Good Vs Evil.. GW2

Heck, WW2 showed how much bushido cares about the rights of the prisoner...

(In fact, it pretty much specifically says that prisoners have NO rights, and that a follower of bushido should die rather than allow themselves to be taken prisoner. As far as bushido is concerned, anyone that lets themselves be defeated while still alive deserves whatever happens to them.)

Konig did point out in the post he made just before the one you quoted that it doesn't necessarily mean literal biological descent - just some form of passing on the legacy.

actually your right,not only that but from Samurai history it is well documented that samurai used to use prisoners for sword practice

and then used Bamboo if they ran out

Bamboo came higher on the social status ladder than a prisoner

You didn't see my earlier post did you... Let me quote for you:

Not everyone wants to be a goody-goody-two-shoes, which is where evil and neutral come in. But not everyone wants to be pure evil either. Which is where semi-evil and semi-good comes in.

A being with no honor is no longer living. Besides, knowing a blade can cut through people is more useful than knowing a blade can cut through bamboo.

Totally agreed

however, partfrom the abundunce of bamboo in Japan ofcourse, it also has a certain consistency which gives it nearly muscle like qualities and the outer bark is tougher than skin and it was used not only in armour manufacture (at first as armour itself and then as padding as metal was woven into and thenplaced over), but also for house building and Sword production for making sure a blade was upto a certain level of manufacture and quality(if it can cut babmoo, it can cut armour and flesh)

Evil Neutral and Good alignments, yeah, I could live with that, if it weere implemented right.
The semi thing, I'm seeing that as an intermediate point, like you said, some don't want to be pure evil/good.
But how would you implement that in GW2?
Sure, we don't know the story yet, but how would a pure evil character help the good ones against the Dragons?

Hum, I'm having a brainfart right now, so if I can't make myself clear, I apologize.

The traditional tropes for getting evil to work with good are "evil is not monolithic" and "if that guy WINS, I'm just as dead as the rest!"

Mutual cooperation

I don't exactly want this for GW2, but Dungeon & Dragons rules include a deep alignment system, it's out there from year 1974: CLICK HERE

The only video game I know using that alignment rules is Neverwinter Nights; Even in D&D Online you are the "good guy", the "hero", cannot be evil afaik.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that in the 250 years between the two Guild Wars games, heroics have kind of fallen out of fashion what with the whole world coming apart business. In "The Movement of the World," it is implied that heroes have been somewhat lacking in that time:

"If there are heroes left in these lands anywhere among the races, it is time for them to step forward, if the world is to be saved.

Someone must rise to seize glory, offer a moment of hope, and perhaps give the world one last chance for peace. If those who would be heroes are listening...

...Now is your time."

I'm not discounting your ideas, Konig. I just don't think they really fit with the lore, because even if our GW2 chars have been given some sort of super secret, 250-year-old hero training, that means that there were generations of would-be heroes that just sat back and watched the world burn.

Or they didn't, and burned along with the world.

One of the keywords is left - that could mean that heroic types have been trying over the centuries and facing high attrition in the process, to the point where people might think that the inheritors of the legacies of the heroes of the past have been wiped out.

Baulder's Gate.

No one said the descendants of the heroes all have to be heroes themselves. And there have been "heroes" (I use quotation marks as they are, more or less, failed heroes) and adventurers that have existed past GW1. Though only one was given a name: Kalla Scorchrazor. Who, incidentially, was a descendant (grandcub) of Pyre Fierceshot.

I doubt GW2 is going to have five low level starter areas. Seriously how much fun is that really? Every MMO is always short on high end content, so why waste time on multiple tutorials? I doubt there will even be two. Good guys, that's us, bad guys, that's some dragons. Rivalries between the five races will be an excuse for PvP nothing more, just like Kurzick-Luxon. In terms of the story it will be a five way group hug from the start.

