Drakkar then, now, and why — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Lore

Drakkar then, now, and why

EdwinLi.1284EdwinLi.1284 Member ✭✭✭
edited March 22, 2020 in Lore

This video shows a interesting Dialogue about Drakker's appearance back in GW1 and GW2 by two NPCs that you can randomly encounter shown on 3:40 time

The short description is that Drakkar's appearance changed through the events between GW1 and GW2 intentionally by Jormag. As Jormag became stronger, he began to reshape Drakkar into what he looks like now but what he looks like back in GW1 is one hundred percent accurate to what Drakkar once looked liked.

It is rather interesting lore because this may lead into some interesting abilities that Jormag may use where he can constantly reshape his minions to fit the situation of a battle.

Imagine if Jormag utilize this power when we have a Commander versus Bangar fight as Bangar (now a Icebrood) constantly changing his shape and powers with Jormag's influence while the Commander has to utilize the three Mastery powers to counter Bangar's new forms.

Comments

  • Fueki.4753Fueki.4753 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 22, 2020

    This feels more like Arenanet justifying the redesign of Drakkar instead of giving many players what they hoped for, than it sounds like explaining it.
    I don't mind the change though, we have enough dragon-shaped world bosses already.
    But the Drakkar fight could be fleshed out more.

  • Thornwolf.9721Thornwolf.9721 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Its really that I don't think they intended to deal with jormag, the norn or any of the like within the game. They were just meant to be there~ Ambient and now that they have focus they don't know what to do with it really.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 22, 2020

    @Fueki.4753 said:
    This feels more like Arenanet justifying the redesign of Drakkar instead of giving many players what they hoped for, than it sounds like explaining it.
    I don't mind the change though, we have enough dragon-shaped world bosses already.

    I agree that it was more of justifying the redesign.
    As to the second bit there, to be fair, its GW1 appearance wasn't very draconic before. Had more of a Loch Ness Monster feel, but shorter neck and had mandibles on its mouth. Looked like an overgrown Mandragor. And incidentally, it uses the same rigging as Aurene in GW2.

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • Fueki.4753Fueki.4753 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Fueki.4753 said:
    This feels more like Arenanet justifying the redesign of Drakkar instead of giving many players what they hoped for, than it sounds like explaining it.
    I don't mind the change though, we have enough dragon-shaped world bosses already.

    I agree that it was more of justifying the redesign.
    As to the second bit there, to be fair, its GW1 appearance wasn't very draconic before. Had more of a Loch Ness Monster feel, but shorter neck and had mandibles on its mouth. Looked like an overgrown Mandragor. And incidentally, it uses the same rigging as Aurene in GW2.

    Imo, that design still looks better than the fur-crocodile thing we got ingame.

  • Svennis.3852Svennis.3852 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 22, 2020

    I like the new design a lot. It’s weird and creepy, but I find it a bit perplexing to redesign certain aspects they’re bringing back so drastically. GW1 and 2 Drakkar have 0 design synergy. They don’t even look like the same type of creature.

    That, plus the several iterations of Kralk. The lack of design consistency is a bit strange sometimes.

  • EdwinLi.1284EdwinLi.1284 Member ✭✭✭

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Fueki.4753 said:
    This feels more like Arenanet justifying the redesign of Drakkar instead of giving many players what they hoped for, than it sounds like explaining it.
    I don't mind the change though, we have enough dragon-shaped world bosses already.

    I agree that it was more of justifying the redesign.
    As to the second bit there, to be fair, its GW1 appearance wasn't very draconic before. Had more of a Loch Ness Monster feel, but shorter neck and had mandibles on its mouth. Looked like an overgrown Mandragor. And incidentally, it uses the same rigging as Aurene in GW2.

    Justification or other reason, it does bring up a very important lore about the Icebroods since the fully corrupted are 90% made out of Ice thus losing everything that was once flesh and replacing it with Ice.

    If Jormag has the power to naturally reshape the appearance of his Dragon Champions then imagine what he can do once he starts using that ability to reshape the lower ranking Icebroods and how the process of a Icebrood's appearance is shaped as they becoming mostly Ice slowly.

