Poll: Which GW2 race has the best story?

Recommended Videos

dyre

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,178
0
0
EmperorSubcutaneous said:
dyre said:
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.
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...
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.

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.
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.

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.
 

dyre

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,178
0
0
CriticKitten said:
dyre said:
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.
Well considering no one seems to remember in GW1 how the humans marched into Tyria and slaughtered every charr from Orr to Ascalon, I think that makes them about even.
Did that actually happen though? I don't recall anyone making that claim in either game (I could have just forgotten though)

CriticKitten said:
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."
Well yes, because the dragons are sort of giant and city-sized and are currently devastating the entire eco-system. Anyone with half a brain will realize that no one race is going to be able to take those things down. I'd rather have them live in a world acting smart but "boring" (even though racial conflicts tend to be one of the most overplayed tropes in fantasy) than being idiots and fighting while the world burns.
You're taking for granted that the story has to be about unambiguously evil dragons. Making a story about everyone uniting to fight a great evil is absolutely not morally ambiguous; it's simply an attempt to dodge the question altogether.

CriticKitten said:
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.
Well yes and no. The motivations for these groups aren't exactly made clear, but it seems rather obvious they're not on the dragons' sides (though they see benefit in using the dragons for their own ends). And even the dragons aren't on each others' sides. So there are clearly more politics to this game than meet the eye.
Politics that the game never bothers to go into. The game basically says "these guys are your enemy; go kill them."

CriticKitten said:
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.
No, GW1's story was awful for the exact same reasons as GW2's story, you're just letting nostalgia coat your point of view.

"Good pacing"? The pacing in Prophecies is awful, dragging out the story long past its welcome and introducing several factions and villains throughout the narrative without properly weaving any of them together. Factions' story, by comparison, is much too short, too short to establish Shiro as any sort of credible threat. Nightfall was much closer to a decent speed, but still not great. Neither was EOTN's story.

"Good sense of urgency"? All four of the games told their stories through quests that could be completed at any time, which led into missions that could be completed at any time. You were never forced to start the story at any point. That's literally identical to GW2's format, though GW2 is attempting to stretch its narrative into a much longer length than it can reasonably manage without some grinding in between parts.

"A sense of importance to your character's actions"? Yeah, you got to watch as your character royally screwed things up most of the time. In fact, a lot of the GW1 hero's "screw ups" helped create the problems of GW2. The Underworld leaking into Tyria in GW2? Apparently caused by too many people crossing between the two realms on a regular basis....oh wait, whoops. The War in Kryta helps establish the final defeat of the White Mantle and the Mursaat (who are both implied to still be around in GW2), AND it's been strongly implied that the hero helping Salma onto the throne has helped unlock the seals binding the Mad King to his prison (it's likely that in the upcoming Halloween event, it will be revealed that he in fact broke free of his bindings 200-some years ago and that's why no one has seen him). Winds of Change set the stage for the xenophobic policies of the future emperor and the subsequent exile of other races (like the Tengu) from Cantha, as well as the closing of their borders.

Put nicely, the player character in GW1 is a massive dunce who has saved the world, sure, but he's also done a lot of harm to the world too, setting the stage for many of GW2's problem areas. And there's no question that your actions have impact in GW2 if you care to look for them. Sylvari characters hunt down "Saladborg" (I know that's not its name, I'm being a brat) which appears later in the tale. The "Infinity Ball" from Asuran characters is implied to have played a background role in some later quests. What perhaps bothers me more is not that my actions have no consequence (because they clearly do), but rather the fact that I'm a second-stringer next to Trahearne, aka Kormir V2.0. I *hate* this poorly VAed prick.

Honestly though, GW1's story is pretty bad. What made me stick around was the brilliant world that felt unique and interesting. But the stories that the devs tend to write in that world are....not very good, and GW2 is just continuing that trend. Great world....shitty story.
Hmm, you may be right about nostalgia tinted glasses. I do have rebuttals to some of your points, but I think overall I might just be looking too fondly about it. I was just having a discussion with a friend of mine about how the storyline missions in GW1 were more interesting, but incredibly grindy, so yeah, GW1 may have sucked too.