As far as picking up the GW1 loot at the Eye for your new character, I am sure any excuse you make for being the rightful heir is good enough. Why really bother with lore at this point. All the rest about heroes, adventure and other fantasy stuff... ...that's just the promo talking to teens, nothing anybody should really concern himself about in terms of the actual game.

But then if the descendants of heroes weren't all heroes themselves, how does training someone in heroics get passed down?

Maybe it's just my preference, but I think the story in Prophecies was much better than in Factions and Nightfall because it was all about relatively ordinary people (granted, they may have been hand-selected to serve in the Ascalon Vanguard, but they were not trained specifically for heroics) becoming heroes out of necessity and not because they had the ambition to be. Not only that, but the Prophecies campaign gives a little more wiggle-room for a character's morality. A Prophecies character starts wanting to protect Ascalon, but the motivation behind each character has the room to grow beyond wanting to be a beacon of morality and heroism as is the case in Nightfall. I'd like to see that repeat itself in GW2 instead of me being roped into having a shining, heroic nature just because of some ancient relative

I like the fact that you say, "inheritors of the legacies" because, while I have no problem with GW2 chars having an implied connection to a linked GW1 char, I do think that the whole "descendant" idea is kind of lame...more a cop-out than anything.

While I have nothing against the first half of your argument, I have to say, your second point is a little cynical. One of the points consistently raised on this forum, and by Guild Wars players in general, is how good the storyline is (well, developed, at least. Opinions on stry features are debated as much as anything else), and what a difference that makes to overall enjoyment of the game. It's a feature that sets it apart from other MMOs.

Lore is a key feature of Guild Wars because of this, and because it's a draw to the game. While GW playes might start GW2 and not need lore straight away, because they'll spend most of their time in the 'endgame', what about newer players? A Game is like a book - if it doesn't catch your attention in the first few pages (read: Quests) you put it down and do something else.

Guild Wars 2 needs to capture its audience quickly, because by the time it comes out there will be an awful lot of games out there competing for people's attention. No Monthy Fees will only do so much.

Who said the training gets passed down? That would only be the case for the same profession, if that. What if the descendants don't train under their parents, but from someone else? It's not training, profession, or techniques which get passed down via HoM, it's possessions.

Propheices: Joining the Army. Factions: Training (unknown what job one will have, it's rather up to the person). Nightfall: Continent-wide "army." Factions seems to have the most "wiggle-room" to be honest.

Didn't I say that it didn't have to be biological descendant though... I think I did in my very first sentence on this...

1: Which is why it's just as likely the characters in GW2 just stumble upon them in the ruins of the EotN. I don't understand why this had to be blown into a whole argument because I proposed a theory that may be different from yours.

2: I think that's a really shallow way of looking at the campaigns. In Factions and Nightfall, you come from what amounts to "hero-training" where most of your contemporaries end up being...heroes! In Prophecies, though, you can see (especially as a Necromancer, through Oberan and Verata) that you come from the same stock as villains. Granted, you become a "hero" regardless in each campaign, but I think Prophecies has a bit of depth there that I'd like to see carried over into GW2 in developing your character. Being the hero all the time is kind of boring.

3: You did, I was just set off by the word "descent." So, I suppose I should apologize for taking that out of context and arguing against what amounts to nothing. Still, the fact remains, direct biological descent from GW1 to GW2 is a cop-out. A non-biological descent that still retains some connection is less so, though I don't think there NEEDS to be any connection at all. In the end though, it's A-net's decision, and since we really have no information as of yet, all we can do is wait and see.

By the way...what the hell is a lore guild?..unless it's just the tag, in which case....never mind.

My argument came from someone *now forgot who* about who the heroes of GW2 will be (descendants or not of the GW1 characters). I wasn't saying anything about the HoM. They most likely just stumbles upon the HoM.

