Showing Posts For Obsidian.1328:

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

No, Charr were always the one’s that humans took it from. The contention is the homeland. Even in Proph, Ascalon was considered the Charr’s “southern borders”. EotN outright states the Charr homeland is north of there. Saying that was simply the humans’ point-of-view on the issue is a huge cop-out, for which there is no evidence of at all until some dude just up and “decides” it’s the case now. Using that old b.s. technique of in-game bias to enact a cultural paradigm shift is not new, and quite frankly I’m surprised people accept it so readily. I suppose you think Glint was always an ED champion, and not a separate and unique individual whose presence had nothing to do with them?

At least try to view the history without GW2 blinders on.

Oh, I think out of the two of us, Im the one seeing clearly. you’ve already acknowleged the double standard exists.

Charr did have their homelands at the southern borders but their “ancestral homeland” included Ascalon. That’s the homeland of their ………ancestors. But we already knew that humans took somebodies homeland and made it into their own homeland. Blinders is refusing to factor in that it was always someone elses land before it was humanities.

Without GW2 to answer the question, I’d be asking just who’s homeland it was before humanity took it.

It was nobody’s homeland before that…that’s the point. Unless you want to say Grawl or Gargoyle or something. You seem to have a different definition of homeland. Being inside someone’s territory doesn’t make you in their homeland. The Blazeridge Steppes were to the Charr what the Italian peninsula was to Rome. Stepping across Hadrian’s wall in England didn’t put you in Roman homeland, just their territory. Why are you arguing this, I thought this was a no-brainer?

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Kav -snip-

The Separatists are deliberately portrayed as single-minded fanatics because it suits ANets purposes for this game to do so. They couldn’t, for instance, have them look sympathetic to the pc in any way because that would undermine the cultural meta for the whole game…i.e. races unite to defeat uber dragons.

For those npc’s you mention, it’s ok that they dislike the current situation, but it’s not ok to do something about. There’s a difference there too.

The centaurs, I would argue, have a similar situation. Had ANet decided, as an alternative, to keep Ascalon human and have Centaurs overrun Kryta to be used as a playable race(instead of Charr), I would have had issue equally.

But you’re still missing the point entirely. The reason why all of this exists in the first place isn’t because of any lore perspective at all. It’s because of two reasons: 1) The graphical detail of the game only permitting a certain amount of the face of Tyria to be rendered, at least at launch. Knowing this before hand, they had to make hard choices on which races occupy which areas. Apparently there wasn’t enough time or space to give new races land outside the established human areas…so they simply took over human land to do so. And 2) Knowing also that they wanted to provide racial parity with this game(again, in sync with the overall theme of the game), they had to choose only one spot where the humans would be. Obviously Kryta took that cake, and Ascalon was an obvious choice for the Charr.

The point is, ANet didn’t care enough for the original game to keep any of those human areas intact. Much of Kryta is now Sylvari and Asura land. And don’t forget that what they did to the dwarves is basically the same thing they did with the Ascalons and Charr. They killed them off to make way for the Norn, the only difference is they did so heroically. This, of course, was all decided on many years ago with EotN.

GW2 is all about looks. Taking the time and effort to design such a supremely gorgeous world(and it is very gorgeous), while allowing for 4 new playable races, meant the end of the human nations on Tyria. Not because of any long-unraveling narrative just now unfolding. Not because of humanities early pride or usurpation of the land. And not because of any long-sleeping dragons.

It was because 1) they wanted it to look pretty, and 2) they want us to accept their new version of Tyrian morality where in-fighting is stupid and ugly and barbaric and we should all hold hands now and let ANet teach us how to be better people. Give me a frickin break.

It would have been better(and more honest) had they kept it like it was and, you know, use the other 95% of the globe for new races. A small cut in graphical quality is a very small price to pay for staying true to the narrative which, by the way, made possible this game.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

“Shame on them for going back and filling in a completely blank part of lore, explaining the reasons for this race to so viciously attack Ascalon and humanity!”

“Shame on them for actually have the bad guys HAVE A REASON.”

What are you talking about?

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

That humanity took it from someone doesn’t have anything to do with my point. And yes, the Charr currently own it. But, every Ascalonian alive can claim it was taken from them. You seem to think cultural identity only matters to the time in which you are alive. All those npc’s kitten ily shouting “For Ascalon” aren’t shouting it for their own, small time-frame of existence. They are shouting it because the writer was trying to tap into the basic, timeless, tribal roots we all share as human beings and using that to evoke a sentimentality about a piece of land in the game. The writer was trying to endear Ascalon to the PC. And not just the peeps, but the kingdom as well. If a player doesn’t give two farts about it, then fine, carry on. But don’t try and say it’s not there…it is.

Your second line, I have no idea what that means. There’s plenty of space to add new races and such. Wth are you talking about?

that’s no problem. it can be there. It is still a double standard. Now if we can agree that it is based on a double standard and that it is still there, then we really have no disagreement.

The second line was directly referencing the claim that my arguement left no room for other races. But my logic doesn’t hinge on that reasoning.

How is that a double standard?

replace “ascalonians” and “humans” with “charr” and it makes the same point in charr favor and is no less true. The double standard comes when one is championed over the other using the same measurments.

double standard

noun

1.

any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/double+standard?s=t

You’re forgetting the Charr weren’t from Ascalon until last year. Until then, my statements aren’t a double standard because you can’t replace one name with another and still have it hold true. Now of course you can. But that’s not my fault. ANet created the double standard with this when they changed the “homeland” thing, not me. The double standard now is ANet trying present any human as wrong or evil who thinks Ascalon should be fought for by Ascalons. It’s rather silly you don’t see that.

I’m not forgetting that. I fully acknowlege that that is when the charr became the ones that humanity took it from. But we knew humanity took it from somebody since the beginning. So why champion humanity over anybody that humanity took it from? A-net didn’t create that double standard. They told us from the beginning that humanity took it.

So even without knowing that it was the charr, it is still a double standard since we can replace “Ascalonian” and “humanity” with “the ones humanity took it from”. feel free to ignore that it ended up being the charr. Championing humanity is a double standard if you don’t equally champion “the ones humanity took it from”. But then you wouldn’t be able to ‘champion’ humanity.

edit: and even still, blaming a-net for creating the double standard doesn’t eliminate it. It only confirms it’s existence.

No, Charr were always the one’s that humans took it from. The contention is the homeland. Even in Proph, Ascalon was considered the Charr’s “southern borders”. EotN outright states the Charr homeland is north of there. Saying that was simply the humans’ point-of-view on the issue is a huge cop-out, for which there is no evidence of at all until some dude just up and “decides” it’s the case now. Using that old b.s. technique of in-game bias to enact a cultural paradigm shift is not new, and quite frankly I’m surprised people accept it so readily. I suppose you think Glint was always an ED champion, and not a separate and unique individual whose presence had nothing to do with them?

At least try to view the history without GW2 blinders on.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

You’re forgetting the Charr weren’t from Ascalon until last year. Until then, my statements aren’t a double standard because you can’t replace one name with another and still have it hold true. Now of course you can. But that’s not my fault. ANet created the double standard with this when they changed the “homeland” thing, not me. The double standard now is ANet trying present any human as wrong or evil who thinks Ascalon should be fought for by Ascalons. It’s rather silly you don’t see that.

You are forgetting that until last year, we had no clear idea of why the Charr fought the Ascalon humans, and who humanity had taken land from (as clearly stated in thei manuscripts.

The thing is, they aren’t presenting any human who wants Ascalon back as being evil. Only extremists who would kill humans as well as charr to keep their ‘freedom’ and war going.

