although Lion’s Arch did. Ascalon, however, did exist, he actually helped settle it. So we can assume it existed in some provincial capacity.

It might be accurate to think of him as High King of the Tyrian humans; with Orr being the foremost and chief kingdom, Ascalon a secondary province, and Kryta a fledgling third settlement.

DraconicDak.9340:

I understand your point, and to an extent, I agree. The story is always going to service the game, not the other way around.

I just think the execution was a fair bit more elegant than a lot of these things end up being. Where the old stuff clashes with the new aim, it’s expanded upon instead of thrown out.

I guess I’m just used to Star Wars, where if an incoming writer wants to take their story in a different direction but there’s overlap, what came before is just completely ignored.

Oh I agree that the execution was more elegant than it might have been. It’s clear they showed real effort in trying to fuse the two. I just don’t understand why the change was even needed. I mean…it had a great foundation to start with, why mess with that?

Never played the Star Wars stuff, how bad was it?

Dak

That’s not sound reasoning though. You’re saying that since 250 years have past and Tyria is more modern and knowledgeable, that magic is only now better understood.

Dot dot dot…

They made it in the future for at least two related reasons: 1) for a broader artistic approach to the game visuals and themes; i.e. steampunk and magitech. 2) and for redefining sketchy but generally accepted lore concepts to mirror that new artistic, stylistic, and philosophical theme.

In other words, they purposely set the game in the future so that they could point to scientific progress dispelling aspects of the old lore as something akin to “mythic.”

I mean…it’s not like they said:
“Oh look…it’s 250 years later. Let’s explore how this scientific revolution can unveil the ‘truth’ behind Tyrian magic!”

But rather it went something like this:
“It’s going to hard to introduce all these new ideas we have into the current setting of Tyria. Why don’t we just make it in the future and use ‘scientific progress’ to better legitimize what we want to do with the narrative? It fits so well with what we want to do with GW2’s artistic style anyway, why not?”

Do you see the difference there?

Erukk.1408:

A retcon is what they did mistakenly to the Sylvari timeline when they showed Scarlet’s birth year. An abrupt change of facts. While some people might view the changes to magic, Bloodstones, and the gods are retcons, the changes to the lore are explained when they expanded their backstory and added additional information and perspective on the subject.

Writers can change facts all the time in their works. What makes the difference between a retcon or not is usually just storytelling. Good writers can explain the changes in such a way that they are believable. Amateur writers sometimes have to use the ham handed retcon appoarch though.

That bolded part is the issue for me though. We know it was a different writer or even group of writers between the two games(at least until Nightfall, but the basic lore had been set by then). Some may argue that it was the same company, and therefore perfectly acceptable. But to me that’s just silly. Legally that’s legit, logically it isn’t. I suppose it depends on which you think is more important. :/

I have to add that I think they generally did a good job meshing the two together(albeit lately it’s less so). Jeff and Ree, for instance, are very good fantasy writers. One needs only to look at their past works to validate that. Personally I think GW2 ANet did a good job linking up the basic facts of the lore. However, the style and spirit of writing between the two games are vastly different. Perhaps it was that shift in stylistic approach that was a major factor with the incompatibilities many see here. /shrug

So let them. =D

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Some things need to be just accepted. Counting the numbers of NPCs on each side in game will never give a realistic number of combatants in the historical events of armies vs armies.

Exactly. Players need to make intelligent judgements on which things in-game should be taken literally, and which should be taken as limitations on the game engine. The game company can’t be expected, with existing technology, to present a world that is 100% accurate and viable.

Frosch.7809:

That the humans in Ascalon survived without a food source is the “impossibility” as presented in GW1, which simply arises because the game designers did not think about an explanation. It does not make your theory of arable land or human presence outside of enclaves the logical explanation.

Hmm…I always made the assumption that what we get to physically traverse in the game world =/= intended representations of a town/city/kingdom. For instance, there was tons of Kaineng City we never got to see just because they didn’t have the resources to implement all of that. The same could be said for Elona, Kryta, and yes…even Ascalon. I hardly think the various areas we get to be explore in-game is all there is to a place.