But I think at least the intro to GW1 was a ton better than GW2 for pulling interest, and that particular opinion of mine isn't tainted with nostalgia. At the very least, it thrusts the character into a serious, important crisis and makes that crisis seem particularly important with the destruction of the flowers-and-sunshine Ascalon. Typical hero story stuff. GW2 just has you go around solving people's petty and generally irrelevant problems.

For example, the human story starts with talking about the entire race making its last stand...and then you spend all your time driving away petty bandits or killing crop-eating worms. So much for a glorious last stand...
 

00slash00

New member
Dec 29, 2009
2,321
0
0
DementedSheep said:
Pretty much. Lore wise the personal story might help you understand and introduce you to lore of the race you picked but thats about it. If you?re wanting lore you get more of that from talking to the NPCs, particularly the ones for the heart quests, listening to npc?s talk to each other and playing events. Choices effect the quest line you're on but once the questline is over it doesn't really affect anything else even when its sounds like it would. For example Malyck for the Syl questline "where life goes" never comes back.

Your 1 to 10 quests are your first story choice in character creation. The 11 to 20 is your second choice. 21 to 30 is when you meet the orders and its different depending on race.
After that you pick your order (whispers is the most fun IMO) and race doesn't matter anymore. It doesn't even affect the dialogue as far as I'm aware and after level 60 or so your order doesn't matter either.

Pretty much the only thing the personal storyline does is add flavour and provide replayability because you don?t have to do all the same quests with every character and some have more than one ending.

So yeah...just play whatever you think looks cool. Even the race skills don't make much of a difference. They are meant to be a bit weaker than your class skills .
so if im a huge lore nerd (which i am) i should just play each race up until the point where i have to join an order, and then from there just pick whichever race i liked the best because my race will no longer affect what i learn or experience?
 

EmperorSubcutaneous

New member
Dec 22, 2010
857
0
0
Twilight_guy said:
In tune with nature, have a mystical and unknown mystique to their culture, live in a forest, have a connection with an unspecified mystic forces that somehow influence the world, tall with pointy ears, peace loving hippies, yeah their elves. Tolkien style elves with plant costumes. Humans still strike me as the generic and non-committal race I see in most fantasy games. Humans always get the least amount of work because you don't need to define them, they are us. The giant cat people though, they need a bit more work for the player to know what they are all about.
Sorry, the only things sylvari have that make them similar to standard elves (but not Tolkein's elves)* is that they're in tune with nature (like the norn) and they live in the forest, only this time it's a jungle. Their culture isn't particularly mystical and unknown, the humans, norn, and asura are just as connected to mystic forces that influence the world (the gods, the Spirits of the Wild, and the Eternal Alchemy), they don't all have pointy ears, and they're no more peace-loving hippies than the humans or asura are (disregarding the one NPC who says "more violets, less violence"). They're very willing to fight when necessary. In fact, they draw a lot of influence from Arthurian knights.

It's more like this:
Sylvari = the Fae + humans
Humans = humans + elves
Norn = stereotypical vikings + stereotypical Native Americans
Charr = Klingons + dwarves
Asura = gnomes + the Brain

...Not to mention the fact that there's mounting evidence in game that supports a fan theory that the sylvari are actually the minions of a 6th Elder Dragon, meaning the Pale Tree is one of that dragon's champions. Which would be amazing.

*Just a pet peeve, but Tolkein-style elves weren't peace-loving hippies with a connection to nature, they were more like Vulcans (some of whom lived in the city and others in the forest).
 

DementedSheep

New member
Jan 8, 2010
2,654
0
0
00slash00 said:
DementedSheep said:
Pretty much. Lore wise the personal story might help you understand and introduce you to lore of the race you picked but thats about it. If you?re wanting lore you get more of that from talking to the NPCs, particularly the ones for the heart quests, listening to npc?s talk to each other and playing events. Choices effect the quest line you're on but once the questline is over it doesn't really affect anything else even when its sounds like it would. For example Malyck for the Syl questline "where life goes" never comes back.