Proof of humans outside that group being treated as evil? I don’t see any. Now if you could provide that maybe you could convince people of that… but I’ve seen nothing supporting it as a world/out of world view. Maybe a charr here or there views Rurik as a villian, but overall the world doesn’t.

Historically, the Charr fought everyone they came across simply because they existed. It’s clear humanity took Ascalon from the Charr since Proph, that’s not an issue.

Perhaps “evil” is extreme on my part, but certainly “wrong” fits. When a Renown Heart requires you to drag a Separatist out of his home and beat him to death, that’s a problem. There’s really no middle ground for this in ANet’s eyes; you’re either a warmongering terrorist who will kill innocents to win back your land, or you’re a civilized “brother” of Tyria who knows better than to stay mired in the past. What humans, if any, are there in GW2 who view Ascalon as human land that ANet portrays as “good”?

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

But overall? If any particular game just isn’t any good I’ll just shelve it or throw it in a box and move on. What’s the point in needing to hold companies “responsible” when it’s not really going to do more for my life than keep giving me a distraction from what duties I have?

If it doesn’t really matter to you, why are you here?

Why are you?

To shame ANet.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

That’s not a 180, you’re just not paying attention close enough. There is a definite distinction between “having the right” and “being right”. One is legal in its implications, the other is moral.

That’s what I’ve been saying…

If you are admittedly trolling, your points don’t have to make sense and don’t deserve the attention to be researched. They’re contrary for the sake of being contrary, at best.

If you’re not admittedly trolling, it still doesn’t matter much. What a lot of your complaints do boil down to is “I don’t like the way they took the lore”. Again, that’s fine. What isn’t fine is to paint it as a crime or travesty unarguably.

Troll or not troll, the arguments still stand. The point of this thread is to argue your point…

Again, if I don’t like it, I don’t let myself be a patron of their work. This is simple.

That’s fine if you want to do that, knock yourself out. But don’t think that your passive resistance, or whatever you want to call it, is going to change things. There are legions of gamers out there who only play these games because they are pretty, or easy, or unchallenging, or even trite. Turn your head if you want, but I’d rather barter for something better. If you don’t like that, too bad.

I choose to have some perspective and realize this thing, this lack of “high standard MMO games”, isn’t going to affect my life. I have a job, I have a family, and I have friends. I have a game I like to play in my off time, which is one of about fifteen which are vying for a slice of free time, all of them moderately decent.

If one of them is no longer fun, entertaining, or is more of a chore? Yes, I got other choices to go play. I’m not paying $X a month to play this game, so why wouldn’t I be okay to just set it aside for a time if it’s not fun? I did it to the original when it became Grind Wars: Titles.

You do realize that the same devs that turned GW1 into GW:Titles are the same devs for GW2, right?

But overall? If any particular game just isn’t any good I’ll just shelve it or throw it in a box and move on. What’s the point in needing to hold companies “responsible” when it’s not really going to do more for my life than keep giving me a distraction from what duties I have?

If it doesn’t really matter to you, why are you here?

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

That humanity took it from someone doesn’t have anything to do with my point. And yes, the Charr currently own it. But, every Ascalonian alive can claim it was taken from them. You seem to think cultural identity only matters to the time in which you are alive. All those npc’s kitten ily shouting “For Ascalon” aren’t shouting it for their own, small time-frame of existence. They are shouting it because the writer was trying to tap into the basic, timeless, tribal roots we all share as human beings and using that to evoke a sentimentality about a piece of land in the game. The writer was trying to endear Ascalon to the PC. And not just the peeps, but the kingdom as well. If a player doesn’t give two farts about it, then fine, carry on. But don’t try and say it’s not there…it is.

Your second line, I have no idea what that means. There’s plenty of space to add new races and such. Wth are you talking about?

that’s no problem. it can be there. It is still a double standard. Now if we can agree that it is based on a double standard and that it is still there, then we really have no disagreement.

The second line was directly referencing the claim that my arguement left no room for other races. But my logic doesn’t hinge on that reasoning.

How is that a double standard?

replace “ascalonians” and “humans” with “charr” and it makes the same point in charr favor and is no less true. The double standard comes when one is championed over the other using the same measurments.

double standard

noun

1.

any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/double+standard?s=t

You’re forgetting the Charr weren’t from Ascalon until last year. Until then, my statements aren’t a double standard because you can’t replace one name with another and still have it hold true. Now of course you can. But that’s not my fault. ANet created the double standard with this when they changed the “homeland” thing, not me. The double standard now is ANet trying present any human as wrong or evil who thinks Ascalon should be fought for by Ascalons. It’s rather silly you don’t see that.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

That humanity took it from someone doesn’t have anything to do with my point. And yes, the Charr currently own it. But, every Ascalonian alive can claim it was taken from them. You seem to think cultural identity only matters to the time in which you are alive. All those npc’s kitten ily shouting “For Ascalon” aren’t shouting it for their own, small time-frame of existence. They are shouting it because the writer was trying to tap into the basic, timeless, tribal roots we all share as human beings and using that to evoke a sentimentality about a piece of land in the game. The writer was trying to endear Ascalon to the PC. And not just the peeps, but the kingdom as well. If a player doesn’t give two farts about it, then fine, carry on. But don’t try and say it’s not there…it is.

Your second line, I have no idea what that means. There’s plenty of space to add new races and such. Wth are you talking about?

that’s no problem. it can be there. It is still a double standard. Now if we can agree that it is based on a double standard and that it is still there, then we really have no disagreement.

The second line was directly referencing the claim that my arguement left no room for other races. But my logic doesn’t hinge on that reasoning.

How is that a double standard?

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

I do see on some criteria it does not match. I also point out it doesn’t matter, because it’s the right of the property holder to do such. You can explain all you want, but until you can prove to me it’s illegal or wrong to do so, I won’t entertain it.

This is why I’m trolling you.

And at least you admitted it.

When have I not?

By hiding behind the copyright laws, all you are doing is approving of this type of thing. I don’t know why you can’t separate “legal” and “wrong” in your mind.

Because some things are “illegal” and are not “wrong” by my internal moral code. I won’t go into details, but it stands to reason there are thus things which are “legal” and are “wrong”. But they are, in fact, two separate things to consider. Lastly, most importantly of all, there is a very specific detail which you have failed to grasp spectacularly in your trolling:

Perhaps I wasn’t being specific. I meant that, based on your arguments, you see little difference between legal and right. Why the 180 now?

Just because you don’t like something, doesn’t make it wrong, or if you like something doesn’t make it right.

True…your point?

I hope you follow me on that score. You don’t like what they did with the lore? Fine, that’s okay, but it’s not inherently “wrong” to do that sort of thing. It’s an artistic decision, which doesn’t have a “right or wrong” the same way, oh, an engineering decision does, or a mathematical equation can be true or false.

It’s not “wrong”. You just don’t approve.

That kind of unfettered relativity is irresponsible. While a phrase like my “one man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot” is a solid point, it would be an injustice to simply leave it at that. Research all sides of the story and find out what is equal and unequal in that situation, and draw conclusions based off of that.

You are part of the problem.

No, no, neighbor. There’s where you’re wrong. It’s the only sane, and mature, solution.

Not really. The Ascalon fiasco is merely a microcosm of what’s wrong with mmo development in the whole industry, that’s the reason I troll here. Anytime you’re making large-scale decisions/changes for a game with monetization being the overriding reason for doing so, you should step back and ask yourself if you’re doing the right thing. GW2 as a whole is a textbook exercise on how to take an existing niche game with a strong following and try and turn it into a cash cow. They exploited the old game to make bank, it’s starkly evident in almost every change made. Is that legal? Yes. Is it right? Hardly. This topic just happens to be one that is overly obvious about it when it comes to the lore.