  • Jimbru.6014Jimbru.6014 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The new design to me looks a lot like a draconic take on a mosasaur.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosasaur

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @EdwinLi.1284 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Fueki.4753 said:
    This feels more like Arenanet justifying the redesign of Drakkar instead of giving many players what they hoped for, than it sounds like explaining it.
    I don't mind the change though, we have enough dragon-shaped world bosses already.

    I agree that it was more of justifying the redesign.
    As to the second bit there, to be fair, its GW1 appearance wasn't very draconic before. Had more of a Loch Ness Monster feel, but shorter neck and had mandibles on its mouth. Looked like an overgrown Mandragor. And incidentally, it uses the same rigging as Aurene in GW2.

    Justification or other reason, it does bring up a very important lore about the Icebroods since the fully corrupted are 90% made out of Ice thus losing everything that was once flesh and replacing it with Ice.

    If Jormag has the power to naturally reshape the appearance of his Dragon Champions then imagine what he can do once he starts using that ability to reshape the lower ranking Icebroods and how the process of a Icebrood's appearance is shaped as they becoming mostly Ice slowly.

    Well, outside that kodan dialogue - from other dialogue as well as the Guild Chat, we learn that the reason for Drakkar's change isn't because "Jormag can reshape ice".

    Drakkar began to decay a bit (thus revealing bones) when the water unfroze during Jormag's rise. Drakkar's decayed slowed/stopped because it gained powers from the Lost Spirits, and from Zhaitan's, Mordremoth's, and even Kralkatorrik's magic.

    It wasn't "ice fills any mold" (nitpickery, but this isn't even true - water would, not ice, since ice is solid) but "gaining new magical powers" that altered Drakkar's appearance, as well as a temporary change in its environment.

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • As someone who is rather displeased with the redesigns of many creatures in GW2 (Hydra, Dhuum, Djinn, …) it came to no surprise to me that I disliked the one Drakkar got. Do not get me wrong, I like the design itself, it fits the theme of the battle and I wish we would actually see all of the body just because I like the details in the back so much, but it should have been a separate boss. The unexplained change of such an iconic figure is immersion breaking at best and even if we get an explanation later on, that does not dampen the effect the appearance already had on our experience of the episode.

     

    I see 2 main problems with the way this redesign was handled: 1) We don’t get to see any stages between the two extremes, only one abrupt change. While it might have been complicated to include such glimpses at Drakkar in the story, it would have certainly softened the impact of the new design. 2) If we are given an explanation ingame, it should always be complete and reasonable. This does not seem to be the case with Drakkar. Yes, there is this one dialogue talking about ice taking any form, but Drakkars body appears to be exclusively or at least mostly organic in GW1. I do not remember any ingame dialogue mentioning a decay going on. Neither is any ingame source mentioned on the Wiki-page. Such, the explanation given is neither complete nor appears truly reasonable.

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    Well, outside that kodan dialogue - from other dialogue as well as the Guild Chat, we learn that the reason for Drakkar's change isn't because "Jormag can reshape ice".

    Drakkar began to decay a bit (thus revealing bones) when the water unfroze during Jormag's rise. Drakkar's decayed slowed/stopped because it gained powers from the Lost Spirits, and from Zhaitan's, Mordremoth's, and even Kralkatorrik's magic.

    You mentioned that there is other dialogue ingame. I have either not stumbled upon it yet or forgotten it exists. As I mentioned, neither is it listed in the wiki. If you can, please provide a source for your statement. I DO remember the explanation given by the Devs. But any hints not provided ingame are more or less worthless regarding any interpretation of a fictional work. Judging from your post history, especially the following quote (from your topic about the origins of riftstalkers at 01.17.19 – I cant seem to quote it, sorry for this citation by hand) I believe you are a firm believer of “Authorial Intent”:

     

    “And why would we believe a player over a dev, exactly?
    I know my lore, and while there certainly are suggestions, these suggestions all rely upon the Unreliable Narrator and are subject to be false.”