Not sure if they ever mention past students of the monastery (aside from the teachers and the Crimson Skull leader). And for Nightfall, you're just a recruit in an army force which protects all three provinces of Elona. The army becomes a group of heroes due to the actions of individuals in the army (from past *such as the three ghosts you see in one of the Istan primary quests) and those like the hero. Everyone from those two areas are not heroes. Many may strive to be heroes, but not all of them.

You bring up Verata and Oberan. I bring up Quimang (the leader of the Crimson Skull who was a favorite student of Togo). I don't know of any "traitor" sunspears in GW1 (but I do think there is a istan quest *or quests* that bring up a traitor, or was that a traitorous shorewatcher...), but once Joko takes over, many split off to form the Mordant Crescent. Though I doubt you'd count the Mordant Crescent.

Point is, even in the training areas of the campaigns, there are "fellow students" from those areas which can/does get corrupted.

I suppose one can say that "Children of Legends" doesn't even refer to the heroes of GW1. Odran was a legend, Ventari was a legend, Adelbern, Doric, and even more legends once existed. So that would be another get around that line.

The tag is Lore, but my guild is a guild for lore lovers (basically, a guild version of a lore forum such as Druid's Overlook).

Actually, I had not ever heard of Quimang, seeing as I really never did too much in the Factions starter area. And no, I probably wouldn't count the Mordant Crescent in the context of GW1, but as far as GW2 is concerned, I think you make a very good point by bringing them up...or at least the few who accept Joko's leadership without being killed and reanimated.

Regardless, it's these kind of conflicts that lead someone astray from what we look at as the "hero's path" that I'd like to see implemented in the character development in GW2...which leads us right back to the Good vs. Evil topic.

While extremely nerdy, that is a pretty cool idea for a guild.

If outposts in GW2 can become controllable by guilds and alliances a la Factions, you guys should look into taking the Durmand Priory.

Actually, I bet it will.

I can't imagine a starting area where all 5 races start at level 1, in the same place, with the same story line? come on! that's ridiculous. That make different races unneeded.

Yeah I agree, I think it will have multiple starting areas. Having every new character have to do exactly the same thing, as they do in Aion, is extremely tiresome.

Nerdy, sure. But who on this forum, or who plays online games more than casually, isn't a nerd? By all rights and standards, just by how you've discussed this topic so, you're just as much of a "nerd" as I am.

And yeah, taking up the Durmand Priory was talked about. (Even if we cannot take towns by guilds/alliances, if characters don't go through each other, we can still take it with enough people *_*).

As for the multiple starting area thing, I do think that will be the case. But I wouldn't be surprised if the "starting areas" only go along the primary storyline and a couple areas (meaning, compared to GW1, say half of Ascalon) would be medium level areas - in order to compensate for the amount of land lost due to starter areas. Then again, with it being a persistence and not instance for areas, it is highly possible we will have a majority, if not all, of what we currently have for a map (maybe even a bigger map than what we have now) to explore in (which would mean over twice of the Prophecies/EN map combined).

And if towns are claimed similar to how they are in Factions, you'd probably also need fairly careful calibration of your total "faction" to hold one specific location...

Then I bet you there will be only one starting area. ArenaNet developers themselves complained in the past on how designing another starter area with each chapter was one of the more annoying parts of GW. They were happy to skip that in EotN.

The lore part of GW is already setup. We have heroes of the four races in EotN, so THEIR spiritual heirs and students will start GW2 by coming together and commemorating the Big Destroyer event or something like that. That gives Anet the ability to really pour effort in the storyline and not waste time on five different ways to set up the story.

From a stroytelling perspective you do not make five versions of the first 100 pages of a book and keep the ending. If anything, you keep the beginning and iterate on the 100 pages that conclude the story.

For me it makes sense, the Eye of the North is setup so that almost every player will reap some of the rewards. That is strongly indicating GW2 starting in the vicinity of the eye, in order for a maximum of players being able to collect their gw1->gw2 transitional rewards.