If you don’t choose to call them out on that, great. But don’t get so defensive when I say your apathy encourages the very thing which is destroying high-standard mmo’s out there from being developed.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Man up. Or don’t, it doesn’t matter to me really.

And what if happened to be female? How insulted should I be? Food for thought there.

Why does that matter? It’s a figure of speech, not a sexist remark.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

[quote=3953331;Tobias Trueflight.8350:]

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

I do see on some criteria it does not match. I also point out it doesn’t matter, because it’s the right of the property holder to do such. You can explain all you want, but until you can prove to me it’s illegal or wrong to do so, I won’t entertain it.

This is why I’m trolling you.

By hiding behind the copyright laws, all you are doing is approving of this type of thing. I don’t know why you can’t separate “legal” and “wrong” in your mind. Perhaps you see it as some sort of civic pillar that can’t be broached by moral or ethical standards. Perhaps you just think laws trump right, idk. But by doing so, you are in essence supporting and validating all those fail reduxes out there in the world. You are giving the green light to companies that put out this crap because you won’t dare question them when they have the title in their back pocket. You can’t fathom being anywhere but “in your place,” which is basically quiet suggestions masked by tacit approval.

You are part of the problem.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

They took it from the Charr, and whoever else lived there. I’m sure there were all sorts of creatures that used to roam the land. The difference is no other group, that we know of, has any heritage tied to the place. ANet never bothered to add that in the GW1 ‘verse. You’re basically saying a group can’t claim a spot because there might have been some other civilization there in the past that called it home. That’s silly, by that rationale you couldn’t add any new races anywhere. The only know group with any significant cultural ties to Ascalon prior to GW2…is Ascalons. Why even bother erasing that? What possible reason could there be to do that?

I’m not saying that at all. You’re the only one hung up on ancestral claims. You’re trying to apply your flawed logic to me. But your logic only rests on a double standard.

It doesn’t matter that we didn’t know who they took it from. It doesn’t matter that they eventually decided it was charr. Your logic is flawed simply because humanity took it from somebody. You don’t have a rational argument. That’s why it continually jumps in and out of the game. What I’m saying is that anybody who currently owns it ….. owns it. No human alive can claim that it was taken from them. Anybody who could have said that died hundreds of years ago.

edit: by reasoning that land shouldn’t be taken due to past cultural identity, you are the one actually saying you can’t add new races anywhere.

That humanity took it from someone doesn’t have anything to do with my point. And yes, the Charr currently own it. But, every Ascalonian alive can claim it was taken from them. You seem to think cultural identity only matters to the time in which you are alive. All those npc’s kitten ily shouting “For Ascalon” aren’t shouting it for their own, small time-frame of existence. They are shouting it because the writer was trying to tap into the basic, timeless, tribal roots we all share as human beings and using that to evoke a sentimentality about a piece of land in the game. The writer was trying to endear Ascalon to the PC. And not just the peeps, but the kingdom as well. If a player doesn’t give two farts about it, then fine, carry on. But don’t try and say it’s not there…it is.

Your second line, I have no idea what that means. There’s plenty of space to add new races and such. Wth are you talking about?

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Tobi

Like I said, feel free to read any of my past posts over the last year and a half. I’m not going to spend 4 hours cut & pasting for something you can do with a few clicks of the mouse.

It’s also completely understandable you refuse to see a problem in anything ANet puts out there. There are tons of fans who will blindly accept anything thrown their way simply because it’s “official” or “owned”. If you think having an educated opinion about something doesn’t matter, then we are at an impasse. Calling something like “Blues Brothers 2000” anything thematically close to the original doesn’t only mean you are honoring the copyright owners wishes, it also means you’re an idiot.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize GW2 doesn’t follow along the same lines as GW1 in either form or function. The fact that I have to explain why that is to you is exhausting. How does anyone not see that?

And yes, only the original author should be editing his own work. Quite frankly I don’t give a dam how it is generally accepted in the industry; if someone tried to edit something I wrote simply because “they own the rights” to it, I’d be furious. However, anyone can add to it all they want. They just need to know that whatever they add doesn’t nullify what came before. Cuz that’s not adding, that’s editing. And GW2 has edited.

Not sure what you mean by your Star Trek reference, that’s not like what was done here. But I’m glad you brought it up. Star Trek(Abrams aside, I agree) kept up the same overarching thematic elements throughout its entirety. The all were steeped in moral tales, and all dealt with RL contemporary issues through the lens of sci-fi. The only thing of note that really changed was how each redux nominally reflected the producers and time period in which it was made. Had one of them turned it into something “Abrams-esque” in a tv series, we would agreement it is way off the mark. Yet GW2 does the same thing, being “inspired by” GW1, and you can’t bring yourself to question it?

Man up. Or don’t, it doesn’t matter to me really.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Uhh…Ascalon was Ascalonian’s identity. Are you grouping all of humanity into the same cultural group or something? You bring up a great point though. Humanity, as far as we knew, only lived in a very small part of the Tyria(the world). They had leagues upon leagues of space with which to develop alternate races and cultures in this game. Instead, they chose to disembowel the known map, combine all of the humans into one single culture, and redistribute the land out to the new guys. GG

How in the blazes did GW1 Charr have their cultural identity linked to Ascalon?

Read carefully. I didn’t say the charr had their cultural identity linked to Ascalon. I said that humanity took it from somebody.

You are the only one focused on cultural identity based on where someone used to live. My point is that that can only be a double standard because humanity took it from somebody.

They took it from the Charr, and whoever else lived there. I’m sure there were all sorts of creatures that used to roam the land. The difference is no other group, that we know of, has any heritage tied to the place. ANet never bothered to add that in the GW1 ‘verse. You’re basically saying a group can’t claim a spot because there might have been some other civilization there in the past that called it home. That’s silly, by that rationale you couldn’t add any new races anywhere. The only known group with any significant cultural ties to Ascalon prior to GW2…is Ascalons. Why even bother erasing that? What possible reason could there be to do that?

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

No, I meant “no” there.

It isn’t ok to do that with any race really, but keeping Ascalon wouldn’t be random at all. It wasn’t some piece of land on their frontier, it was their identity. The same couldn’t be said for the Charr at all…until last year of course.

Ascalon was who’s identity? Certainly not all of humanities. And certainly not Kryta’s. But since humanity owned the world 250 years ago, then making sure humanity loses no land would mean they would still need to own it today. The problem I see here is that people can’t separate their Gw1 characters from their gw2 characters.

And we see how the double standard endures because we know that humanity took that land from someone else who had their cultural identity linked to it. That was established at the very beginning. So basing an argument off of keeping some land in human hands because they used to have it can only ever be a double standard. They took it from someone else.

Uhh…Ascalon was Ascalonian’s identity. Are you grouping all of humanity into the same cultural group or something? You bring up a great point though. Humanity, as far as we knew, only lived in a very small part of the Tyria(the world). They had leagues upon leagues of space with which to develop alternate races and cultures in this game. Instead, they chose to disembowel the known map, combine all of the humans into one single culture, and redistribute the land out to the new guys. GG

How in the blazes did GW1 Charr have their cultural identity linked to Ascalon?

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

I see. So Thad’s words are canon, eh? So why weren’t the Bloodstones created by the gods again? Oh right, it was in-game human perspective. So who gets to decide which things he says are in-game reality and which are in-game speculation? Oh right, GW2 devs do.

Your amount of willful blindness is astounding.

And your refusal to accept ANY change is as well.

No. Just bad change.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Confirmed on that. Guild wars 1 wiki even says that.

So yeah, the backstory of the world is presented from an in universe, HUMAN perspective. Shocking it might be wrong in parts about the Charr side?

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Thadeus_Lamount
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/History_of_Tyria
“Excerpt from The History of Tyria, Volume 1
Thadeus Lamount, Historian "

I’ll simply put this forward, AGAIN. Since Obsidian seemed to ignore it.