     

    However, this point of view is not shared among all people. Everyone who approaches an interpretation as a follower of “Death of the Author”, which is especially reasonable when talking about a work of fiction, will not tolerate clues not being presented in the work itself being considered in the discussion. The reason for this is oftentimes obvious: The statement of an author is not an absolute truth, neither is it without influence or necessarily constant over time. To give a simple example: There is a simple poem about the love between a bee and a flower. The author later becomes famous and then claims that the whole thing was a metaphor for war to appear more woke. Does that make the poem truly about war? No, it does not. The authors words may not change the fictional reality after the work has been completed. While they may offer some new perspective that can be useful when analyzing a fictional work, they are neither prove not hint on their own.

     

    This of course leads us to the problem with Drakkar: It can be stated by the Devs that Drakkars body rotted away, but as this is never shown ingame, the statement cannot be taken into account when discussing the topic. There are at most some visual hints in the model that could potentially interpreted this way, but we are on thin ice there, as these clues rely on a favorably interpretation of the design. Not to mention that such a rot of a dragon champion has never been mentioned anywhere else ingame. Some people are not happy with the redesign. When they look for answers how the foe changed so much, they only get a weak argument ingame. Some might look it up online (many wont) and realize that there truly is no further, satisfying information given by a source they could accept. These people will be overall dissatisfied with the way the redesign was handled - and I believe absolutely rightfully so.

  • Klypto.1703Klypto.1703 Member ✭✭✭

    The best argument would be people arguing about actually liking something in this game because it just sounds like people hate everything about it but for some odd reason they keep playing it.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Nikolai.3648 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:
    Well, outside that kodan dialogue - from other dialogue as well as the Guild Chat, we learn that the reason for Drakkar's change isn't because "Jormag can reshape ice".

    Drakkar began to decay a bit (thus revealing bones) when the water unfroze during Jormag's rise. Drakkar's decayed slowed/stopped because it gained powers from the Lost Spirits, and from Zhaitan's, Mordremoth's, and even Kralkatorrik's magic.

    You mentioned that there is other dialogue ingame. I have either not stumbled upon it yet or forgotten it exists. As I mentioned, neither is it listed in the wiki. If you can, please provide a source for your statement. I DO remember the explanation given by the Devs. But any hints not provided ingame are more or less worthless regarding any interpretation of a fictional work.

    From the https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/A_Hunger_for_Knowledge collection:

    Then Zhaitan was slain. Then Mordremoth. Then Kralkatorrik. With each Elder Dragon slain by the Pact Commander and their allies, the whispers seemed to grow louder. What was once a murmur on the wind soon became fully formed words. You heard the words, and the words knew you heard them. They would speak to you, tell you what you wanted to hear.

    You would begin to trust the words as your own thoughts.

    And that was how Jormag's thoughts became your thoughts.

    Somehow, Drakkar's presence in the lake was making Jormag's voice louder in the valley. The kodan knew what was happening before anyone else. They figured out what Drakkar was. Drakkar the creaturre in the lake, the Ice Dragon'S personal champion, was a mouthpiece for the Elder Dragon. An amplifier of sorts, capable of spreading the whispers of the Elder Dragon far beyond its lair. And with the death of Kralkatorrik and the emergence of a new Elder Dragon in his stead, Drakkar's whispers became unbearable.

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/A_History_of_Still_Waters_Speaking:_Part_Two

    The rotting part comes solely from the Guild Chat, and it is shown in-game, btw, as we see its flesh has decayed exposing bone in its forelegs, ribs, and skull. It was just explained why it was rotten out-of-game. Specifically it comes from this:

    The general idea is after his frozen lake melted, Drakkar was left exposed to the elements and wasted away, leaving only his connection to Jormag to power him.

    It's unstated in-game, but it is shown through the design.

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • A big no, if they want to use Drakkar they should keep the old design, otherwise why not give us a new champion.

  •  

    Thank you, but this was not what I meant. The new change in the power level was already sufficiently explained. I was talking about the flesh part. And as you mentioned, this is never stated ingame:

     

    The rotting part comes solely from the Guild Chat,
    The general idea is after his frozen lake melted, Drakkar was left exposed to the elements and wasted away, leaving only his connection to Jormag to power him.