That being said, I always assumed Ascalon had other parts to it somewhere where we never got to go. West, east, south, who knows. If game kingdoms like in Guild Wars are only restricted to what we actually get to walk around in, that really wouldn’t make much sense to me from a world-designer point of view. Especially given the limitations to mid-2000 era game engines.

I could see that for future content perhaps, but why the same thing on Tyrian past? Why not just have a source for written word like a game manual or narration? This endless vagueness just lends itself to “nothing is for certain, everything is possible.”

DraconicDak.9340:

I am curious, though, Teofa, where is that account of the Foefire in the game? I am all for that interpretation existing, but what’s the source on the Ascalonian account?

It’s not in the game at all as far as I know.

Erukk.1408:

Obsidian.1328:

Answers like that make me want to wring their skinny little necks. We aren’t asking what the Priory thinks about it, we’re asking what you, <RL ANet writer>, thinks about it. It’s almost like they think the lore is too precious a thing to talk about in an out-of-verse way.

And when they do that, we are left with about zero useful information when it comes to “intention”.

Mostly because their own words would probably be used against them at some point, or some people will mistakenly take the writer’s opinion as canon on the matter.

If some writer says their favorite race is [blank], and that writer goes onto write a story that centers around a character of said race, some people will say that the writer is playing favorites. The same can be said in reverse. Writer says he/she hates the Jotun, and they go onto write a negative Jotun story, people might say that their opinions on the race is effecting the story.

Or worse. What a Writer might say…
“I think the Elder Dragons might have a bit more emotional depth than what the players see. I hope we get around to exploring the subject more!”

What some players might see…
Breaking News! Writers say Elder Dragons are big ol’ softies, and they are just out to give everyone a hug!"

Ugh…are players really that obtuse?

DraconicDak.9340:

In that capacity, if the account of the Foefire is meant, by the developers, to be questioned, I would think that the Priory, or some book in Ebonhawke, would hold an account that challenges the Charr viewpoint. As there is no such item in the game, to my knowledge, I have to believe that the agreeing accounts are, by and large, correct.

I just want to say that you touched on a very key element with ANet: intention. My instinct is to agree with you in that it’s the intention of the writers that should be taken into account on narrative issues. After all, their minds are really the ultimate lore source, are they not?

What bothers me so much with ANet lore interviews is their tendency to speak in 3rd-person about their own game. For instance, if you asked them in real-life about the Jotun they might say something like:

“The Jotun are a mysterious race. Some say they once had power that nearly rivaled the 6 gods, and that because of that The 6 took away magic from them. But Priory research has showed that extensive civil war most likely was the reason for their race diminishing.”

Answers like that make me want to wring their skinny little necks. We aren’t asking what the Priory thinks about it, we’re asking what you, <RL ANet writer>, thinks about it. It’s almost like they think the lore is too precious a thing to talk about in an out-of-verse way.

And when they do that, we are left with about zero useful information when it comes to “intention”.

Dust is right in that the information was patchy. And that humans were warlike and not the noble fancypants some would paint them. I can’t speak on whether or not fans wanted Ascalon to be some sort of shining beacon or not, I certainly didn’t. Jess’s writing made it clear when he wrote the words, “The last day dawns for the Kingdom of Ascalon.”

Ascalon was always meant to diminish and fade, it’s the nature of that diminishing that I had a problem with. It was the birthplace of tons of GW PC’s. Just let it go quietly into the night and end it nobly. Instead GW2 ANet practically erased that heritage and built a new one on top of it. A little insulting to Ascalonphiles in my opinion, and perhaps to Jess, but what do I know.

Tyria is a big place, there’s plenty of room for everyone’s home.

Go to Aurora’s Remains in Brisban Wildlands. The main npc there that leads the dynamic event is named after him.

BrunoBRS.5178:

well, that explains the gigantic leap in quality after factions.

seriously, factions’ campaign is horrid. love cantha, my first and main character is canthan, but good god, that story. i actually gave up on it halfway through, to recover from its badness.