There is also the issue of established guild structure moving over to GW2 and there is really no reason to scatter real life social networks interested in GW2 by forcibly scattering them due to their choice of race. Sure I want to play with my friends and sure I want me and my friends make ANY choice regarding the race we want to play.

That is, in a nutshell, the writing on the wall as far as I dare to conjecture it.

This is very true. I can see them maybe offering different quests for the different races - maybe from racial trainers - but to be honest, that's pretty much exactly the same as the different classes in GW now. Designing (at least) five areas to start from is a huge waste of the devs time, especially as experience should have shown them that a GW demographic tend to want to get out of them as quickly as possible and onto the meat of the story.

Which, again, puts another nail in the coffin of the Good v. Evil idea.

I fervently hope...

With the Charr's relationship with other races, I doubt this. Even most of the Norn dislike the Humans due to their "weak" government. Though for just individuals, an Asura and Norn would meet with Humans. But Charr? Far from likely.

In a book, instead you make the first 100 pages or so split with different beginnings. You know, where one part is following one main character, then another part of the beginning follows another main character - which shows their beginning. However, a game is not a book, and as such, the beginning of the story for each character (or group of characters) can be done at once.

You forget that "Drakkar" - or the Dragon of Ice and Snow - has control over the Far Shiverpeaks.

IF there is one starter location for all races, it would be the PvP central of Lion's Arch - where all races meet up to fight in competitions. Of the whole game, this is probably the singular area with all the races allied in a single spot.

This would be the same as one person in a guild wanting to start in Prophecies, while another wants to start in Nightfall. I think most people will create multiple characters anyways, as most seem to have multiple characters in GW1 (with one "main" character).

There has always been a disconnect between what the NSCs do and what the players do. While the NSCs usually are medieval, totalitarian and religious pricks, the players were always radically different in what they did. I expect to be a rather hostile status quo in the world, with the players being the peace-nick exceptions. EotN took the same approach.

Don't mistake internal narrative structure with the outside appearance of a book. Even if a plot has multiple angles, the reader takes them in all at once before moving to the end. In a game the "reader" would just revisit an alternate beginning he missed the first time. Would you play the entirety of Nightfall with the only difference being another tutorial island? You might play that tutorial island, but after that you'd stop, since you know the rest.


I am sure his corpse will make a good level10 trophy. Your enthusiasm about his danger level in all honor, but in the end he will go down just like any other monster in every other game. All big entry, cheats on his life and energy and dead at my feet before midnight.

which is why players will reach Lion's Arch AFTER they have grown to statistical maximum. Can you imagine mixing people trying to set up PvP with newbies connecting to the story for the first time? Recipe for disaster!

Factions was bad enough splitting befriended guilds into two camps without the luxury of a common group chat. Splitting existing guilds five ways as standard operating procedure is just insanity. You buy the game, you put it in, you start playing with your friends, that is the way it should be. Why force friends to share the same race, or have them go separate ways in the crucial first few hours of the game? Lone buyer syndrome is a thing of the past.

Also try to ask yourself that question: would you like to have four more lowlevel bore yourself to death areas? Or would you rather have four more high end areas? How many characters will people play anyway? Two at best, so at least three tutorials would have been developed for the dust bin.

But to expect the characters to be such from the get-go is silly and was never even shown as the case from the get go in GW1 - for instance, the characters were all "kill the Charr" in Prophecies, then "help the Charr rebellion" in Eye of the North, same goes with Tengu in Prophecies/Factions, and Centaurs in Prophecies/Nightfall). In Prophecies, it was pretty much "All other races are our enemies" (with the race exceptions of Ventari, some few Forgotten, and about half the Dredge, and of course the Deldrimor Dwarves).

Actually, I would. And, in fact, people do, for all three campaigns. There is the "native" and the "foreign" beginnings to each campaign. Well, not really for Prophecies, but for Factions and Nightfall there is.

...