The “History of Tyria” from the manuscripts/manual, is listed as being written by a canon human. Like how a number of manuals for video games were approached in an ‘in universe’ manner, obviously the game mechanics parts can be set to the side.

But the history part? yeah, it’s canon to be written by a human post searing.

I see. So Thad’s words are canon, eh? So why weren’t the Bloodstones created by the gods again? Oh right, it was in-game human perspective. So who gets to decide which things he says are in-game reality and which are in-game speculation? Oh right, GW2 devs do.

Your amount of willful blindness is astounding.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Still no to your argument, that’s what.
The only justification for asura being driven back underground rests on randomly championing a favorite species and arbitrarily giving them …land. because they …had it at some point in time.
Funny, they did that exact same thing with the Charr. Almost word for word.

Your point about petty wars is rather irrelevant. Inserting some “united we stand” theme into a pre-existing world where species almost never get along should be done(if it has to be done at all) over a long stretch of time. And especially in a way in which the players get to experience it. No wonder this is an issue, ANet kinda wants you to feel like an ignorant neanderthal for bringing up game-race rivalry. Really? Furthermore, GW2 also strives to bestow upon us grateful players some moral high-ground agenda that has little to do with Tyria and a lot to do with them trying to “teach” us how to be good people in real life. GW2 isn’t Star Trek, and ANet isn’t Gene Roddenberry. Save the life lessons for another game.

If your response is “No!” ….. then “yes” can only be the oppropriate rebuttle.

You seem to b saying that it isn’t okay to do that with charr but it is okay to do that with humanity. That’s a double standard.

No, I meant “no” there.

It isn’t ok to do that with any race really, but keeping Ascalon wouldn’t be random at all. It wasn’t some piece of land on their frontier, it was their identity. The same couldn’t be said for the Charr at all…until last year of course.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Tobi

No, I replaced your opinion with reality. I can do that too!

I have explained my case, many times over. I can’t help it if you don’t bother looking it up.

Didn’t miss it, just already pointed out its invalidity as a quote. If historians write history…then it follows that history is flawed.

You’re right, Thady shouldn’t be ignored as a lore source. But the writer’s shouldn’t have to hold your hand to determine which things are insurmountable law, and which are there for other reasons…like introducing game mechanics through the lens of an in-universe character. Don’t be afraid to use your intelligence.

Lol, yes Gene was a hippie. And he had some fairly idyllic views of an advanced humanity. But the point was that one of the series’ hallmarks was advocating a future human moral code beyond that which we even come close to today. And he did a good job at portraying it, despite some of it being seemingly unbelievable. Everyone knew when they sat down to watch a show there would be some lesson involved. GW2, for some reason, tries to do that yet it pales in comparison. Especially since the foundational story had little to do with that. ANet shouldn’t have tried to be the benevolent moral mirror but rather continued the story the way it was founded: i.e. a dark, violent, bloody tale of the sword and magic variety where inter-species/race/nation conflict was the norm.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Still no. With divine help, they did take the land from the Charr. Where have I not said that? Technically, being from another world would mean them merely setting foot on Tyria itself makes them foreign invaders, no? Besides, this is more about cultural identity and heritage. Perhaps we should force all the Asura to go back underground where they are from. Or tell all the Sylvari to merge back with the Pale Tree. -__-

Still no, what?

You acknowledge that humanity has taken land. And we know it has been taken from them. The only justification for asura being driven back underground rests on randomly championing a favorite species and arbitrarily giving them …land. because they …had it at some point in time. As you are trying to do with humanity. Only your own logic leads to that extreme.

That’s not my point at all. it doesn’t matter that charr had it first. Only that they have it now. My point is that the petty wars over land have been fought but now there are real problems in Tyria.

Still no to your argument, that’s what.
The only justification for asura being driven back underground rests on randomly championing a favorite species and arbitrarily giving them …land. because they …had it at some point in time.
Funny, they did that exact same thing with the Charr. Almost word for word.

Your point about petty wars is rather irrelevant. Inserting some “united we stand” theme into a pre-existing world where species almost never get along should be done(if it has to be done at all) over a long stretch of time. And especially in a way in which the players get to experience it. No wonder this is an issue, ANet kinda wants you to feel like an ignorant neanderthal for bringing up game-race rivalry. Really? Furthermore, GW2 also strives to bestow upon us grateful players some moral high-ground agenda that has little to do with Tyria and a lot to do with them trying to “teach” us how to be good people in real life. GW2 isn’t Star Trek, and ANet isn’t Gene Roddenberry. Save the life lessons for another game.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

fiction changes at the whim of the writers and it is not subject to the change of future writers for whether or not it is “right”.

Fixed that for you.

Sorry, you’ll also need to pony up something to prove they intended it to be infallible. Which, mind you, is a lot harder than pointing to the myriad pieces which suggest they intended details to be very malleable until it was needed to be solid foundation.

I don’t have to, the burden of proof is with you, not me.

The Durmand Priory researchers do often leave the one line hanging out there when idle. I suspect, though, you don’t know what I’m referencing so here we are. “History never lies. Historians, however . . .”

Someone already posted that quote last week.

Who wrote most of the Guild Wars Manuscripts? A historian, Thadeus Lamount. And it even says at the front the following is taken from “manuscripts recently unearthed” which suggests . . . nay, states . . . they are not out-of-universe content but in-universe content.

Odd, the Manuscripts also explain to us the various classes and game mechanics, why is it talking about levels and character customization too? It’s also a manual dude. It’s a narration by the game designers with us RL players as the audience. They use Thadeus as an immersion tool to, you know, immerse us into the history of the gameworld. The manual also constantly refers to us as heroes and what to expect out the the game. So it’s not really Thad there telling us this, it’s some devs being pleasantly creative as they tell us about the game and how to play it. It’s awesome they also reference him in the actual game though, I admire that thoughtfulness.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Not in Proph there isn’t. What’s that absence of evidence quote you like to use?

The quote is “Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”

How does that apply? because it only supports my arguement.

No contradiction. My argument lies entirely on the meaning of the word homeland. Ascalon isn’t humanity’s homeland, but it is Ascalonian homeland. I could care less if they lost it in a way that made sense, and did the narrative justice. But to try and turn it around and make Ascalons out to be the devil, on top of hastily inserting the area as Charr homeland too, is almost vindictive.

The narrative said that humanity took land. that encompasses Ascalonians, Canthans, etc. All of humanity. You somehow think that Ascalonians can be free from the taint of humanity. Ascalonians are human too. So your entire argumnt rests on a double standard.

Still no. With divine help, they did take the land from the Charr. Where have I not said that? Technically, being from another world would mean them merely setting foot on Tyria itself makes them foreign invaders, no? Besides, this is more about cultural identity and heritage. Perhaps we should force all the Asura to go back underground where they are from. Or tell all the Sylvari to merge back with the Pale Tree. -__-

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

6/0/2/6/0 - RTW Discussion

in Ranger

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

@dolt
for wvw backline I have been using murrelow and a drake.

RoA versus ET, as keenlam says it offence/defence. 29 secs of stability is quite handy if you want to go deep and ET is handy for locking down when on defence in WvW. I have been switching them often this weekend.

I’d say Entangle is better for small man stuff, large groups tend to just kill the vines too quick. As a power ranger let’s face it, the immobilize is what is good about it, not really the bleeds. Muddy Terrain locks em for 3 secs, and is on a twenty second CD, and now procs SotF. Not too shabby.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

6/0/2/6/0 - RTW Discussion

in Ranger

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

I’ve noticed that Keen Edge works with SotF. So if you are a power build with RtW(and not using sig mastery) you can trait this(T1 Marks) and get a free 2-condi cleanse + fury + cover condition(bleeding) every 30 seconds.

