Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Sajuuk Khar.1509 said:

That wouldn't be a retcon.

It would, by definition:

"Retcon: a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency."

EDs weren't even an idea when Factions was made. If 15 years later a new writing team wants to tie it to the EDs retroactively, that's a retcon. Everything about the existence of EDs is a retcon because most of it conflicts with GW1 lore.

Edited by witcher.3197
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Look what they did to the Mursaat story, Primordus and Jormag, and so many others. Butchered and rushed.   Useless and awful characters like Braham living way... wayyyy past their expiration

Rushed or slow, as long as Taimi goes away, I'll call it a success.     

You mean they made Lazarus, the guy who was a total stooge who got outplayed by one of his servants in GW1, a minor character instead of making him some two expansion long machavelian super villain no

5 minutes ago, witcher.3197 said:

Everything about the existence of EDs is a retcon because most of it conflicts with GW1 lore.

Except it doesn't, hence why it isn't a retcon. Very little if any of the ED lore actually conflicts with GW1 lore.

5 minutes ago, witcher.3197 said:

"Retcon: a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency."

See

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

Quote

Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short,[2][3] is a literary device in which established diegetic facts in the plot of a fictional work (those established through the narrative itself) are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which breaks continuity with the former.[4]

Nothing is being ajdusted, ignored, or contradicted, in such a way that it breaks continuity with former plot elements.

Edited by Sajuuk Khar.1509
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kossage.9072 said:

To be fair, people misremember what was actually said during the announcement.

I don't - I watched the thing live, and as far as I know it's still available for viewing.

10 hours ago, Kossage.9072 said:

It was the host Greg Miller who kept pestering the devs on stage about the saga being equal to an expansion instead of just a beefed up living world season, and the devs had to roll with it

It was the ArenaNet dev who first referred to LS5 as a 'saga' (as did most of the marketing from ArenaNet afterward) and the host was the one who asked her what the difference was between season and saga, not the other way around. In truth, there was no difference and that's why the dev sat there with a haunted look on her face. Not that it matters, since he was an ArenaNet-sanctioned host and not a random guy off the street. He was chosen by ArenaNet for the stage reveal, so acting like he's an uninformed outside party to try and shift blame off of ArenaNet for any confusion that might have resulted is just attempted damage control.

In any case, I only brought up that IBS stage reveal because the hype for IBS is inherently tied into the hype/marketing of EoD. We can talk for a long time about what IBS could have been had things happened differently, but that's irrelevant to the point I was making which is that IBS was ultrahyped and then didn't deliver and therefore people may expect the same thing to happen with EoD.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, piitb.7635 said:

 

 

Its conceivable that the dragons were keeping something in check.   The dragons were part of a grand cycle.  Without the dragons, the other half of the cycle is now left unchecked,

 

But does Anet have the writing talent to pull it off?  I am not sure

Yes, they were keeping magical ecosystem balance in check, by preventing excess magical energies from being there an driving things crazy. That's why we needed replacement EDs instead of just killing them all. The "other" part of the cycle was world being allowed to regrow after most of the life has been extinguished during "last" ED rising.

And then again, there can be nothing to top off stakes of Kralk virtually chewing on very fabric of reality, because what threat higher than fabric of reality being devoured can there ever be? (the same fabric that contains whole multiverse of GW franchise, so don't even think of trying to threaten multiverse as a way to top of Kralk)

And they shouldn't try to top off each previous "big bad" - stakes left relatable orbits long time ago, and it hurts the story quality.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...