Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingline
The Afflicted are simply living creatures-animal, human, plant-that have had the misfortune to get too close to Shiro’s malevolent spirit. Those left unharmed refer to this “disease” as the Affliction and fear that, if left unchecked, it could become an epidemic. The Affliction is not contagious in this way, but considering the other more obvious dangers the creatures present, steering clear of the Afflicted is wise in most any case.Anyone or anything could become Afflicted, which lends this so-called plague an even more terrifying aspect than any single, normal disease. The resulting mutations are unpredictable monstrosities with all of the combat strengths the original person or creature possessed, but altered and augmented in terrifying ways by the Affliction.Once someone or something becomes Afflicted, there is no cure. Killing the Afflicted is the only way to give the tortured soul peace; hesitation or pity will only result in death—yours.
— The Guild Wars Factions Manuscripts
|
Your just arguing your own conjectures.[/quote]
Eh? How does any of that imply that Shiro was the power source? Seems like you started believing some conjectures of your own. So he's the dispersal vector for the disease, that doesn't make him the power source. Someone who gives me the flu isn't the power source of the flu. In any case, the game itself pretty much implies that Shiro wasn't the power source, because if he was, the Am Fah wouldn't still be creating new afflicted after he was gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingline
If you actually read the update notes John Stumme wrote as WoC part 1 came out you would know that the live teams intention was to give people something to do with or without making sense.
|
I haven't read anything any developer wrote for years. Don't care enough anymore. And if that's the kind of thing they write, I'm glad I don't, I'd lose respect for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingline
Some parts of the game have holes and your filling them with your own ideas
|
Just like you're doing with
your interpretation of the scavengers.
By the way, there was one very easy thing they could've done so the scavengers wouldn't have been as nonsensical as they turned out: don't name them scavengers! The name tags for monsters without backstory can usually be taken at face value: if it's called a bear, it's probably a bear. If it's called a hyena, it's probably a hyena. But if they're called scavengers, and look like they haven't had a change of clothes in years, they're apparently incredibly overpowered individuals that mob together to kill anything on sight. Why not call them an angry mob or something instead?