     

    The explanation also adds another minor problem, as the geographical changes we directly witness ingame or via NPCs talking about them do not really support the idea of the lake melting. But even if this was not the case, we are still left with the problem that the change is only shown, but not explained:

     

    It's unstated in-game, but it is shown through the design.

     

    No, it is not. We are shown the change itself ingame (it seems to be an icy skeleton now). The reason why it changed (why is it an icy skeleton now?) is never hinted at. And Drakkar is not alone regarding this: I can see the difference between the Hydras in GW1 and GW2. I don’t have any explanation for the change. That is bad. Minor tweaks like Wind Riders or Oak Hearts are to be expected, but a total redesign, as encountered with the Djinn, Hydras, Jormag or Dhuum should always be explained. Otherwise the redesign inevitable leads to a loss of immersion and damages the continuity and such the quality of the game. To get into more details why the redesign can almost never be explained by the new model itself, using Drakkar as a perfect example:

     

    and it is shown in-game, btw, as we see its flesh has decayed exposing bone in its forelegs, ribs, and skull.

     

    This already starts of badly, as the skeleton parts do not fit the old Drakkar except for maybe its head – and that one only works if you assume it to be whale-like, while it actually looked far more like a Dinosaur. But let’s pretend that everything would fit perfectly together, and the casual player would directly realize that the skeleton is the one of the old Drakkar. How would they explain it:

     

    A: So apparently Drakkar was slain between the games and resurrected via Death magic.
    B: No, it just had a problem with rot which it lessened by freezing itself – it just did not work out well.
    C: No, Drakkar was obviously a parasite inside the old creature we saw in GW1.
    D : No, Drakkar got a rot problem, but only after some fire elemental crawled out from a dungeon and burned it up.
    C: Why do you then claim it was rot and not just the burn damage itself which reduced it to a skeleton?
    E: Are we even sure the green ice is just an aura, or is there some flesh underneath the ice?
    A: Nah, they would never make such an important clue that hard to see – I can hardly see the boss with all the AOEs.

     

    As you can see, without further hints ingame, there is no explanation given by the new design itself. It only leads to more questions.

     

    Anything that is only stated outside of the medium cannot be used in arguments regarding the topic. Which leaves us the small amount of clues we find ingame: There is some dialogue of the Kodan regarding the change of the region that can be interpreted to include a specific change of temperature that might lead to the rotting of a former frozen corpse. But Drakkar is never stated to be a corpse, which makes it hard to believe it just rotted away – no other Dragon Champion experienced this after all. There is at best a number of hints ingame that could point you into the right direction – or completely elsewhere. Which leads us back again to the main problem:

     

    It was just explained why it was rotten out-of-game.

     

    This is just a statement by the Developers. It is not presented in the medium itself. As such, it has no value whatsoever in a discussion about the lore. That might change if the devs decide to add further proof for a theory ingame. Until then however, there is no clear answer to Drakkars change of appearance. I do not think that the lack of spoon-feeding the answers to the community is bad in itself. This approach leads to the fact that multiple theories can coexist with each other, leading to player discussing the lore and getting creative. It just also means that any argument that is based on “It is true because a dev said so” is worthless and to be discarded immediately. So anyone asking for a clear answer why such an iconic foe changed so much between the games will still be left without one that is truly supported by the lore. They can of course have their own head-canon and adapt the version that was presented in Guild Chat. It is just not any truer than the explanation of anyone else. And that is probably a good thing. However, to accept the possible explanation given in Guild Chat they will have to find it convincing. Does the idea feel compatible with already established lore? Does is sound reasonable? Does it sound like something you can easily accept or is it along the lines of someone acting out of character? Many factors may change your opinion on the explanation given by the Guild Chat. But in the end, it stays a matter of personal taste. And apparently, some players still ended up disliking the way the redesign was handled.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    This is just a statement by the Developers. It is not presented in the medium itself. As such, it has no value whatsoever in a discussion about the lore.

    That's not how it works.

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    This is just a statement by the Developers. It is not presented in the medium itself. As such, it has no value whatsoever in a discussion about the lore.

    That's not how it works.