It’s like a slightly weaker version of Renewal Sig, but takes up no bar space and grants fury…which is great since almost every power ranger doesn’t use the skirmishing line.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Lol, basically like the priory idle line.

“History never lies… Historians on the other hand…”

All history lies to some extent…it’s written by historians. Shouldn’t confuse history and truth.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Except we run into an issue about the source – please remember, we only have human-based sources for a lot of the GW1 lore, and a lot of it is tagged as written by an actual character.

As such . . . it’s sometimes unreliable at best and propaganda at worst.

I’ll put it easier to grasp what I mean. The people who write the history books may not always be completely objective about their writing. And the longer back you go in history with fewer and fewer records available to rely on for data, there’s an increasing non-zero chance they will get it wrong even on accident.

. . . and trust me, in my lifetime I’ve seen history classes which have changed the interpretation of events even within the last two hundred years. Not to mention who you ask about the American Revolution, just to pick an easy target. Go back further and you watch history get a little murkier in so far not about facts such as whether wars or people existed . . . but for motivations and characterizations.

Facts are facts, but ancient history as we consider it is really just an interpretation of data we do not have personal context for. This is not entirely different for fiction, unless you have methods of looking into the past without fail . . . the best Tyrians have is the Mists. And they are notoriously unreliable a narrator.

Helpful advice:

Don’t ever, ever, ever confuse fictional literature with real life historical research. The two have nothing to do with each other. One exists purely as an artificial creation, and the other…you know…actually happened.

Claiming GW1 was written from some fallible human perspective in which the writer purposely intended the history to be taken as mythical hogwash is a tall order. Sorry, you’re going to need to ask the original author if he/she meant to do that.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

The physical game, as pertaining to the lore, is an expression of the story. Not the other way around.

Yet, it should be noted, you’ve said things like the following:

They didn’t because they were slated to be a playable race in GW2, how do you not see that?

Which turns around and says the lore is driven by the game instead of the lore driving the game.

Pick a way we’re supposed to handle it and stick with it.

Umm…those two statements aren’t contradictory. Making GW2 have multiple races is a game design decision. Using the Charr as one of those is a lore decision. Once they decided that, they had to find ways in which to do that. Which they have…through 3 books and plenty of wiki and in-game references.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Because it is only one way of looking at it. meaning that there are others.

Not in Proph there isn’t. What’s that absence of evidence quote you like to use?

But you contradict yourself. GW1 established that humanity took that land from someone else. No matter who they took it from, it didn’t start as theirs. So they can’t cry when it is already taken by someone else. So really, if you have it your way, charr don’t get the land because they didn’t definitely own it first in GW1 but we definitely know that humanity didn’t own it first either. You want to have your cake and eat it too but it can only be a contradiction. With arguments that can only rest on double standards.

No contradiction. My argument lies entirely on the meaning of the word homeland. Ascalon isn’t humanity’s homeland, but it is Ascalonian homeland. I could care less if they lost it in a way that made sense, and did the narrative justice. But to try and turn it around and make Ascalons out to be the devil, on top of hastily inserting the area as Charr homeland too, is almost vindictive.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Mesmers and necros share models. They are hunched over when not casting. If you actually bothered to read my post, you’d note I said Monks and eles are standing upright.

No they don’t, they share colors. The necro is halfway hunched, and the mez more upright. If you look closer the models are different.

You simply went “THERE IS NO SIGN AT ALL OF ANY TYPE OF CASTE SYSTEM!” and I went “Well, if you look at the models/named ones, there kinda is in a subtle way.” Either way, the leaders we know about are almost all monks or eles.

That may be the case in EotN…which is kinda my point really. But if you look at all the Charr bosses you fight in Proph, the numbers are as follows: War-5, Rang-5, Monk-4, Necro-4, Mez-4, Ele-6. So yeah…I guess Ele has the most, right? /rollseyes

Still, this boils down to a “You can see the models as hinting at it” or not. But it doesn’t say there isn’t some sort of caste system in prophecies for the Charr, as nobody talks to them to figure out if the warrior is ranked lower then the necro.

It doesn’t say there is either…

They never searched the settlement for Chosen, so that didn’t happen. They didn’t raze it to the ground (as they didn’t harbor shining blade), so that didn’t happen either. Do note, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE kittening Proph storyline, they never harmed Ascalon Settlement (until guild wars beyond at least). Even after they knew you ‘were a traitor’, they didn’t go and kill Ascalon farmers or burn buildings down. Your statements about them going after Ascalon for “finding out the person who took out the Mursaat is Ascalonian” holds no merit as guess what? THEY NEVER did that. They didn’t march on Ascalon after proph.

…because the narrative was over after Fire Island. The PC travels to Cantha after that. The next time we get to revisit Kryta in a future tense, whatdya know the Settlement is under attack. Game mechanics dude.

Oh really? Who told him everything then? As of that scene he’d be more thinking about how his son turned into a zombie and was put down (if the heroes told them). Who would’ve spent the time to describe the past year of events or so to him?

Anyone in Tyria really…I thought you ended up being some famous hero when it was all said and done, right?

Actually, they NEVER say the charr threat is over. Glint says he is safe from the Titans, but nothing more.

It’s implied in the narrative. Just like it’s implied the Charr threat is over in Empire Divided. The fact that it never comes out and says so bluntly is the entire reason they could do what they did with the Charr.

Infact, using your wording, they have defeated the Charr threat, but Ascalon is not their homeland. So what’s stopping them from sending more? When the hell did Ascalon make serious wins against the Charr that’d thin out their army of “Thousands” as Rurik said? I don’t recall hearing a thing about that.

Old argument. When in-game, Rurik looks at a group of 30 Charr and says “thousands”, obviously those 30 are meant to represent many more. For some reason, no one wants to apply that same logic to Ascalonians…they are only what you see there.

EOTN simply pointed out there ARE more, and they still are fighting. Ebon Vanguard tying them up some in the North, but the battles still rage.

Super…then make the same assumption for Ascalon.

EOTN is both in GW1, and sets up some stuff for GW2, this is true. However, it IS part of GW1. So it IS part of the Lore. Would you rather me try to find an Anet person to come in here and clear that up for you?

Actually, that’s what I’ve been waiting for for 2 years…

They never went “Everything about Ascalon you know from proph is wrong!” as you seem to imply.

You’re right, they didn’t. They just completely changed the true nature and theme of GW1 and human Ascalon was in the way.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

The Cantha Thread [Merged]

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Not really.

If a publisher orders you to not include most of your previous work, should you bow out? Absolutely. How would you react if an art dealer tells you to only show a 3rd of your painting? ANet could have simply refused, lost NCSoft as a publisher, and waited until they found another. Does that suck? Yes. Does it mean a lot of people might have to take a pay hit? Yes.

But at least they get to keep their integrity.

Integrity and $5 might get you a decent latte in the Seattle area. Maybe.

You don’t pay bills with integrity. You don’t keep people employed with integrity. You do those things by producing things people will buy.

And you seem to be forgetting that NCSoft is more than Arena.net’s publisher. They are Arena.net’s PARENT COMPANY. Arena.net CAN’T refuse. The people there wouldn’t lose their publisher. They’d lose their jobs.

They wouldn’t be able to find another publisher, because the Guild Wars IP is the property of NCSoft. That’s kinda what happens when you… well… BUY Arena.net whole hog.

Guild Wars 2 was going to be made, and it was going to be made by whatever terms NCSoft demanded. If that demand was “No Cantha”, then guess what? Guild Wars 2 was going to be made without Cantha. Period.

You have set a standard Arena.net could not meet, and are blaming them for not meeting it. That is pretty much a dictionary definition of “unreasonable.”