Yeah, it’s sort of a judgement call. I actually thought the Nightfall campaign was great(sans Kormir). Factions was slanted towards pvp, and Proph’s story was kind of all over the place.

All I’m saying is that they(GW1 & 2) are not a continuous whole. They are different narratives written by different people, and should be treated as such.

BrunoBRS.5178:

Obsidian.1328:

BrunoBRS.5178:

actually, the people that decided the foefire are the same people that helmed GW1’s plot. so you can stop pretending these “new people” that don’t know better are ruining your ascalonian pride.

LOL, no they aren’t.

funny, they even wrote a whole novel about it. guess it’s all a lie.

dude, there comes a point where you need to admit you’re wrong. saying the GW1 loremasters (which are the same as the GW2 loremasters, coincidentally) didn’t sign the foefire when they are the ones that wrote it god knows how many years ago and later wrote a whole freaking novel just about the foefire, is just plain silly.

You need to do your research then.

Jeff and Ree, both GW2 novelists, weren’t brought on-board until Nightfall. They are both known for being the gatekeepers of GW2 lore, yet they had zero to do with both Proph and Factions.

Would it surprise you to know it was only 1 single guy that wrote all of the Proph storyline? And that he helmed the Factions storyline as well?

Not that it matters now of course, the storyline is set. And that’s fine, I get that. But don’t claim narrative legitimacy when it’s clear there are gaping holes in that claim.

BrunoBRS.5178:

actually, the people that decided the foefire are the same people that helmed GW1’s plot. so you can stop pretending these “new people” that don’t know better are ruining your ascalonian pride.

LOL, no they aren’t.

Wait, what? His pride cost him his nation? He didn’t kill his son, nor his nation. Dagnar killed his son, and the Charr were killing his people.

A lot of my disbelief comes from how Anet decided the war to turn out. At the end of GW, the war is actually turning back towards Ascalons favor. The Charr blitz gamble had succeeded in Orr(kinda), failed in Kryta, and stalemated in Ascalon. Furthermore, they had successfully stopped the second charge on Ascalon(albeit at the cost of Rin), and even managed to kill off the Titan source…the backbone behind the Charr onslaught.

Not to mention there are overt references in Factions of the war actually being over from an Ascalon diplomat to Cantha…
“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.”
But that part was obviously overlooked.

Fast forward 10 in-game years with GW2 ANet at the helm, then all of a sudden Ascalon is overrun again, the city surrounded, Adelbern is insane, and the Charr as innumerable as the stars. The Charr females must be reeeeeally tired at this point.

I really don’t know how anyone doesn’t see that as a paradigm shift in the game in terms of developer decisions concerning who will live and who will die.

I’d rather they just be honest about and say the equivalent of, “Yeah…we needed a place for the Charr to call home, and Ascalon was it. So…umm…we had to write in all this Foefire/CrazyAdelbern/AncestralHomeland stuff to legitimize it. I mean…Ascalon was hurtin’ soooo bad, come on!”

Assuming for some odd reason any regular Ascalon wouldn’t want to do that, what’s the difference between that and a general ordering his troops to defend a spot at all costs?

The fact that the Foefire encompassed the entirety of the Ascalon basin only lends itself to the idea that ANet wanted to make him another Vizier-like doosh. Initially, it made sense to me because I assumed it was limited to Ascalon City. But it affected the entire country? WTF? How can one sword do that? And even so…if he had that kind of power all along why didn’t he use it before? Really? Why didn’t he just head north with a small group and nuke the Charr there? It doesn’t make any sense at all. He was a seasoned warrior and his son dying made him hate life and enact mass murder?

And Bruno, I’m rather blown away that his madness is so readily accepted. What the heck made him so insane?

DraconicDak.9340:

Obsidian, they didn’t have that choice. Adelbern enacted the Foefire without the knowledge or permission of his people.

And?

BrunoBRS.5178:

DraconicDak.9340:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Er, larvae was the least derogatory term I came up with.

