I am not the Commander and I don't want to be - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Lore

I am not the Commander and I don't want to be

2>

Comments

  • Imba.9451Imba.9451 Member ✭✭✭

    In an MMORPG the player should be a small part of a greater whole, not the greater whole.

    I don't find this to be the issue, because GW2 has it both ways. Technically, you are the commander in your story, while also a normal soldier whenever you do stuff like Dragons stand.
    It's less about being the commander what bothers me. It`s much more annoying to have one world-ending threat after another. It get's old after some time, constantly having to one up the odds. Just give me a nice civil war scenario, Charr versus humans, and I'd be happy.

  • Yasai.3549Yasai.3549 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Just call me bob.

    If I play a stupid build, I deserve to die.
    If I beat people on a stupid build, I deserve to get away with it.

  • Dustfinger.9510Dustfinger.9510 Member ✭✭
    edited April 29, 2020

    In an MMORPG the player should be a small part of a greater whole, not the greater whole.
    >

    This is absolutley how I prefer it. Personally, I'd rather be one lone ordinary zombie in an army of undead lead by a master liche than be anything special. When the player is small, it allows the world to be as big as possible. But I also understand that other players want to be heroic in their games. I think GW2 makes a nice compromise. We aren't slating elder dragons solo. For the most part, we are leading the group who does most of the initial heavy lifting while the rest of the world gears up and fights the world fights. They are starting to fall into the Mary sue trap with Aurene and our proximity to special characters who have special relationships with "Aurenes" but so far, we aren't the ones getting the power ups. It's not where I'd prefer to be but it is a compromise that keeps us from being the gods of the story.

  • Jheuloh.4109Jheuloh.4109 Member ✭✭
    edited April 29, 2020

    On the OP:

    The way the player comes to the title of Commander does resemble "Chosen One" style of storytelling. I know that technically it's not, but the distinction doesn't seem to mean a whole lot in practice.

    On the Narrative Power Creep discussion:

    In Dungeons & Dragons terms I would describe Core Gw2 as a mid level D&D campaign and escalated to high level. The pen and paper lets you inject you and your group's ideas into it, Gw2 has to fill in all the blanks and lighting can't be struck every time.

  • @Aridon.8362 said:
    I'm sick and tired of being called Commander. It's not a title I'm find of, I don't command anything nor issue orders. I'm an adventurer and hero. I don't see why we need the player to be the Commander personally I wouldn't mind it if it was an actual defined npc, doesn't have to be any specific race honestly.

    The way I see it, I prefer to look at my character as an adventurer and nothing more. A hero in the pool of many others. I sincerely hope they stop pushing harder effort into making everyone that level of important in the next expansion. I would absolutely love it if the Commander seriously kicks the bucket. The concept itself just doesn't fit well, and it feels like it's could be putting more stress on ANET as a whole. It should just be heroes of Tyria not Hero of Everything.

    well, suck it up. thats like playing halo and not wanting be master chief. thats the role you signed up for when you decided to play the game. I have no idea what you hope the dev do record a random voice line so you can stop hearing commander

  • Ultramex.1506Ultramex.1506 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 13, 2020

    @Blocki.4931 said:
    It's just a title so that NPCs have something to address us with. It doesn't bear any meaning beyond that really. What else should they say? Make every instance of (voiced) dialogue awkward by intentionally avoiding referring to us?

    Are Savant, Centurion, Valiant, Hero, Slayer still available? I miss my
    old titles

  • @Ultramex.1506 said:

    @Blocki.4931 said:
    It's just a title so that NPCs have something to address us with. It doesn't bear any meaning beyond that really. What else should they say? Make every instance of (voiced) dialogue awkward by intentionally avoiding referring to us?

    Are Savant, Centurion, Valiant, Hero, Slayer still available? I miss my
    old titles

    Would require 5 different versions of each voiced cutscene. They just picked one and ran with it.

  • Ultramex.1506Ultramex.1506 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dustfinger.9510 said:

    @Ultramex.1506 said:

    @Blocki.4931 said:
    It's just a title so that NPCs have something to address us with. It doesn't bear any meaning beyond that really. What else should they say? Make every instance of (voiced) dialogue awkward by intentionally avoiding referring to us?

    Are Savant, Centurion, Valiant, Hero, Slayer still available? I miss my
    old titles

    Would require 5 different versions of each voiced cutscene. They just picked one and ran with it.

    I don't know how it work but can't they just edit it? Just cut and replace only the voiced title like "good to see you commander" replace "commander" sound with "whatever title" sound?