Why couldn’t they meet it? If it were me I would quit. Latte’s are $3 around here.

Now that I think about it, a hefty chunk of ANet did quit @2007. Coincidence?

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

The models are based off of type of combatant, nothing more. The casters are all skinnier and more upright because they don’t need huge delts and traps to be effective. The melee’ers are all beefy and top heavy because they need to be. It’s an attempt to provide realistic mob-types in the game, it has nothing to do with caste domination or whatever. Why are the monks and mezmers upright then too? I thought the ele’s were supposed to be the big wigs? And why are necro’s hunched over? Your reasoning doesn’t add up.

Do you really think the Mantle would not have canvassed the Settlement for potential Chosen? And if so, forced them to come with them? Or razed it to the ground if they thought they were harboring Shining Blade? Please.

King Adelbern: “This is a mistake, Rurik. Mark my words. This Krytan will be the death of us all.”
Had it not been for the PC, he would have been right. Zain either didn’t know the true nature of the Mantle himself, or was simply feigning compassion in order to enslave more people. It’s really unlikely Adelbern knew what the Mantle really were, his distrust was based on the guild wars. But at any rate, his stubborn hatred was actually a good thing in this case. Adelbern was old and stubborn, whereas Rurik was young and brash. It’s a no-brainer that extreme circumstances would strain their otherwise good relationship. Adelbern’s greatest strength is also his greatest weakness: his indomitable will. Yes, the Searing drove him cold and stubborn, but you can hardly blame him. To him, life as a refugee was unacceptable for his people. He’d rather die trying to save his kingdom. And based on your first quote there, that’s what his people wanted.

Adelbern would have known about the whole Prophecies storyline by the time Evennia came by, there would have been little reason to kill her. I don’t remember Adelbern villifying Evennia during the celebration at the conclusion of Proph, all he cared about was having you come back to help him win back his kingdom.
Besides, after you do actually go back and destroy the Titans, the Charr threat was basically over for Ascalon(at that point in the game-series development). EotN and GW2 basically reloaded the entire Charr “thing” and made the equivalent of saying, “Oh yeah, remember those Charr ya’ll beat back? There’s like a bazillion more up there just loitering around. Funny story, they got lost on the way here _lolz!”_

If you don’t see EotN as anything but a GW2 prequel, then there’s not much to discuss. Everything changed after that. It’s not about me accepting change, Nolan’s Batman series is without a doubt better than the ridiculously cliche’d 90’s attempts. Are they a better adaptation to the comics? Depends on which era of the Batman comics you’re talking about. If it’s the very first Batman comics you’re talking about then probably not; that zany 60’s tv series probably did that best.

The difference is Nolan made no pretense about trying to “reload” that original Batman style. He was purposely making a modern Batman steeped in the post-911 American psyche. GW2 actually makes the claim that they are intimately continuing in the same tradition and thematic style as GW1. If you think that’s true then I’m sorry, but you are a really bad judge of art and character. The two games shouldn’t even have the same name.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

The entirety is their home. Like I said, Ascalon was never the Charr homelands until last year. Willfully “forgetting” how things were because they’ve been rewritten only changes it in your mind, not how it really is/was. Arguing artistic integrity is the point, and is a lore conversation. You can’t separate the two because the lore is birthed inside someone’s mind, and unlike RL doesn’t exist on its own. In an artistic creation like fantasy writing, how something was intended or originally created trumps how that same thing exists today.

“Soon humans had everything we required, and it
was then that we began to prey upon the other creatures.
We hunted animals for sport, chased the druids from
the jungle, and took up residence in lands that did not
belong to us. "

From the GW proph manual. That + the “Charr home” thing actually mesh together quite nicely. They took lands that did not belong to them, one of those being Charr.

You sound like those who step into a discussion and argue endlessly because “This was ORIGINALLY INTENDED! to be this way. It doesn’t matter that the actual resulting event/item was a good deal different and could never do that at first intended thing.”

I never denied it wasn’t Charr territory, just not Charr homeland. Ascalon had outposts in the Shiverpeaks and Crystal Desert too, but those aren’t part of the Ascalon homeland. That word is key, as I’m sure the devs know, because it ties a race’s(or in this case subculture) very identity and heritage to a certain piece of land. That’s precisely why they changed the Charr “ancestral homeland” from the steppes to Ascalon. Because without it, humans have the better claim to it. And they can’t have that in this game.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

6/0/2/6/0 - RTW Discussion

in Ranger

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

I stumbled onto this same trait point allocation. Like Kilger, instead of RTW I still use the signets. I like having the option to switch freely between sigs and surv skills on my bar depending on the situation.

I’ve noticed thieves using shadow-steps a lot more than regular stealths lately. Makes LB#2 less useful. Anyone else notice this?

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

LOLOL At Grandmaster Traits....Thanks ANet!

in Ranger

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

The arrows themselves travel faster, but the rate of fire is the same. So in the end, it’s the same damage over time. I suppose the difference is you can’t simply sidestep them anymore.

Anywho, I think Survival of the Fittest is a perty good trait. I can now run TU with LR and Zephyr and not worry about condi’s so much.

LR removing immobilize…about friggin’ time!

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

There needs to be item drops on death in WvW

in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

I think they should drop all gems and gold too.

And perhaps their credit card #.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

A writer in one book sets it in the Kingdoms of the West, rarely talks about the Wondrous Kingdoms in the East. A few facts are peppered through here and there, recited with the utmost confidence in their veracity, about how the Eastern realm people behave.

In the next trilogy he explores them and talks about the Degraded Kingdoms of the West without actually really showing them. But we start getting facts, like before, which we know from having read the other book are completely at odds. Furthermore, some of those “facts” about the Eastern lands are shown to be myths held by people who either never visited, or are reasoning from outdated sources.

Is this bad, sloppy, inexcusable writing?

I would agree if those “facts” are from the point of view of the people in the story, and not the authors point of view. There’s a huge difference there.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

If you want to treat it as a game, then that’s fine. If you want to treat the story as its own entity, that’s fine. Please do not flip between the two because you want to “win”. It’s the equivalent of raising your hand in history class and going “but how do we know the people who wrote this stuff down didn’t lie or were just wrong?”. There may be a valid point, but it shifts the discussion entirely to a different line.

I just wanted to comment on this part real quick before I entertain the rest of your post.

Umm, finding out if the source is wrong or right is one of the most important functions of teaching history! Good grief, you can’t even start the discussion unless you make sure the source material is reliable! The entire premise of understanding history relies on getting as close to the contextual truth as possible. I don’t know how to respond to your comment really.

The physical game, as pertaining to the lore, is an expression of the story. Not the other way around.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

And how many times in proph did we get any sort of look into Charr culture? NONE. We could easily see however, how Charr casters (specifically eles and monks) held themselves upright, compared to the rest who where hunched over. A very clear, “We are better and prouder” if you ask me.

Wow…just wow. You think the upright Charr models are that way because they think they are better than hunched-over Charr? I don’t need to remind you that the majority of Charr models were upright. The hunched ones are that way because the artist wanted them to look bigger and tougher. They are the front-liners dude, giving them huge shoulders was an immersion technique, nothing more.

After the heroes helped the White Mantle, and IIRC, this was after they had saved the leader and basically been accepted into the White Mantle ranks. It was NEVER a “Oh, we welcome you to Kryta, IF you do this.”

They never came out and said it, no. Why would they tell anyone their true intentions?

Said rep also never went into the city, and as I recall he was never even granted a meeting with the king OR the prince. Now compare that to later when the King has not only lost more of his people, but also knows of his son’s death… (Which we know he learned of the death either after or during the trek to Kryta).