Your 1 to 10 quests are your first story choice in character creation. The 11 to 20 is your second choice. 21 to 30 is when you meet the orders and its different depending on race.
After that you pick your order (whispers is the most fun IMO) and race doesn't matter anymore. It doesn't even affect the dialogue as far as I'm aware and after level 60 or so your order doesn't matter either.

Pretty much the only thing the personal storyline does is add flavour and provide replayability because you don?t have to do all the same quests with every character and some have more than one ending.

So yeah...just play whatever you think looks cool. Even the race skills don't make much of a difference. They are meant to be a bit weaker than your class skills .
so if im a huge lore nerd (which i am) i should just play each race up until the point where i have to join an order, and then from there just pick whichever race i liked the best because my race will no longer affect what i learn or experience?
yep, although you might want to play the other storylines for each race too and you'll need at least 3 characters if you want to get to know each order as well.
 

00slash00

New member
Dec 29, 2009
2,321
0
0
DementedSheep said:
yep, although you might want to play the other storylines for each race too and you'll need at least 3 characters if you want to get to know each order as well.
im a bit more interested in the race lore than the order lore. but after experiencing all the race stories ill keep a character from each order to eventually bring to 80 if the mood strikes me, so i can get the order lore as well. thanks for the help
 

Smertnik

New member
Apr 5, 2010
1,172
0
0
CriticKitten said:
Honestly though, GW1's story is pretty bad. What made me stick around was the brilliant world that felt unique and interesting. But the stories that the devs tend to write in that world are....not very good, and GW2 is just continuing that trend. Great world....shitty story.
Yeah, the lore in itself is actually pretty interesting, it's just that most of it has been whitewashed for the PG13 rating. When you think about it, there're a lot of rather intriguing themes - we have the almost extinct humans who constantly have to fight for survival, the Asura who (at least in the initial concept) intended to wipe out the entire Skritt race, the ongoing tension between humans and Charr, the ideology conflict between the different breeds of Sylvari..
And yet everything boils down to cheesy black and white battles between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" in a world seemingly devoid of long-lasting misery. It's as if you see the actual game world through a pair of rose-tinted glasses.
 

zf6hellion

New member
Dec 24, 2009
95
0
0
As has already been mentioned, the stories have some serious issues. They don't feel like they matter at all, I mean, come on, one of the Human points is that you thought your sister was dead but there was no corpse. You save her, bam, thats it. You never talk to her again, you never see her again...

So much for emotional pay off?

As much as I rag on SWTOR, at least the characters mattered half the time.
 

NearLifeExperience

New member
Oct 21, 2012
281
0
0
Dirty Apple said:
Well the Halloween celebration goes live tomorrow. Apparently, there's a good chunk of content and activities being introduced. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Thanks for the heads up, I nearly forgot about Halloween because we don't celibrate it on this side of the planet.
I'll make sure to check it out!
 

dyre

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,178
0
0
CriticKitten said:
dyre said:
Did that actually happen though? I don't recall anyone making that claim in either game (I could have just forgotten though)
Rytlock confirms it in his Ascalon Catacombs dialogue, and several other locations in the game present this side of the story as well. There is no question that Ascalon originally belonged to the charr. Which is a retcon from an OOC standpoint, but it's still the way things are presented in GW2.
I realize they decided to make Ascalon belong to the Charr, but I don't recall anyone talking about the wholesale massacre of Charr civilians when the humans pushed them out. You know, the way the Charr pushed the humans out. Unless they decided to revise that bit of history too. The silence regarding the GW1 equivalent of nuking Hiroshima was almost deafening.

CriticKitten said:
You're taking for granted that the story has to be about unambiguously evil dragons. Making a story about everyone uniting to fight a great evil is absolutely not morally ambiguous; it's simply an attempt to dodge the question altogether.
Because it kinda does have to be about unambigiously evil dragons. Did you not play Eye of the North? The entire expansion is one big advertisement for GW2's main plot, with dragons hidden in plain sight all over the place.
I didn't play Eye of the North, so I guess that's probably why I didn't see it. I guess I'll blame assign part of the blame for the boring, politically correct "everyone's good except for the big bad" story to Eye of the North then.