  • @Ultramex.1506 said:

    I don't know how it work but can't they just edit it? Just cut and replace only the voiced title like "good to see you commander" replace "commander" sound with "whatever title" sound?

    Yeah. Those would be the 5 different versions. Every voiced cutscene and future cutscene. Plus whatever other request people would want from whatever they'd want to be called. And coding the option to choose which version to use.

  • Fenella.2634Fenella.2634 Member ✭✭✭

    I honestly find "Commander" the least cringey of all the titles. I'm happy that this is the one that sticks with us and the early ones are never being used again.

  • anninke.7469anninke.7469 Member ✭✭✭

    @Fenella.2634 said:
    I honestly find "Commander" the least cringey of all the titles. I'm happy that this is the one that sticks with us and the early ones are never being used again.

    I feel the same.
    (It's funny how strongly I dislike the Valiant title as someone who plays almost only sylvari characters. I actually dislike much more about them but... well, nobody's perfect :) )

    Do not fear difficulty. Hard ground makes sore feet.
    All things...grow. And the blossom bothers the weed.
    Act with wisdom and axe.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I like being the commander. :3

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Biermeister.4678Biermeister.4678 Member ✭✭✭

    I like Destroyer of God's and Dragons as a title or be called Conquer player name and all Tyrians should bow down to me since my character is the ultimate power in Tyria

  • Dondarrion.2748Dondarrion.2748 Member ✭✭✭

    @Kulvar.1239 said:
    Because ArenaNet can't make the story branches in different directions based on our decisions, I would prefer for the commander to be a NPC that we follow as his crew. It always feel weird to be both told we're in charge when we mostly follow what other NPC tell us to do.

    But that is how I felt all of the original Guild Wars panned out. We were always part of all the critical missions in all campaigns, defeated the Great Destroyer, Shire, Abaddon, ended the Civil War in Kryta, etc. etc. and we always did the major part of fighting, etc. - naturally of course being the player and game mechanics seeing as you won't progress and succeed unless you as a player succeed in those missions. But then it would also feel like a major discrepancy to never be credited as the main contributor to those feats.
    As the Commander, it is universal term that covers all player characters regardless of race and gender, and in recognition of their position and achievement. I appreciate the shift to being more central in the story, still part of a larger team, but nonetheless, no longer a participant to these events, or bystander even, which is how I felt Guild Wars sometimes made me feel like.

    Sure, they could swap out Commander for Champion or Hero even. Some games go with Adventurer even but then you're back to being anonymous, plus seeing as we've held the Commander position in the Pact, it makes sense they keep this one for now.

    And out of everything GW2 needs to address, changing this should not be anything they put effort into...

    Oni Glaive (Grd), Bondsmith Yharnam (Eng), Mistress Glaive (War), Hasla the Huntress (Rng)
    Shadow of Gahaz (Mes), Seaguard Hala (Mes) + The Wintertalon warband
    Northerner @ Dragon Season (DS)
    Seafarer's Rest (SFR) since launch!

  • Kulvar.1239Kulvar.1239 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dondarrion.2748 said:

    @Kulvar.1239 said:
    Because ArenaNet can't make the story branches in different directions based on our decisions, I would prefer for the commander to be a NPC that we follow as his crew. It always feel weird to be both told we're in charge when we mostly follow what other NPC tell us to do.

    But that is how I felt all of the original Guild Wars panned out. We were always part of all the critical missions in all campaigns, defeated the Great Destroyer, Shire, Abaddon, ended the Civil War in Kryta, etc. etc. and we always did the major part of fighting, etc. - naturally of course being the player and game mechanics seeing as you won't progress and succeed unless you as a player succeed in those missions. But then it would also feel like a major discrepancy to never be credited as the main contributor to those feats.
    As the Commander, it is universal term that covers all player characters regardless of race and gender, and in recognition of their position and achievement. I appreciate the shift to being more central in the story, still part of a larger team, but nonetheless, no longer a participant to these events, or bystander even, which is how I felt Guild Wars sometimes made me feel like.

    Sure, they could swap out Commander for Champion or Hero even. Some games go with Adventurer even but then you're back to being anonymous, plus seeing as we've held the Commander position in the Pact, it makes sense they keep this one for now.

    And out of everything GW2 needs to address, changing this should not be anything they put effort into...