Ok, some people will be able to beat the game in twenty four hours or less, those who are far more than casual gamers of course, but the point is the location you proposed for the beginning of the game is controlled by one of the five main antagonists. An antagonist never falls at the beginning of the story, let alone have the characters start in the antagonists' territory when they could be started elsewhere.

Storyline wise, that was my point! That will mess up the storyline if all the races are together in any location. Besides, Anet said all features (armor levels etc I believe) will be equal in PvP (or was it just World PvP?) so that people can play PvP at any level.

Uhhh... Anet said that guilds won't be subject to race on a game mechanic level. Even in lore this is said... The Movement of the World says how even Charr and Norn join guilds (and for Charr, they act like a multi-racial version of Warbands). As far as we know, there won't be any kind of "faction alliances" in GW2. Personally, I hope this will be the case. The Kurzick/Luxon thing was silly (but not the storyline splitting, mind you).

Like I said before, it would just be like one person starting from Prophecies, another starting from Factions.

Two at best? I know people who have 20 characters in GW1 (one per profession per gender). I wouldn't be surprised if people have one per profession per race, to be honest. On average though, I'd suspect people will fill up half to all of the character slots (which will probably start at 4 if Anet continues GW1's character slot system).

There are a couple of considerations that are being missed here. First is the high level cap. Personally, I'd be happy with no leveling at all, but this indicates it's not going to be a simple case of getting to level 20 and out of your tutorial area and you're done like in Factions and Nightfall - there will almost certainly be areas of different levels once you get out of the tutorial zones.

Second, unless the plan has changed the storyline isn't intended to be as linear in GW2 - instead of one overarching story like you had in the campaigns, it's apparently going to be a world filled with lots of little stories that you can get involved in. Each of those is presumably going to have its own difficulty progression - if there was a sequence of 'you have to do this story to be high enough level to get into this other story', then it might as well be linear.

Put these together, and you're probably going to have quite a few zones of about the same difficulty that aren't necessarily aimed at players at the top level. Starting with up to five zones aimed at lower-level players doesn't seem so unreasonable in this context (certainly more reasonable than mixing Charr and humans in a starting zone, unless ANet plays the "All Charr PCs are renegedes" card, and that doesn't seem to be what they're aiming towards). The tutorial issue could be resolved by having a single optional 'this is how you play the game' tutorial section either in Lion's Arch or outside of the general continuity, after which the racial starting areas are simply just a group of low-level areas, possibly with quests to teach racial abilities.

Idly, regarding the Nightfall with a different starting island question: I've completed Nightfall ten times with different characters. Close to an 11th time, really - I'm a Zaishen Mission on Pogahn Passage away from a Legendary Guardian.

first of all, there is no need for 5 starting point if there are 5 different alignments.

2) the alignment i put out here is an example, it could be: evil, cunning,
charming, get angry easily, good, polite, whatever it is. there's no need for different starting points.

3) you probably don't have to choose what type of alignment your character started out as either. Why, because the quests you do and the paths you choose will form your character. See the interesting point in this? say you have 10 different alignments, and 5 different professions. how you choose to do your quests will determine the final outcome of your character.

4) think of the vast variety of characters you can create and play over and over and over again to get the perfectly aligned character you want.

5) even if the players get to choose their alignment at the beginning of the game, it still doesn't need to have many different starting points. Quests and missions for each alignment can be put in the game (think Faction). Again think of the replayability of the game from this. I am pretty sure I want to have one of each alignment in my game.

6) at max level, your character changes its characteristic/alignment, depending on what they do in the game. if they help out defending a city from dragons and invasion, their Heroic points (again, an example) will become higher (yeah i know you guys gonna say grind) but, there could be a lot more other stuffs to work on for us, (think of future update quests and expansion packs) the players to do, to form our characters, other then simply putting on different face/armor/hairstyles.

The conversation has drifted a bit - the different starting areas come about because there are different races that don't get along rather than different alignments.