If Adelbern has to wear the “idiot” cap it is for defending a capitol cut off, vastly outnumbered and with no hope of retreat, rescue and supply. Had he withdrawn prior to that situation the Charr would have just added “coward” and pursued anyway by then. I do not think the Rurik option remained.

He had no option of “winning”. Not at that point. The only choice the Ascalon Army and King had was to make their enemy pay dearly for the victory. And they did. The Garrison was doomed no matter what. All of Ascalon knew that a surrender to Charr was slavery and death.

And yes, He changed the Rules. That is how you beat the Kobiyashi Maru scenario.

Adelbern did not destroy his Nation. As long as Ebonhawke held, the Nation lived.

So you’re saying Adelbern was being a good, honorable king in murdering the entirety of his nation (excepting a single fortress, naturally).

a single fortress that only survived because it was lucky to be far enough away, otherwise not even ebonhawke would’ve survived, meaning all of ascalon would be dead.

“As long as Ebonhawke held, the Nation lived.” that sure is what the ebonhawke citizens keep spouting, cornered while the majority of ascalon is charr territory now. that’s like saying “so long as we hold jersey, the united states hasn’t lost!” as canada takes over the holds control of the rest of the land.

Marathon called, they want their legacy back.

DraconicDak.9340:

So you’re saying Adelbern was being a good, honorable king in murdering the entirety of his nation (excepting a single fortress, naturally).

Why does everyone assume the regular Ascalon wouldn’t have wanted to do the same thing Adelbern did? There are countless times in history where a people chose annihilation over slavery. Even a Hollywood’d movie like “300” evokes the same sentiment, the Charr/Ascalon dynamic is little different.

If you had to choose between slavery and death, what would you choose?

lordkrall.7241:

Claiming the mad Adelbern was created specifically for GW2 is quite silly. Unless you want to claim that GW2 was already planned when Prophecies was released.

Adelbern WAS mad, long before GW2 was announced, and it is show rather clearly in the Prophecies campaign and the Titan Missions.
He was broken by the Searing.

Show us all that evidence please.

I never said that they were created for the Foefire, only that the process of their creation would lend insight into their power.

Correction: Adelbern the Madman was created by GW2 as a plot device to serve the Charr-human conflict in Ascalon. They took a single argument with his son and built an entire alternate persona out of that and infused it into him.

In GW1, he was just an old, stubborn war veteran who had family issues.

Ronin.7381:

Obsidian.1328:

Ronin.7381:

Silvercyclone.1462:

The swords were made in Orr by humans for humans there is no reason why the curse would break for a Charr.

Again, their creation and original purpose has next to nothing to do with their application during Adelberns spell. Orr created the blades as a token of peace. Peace became meaningless when Orr was sunk into the murky depths of the Ocean.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. They were meant as tokens of peace because of the Guild Wars ending, they didn’t have anything to do with the Cataclysm.

I didn’t say they did have anything to do with the cataclysm. After the Cataclysm peace between Ascalon and Orr was meaningless, their creation had nothing to do with the ritual Adelbern subjected his own people to.

Certainly their creation would signify something about their power and about the curse. The power of the Foefire came from the swords, not from Adelbern. He was a warrior, not a wizard. The “sorcerer king” thing, along with many other things concerning him, is a GW2 construct. He didn’t have an ounce of arcane mischief in GW1.

Also, you reeeeeeeeeally hate Adelbern.

note: the twin swords were created pre-exodus(0 AE), but they weren’t given to Ascalon royalty until the end of the Guild Wars. No idea if that’s important, but they weren’t “created” as peace tokens, they were only given as such.

Ronin.7381:

Silvercyclone.1462:

The swords were made in Orr by humans for humans there is no reason why the curse would break for a Charr.

Again, their creation and original purpose has next to nothing to do with their application during Adelberns spell. Orr created the blades as a token of peace. Peace became meaningless when Orr was sunk into the murky depths of the Ocean.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. They were meant as tokens of peace because of the Guild Wars ending, they didn’t have anything to do with the Cataclysm.

Silvercyclone.1462:

The swords were made in Orr by humans for humans there is no reason why the curse would break for a Charr.