    Oh my. And why not? I have already shown you that there are multiple points of view regarding what arguments are valid in the discussion of a work of fiction. And I have also explained in detail why followers of “Death of the Author” would see any statement given outside of the discussed medium as void. You might argue of course that this holds value to you as a follower of “Authorial Intent” (you have never claimed yourself to be one, but it seems obvious from your post history, as I have already mentioned before – if you disagree, please do state which school of thought you follow instead), but at this moment we do have a problem, as we do no longer have any common base in discussing these matters. It would obviously be fruitless to continue this discussion.

     

    Sure, I could just give in and follow the rules of the discussion that you are comfortable with. But what makes your point of view worth more than my own? I am curious for your reasoning. So please, enlighten me.

  • Tyson.5160Tyson.5160 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I suppose, and this is just me giving my opinion, is the developer’s didn’t like the look of old Drakkar and wanted to reinvigorate the entity into something more fearsome. Really when you at the design of old Drakkar, it’s not overly impressive.

    You also have the thought that the developers originally had that entity as Jormag first and then changed their mind. So it’s probably a mixed bowl of not liking the design and moving away the original design of the creature that intended originally to be for Jormag.

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Nikolai.3648 said:

    @Konig Des Todes.2086 said:

    @Nikolai.3648 said:
    This is just a statement by the Developers. It is not presented in the medium itself. As such, it has no value whatsoever in a discussion about the lore.

    That's not how it works.

    Oh my. And why not? I have already shown you that there are multiple points of view regarding what arguments are valid in the discussion of a work of fiction. And I have also explained in detail why followers of “Death of the Author” would see any statement given outside of the discussed medium as void. You might argue of course that this holds value to you as a follower of “Authorial Intent” (you have never claimed yourself to be one, but it seems obvious from your post history, as I have already mentioned before – if you disagree, please do state which school of thought you follow instead), but at this moment we do have a problem, as we do no longer have any common base in discussing these matters. It would obviously be fruitless to continue this discussion.

     

    Sure, I could just give in and follow the rules of the discussion that you are comfortable with. But what makes your point of view worth more than my own? I am curious for your reasoning. So please, enlighten me.

    It isn't a matter of perspective, it isn't "my" point of view.

    The fact of the matter is that the developers determine what the lore is, so if they say something is lore, then it is lore. It's as simple as that.

    If we denounce dev comments as non-canon, then why should we bother proclaiming what's in-game as canon? After all, what's in-game is merely another form of developer's say-so. But if you go down that rabbit hole of denouncing the devs out of game comments - especially when you denounce blog posts that are no doubt reviewed to ensure accuracy - then you effectively don't really bother with canonicity at all, let's just let our own fanons rule us and our discussions.

    You can't just say "it isn't presented in-game despite it being presented in an edited and medium, so it has no value". That simply isn't the case, dev comments - and even more so, official blog posts - have plenty value.

    The simple fact - not viewpoint, fact - is that if ANet says it's canon, then it is canon. Regardless of its presentation. The one and only exception, is when new lore contradicts (thus retconning) what was previously presented.

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 29, 2020

    I'm not sure why there is even discussion here. If the devs create lore outside of the game and present it as lore, it's lore/canon. They've been doing this is all sorts of ways for years whether through books, web stories, blogs, (certain) interviews, forum Q&As (which they have used to flesh out in game lore). It's their game - they can put the lore wherever they choose to put it. This isn't really a point of view situation since that's just how the writers work. Nor is it exclusive to Anet.

    Sure sometimes rare off the cuff remarks may not be considered canon and some things get retconned because writers and story directions change, but as Konig rightfully said, if Anet say something is canon - wherever they put it - then it is canon. Guild Chat alone has plenty of lore expansion and that is all canon. That leaflet they created prior to the Prologue release also brought some new lore into the mix not previously in game. That is all canon.

    Should it all be in game is a more relevant discussion. I think in the modern era it doesn't overly matter, but I get why players would prefer it in the single medium. But lets not go down the inaccurate route of dismissing all out of game dev lore as "not part of canon" because that def is misleading.

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • Nikolai.3648Nikolai.3648 Member ✭✭
    edited March 29, 2020

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    I'm not sure why there is even discussion here.