CriticKitten said:
Politics that the game never bothers to go into. The game basically says "these guys are your enemy; go kill them."
Because a lot of people don't care about that inner politics stuff. The clues are there if you look for them, which you should be if you actually care about the lore.
What clues? Ambiguous goals hinting at general disgruntlement towards the rest of the race? The human-centaur story, for example, mentions humans taking centaur lands at some point, and then never incorporates that "moral ambiguity" into anything. The Nightmare Court are just a bunch of racial supremacists who do evil shit just for fun. The Inquest are just a bunch of evil scientists. The bandits don't even have a real political agenda. You're giving the game waaaaay more credit than it deserves.

CriticKitten said:
Hmm, you may be right about nostalgia tinted glasses. I do have rebuttals to some of your points, but I think overall I might just be looking too fondly about it. I was just having a discussion with a friend of mine about how the storyline missions in GW1 were more interesting, but incredibly grindy, so yeah, GW1 may have sucked too.

But I think at least the intro to GW1 was a ton better than GW2 for pulling interest, and that particular opinion of mine isn't tainted with nostalgia. At the very least, it thrusts the character into a serious, important crisis and makes that crisis seem particularly important with the destruction of the flowers-and-sunshine Ascalon. Typical hero story stuff. GW2 just has you go around solving people's petty and generally irrelevant problems.
People bash this a lot, but I'm one of the few who gets it.

The core defense of this is that no one just "starts out" as a hero. Prophecies does a poor job of this by not actually making your significance all that clear before it thrusts you into a heroic position, so you've suddenly become this almost-second-in-command figure despite never building anyone's trust beforehand. Nightfall does even worse if you're a non-Nightfall character, by literally throwing you into the Spearmarshal ranks before you've even had time to explore their island and learn their culture, and well before you even know whether or not they DESERVE help. GW1 royally botches the idea of building a character profile. You just start out as the second-in-command for no explained reason.

You actually have to earn your place in the world in GW2, starting with petty problems and working your way up the ladder to becoming the big hero, which makes a hell of a lot more sense. It would work, too, if not for Trahearne the Glory Hog.

For example, the human story starts with talking about the entire race making its last stand...and then you spend all your time driving away petty bandits or killing crop-eating worms. So much for a glorious last stand...
The world is exposing you to the daily problems of the human race. When they're not busy fighting to keep the centaurs off their doorstep, they're fighting separatists and bandits who only weaken the unity of the human race as a whole. I think it works very well in establishing just how badly screwed the humans have become since the time of GW1, where they owned everything everywhere.

Is it glorious and heroic? Not as much as it probably should be, but it gets the point across. The human race is no longer a dominant force, it's stuck dealing with internal politics while trying to keep the centaurs from breaking down the very gates of their city. You just have to engage your mind and actually THINK about the scenarios you're in. This game is built to permit mindlessness, and yet there's a lot of good concepts and thoughts put into this world if you actually take the time to think about it.
I've always believed realism is the worst defense for including boring, inconsequential nonsense in a video game. When I'm playing a video game about being an epic hero, I'm not interested in playing the part when he pulls weeds for the local farmer. In fact, if you want to be realistic, great individuals don't become so because they pulled enough weeds to earn enough exp to meet the prerequisite level for the real quests. Heck, even literature doesn't usually include that "making of a hero" shit unless it's actually relevant to the making of the hero. That is, important events that influence future character development.

The game really has very little to think about. It includes all the surface issues necessary to create the illusion of intellectual value (endless back and forth conflicts, political corruption, racial supremacy), and does almost nothing to expand on those issues. And I'd appreciate if you'd stop with the passive aggressive accusations that I'm not thinking. Just because the mods don't crack down on that sort of thing doesn't mean it's not an asshole thing to do.

edit:
CriticKitten said:
People bash this a lot, but I'm one of the few who gets it.
Hoooolly shit, I just realized you wrote "gets" instead of "likes." You actually think people who don't like it just don't get it? Good God...I hope you meant that in jest. As if the lowest-common-denominator writing style in a video game was too difficult to understand...
 

Above

New member
Oct 3, 2009
443
0
0
Hard to say,as i haven't gotten in depth on any story other than Norn and Charr,maybe just the first few missions. But i do love the Charrs story. so for me its them.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
CriticKitten said:
People bash this a lot, but I'm one of the few who gets it.