^ I’m not sure that really matters for GW2 ANet.

Celestina.2894:

Obsidian.1328:

Celestina.2894:

Obsidian.1328:

Celestina.2894:

You really can’t make an argument that most of the lore was not a human perspective. Certainly a more human then charr perspective.

Truer words are rarely spoken. I doubt a dog, a cat, or even a chimp wrote GW1.

Come on, surely you can make a better troll attempt then that.

Ikr.

I was going to imply that GW1 was not written in a 1st-person perspective…and therefore not a (Tyrian)human perspective. Then I realized that was old hat for me. And I was tired, so I went to bed.

Shameful display.

Oh, I’m pretty shameless here.

Celestina.2894:

Obsidian.1328:

Celestina.2894:

You really can’t make an argument that most of the lore was not a human perspective. Certainly a more human then charr perspective.

Truer words are rarely spoken. I doubt a dog, a cat, or even a chimp wrote GW1.

Come on, surely you can make a better troll attempt then that.

Ikr.

I was going to imply that GW1 was not written in a 1st-person perspective…and therefore not a (Tyrian)human perspective. Then I realized that was old hat for me. And I was tired, so I went to bed.

Celestina.2894:

You really can’t make an argument that most of the lore was not a human perspective. Certainly a more human then charr perspective.

Truer words are rarely spoken. I doubt a dog, a cat, or even a chimp wrote GW1.

Vayne.8563:

Obsidian.1328:

Not really, remember the New Coke outrage? Thousands of /raging Americans ready to storm Coke HQ over a friggin’ soft drink. You don’t have to be saving the world to protest something, dude.

Not quite the same thing. There were millions and millions of coke drinkers who didn’t like the new product. But a drink isn’t an MMO. The fact is, people often doing think deeply about their entertainment experience. With Coke, you take a drink and either you like it or you don’t. It’s two options. On or off. It’s binary.

No one anywhere kind of likes Coke?

With a game, you like it, but you don’t like everything about it. Do you really think most people in the game even have a clue that a meta exists, or what a meta is? Do you think they really sit and ask questions about stacking or build diversity?

Absolutely.

I’ll bet you they don’t. You’d need millions of people to all boycott games in general. It’s not going to happen. Even if 100,000 people boycott, it’s not going to stop people from doing what they’re doing.

So…because it’s hard you shouldn’t try?

Can you get more than that? I doubt it. To put this in perspective, TB talked about boycotting Mass Effect 3 and said he wasn’t going to buy it because of their marketing practices. I agreed with him and I didn’t buy it either.

According to Wikipedia, the game sold 1.5 million copies and grossed 200 million dollars. Do you think EA even noticed my not buying the game?

At least you had a clear conscience.

Changer the Elder.2948:

…the relevant information is more likely to be found in Guild Wars 2 rather than the first installment.

That’s all I needed to hear. Thanks!

RyuDragnier.9476:

Obsidian.1328:

Changer the Elder.2948:

Taken verbatim from the very first thing a newborn charr player hears in the game:

“I am a charr. In this world of constant battle, I am the deadliest weapon of all. I respect no authority but the clenched fist of my Legion. With engines of destruction, we have killed our gods. We reclaimed our homeland of Ascalon, and we planted victory banners on the graves of our enemies.”

I’m just going to leave that here for the “what do charr call their home” debate.

You’re quoting a line from the GW2 wiki which contradicts GW1? Are you new here?

>implying GW1 told everything from the perspective of the Charr

>implying it told everything from the perspective of the humans.

Changer the Elder.2948:

Taken verbatim from the very first thing a newborn charr player hears in the game:

“I am a charr. In this world of constant battle, I am the deadliest weapon of all. I respect no authority but the clenched fist of my Legion. With engines of destruction, we have killed our gods. We reclaimed our homeland of Ascalon, and we planted victory banners on the graves of our enemies.”

I’m just going to leave that here for the “what do charr call their home” debate.

You’re quoting a line from the GW2 wiki which contradicts GW1? Are you new here?