    Because we are talking about a topic where the difference between these two distinct points of view gains special importance. One explanation why many people are uncomfortable with the way Drakkars redesign was handled is the lack of explanation given. Of course, this leads to the question what counts as evidence regarding such an explanation.

     

    If the devs create lore outside of the game and present it as lore, it's lore/canon.
    Sure sometimes rare off the cuff remarks may not be considered canon and some things get retconned because writers and story directions change, but as Konig rightfully said, if Anet say something is canon - wherever they put it - then it is canon.

    This is your personal opinion. I am not stating that you should move away from it, but if you do not take into consideration that someone else might disagree with you there, you wont understand the reasoning behind why these people dislike the situation with Drakkar.

     

    This isn't really a point of view situation since that's just how the writers work. Nor is it exclusive to Anet.

    I totally agree with you here: The process is not exclusive to Anet. Neither is this discussion. However, any time the lore of a fictional work is discussed, these points of views are important. What often happens is a silent agreement of all parties involved to just go with one approach, normally either Death of the Author or Authorial Intent, though other schools of thought exist and are sometimes used as a common ground. This works for many discussions, but it has its limits. We have obviously reached one in this discussion.

     

    But lets not go down the inaccurate route of dismissing all out of game dev lore as "not part of canon" because that def is misleading.

    It is not misleading. It is a prominent opinion that most people who are not believers of Authorial Intent will most likely share. You might disagree with it, but it is a valid way to approach the discussion of a work of fiction. A work of fiction is always artificial. And as with any art, it comes into existence twice: Once when the artist creates it and a second time when it is consumed. This leads to a big difference to a factual truth: If someone commits a crime in real life, they simply did so. It is an unchangeable fact and the only question left is if you can prove it. Or: A certain mathematical question has only one solution. In this case an objective truth exists. If you disagree with someone on the answer to said mathematical question, there truly is a right and many wrong answers. This is not always the case when discussing fiction: Our question was: Is there evidence why and how exactly Drakkar changed over the years? And we have people coming to different conclusions. And there is neither a right nor a wrong solution. Why? Because we do not only disagree on the answer to the question itself, but on the procedure that is used to reach said solution. If we both would agree on the same procedure, there might be an answer which is right or wrong. But if we disagree on that principal, this is no longer the case. We lose the base to discuss the correctness of the answer because we disagree on the validity of it.

     

    Like I said, this is a basic problem you can find in any discussion regarding a fictional work. And as such it should be obvious by now that some people will disagree with each other. They will follow their school of thought until the end. They won’t change their opinion on it. And this is perfectly fine - as long as it is presented as their personal opinion, not an objective truth. Which Konig and you did in you posts.

     

    Should it all be in game is a more relevant discussion. I think in the modern era it doesn't overly matter, but I get why players would prefer it in the single medium.

    I agree with you on the discussion being relevant. The way this information is handled is of importance when discussing lore. As such, people should discuss these issues more often. I personally have nothing against the information being spread out – but it will inevitably lead to disagreements regarding its canonicity.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It's not a point of view though and there is no basic problem. If the devs say something out of the game is canon then it is canon. There is no literary theory involved, no conflicting points of view or anything else. If the devs say it's lore...it's lore. That ends the discussion. They decide what is lore. There isn't a difference of opinion to be had there. No amount of paragraphs on literary theory holds value beyond that.

    The devs have said time and again that they consider any use of their official channels to deliver lore is intended as canon. Whether that is through web stories, blogs, guild chat, forum Q&A, books or the game. Where the grey area comes up is where the source is not official - off the cuff remarks to journalists, unofficial blogs, data mining etc and they have said that to be the case as well. Or if they are still in the conceptual stage.

    Anet set the boundaries of where lore and canon apply. That permeates outside of the game by their authority as writers and owners of the lore. That removes any potential for a difference of opinion in this context.

    If you disagree with it, that is your right, but it doesn't change anything since lore presented externally and confirmed to be lore...is still lore. No amount of disbelief changes that.