You mean this?: “A long time have I fought for Ascalon. First as a soldier blessed by Balthazar, now as its king. Though I have survived one more battle, and I will see another day, it will not make me any more wise… only one day older. I have lost all that a man can lose. All that I have left is this antiquated set of armor and the remains of this tattered kingdom. I thank you for your help today. Rurik would have been very proud of all you have accomplished.”
Hardly the words of a murdering madman.

Let’s see… to play EOTN, I must load up GW1. Therefore, it is GW1 lore, and not GW2 lore.

Lol, whatever you got to tell yourself!

Rurik also had just traveled deeper into Charr held land then anybody had for a few years, and also just saw the effect the “Legendary” stormcaller had on the battlefield. Yes, it tipped the favor but it didn’t slaughter the charr in a righteous thunderstorm. At first yes, he was more so “Let’s gather our strength”. Then he saw how stubborn his father was and decided to leave Ascalon behind.

Seth Meyers voice: Really?

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Whether something is inherent or situational has nothing to do with how many situations we have available to us. Inherent means that that is the empirical quality of the thing no matter how you look at it. Situation means that the quality of the thing changes with the point of view. If you only have one point of view, yet another point of view exists, even if it’s not available to you, then it is still situational.

Then why did you say, “The fact that it is only one side to view from means it is situational” ?

it’s petty because the entirety of Ascalon is not their home. Their home is Ebonhawke. But that has nothing to do with the fourth wall of when that lore was added. It’s either a lore conversation or an artistic integrity conversation. Mixing the two will never yield any result except to endlessly draw things out by picking and chooseing only what supports one side. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

The entirety is their home. Like I said, Ascalon was never the Charr homelands until last year. Willfully “forgetting” how things were because they’ve been rewritten only changes it in your mind, not how it really is/was. Arguing artistic integrity is the point, and is a lore conversation. You can’t separate the two because the lore is birthed inside someone’s mind, and unlike RL doesn’t exist on its own. In an artistic creation like fantasy writing, how something was intended or originally created trumps how that same thing exists today.

Edit: Lore: ascalon belonged to charr before humanity. Before any present day charr were born. No human alive belonged to an ascalon that was bigger then ebonhawke.

Artistic intention: “But that was added later” True, the details were added later. But what has always been the writers intention from the very beginning is that humanity “took up residence in lands that did not belong to [them]”

Humans aren’t even from Tyria, technically nothing belongs to them here. So I suppose if we had it your way, all humans should leave the planet. The point of that dialogue from the Manuscripts is to set up the decline of humanity by introducing methods of guilt and irresponsibility to explain why humans are no longer the “golden children” of Tyria. Proph, Factions, and NF would be reeeeeally boring is it all existed in the golden age of humanity. The Guild Wars themselves are meant to be a lesson to humanity on the folly of their ways. They needed to include a sense of foreboding and conflict to make the story any fun, dude.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Tobi
I don’t know what “meta-game arguments” means. That word “meta” gets used like so much common slang everywhere, I’m not sure it’s so interchangeable here.

Meta-game arguments are when you aren’t talking about the lore for why things are there but real-world or mechanical concerns. I mean, it’s all fine and good because they are potentially real reasons. Except . . .

We’ve determined for meta-game purposes that there will most likely never be a reclamation campaign against the charr. As soon as you step into that level of discussion, there’s nothing you can say which can support the idea it would/should happen.

So, more to the point, when people keep going “oh they only wrote that so the charr could be playable”, that’s a “meta-game argument” since it relies not on lore but on mechanics and outside influences. Especially since it also ignores two points:

- There is not many sources of lore which was ever available during Guild Wars 1 due to not having charr sources available. The invading forces did not see any reason to really sit down with someone and discuss matters, and since it’s been pretty well “established” EOTN was written solely to transition to GW2’s lore then it could be drawn Pyre’s little revolution was written so the charr could be something other than orc stand-ins. All we know is from the (unreliable) human narratives and writings.

- There was never much unofficial lore talked about from the writers about the charr, until EOTN. So we don’t even have any proof there was a massive shift since it’s rather impossible to shift something which didn’t exist in the first place.

If it’s a meta-game argument to get inside the authors’ minds through the lens of the game-world, then there’s nothing wrong with that at all. After all, the story was birthed by them, and every single subtle intention and idea is part of the lore, whether it’s written down or not. You need to learn to read between the lines and view the story not as a flowchart of variables, but rather a painting. No one who really appreciates a Van Gogh would say, “wow that dude likes swirls!” In other words, it’s not enough to simply take the story as a series of related events with concrete facts. You have to try and get inside the authors’ minds and figure out not just what you see, and not even only what they want you to see. But also what they are unwittingly giving away as pieces of their personality attach themselves to the story.

For instance, take Jeff Grubb. Great fantasy writer. I have no doubt the Asura, and much of the philosophical underpinnings associated with them, are related to his earlier work with the D&D Spelljammer series. Fractals, the Great Alchemy, chaos magic; all point to this. I’m sure he was ecstatic to be able to expand on the Mists idea. It’s also no coincidence he was brought on for Nightfall, after all, the Al-Qadim D&D setting came from him.

My point is, you can’t separate the author’s mind from the finished product. And since there’s always little information on who exactly writes what parts, we have to try and gird what the author is trying to convey through what we experience. So no, I don’t see anything wrong with philosophizing on what the intentions of the story originally were, meta-gaming or not. It’s actually one of the best ways to try and get at the truth of a thing.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

No. Back then we had a limited point of view, to Ascalonians, all Charr were the same. In EOTN we finally got to see more of their culture, THEIR side. We learned there was a distinct “Flame Legion”/“Shaman” caste which basically was oppressing the rest.

Nope. It was the authors point of view, not necessarily the humans. Had the original authors given some semblance of caste domination, or even castes for that matter, then you’d have a point. In all of Proph there is zero indication of this.

Yes, the White Mantle likely had not so nice motives of trying to get more land/followers. But see how they openly accepted the refugees into it, I doubt they’d slam a lot of strings and “rules” to it. Either way, he let his blind hate of Krytans force any possible allies away. Also, that was all BEFORE, long before the flameseeker proph started happening. Nobody would’ve known that as of that time.

The Mantle had strings attached even for the PC, they wanted you to gather Chosen for them for one thing. It’s a short leap to think they would scour the refugees for more, or force them to help. And it was like 2 years before dude, the Mursaat arrived right after the Searing.

The King HATES Krytans. Krytan goes to him to ask for aid. She is NEVER heard from again. It’s not a stretch to see how she may have been imprisoned or murdered. If you bothered to play GW1, you’d note his extreme hate of Kryta, so why do you find it so hard to believe?

Well the guild wars were over, and he didn’t imprison and murder that Mantle rep outside the city did he? It’s hard to believe because he had no reason to, Adelbern doesn’t just kill Krytans on sight…that’s a silly thought.

EOTN, IS PART OF GW1 LORE.

No it’s not. The sooner you realize that, the better off you’ll be.

Adelbern was unstable post searing. When Rurik left Ascalon, I felt he KNEW he would never return. It was a barren hellhole. There is no point going back there. Leave it to the charr.

It was out of character for Rurik to lose faith in Ascalon so quick after Rin, he was a more avid Charr hater than even Adelbern…and was known for never giving up. The authors needed a storyline reason to get the PC over the Shiverpeaks, and they chose the King/Prince argument to do that. It’s the same idea with that crazy Meerak. The story wouldn’t make much sense if the PC just suddenly decided to up and leave his home in the middle of a war. And they couldn’t simply use “to go look for help” because the linear storyline never returned to Ascalon. It had to be a solid farewell. Rurik was the obvious choice because he’s with you throughout it all, almost a friend. They couldn’t have the king do it, and it would have been a little flat if they used a minor player like Devona or Barradin.
The point in going back to that “barren hellhole” as you put it, is the same reason the GW2 authors use for the Charr to occupy it. It’s their home.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Kalavier

Make no mistake, all the Charr were portrayed as being behind the Searing in GW1. The Flame Legion scapegoat was the vehicle the devs used to make the Charr more accepting as a playable race. Nothing more.