    I don't care about what has been done, be it in the past of GW2, GW, or even other MMORPGs.
    I state that I dislike when the story of a game revolve around the players as if they were unique.
    I find it much more enjoyable to have the players gravitates around the story and heroes, not the opposite way.
    That way, there's no conflict on what the players characters are and what the story need the heroes to be.
    Not everyone wants to be dictated what their character thinks or how their character behave.
    Not everyone wants to be Jesus, The Commander, The Godslayer, The Dragonslayer, The Mythical Whatever, The Chosen One #156782394.
    Not everyone wants to have NPCs fawning about their character, claiming how great they are and stroking their egos.
    Not everyone wants their character to be erected on a pedestal while NPCs around are decorative or semi/fully incompetent.

    If ANet wants to make us play the main character, then remove character creation and make us play the main character.
    Or make it flashbacks/visions/told stories where we get the PoV of the main character and play as the main character during it.

  • Kalavier.1097Kalavier.1097 Member ✭✭✭

    @Aridon.8362 said:
    Well what I mean is, the Commander is way too important right now, and is more of a political figure and super hero. Too unstoppable, and I feel the new characters are an excellent approach towards a better direction into the commander's downfall. Someone has to put the Commander in check, and make the Commander realize that nobody's invincible. I feel that Jormag is capable of doing this perfectly, seeing that Mordremoth and Zhaitan barely put up a fight against the Commander, and To kill Kralkatorrik a little dragon was used, something has to be there to say "I'm better than the Commander".

    But we aren't unstoppable, infact the commander runs into problems a lot of the time and has to work around them to succeed.

    "Commander needs to realize nobody's invincible." You mean like... the time the Pale tree nearly got killed? All the people we watched die in the personal story because of our choices or being able to save them in time? Hell, how about all those soldiers dead when the commander ordered an artillery strike on an "approaching Risen force" only to find out it was an illusion covering vigil troops? The Heart of Thorns campaign, Eir, being forced to kill Trahearne? Learning friends from the PS having died when the fleet went down?

    How about when Caudacus killed his daughter and we couldn't save her? Or when Vlast sacrificed himself for the commander? Or you know, when the Commander was freaking burnt to a crisp in such a horrific, agonizing death they lost their entire sense of self and memory, and had to fight their way back to life? When they nearly got killed and awoken by Joko for facing him 1 vs 1? When the commander saw Aurene get branded, protecting them from Kralkatorrik? All the people who died at Thunderhead Keep. Almorra being killed by Bangar.

    The commander knows entirely that nobody is invincible. They have seen so many friends and allies die around them, sometimes literally because they chose to do a specific thing and were unable to help. The commander literally died, and almost died again for rushing off alone and trying to solo the big bad.

    We, the commander, are a political figure, leader of dragons watch, champion of Aurene (I suppose in a sense, possibly able to order Crystal Bloom members around because again, Aurene). We are highly respected by most military groups and factions, who will follow us and heed our voice and orders because they know the commander has been through hell and back and has proven themselves in combat and campaign across all kinds of terrain against all sorts of enemies. Often we are a neutral voice to break the tie between various options because nobody can decide which way to go.

    We are a political and military leader, but we aren't a super-hero and we most certainly are not unstoppable. Zhaitan and Mordremoth put up a hell of a fight against the Commander and the Pact. Kralkatorrik put a severe hurting on us. Balthazar killed us and Joko nearly did as well.

    @TheOrlyFactor.8341 said:
    I eventually broke down and just made a Pact Commander character because a lot of the things the Commander has done are things my character(s) wouldn't do. I only use my Pact Commander character to get through the story and any Living World/story achievements before going back to my own characters.

    This is why there is a thing called gameplay-story/lore segregation. You don't RP/imagine your character as the pact commander, that's fine. But then don't go and complain because "Well my character wouldn't do this." when you already say "My character isn't the pact commander" I remember being in one of the GW2 RP forums and everybody agreed that "We aren't RPing as THE commander for obvious reasons." And then would promptly complain about the episodes because "Well why would my character be invited to a meeting of the Ministers by the Queen? It doesn't make sense!" and I would reply "But you said it yourself, your character is not the commander. Therefore, your character wasn't invited."

    I do all the story/most of my gameplay on my Necromancer. I've RPed in the past/dabbled in what she'd do in her daily life and guess what? She has never been (in character) to the Maguuma jungle when the Pact fleet was brought down. She's never been to Arah. She visited Elona, after Balthazar was defeated. She's never been to Thunderhead Keep or the far north around Drakkar Lake. She has never faced down the Shatterer, and then the death-branded Shatterer in Elona.

    But I've done all that ingame. Because my character, my human noble Necromancer, is not the commander. The commander is Anet's character.