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • Stephen.6312Stephen.6312 Member ✭✭✭

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    It's not a point of view though and there is no basic problem. If the devs say something out of the game is canon then it is canon. There is no literary theory involved, no conflicting points of view or anything else. If the devs say it's lore...it's lore. That ends the discussion. They decide what is lore. There isn't a difference of opinion to be had there. No amount of paragraphs on literary theory holds value beyond that.

    The devs have said time and again that they consider any use of their official channels to deliver lore is intended as canon. Whether that is through web stories, blogs, guild chat, forum Q&A, books or the game. Where the grey area comes up is where the source is not official - off the cuff remarks to journalists, unofficial blogs, data mining etc and they have said that to be the case as well. Or if they are still in the conceptual stage.

    Anet set the boundaries of where lore and canon apply. That permeates outside of the game by their authority as writers and owners of the lore. That removes any potential for a difference of opinion in this context.

    If you disagree with it, that is your right, but it doesn't change anything since lore presented externally and confirmed to be lore...is still lore. No amount of disbelief changes that.

    That's not how I remember it. Bobby Stein once stated that we are to "go with what's in the game". Relying on stuff like Guild Chat to help inform your opinion is good, but it isn't gospel. From memory Bobby made that remark because a video with developers was relied upon by the playerbase. Angel McCoy said afterward that such content was stressful and that developers were only human and made mistakes. Take that as you will.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 29, 2020

    You are mistaken since I'm afraid a lot of what you wrote isn't coherent, but I'm not dragging this any further off subject. I suggest we keep this back to the original subject and any further unrelated discussions on literary theory, philosophy, metaphysics and other jargon which have no bearing on sourcing this game's lore be taken to a new thread.

    Putting that to rest entirely now and back on topic, I like the new design. I do rather like that they at least came up with a plausible theory to justify it. I do have two gripes though - one is how little we see of it. The shadow is fantastic and I get it was an extreme level of hard work to get it to work as the rig did, but I would have liked to see a full body.

    The second is that no matter how cool I think the model is, it unfortunately set in a cramped cavern where so much of the beast gets obscured by intense visual noise. I've said on multiple occasions this fitted much better up on the lake surface where space could have improved the mechanics, but also really showcased the animation and design they put in.

    The old one - whilst somewhat iconic, didn't really lend itself to a big epic out-of-water fight. So whilst I completely understand the desire to see it brought to life from how it was in GW1, I'm not sure what they could have done with it in comparison to what we got (which admittedly wasn't as good as their best boss fights)

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Stephen.6312 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    It's not a point of view though and there is no basic problem. If the devs say something out of the game is canon then it is canon. There is no literary theory involved, no conflicting points of view or anything else. If the devs say it's lore...it's lore. That ends the discussion. They decide what is lore. There isn't a difference of opinion to be had there. No amount of paragraphs on literary theory holds value beyond that.

    The devs have said time and again that they consider any use of their official channels to deliver lore is intended as canon. Whether that is through web stories, blogs, guild chat, forum Q&A, books or the game. Where the grey area comes up is where the source is not official - off the cuff remarks to journalists, unofficial blogs, data mining etc and they have said that to be the case as well. Or if they are still in the conceptual stage.

    Anet set the boundaries of where lore and canon apply. That permeates outside of the game by their authority as writers and owners of the lore. That removes any potential for a difference of opinion in this context.

    If you disagree with it, that is your right, but it doesn't change anything since lore presented externally and confirmed to be lore...is still lore. No amount of disbelief changes that.

    That's not how I remember it. Bobby Stein once stated that we are to "go with what's in the game". Relying on stuff like Guild Chat to help inform your opinion is good, but it isn't gospel. From memory Bobby made that remark because a video with developers was relied upon by the playerbase. Angel McCoy said afterward that such content was stressful and that developers were only human and made mistakes. Take that as you will.

    What Stein said was more along the lines of "if lore from non-game sources clash with lore from game sources, then the game source takes precedence." This is primarily in reference to devs getting information wrong in interviews and forum comments, where they're answering on the spot and from memory and thus are subject to misremembering.

    It basically meant "if you have A stated on Reddit, and B stated in game, and A and B cannot both be true, then B is true." However at the same time we have: "if you have A stated on Reddit, and B stated in game, and both can be true, then both are true."