The core defense of this is that no one just "starts out" as a hero. Prophecies does a poor job of this by not actually making your significance all that clear before it thrusts you into a heroic position, so you've suddenly become this almost-second-in-command figure despite never building anyone's trust beforehand. Nightfall does even worse if you're a non-Nightfall character, by literally throwing you into the Spearmarshal ranks before you've even had time to explore their island and learn their culture, and well before you even know whether or not they DESERVE help. GW1 royally botches the idea of building a character profile. You just start out as the second-in-command for no explained reason.

You actually have to earn your place in the world in GW2, starting with petty problems and working your way up the ladder to becoming the big hero.
You're talking about the Monomyth, also known as the Hero's Journey. It's arguably the most commonplace and recognizable trope in all of storytelling. I'm pretty sure an overwhelming majority of people "get it".

But yes, anyone arguing that GW1 was in any way an improvement over GW2 in terms of storytelling has some serious rose colored glasses on. They're both bad, but GW1 was SUPER bad.
 

Bestival

New member
May 5, 2012
405
0
0
Only played Sylvari and Human far enough to judge, and I liked human story a lot more. Way darker, for what I chose. Got to kill off my best friend, which is always fun. Lots of civilians dying to collateral damage, kids being kidnapped by circusfreaks, just so much going on!
The plants on the other hand just felt too emo-y to me, constant damn bitching about completely uninteresting stuff. Hardly remember anything of it now.

As soon as my friend and I had synced up our stories for the Vigil, we always did his instance. Both of us couldn't keep track of anything though really. There's like 5 quests where you have to save some NPC that you've apparently met before. And each time we we're both completely confused; "Well who the fuck is this *****, and why do we risk the whole damn world to save her corpse."
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
EmperorSubcutaneous said:
You really should pick Order of Whispers, though. Tybalt Leftpaw is the best NPC in the game.
Of course then they go an replace him with one of the least interesting characters in the game. grumble grumble Bring back the apple explosions!
 

Driekan

New member
Sep 6, 2012
110
0
0
I see a lot of people criticizing the story in GW2, but... I always got the feeling that this was not the selling point for this game? That the game that was selling "Story, story, story!" was that other MMO released around the same time?

GW2's story does its job. It makes the push up to the cap feel less mundane and grindy. You're still doing the overland content in each zone you go, and then doing the odd story-based instance, but there's lulls and diversity and the odd authentically enjoyable bit of narrative. It is guiding you around, showing you fun stuff to do, and then you do that stuff. Which would be fun doing even without any narrative around it.

Is it the holy grail of online storytelling? No, but considering the sheer amount of content they had to write for this game, the quality came out way higher than I ever expected.

People at ANet did an amazing good job with this.
 

Thistlehart

New member
Nov 10, 2010
330
0
0
The Charr.
I love the Charr.
I'm behind any fantasy race that claims, with some validity, to have killed their gods (especially if their gods were jerks, i.e. most gods). I understand that, in the context of the setting, they killed the demons who set themselves up as gods of the Charr. Still, hark at the rocks on them cats.

And you get to pick which of your childhood friends doesn't die in a battle, and so helps you rebuild your warband (I'm fond of Dinky, Eyurael, and Rheeva).

Things also tend to get interesting once your father gets involved in the story, especially if he is a gladium.
 

EmperorSubcutaneous

New member
Dec 22, 2010
857
0
0
00slash00 said:
DementedSheep said:
yep, although you might want to play the other storylines for each race too and you'll need at least 3 characters if you want to get to know each order as well.
im a bit more interested in the race lore than the order lore. but after experiencing all the race stories ill keep a character from each order to eventually bring to 80 if the mood strikes me, so i can get the order lore as well. thanks for the help
The order stories only go up to 60, not 80, so you don't need to worry about that. Everything from 60-80 is more or less the same for everyone, apart from a couple small choices that really don't make a difference in terms of lore, but you might like some choices better than others. (And, like we've all mentioned, it's no longer your story after that point anyway, you're just the second-in-command.)