The Krytan rep to Ascalon was White Mantle dude. Even if Adelbern didn’t know their true intentions(which he probably didn’t), it would still seem perfectly reasonable that a regular Krytan ambassador wouldn’t have Ascalons best intentions in mind. One could easily see a non-Mantle Krytan impose some serious strings attached to helping Ascalon. And btw, how benevolent do you think the Mantle would be to Ascalon if they found out the Ascended one(you know, the one that broke the Mursaat’s stranglehold on Kryta and Tyria) was Ascalonian?

Interesting you assume Adelbern had Evennia quietly killed or something. Obviously he was such treacherous villain back then! It’s so amusing to me how easily people see EotN as the true GW1 narrative. It seems GW2 ANet has done a wonderful job of subtley reinforcing this alternate narrative over the years. Kudo’s to them on that I guess.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

(edited by Obsidian.1328)

A possibility to play Ranger without pet.

in Ranger

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

@Obsidian if you want big numbers you play a warrior, their entire class is the “we get big numbers!” Thing, rangers are the constant drumming of medium sized numbers that’ll never get quite as big as warriors but will add up to around the same.

It’s true Ranger’s are more DoT oriented. This is probably why they do so well in sPvP where there are only 1-2 enemies you have to worry about at any one time. Problem is, in WvW spike damage > everything else. Condi’s(especially poison and CC’s) are still great to use there because they mitigate surviving spikes at all. But it’s still way better to apply large damage numbers in a small window than anything else.

In WvW we fill the role we did waaaaay back in GW1 GvG (REAL GvG), we apply CC and pressure to targets via easily spreading conditions, and can interrupt enemies from range (KBS and Concussion Shot and path of scars work great for this) to ruin their chances of survival.

We aren’t the ones usually getting the kills and putting people down, but we sure as hell aid in the cause, and there’s also a few builds (like in GW1) that can just destroy aka “snipe” a single target from range, and unlike other profs we can do so fairly effortly and without burning CDs.

Hmm, that really hasn’t been my experience at all. Although admittedly I haven’t tried condi ranger for W3 yet, I like the GS mobility and utility too much. KB and Path of Scars, while rupts, are push/pulls, they don’t actually incapacitate you longer than a half second. I mean, you can pop right back up after, unlike a true KD, Fear, or solid stun which requires a stun break to avoid 2-3 seconds on the ground. Conc shot does, but it is also positional, like the GS stun(admittedly the bow shot is better). Otherwise, it’s a mere 1 sec daze. A thief has the same issue, but has a waaaay easier time with positioning because of stealth. So, yes, they do rupt. But they don’t incapacitate to a reliable extent. Not to mention rupting isn’t nearly as bad a thing to do in GW2 as GW1. Unless, of course, you are chain rupting. In that case you might as well go grab another beer from the fridge cuz you’re not surviving lol.

In GW1, you could apply condi’s while still being able to do solid dmg, even burst damage. I don’t feel like I fill the same role in GW2. And a lot of that has to do with the pet, and how so many of our skills and traits are tied up with them. You have to admit pets are pretty useless in W3.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

A possibility to play Ranger without pet.

in Ranger

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

@Obsidian if you want big numbers you play a warrior, their entire class is the “we get big numbers!” Thing, rangers are the constant drumming of medium sized numbers that’ll never get quite as big as warriors but will add up to around the same.

It’s true Ranger’s are more DoT oriented. This is probably why they do so well in sPvP where there are only 1-2 enemies you have to worry about at any one time. Problem is, in WvW spike damage > everything else. Condi’s(especially poison and CC’s) are still great to use there because they mitigate surviving spikes at all. But it’s still way better to apply large damage numbers in a small window than anything else.

In WvW we fill the role we did waaaaay back in GW1 GvG (REAL GvG), we apply CC and pressure to targets via easily spreading conditions, and can interrupt enemies from range (KBS and Concussion Shot and path of scars work great for this) to ruin their chances of survival.

We aren’t the ones usually getting the kills and putting people down, but we sure as hell aid in the cause, and there’s also a few builds (like in GW1) that can just destroy aka “snipe” a single target from range, and unlike other profs we can do so fairly effortly and without burning CDs.

Hmm, that really hasn’t been my experience at all. Although admittedly I haven’t tried condi ranger for W3 yet, I like the GS mobility and utility too much. KB and Path of Scars, while rupts, are push/pulls, they don’t actually incapacitate you longer than a half second. I mean, you can pop right back up after; unlike a true KD, Fear, or solid stun which requires a stun break to avoid 2-3 seconds on the ground or frozen. Conc shot does, but it is also positional, like the GS stun(admittedly the bow shot is better). Otherwise, it’s a mere 1 sec daze. A thief has the same issue, but has a waaaay easier time with positioning because of stealth. So, yes, they do rupt. But they don’t incapacitate to a reliable extent.

In GW1, you could apply condi’s while still being able to do solid dmg, even burst damage. I don’t feel like I fill the same role in GW2. And a lot of that has to do with the pet, and how so many of our skills and traits are tied up with them. You have to admit pets are pretty useless in W3.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

A possibility to play Ranger without pet.

in Ranger

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

@Obsidian if you want big numbers you play a warrior, their entire class is the “we get big numbers!” Thing, rangers are the constant drumming of medium sized numbers that’ll never get quite as big as warriors but will add up to around the same.

It’s true Ranger’s are more DoT oriented. This is probably why they do so well in sPvP where there are only 1-2 enemies you have to worry about at any one time. Problem is, in WvW spike damage > everything else. Condi’s(especially poison and CC’s) are still great to use there because they mitigate surviving spikes at all. But it’s still way better to apply large damage numbers in a small window than anything else.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

A possibility to play Ranger without pet.

in Ranger

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

If someone wants to have big numbers with a bow, wtf would you have play a Warrior for that? It makes no sense.

But it makes perfect sense, because they’ve made it clear since it was announced as a class that the warrior is the class that is designed for “Use weapon, recieve big damage numbers” class.

I don’t remember that at all.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Effectively, if you played Gw1, that means you were an oppressor of the Charr and supported the tyrant Rurik as you defended your ill-gained lands. Not only that, but this also means that your character was merciless butcher of the noble Charr race to the point that your character wears their skins. I just find this turnaround so humorous, lol.

Ditto

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care

Would You Fight To Reclaim Ascalon?

in Human

Posted by: Obsidian.1328

Obsidian.1328

Dust
I don’t see how it’s situational when there’s only one way to look at it. That’s like saying the current situation with gravity is that it pulls things down. Doesn’t make sense.
How is it a petty land dispute? Ascalon is their home, not the Charr’s…until they wrote that in recently to legitimize them staying there at all of course. You’ve got to be really patronizing not to see that.
You’re right, the Charr were never portrayed as noble. But they certainly are now.

Zax
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot” also applying to the Charr? Sure…if the humans were trying to eradicate them too I guess. But the problem is, that line, according to ANet, doesn’t apply equally to the separatists as well. To them, they are wrong, period.
Also, if what you say is true about the Charr “conquer all” characteristic, why would anyone want to make peace with them at all? It would be stupid to grant them appeasement knowing that they would rather have all your kind dead.

Tobi
I don’t know what “meta-game arguments” means. That word “meta” gets used like so much common slang everywhere, I’m not sure it’s so interchangeable here.

Obsidian Sky – SoR
I troll because I care