    Of course, later statements did clarify that there is a bit of a hierarchy in "levels of canon" in that the game is always first and foremost, followed by other official sources like the books, magazines, and blog posts, then by interviews and forum comments. And there's the matter of unreliable narrators that ANet uses everywhere (some may argue overuse, but if you think about it, every character is an unreliable narrator in every game; or should be, as every living person is one as well).

    Of course, in this specific situation, there is no clash. The closest to a clash is the kodan saying that Drakkar's appearance changed by Jormag's will - which isn't entirely inaccurate, it just isn't the full and exact story as got clarified in the blog post and guild chat; further, the kodan (as all characters in the game) are unreliable narrators where what they say may not be 100% accurate.

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 29, 2020

    Is there a comparison chart I missed with old Drakkar size versus new Drakkar size as well? I suspect little difference, but am mildly curious seeing the models side-by-side

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    Is there a comparison chart I missed with old Drakkar size versus new Drakkar size as well? I suspect little difference, but am mildly curious seeing the models side-by-side

    Not directly, no.

    But Vyko made one between Drakkar, Vlast, and Aurene and one comparing Drakkar to the Claw of Jormag. I had compared Vlast and Glint from GW1 and GW2, as well as the GW1 dragon models to each other and the Shatterer, and the Claw of Jormag and Shatterer are the same size.

    As you can see from those:

    • GW2 Drakkar is roughly the size of GW2 Vlast, and much smaller than Claw of Jormag
    • GW2 Vlast is slightly larger than the size of GW1 Glint
    • GW1 Drakkar is far larger than GW1 Glint, being slightly larger than The Shatterer / Claw of Jormag.

    TL;DR

    GW2 Drakkar is smaller than GW1 Drakkar.

    Which is kind of funny, because they decided they couldn't use that model as Jormag because it was too small, despite the two games using different scaling methods... and they made it smaller for GW2.

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 29, 2020

    Huh...it hadn't occurred to me Drakkar would such a huge amount shorter than a Claw of Jormag. I guess size was sacrificed for squeezing it into the space and making the fight manageable given all the technical things going on that they stated in the Guild chat and blog.

    Poor Drakkar - shrunk, changed look, decayed, revealed to be little more than a monstrous mouthpiece and given a lesser fight than he deserves. (imo).

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • Konig Des Todes.2086Konig Des Todes.2086 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Randulf.7614 said:
    Huh...it hadn't occurred to me Drakkar would such a huge amount shorter than a Claw of Jormag. I guess size was sacrificed for squeezing it into the space and making the fight manageable given all the technical things going on that they stated in the Guild chat and blog.

    Poor Drakkar - shrunk, changed look, decayed, revealed to be little more than a monstrous mouthpiece and given a lesser fight than he deserves. (imo).

    Well, they used Aurene as the basis as they share rigging (this was done to save time, not uncommon), and I'm pretty sure Aurene's size was made so small so she could fit in the Eye of the North. I could see that they kept Drakkar the same size as Aurene to avoid messing up the rig.

    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.
    All these squares make a circle.

  • Ok, I am now honestly confused. Is it against forum policies to talk about a post of yours being reported? Or is just someone misusing a certain report function? Anyway, since some unrelated part of my post was also removed, I will just repost that:
    @Randulf.7614
    I do agree with you on that I would have liked to see the whole model ingame, as I said in my first post. But as you said, the limited space and the size of Drakkar so not support that.

    And now I am off to somewhere else, away from whoever apparently tries to impress Ben Shapiro.

  • @EdwinLi.1284 said:

    Imagine if Jormag utilize this power when we have a Commander versus Bangar fight as Bangar (now a Icebrood) constantly changing his shape and powers with Jormag's influence while the Commander has to utilize the three Mastery powers to counter Bangar's new forms.

    Bangar should be a one-slap really and so should any regular mortal who dares face the commander, slayer of anything the world can come up with.

  • @Klypto.1703 said:
    The best argument would be people arguing about actually liking something in this game because it just sounds like people hate everything about it but for some odd reason they keep playing it.

    yesyes, we've heard this a million times before from great thinkers just like you. Learn the difference between hate for the new and passion for the old