We didn't "hear" the story from the human side in GW1 though; we experienced it! What happened wasn't human propaganda, it was stuff that actually happened. And I like how no one in GW2 remembers that the Charr didn't beat Asaclon with strength of arms; they sent a meteor storm on a civilian populated city.EmperorSubcutaneous said:It's not revisionism, it's being able to hear the story from the other side for the first time. In GW1 we only got to hear the humans' point of view. So basically the charr think the humans screwed them over and they were just retaliating, and the humans think the charr screwed them over and they were just retaliating, while really both sides just did a bunch of shitty things to each other for centuries.dyre said:Yeah, the story was a serious let down. I was actually hoping for something more related to GW1's story (like maybe some sweet revenge on those goddamn Charr), which I thought was genuinely interesting. But it all got shoved into the past, with some weird history revisionism in the Ascalonian Catacombs to make the Charr seem better compared to the Ascalonians...NearLifeExperience said:You forgot the 'They're all equally bad' option in your poll, OP.
The story telling is a joke in GW2, which was a major disappointment to a fanboy like me, the worst offender being the false pretense of choice you are given whenever the game asks you which retarded proposal sounds the least dumb.
Which is a relief, actually. I hate it when one race is supposed to be clearly evil and the other one is clearly good. (There's only one Always Chaotic Evil race in GW2 and that's the krait. They just wanted to have some mustache-twirlers in there for fun, I guess.)
Personally, even though the writing was weak in GW2 (the lore is pretty great though), I thought it was way better than it was in GW1, which was pretty generic. It did get better with each game though, since the writing in Prophecies was just godawful. (An evil vizier, who would have expected!)
I really wish they'd learned their lesson from Kormir when it came to writing Trahearne though.
Honestly, I think morally ambiguous stories are great, but in attempting to be morally ambiguous, sometimes people like to reduce conflicts to "every side is equal," which really isn't true. Maybe both sides have faults, but at different times in a conflict, one side will clearly be the greater evil, and when you tally the score often it becomes apparent that one side was worse than another. They could easily have had a story in which the humans take "righteous" revenge for the Charr's actions, but in doing so, become the greater evil, forcing you to take a different side. Instead, we just get this bland "everyone's a nice guy, let's shake hands and sing Kumbaya, and have a generic evil dragon instead."
GW2 isn't even morally ambiguous. Everyone's a good guy. Except the bad guys for each faction, whether it's the bandits or the Nightmare court or the separatists). It's even more good guys and bad guys than GW1.
GW1's story was extremely generic, yes, but it was well written. Good pacing, good sense of urgency, and a sense of importance to your character's actions. Can't really say the same for GW2.